20110624IPC to Staff 1-5.pdf

DONOVAN E.WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwaIker(idahopower.com
RE CE V E E
jtjt 23 Fi ii:52
—
HO
PIVER®
An DACORP Company
June23,2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D.Jewell,Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
Re:Case No.IPC-E-11-09
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FIRM ENERGY SALES
AGREEMENT WITH CLARK CANYON,LLC,FOR THE SALE AND
PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY
Dear Ms.Jewell:
Enclosed for filing please find an original and three (3)copies of Idaho Power
Company’s Response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff to Idaho
Power Company in the above matter.
DEW:csb
Enclosures
iy yours,
Donovan E.Walker
1221 W.Idaho St.(83702)
P.O.Box 70
Boise,ID 83707
Very
RE CE ‘E”DONOVAN E.WALKER (ISB No.5921)
JASON B.WILLIAMS
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O.Box 70
Boise,Idaho 83707
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
dwaIker(idahopower.com
iwilIiams2idahopower.com
2fl1 JIJH 23 PH L:52
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE
FIRM ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT WITH
CLARK CANYON,LLC,FOR THE SALE
AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.
CASE NO.IPC-E-11-09
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S
RESPONSE TO THE FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF
)THE COMMISSION STAFF TO
)IDAHO POWER COMPANY
)
COMES NOW,Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power”or “Company”),and in
response to the First Production Request of the Commission Staff to Idaho Power
Company dated June 2,2011,herewith submits the following information:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -1
)
)
)
)
)
)
REQUEST NO.1:Please provide a copy of the Environmental Attributes
agreement between Idaho Power and Clark Canyon LLC referred to in Section 8.1 of
the Firm Energy Sales Agreement.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1:Please see the attached Agreement for
Transfer of Ownership of Environmental Attributes.
The response to this Request was prepared by Donovan E.Walker,Lead
Counsel,Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -2
REQUEST NO.2:This Firm Energy Sales Agreement appears to be the first for
Idaho Power in which a separate agreement has been executed concerning
Environmental Attributes.Please explain why a separate agreement for Environmental
Attributes was executed.Please generally describe the ownership arrangement and
financial considerations between the parties as reflected in the Environmental Attributes
agreement.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2:With regard to Environmental Attributes,or
Renewable Energy Certificates (“RECs”),and Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (“PURPA”)contracts,the Commission has stated,“The utility and the QFs are free
to voluntarily contract and negotiate the sale and purchase of such green tags should
environmental attributes be perceived by the contracting parties to have value.The
price of the same we find,however,is not a PURPA cost and is not recoverable as such
by the Company.”Case No.IPC-E-04-16,Order No.29577,p.6.Idaho Power initially
proposed reservation of rights language for the contract that would preserve for Idaho
Power and its customers the right in this contract should the rules,regulations,laws,or
legal status as to the ownership of RECs in PURPA contracts be clarified or changed to
abide by such change in law.As an alternative to this reservation of rights,the parties
saw a mutual value to both the project and to Idaho Power and its customers in
clarifying the ownership of RECs and negotiated the separate agreement whereby the
project retains all RECs for the first ten years of the contract and Idaho Power owns all
RECs for the last ten years of the contract.There is no monetary payment for RECs in
the agreement.The project receives clarification as to ownership and retains RECs for
the first ten years to obtain what value it can to help offset development costs,etc.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -3
Furthermore,Idaho Power and its customers receive clarification as to the ownership
and get ownership of all RECs for the last ten years to either obtain what value it can for
the RECs,which flows back to customers,or retire such RECs in order to claim the
environment attributes of the energy on its system or to meet possible future renewable
portfolio standards.A separate agreement was executed,as opposed to including all
terms and conditions within the PURPA agreement,because that was the preference of
the project.
The response to this Request was prepared by Donovan E.Walker,Lead
Counsel,Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -4
REQUEST NO.3:Please provide a map showing the location of the proposed
point of interconnection (Peterson substation)in relation to the location of the Clark
Canyon facility and any other utility substations and transmission facilities of 69 kV and
higher.Please clearly identify those facilities owned by Idaho Power and those owned
by other utilities.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3:The requested map is attached hereto.
