20170721Decision Memo-2.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER A}IDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:BRANDON KARPEN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: JULY 21,2017
SUBJECT: AVISTA'S OBJECTION TO SIERRA CLUB,S INTERVENTION
AVISTA GENERAL RATE CASE
CASE NOS. AVU-E-17.01 AND AVUG.17-01
On July 12, 2017, Avista Corporation filed an "Objection of Avista Corporation to
Petition to Intervene of Sierra Club" in the above captioned matter. Avista claims that Sierra
Club will unduly broaden the issues of the case. Objection at 4-5. Avista suggests that its IRP
case is the proper venue to address the depreciation rates for Colstrip. Id. at 3.
Avista states that Sierra Club's stated focus on matters relating to the Colstrip coal
plant are actually a way of bootstrapping improper issues beyond what is now before the
Commission. Id. Rather, Avista asserts that Sierra Club will use normal capital expenditures as
a toehold to argue over the remaining useful life of the plant in question. Id. at 3. Avista points
out that Sierra Club is making that argument in Puget Sound Energy's pending general rate case
in the State of Washington. Id. at 4.
Avista requests that the Commission deny Sierra Club's request to intervene, or "[i]n
the very least ... clarify that any intervention by the Siena Club should not [suggest] an earlier
termination date for Colstrip Units 3 and 4." Id. at 5.
On July 18,2017, Sierra Club filed a response to Avista's objection. Citing
Commission Rule 74, Sierra Club argues the Commission should continue its practice of liberal
intervention, and points out that it has clearly stated a direct and substantial interest in the
outcome of the case. Response at 2-3. Sierra Club further argues that Avista's claims regarding
Colstrip expenditures being "in the ordinary course of business," and "have been routinely
DECISION MEMORANDLM 1
incurred," improperly argue the merits of the case through its objection. Id. at3. Siena Club
states that "[a]t a minimum, scrutiny and review of those expenditures are warranted through the
pendency of this rate case proceeding." .Id.
Sierra Club also maintains that any argument relating to the Colstrip depreciation rate
is similarly premature. Rather, Siena Club states it does not know what, if any, position it will
take with regard to the depreciation rate, as the case has not proceeded to that point yet. Id. 4.
However, Sierra Club argues that while it does not intend to seek any Commission order
requiring the closure of Colstrip, "aligning depreciation schedulers of large power plants with
estimated retirement dates is highly relevant to a general rate case." Id.
Sierra Club contends that it will not unduly broaden the issues or delay the
proceedings, and will only address issues relevant to the current case. Id. at 5. lt points out that
it filed a timely Petition to lntervene, met the Commission's requirements under Commission
Rules, and identified germane issues that it will focus on, as well as issues that may arise upon
further investigation and analysis. Accordingly, Sierra Club requests that the Commission deny
Avista's objection in whole.
IPUC Rules of Procedure 7l-80 relate to intervention and public witnesses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff takes no position in this matter.
COMMISSION DECISION
How does the Commission wish to rule on Avista's objection to Sierra Club's
participation, and Avista's alternative request to limit participation?
ttomey Ceneral
M:AVU-E- I 7-0 l_AVU-G- I 7-0 I _bk3
2DECIS ION MEMORANDLII\4