20151008order_no_33395.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 8,2015
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY’S PETITION TO MODIFY )CASE NO.IPC-E-15-O1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURPA )
PURCHASE AGREEMENTS )
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA )
CORPORATION’S PETITION TO MODIFY )CASE NO.AVU-E-15-Ol
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURPA )
PURCHASE AGREEMENTS )
______________________________________________________________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN )CASE NO.PAC-E-15-03
POWER COMPANY’S PETITION TO )
MODIFY TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF )
PURPA PURCHASE AGREEMENTS )ORDER NO.33395
______________________________________________________________________________________
)
On September 10,2015,Clearwater Paper Corporation and J.R.Simplot Company
(the “Petitioners”)filed a Petition for Reconsideration in the above-referenced cases.The
Petitioners request reconsideration of the Commission’s final Order No.33357 that reduced the
length of IRP-based PURPA contracts from 20 years to two years.The Petitioners generally
raise three arguments.First,they assert that the new two-year term limit fails to provide each
new qualifying facility (QF)with a fixed price for “energy and capacity calculated at the time the
QF obligates itself to sell its output to an Idaho utility....“Petition at 2,citing 18 C.F.R.§
292.304(d)(2)(ii).Second,they argue that the Commission’s two-year term limit is contrary to
the PURPA regulation “because it deprives the IRP-based QFs of a long-term,fixed contract
price to sell energy and capacity with prices calculated at the outset of the obligation.”Id.at 11
(underline added and italic original).Finally,they maintain the Commission’s “capacity
adjustment”(to determine the date when the QF would be eligible for avoided cost capacity
payments)“is made up of whole cloth.”Id.at 16.They urge the Commission to retain the 20-
year term limit,or adopt their alternative proposal that would reset avoided cost energy payments
midway through the 20-year contract.Id.at 15.
On September 17,2015,Avista Corporation,Idaho Power Company,and Rocky
Mountain Power (collectively the “Utilities”)filed a timely joint answer urging the Commission
to deny reconsideration.The Utilities maintain that the Commission’s Order No.33357 properly
ORDER NO.33395
found that a 20-year term limit is consistent with the public interest.They assert the
Commission’s decision to set the maximum standard contract term to two years to more
accurately reflect true avoided costs,appropriately balances “the competing interests of
protecting utility customers and developing QF generation.”Answer at 11.They insist that
PURPA regulations are silent as to the length of a contract and the Commission acted within its
discretion.Id.at 6.The Utilities assert that “Simplot and Clearwater make conclusions and
arguments that misrepresent the plain language of the regulations,read into the regulations
requirements for long-term contracts that are not stated and do not exist,and misconstrue the
differences in the mandatory purchase obligation of [PURPA].”Id.at 2.The Utilities also
contend that the Commission’s final Order is based upon substantial and competent evidence in
the record.Id.at 11.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a party to bring to the Commission’s
attention any issue previously determined and thereby affords the Commission with an
opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.Kootenai
Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,591 P.2d 122 (1979).The Commission may grant
reconsideration by reviewing the existing record,or by soliciting additional pleadings or
evidence.Idaho Code §61-626;Rule 332,IDAPA 31.01.01.332.
Based upon our review of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Utilities’answer,
we grant reconsideration to examine the issues raised in the Petition regarding our application of
the PURPA regulations to Idaho’s utilities and QFs.However,contrary to the assertions made
by Simplot and Clearwater,we find there is ample evidence in the record upon which we did —
and will base our decision.The Commission has compiled an extensive record in this case and
we find further argument or legal briefing is not necessary.Consequently,we will consider the
issues raised in the Petition and review final Order No.33357 based upon the existing record.
We anticipate issuing our final Order on Reconsideration within 28 days of the date of this
Order.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is granted without
further submissions.
ORDER NO.33395
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of October 2015.
ATTEST:
Commissioner Smith did not particpate in this case
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
4t
KR TINE RAPER.C MMISSIONER
mmission ecretarv
O:JPC-E-I 5-0IAVU-E-I 5-0 I PAC-E-I 5-03 dh3 Reconsideration
PAUL KJELLANDER,
ORDER NO.33395 3