Please note that north is to the top of the map.The solid colored lines running off the
map to the west from Bannock and Peterson are Idaho Power lines.The dashed lines
are owned by other utilities.The purple dashed line,furthest to the east,as well as the
dashed pink line running between Bannock and the purple dashed line on this map are
Northwestern lines.The orange dashed line is the AMPS line,owned by Northwestern
and PacifiCorp.Clark Canyon has proposed to build its own line from its project to
interconnect with Idaho Power at Idaho Power’s Peterson substation.
The information in the response to this Request was prepared by Jared Hansen,
Engineer II,T&D Planning,Idaho Power Company,in consultation with Donovan E.
Walker,Lead Counsel,Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -5
REQUEST NO.4:Please provide a copy of the transmission feasibility study
and any other transmission studies completed for this project.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:A copy of the Feasibility Study Report is
attached hereto.No System Impact Study was needed.The Facility Study is underway
and is due from Idaho Power by July 22,2011.
The response to this Request was prepared by Donovan E.Walker,Lead
Counsel,Idaho Power Company.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -6
REQUEST NO.5:Reference the following prior Commission Cases and
associated Orders:
IPC-E-92-29 Earth Power Energy and Minerals,Inc.vs.Idaho Power
Company;Order Nos.25174,25249
UPL-E-93-4 Island Power Company,Inc.vs.PacifiCorp,dba Utah Power
&Light Company;Order Nos.25245,25528
WWP-E-94-6 Vaagen Bros.Lumber,Inc.vs.The Washington Water
Power Company;Order No.25176
Please discuss whether Idaho Power considered any of these cases and orders
in determining whether:
a.The Idaho Commission has jurisdictional authority to approve a PURPA
agreement for a facility not located in Idaho and not delivering power to an substation
located in Idaho,and
b.Whether Clark Canyon is entitled to published avoided cost rates in Idaho
when the facility is not located in Idaho and does not deliver power to a substation
located in Idaho.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5:The cases cited above establish that the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)has jurisdictional authority over
PURPA matters beyond the borders of the state of Idaho.The Commission has
established that it has federally derived jurisdiction pursuant to PURPA over any utility
that it has ratemaking authority over.Additionally,the Commission has stated that this
federally derived jurisdiction over a multi-state utility may exist concurrently with other
state regulatory authorities that also have ratemaking authority over the utility.Through
the cases cited above,the Commission has discussed certain circumstances where it
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -7
determines whether it will elect to exercise that jurisdiction or not.Idaho Power believes
these cases result in the simplest answer to both a.and b.above being “yes.”
The Earth Power case,IPC-E-92-29,Order Nos.25174 and 25249,concerned a
project and interconnection located in the state of Nevada attempting to enter into a
PURPA contract with Idaho Power pursuant to the Idaho Commission’s rules,
regulations,and rates for PURPA Qualifying Facilities (“QFs”).At that time,Idaho
Power had retail electric service territory in both the state of Idaho and Nevada,and
was under the regulatory jurisdiction of both the Idaho and Nevada Commissions.The
Idaho Commission stated that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the Nevada
Commission,and initially declined to exercise such jurisdiction and deferred to the
Nevada Commission.The Commission discussed that its PURPA jurisdiction is derived
from federal law,which is not bounded by geographic limits.The Commission also
referenced the series of four different Idaho Supreme Court Afton Energy cases as
support for its decision.Order No.25174 at p.7,citing Afton Energy,Inc.,v.Idaho
Power Co.,107 Idaho 781,693 P.2d 427 (1984);111 Idaho 925,729 P.2d 400 (1986);
114 Idaho 852,761 P.2d 1204 (1988);122 Idaho 333,834,P.2d 850 (1992).Noting
Afton’s location in the state of Wyoming,the Commission stated:
The circumstances were different in Afton as compared to
Earth Power because Idaho Power Company did not have a
service territory in Wyoming that was regulated by the
Wyoming Public Service Commission.Therefore,the
Wyoming Commission did not have the jurisdiction conferred
by PURPA.This distinction does not relate to the question
whether we have jurisdiction.However,it did mean that
there could be no issue of whether we should exercise our
jurisdiction in that case.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -8
Both parties agree,and we concur,that the Nevada Public
Service Commission has jurisdiction concurrent with ours to
determine the rates for the Earth Power project and to
resolve disputes between the parties.Our record shows that
the Nevada PSC is actively asserting its jurisdiction.In this
circumstance,when a project is located within another state
and when the commission in that state is exercising the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by PURPA,we find that we
should decline to assert our jurisdiction.In circumstances
such as these we will assert our jurisdiction only if the
commission of the other state declined for some reason to
exercise its jurisdiction.We also emphasize that we will not
be a forum for relitigation of issues ultimately decided by the
Nevada PSC.We will not entertain requests that we
second-guess the decision of another commission.
