Comments on: Idaho PUC Proposes Power Payment Program

By: Gene Fadness

Gene Fadness — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:19:04 +0000

And you need to re-read again. Ratepayers are impacted when revenue already approved in rates is no longer available. But the amended contract makes sure that doesn’t happen. That’s the reason for the agreement. And don’t dismiss what I write as simply my job to defend the commission. These are the facts, not spin. Read the agreement. Read the contract. Read the press release.

By: chicago sam

chicago sam — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:01:09 +0000

It’s OK Gene, I know it is your job to defend the Commission. However, I still contend Hoku was bluffing as they eventually came up with the money. Also, yoi need to reread the press release you put out. “Ratepayers are impacted because Idaho Power include the revenue ir was origionally contracted to receive from Hoku in both it’s 2011 rate case filing and it’s power cost adjustment filings. Without the Hoku revenue, the resulting deficiencey would have had to be made up by other Idaho Power customers.”

By: Gene Fadness

Gene Fadness — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:12:00 +0000

Sam,
Well, Sam just pointed out why sometimes it is pointless to take time to try and explain things to some who either are not listening, or perhaps my writing needs to improve. Nobody was bluffed here and Sam or any other Idaho Power ratepayers won’t pay one cent for electricity to serve Hoku, now or in the future.

By: chicago sam

chicago sam — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:31:57 +0000

In the game where millions of dollors are at stake it is hard to fault HOKU for trying to bluff Idaho Power and the Commission into suspending payments. However on the other side of it Idaho Powers rate payers are still at risk if a default is made sometime in the future. By moifying the terms of the contract [with big brother watching carefully] it probably just postpones a bad result which will be in no ones interest and I believe sets a precedent for other companys who are defaulting on their power bill. All that wind power the Utilitys are having to buy need a home but that’s another story. Thanks for the explanation of the Commissions thinking

By: Gene Fadness

Gene Fadness — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:59:56 +0000

OK, David and Sam, because I like you guys so much, I give in. Please remember, that not all decisions made here are mine and any state employee will tell you how careful he/she must be when our legislator friends are in town. Regarding your question:

First, the question contains a presumption that is not correct. In the original application from Hoku challenging Idaho Power’s termination notice, the Commission did not suspend the termination of Hoku’s Nov 2011 payment and did not retroactively suspend the minimum payments when it issued Order No. 32437 on Jan 13, 2012. And the Commission did not “clearly favor” Hoku. What the Commission said was:

“We also direct Idaho Power and Hoku to immediately enter into negotiations regarding Hoku’s Petition to reform the amended special contract. Staff counsel shall facilitate the negotiation in an effort to determine whether the parties can settle the issue in Hoku’s reformation petition. Without deciding the issue, we advise the parties that waiver of the first block energy charge beginning with the January 2012 bill should be part of their negotiations. If settlement negotiations are not fruitful, the Commission will issue further instructions regarding the processing of the petition.”

Thus, the Commission did not “favor” Hoku but merely directed the parties to see if they could settle the current dispute. If settlement was not possible, than the Commission was prepared to resolve the matter.

In addition, the amended special contract recognizes that the parties may amend their special contract. The Commission did not order the parties to amend their special contract but directed the parties to see if they could settle their dispute – that led to the modification of the contract. Finally, in rare cases the Commission may abrogate a special contract when it determines that an existing contract seriously harms the public interest, though there is a high burden in determining what is in the public interest. And as the Commission noted in its Order: “When evaluating contractually set rates, the question is ‘whether the rates seriously harm the public interest, not . . . whether [the rates] are unfair to one of the parties that voluntarily assented to the contract.’” The US Supreme Court has laid out several factors to consider when reviewing contracts.

By: chicago sam

chicago sam — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:29:23 +0000

Cmon Gene –You have been very open and informative with your answers. Now you say my question is a good one and you won’t give me a public answer? Bad enought the Commission always deliberates behind closed doors with no public access. Maybe Ms. Smith would like to answer.

By: Gene Fadness

Gene Fadness — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:32:09 +0000

Thanks for your question, Sam. It is a good one. If you e-mail to: AnswerMeThis@puc.idaho.gov, I will be happy to answer your question.
Gene Fadness
Idaho Public Utilities Commission’334-0339

EDITOR NOTE–The GUARDIAN is concerned about yet another public agency stemming the flow of information in a public forum. Next move will be to eliminate blogs, newspapers, and TV news in favor of the government doing it all!!

By: chicago sam

chicago sam — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:18:51 +0000

Ms. Smith in a presentation to a legislative committee last week said that contracts between buisnesses and Utility’s must be honored when questioned about 20 year contracts. And now the IPUC ordered Idaho Power and Hoku to renegotate their contract with the clear intention of favoring Hoku in the process. What gives?