20130820Snake River 1-22 to IPC.pdf

McDevitt & Miller LLP
Lavryers ?ti: fftjfi Zfi fil
420 West Bannock Sreet ,. ,P.O. Box 256+83701 , i: ! ; i
Boise, Idaho 83702
t]B
[phone]
(208) 3366912 (Fax)
DJM/hh
Encl.
Chas. F. McDevitt
Dean!. (foe) Millet
Celeste K. Millet
August 20,2073
Via Haad Delivety
JeanJewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. ril7ashington St.
Boise,Idaho 83720
Re: IPC-E-13-16
Snake River Alliance
Deat Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above firattet, please find thtee (3) copies of Snake River Alliance's Fitst
Discovery Requests to Idaho Powet Company.
Kindly rehlffr a file stamped copy to me.
Very Truly Youts,
McDevitt & Miller LLP
\ilL
ef
GOPY
1,11.,1 ^
i! .
Case No.IPC-E-13-16
FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE TO
IDAIIO POWER COMPAI\IY
Pursuant to RP 221.02 and221.03, Snake River Alliance ("SRA"; propounds the
following Discovery Requests to Idaho Power Company ("Company'').
SRA requests that the Company make best efflorts to provide responses as soon as
possible but not later than September 3,2013.
These Discovery Requests are to be considered as continuing, and the Company is
requested to provide, by way of supplementary responses, additional documents or
information that it or any person acting on its behalf may later obtain.
Pursuant to Commission Rules of Procedure a response to a request for
production of documents must include the name and phone number of the person
FIRST DISCOyERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RrvER ALLIANCE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPAI{Y-1
Dean J. Miller (ISB No. 1968)
Chas. F. McDevitt (ISB No. 835) if i
Celeste K. Mller (ISB No. 2590)
MoDEVITT & MILLER LLP r r.:,,
420 West Bannock Street ir i ;
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, D 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
i [e-mail]
chas@mcdevitt-miller. com
ck@mcdevitt-miller. com
Attorneys for Snake River Alliance
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPAI\IY'S APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR THE INVESTMENT IN
SELECTIVE CATALYTIC
REDUCTION CONTROLS ON JIM
BRIDGER TINITS 3 AND 4
f'l r., r '). nn
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
preparing the document, and the name, location and phone number of the record holder
and, if different, the witness who can sponsor the answer at hearing. ,See IDAPA
3r.0t.0t.228.
DEFINITIONS
1. The term "communication" shall mean any dissemination of information
or transmission of a statement from one person to another, or in the presence of another,
whether written, electronic, oral or by action or conduct.
2. The term "state the basis for" with respect to an assertion of fact, an
opinion or a decision by the Company means a complete statement setting forth the
following:
a. Each and every fact or matter claimed to be a fact in chronological order
which supports or tends to support your answer to a request; and
b. The name or other means of identification, present telephone number, and
present address of each percon who knows or claims to know any matter
relating to your answer and the substance of such matters claimed to be a
fact which are known or claimed to be known to such person; and
c. A complete description of any tangible or physical evidence and
documents of any kind which supports or tends to support your answer to
a request together with the name or other means of identification, the
present telephone number and the present address of each person who has
custody or possession ofthe original and ofeach copy ofsuch original.
DISCOYERY REOUESTS
REOUEST NO 1: Does Idaho Power intend to apply to the IPUC for another
CPCN for Bridger Units 1 and2, and also for either of the North Valmy units? If so,
please describe what that application would entail and when such applications would be
reasonably expected to be filed.
FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RrVER ALLIANCE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY-2
REOUEST NO 2: Please explain the basis for the Company's decision to limit
this Application to the two SCR additions at Jim Bridger.
REOUEST NO 3: Idaho Power's Coal Unit Environmental lnvestrnent
Analysis for the Jim Bridger and North Valmy Coal-Fired Power Plants ("Coal Study,"
Page 4)l states that "Idaho Power assumed that it could negotiate with state and federal
entities a five-year period where no additional environmental controls are installed in
exchange for shutting the unit down at the end of the five-year period. These compliance
timing altemative cases are strictly hypothetical. Idaho Power may not have any basis
under current regulations to negotiate this delay and the relevant regulatory authorities
have not offered any such delay." Please provide all communications between Idaho
Power and the Environmental Protection Agency, PacifiCorp, or the state of Wyoming
regarding such negotiations.
