HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110421RNP to AVU 1.pdf(208) 343-7500
(208) 336-6912 (Fax)
McDevitt & Miller LLP
Lawyers
420 W. Bannock Street R E eEl V ED
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 8370iZnJ' APR 2 I PH 2: 45
Chas. F. McDevitt
Dean J. (Joe) Miler
Apri 21, 2011
Via Hand Delivery
Jean Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utities Comnssion
472 W. Washigton St.
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re: Renewable Nortwest Project-GNR-E-11-01
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for fig in the above matter, please fid thee (3) copies of Renewable Northwest
Project's Response to the First Production Request of Avista Corporation.
Kidly retu a fie stamped copy to me.
Very Truy Yours,
McDevitt & Mier UP~t!
Dean J. Mier
DJM/hh
Enclosures
t:i
,
RECEIVED Cop~r
2Dll APR 21 PM 2: 46
Dean J. Miler (ISB No. 1968)
Chas. F. McDevitt (ISB No. 835)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 W. Banock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel: 208-343-7500
Fax: 208-336-6912
joeCfmcdevitt -miler. com
Attorneys for Renewable Northwest Project
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S INVESTIGA nON
INTO DISAGGREGATION AND AN
APPROPRITE PUBLISHED
AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY
CAP STRUCTURE
Case No. GNR-E-ll-Ol
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST
PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF A VISTA
CORPORATION
COMES NOW, Renewable Northwest Project, and in response to the First Production
Request of A vista Corporation, herewith submits the following information:
Request No.1: Exhibit 1905 to the Direct Testimony of Megàn Decker on behalf ofthe
Renewable Nortwest Project is entitled "Questions for determining when energy projects are
separate projects" ("Exhibit 1905").
a) Was Exhibit 1905 adopted, in whole or in par, by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting
Council ("EFSEC" (sic)), the Oregon Public Utilities Commission ("OPUC") or any
other regulatory agency?
b) If the answer to subpar ( a) of this request is yes, please identify which regulatory
agency(ies) adopted Exhbit 1905, either in whole or in part.
c) If the answer to subpar (a) of ths request is yes, when was Exhibit 1905 adopted, in
whole or in par, by each regulatory agency identified in subpar (b) of this request as an
agency that has adopted, in whole or in par, Exhibit 1905?
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRT PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -1
~
,
d) Please state for each question in Exhbit 1905, whether RNP would support such question
being included in a list of eligibility critera for Idaho published avoided cost rates for
PURP A QFs. Please fully explain your reasoning for supporting or not supporting the
inclusion of each question in Exhbit 1905 on a list of eligibility critera for Idaho
Published avoided cost rates for PURP A QFs.
Response to Request No.1:
a) No. As I stated in my Direct Testimony (Page 7, Lines 18-20), the questions were
"once used informally" by agency staff to "obtain information (about) a specific
project." I understand that the questions were fuher discussed at a meeting ofthe
Oregon Energy Facilty Siting Council on April 18, 2008, but were not ever formally
adopted.
b) The answer to subpar (a) is "no," so no fuher response is required.
. c) The answer to subpar (a) is "no," so no fuer response is required.
d) As I stated in my Direct Testimony (page 2, Lines 17-20), the purose of my
testimony was to share research about a wide varety of different methods used in
different contexts to answer questions about aggregation. I fuer stated: "Each of
these examples provides helpful background in thinkng about how the Commission
should determine eligibilty for published rates. However, most of the methods and
project characteristics used in these examples are motivated by quite different policy
goals than the one facing the Commission: namely, to ensure that access to published
rates is limited to projects that require the greatest level of assistance in eliminating
transaction costs and other market barers." (Decker, Di- Page 8, Lines 1-6.) I
fuher stated: "For enforcing the PURP A published rate threshold, where the
rationale for published rates is drven by the QF's level of economic and bargaining
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRT PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
A VISTA CORPORATION -2
I
power, the most importt characterstics may be financial in natue: beneficial
ownership, financing, cost and revenue sharng, combined purchases of generating
equipment, and combined constrction contracts. However, because each of those
factors could be relatively easy to obscure with extra paperwork and possibly diffcult
to determine at the time of initial contracting, a distance factor between projects may
be a necessar addition to the framework." (Decker, Di - Page 12, Lines 4-11.) In
addition to explaining that underlying policy.goals would deterine the relative
importance of different criteria, I also explained that the appropriateness of any
criteria would depend on the method in which they were to be applied. (Decker, Di -
Page 10, Line 22- Page 11, Line 19.)
