20110217PAC to XRG 53-63.pdf

LOVIGER I KAUF LL
825 NE Multnomah . Suite 925
Portand, OR 97232-2150
offce [phone]
fax [phone]
. J~tTLt"Y S. I.ovi"b'lTI.J:\'111gcklaw.(."(
Februar 15,2011
V"UI electronic mail and First-Class Mai
i.---rg
Jean D. Jewell, Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W Washington Street
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
-..rr~
~~..,-~
Re: Case No. PAC-E-I0-08
XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-I0, LLCs, Complainants, vs.
PACIFICORP dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, Defendant
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned docket are thee (3) copies of ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER'S RESPONSES TO XRG 'S THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST.
An extra copy of ths cover letter is enclosed. Please date stamp the extra copy and retu it to
me in the envelope provided.
Than you in advance for your assistance.
Sincely, ()
~viger
cc: PAC-E-I0-08 Service List
Enclosures
Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mark. moench§pacicorp. com
daniel.solander§pacicorp.com
Jeffey S. Loviger
Kenneth E. Kaufmnn
Lovinger Kaufman LLP
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925
Portand, Oregon 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
loviger§law.com
kaufmann§law.com
Attorneys for Defendant Rock Mountain Power
ZOlf FEB i 7 AM 9= 31
BEFORE TH IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITS COMMSION
XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9,
XRG-DP-lO, LLCs,
Complainant,
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
v.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S
RESPONSES TO XRG'S THI
PRODUCTION REQUEST
PACIFICORP, DBA ROCKY
MOUNTAI POWER,
Defendant.
PaciCorp, dba Rock Mountain Power, hereby responds to request 53
though 63 ofXRG's third sèt of producton requests dated January 11,2011. On
February 4, 2011, Rocky Mountain Power fied a motion for summary judgment. At
the same time, Rocky Mountain Power fied a motion for protectve order to stay
dicovery regardig XRG requests 24 though 52 pendig resolution of the motion
for summar judgent. Rocky Mountain Power reserves the right to respond to
request 24 though 52 in the event Rocky Mountain Power's motions are denied.
1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THI PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53
Please admit or deny that, on or about October 15, 2010, the XRG LLCs offered to
forego any claim to the higher rates in Order No. 30744 and to accept the rates in
Order No. 31025 if Rocky Mountain Power would agree to accept conditional fi
transmision deliver.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53
(a) Rocky Mountain Power respectlly object to XRG's Request for Producton
No. 53 as irelevant and as not reasonably ealcuated to lead to the dicovery of
admissible evidence.1 XRG's complaint requests the avoided cost rates in effect prior
to March 12,2010 (as establihed by Order No. 30744).2 Any information regardig
XRG's eligibilty for the rates in effect after March 16,2010 (as established by Order
No. 31025) is irelevant to the relief sought in XRG's complaint.3
(b) Rocky Mountain Power respectlly object to XRG's Request for Production
No, 53 as irelevant and as not reasonably calcuated to lead to the discovery of
admisible evidece. XRG's request seeks information regarding compromie
discussions between the pares. Information regarding failed attempts to
compromise or sette is inadmissible evidence.4 Any information provided by Rocky
Mountain Power in response to XRG's request would be inadmisible and is
irelevant.
i IDAPA 31.01.01.225; Idaho Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(1); See In the Mater of the Invtigation into
Whether Packsaddle Developmen Corpraton is a Public Utility Subject to Commision Regulaton, IPUC
Case No. GNR. W-95-1 Order No. 26399 (1996) ("The general rules governing the scope of discover
are found in IRCP Rule 26(b)(1) ... partes may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not
pnvileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending acton. ").
2 SeeFormalComplaintofXRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-10v. PacifCorp, dbaRocky
Mountain Power, Case No. Pac-E-IQ.08, at 7 (July 29, 2010) (XRG's complaint).
3 In the Mater of the Applicaton of Avia Corpration for the Authority to Increase its Rates an Charges for
Electc an Natural Ga Serice to Electc an Natral Ga Cusomes in the State of Idaho, Case No. AVU-
E-D-0 I, Order No. 29583 (200) (denying discover ofinformation regarding an issue not properly
before the Commission as irelevant to the subject matt of the procedings.)
4 See IDAPA 31.01.01.261 (stating the Commission generally wil follow the rules as to admissibilty
of evidence followed by the distict court ofIdaho); Hatfeld v. Rouse & Sons, 100 Idaho 840, 845-6
(1980) (excluding all information regading offer to compromise as inadmisible in civil proceedings).
2
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S TH PRODUCTION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54
Please admit or deny that Rock Mountain Power is able to accept deliver under
conditional fi tranmission from the 4 XRG QFs at Brady.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S4
Rocky Mountain Power admits that it does not discrimate between offsystem QFs
deliverig to Rock Mountain Power's system using fi transmision and those
using conditional fi transmision.
Recordholder:
Sponser:
Bruce Griwold
Bruce Griswold
3
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 55
Please identi all instances in which Rock Mountain Power has agreed to accept
conditional fi transmission from QF or non-QF generators under long or short
term agreements. Please lit al such agreements separately, and include the
miimum followig information: date Rocky Mountain Power agreed to accept
conditional fi transmission, date the deliverg entity commenced delivery (or is
projected to commence deliver), generator-tye, entity deliverig energy, and
description of the nature of the agreement, e.g. long term PP A, short term market
purchase, etc.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 55
Rock Mountain Power does not have any network resources using conditional fi
transmision servce to deliver power to network load,
Recordholder:
Sponser:
Bruce Griwold
Bruce Griswold
4
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THI PRODUCTION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56
Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountain Power requested to stay discovery in this
case on or about October 18, 2010, in order to respond to XRG's agreement to
accept the Order No. 31025 rates.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56
(a) Rock Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 56 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 56 as
irelevant for the reasons dicussed in objecton (b) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
5
ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57
Please admit or deny that, on December 16,2010, Rocky Mountain Power
uniateraly lifed the discover freeze in this case. If adIntted, please answer the
followig:
(a) Explain why Rocky Mountain Power recommenced litigation after XRG
offered to agree to the rates in Order No. 31025, and forego the relief sought in the
complaint for the rates in Order No. 30744.
(b) Does Rocky Mountain Power believe it had an obligation to negotite with
XRG in good faith after fiing of the complaint? If not, then between the tie of the
settement offer on October 15, 2010, and the date Rocky Mountain Power lifed the
discovery stay? Please explain.
(c) Please explain why dicovery is necessar to understand that XRG is wiing
to enter into stadard PURA PPAs containing the rates in Order No. 31025.
(d) Please explain the reason Rocky Mountain Power wi not provide standad
PPAs for the project containing the rates in Order No. 31025.
(e) Please explain what term are unown in a stadad Rocky Mountain
Power PUR A PP A for Idaho. Please explain in reference the Windland PP As
approved in Case No. PAC-E-10-05.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTON NO. 57
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 57 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rocky Mountain Power objects to XRG Request for Producton No. 57 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (b) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(c) Rock Mountain Power object to XRG's Request for Producton No. 57 to
the extent that it seeks an exper opinion, a legal opinion, or legal argument and to
the extent it calls for Rocky Mountain Power to state an opinion not previously
written.s
5 IDAPA 3L.0L.0L.225(b)(1).
6
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58
Has Rocky Mountain Power's position regarding the availabilty of the published
rates in Order No. 31025 to XRG's project changed since the fiing of the complaint
in this case? When did Rock Mountain Power fist become aware that the
availabilty of the rates may change?
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 58 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rock Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 58 as
seekig opinion to which XRG is not entitled as discussed in objecton (c) to XRG
Request for Producton No. 57.
7
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59
What were Rocky Mountain Power's publihed Idaho avoided cost rates in effect for
the tie perods from: (a) October 15, 2010 to November 5, 2010; (b) from
November 5,2010 to December 14, 2010; and (c) from December 14, 2010 to the
date of this producton request? What is the eligibilty cap for availabilty of those
rates during the same tie perods -10 aM, 100 kw, or some other amount? Is the
response diferent for dierent QF resource tyes? Please explain and direct XRG to
the tari or rate schedule on fie supportg the responses for each date.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 59
(a) Rock Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 59 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
8
ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S TH PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60
How did the informtion in the response to the last request affect Rocky Mountain
Power's consideration ofXRG's settement offer on October 15, 2010, and Rocky
Mountain Power's apparent deciion to reject the offer on December 16, 201O?
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 60 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rock Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 60 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (b) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
9
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S TH PRODUCTION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
Please provide or describe Rocky Mountain Power's policy regarding when an Idaho
QF obligates itself to PPA so as to lock in the rates in effect on a parcular date as
contemplated in 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(d)(2)(ii)? Which of the followig actons are
required in Rocky Mountain Power's view to lock in rates on a particuar date-
submittg a bindig offer to enter into a PPA, enterig into an interconnecton
agreement, securig network resource designation, securing any necessary
transmision serice agreements for an off-system project, fiing a complaint aleging
the utiity failed to negotiate in good faith?
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 61 as
seekig opinion to which XRG is not entitled as discussed in objecton (c) to XRG
Request for Producton No. 57.
10
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S TH PRODUCTON REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62
Reference Rocky Mountain Power's comments fied in Case No. IPC-E-1O-22
(statig that "Rocky Mountain Power agrees with Staffs characteration of the
Commsion's grandfather crteri. In order to qualif for grandfathered rates under
these criteria (the QF must) . . . (b) before the rate change, fie with the Commission a
meritorious complaint alegig that but for the utity's improper conduct the QF
would have secured a power sales contract before the rate changed.")
(a) Does Rock Mountain Power sti support these crteria, or have its crteria
changed?
(b) Did the Commission approve of Rock Mountain Power's crteria in Case
No. IPC-E-1O-22, or some less onerous requirement?
(c) Admit or deny that XRG meets Rocky Mountain Power's criteria descrbed
in its comments with regard to the rates in Order No. 31025.
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 62 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 62 as
seekig opinion to which XRG is not entitled as discussed in objecton (c) to XRG
Request for Producton No. 57.
11ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTION REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63
Please explain how XRG has failed to meet Rock Mountain Power's test with
regard to the rates in Order No. 31025. Is the relief requested in XRG's Complaint's
Prayer for Reliefunclear as to XRG's commtment to PURPA PPAs?
RESPONSE TO XRG REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63
(a) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 63 as
irelevant for the reasons discussed in objecton (a) to XRG Request for Producton
No. 53.
(b) Rocky Mountain Power object to XRG Request for Producton No. 63 as
seekig opinion to which XRG is not entitled as discussed in objecton (c) to XRG
Request for Producton No. 57.
12
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER'S RESPONSES
TO XRG'S THIR PRODUCTION REQUEST
CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIY that, on the 15th day of Februar, 2011, I served a tre and
correct copy of the foregoing ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSES TO
XRG'S THIRD PRODUCTION REQUEST in Case No. PAC-E-lO-08 on the following
named persons/entities by electronic mail and First-Class Mail:
Jean Jewell Peter J. Richardson
Commission Secretar Richardson & O'Lear, PLLC
Idaho Public Utilties Commission sis N. 27th Street
472 W Washington PO Box 7218
POBox 83720 Boise, ID 83707
Boise, ID 83720-0074 peterCIrichardsonandolear.com
jean. jewellCIpuc.idaho. gov
secretarCIpuc.idaho. gov
Mark C. Moench Gregory M. Adams
Rocky Mountan Power Richardson & O'Lear, PLLC
201 South Mai Street, Suite 2300 S 15 N. 27th Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 PO Box 7218
mark.moench(ßacifcorp.com Boise, ID 83707
greg(chardsonandolear.comDanel E. Solander
Rocky Mountai Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 841 i 1
daniel.solander(ßacificorp.com
DATED ths 15th day of Februar, 2011.
LOVINGER KAUFMNN LLP
inger
ocky Mountan Power