Order No.25174,pp.7-8 (emphasis in original).Upon the Nevada Commission’s
subsequent dismissal of Earth Power’s pending case before it and its deferral to the
Idaho Commission,Idaho chose to then exercise its jurisdiction.
The Island Power case,UPL-E-93-4,Order Nos.25245 and 25528,concerned a
Montana QF proposing to sell its output to PacifiCorp (“UP&L”)pursuant to the Idaho
Commission’s rules,regulations,and rates for PURPA QFs.Similar to the facts in Earth
Power,UP&L had retail electric service territory in both the state of Montana and Idaho,
and was under the regulatory jurisdiction of both the Idaho and Montana Commissions.
However,unlike Earth Power,Island Power proposed to wheel its output from Montana
to either the Jefferson or Goshen substations,and make delivery to UP&L inside the
state of Idaho.The Idaho Commission found that it had jurisdiction,and under these
facts,that it would exercise such jurisdiction to require UP&L to contract with the QF
pursuant to Idaho rules,regulations,and rates.The Commission stated that it found it
reasonable to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter because,although the project is
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -9
sited in Montana,the proposed point of delivery to UP&L is in Idaho where the Idaho
Commission has established avoided cost rates for UP&L.
The Vaagen Brothers case,WWP-E-94-6,concerned a QF project located in the
state of Washington,with an interconnection to Washington Water Power (“WWP”)in
the state of Washington.Vaagen Brothers had a 1979 power sales agreement with
WWP that had expired in 1994.Vaagen Brothers filed a complaint with the Idaho
Commission seeking a contract with WWP pursuant to the Idaho avoided cost
methodology and rates.WWP had retail electric service territory in both the state of
Washington and Idaho,and was under the regulatory jurisdiction of both the Idaho and
Washington Commissions.Under the facts of this case,the Commission found that it
had concurrent jurisdiction with Washington,but that it would decline to exercise such
jurisdiction and defer to Washington.The Commission distinguished this case from the
Earth Power and Island Power cases stating,“Vaagen is an existing facility sited in the
Washington service territory of the utility that it wishes to sell to,the Washington Water
Power Company.The established point of delivery is in the state of Washington.”The
Commission further stated that the Washington Commission had established a
regulatory framework for PURPA in Washington,and that although Idaho did have
concurrent jurisdiction with the Washington Commission,“common sense dictates that
there are some instances when we should elect not to exercise our jurisdiction.”
Clark Canyon is somewhat different than the other three cases discussed above.
Clark Canyon is a QF located in the state of Montana with a point of interconnection to
Idaho Power’s facilities in the state of Montana.However,Idaho Power has no retail
electric service territory in the state of Montana and therefore the Montana Commission
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -10
has no regulatory framework for PURPA that is applicable to Idaho Power.Clark
Canyon is delivering its power to Idaho Power’s facility at Idaho Power’s Peterson
substation,where it directly interconnects with Idaho Power.Although Idaho Power’s
Peterson substation is located in the state of Montana,there is not a different
interconnecting utility and subsequent wheel of the power in order to reach Idaho
Power.Under these facts,and pursuant to the direction provided by the previously
discussed Commission Orders above,Idaho Power is of the opinion that the Idaho
Commission would find that it has jurisdiction in this matter and,additionally,that it
would choose to exercise that jurisdiction to require a PURPA contract under Idaho’s
rules,regulations,and rates applicable to PURPA.
