200511011st Thompson request of Avista.pdf

CLI ED
., ,
m(!))t~S~0lNf
&:
QI~~Y ,
;, ~-
i ':ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~,\' - i r\Fi 8= 00
Pet er R i c h a r d son ;
' _
;J "I" ,L! E~ ~ Ie
. "~ !
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] U f!LJI H~,S l:(Jt'hidSStOr~
perer~) rie h a rdsona n dole a ry. co m
O. Box 7218 Boise, 10 831'07 - 515 N. 27th St. Boise, ID 83702
October 31 , 2005
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POBox 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
RE: Case No. A VU-E-O5-O7
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed please find three (3) copies of THE THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF AVISTA. The original has been forwarded via
overnight mail to Avista.
I have also enclosed an extra copy to be service-dated and returned to us for
our files. Thank you.
lhn
Nina Curtis
Administrative Assistant
encl.
~.o \ E 1.'1
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY PLLC
515 N. 2ih Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter~ri chardsonando I eary. com
." '
: J; ~
/.-!
"'"1 ~
u: U1J
. .
. J ,FJ H:;Jf
. .
'10 IOl);!iLlii;.
:'~
!v
Mike Uda (pro hoc vice application pending)
DONEY, CROWLEY, BLUMQUIST, PAYNE & UDA
Suite 200
Diamond Block
Helena, MT 59601
[phone]
[phone]
muda~doneylaw .com
Attorneys for Complainant Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC a
Colorado Company,
Respondent
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF A VISTA
CASE NO. AVU-O5-
Complainant,
vs.
AVISTA CORPORATION, dba, Avista Utilities
a Washington Corporation
COMES NOW, Thompson River Co-Gen, (TRC) by and through its attorneys of record
and hereby requests that A vista Corporation (A vista; Company) provide the following
documents and information pursuant to Rule 224 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission (Commission).
This production request is to be considered as continuing, and A vista is requested to
provide, by way of supplemental responses, additional documents that it or any person acting on
its behalf may later obtain that will augment the documents provided.
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
Please provide answers to each question, supporting workpapers that provide detail or are
the source of the information provided or used in calculations; the name and telephone number
of the person preparing the documents; and the name, location and telephone number of the
record holder.
For each item please indicate the name of the person(s) preparing the answers, along with
the job title of such person(s) and the witness who can sponsor the answer at hearing.
REQUEST NO.
In response to TRC's complaint , 10, A vista s answer states that it "admits that TRC has
contended it has a right to a contract with A vista at the published avoided cost rates
applicable to ten megawatt or less projects." However, Paragraph 10 ofTRC's complaint
also alleges:
, "
For several months, and culminating on August 22, 2005, TRC has attempted
good faith negotiations to reach an agreement to sell the entire net output from the facility to
Avista. . ." Please answer the following questions about this portion of Paragraph 10:
a) Is A vista denying that TRC negotiated in good faith? If so, explain the basis for
Avista s belief that TRC failed to negotiate in good faith and provide any
documents that verify TRC's asserted lack of good faith.
b) Is A vista denying that TRC negotiated with A vista for several months? If so
explain the basis for Avista s belief that TRC did not negotiate for several months
and provide any documents that verify A vista s belief.
c) Is Avista contending that TRC offered to sell it something other than TRC's entire
net output? Explain the basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO.
In response to TRC's complaint , 13 Avista s answer simply states that it denies that
paragraph in its entirety. Please answer the following questions about that paragraph:
d) Is Avista denying that TRC's actual net output has never exceeded 10 aMW in
any given month? Ifso, explain the basis for Avista s denial and any documents
that support A vista s denial.
e) How is A vista defining "net output?" Please be specific and explain how A vista
calculates the term "net output" for purposes of implementing Commission
orders. If specific parts of prior Commission orders are relied upon, please refer
to the language of those orders if appropriate.
