20111227Suspension Status Report.pdf

'.
DONALD 1. HOWELL, II
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
POBOX 83720
BOISE,ID 83720-0074
(208) 334-03 12
IDAHO BAR NO. 3366
Attorney for the Respondent on Appeal,
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
5t1(J-E-I/-OL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) SUPREME COURT
POWER FOR A DETERMINATION ) DOCKET NO. 39134-2011
REGARDING A FIRM ENERGY SALES )
AGREEMlNT BETWEEN ROCKY )
MOUNTAIN POWER AN CEDAR CREEK )
WIND, LLC (RTTLESNAK CANYON )
PROJECT (11-01), COYOTE HILL PROJECT )
(11-02), NORTH POINT PROJECT (11-03), )
STEEP RIDGE PROJECT (11-04), AND FIVE )
PINE PROJECT (11-05)). )
)CEDAR CREEK WIND, LLC, ) SUSPENSION
) STATUS REPORTPetitioner/Appellant, )
)~ )
)IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION, )
)
Respondent-Respondent on Appeal, )
)and )
)PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN )POWER, )
)
Respondent-Intervenor on Appeal. )
)
SUSPENSION STATUS REPORT 1
"
On October 24, 2011, Cedar Creek Wind, LLC (Petitioner) and the Idaho Public
Utilties Commission ("PUC/' Respondent on Appeal) filed a Stipulated Motion to Suspend the
above-referenced appeal and remand the matter back to the PUC (the "Stipulated Motion"). i
The Stipulated Motion stated that the temporar remand would allow the PUC to reconsider its
Order No. 32302 (the order on appeal) in light of a recent decision issued by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (the "FERC Order"), and provide the paries with an opportty to
settle the appeal.
On November 7, 2011, ths Cour granted the Stipulated Motion, suspended the
appeal for a period of 45 days, and remanded the matter to the PUC for review. Ref. No. 11-534.,
The Order granting the Stipulated Motion also directed the PUC to file a written report
"regarding the status of this appeal on or before December 27, 201 1." Id at p. 2.
STATUS REPORT
On remand to the PUC, Cedar Creek, PUC Staf and Rocky Mountain (collectively
the "Paries") convened four settlement conferences. As a result of settlement negotiations, the
Pares filed with the PUC on December 15,2011, a "Stipulation of Settlement and Request for
Approval of Power Purchase Agreements" ("Settlement Stipulation") resolving all disputes
between and among the Paries. In the Settlement Stipulation the Paries requested that the PUC
approve the Settlement Stipulation and modify its Reconsideration Order No. 32302 that is the
subject of this appeal.
i Although not a par to the appeal when the Stipulated Motion was fied, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power
("Rocky Mountain") supported the suspension of the appeal and remand to the PUC. The cour granted intervention
to Rocky Mountain on October 3 i, 20 i i. Ref. No. i i -522.
2 Pursuant to PUC Rule 352 (IDAPA 31.01.01.52), the PUC authorized its Staff to enter into settlement
negotiations. PUC Order No. 32386 at 2, 20 i i WL 5 142570 (Oct. 26, 20 i i).
SUSPENSION STATUS REPORT 2
After reviewing the underlying administrative record, the FERC Order and the
Settlement Stipulation, the PUC issued an order approving the Settlement Stipulation. Order No.
32419 (Dec. 21, 2011) (attached). Based upon the paricular facts of the underlying case, the
PUC found that the "Settlement is fair, just and reasonable, and in the public interest." Order
No. 32419 at 8. Pursuat to Idaho Code § 61-624, the PUC amended its prior Order No. 32302
to conform with the Paries' Settlement Stipulation.
Consequently, the PUC is pleased to report that the Paries have settled the dispute
that was the subject matter of ths appeal. Consistent with paragraph No. 1 1 of the Stipulation3,
the PUC anticipates that Cedar Creek will soon fie a stipulated motion for dismissal pursuant to
LA.R. 33.
