20230207IPC to Staff(Redacted).pdf

DONOVAN WALKER
Lead Counsel
[e-mail]

February 6, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg 8,
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074

Re: Case No. IPC-E-22-29
In the Matter of Idaho Power Company’s Application for Approval of a Power
Purchase Agreement with Pleasant Valley Solar, LLC

Dear Ms. Noriyuki:

Attached for electronic filing please find the redacted version of Idaho Power
Company’s Confidential Responses to the Confidential First Production Request of the
Commission Staff to Idaho Power Company in the above matter.

Confidential attachments will be provided separately via an encrypted email to
parties who sign the protective agreement, as well as access to the FTP Site.

Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you might have about this
filing.

Very truly yours,

Donovan E. Walker
DEW:cd
Enclosures
RECEIVED
2023 February 6, 4:57PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 1
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorney for Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR
APPROVAL OF A POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH PLEASANT VALLEY
SOLAR, LLC.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-22-29

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S
CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO
THE CONFIDENTIAL 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 Confidential First Production Request of the Commission Staff (“IPUC
or Commission”) dated January 24, 2023, herewith submits the following information:

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please describe the competitive
procurement process used to procure the Pleasant Valley Solar Power Purchase
Agreement (“PPA”) and provide all other proposals considered in the procurement
process.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

Idaho Power did not conduct a competitive procurement process related to
Pleasant Valley Solar. This project was identified by Brisbie through its own procurement
process, who will be responsible for paying the cost associated with the Pleasant Valley
Solar PPA. Idaho Power will bill Brisbie for the PPA cost through a pass-through charge.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please provide a comparison of the
Pleasant Valley Solar PPA, the PPA Template provided in Case No. IPC-E-21-42, and
the Black Mesa PPA in Case No. IPC-E-22-06. Please list major differences contained in
the Pleasant Valley Solar PPA compared to the other two PPAs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

Please see the confidential attachments provided for this request.
To satisfy this request, Idaho Power ran a compare document between: (1) the
PPA template from IPC-E-21-42 and the Pleasant Valley PPA; and (2) the Black Mesa
PPA in Case No. IPC-E-22-06 and the Pleasant Valley PPA. The redline in each
document reflects the differences from one document to the next.
Idaho Power’s non-Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”) solar PPAs
have all been based upon the same initial starting template, which was developed for
Jackpot Solar. The starting template for Jackpot Solar was developed from a publicly
available solar PPA template that was published as part of a previous PacifiCorp Request
for Proposal. That template was revised to reflect Idaho Power’s operations and some
principles were added/modified/borrowed from PURPA contracting principles and
combined with the starting template. That template was then negotiated and modified with
counsel for Jackpot Solar, and ultimately filed and approved by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“IPUC”).1
For Black Mesa, a new template was created based upon the approved Jackpot
Solar contract, but because Black Mesa is a hybrid facility that shares an interconnection

1 In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power for Approval of a Power Purchase Agreement with
Jackpot Holdings, LLC, for the Sale and Purchase of Up to 220 Megawatts of Renewable Solar
Generation, Case No, IPC-E-19-14, Order No. 34515 (December 24, 2019).

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 4
to Idaho Power’s grid with an accompanying battery storage project, the PPA structure
and definitions required several changes. Additionally, the Black Mesa also reflects
negotiation among the parties, resulting in further modification from the starting template.
That PPA was filed with and approved by the IPUC.2
For Pleasant Valley Solar, a new template was created ahead of any negotiations
with potential developers and agreed upon between Idaho Power and Brisbie. This
template was filed with the IPUC as part of Case No. IPC-E-21-42. Similar to Black Mesa,
this template used the Jackpot Solar PPA as a starting point and was modified to reflect
the third-party beneficiary status and other circumstances relevant to the potential
acquisition of renewable resources pursuant to the Brisbie ESA (special contract). This
template was then negotiated with counsel for Pleasant Valley Solar, and subsequently
executed and submitted for the IPUC’s review.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

2 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company’s Application for Approval of a Replacement Special Contract
with Micron Technology, Inc. and a Power Purchase Agreement with Black Mesa Energy, LLC., Case No.
IPC-E-22-06, Order No, 35482 (August 1, 2022).