The response to this Request was prepared by Donovan E.Walker,Lead
Counsel,Idaho Power Company.
DATED at Boise,Idaho,this 23 day of June 2011.
DONOVAN E.WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of June 2011 I served a true and
correct copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
THE FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO
POWER COMPANY upon the following named parties by the method indicated below,
and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
____Hand
Delivered
Kristine A.Sasser X U.S.Mail
Deputy Attorney General
____Overnight
Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
____FAX
472 West Washington X Email Kris.Sasserpuc.idaho.gov
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
Clark Canyon,LLC
____Hand
Delivered
Kim L.Johnson X U.S.Mail
Executive Vice President,Business
____Overnight
Mail
Development
____FAX
Clark Canyon Hydro,LLC X Email kim.johnson(riverbankpower.com
do Symbiotics,LLC
2000 South Ocean Boulevard #703
DeIRay Beach,Florida 33438
Peter J.Richardson
____Hand
Delivered
Gregory M.Adams X U.S.Mail
RICHARDSON &O’LEARY,PLLC
___Overnight
Mail
515 North 27th Street
____FAX
P.O.Box 7218 X Email peter(richardsonandolearv.com
Boise,Idaho 83702 qreQ(richardsonandoleary.com
Donovan E.Walker
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY -12
5
m Co
I 0
oz
-o
Cl
)
C)
C
m
I
W
o
Cl
)
I-
-o
m
w
CU
)
0
Z
0
(1
)
>
m
—
I
_I
_
1
0
-o
if
i
z-
f
l
C)
—
•
m
0C1
)
V
0
i;
n
I
-
m
—
-o
•
o
0
z
CD
V
C
-<
C)
Cl
)
Cl
)
0z
z
AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES
This Agreement for Transfer of Ownership of Environmental Attributes (“Agreement”)is
entered into this
_____
of ,2011,between Clark Canyon,LLC,an Idaho Limited
Liability Company,(“Clark Canyon”)and Idaho Power Company,an Idaho corporation
(“Idaho Power”or “Company”),hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the “Parties”or
individually as a “Party.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,Clark Canyon is the owner and operator of a to-be-built 4.7 megawatt
(“MW”)small hydro generation project.
WHEREAS,the Parties entered into that certain Firm Energy Sales Agreement between
Clark Canyon,LLC and Idaho Power Company dated
___________,
2011 whereby Idaho
Power would purchase the energy output of the Facility.
WHEREAS,the FESA Article 8 specifies that ownership of Environmental Attributes is
determined by a separate agreement;
WHEREAS,the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to transfer the ownership of
the Environmental Attributes that result from electric generation at the Facility beginning in
Contract Year eleven (11)ofthe FESA.
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,the
Parties agree as follows:
1.Definitions.The following term as used in this Agreement shall be defined as
follows:
1
1.1.“Environmental Attributes”means any and all credits,benefits,emissions
reductions,offsets,and allowances,howsoever entitled,attributable to the generation
from the Facility,and its avoided emission of pollutants.Environmental Attributes
include but are not limited to:(1)any avoided emission of pollutants to the air,soil or
water such as sulfur oxides (SOx),nitrogen oxides (NOx),carbon monoxide (CO)and
other pollutants;(2)any avoided emissions of carbon dioxide (C02),methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide,hydrofluorocarbons,perfiuorocarbons,sulfur hexafluoride and other
greenhouse gases (GHGs)that have been determined by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,or otherwise by law,to contribute to the
actual or potential threat of altering the Earth’s climate by trapping heat in the
atmosphere;(3)the reporting rights to these avoided emissions,such as and without
limitation,REC (as that term is defined herein)reporting rights.REC reporting rights are
the right of a REC owner or purchaser to report the ownership of accumulated RECs in
compliance with federal or state law,if applicable,and to a federal or state agency or any
other party at the REC owner’s/purchaser’s discretion,and includes,without limitation,
those REC reporting rights accruing under Section 1605(b)of The Energy Policy Act of
1992 and any present or future federal,state,or local law,regulation or bill,and
international or foreign emissions trading program.Environmental Attributes are
accumulated on a MWh basis and one REC represents the Environmental Attributes
associated with one (1)megawatt hour (“MWh)of energy.Environmental Attributes do
not include (i)any energy,capacity,reliability or other power attributes from the Facility,
(ii)production tax credits associated with the construction or operation of the Facility and
other financial incentives in the form of credits,reductions,or allowances associated with
2
the Facility that are applicable to a state or federal income taxation obligation,(iii)the
cash grant in lieu of the investment tax credit pursuant to Section 1603 of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,or (iv)emission reduction credits encumbered
or used by the Facility for compliance with local,state,or federal operating and/or air
quality permits.