RESPECTFULL Y submitted on this 27th day of December 2011.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
4t~Donald 1. H ell, II
Deputy Attorney General
bls/O:PAC-E-1 1-oI-OS_Staus Report_Appeal_db
3 Paragraph No. 11 provides that upon issuance of (a PUC) Order approving the Settlement Stipulation, "Cedar
Creek agrees to withdraw its Idaho Supreme Cour appeal in Docket No. 39134-2011. . .." The Pares also agreed
in the Settlement Stipulation to forego their rights to appeal to this Cour any orders issued by the PUC in the
underlying dockets, including Order No. 32419.
SUSPENSION STATUS REPORT 3
(
Offce of the Sec
Service Dat
Decebe 21.2011
.BEFORE TH IDAJO PUBLIC UTILITS COMMSSION
IN THE MATTR OF TH APPLICATION OF )
PACIFCORP DBA ROCKY MOUNAI )
POWER FOR A DETERMATION )
REGARING A FIRM ENERGY SALES ) .
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROCKY )
MOUNTAI POWER AN CEDAR CREEK )
WIND, LLC (RTTESNAK CANON )
PROJECT (11-01), COYOTE IDL PROJECT )
(11-02), NORm POINT PROJECT (11-03), )
STEEP RIGE PROJECT (11-04), AND FIV )
PIN PROJECT (11-05)). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CEDAR CREK WIND, LLC,
Petitioner/Appenan~
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTLITIS COMMISSION,
Respondent, Respondent on Appeal,
and
PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY. MOUNTAIN
POWER,
Respondent.
SUPREME COURT
DOCKET NO. 39134-2011
IPUC CASE NOS.PAC-E-U-01
PAC-E..U-02
PAC-E-U-03.
PAC-E-ii-04
PAC-E-11-05
PUC ORDER NO. 32419
On July 27, 2011, the Commssion issued Fina Order on Recnsidertion No. 32302
afg its prior decision to not approve five Power Purchase Agreements (pP As or
Agrments) entered into between Cedar Creek Wind and PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mounta
Power purt to the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PUR A). Bas
upon the expressed term of the five Agreements, the Commission found tht the PPAs wer not
effective prior to December 14, 20 i 0 - the date on which the eligibilty for PUR A published
avoided cost rates in Idaho chaged frm 10 average megawatts (aMW) to 100 kilowatt (kW)
for wid and solar quaifyng facilties (QFs). Order No. 32260. Because ~ch of the PPAs
ORDER NO. 32419 1
~"
requested published avoided cost rates but the projects were in excess of. 100 kW, the
Commssion found that the published rate was no longer available to the projects.
On Augu 5,2011, Ced Creek filed a Petition with the Federal Energy Reguator
Commssion (PERC) claig tht the Commission's Order No. 32302 was inconsistent 'with
PERC's reguations implementig PURA. Whle its Petition to FERC was pendin Ceda'.
Creek, on August 31, 2011, also appealed the Commssion's Order to the Idaho Supreme Cour
On October 4, 2011, FERC issued an Order concludig tht the Commssion's Order was
inconsistnt with PURA wid PERC's PURA reguations.
On October 24, 2011, the Commission and Ceda Creek filed a Stipulated Motion
with the Idaho Supreme Cour that-the appea be temporaly suspended and the matter remanded
to the Commssion.. Suspendig the appeal would allow the Commssion to reonsider its Order
No. 32302 in light of the PERC Order and provide the pares with an. opportty to discuss the
possibilty of resolving the dispute. I.A.R. 13.3. On November 9, 2011, the Cour issUed an .
Order susnding the appe and remandig the matter to the Commssion for fuer review.
On remand, the Commssion invited seement of the entire dispute and authorid the
Coi1ssion Sta to parcipate in the settlement negotiations. Order No. 32386 citing Rules
352 and 353. Ceda Creek, Rocky Mounta and Sta (collectively the "Pares") convened four
settement conferences. On December 15, 2011, the Pares filed a Motion to approve a
"Stipulation of Settement and Request for Approval of Power Purchas Agrements"
("Settement Stipulation") that proposed to sette all the disputed issues.