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Schedule 33 contains information with
respect to Renewable Resource Agreements. Please confirm that Schedule 33 will be
updated and filed with the Commission after each Renewable Resource Agreement is
approved. If not, please explain why not.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

In its filing in IPC-E-21-42, the Company proposed that Schedule 33 is updated
and filed with the Commission to include each Renewable Resource Agreement when it
is executed. Idaho Power also requested the authority to procure the necessary resources
contemplated within the Brisbie Energy Services Agreement without seeking Commission
approval of each such procurement.3 At the time of this Response, the Commission had
not yet issued an Order in that case. Should the Commission issue an order in IPC-E-21-
42 that requires each Renewable Resource Agreement be reviewed and approved, the
Company would anticipate filing an updated Schedule 33 with each new Renewable
Resource Agreement.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Paul Goralski, Regulatory
Consultant, Idaho Power Company.

3 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company’s Application for Approval of Special Contract and Tariff
Schedule 33 to Provide Electric Service to Brisbie, LLC’s Data Center Facility, Case No. IPC-E-21-42,
filed December 22, 2021, Tatum DI, p. 16.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 6
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please respond to the following questions
regarding Section 11.1(II) “Renewable Resource PPAs” of the Special Contract between
Brisbie and Idaho Power.
a. Section 11.1(II) of the Special Contract states: “[f]or each Renewable
Resource PPA, Customer will within ten Business Days after the execution of Idaho
Power of such Renewable Resource PPA, deliver a Guaranty from Guarantor
identified by Idaho Power as of the date of such Renewable Resource
PPA as sufficient to satisfy Customer’s performance of its aggregate obligations
hereunder as they relate to payment of amounts due from Customer with respect to
under
such Renewable Resource PPA.” Has the Customer delivered the Guaranty from
Guarantor to Idaho Power for the Pleasant Valley Solar PPA? What is amount
in the Guaranty? Please provide the workpaper that calculates .
b. Section 11.1(II) of the Special Contract also states:

.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

a. Yes, Meta Platforms, Inc. delivered an executed Parent Guaranty for the
Pleasant Valley Solar PPA in the amount of on November 7, 2022. Please
see the Confidential Attachment provided for this request for the workpaper calculating
.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 7
b. of nameplate capacity is the customary amount typically
included in a PPA for security, usually for development security.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Section 1.35 defines Expected Energy,
which means of Net Output in the first, full Contract Year, reduced by an
annual degradation factor of in the first Contract Year, and per
Contract Year thereafter...” Please respond to the following.
a. Please confirm that “reduced by an annual degradation factor of
in the first Contract Year” should have been “reduced by an annual degradation factor of
in the second Contract Year.” Please explain.
b. Please explain why two different degradation factors are used.
c. Please describe the relationship between the Estimated Net Output Amount
for each month and the Expected Energy for each year. Specifically, when the Seller
modifies the Estimated Net Output Amount at the monthly level, is the Expected Energy
for each year re-calculated for that year based on the modified estimates, and re-
calculated with the annual degradation factor for the future years?
d. Section 1.35 also states: “[i]f at Final Completion the Facility’s Nameplate
Capacity Rating is less than the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating, Expected Energy
shall be reduced proportionally per year for each full MW of Nameplate Capacity Rating
below the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating.” Please explain how the Expected
Energy information is used in the PPA and provide an example to illustrate how the
reduction is calculated. In addition, please explain, as a result of the reduction, how the
Estimated Net Output Amount at the monthly level will be adjusted accordingly.
e. Please confirm that Expected Energy is a concept at the annual level,
instead of the monthly level. If so, please further confirm the “Expected Energy” stated in
Section 7.12.1 and Section 7.12.2.2 should have been the “Estimated Net Output

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 9
Amount,” which is a concept at the monthly level.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

a. Yes, the terminology should have been “reduced by an annual degradation factor

thereafter. This understanding is consistent with the annual output values listed on the
second page of Exhibit 4 to the PPA, which ties to the degradation assumptions used in
the Parent Guaranty calculation. Please see the Confidential Attachment provided in
Response to Production Request No. 4, which validates that calculated annual Contract
Year output matches Exhibit 4 to the PPA.
b. All solar modules degrade over time, reducing the efficiency of the panel.
Typically, there is a larger degradation the first year of usage; this is known as Light-
Induced Degradation (“LID”). This first year of degradation is the hardest year to identify
how much LID occurs, but for subsequent years, manufacturer’s warranties are in the
range of 0.5-0.6 percent of degradation each year. Because it was not known which panel
manufacturer the Pleasant Valley Solar project was going to use, both Parties agreed
upon as the first-year degradation rate followed by for each of the
remaining years.
c. Expected Energy are yearly values used to set the Seller’s best estimate of the
projected long-term average annual Net Output production. The Net Output is then broken
down into monthly Net Output values set forth in Exhibit 4 of the PPA. These are also
known as Estimated Net Output Amounts. To help incorporate the contract into Idaho
Power’s Systems prior to actual measured generation and degradation at the facility, the