1.2.“Contract Year”shall have the same meaning as defined in the FESA.
1.3.“Facility”shall have the same meaning as defined in the FESA.
1.4.“Renewable Energy Certificate”or “REC”means a certificate,renewable
energy credit or any other credit,allowance,Green Tag,or other transferable indicia,
howsoever entitled,indicating generation of all renewable energy by the Facility,as
determined by any and all federal and/or state law or regulation,and includes all
Environmental Attributes arising as a result of the generation of electricity by the
Facility.One REC represents the Environmental Attributes associated with the
generation of one thousand (1,000)kWh of Net Energy (as that term is defined in the
FESA).
2.For good and valuable consideration receipt of which the Parties hereby
acknowledge,Clark Canyon agrees to transfer to Idaho Power ownership of all Environmental
Attributes associated with the Facility beginning with the first hour of the first day of the 11th
Contract Year and for the remaining term of the FESA.
3.Environmental Attribute Accounting and Transfers.The Parties shall cooperate to
ensure that all Environmental Attribute certifications,rights and reporting requirements are
created,maintained and completed by the responsible Parties.
3
3.1.Accounting for Environmental Attributes.Each Party,at its sole expense,
will be responsible to establish and maintain a Western Renewable Energy Generation
Information System (“WREGIS”)account or other Environmental Attribute account
andlor tracking and reporting system that enables the Environmental Attributes associated
with the Facility to be created,certified,validated,transferred and reported.
3.2.Transfer of Ownership Rights to Idaho Power.For the term of the FESA,
the Parties shall cooperate,provide further assurances,and take all necessary
commercially reasonable actions to document,record,create,effect and enable the
transfer of the Environmental Attributes associated with the Facility to Idaho Power’s
WREGIS account or any other Environment Attribute accounting and tracking system
selected by the Parties.
3.3.Ownership Rights.Each Party shall report under Section 1605(b)of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 or under any applicable program only the Environmental
Attributes that such Party owns,and shall at all other times refrain from reporting the
Environmental Attributes owned by the other Party.
3.4 Right of Peaceful Ownership:Neither Party will cause or suffer to be
caused any petition,litigation,action,proceeding or cause,whether before courts,
commissions,legislative bodies,tribunals,councils or any other place that would have
the effect or purpose to take away or diminish the value of the other’s ownership of the
Environmental Attributes.
4.Facility Operation.Clark Canyon shall operate the Facility pursuant to
commercially reasonable business practices and prudent utility practice so as to not jeopardize
the current or future Environmental Attributes created by the Facility.
4
5.Miscellaneous.
5.1.Several Obligations.Except where specifically stated in this Agreement
to be otherwise,the duties,obligations and liabilities of the Parties are to be several and
not joint or collective.Nothing contained in this Agreement shall ever be construed to
create an association,trust,partnership or joint venture or impose a trust or partnership
duty,obligation or liability on or with regard to either Party.Each Party shall be
individually and severally liable for its own obligations under this Agreement.
5.2.Waiver.Any waiver at any time by either Party of its right with respect to
a default under this Agreement or with respect to any other matters arising in connection
with this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent default
or other matter.