REOUEST NO 4: Page 4 of the Coal Study indicates that all four Jim Bridger
units will require emission controls for mercury under the MATS rule. Please explain the
basis for the decision not to include such controls in this CPCN Application or, in the
alternative, how the proposed SCR additions in this application will satisfu MATS
compliance.
REOUEST NO 5: The Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC), in its
acknowledgment order in Case 12-177 (Idaho Power's 2011 IRP), states that, "We
acknowledge Staff s proposed Action Item 11, but not another IRP provision relating to
' lo th"r" discovery Requests, "Coal Study'' refers to the 30 page un-redacted document filed as part ofthe
Company's IRP update in Case No. IPC-E-I1-11, not to confidential Exhibit No 5 accompanying the
testimony of Witness Harvey.
FIRST DISCOYERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE TO IDAEO POWER
COMPAI{Y-3
new investments in coal plants until Idaho Power completes a study of its coal investment
compliance costs and other parties have had the opporfunity to comment on the study.
That order also required that Idaho Power's coal plant evaluation "will investigate
whether there is flexibility in the emerging environmental regulatons that would allow the
company to avoide early compliance costs by offereing to shut down individual units
prior to the end of their useful lives." Please explain how Idaho Power fulfilled this
order's requirement regarding a thorough analysis of its coal investment compliance
costs, such as specific costs of compliance with MATS, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or other rules , how
such information was provided to Idaho Power customers and regulators, and how Idaho
Power provided other parties an opportunity to comment on the sfudy.
REOUEST NO 6: Please provide all communications between Idaho Power
and any state or federal regulatory agencies that support Idaho Power's assertion that
"Idaho Power analyzed avoiding the installation of required or reasonably anticipated
emission controls by delaying the compliance requirement by five years in exchange for
shutting the unit down at the end of the five year period".
REQUEST NO 7: Please explain when Idaho Power decided to seek a CPCN
from the IPUC and provide all internal communications regarding the decision to seek a
CPCN.
REOUEST NO 8: Is it ldaho Power's opinion that Idaho Power will be
required to comply with the federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) in 2015
at the Bridger units? If so, please state the basis of said opinion.
FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY-4
REOUEST NO 9: In Idaho Power's opinion, what is the estimated cost of
MATS compliance at the Bridger units? Please state the basis of said opinion.
REOUEST NO 10: Please provide all internal documents which analyze or
discuss how potential future carbon dioxide control regulations would impact Idaho
Power's ownership of any of the Jim Bridger coal units.
REQUEST NO 11: Please provide a copy of the Limited Notice to Proceed
referenced at Pages 14 and 15 of Witness Harvey's direct testimony.
REOUEST NO 12: Please provide all internal documents, including
communications with PacifiCorp, that led to the decision to enter into the LNTP,
including any analysis of potential ratepayer exposure due to the costs resulting from the
LNTP.
REOUEST NO 13: Witness Harvey's direct testimony at Page 24 states:
"Based on the Company's evaluation of the emerging regulations, the Company's Jim
Bridger Plant will require additional investment in environmental control technology to
comply with the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) regulations with a projected
completion date of 2015. The anticipated investments related to the MATS regulations
were included in the coal study and were determined to be cost effective. However, those
specific investments are not within the scope of this CPCN request." Explain the basis for
the Company's decision not to include these specific investments within the scope of
Case No. IPC-E-13-16. Please provide the Company's best estimate of the anticipated
cost of those investnents.
FIRST DTSCOVERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE TO rDAHO POWER
COMPAI{Y.5
REOUEST NO 14: According to Wibress Grow's testimony at Page 9, "The
Jim Bridger Plant is also the Company's lowest cost thermal resource from an installed
cost of nameplate capacity perspective." Based on actual 2012 financial information, the
total cost of nameplate capacity [excluding fuel and per-unit energy taxes] for the Jim
Bridger Plant was $S.24lkilowatt month. For comparison purposes, the average 2012
installed costs of nameplate capacity for the remaining baseload thermal fleet was $ 13.39
kWmonth. Please state the basis for these assertions of fact.
