Loading...
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