My direct testimony, therefore, makes clear that I do not support using a list of
discretionar questions employed to gather information on aggregation for a different
policy purose, and which contains no methodology appropriate to PURP A
contracting, to determine eligibilty for published rates in Idaho. Indeed, without
knowing the process for applying any paricular criterion, I canot say whether I
would support its use in determining eligibility for Idaho published rates. My Direct
Testimony does detail some criteria that I believe would be appropriate, subject to an
acceptable methodology. (Decker, Di - Page 12, Lines 4-11.)
Despite the redundancy between answering Request No. l(d) and my direct
testimony, I have addressed each of the fifteen questions below. Where my Direct
Testimony does not address whether a question would be an appropriate criterion for
determining eligibility for published rates in Idaho, the question calls for a new
statement of opinion or policy contrar to Idaho PUC Rule of Procedure 225(01)(a),
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -3
\¡
which states: "Production requests or written interogatories should not be used to
obtain statements of opinion or policy not previously wrtten or published and may be
objected to on that ground." I have nonetheless provided brief responses to each
question.
i. Ownership. I have stated that an ownership criterion that considers parent
company relationships would be appropriate. (Decker, Di - Page 12, Line 7; Page
13, Line 6.)
2. Geographic Proximity. I have stated that a defined distance criterion would be
appropriate. (Decker, Di - Page 12, Lines 8-11.)
3. Project Site. I do not believe that the concept of "project site" is sufficiently well
defined to be helpful in addition to a distance criterion. This question calls for a
new statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC Rule of Procedure
225(01)(a).
4. Transmission Infastructure. I explained in my Direct Testimony that shared
infrastrctue should be encouraged and should not be a threshold criterion for
denying eligibility for published rates, but could be a minor par of an appropriate
framework if other, more signficant factors were also present. (Decker, Di -
Page 13, Lines 20-23-Page 14, Lines 1-4.)
5. Shared Supporting Facilities. I explained in my Direct Testimony that shared
infrastrctue should be encouraged and should not be a theshold criterion for
denying eligibility for published rates, but could be a minor par of an appropriate
framework if other, more significant factors were also present. (Decker, Di -
Page 13, Lines 20-23-Page 14, Lines 1-4.)
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRT PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTA CORPORATION -4
,~,
6. Shared Control Facilities. Sharng of control facilities could be one of a varety
of perinent factors, assuming an appropriate framework for applying the factors,
but as with other infrastrctue-related factors should not be a sole or primar
determinant of size or single project status. This question calls for a new
statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC Rule of Procedure 225(01 )(a).
7. Power Output Decisions & Personnel. Because local owners of small projects
generally do not have the expertise to operate renewable energy projects
independently, and because there are a limited number of serce providers
available to serve such projects, a factor concerning sharing power output
personnel is not a helpful way to determine whether two small projects are lined.
This question calls for a new statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC
Rule of Procedure 225(01)(a).
8. Operational Decisions & Personnel. Because local owners of small projects
generally do not have the experise to operate renewable energy projects
independently, and because there are a limited number of service providers
available to serve such projects, a factor concerng sharng operational personnel
is not a helpful way to determine whether two small projects are linked. This
question calls for a new statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC Rule of
Procedure 225(0l)(a).
9. Shared Operations & Maintenance Staff Because local owners of small projects
generally do not have the expertise to operate renewable energy projects
independently, and because there are a limited number of serice providers
available to serve such projects, a factor concerning sharng power output
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -5
'"
personnel is not a helpful way to deterine whether two small projects are linked.
This question calls for a new statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC
Rule of Procedure 225(01)(a).
10. Same Power Output Market. Existence of the same or different markets would
not be relevant in deterining whether a utility should pay published rates,
because the question would always be whether the utility acquiring the power -
i.e., a single market - must offer published rates to the project/projects under
consideration. This question calls for a new statement of opinion or policy
contrary to IPUC Rule of Procedure 225(01)(a).
Ii. Power Marketing. Shared or independent power marketing would not a relevant
issue for projects that are not marketing power broadly, but rather seeking
PURP A contracts with the utility to which they interconnect. This question calls
for a new statement of opinion or policy contrar to IPUC Rule of Procedure
225(01)(a).
12. Shared Power Sales Contracts. As I stated in my direct testimony, shared power
sales contracts and marketing "is not as relevant for PURP A regulation, as each
QF by definition has a separate PP A with the utility(.)" (Decker, Di - Page 9,
Lines 11-13.)