Having reviewed the underlyig adinistative recrd, the PERC Orer and the
Settement Stipulation, the Commssion issues ths fina Reconsideration Order on Remand. As
explained in greater detal below, the Commission approves the Settement Stipulation ard
approves the the modified PP As. Accordingly, the Commssion amends and clarfies its prior
Orer No. 32302 to be consistent with ths Order. Idaho Code § 61 -624.
i When the Stipulated Motion was filed, Rocky Mountain had not yet been granted intervention by the Cour.
Neverteless. Rocky Mounta support the suension and remand.
ORDER NO. 32419 2
BACKGROUN
A. Eligibilit Cap Clle
Pnor to the fiing of the five Ced Creek PP As, Avista Corpration, Idao Power
Company, and Rocky Mounta (collectively ''te Utilities") petitioned the Commssion on
November 5, 2010, to intiate a generic investigation to adess varous PURA issues. The
Utilties also requested that whle the investgation was underway, the Commssion
"immediately" reduce the eligibilty cap or ceilng for the "published" avoided cost rate from 10
aMW pe month t~ 100 kW per month. Order Nos. 32212 and 32302.2 The Commission issued
a Notice and Order opeing a separate investgation (GNR-E- 10-04), solicited initial and reply
comments, and convened an oral arguent to address the proposed reduction in the eligibilty
. cap. Orer. No. 32131 at 6-7.
The Commission subsequently found that the Utilties had made a convicing cae to
temporarly "reduce the eligibilty cap for published avoided cost rates from 10 aMW to 100 kW
for wind and solar rOFs) only while the Commssion fuer investigates" other PURP A issues.
Order No. 32176 at 9 (emphais origina). Consistent with its prior Notice, the Commssion
ordered that the eligibilty cap for the published rate be reduced frm i 0 aMW to 100 kW for
wid and solar projects effective December 14, 2010. Order Nos. 32176, 32212, 32302.: No
par, includig Ceda Crek, appeaed the Commssion's decision to reduce the eligibilty cap.
Order No. 32302 at 5, 14-15.
B. The Five Origial Agreements
The procedural history of ths consolidated case is complex and lengty, but the
pertnent points ar sumared here. On December 22, 2010, Rocky Mounta Power .and
Ceda Creek executed five searate PPAs for five wind QF projects.3 Under the ters of each
Agreement, each project agreed to sell energy to Rocky Mountan for a 20-yea ter using the
published avoided cost rate set by the Commission. Taken together, the five projects had a
2 Puuat to FERC's PURA regulations, stte commissions must "publish" an avoided cost rate for smaJl QFs
with the design caacity of 100 kW or less. 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(c)(I). However, PURA regulations also declar
tht state commissions "may" set stadads or published rates at a hi, capacity amount. 18 C.F.R. §
292.304(c)(I-2). In Febni 2008, the Commission estblihed the eligibilty cap for published avoided Cot rates
for each of the thee utilities at 10 aM. Order No. 30488 at 17.
3 Becase of the similarty between each of the five Agrments, the Commission found it reasonable and
appropriate to consolidate the cases and issue a conslidated Orer. Orer No. 32260 at n. i.
ORDER NO. 32419 3
naeplate capacity of 133.4 MW.4 Under norm ~d1or average' conditions, eah wid project
was to have sold its output of not more th 10 aM per month to Rocky Mounta at the
published rate. The projects all selectd October 1,2012 as the scheduled commercial operaton
date (COD). Order No. 32302 at 3.
On Janua 10, 2011, Rocky Mounta filed the Applications requesting that, the
Commssion issue an Order ~'accepting or reecting" the five Cedar Creek PPAs. On'Pf:bru'
24, ~OI 1" the Commssion issued a consolidated Notice of Application and Notice of Modified
Procedur for the five Applications. Ceda Creek and Commssion Sta filed tiely comments
in respons to the Notice of Modified Proceure. Rocky Mountain and Ced Creek both filed
reply comments.