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 10
monthly Estimated Net Output Amounts are reduced each year with the appropriate solar
panel degradation and entered into the Company’s Net Energy Portal database. These
are the monthly values used to manage the Output Guarantee and calculate any
Liquidated Damages for Output Shortfall, as described in Section 7.12.1 in the PPA. If
the project chooses to change a monthly Estimated Net Output Amount (described in
Section 7.12.1.2), then that change is carried forward for the same month in future years
and solar panel degradation is no longer considered for those specific months.
d. Please see answer to Production No. 5 c.
e. Expected Energy is a concept used on an annual basis and not a monthly basis.
Estimated Net Output Amount should have been used in Section 7.12.1 and Section
7.12.2.2 to calculate the Output Guarantee and assess potential Liquidated Damages for
Output Shortfall.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Section 4.3.2 states: “[i]f Commercial
Operation of the Facility is achieved based on less than one hundred percent (100%) of
the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating, then Seller in its discretion may inform Idaho
Power, by written notice received no later than ten (10) Business Days after the
Commercial Operation Date, that Seller intends to bring the Facility above the Required
Percentage up to but not exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the Expected
Nameplate Capacity Rating, together with a Final Completion Schedule for the additional
capacity that Seller intends to add.” Should the first 100% have been the Required
Percentage, which is defined in Section 1.114? If not, please explain why.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

No. The provision is meant to apply to additional amounts above the Required
Percentage ( ) up to 100% of the Expected Nameplate Capacity.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 12
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Section 1.40 defines “Final Completion,”
which means “following the Commercial Operation Date when Commercial Operation of
the Facility is achieved based on less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Expected
Nameplate Capacity Rating, the achievement by Seller of the conditions set forth in
Section 4.2 (e) and (f) with respect to the portion of the Facility at or greater than the
Required Percentage of the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating as elected by Seller in
its discretion pursuant to Section 4.3.2.” Please respond to the following.
a. Should the 100% have been the Required Percentage, which is defined
in Section 1.114? If not, please explain why.
b. If not and if the Facility is on the Commercial Operation
Date to start with, how is “the portion of the Facility at or greater than the Required
Percentage of the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating” determined?
c. Should “the portion of the Facility at or greater than the Required
Percentage of the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating” have been “the additional
capacity Seller added”?
d. Does Section 1.40 intend to express the meaning that once 4.2 (e) and (f)
are achieved for the additional capacity Seller added, Final Completion is achieved?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

a. No. The provision is meant to apply to additional amounts above the
Required Percentage ( ) up to 100% of the Expected Nameplate Capacity.
b. Section 4.3.2 states, “If Commercial Operation of the Facility is achieved
based on less than one hundred percent (100%) of the Expected nameplate Capacity
Rating, then Seller in its discretion may inform Idaho Power, by written notice received no
later than ten (10) Business Days after the Commercial Operation Date, that Seller

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 13
intends to bring the Facility above the Required Percentage up to but not exceeding one
hundred percent (100%) of the Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating, together with a
Final Completion Schedule for the additional capacity that Seller intends to add. If a Final
Completion Schedule is not provided to Idaho Power within ten (10) Business Days
following the Commercial Operation Date, then the date of Final Completion shall be the
same as the Commercial Operation Date …”
c. The portion of the Facility at or greater than the Required Percentage of the
Expected Nameplate Capacity Rating in the context of Section 1.40 Final Completion
could be the additional capacity Seller added as referenced in Section 4.3.2.
d. Yes.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: According to Section 7.7.3, Seller shall
provide an initial 12X24 forecast Net Output with the executed PPA, and update this
forecast at least every two years on a mutually agreed upon schedule that is intended to
coincide with the Integrated Resource Plan. Please describe the relationship between this
12X24 forecast, the Estimated Net Output Amount for each month, and the Expected
Energy for each year. Specifically, are the updates of all three synchronized? If so, please
provide workpapers showing the synchronization.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

The inclusion of Section 7.7.3 to request a 12x24 forecast Net Output is in
consideration of calculation of Brisbie LLC’s associated Renewable Capacity Credit
(“RCC”) for the Pleasant Valley Solar PPA. At the time the Pleasant Valley Solar PPA
was finalized in October 2022, Idaho Power was engaged in ongoing discussions with
Commission Staff to determine the RCC payment methodology for Special Contract
customer Micron and their participation in the Clean Energy Your Way offering. Because
the Brisbie ESA has not been approved by the Commission, Idaho Power anticipated a

. In the early stages of this discussion, use of the
was under consideration, which
utilizes a 12x24 forecast output to determine
in which RCC payment is provided. Idaho Power initially proposed to update this
12x24 forecast every two years in development of the Company’s RCC payment
methodology proposal for Micron, but ultimately, in December 2022, put forth two
potential recommendations for Commission approval, neither of which require updating

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 15
the 12x24 forecast Net Output.4
It is the Company’s intent that information provided for the 12x24 forecast,
Estimated Net Output Amount, and Expect Energy for the year are derived from the same
underlying basis of data and represent the same monthly and/or annual generation.
Because the RCC payment methodology presented in the Micron case does not require
updating the 12x24 forecast, the Company anticipates deprioritizing submission of this
forecast by Pleasant Valley Solar, and instead envisions

. Due to this, the Company does not have
workpapers supporting the synchronization of the three updates.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Paul Goralski, Regulatory
Consultant, Idaho Power Company.

4 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company’s Application for Approval of a Replacement Special Contract
with Micron Technology, Inc. and a Power Purchase Agreement with Black Mesa Energy, LLC., Case No.
IPC-E-22-06, Idaho Power Company’s Compliance Filing, filed December 23, 2022.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 16
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please provide an example of how Solar
Energy Production Forecasting Monthly Cost is determined for the first Contract Year,
where there is no historical data, and the second Contract Year, where there is historical
data, according to Section 7.7.2.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

The Solar Energy Production Forecasting Monthly Cost is a cost assessed for
administering the solar forecasting model and is not associated with historical data or any
other actual production data from the Project. It is a formula that allocates a portion of the
total costs of the forecasting model to Pleasant Valley Solar by taking the Expected
Nameplate Capacity of the Project (Facility MW or FMW) divided by the total Nameplate
Capacity rating of all solar projects under contract on Idaho Power’s system (Total MW
or TMW) multiplied by the annual cost Idaho Power incurs to provide Solar Energy
Production Forecasting (Annual Solar Energy Production Forecast Cost or AF Cost).
Annual Cost Allocation = AFCost * (FMW/TMW)
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 17
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please confirm that, according to Section
3.1, before this PPA and the Special Contract are approved, the Company cannot accept
deliveries of Net Output and Green Tags from the Seller.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Yes. Regulatory approval of the PPA and Special Contract are conditions that must
be satisfied prior to Buyer’s acceptance of deliveries of Net Output and Green Tags from
Seller.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 18
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Section 6.1.1 states that: “[b]etween the
Effective Date and the Commercial Operation Date, Seller shall sell and deliver to Idaho
Power all Test Energy and Net Output.” Has the Pleasant Valley project delivered any
Test Energy currently? If so, when did the project start delivering Test Energy? If not,
when will the project start delivering Test Energy?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

The Pleasant Valley project has not delivered any Test Energy. Idaho Power
expects the project to begin delivering Test Energy in the first quarter of 2025.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Eric Hackett, Projects and Design
Senior Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 19
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Mr. Tatum’s Direct Testimony in Case
No. IPC-E-21-42 states that Brisbie anticipates beginning operations in . Please
respond to the following questions.
a. Please explain if Brisbie still anticipates beginning operations in based
on the most recent information from Brisbie.
b. Please confirm that before the Commercial Operation Date, Test Energy
generated by
c. Please confirm that Brisbie will meet its entire load using energy from Idaho
Power and will pay the two-block rates contained in Schedule 33 before the Commercial
Operation Date of the Pleasant Valley project.
d. Please confirm that the Renewable Energy Credits (“RECs”) associated
with Test Energy will be owned by Idaho Power and will not be owned by Brisbie.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

a. Yes, based on information received from Brisbie and included in the Company’s
December 2022 load forecast update, Brisbie forecasts commencing
operations in the .
b. Test Energy delivered by Pleasant Valley Solar to Idaho Power between the
Effective Date and the Commercial Operation Date is purchased by Idaho
Power at the Market Price Index as described in section 6.1.1,

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 20
. Upon triggering the
Brisbie ESA, Idaho Power will

c. As noted in response 12b,
trigger the commercial terms of the Brisbie ESA, thus any

. However, Idaho Power notes that typically, Test Energy
comprises a de minimis amount of energy as compared to the PPA facility’s
nameplate capacity and forecast monthly or annual generation upon achieving
commercial operation.
d. Pursuant to Section 5.6.1, Idaho Power is granted ownership of 100% of the
Green Tags and Environmental Attributes associated with Output generation
by the Facility during the Term, which commenced as of October 27, 2022,
(Effective Date). Per the terms of Brisbie’s ESA, Idaho Power will subsequently
transfer 100% of the Green Tags and Environmental Attributes to Brisbie.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Paul Goralski, Regulatory
Consultant, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 21
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please explain how the amount of Facility
Development Security ($90,000 per MW of Nameplate Capacity Rating) is determined.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

$90 per kW (or $90,000 per MW) of nameplate capacity is the customary amount
typically included in a PPA for security, usually for development security. This is meant
to secure potential damages, particularly Delay Damages, which represent a form of
liquidated damages approximation for things that would be difficult or impossible to predict
with certainty. See Section 4.7.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 22
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please explain how the amount of Default
Security ($90,000 per MW of Nameplate Capacity Rating) is determined.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Similar to the Response to Request for Production No. 13, the amount of Default
Security is a negotiated amount that is meant to secure payment of potential Deficit
Damages, or any other damages if the Agreement is terminated because of Seller’s
Default. Default Security must be posted by the Commercial Operation Date.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 23
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Section 7.12 states that Output
Guarantee means of the Expected Energy of the Facility for a month less any
quantities of Output that were not delivered to the Point of Delivery (or accepted by Idaho
Power) in such month during periods constituting Seller Uncontrollable Minutes. Please
respond to the following.
a. According to Section 1.35, please confirm that the Expected Energy of the
Facility for a month is measured at the Point of Delivery.
b. If so, please explain the rationale behind the calculation. Specifically, why
is the Output Guarantee calculated as of an amount measured at the Point of
Delivery minus an amount not delivered at the Point of Delivery.
c. Please explain why the Output Guarantee is set only based on a floor
without an upper-limit ceiling.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

a. Yes. Expected Energy is the estimate provided to, and measured at, the
Point of Delivery – which is where energy deliveries are metered.
b. The phrase from the question, “minus an amount not delivered at the Point
of Delivery” refers to Section 7.12.1, where Seller Uncontrollable Minutes are deducted
from the Expected Energy. That Section states, “’Output Guarantee’ for any month means
the sum of (i) of the Expected Energy of the Facility for such month, less (ii) any
quantities of Output that were not delivered to the Point of Delivery (or accepted by Idaho
Power) in such month during periods constituting Seller Uncontrollable Minutes (such
quantity calculated on the basis of the Net Output capable of being delivered in an hour
at an average rate equivalent to the actual Nameplate Capacity Rating).”
c. The Output Guarantee establishes a minimum performance obligation. It is

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 24
a performance obligation, and not a measure of firmness determination such as the
PURPA 90%/110% provision that determines avoided cost rate eligibility to rates
established at the time of contracting versus rates determined at the time of delivery under
the IPUC’s implementation of PURPA. The maximum generation will be limited by the
established Nameplate Capacity Rating, as well as the interconnection.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 25
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please explain why Section 7.12.2.1
“Liquidated Damages for Output Shortfall” does not consider transmission charges
associated with moving replacement energy to the Point of Delivery, which are considered
in Section 12.2.1 “Remedy for Seller’s Failure to Deliver.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Section 7.12 addresses the Output Guarantee, and Section 12.2 addresses
damages for a Seller Default. The referenced Section 7.12.2.1 from the question
addresses a situation in which there are no liquidated damages applied where the Net
Output is equal to or greater than the Output Guarantee. Sections 7.12.2.2, 7.12.23, and
7.12.2.4 address situations in which the Seller did not meet the Output Guarantee and
may have positive calculated Output Shortfall damages. The Output Shortfall damages
are a compensatory payment engaged when the project does not perform in accord with
its estimated output. Section 12.2.1 addresses potential damages in which the Seller has
committed an Event of Default under the PPA as enumerated under Section 12.1. For
example: if the Seller sells the Output, Green Tags, or Capacity Rights to another party
besides Idaho Power – or the Facility is foreclosed upon, etc.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 26
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please explain why the Green Tags Price
Component is not considered in Section 1.130 “Seller’s Cost to Cover,” but is considered
in Section 1.58 “Idaho Power’s Cost to Cover.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Because of the importance of, and requirement to provide the renewable aspects
of the generation to Brisbie, Green Tag costs are included in Idaho Power’s Cost to Cover.
The Seller’s Cost to Cover is simply the difference between market and contract.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 27
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Section 1.130 “Seller’s Cost to Cover”
states: “[f]or any days prior to the Commercial Operation Date, the Seller’s Cost to Cover
shall be zero dollars ($0).” Please explain if a similar treatment should be applied to
Section 1.58 “Idaho Power’s Cost to Cover.” (i.e. “For any days prior to the Commercial
Operation Date, Idaho Power’s Cost to Cover shall be zero dollars ($0).”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

No. It is the Seller’s responsibility to construct and operate the project and meet
the Commercial Operation Date. If Seller does not do so, Idaho Power should be
compensated for Costs to Cover. On the other hand, the Seller should have no
expectation of receiving costs to cover, should it fail to construct the facility or fail to meet
the Commercial Operation Date.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please respond to the following regarding
Section 12.2.2 “Remedy for Idaho Power’s Failure to Purchase.”
a. Please confirm that under the circumstance described in Section 12.2.2,
Seller is allowed to sell the Net Output and Green Tags not purchased by Idaho Power to
third parties.
b. This section states Idaho Power shall pay Seller an amount equal to Seller’s
Cost to Cover multiplied by the amount of Net Output not purchased, less amounts
received by Seller pursuant to Section 12.6. Please provide an example to demonstrate
the calculation.
c. Why does Idaho Power not provide “additional transmission charges” to
Seller associated with moving the Net Output to the third party, which are considered in
Section 12.2.1 “Remedy for Seller’s Failure to Deliver”?
d. Why does Idaho Power not provide “additional costs or expenses” incurred
as a result of Idaho Power’s Default, which are considered in Section 12.2.1 “Remedy for
Seller’s Failure to Deliver”?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

a. Yes. The Seller has a duty to mitigate damages as expressed in Section
12.6, which is specifically referenced in Section 12.2.2.
b. The Seller’s Cost to Cover is defined in Section 1.130. If the Seller’s Cost
to Cover is a positive number, then that number is multiplied by the Net Output not
purchased by Idaho Power, subtracting out any amounts that the Seller received from
selling the generation elsewhere.
c.
.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S CONFIDENTIAL RESPONSE TO THE CONFIDENTIAL FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 29
d.
.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Camille Christen, Resource
Acquisition, Planning and Coordination Manager, Idaho Power Company.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 30
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: What rate design does the Company
intend to use to compensate Brisbie for Capacity Value for energy delivered from this
contract given the proceeding in Case No. IPC-E-22-06?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

Because the Company has not received an order in the Brisbie Special Contract
case, Idaho Power cannot respond with certainty about the rate design methodology that
will be utilized. Should the Commission direct Idaho Power to provide payment for
capacity value in a

.
The response to this Request is sponsored by Paul Goralski, Regulatory
Consultant, Idaho Power Company.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of February 2023.

DONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 6th day of February 2023, I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Idaho Power Company’s Confidential Response to the
Confidential 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:

Chris Burdin
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
11331 West Chinden Blvd, Bldg 8
Suite 201-A
Boise ID 83714

Emailed to:
[e-mail]
Darrell Early
Ed Jewell
Wil Gehl
Boise City Attorney’s Office
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, Idaho 83701-0500

Emailed to:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

________________________________
Christy Davenport
Legal Administrative Assistant

CERTIFICATE OF ATTORNEY

ASSERTION THAT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN AN IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FILING IS PROTECTED FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION
Case No. IPC-E-22-29
Idaho Power Company’s Application for Approval of a Power Purchase
Agreement with Pleasant Valley Solar, LLC

The undersigned attorney, in accordance with RP 67, believes that the Idaho
Power Company’s Confidential Response to the Confidential First Production Request
of the Commission Staff to Idaho Power Company dated February 6, 2023, may contain
information that Idaho Power Company or a third-party claims is confidential as
described in Idaho Code § 74-101, et seq., and § 48-801, et seq., and as such is
exempt from public inspection, examination, or copying.

DATED this 6th day of February 2023.

Donavan Walker
Counsel for Idaho Power Company

RECEIVED
2023 February 6, 4:57PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION