20130215Response to Grouse Creek Motion.pdf

DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921) tUTJ/
Idaho Power Company 2013FEBA5 P11112:26
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70 ID
Boise, Idaho 83707 !.jTlUTdASS1Or
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalker(ãidahopower.com
Attorney for Respondent-Intervenor Idaho Power Company
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK, LLC, and
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK II, LLC,
Petitioners-Appellants,
V.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
Respondent-Respondent on Appeal,
and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
SUPREME COURT
DOCKET NO. 39151-2011
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Case Nos. IPC-E-10-61 and
IPC-E-1 0-62
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
RESPONSE TO GROUSE
CREEK WIND'S MOTION TO
EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT
Respondent-Intervenor/Respondent on
Appeal.
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power") and respectfully objects
to the Petitioners/Appellants', Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC, and Grouse Creek Wind
Park II, LLC ("Grouse Creek"), motion to expedite the proceedings before this Court.
Grouse Creek has failed to state a valid reason for this Court to expedite its
proceedings.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO GROUSE
CREEK WIND'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT -1
The Respondent, Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Idaho Commission"), filed a
response to Grouse Creek's Motion to Expedite on February 4, 2013. Similar to the
Idaho Commission, it is Idaho Power's understanding that Grouse Creek is not asking to
change the standard briefing schedule in this case as set out in I.A.R. 34(c). Grouse
Creek's brief must be filed by March 4, 2013. With no requested change to the briefing
schedule, Idaho Power contends that the matter should be scheduled for oral argument
in the ordinary course of events, as the Court would with any matter before it.
Grouse Creek attempts to bring in before this Court the speculative issues
related to the price contained in their disapproved contracts, the potential value and
relation of federal production tax credits to that price, and the additional speculation that
they will prevail on their appeal with this Court, and renegotiate the required terms of a
new contract and get the same approved at the Idaho Commission. As pointed out by
the Idaho Commission, this case does not present a legal impediment—and there is no
other legal impediment to Grouse Creek making the investments necessary to be
considered to have "started construction" for purposes of the tax credits that it seeks.
Grouse Creek could have expedited their own schedule by not waiting until the end of
the 42 day, Notice of Appeal deadline to file its Amended Notice of Appeal after the
Idaho Commission's Order on Remand, or taken any number of other steps earlier in
the process to speed the matter along. This lack of expeditiousness on the part of
Grouse Creek does not now justify a request or motion for expedited treatment of the
appeal.
This Court has authority under I.A.R. 44 to alter, shorten, or eliminate any step or
procedure in an appeal upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, this
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO GROUSE
CREEK WIND'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT -2
Court has provisions for the expedited review from a district court order denying a
minor's petition for judicial bypass of parental consent. I.A.R. 44.1. Grouse Creek's
speculative contentions with regard to the possibility of qualifying for federal production
tax credits by starting construction of their two wind generation facilities prior to the end
of 2013 does not rise to the same level contemplated by the appellate rules for
extraordinary circumstances, nor to the same nature as a determination to bypass
parental consent.
For the reasons set forth above, Idaho Power does not believe that Grouse
Creek has stated a valid basis for an expedited hearing of this matter. The briefing
schedule set out by I.A.R. 34(c) should be maintained, and the Court should schedule
oral argument in its ordinary course of business.
Respectfully submitted this 15 th day of Ferury 2013.
13TONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO GROUSE
CREEK WIND'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT -3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 15 th day of February 2013 I served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO GROUSE CREEK
WIND'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT upon the following named parties
by the method indicated below, and addressed to the folio wing:
Commission Staff
Kristine Sasser, Deputy Attorney General
Donald L. Howell, II, Lead Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Attorneys for Respondent-Respondent Idaho Public
Utilities Commission
Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC, and Grouse Creek
Wind Park II, LLC
Ronald L. Williams
WILLIAMS BRADBURY, P.C.
1015 West Hays Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Attorneys for Petitioners-Appellants Grouse Creek
Wind Park, LLC, and Grouse Creek Wind Park II,
LLC
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email Kris.Sasserpuc.idaho.gov
[e-mail]
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email ronãwiIliamsbrad burv.com
NNU'rsla QLUth
Christa Bearry, Legal Assistant (
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO GROUSE
CREEK WIND'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE ORAL ARGUMENT -4