20180702JR Simplot to Staff 1-4.pdf

Attorneys for Petitioner J.R. Simplot Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Peter J. Richardson, ISB No. 3195
Gregory M. Adams, ISB No. 7454
RICHARDSON ADAMS, P.L.L.C.
515 N.27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email : [e-mail]
Emai I : gre g@ichardsonadams. com
IN THE MATTER OF PETITTON OF
IDAHYDRO, SHOROCK HYDRO, INC.,
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE 9OlI IO
PERFORMANCE BAND AND
CALCULATION OF OPERATION AND
MATNTENANCE CHARGES FOR PURPA
QUALIFYING FACILTTIES
RECEIVED
t0t8 JUL -2 P!'l 3: ?t+
iD,.:,1;; FUtiLlcij; il lTiili ccl'{h{lssloN
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. IPC-E-18-07
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S
RESPONSES TO FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF TO J.R.
SIMPLOT COMPANY
The J.R . Simplot Company, by and through its counsel of record, Gregory M. Adams
and Peter J. Richardson of Richardson Adams, PLLC, hereby answers and responds to the ldaho
Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC") Staff s First Production Request of the Commission Staff
to J.R. Simplot Company, dated June 7,2018, as follows:
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMTSSION STAFF
IPC-E-18-07
PAGE I
REQUEST NO. 1: The footnote on Page 5 of the Petition lists five circumstances
under which the 90/110 rule was adopted. Does the Petitioner agree with any or all of these
statements? Please explain.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
The five changes of circumstance referenced in the footnote at the bottom of page 5 of
the Petition are directly quoted from the Commission's order adopting the 90/l l0 pricing
convention. That order states, by way of introduction to the listed five changes of circumstance,
The Company contends that it is seeking to improve the firmness or predictability
of QF energy deliveries because conditions have materially changed. Tr. at3l2.
The Changed circumstances include:
The five referenced changes were alleged to have occurred over fourteen years ago.
Whether they were accurate then is beyond the direct knowledge of the J.R. Simplot Company.
Today, however, the five changed circumstances appear to be out of date and possibly
inaccurate.
For example, the first changed circumstance identified fourteen years ago was that
"Wholesale firm energy purchases from creditworthy counterparties are now generally accepted
as a prudent and cost-effective way of meeting a portion of a utility's resource needs." The
assertion regarding wholesale energy purchases was generic in its reference to "a utility's" needs.
However, as for Idaho Power's current situation it does not appear to be accurate or relevant.
According to Idaho Power's most recent IRP "Idaho Power currently has no long-term wholesale
energy contracts (no long-term wholesale sales contracts and no long-term purchase contracts)."
Idaho Power 2017 IRP at p. 33.
The second point made fourteen years ago was that Idaho Power "has changed from an
energy-constrained company to a capacity constrained company." Again, whether this statement
was accurate a decade and a half ago is beyond the direct knowledge of the J.R. Simplot
Company. However, as for Idaho Power's current situation, it does not appear to be accurate or
relevant. According to Idaho Power's most recent IRP, it is neither capacity nor energy
constrained until the mid-2020s at which time it is both energy and capacity constrained at
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
IPC-E-18-07
PAGE 2
approximately the same time. Idaho Power 2017 IRP at Appendix C, Technical Report.
The third point is somewhat of a tautology. J.R. Simplot Company does agree that
transmission constraints would require accurate anticipation of "needs for firm energy imports."
However, whether Idaho Power is required to "more precisely anticipate its needs for firm
energy imports" is unclear at this time.
The fourth point made fourteen years ago is that wind and solar generating technologies
requires a new approach to the company's PURPA contracting procedures. This statement
appears irrelevant today because Idaho Power's PURPA wind resources and a large percentage
of its solar resources have been excused from the 90/l l0 band. Additionally, the impact of wind
and solar QFs is not justification for imposing the 90/l l0 band on non-wind and non-solar QFs,
such as the Petitioners in this proceeding.