13. Common Financing. As I stated in my direct testimony, "where the rationale for
published rates is drven by the QF's level of economic and bargaining power, the
most important characteristics may be financial in natue," including
interdependent or shared financing arangements. (Decker, Di - Page 12, Lines
5-7.) (By this, I do not mean sharng the same lender; I mean sharng the same
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
A VISTA CORPORATION -6
financing package, such that the financing terms are dependent on the projects
being linked.) I also indicated, however, that it would be important to find a
method for evaluating combined financial arangements that did not require
projects to compromise proprietar information. (Decker, Di - Page 14, Lines 8-
16.)
14. Transmission Agreements. Sharng of transmission agreements could be one of a
varety of pertinent factors, assuming an appropriate framework for applying the
factors. This question calls for a new statement of opinion or policy contrar to
IPUCRule of Procedure 225(01)(a).
15. Other Relevant Information. The final question asks what other information
would support a conclusion that the projects are distinct. As I discussed above
and in my direct testimony, I understand these questions to have been used for the
purose of gathering information from projects, not strctly as criteria. To the
extent that this question can be understood as an open-ended criterion, I explained
in my Direct Testimony that, if the purchasing utility is to make the initial
deterination, I do not believe that open-ended, purely discretionar criteria
would be appropriate but that more discretion could be appropriate for the
Commission. (Decker, Di - Page 11, Lines 8-19.)
DATED this .'2 \ day of April, 2011.
McDEVITT & MILLER, LLP
~~)I
\
Attorney for Renewable Northwest Project
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the ~ay of April, 2011, I caused to be served, via the method(s)
indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, il 83720-0074
j j ewell((uc.statejd. us
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Donovan Walker
Lisa Nordstrom
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, il 83720-0074
dwalker(fidahopower.com
lnordstrom(fidahopower.com
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Donald L. Howell, II
Krstine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
POBox 83720
Boise, il 83720-0074
don.howeiicquc.idaho.gov
kris.sasser((uc.idaho. gov
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Michael Co Andrea
A visita Utilities
P.O. Box 3727
1411 E. Mission Ave
Spokane, W A 99220-3727
Michael.andrea(favistacorp.com
fiù
~'-
~'-
~'-
~'-Ù
~'-
~'-X
ù
~'-ÙÙjL
Hand Delivered ~'-
U.S. Mail ~'-
Fax ~'-
Fed. Express ~'-
Email ;L
Hand Delivered ~'-
U.S. Mail ~'-
Fax ~'-
Fed. Express ~'-
Email ~
Daniel Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
One Utah Center
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 8411 1
daniel.solander(fpacificorp.com
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -8
Ken Kaufian Hand Delivered ~'-
Lonvinger Kaufman, LLP U.S. Mail ~'-
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925 Fax ~'-
Portland, OR 97232 Fed. Express ~'-
Kaufmantilklaw.com Email )L
Ted S. Sorenson, P.E.Hand Delivered ~'-
Birch Power Company U.S. Mail ~'-
5203 South 11 ti East Fax ~'-
Idaho Falls, il 83404 Fed. Express ~'-
tedtitsorenson.net;Email )i
Ronald L. Wiliams Hand Delivered ~'-
Wiliams Bradbur U.S. Mail ~'-
1015 W. Hays Street Fax ~'-
Boise, il 83702 Fed. Express ~'-
rontiwiliamsbradbury.com Email )L
Greg Femey Hand Delivered ~'-
Mimura Law Offce U.S. Mail ~'-
2176 E. Franlin Road Fax ~'-
Meridian, il 83642 Fed. Express ~'-
greg(fmimuralaew.com Email ~
Thomas H. Nelson Hand Delivered ~'-
P.O. Box 1211 U.S. Mail ~'-
Welches, OR 97067 Fax ~'-
nelson(ithelson.com Fed. Express ~'-
Email ~
Shelly Davis Hand Delivered ~'-
Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP U.S. Mail ~'-
1010 W. Jefferson, Suite 102 Fax ~'-
P.O. Box 2139 Fed: Express ~'-
Boise, il 83701-2139 Email ~
brs(iidahowaters.com
Robert D. Kahn Hand Delivered ~'-
Executive Director U.S. Mail ~'-
Northwest and Intermountan Power Fax ~'-
Producers Coalition Fed. Express ~
)L1 17 Minor Ave., Suite 300 Email
Seattle, W A 9810 1
rkah(inippc.org
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -9
"
Don Sturtevant Hand Delivered .\-
Energy Director .U.S. Mail .\-
J.R. Simp10t Company Fax .\-
PO Box 27 Fed. Express
.\-
Boise, il 83707-0027 Email jLdon.sturtevantßYsimplot.com
Robert A. Paul Hand Delivered .\-
Grand View Solar II U.S. Mail .\-
15960 Vista Circle Fax .\-
Desert Hot Springs, CA Fed. Express .\-
robertapaulßYgmail.com Email ~
James Carku1is Hand Delivered .\-
Managing Member U.S. Mail .\-
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC Fax .\-
802 W. Banock S1., Suite 1200 Fed. Express .\-
Boise, il 83702 Email )AjcarkulisßYexergydevelopmen1.com
Scott Montgomery Hand Delivered .\-
President U.S. Mail .\-
Cedar Creek Wind, LLC Fax .\-
668 Rockwood Dr.Fed. Express .\-
North Salt Lake, UT 84054 Email :YscottßYwestemenergy.us
Dana Zentz Hand Delivered .\-
Vice President U.S. Mail .\-
Summit Power Group, Inc.Fax .\-
2006 E. Westminster Fed. Express .\-
Spokane, W A 99223 Email )ldzentzßYsummitpower.com
JohnR. Lowe Hand Delivered .\-
Consultant to Renewable Energy Coalition U.S. Mail .\-
12050 SW Tremont S1.Fax .\-
Portland, OR 97225 Fed. Express .\-
jravensanmarcosßYyahoo.com Email K-
Bil Piske, Manager Hand Delivered .\-
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC U.S. Mail .\-
1303 E. Carter Fax .\-
Boise, il 83706 Fed. Express .\-
. bilpiskeßYcableone.net Email /L
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRT PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -10
Wade Thomas Hand Delivered .\-
General Counsel U.s. Mail .\-
Dynamis Energy, LLC Fax .\-
776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15 Fed. Express .\-
Eagle, il 836 16 Email ;L
wthomasßYdynamisenergy.com
Brian Olmstead Hand Delivered .\-
General Manager U.S. Mail .\-
Twin Falls Canal Company Fax .\-
POBox 326 Fed. Express .\-
Twin Falls, il 83303 Email j¿
o lmstead'ftfcanal.com
Ted DieW Hand Delivered .\-
General Manager U.S. Mail .\-
North Side Canal Company Fax .\-
921 N. Lincoln St.Fed. Express .\-
Jerome, il 83338 Email rnscanal'fcableone.net
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams Hand Delivered .\-
Richardson & O'Lear, PLLC U.S. Mail .\-
PO Box 7218 Fax .\-
Boise, il 83702 Fed. Express .\-
peterßYrichardsonandolear.com Email )L
greg(irichardsonandoleary.com
Bil Brown, Chair Hand Delivered .\-
Board of Commssioners of Adams County U.S. Mail .\-
PO Box 48 Fax .\-
Council, il 83612 Fed. Express .Jibdbrown(ifrontier .net Email
MJ. Humphres Hand Delivered .\-
Blue Ribbon Energy, LLC U;S. Mail .\-
4515 S. Amon Road Fax .\-
Aumon, Idao 83406 Fed. Express .\-
blueribbonenergyßYgmail.com Email ~
Aaron F. Jepson Hand Delivered .\-
Blue Ribbon Energy, LLC U.S. Mail .\-
10660 South 540 East Fax .\-
Sandy, UT84070 Fed. Express .\-
aronesq(iao1.com Email ,t.
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FffST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTACORPORATION -11
Gar Seifert Hand Delivered ~'-
Kurt Meyers U.S. Mail ~'-
Idaho National Lab Conventional Fax ~'-
Renewable Energy Group Fed. Express ~'-
2525 Fremont, Ave.Email ¥-Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3810
Gary.Seifertcmin1.gov; Kurt.Meyerscmin1.gov
Benjamin J. Otto Hand Delivered ~'-
710 N. 6th Street U.S. Mail ~'-
P.O. Box 844 Fax ~'-
Boise, ID 83701 Fed. Express ~'-
bottocmidahoconservation.org Email ¡)
Glen Ikemoto Hand Delivered ~'-
Margaret Rueger U.S. Mail ~'-
Idaho Windfans, LLC Fax ~'-
672 Blair Avenue Fed. Express ~'-
Piedmont, CA 94611 Email ~glennicmenvisionwind.com
Margaret(ienvisionwind.com
MJ. Humpheries Hand Delivered ~'-
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC U.S. Mail ~'-
4515 S. Amon Road Fax ~'-
Ammon, ID 83406 Fed. Express ~'-
blueribbonenergycm gmail. com Email -)
BY~~il¡
M EVIIT & MILLER LLP
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
AVISTA CORPORATION -12