5.3.Choice of Law and Venue.This Agreement shall be construed and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho without reference to its
choice of law provisions.Venue for any litigation arising out of or related to this
Agreement will be in the District Court of The Fourth Judicial District of Idaho in and for
the County of Ada.
5.4.Default.If either Party fails to perform any of the terms or conditions of
this Agreement (an “Event of Default”),the non-defaulting Party shall cause notice in
writing to be given to the defaulting Party,specifiing the manner in which such default
occurred.Ifthe defaulting Party shall fail to cure such default within sixty (60)days after
service of such notice,or if the defaulting Party reasonably demonstrates to the other
party the default can be cured within a commercially reasonable time but not within such
sixty (60)day period and then fails to diligently pursue such cure,then,the
5
non-defaulting Party may,at its option,terminate this Agreement and/or pursue its legal
or equitable remedies.
5.5.Successors and Assigns.This Agreement and all of the terms and
provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective
successors and assigns of the Parties hereto,except that no assignment hereof by either
party shall become effective without the written consent of both Parties being first
obtained.Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.Notwithstanding the
foregoing,any party which Idaho Power may consolidate,or into which it may merge,or
to which it may convey or transfer substantially all of its electric utility assets,shall
automatically,without further act,and without need of consent or approval by Clark
Canyon,succeed to all of Idaho Power’s rights,obligations and interests under this
Agreement.
5.6.Modification.No modification to this Agreement shall be valid unless it
is in writing and signed by both Parties and subsequently approved by the Commission.
5.7.Notices.All written notices under this Agreement will be directed as
follows and shall be considered delivered when faxed,emailed and confirmed with
deposit in the U.S.Mail,first class,postage prepaid,as follows:
6
To Clark Canyon:
Original document to:
Clark Canyon Hydro,LLC
C/O Symbiotics,LLC
Kim Johnson
2000 S.Ocean Blvd #703
DeiRay Beach,Florida 33438
Telephone:[phone]
E-mail:vince.1amarra(symbioticsenergy.com
E-mail copy:[e-mail]
To Idaho Power:
Original document to:
Vice President,Power Supply
Idaho Power Company
P0 Box 70
Boise,Idaho 83707
Email:[e-mail]
Copy of document to:
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
Idaho Power Company
P0 Box 70
Boise,Idaho 83707
E-mail:[e-mail]
5.8.Severability.The invalidity or unenforceability of any term or provision
of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other terms or
provision and this Agreement shall be construed in all other respects as if the invalid or
unenforceable term or provision were omitted.
7
5.9.Counterparts.This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts,each of which shall deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitutes one and the same instrument.
5.10.Entire Agreement.Unless otherwise provided for herein,this Agreement
constitutes the entire Agreement of the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof and
supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements between the Parties
concerning the subject matter hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed in their respective names on the dates set forth below:
Idaho Power Company Clark Canyon,LLC.
BYf(u1)
Lisa A Grow
Sr.Vice President,Power Supply .
Dated Dated5.2_()l
________________
“Idaho Power”“Seller”
8
5
m
I
o
—
0
z
-o
Cl
)
(I
)
C
m
I
W
o
I
m
w
0
Z
c
m1
m
—
I
—1
O
zj
m
Z
C)
—m
CC
l
)
0
Cl
,
I
-
_
m
—
-o
o
0
o
z
C
-<
Cl
)
—
Cl
)
o
z
5
m
I
o
—
0
z
-o
C,
,
C)
C
m
I
w
0
Co m
w
0
Z P
0
m
—
1’
1
m
C)
—ni
-I
0
Cl
)
-
_
m
—
‘I
,
0
>0
z
C
-<
Cl
)
—
Cl
)
0z
z
GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
for integration of the proposed
IPC PROJECT QUEUE #367
to the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
for
THE INTERCONNECTION CUSTOMER
DRAFT REPORT
April4,2010
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
DO NOT DUPLICATE,DISTRIBUTE,PUBLISH OR SHARE
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEll).
Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non-disclosure
agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
JH
1.0 Introduction
The interconnection customer has contracted with Idaho Power Company (IPC0)to perform a
Generator Interconnection Feasibility Study for the integration of the proposed 4.7 MW,
522kVAr Clark Canyon Hydro project (project #3 67).The location ofthe project is in Idaho
Power’s Eastern Region service territory interconnecting at the Peterson Substation in
Beaverhead County,7500 Hwy 324,Grant,Montana (see Appendix B).
This report documents the basis for and the results of this Feasibility Study for the Generation
Interconnection Customer.It describes the proposed project,the study cases used,the impact of
associated projects,and results of all work in the areas of concern.
A Transmission Service Request must be made and there are limitations in the transmission
system in this area.Transmission System Impact Study will be required.Additional network
upgrades maybe required as a result of the study.
2.0 Summary
The proposed project is a 4.7 MW hydro generator.The proposed Point of Interconnection
(POT)is at the 69 kV transmission voltage level.
The generation interconnection customer will be required to build and maintain their own
substation at the site of the generation project as well as the 69 kV transmission line linking the
generation site to the Peterson Substation.As far as required upgrades on the IPCo system,a
new 69 kV line bay will be required at the substation.There is not enough room currently in the
station to add the line bay,so the station will need to be expanded.
The estimated cost for all required upgrades of IPCo owned facilities to serve the full project is
$650,000.
A Transmission System Impact Study will be required.Additional network upgrades may be
required as a result of the study.
3.0 Scope of Interconnection Feasibility Study
The Interconnection Feasibility Study was done and prepared in accordance with Idaho Power
Company Standard Generator Interconnection Procedures,to provide a preliminary evaluation
of the feasibility of the interconnection of the proposed generating project to the Idaho Power
system.As listed in the Interconnection Feasibility Study agreement,the Interconnection
Feasibility Study report provides the following information:
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
-preliminary identification of any circuit breaker short circuit capability
limits exceeded as a result of the interconnection;
-preliminary identification of any thermal overload or voltage limit
violations resulting from the interconnection;and
-preliminary description and non-binding estimated cost of facilities
required to interconnect the Small Generating Facility to the Distribution
System and to address the identified short circuit and power flow issues.
All other proposed Generation projects prior to this project in the Generator Interconnect queue
were considered in this study.A current list of these projects can be found on the Idaho Power
web site as follows:
http://www.oatioasis.comIIPCo/index.html.
4.0 Description of Proposed Generating Project
Project #367 proposes to connect to the Idaho Power transmission system for an injection of 4.7
MW (maximum project output),all from hydro generation.
5.0 Description of Existing Transmission Facilities
There are limitations in the transmission system in this area.Because of these limitations,a
Transmission System Impact Study will be required.Additional network upgrades may be
required as a result of the study.
The IPC transmission substation nearest the project is Idaho Power’s 230:69 kV Peterson
Substation.
The generation interconnection customer will be required to build and maintain their own 69 kV
transmission line linking the generation site to the Peterson Substation.
6.0 Description of Existing Substation Facifities
A new substation must be built by the generation interconnection customer.This substation will be
owned and operated by the customer.A delta low side,grounded-wye high side transformer will
be required at the new substation for protection purposes.Also,IPCo will install and operate a
69 kV breaker at the Peterson Substation.This is where the P01 will occur.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
7.0 Description of Existing Distribution Facifities
The hydro generation system will be built,owned and operated by the generation
interconnection customer.There are no distribution related issues to consider in reference to
IPCo.
8.0 Description and Cost Estimate of Required Facifity Upgrades
Transmission Interconnection Option
The existing Peterson Substation must be expanded to accommodate an additional 69kV line
bay and breaker.The substation associated with the Clark Canyon hydro project is not part of
these cost estimates,as it will be built by the generation interconnection customer.
Description Estimated Cost
PTSN Station Work $470,000
Overheads,AFUDC,Contingency $180,000
Total Estimated Cost $650,000
Table 1:Cost Estimates for Transmission Interconnection
These cost estimates include direct equipment and installation labor costs,indirect labor costs
and overheads.(Tax Gross Up has not been included presuming construction of interconnection
facilities will not qualify under IRS rules as a taxable event.Allowance for funds used during
construction (AFUDC)has been included in the cost estimates.These are cost estimates only
and final charges to the customer will be based on the actual construction costs incurred.
9.0 Description of Operating Requirements
There are several operating requirements that must be met.The project will have to meet the
voltage schedule provided by Idaho Power.If these requirements cannot be met,further voltage
studies will be necessary.Voltage flicker at startup and during operation will be limited to less
than 5%as measured at the P01.The project is required to comply with the applicable Voltage
and Current Distortion Limits found in IEEE Standard 519-1992 IEEE Recommended Practices
and Requirementsfor Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems.
10.0 Conclusions
The requested interconnection of the Clark Canyon Hydro Project to Idaho Power’s system was
studied.The known required upgrades for the system are listed.A Transmission System
Impact Study will be required.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
APPENDIX A
A-1.O Method of Study
The Feasibility Study plan inserts the Project up to the maximum requested injection into the
selected Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC)power flow case and then,using
Power World Simulator Version 12,examines the impacts ofthe new resource on Idaho Power’s
transmission system (lines,transformers,etc.)within the study area under various
operating/outage scenarios.The WECC and Idaho Power reliability criteria and Idaho Power
operating procedures were used to determine the acceptability of the configurations considered.
The WECC case is a recent case modified to simulate stressed but reasonable pre-contingency
energy transfers utilizing the IPC system.For distribution feeder analysis,Idaho Power utilizes
Advantica’s SynerGEE Software.
A-2.O Acceptability Criteria
The following acceptability criteria were used in the power flow analysis to determine under
which system configuration modifications may be required:
The continuous rating of equipment is assumed to be the normal thermal rating of the
equipment.This rating will be as determined by the manufacturer of the equipment or
as determined by Idaho Power.Less than or equal to 100%of continuous rating is
acceptable.
Idaho Power’s Voltage Operating Guidelines were used to determine voltage
requirements on the system.This states,in part,that distribution voltages,under normal
operating conditions,are to be maintained within plus or minus 5%(0.05 per unit)of
nominal everywhere on the feeder.Therefore,voltages greater than or equal to 0.95 pu
voltage and less than or equal to 1.05 Pu voltage are acceptable.
Voltage flicker during starting or stopping the generator is limited to 5%as measured at
the point of interconnection,per Idaho Power’s T&D Advisory Information Manual.
Idaho Power’s Reliability Criteria for System Planning was used to determine proper
transmission system operation.
All customer generation must meet IEEE 519 and ANSI C84.1 Standards.
All other applicable national and Idaho Power standards and prudent utility practices
were used to determine the acceptability of the configurations considered.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
The stable operation of the system requires an adequate supply of volt-amperes reactive
(VAR5)to maintain a stable voltage profile under both steady-state and dynamic system
conditions.An inadequate supply ofVARs will result in voltage decay or even collapse
under the worst conditions.
Equipment/line/path ratings used will be those that are in use at the time of the study or that are
represented by IPC upgrade projects that are either currently under construction or whose
budgets have been approved for construction in the near future.All other potential future
ratings are outside the scope of this study.Future transmission changes may,however,affect
current facility ratings used in the study.
A-3.O Grounding Guidance
Idaho Power Company (IPC)requires interconnected transformers to limit their ground fault
current to 20 amps at the point of interconnection.
A-4.O Electrical System Protection Guidance
IPC requires electrical system protection per Requirements for Generation Interconnections
found on the Idaho Power Web site,
http://www.idahopower.com/aboutus/business/generationlnterconnect/.
A-5.O WECC Coordinated Off-Nominal Frequency Load Shedding and Restoration
Requirements
IPC requires frequency operational limits to adhere to WECC Under-frequency and Over
frequency Limits per the WECC Coordinated Off-Nominal Frequency Load Shedding and
Restoration Requirements available upon request.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.
APPENDIX B
Clark Canyon #367 Transmission Interconnection
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This report contains Idaho Power Company Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
(CEll).Distribution of this report must be limited to parties that have entered into a non
disclosure agreement with Idaho Power Company and have a need to know.