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
f) Is A vista denYing that the commercial operate date of the TRC facility was
December of 2004? If so, please explain the basis for your denial and all
documents that demonstrate the basis for this denial.
g)
Is A vista denYing that it "disregarded" information from TRC verifYing the actual
net output of the TRC facility? If so, please explain whether and how TRC'
actual generation figures have been taken into consideration in Avista
determination of whether TRC's net generation exceeds 10 aMW? Please be
specific in identifYing how those generation figures were used in calculating
A vista s measurement of monthly net generation for TRC' s facility.
REQUEST NO.
With respect to Paragraph 14 ofTRC's complaint, Avista s denial states that "Avista denies
that it has disregarded orders of this Commission " and that "Avista also denies TRC'
characterization of prior orders of the Commission." In light of these denials and paragraph
14 of Avista s answer, please provide the following information:
(a) Is A vista denYing that it would be entitled to any generation in excess of 10 aMW
produced by the TRC facility in any given month? If so, please explain the basis for
this denial and produce any documents that support this denial. In addition, identify
the rate at which A vista would have to pay for such excess generation under prior
Commission orders. Please be as specific as possible.
(b) Is Avista denying that TRC has repeatedly represented to Avista that it has no
intent to provide net output in excess of 10aMW? If so, please explain the basis for
this denial including providing any documents that support A vista s denial.
( c) If A vista is not denYing that it is entitled to any generation in excess of 10 aMW
at no cost to Avista, why would Avista object to an entitlement to receive such
generation? Explain the basis for your response?
(d) If A vista is not denYing that TRC repeatedly represented to A vista that it has no
intent to provide net output in excess of 10 aMW, please describe whether it would be
possible to structure a transaction with TRC that would enforce that representation
under current Commission policy and orders? Explain the basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO.
With respect to paragraph 15 ofTRC's complaint and the corollary paragraph of Avista
answer, is A vista denYing it has an obligation to purchase energy and capacity from QFs at the
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
utility s administratively detennined full avoided cost? If so, please explain the basis for your
denial and provide any documents that would support that denial.
REQUEST NO.
If Avista does have an obligation to purchase energy and capacity from QFs at the utility
administratively determined full avoided cost, when was the last time that A vista offered to
purchase power from a QF, the full avoided cost rate of that purchase, whether the rate was
levelized or non-Ievelized, and the size of the project. Please describe the result of said offer.
REQUEST NO: 6:
With respect to paragraph 16 ofTRC's complaint, please explain whether Avista s denial in
paragraph 16 of Avista s answer was intended as a denial of the allegation that the Commission
has attempted to implement PURP A through its orders, particularly the u.s. Geothermal
decision? If the answer to the foregoing question is that it was intended to be a denial of that
proposition, please answer the following questions:
(a) If the Commission was not attempting to implement PURP A through its decisions in
S. Geothennal and other cases, what was the Commission attempting to do? Please
explain the basis for your answer.
(b) Is A vista contending that, notwithstanding PURP A, the Commission has the authority
to order utilities to purchase energy and capacity from non-utility generators?
REQUEST NO.
If the answer to the question posed by Question 6 above is that A vista was not intending to deny
that the Commission s orders, including u.s. Geothermal, have attempted to implement PURPA
please answer the following questions about that decision and the other Commission orders
referenced by A vista in its answer:
(a) To your understanding of those orders, what is the public policy purpose or intent
behind the Commission s orders requiring a standard offer rate for QFs which
generate no more than 10 aMW in any given month? Please be specific in your
answer.
(b) Based on your understanding of the policy or intent behind those orders, if A vista
were to receive free any generation in excess of 10 aMW in any given month, would
this be a violation of the letter of those orders? Would it violate the policy purpose
or intent of those orders? Please explain the basis for your answer. If your answer
depends on specific passages of the Commission s orders, please identify those
specific passages.
( c) Based on your understanding of the policy or intent behind those orders, if TRC were
to idle back its production in order to not exceed 10 aMW, would that violate the
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
letter of those orders? The policy or intent? Please explain the basis for your answer.
If your answer depends on specific passages of the Commission s orders, please
identify those specific passages.
