19910117Brown Protest.pdf

/8;4?
nEcElvgi.r Er,LEO tr,sl
JRil 1? Pn 3 iB
BEFoRE rHE rDAHo puBlrc urrlrrrE" "o*#JA!#3'r[Yr',i,';'r,r,n'9"-'a
IN THE IIIATTER OF THE APPLICATTON
OF IDAHO POWER COI{PANY FOR
APPROVAL OF AN TNTERCONNECTION
TARIFF FOR NON-UTTLITY GENERATTON
cAsE NO. rPC-E-90-20
PROTEST
Comes now A.W. Brown to register a protest before the
Commission regarding the above subject matter and in particular
certain items delineated in both Order Number 23477 and the
attached Tariff Schedule Number 72 which are identified as follows:
1. On page 2 of Order Number 23477, second paragraph, is the
statement rrThe Company contends that it will pri-marily
recover costs and not realize any significant revenues
from implementation of its proposed t,arif f . !l
2. On sheet 27 F of Schedule Number 72 under definitions
appears |tConstruction Cost: The costr ds determined by
the company of upgrade, relocation or construction of
Company furnished interconnection facilitator. rr
3. On sheet 27 H appears: rrCost of Interconnection
Facilities: AIl interconnection facilitiers provided
under this schedule will be valued at the companyrs
construction cost and/or the transfer cost for vesting
purposes as well as for operation and maintenance payment
obligations. rl
)
)
)
)
)
PROTEST -1-
{I
4. On sheet 27 K all of the first paragraph is cited and in
particular the last sentence which states trThe percentage
is O.4 t for 138 kv and 161 kv facilities and O.7 * on
facilities below 138 kv. rr
It is this protestorrs contention that the statement in itern
one above is deliberately nisleading on the part of Idaho Power
Conpany (IPC) and that they trillr 6s they have in the past, under
a Commission mandate, realize significant profits from this source
of construction by overcharging with impunity. The statements of
items two, three and four invite the procedure of overcharging
because the more a facilityrs cost can be escalated, the more IPC
will collect on operation and naintenance charges where the cost
has no direct bearing on either the operation or the maintenance.
IPC should not have the right under an approval by the Commission
to hold a sole source monopoly on interconnection facilityts
construction and construct whatever they please whether it fits the
situation or not and then collect a fee forever based on an IPc
determined cost with no recourse for the hapless non-utility
generator.
Further, I would propose to the Cornnission that the costs
which IPC seeks to charge a small power project are not
trj.nterconnection costsrr within the meaning of the federal 1aw, and
cannot be passed on to the small polrer project. The federal
regulations, as 5292.304, do allow charging ttinterconnection costsrl
to a small pohrer producer, but ilinterconnection coststt are defined
at 5292.2oL(71 as:
PROTEST -2-
t (
The reasonable costs of connection, switching, metering,transnission, distribution, safety provisions andadninistrative costs incurred by the electric utilitydirectly related to the installation and maintenance ofthe physical facilities necessary to pernit
interconnected operations with a gualifying facility, tothe extent such costs are in excess of the correspondingcosts which the electric utility would have incurred ifit had not engaged in interconnected operations, butinstead generated an equivalent amount of electric energyitself or purchased in equivalent amount of electril
ener!ry or capacity fron other sources. Interconnectioncosts do not include any costs included in thecalculation of avoided costs.
[Emphasis added. ] It is guite clear that the connection and
maintenance costs being charged by fdaho Power would be incurred by
them if they were to generate this power themselves in their own
capacity, and no showing is made to the contrary.
Idaho Powerrs application in this matter is aII the more
insidious because it is aimed no doubt for the most part at future
non-utility generators who are not yet identified and therefore not
notified that the future is being decided for them now to their
detriment. In fact, a prospective IPP with no experience with the
predatory practices of IPC when dealing with IPC might not read
into Schedule No. 72 what I read into it only because of ny ohrn
bitter experiences with IPc.
The foregoing position taken by this protestor, it is
realized, does not by itself present to the commission facts upon
which IPC can be exposed. Holrever, these are not empty words and
I will cite my frustration and confrontations with IPC when I was
attenpting to bring Sunshine Power Number Two to fruition by means
of irrefutable evidence of IPC behavior during the construction
PROTEST -3-
I I
phase.
1
4
2
3
The following paragraphs relate the chronology of eventsl
After IPC had accepted by interconnect application and I
had established conmunication with the engineering
departnent, I was informed that IPC would furnish a
company designed protection package with manual and
automatic disconnect switching. I was told such a device
I had intended as part of the generator controls was not
acceptable to IPC.
I sent the powerhouse drawing to IPC and in return
received an IPC drawing showing the desired location of
the rPC equipnent mounted on the inside waII.
As time elapsed and the first energry date approached, IPC
conducted a site survey and finally it was negotiated
that I would install two power poles, transformers, etc.
and IPC would install one pole at the interconnect point.
The poles f installed included raptor protection and cost
approximately $500.00 each installed. The fPC pole did
not include raptor protection.
I{hen fPC furnished their disconnect equipment it turned
out to be nothing like that shown on their drawing. It
was rated at 500 amps instead of the expected 20O amps,
it was outdoor, weatherproof eguipment and would not fit
in the powerhouse without a wiring redesign which cost me
more money.
My electrical contractor installed the IPC equipment at
my expense as well as all the overhead wiring to the
5
5.
PROTEST
{{
7
8.
o
10.
11.
L2.
13.
interconnect point. fPc did not even deliver the
equipment to the site.
The only work the IPC crew performed was the installation
of one pole and the actual interconnect to the existing
34 kv line which consumed several hours.
For the two manual switches, the autonatic switch and the
installation of one power pole I hras obligated to pay
$19r069.00 to get on interconnect.
I reguested a detailed breakdown of the $19r069.00 bill
which has not been made available to me.
I then did some price checking through my electrical
contractor and learned that 2O0 aurp indoor switches cost
approximately $300.00 each. I learned from Sierra
Electro Development I could duplicate the IPC automatic
control with lock and key for $3r00o.00.
In short, I was forced to pay $191069.00 for something
that could be duplicated for less than $4r500.00 but that
is not the end of it. Ever since the interconnect date
I have been paying $133.48 a month for non-existent
maintenance on one power pole worth approximately
$50O.00, two manual switches that should be worth $30O.OO
each and one automatic switch worth maybe $3rOOo.OO.
After 36 months of palments I have now paid a total of
$4r805.28 for non-existent maintenance on eguipnent only
worth $4,5o0.o0.
To add insult to injury the IPC directed my electrical
PROTEST -5-
{I
contractor to install 500 amp fuses because the switch
gear was so rated. He refused to do this and installed
2O0 amp fuses to that the generating eguipment would be
better Protected.
L4. In my utter frustration regarding the above actions of
IPC which I consider to be nothing short of crininal, I
have sought advise from legaI council on how to break
this strangle hold on me by IPC. The answer comes back
loud and clear that I would be wasting my time since IPC
operates in this area under the approval of the IPUC.
Please be advised that if the Comnission takes an interest in
my views I can, by request, furnish hard evidence in the form of
bilIs, palmrents and quotations. fn fact, I request that the
Comnrission does verify the behavior of rPC under your mandate and
deny fPC approval of Schedule Number 72 as nohl written. ft makes
no sense that fPC control the type and sale prices of standard
switch gear. Even special switch gear can be made to their
specifications which is how they purchase it no!r. As for the
standard operational and maintenance fees based on IPC determined
costs as requested in Schedule Number 72 where there is no direct
bearing between cost and maintenance to think otherwise would be
naive.
Fina1ly, this letter is meant to be a complaint as vell as a
protest against IPC for malpractice. I request that the Commission
direct IPC to pay retribution for their criminal difference between
the $19rooo.oo cost and the $4r50o.00 worth, including the non-
PROTEST -6-
{
FROTI I{UDEN HRKUU5H I(1I-E.UI
t
existent maintenance fees pluB interest.
I thank the conmission for the opportunlty to flle thls
protest and cornp).aint and f loo)c forward to being lnfor:ned as to
the actlon taken ln this matter.
DATED this 16 day of January, 1991.
A--N-{3^-*r--nA. W. BROT{N
u1.i.:.lt:, 1 lt,:?4 t', x
PROTEST -7-