J.R. Simplot Company fails to see the relevance of the fifth point dealing with the use of
market purchases as hedges to manage risk as impacting the importance of resource availability
given that the company is resource surplus through the mid-2020s.
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
IPC-E-18-07
PAGE 3
REQUEST NO. 2: Please provide any data and evidence that supports the three
circumstances listed on page 6, paragraph number 13, of the Petition.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
The first referenced circumstance provides that "The variability of hydro QFs in the
aggregate is within the range of the variability exhibited by IPCo hydropower facilities." To be
specific, the hydro QFs referenced are those hydro QF's on Idaho Power's system. Because all
of the referenced hydro QFs are located in the same drainage on the same river system as are all
of Idaho Power's hydro projects, it seems obvious that streamflow variability in that basin would
have similar variability impacts to all hydro projects regardless of ownership. However, it
should be noted that many of the hydro QFs have water rights and physical diversions that
actually take water out of the main river system for use in canals and conduits. QF hydro
projects on those canals and conduits are likely to be less variable than main stem river hydro
projects - which comprise the majority of Idaho Power's hydro projects.
The second and third circumstances are supported by Idaho Power's own data from its
web site indicating aflat, predictable production profile for all of its QF purchases relative to its
overall load and resource stack.
See: https://www.idahopower.com/enersy/deliverins-power/generation-and-demand
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
IPC-E-18-07
PAGE 4
REQUST No.3: Please categorize the root causes that prevent QF projects from
meeting the 90/110 requirement and provide project examples that fall under each
category.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.3
The drivers causing QF projects to fail to meet the 90/l l0 band include all of the vagaries
of energy supply and project operations. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to,
such issues as unexpected operations and maintenance issues, unanticipated weather changes
(hot, cold, sunny, cloudy, windy, calm, dry, humid, etc. etc. etc.), unanticipated mechanical
issues, unanticipated production changes, and interconnection or other curtailment orders from
Idaho Power.
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
IPC-E-18-07
PAGE 5
REQUEST No. 4: Please list the projects that are or should be able to consistently
comply with the 90/110 contract provisions. For each project, please provide a detailed
explanation why these projects are more predictable and more able to comply with 90/110
requirement.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4:
The J. R. Simplot Company has not compiled such a list.
Dated: June 28,2018.
ON ADAMS, P.L.L.C
M. Adams, ISB No. 7454
Attomeys for Petitioner J.R. Simplot
Company
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
rPC-E-18-07
PAGE 6
,|\
{
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28th day of June 2018, a true and correct copy of the
within and foregoing J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF to the J.R. Simplot Company in Case No.
IPC-E- l8-07 were delivered via electronic mail to the following:
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Diane.holt@puc. idaho. eov
Michael G. Andrea
Senior Counsel, Avista Corporation
l4l I E. Mission Ave, MSC-23
Spokane, WA 99202
Michael. andrea@ avistacorp.com
Tamarack Energy Partnership
Michael Cream and Preston Carter
601 W. Bannock
Boise, Idaho 83702
mcc@ givenspursley. com
pnc@ sivenspursley.com
Irion Sanger
Sanger Law, P.C.
I I l7 SE 53'd Avenue
Portland, OR 97215
[e-mail]
David H. Arkoosh
P.O. Box 2817
Boise, Idaho 83701
[e-mail]
Clint Kalich
Manager, Resource Planning and Analysis
Avista Corporation
l4l I E. Mission Ave, MSC-7
Spokane, WA 99202
clint.kalich@avistacom. com
Donovan Walker
Idaho Power Company
l22l West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
dwalker@idahopower. com
C. Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offices
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, Idaho 83701
tom. arkoosh@arkoosh. com
J. Kahle Becker
223 North 6th St, #325
Boise, Idaho 83702
kahle@ kahlebeckerlaw. com
Edith Pacillo
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
edith.pacillo@puc. idaho. eov
M. Adams
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
rPC-E-18-07
PAGE 7