(d) In general, is it Avista s understanding that it is the QF's generating capacity that is
relevant for entitlement to published rates rather than its actual generation output? If
, why did the Commission use monthly energy figures as the measure of eligibility
for the standard offer rate? Explain the basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO.
In response to paragraph 17 in TRC's complaint regarding whether TRC will, at normal or
average design conditions, generate no more than 10 aMW in any given month, Avista s answer
~ 1 7 states that it is "without sufficient information to form an opinion, and therefore denies the
same." Please answer the following questions regarding this paragraph of Avista s answer:
(a) What information does Avista need that it lacks in order to form an opinion whether
TRC will, at normal or average design condition, generate no more than 10 aMW in
any given month? Please be specific about Avista s information requirements
regarding its need for further information.
(b) Is A vista contending that TRC did not share its monthly generation figures with
A vista?
(c) Is Avista contending it is unsure as to whether TRC will eventually, under normal or
average design conditions, generate more than 10 aMW in any given month?
(d) If Avista s denial is based on a lack of information, why did Avista deny the
allegations in paragraph 4 ofTRC's complaint?
REQUEST NO.
With respect to Paragraph 18 ofTRC's complaint, and your corollary answering paragraph
please answer the following questions:
(a)Identify each and every fact upon which you base your denial. Please be
specific.
(b)In paragraph 18 of Avista s answer, is Avista denYing that the TRC facility
was deemed operational in 2004?
(c)Are you denYing that actual generation figures from TRC demonstrate that
TRC has never exceeded 10 aMW? Or is your paragraph 19 based on
Avista s view that TRC will exceed 10 aMW at some point in the future.
Explain the basis for your answer.
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
REQUEST NO. 10:
In Avista s general allegations regarding its affirmative defenses, it identifies a power sales
contract with NorthWestern Energy. Please answer the following questions regarding that
contract:
(a) Avista states that the NWE contract expired after 10 years with an option to extend.
Did TRC inform A vista that the NWE contract had terminated this last Spring? Did
you contact NWE to inquire about the contract? What did NWE tell you? Please
identify all personnel at NWE with whom you spoke and what each said.
(b) To the best of Avista s knowledge, has the 10-year contract between NWE and Avista
been terminated?
( c) Does A vista believe that the existence of the 10-year contract, whether or not it still
exists, affects Avista s obligation to buy power under the standard offer rate for
fueled projects? Or does A vista believe it affects its obligation to buy any power from
TRC?
(d) Assuming for the sake of argument that the 10-year contract between NWE and TRC
had never existed, would A vista have an obligation to purchase power from the TRC
facility (all other factors being held constant)?
( e) Assuming for the sake of argument, that the 10- year contract was never triggered due
to a failure on TRC's part to meet performance standards, explain why Avista
believes that an unconsummated agreement is relevant to the issue of whether A vista
has an obligation to purchase electrical energy from TRC?
REQUEST NO. 11:
On pages 3-8 of Avista s answer, ~~ 1-11 there is a lengthy discussion of what Avista perceives
to be the important contracting history between A vista and TRC. Please answer the following
questions about those paragraphs:
(a) Is Avista attempting to argue that TRC is deceiving Avista regarding its generating
capacity? If so, please provide all evidence, including documentation, which would
verify this intent to deceive. If the answer to the preceding question is "" that A vista
does not believe TRC attempted to deceive it, what is the purpose for the discussion of
the various contract proposals offered by TRC in those paragraphs in A vista s complaint?
Explain the basis for your answer.
(b) Is Avista claiming it is uncertain about whether TRC generates more than 10 aMW in
any given month under normal or average design conditions? In other words, is A vista
offering the varying descriptions ofTRC's generating capacity in its answer in order to
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
show that Avista has reason to be skeptical of TRC's claims regarding its eligibility for
the fueled, standard offer rate?
( c) Did TRC ever communicate in any fashion with A vista that it had a current ability to
generate more than 10 aMW in any given month under normal or average design
conditions? If the answer to the preceding question is "yes , please identify all such
communications, the persons involved, and provide all documentation that supports this
answer.