In its final Order No. 32260 issued June 8, 2011, the Commssion declared tht ''te
priar issue to be determined in these (Cedar Creek) caes is whether the Agreements were
executed before the eligibilty cap for published rates wa lowered to 100 kW on December 14,
2010." Order No. 32260 at 9. The Commission found tht the five PPAs were not fuly-
execute (i.e., signed by both pares) prior to December 14, 2010. Relying on the actu term
,
of the PPAs, the Commssion found tht each PPA stated tht "the ~Effective Date' of (each)
Agreement is 'afr execution by both Pares and afer approval by the Commssion.'" Id citng
PPA n 1.13, 2.1. (emphasis added).s Becuse the Commssion ha-previously reduced the
eligibilty cap for the published avoided cost rate from 10 aMW to 100 kW, the five PP As
"contaed an essential term that was no longer available to the Prject." Order No. 32j02 at 2,
Cedar Creek tiely tied a Joint Pettion for Recnsideration of the Commssion's
:f Order No. 32260. On reconsideration, Ceda Crek argued that the Commission's Order
wa eroneous because a "legally enforceable obligation" existed between Ceda Creek and
Rocky Mountan prior to the reduction in the eligibilty cap on December 14,2010. As a result,
Ceda Creek mantaned tht it was entitled to published avoided cost rates and urged the
Commission to "expeditiously approve the Agreements as submitted." Order No. 32302 at 2.
4 The Applications for Rattesnake Canyon, Coyote Hil and Nort Point indicaed that each of these project would
have a maimum nameplate capacity of 27.6 MW, while Step Ridge and Five Pine would eah have a maximumnameplate capacity of2S.3 MW. .
5 The Commission al obsered that the opening paragph of each Agrement sttes that the Agrement is
"entered into this 22M day of Decmber 2010." Id
ORDER NO. 32419 4
On recnsideration, the Commssion afrmed its prior decision tht the five PP As all -
contaned e"press languge tht the effective date of eah Agrement is when both pares signed
the PPAs -'December 22,2010. The Commission note tht it was undisputed that Ceda Creek
signed the PPAs on December 13, 2010, and Rocky Mounta signed on December22, 2010. Id
Agrments ft 1.13,2.1, Orer No. 32302 at 4,6, 8. Give!) the agreed upon effective clte, the
Commission afrmed th each Agreement did not become effective until afr -executon by, -
both Pares. Order No. 32302 at 9. The Commssion also found that it isnot in the public
interest to allow paries with contrcts executed on or afr December 14, 2010, to avail
themselves 'of an eligibilty cap, and thus published rates, that ar no longer applicable. Order
No. 32302 at 12,16.
D. The FERC Case and the Appeal
On Augut 5; 2011, Ceda Crek filed a Petition with PERC requestg tht the
federal agency brig an enforcement action agaist the Commission puruat to 16 U.S.C. §
824a-3(h)(2) or, in the alterntive, to make certn findigs related to the Commission's decision., '
Cedar Crek claied that the Commission's Order is inconsistent with FERC's reguations
implementig PURA. On October 4, 2011, FERC issued an Order declining to bring an
enforcement action agaist the Commission. However, PERC determed that the Commssion's
Order wa inconsistent with PURA and FERC's implementing reguations. Notice o/Intent not
to Act and Declaratory Order, 137 PERC 11 61,006 (Oct. 4, 2011). In paricular, FERC
consted the Commission's fi Order No~ 32260 as "limiting - the creation of a legally-
enorcable- obligation only to QFs tht have (PPAs) . . . signed by both pares tø the
agreement." Id. at 1126. FERC interreted the Commssion's Order as requiring a fully-executed,
contrt as a condition precedent to the creation of a legally enforceable obligation between the
pares. Id at ft 30, 35. -Although ths CoiIission has a long line of caseS to the contrar,
FERC concluded that the Commission did not reogn tht "a legally enforceable obligation-
may be incured before the form memorializtion of a contrt to wrting.',' Id at 11 36.
FERC did not rue whether Cedar Creek, had perfecte a legally enforceable
obligation for the five projects. Id at ft 38 (whether there is a "legally enorcable obligation ~ .
. is not before us."); 39. Given the issuace of the PERC Order and Cedar Creek's appe to the
Idaho Supreme Cour, Ceda Creek and the Commission filed a Stipulated Motion for-the appeal
, to be temporarly suspnded and the matr remanded to the Commssion.
