20021003_284.pdf

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DECISION MEMORANDUM
CO MMISSI 0 NER KJELLAND ER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
BILL EASTLAKE
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
RICK STERLING
TONY A CLARK
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
SCOTT WOODBURY
OCTOBER 1, 2002
CASE NOS. IPC-02-8; IPC-01-42 (Idaho Power; IPCo)
2002 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN (IRP); GARNET REPORT
IPCO MOTION TO EXTEND FILING DEADLINE FOR GARNET REPORT
IPCO MOTION TO ESTABLISH DATE FOR IRP REPLY COMMENTS
On June 28, 2002, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed its year 2002
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission). The
Company s filing is pursuant to a biennial requirement established in Commission Order No. 22299
Case No. U-1500-165. The IRP describes the Company s loads and resources, provides an overview
of technically available resource options including purchases of power from the wholesale market, the
acquisition of additional generating resources and, to a lesser extent, pricing options and demand-side
management programs.
On July 18, 2002, the Commission issued a Notice of Filing in Case No. IPC-02-8 and
established an August 30, 2002 deadline for filing written comments.
Comments were filed by AARP, Windland, Inc., Citizens for Responsible Land Use
Commission Staff, Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Energy Coalition, the Land and Water Fund of the
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Rockies, the Idaho Rural Council, Wind Works, Inc. and J. C. Hormel. Most parties found the
Company s Integrated Resource Plan to be deficient and recommended that it be rejected.
Motions to Initiate a Formal Proceeding were filed by AARP and the Clean Energy
Advocates (Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Energy Coalition, LAW Fund and the Idaho Rural
Council). The parties suggest that the Company s IRP is so seriously flawed that it cannot serve as a
planning tool for future resource acquisition. Because the present proceeding impacts future rate
change requests and because it identifies the magnitude of loads to be met and the resources that will
be chosen to serve them and because once those decisions are made, it may be too late to challenge the
rate increases that follow, the parties suggest that the time for public participation and full Commission
deliberation is now.
Idaho Power filed an Answer to the Motions and in separate Motion requested additional
time (until October 23 , 2002) to file Reply Comments. The requested reply date coincides with the
Commission established filing date for the Gamet Report.
On September 27, 2002, Idaho Power made a letter filing in Case No. IPC-01-
requesting that the scheduled October 23 , 2002 file date for the Gamet Report be extended one week
from October 23 to October 30, 2002. Idaho Power states that it is preparing both the Gamet report
and its reply comments in the 2002 IRP case at this time. As might be expected, the Company states
that the effort involved is substantial. In addition, counsel for Idaho Power relates a personal conflict
the rescheduling of which would involve significant expense. Idaho Power states that it has contacted
counsel for Staff and all of the intervenors in Case No. IPC-02-8 and all counsel have indicated that
their clients have no objection to the one-week delay requested.
COMMISSION DECISION:
Idaho Power requests the opportunity to file Reply Comments in its IRP case. The file date
requested is the date that the Company s Gamet Report is due. The Company by letter filing has also
requested that its scheduled file date for the Gamet Report be extended from October 23 to October 30
2002. The Company represents that it has contacted all parties and that no party objects to a one-week
delay. Does the Commission agree to Idaho Power s proposed scheduling for reply comments in the
IRP case and for filing of the Gamet Report (October 30, 2002)?
Scott D. Woodbury
bls/M:IPCEO208 sw2
DECISION MEMORANDUM