(d) Did TRC ever inform A vista that it would need to invest substantial additional
capital in its generating facilities for it to exceed 10 aMW in any given month? If the
answer to the preceding question is "yes , please identify those communications and all
persons involved and any documents provided to A vista.
REQUEST NO. 12:
On page 6 of Avista s answer, it identifies "many unresolved issues" between the parties. Listed
among them is the statement that "TRC would not give contract assurances to A vista that any
contract obligation to deliver power to NorthWestern had ceased or would cease." Please answer
the following questions about this statement:
(a) Did TRC tell you at any time that the contract with NorthWestern would continue
once A vista and TRC had consummated their QF agreement? If so, please identify
the communications, who the persons were that were involved, and provide all
documents that support A vista s interpretation that TRC told it that the NWE contract
would not terminate once TRC entered into a QF arrangement with Avista?
(b) When A vista states that TRC would not give "contract assurances " what does A vista
mean by the phrase "contract assurances?" Please explain. Did TRC give you verbal
or other written assurances? If so, why were such assurances inadequate? Did TRC
refuse to give such contract assurances at any point as part of any proposed contract?
Please explain the basis for your answer.
(c) Did Avista specifically request "contract assurances" from TRC, and did TRC
specifically turn down such a request? If so, please identify all such requests made
by A vista and refusals made by TRC and provide all documentation associated with
such requests and refusals?
(d) If TRC were to make such "contract assurances" today, would that resolve this issue
as far as A vista is concerned?
( e) Please provide draft "contract assurances" language that A vista believes is
appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 13:
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
On page 5 of Avista s complaint, Avista states that "(UJpon due diligence, Avista has been
unable to discover on file with FERC any filing that reports amendments to the TRC contract
with NorthWestern or reports a termination or withdrawal ofTRC's FERC approved market rate
based tariff or sale obligation under the Federal Power Act" Please answer the following
questions about this statement:
(a) When is a party with a market-based contract required to report changes to its market-
based tariff? When would such an obligation arise for a party still selling power at
the same volumes, etc., to the same party as it had been since the inception of its
filing? Please provide all supporting citations and or documentation for your
response.
(b) Assuming that TRC's market-based tariff filing is amended to reflect the termination
ofTRC's long-term power sales contract with Avista, would Avista s concern be
addressed?
(c) Is Avista s position that TRC may not be eligible for a QF contract until it files an
amendment to its market-based tariff at FERC? If so, please point to any decision by
FERC or the IPUC that supports this position.
(d) Is Avista s concern that TRC's power is committed elsewhere (i., to NWE) and may
not be available to Avista? If so, please explain whether TRC's written
representation that it will sell its electrical energy exclusively to A vista resolves
A vista s concerns?
(e) Is Avista s concern one regarding TRC's FERC market-based tariff? If so, what
jurisdiction does the IPUC have over that tariff? Ifnot, what exactly is Avista
concern? Explain the basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO. 14:
On page 6 of Avista s answer, it states: "TRC would not agree to Avista s proposals for
insurance and second lien provisions." Please answer the following questions regarding this
statement:
(a)Is it A vista s understanding that its insurance proposals were consistent with prior
IPUC decisions regarding insurance requirements for QFs? If so, please provide
the docket and order numbers of those decisions, the parties involved, the dates of
the decision, and the language relied upon by A vista. If your answer is that they
are not consistent, why is it appropriate for A vista to impose insurance
requirements that do not comport with limits previously set by the Commission?
(b)Is it Avista s understanding that it is customary industry practice for a utility to
have a second lien on QF property? If so, please identify all QFs that A vista
currently has a second lien with (or on the QF'property), and how this provision
was arrived at, and the precise language used in that contract?
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
(c)Is it Avista s testimony that it should have priority over other lien holders; for
example, other lenders and creditors of the QF? Does this include existing
lienholders and creditors of the QF? If it does include existing lienholders and
creditors, please explain how a QF may alter through contract its existing
obligations to lienholders and creditors, including a mechanism for how the QF
will obtain consent to such a subordination of those existing rights.
(d)Does A vista expect that existing creditors and lienholders would agree to
subordinate their rights to that of Avista? If so, please explain Avista
understanding of the motion of these existing creditors and lienholders to agree to
subordinate their rights to that of A vista? If not, how is TRC to effectuate such a
lien and why isn t a demand such as this by Avista unreasonable? Is Avista
aware of any statutory, common law, or other legal doctrines that the IPUC'
imposition of a contractual priority to subordinate the rights of non-party creditors
and lienholders would violate? Please explain the basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO. 15:
On page 10 of Avista s answer, it states that "TRC would not agree to transmitting its power to
alternative delivery points in the event that the transmission lines near Burke, Idaho that connect
NorthWestern s electric system in Montana with Avista s system in Idaho are unavailable to
transmit power from Montana to Idaho due to planned or unplanned operational reasons. . .
Please answer the following questions about this statement:
(a) Was it Avista s understanding that TRC refused to agree to the foregoing proposal at
all, or that TRC refused to pay for transmitting to another delivery point in the event
that the Burke delivery point was unavailable? If the answer is that it was that TRC
was unwilling to pay to have it delivered to another delivery point other than Burke
why should TRC pay for delivery to multiple delivery points? Why should TRC in
particular pay for delivery to multiple delivery points when the outage at Burke could
be due to Avista s own planned activities? More to the point, why should TRC pay at
all if the failure at Burke is Avista s fault?
(b) Is A vista aware of another QF that is paying for delivery to multiple points on its
transmission system? If so, please identify the QF, the contract language relied upon
and the multiple points to which that QF is obliged to deliver its electrical energy.
(c) Would Avista s concerns be allayed ifTRC agreed to deliver its power to another
delivery point at no expense to TRC if Burke were unavailable due to Avista s own
planned outage activity or due to Avista s own intentional, knowing, reckless, or
negligent conduct? If not, why not?
(d) Is it Avista s belief that the Idaho PUC has jurisdiction over the transmission
TRC's electrical energy over Northwestern s transmission system?
THOMPSON RNER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
REQUEST NO. 16:
On page 7 of its answer, A vista states that "TRC desired to be compensated by A vista for the
output of its project at those times that A vista was unable to receive the output from the project
due to planned or unplanned operational problems with the transmission lines near Burke
Idaho." Please answer the following questions about that statement:
(a)Is it standard industry practice for a utility to refuse to pay a QF for the utility
failure to have a delivery point available for deliveries? If so, please explain
Avista s understanding of the industry standard, where the IPUC could look to
find an example of this standard in practice, identify the utility(ies) and QF(s)
involved, and what contract language, if any, that A vista relies upon for this
conclusion.
(b)Is it Avista s standard practice to bill its non-QF generating sellers for
transmission deliveries to points that are unavailable due to Avista s own planned
or unplanned outages? What if the point is unavailable due to Avista s own
intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent conduct?
REQUEST NO. 17:
On page 7 of its answer, A vista states that "TRC would not agree to undertake proceedings
before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to have all costs of the purchase contract
attributable to Avista s retail rates in Idaho, in the event that such costs were not approved to be
a part of Avista s retail rates in Washington.Please answer the following questions about this
statement:
(a) On what basis does Avista assert that this proposed sale is subject to the jurisdiction
of any entity other than the IPUC? Explain the basis for your answer, including any
decisions by any regulatory authority or any court that would support a multi-
jurisdictional assignment of a proposed QF sale.
(b) Why would a proposed QF care whether a utility internally decided to attempt to
recover the costs of a proposed QF contract in one state or two or more? Isn t this
decision really an internal one made by the utility? On what basis would the WUTC
assert jurisdiction over a sale made to A vista at Burke in Idaho under the proposed
fueled, standard offer terms? Please explain the basis for your answer, including an
explanation of whether any of Avista s current QFs have their rates imbedded in
more than one state.