ORDER NO. 32419 5
TH SETTEMENT STIULTION
Ceda Creek, Rocky Mounta and Sta (collectvely the "Pares'') convened four
settlement conferences on October 20 and 27, November 16, and December 1,2011. As a resut
of these settlement discussions, the Paries on Decmbe 15, 201 1, filed a Motion to Approve the
Settement Stipulation and. Request for Approval of Power Puchase Agreements (the
"Settlement Stipulation''). The Pares disclosed tht they have resolved all disputes beteen and
among themselves.
The Pares requested that the Commssion modify its ?rder on Reconsidertion No.
32302 and approve the of the five origi PPAs as amended in the Settement Stipulation.
More spcifically, the Pares requested tht the Commission approve the amendments to the
Nort Point project (Cas No. PAC-E-II-03); the Five Pine project (Case No. 'PAC-E-l 1-05);_
and the Coyote Hill project (Case No. PAC-E-l1-02) (together, the "Agrements''). In addition,
Cedar Creek and Rocky Mounta agreed to withdrw the remaining two Applications and
accompanyig PPAs. Stipulation at § 2.6
The Pares agreed that Cedar Crek had estblished a legally eJorceable obligation
wider PUR A no later th December 13, 2010. Stipulation at' §§ 1, 4. Because such obligation
arose prior to December 14,2010, the Pares agree that the suriving PPAs should be approved
by the Commission at the avoided cost rates conted in the Orginal Agrements. Id at § 5.
Thus, Cedar Crek and Rocky Mountan ar restore to their relative positions under the original
PPAs. The thee surving PPAswill have a combined naeplate capacity not to exceed 133.4
MW and Rocky Mounta shal not be required to purcha more than 438,000 MW (i.e.,
approximately 50 aMW) of output in any given calendar yea. Id at § 7; PPAs at 1.30, 1.43,4.1.
The Nort Point PPA will be modifed to have an 80 MW naeplate capacity, while the Five
'Pine and Coyote Hil.PPAs will have a tota nameplate capacity not to exced S3.4 MW.
Stipulation, Ex. A, B, C.
Both the Nort Point and Five Pine PPAs provide tht these PPAs may be assigned to
Ridgeline at its Meadow Creek site. Id. at § 21.2. Because the Meadow Creek facilty aleady
has its trssion interconnecton with PacifiCorp, assignent to Ridgeline would allow the
scheduled commercial opetion date (COD) for both facilties to be Decmber 31, 2012.
6 The two Applications and PPAs to be withdrwn ar: the Steep Ridge project (Case No. .PAC-E-I 1-04) and the
Rattesnae Canyon project (Cas No. PAC-E-I 1-01) (together. the "Withdrwn Agreements"). Stipulaton at 2.
ORDER NO. 32419 6
- -
Utilizig the Meadow Crek facilty would allow Ceda Creekldgeline to obta Treur
grts and other ta incentives before tley are set to expire on December 31, 2012. Any
assignent of Nort Point and Five Pine to Ridgeline mus occur withn 90 days of the effective
date of the PPAs as modified, approximately on or before Marh 31, 2012. Exh. A, B, C § 21.2.7_
The Coyote Hil project is contemplated at the origial Ceda Creek site.
In addition, the PPAs fuer provide that Cedar Creek and Rocky Mounta shall
share the "Environmenta Attbutes" (including but not limited to renewable energy credits
(RCs) and-Green Tags) attbuted to the surving PPAs. More specifically, Ced Creek shal
be entitled to the environmenta attbutes for the fi 10 years of operation, while Rocky
Mounta shal be entitled to the envionmenta attbutes for the las 10 yeas of the .20-year
Agreements~ Exh. A, B, Cat §§ 1.17, 1.26,4.6.
The Pares assert that the settement of their dispute including the modifications of
the survig PP As represents a fai, jus and reasonable reolution of the disputd clai, and
ar consistent with applicable law and regulatory policies. Stipulation at §§ 1,6, 12. The Pares
fuer mainta that the settlement represents a negotiated compromise between the Pares and
is in .the public interest. The Pares agree tht the Settement Stipulation "resolves all issues
raised by any par in the captioned (Commssion) dockets, in the FERC ~roceedig, and in
Ced Creek's appeal to the Idao Supreme Cour. If the Commssion adopts the Settement
Stipulation, each waves, releases and discharges the other Pares from any and all causes of
action, suits, claims, demands, and liabilty whatsoever in law or equity." Id at.§ 17. The
Pares urge the Commission to approve ths Settement Stipulation and the PP As in their entity
and they std ready to support the Stipulation. Id at § 13.
COMMSSION FIINGS
At the outset, we commend the Paries for their diligence and effort at resolving the
underlyig disputes. Consistnt with our autority under Idaho Code § 61-624 and Rules 352
and 353, we invited settement of all of the disputs arsing from our Order Nos. 32260 and
32302. Order No..32386 at 2.
7 Although the RidgelinelMeaow Creek trmission line is aleady completed, this line .may have_ capacity
litions. Consequently, the PPAs allow for a combination of generation sizes at the Five Pine and Coyote Hjll
projects so long as the total generation for aU the project not exceed 438.000 MW. This purchase cap shall be
tred-up anualy. Stipulation at § 7.
ORDER NO. 32419 7
Rule 356 provides tht the Commssion is not bound by the Pares' Settlement
Agrement. IDAPA 31.01.01.356. The Commssion will "independently review any settement
proposed to it to detere whether the settement is just, fai and reasonale, in the public
interest or otherwse in accordance with law or reguatory policy." _ Id The Commission may
acept, rej~t, or modify setement provisions. Moreover, proponents of setlements on appeal
car the burden of showing tht the settement is reasonable and in the public interest. Rule
355. When a settement of an appeal - such as ths case - calls for Commssion acon, the
Commssion will prscribe an appropriate procedure to examine a proposed settement. In ths
Cá, the Paries to the appeal have ased the Commission to amend Recnsideration Order No. .
32302 issued July 27,2011, and aprove the modified PPAs. Idaho Code.§ 61-624 provides
tht the Commssion "may at any time, upon notice to the public utility afected, . . . rescinc4
alter or amend any order or decision made by it."
After havig reviewed the record in this cae, the FERC Order, the Stipulation of
Settemerit and Request for Approval of Power Puchase Agreements, and the modified PPAs,
we fid the record is comprehensive and fuer proceedings are not necessar. Rule 354. Based
upon our review of the entir record and the parcular facts of ths case, we find tht the
Settlement is fair, jus and reasonable, and in the pulJlic interest. As noted by the Pares, the
Stipulaton represents a reasnale compromise of the positions held by the Pares.
In our intial. decision, ths Commssion made a determation about wheter to
approve the Agreeents based on the express tes contaned withn each Agrment. In our
. past expeence, when a QF wants a determnation tht there is a legally enforceable obligaton,
it files a complaint against a utility that it alleges has failed to negotiate. This is the first tie the
Commssion has reviewed the facts of ths. case for evidence regarding the existence of a legally
enforceable obligation outside the express tenn of the original five Agrements entered into by
Rocky Mounta and Ceda Creek.
. There ar several. reaons supportg our detenation that the settement is fai and
reasnable to Ced Creek, Rocky Mounta and raayers. First, the Stipulation re Ceda
Creek and Rocky Mounta to their respective positions prior to the issuace of our Orders
disaprovig the PPAs. Based upon the Paries' assertions in the Settement Stipulation and our
review of the record, we fud tht the record reveals th Ceda Crek had perfected a legally
enforceable obligation no later th December 13,2010. As.such, Cedar Creek was entitled to
ORDER NO. 32419 8
the published avoided cost rates available to 10 aMW QFs iI effect as of December 13,2010.
The the modified PP As equate to the original five PPAs.
Second, PacifiCorp and ratepayers are protected under the setement and the thee
modified PPAs by being obligated to purchase no more than the tota equivalent of 50 aM of
net output as originaly contemplated under the five PP As. Assignent also allows the COD
date to advance, thereby providig benefit to Ceda Creek.
Thd, ratepayers and Rocky Mountan ar 1ìer advantaed becaus the modified
PP As recognze tht the envinmenta attbute produced by the thee modified project will be
equay apportoned between Rocky Mounta and Ced Creek. Under the PPAs, Ceda Crek
will be entitled to the environmenta attbutes for the fi 10 year of the Agreements and
Rocky Mounta will be entitled to the environmenta attbutes for the last 10 years of the
Agreements. This is an improvement over the onginal PPAs because the assignent of the
environmenta attbutes or RECs was not clearly delineated in the origi Agrments.
Moreover, subsequent revenues derved from the environmenta attbutes will offset Rocky
Mounta' s purha of the output from the suvig PP As over the las 10 years of the-
Agreements.
Finally, we fid tht resolution of ths matter will avoid uncety and conse
. resoures (bth tie and money). Ths is beneficial to Ced Creek, Rocky Mounta and
ratepayers. The settement avoids the likelihood of litigation in multiple forus and represents a
signficat benefit to all Pares. Here the settement brigs the dispute to a reasonable
conclusion and beefits Cedar Creek, Rocky Mounta and ratepayers. Rules 354-355; Agui"e
v. Hamlin, 80 Idao 176,327 P.2d 349 (1958).
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED tht the Motion for Approval of the Stipulaton of
Settlement and Request for Approval of Power Puhae Agreements filed by the Pares is
granted. In addition, we approve the the modified Agreements identified in Exhbit A (Nort
Point), Exhbit B (Five Pine), and Exhbit C (Coyote Hill).
IT is FURTHR ORDERED tht Rocky Mounta Power's reuest to withdraw the
Ste Ridge Application and Agreement (Case No. PAC-E-I1-04) and the Rattesnake Canyon
Application and Agrement (Case No. PAC-E-l 1-01) is grted.
ORDER NO. 32419 9
. .
IT is FURTHER ORDERED tht Order No. 32302 issued July 27,2011, is amended
consistent with the fidigs and discussions set out in ths Order purt to Idaho Code § 6 i..
624.
THS is A FINAL RECONSIDERATION ORDER ON REMAND. Any par
aggreved by ths Order may appeal to the Supreme Cour of Idao as provided by the Public
Utilties Law and the Idao Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE -by Orer of the Idao Public Utilities Commssion at Boise, Idaho ths ;;1. sl"
day of December 201 1.
JÍ~PALC ~ PRESIDENT
~r,\¿W.
MACK A. REDFORD, COMMISSIONER
§h.,.. d~sIÍ H. SMITH, COMMSSIONER'
ATTST:
(J:?(~/JUjU~ ~SBarbara Barows '
Assistat Commssion Secreta
blslO:PAC-B-II-OI_PAC-B-II-0_PAC-B-I I-D3_PAC-B-I 1-u_PAC-B-li-DS_dh
ORDER NO. 32419 10 (
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THS 27th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011,
SERVED THE FOREGOING SUSPENSION STATUS REPORT, IN SUPREME COURT
DOCKET NO. 39134-2011, BY E-MAILING A COPY THEREOF TO TH
FOLLOWIG:
MAR C MOENCH
DANIEL E SOLANDER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
201 S. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2300
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
E-MAIL: mark.moenchimpacificorp.com
daniel.solanderimpacificorp.com
RICHARD HALL
WALTER SINCLAIR
STOEL RIES LLP
101 S. CAPITOL BOULEVARD, SUITE 1900
BOISE, ID 83702-7705
E-MAIL: rrhaiiimstoeL.com
jwsinclairimstoel.com
KENNTH E. KAUFMAN
LOVINGER KAUFMANN LLP
825 NE MUL TNOMAH, SUITE 925
PORTLAND, OR 97232-2150
E-MAIL: Kaufmanimlkaw.com
RONALD 1. WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS BRABURY
1015 W. HAYS STREET
BOISE, ID 83702
E-MAIL: ronimwillamsbradbur.com
LARY F. EISENSTAT
MICHAEL R. ENGLEMAN
DICKSTEIN SHAIRO LLP
1825 EYE STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
E-MAIL: eisenstatlimdicksteinshapiro.com
englemanimdicksteinshapiro.com
6il&u~
SECRETARY