REQUEST NO 15: Please refer to Witness Grow testimony, PageT,lines 7-8.
Please state the basis of this assertion of fact or opinion.
REQUEST NO 16: Please refer to Witness Grow testimony, Page 8, lines 8-
I 0. Please state the basis of this assertion of fact or opinion.
REOUEST NO 17: Please refer to Witness Grow testimony and the answer
beginning on line 17.
a.) Please identify by name and title the Idaho Power Company representative
primarily responsible for discussions with PacificCorp regarding
implementation of Regi onal Haze Rules.
b.) Please identify by name and title the PacifiCorp representative primarily
responsible for discussions with Idaho Power Company regarding
implementation of Regional Haze Rules.
c.) Please describe the process by which decisions or understandings resulting
from discussions between Idaho Power Company regarding implementation of
Regional Haze Rules are memorialized or reduced to writing.
d.) Please identifyby name and job title the Idaho Power Company official
having custody or control of any documents described in your answer to the
preceding sub-part.
e.) Please identify by name and job title the persons referenced at Page I 3, line
2t.
f.) Please state the date of the meeting referenced at Page l3,Line2l.
FrRST DTSCOYERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RrVER ALLTANCE TO rDAHO POWER
COMPAI{Y-6
REOUEST NO 18: According Attachments 2 and 3 to the Application,
PacifiCorp filed its applications for approval of SCR investments with the Wyoming and
Utah regulatory commissions on August 7,2012 and August 10,2012, respectively.
Please explain the basis of the Company's decision not to file its Application with the
IPUC until June 28,2013.
REOUEST NO 19: Please identify by name, job title, address, phone number
and email address the employee of SIAC who would be able to answer detailed questions
regarding Exhibit No. 5.
REOUEST NO 20: Did Idaho Power enter into an engagement letter, or similar
document wittr SIAC with respect to the preparation of Exhibit No. 5? If so, please
provide a copy.
REOUEST NO 21: Prior to February 8,2013 did SIAC submit to Idaho Power
any draft versions of Exhibit No. 5? If so, please provide copies.
REOUEST NO 22: If SIAC did submit draft versions of Exhibit No. 5, did
Idaho Power make any comment to SIAC regarding draft versions?
a. If comments to SIAC were in writing, please provide copies;
b. If comments to SIAC were oral, please state:
1. The name and job title of the Idaho Power employee(s) providing such
comment'
The name and job title of the SIAC employee(s) receiving such comment;
The date(s) of oral comments;
The substance of oral comments;
FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS OF SNAKE RrVER ALLIANCE TO rDAEO POWER
COMPANY-7
2.
J.
4.
DATED mir-Jdh, ofAugusf 2013.
MCDEVTTT & MILLE& LLP
Attorneysfor Srukc River Alliance
FIRST DISCOyERY REQUESTS OF'SNAKE RMR ALLHNCE TO IDAIIO POWER
COMPANY-E
CERTIFICATE OF SERYICE
I hereby certify that on *" -...@H, of August, 2013,I caused to be served, via
the method(s) indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
ij ewell@f uc.state.id.us
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Jennifer Reinhardt-Tessmer
Idaho Power Company
1221 West tdaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
lnordstrom@i dahopower.com
i reinhardt@ i dahopower. com
Kris Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
kris. [e-mail]. gov
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street(83702)
PO Box 844
Boise,ID 83701
[e-mail]
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
PO Box 7218
Boise,ID 83702
peter@ri chardsonandol ear.v. com
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
V
ql
LI
(.-!
t-3
i(l
(_t
&(l
(_tX
(-t
(.-!
tql
tL-Cv
i.L-S
(-!
$ti
&LIx
$(l
It-!
&l-3
L9
>L
FrRST DISCO\rERY REQTIESTS OF SNAKE RIyER ALLIANCE TO IDAEO POWER
COMPANY-9
Dr. DonReading
6070}Iill Road
Boise,Idaho 83703
HandDelivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
l(J
l(J
lI'
'laK
mRsT IIISCOyERY REQT ESTS OF SNAKE RrVf,R AIILHNCE TO IDAITO POWER
COMPANY-10