( c) Has A vista consulted the WUTC over whether it believes it would have jurisdiction
over TRC's proposed sale to Avista in Idaho under the standard offer rate? If not
why not?
(d) Were TRC to produce a letter from the WUTC disavowing any jurisdiction over
TRC's sale to Avista in Idaho under the Idaho fueled, standard offer rate, would that
obviate the necessity in Avista s mind for the above-quoted provision?
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
( e) Did TRC decline to assist A vista in obtaining Idaho-only rate approval, or did TRC
decline to admit that it believed that WUTC had any jurisdiction over this sale?
Please be specific in your answer, including the substance and date of the
conversation, the persons involved, and any documents substantiating Avista
version of events.
REQUEST NO. 18:
On page 7 of Avista s answer, it states that: "TRC would not agree that water would not be
appropriated from the Clark Fork River for use at its project in violation of Avista s down-steam
Montana water rights for the Noxon Dam:
(a) What jurisdiction or authority does the IPUC have over water right adjudications in
Montana? If the answer is none, why is it an appropriate subject matter for a QF
contract between a proposed QF and a utility? If the answer is that the IPUC does
have jurisdiction, please cite to any authority for this proposition.
(b) If the IPUC were to approve such a provision over TRC's objection, what authority
would the IPUC have to enforce that provision in Montana? Please be specific in
your answer. If the answer is that the IPUC would not have any authority, why would
it be relevant to a proceeding in front of the IPUC over a proposed QF contract?
( c) Did TRC in fact offer to settle its water right dispute with A vista, and A vista declined
to resolve same?
(d) Why did A vista choose to insert its water right dispute into a contract for a QF power
sale? Did A vista hope to use the QF contracting process as leverage to get TRC to
concede to the rectitude of A vista s position regarding its water rights?
REQUEST NO. 19:
18. On page 7 of Avista s answer it is further stated that "TRC would not agree to an
A vista right to terminate for failure to achieve minimum delivery requirements.
Please answer the following questions about this statement:
(a) Did TRC refuse to accept any provision that allowed Avista to terminate the
agreement due to TRC's failure to achieve any minimum delivery requirements, or
did TRC refuse to agree with Avista regarding the benchmarks for Avista s right to
terminate? Please be as specific as you can be.
(b) On what basis does A vista assert that it has a unilateral right to terminate the TRC
contract based on benchmarks unilaterally determined by A vista?
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
(c) Did TRC's last contract proposal to Avista provide Avista with termination rights in
the event that TRC failed to maintain certain generation benchmarks? If so, why are
those benchmarks less reasonable than the provisions proposed by A vista?
(d) If TRC agreed to a contract provision that provided A vista with termination rights
as opposed to the specific benchmarks for termination proposed by A vista - would
Avista s concern regarding TRC's alleged refusal to enter into such a provision be
allayed?
REQUEST NO. 20:
Again, on page 7 of its answer, A vista states
, "
TRC would not agree to an A vista right to
terminate the agreement for a failure to maintain a firm transmission path to a primary delivery
point." Please answer the following questions regarding this statement:
(a) Did TRC refuse to agree to any provision giving Avista the right to terminate in the
event that TRC failed to maintain firm transmission path to a primary delivery point, or
did TRC just resist agreeing to the precise language proposed by Avista? IfTRC merely
objected to the language proposed by A vista, why should A vista have the unilateral right
to determine the conditions on which A vista may terminate the agreement?
(b) Did TRC propose any language of its own regarding Avista s termination rights in its
proposed PP A? If so, identify any specific concerns Avista had with TRC's proposal and
explain why Avista s proposal is superior to TRC's proposal.
( c) Does the statement reference in A vista s answer above assume Burke is the delivery
point to which TRC must keep its transmission path intact? Or is A vista referring to any
delivery point? If the latter, please explain in detail how TRC is to maintain firm
transmission paths to more than one delivery point.
REQUEST NO. 21:
On page 7, A vista states "TRC limited its liability for losses that it might owe to third party
transmission providers to 4%, which would have the effect of displacing part of its liability for
transmission losses to Avista s customers." Please answer the following questions regarding this
statement:
(a) Please explain how transmission losses unaccounted for in a transmission agreement
between TRC and third-party transmission providers would be borne by Avista
customers.
(b) When A vista refers to "third-party transmission providers " is it referring to NWE?
If so, is it Avista s understanding that NWE will be the entity primarily responsible for
delivering TRC's electrical energy to Burke? If so, what is Avista s understanding of the
transmission arrangement between TRC and NWE? Would line losses exceed 4% under
such an agreement?
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
(c)Is A vista concerned that NWE would attempt to shift part of the transmission
losses associated with this agreement to NWE? Explain in detail the basis for
your answer.
REQUEST NO. 22:
On Avista s first affirmative defense, please provide all communications, documents, and any
other information that demonstrate the truth of this affirmative defense. Please be
comprehensive in your response.
REQUEST NO. 23;
On Avista s second affirmative defense, please provide all communications, documents, and any
other information that demonstrate the truth of this affirmative defense. Please be
comprehensive in your response.
REQUEST NO. 24:
On Avista s second affirmative defense, ifTRC produces documentation to Avista that TRC is
no longer obligated to sell power to NWE, would this allay Avista s concern that TRC is "not
ready or able to commit to supply power" to A vista?
REQUEST NO. 25:
On Avista s second affirmative defense, is it Avista s understanding that no party with a market-
based tariff may sell any electrical energy as a QF? Is it Avista s understanding that the market-
based tariff must be withdrawn? Would TRC withdrawing this tariff allay Avista s concern?
Please be specific in your answers.
REQUEST NO. 26:
Again, with respect to Avista's second affirmative defense, ifTRC were to withdraw its tariff
prior to the time it quit selling its power to a third party under a short-term agreement and prior
to the IPUC approval of a contract with TRC, wouldn t TRC be in jeopardy of violating FERC
statutory and regulatory provisions? If so, how would any party selling under any market-based
tariff ever be justified in withdrawing its market-based tariff in order to become a QF? Please
explain the basis for your answers.
REQUEST NO. 27:
On Avista s third affirmative defense, please provide all communications, documents, and any
other information that demonstrate the truth of this affirmative defense. Understand to be
exhaustive in your response.
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
How is Avista s third affirmative defense a response to TRC's complaint, as opposed to a
complaint about the rate at which the IPUC has calculated its avoided cost rates? Explain the
basis for your answer.
REQUEST NO. 29:
;::. -. -, .
On Avista s fifth affirmative defense, please provide all communications, documents, and any
other information that demonstrate the truth of this affirmative defense. Remember to be
exhaustive in your answer.
REQUEST NO. 30:
On Avista s fifth affirmative defense, please explain why this is a defense to TRC's specific
contract instead of a complaint about the Commission s prior decision to use a natural gas-fired
combined cycle turbine project as a surrogate resource for its fueled, standard offer rate. Explain
the basis for your answer
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 31st DA OF 0
By:
Peter J. Richardson
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN'S
FIRST SET OF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS TO A VISTA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 31 st day of October, 2005, the THOMPSON RIVER
CO-GEN'S FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF A VISTA was sent to the following parties as
shown:
Jean Jewell
Comnlission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
i i ewell~puc. state. id. us
(X) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Scott Woodbury
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
swoodbury~puc.state.id. us
(X) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
David J. Meyer
Vice President, Chief Counsel for
Regulatory & Governmental Affairs
A vista Corporation
PO Box 3727
Spokane W A 99220-3727
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
(X) Facsimile
( )
Electronic Mail
Kelly o. Norwood
Vice President, State & Federal Regulation
A vista Corporation
PO Box 3727
Spokane W A 99220
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
(X) Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( )
Electronic Mail
Signed :n illI-J'f\ \\Is
Nina M. Curtis
THOMPSON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -