20021028_305.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
TONY A CLARK
DON HOWELL
DAVE SCHUNKE
RANDY LOBB
LYNN ANDERSON
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:OCTOBER 25, 2002
RE:CASE NO. GNR-02-01 (QF size/contract length)
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING (plummer)
BACKGROUND
Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and
pertinent regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) require regulated electric
utilities to purchase power from qualifying facilities (QFs). On February 5, 2002, the Commission
initiated this generic docket soliciting comments on the reasonableness of existing project size
limitations for QFs of 1 MW and the five-year restriction on QF contract length. On May 21 2002, the
Commission issued Order No. 29029 increasing the size of QFs eligible for published rates from
MW to 5 MW and increasing the maximum required contract length from 5 years to 20 years.
On May 21 , 2002, Idaho Power Company filed a Motion to Stay Entitlement to Published
Rates, andAvista Utilities filed a similar motion on June 11 , 2002. On June 10, 2002, Petitions for
Reconsideration were filed by J. R. Simplot Company (Simplot) and Earth Power Resources, Inc.
(Earth Power). Petitions for Reconsideration were also filed by Idaho Power and Avista on June 11
2002.
The Commission in Order No. 29069 issued July 2, 2002 (1) granted the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by Simplot and Earth Power and increased the size of QFs eligible for published
DECISION MEMORANDUM
rates from 5 MW to 10 MW; (2) granted the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Idaho Power and
A vista for the purpose of reviewing the reasonableness of the variables in the existing avoided cost
methodology and scheduled an August hearing on the reconsideration; and (3) granted the Motions for
Stay filed by Idaho Power and Avista staying the published rates resulting from Order No. 29029
except as they apply to existing QF contracts, until the Commission rendered this decision on
reconsideration.
The Commission in Order No. 29124 approved changes to the generic variables in the
avoided cost methodology, approved the resultant fueled and non-fueled avoided cost rates for Idaho
Power Company, Avista Corporation, and PacifiCorp and reaffirmed the changes to contract length for
QFs smaller than 10 MW approved in Order No. 29069.
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
In compliance with scheduling approved by the Commission at the conclusion of the
hearing on reconsideration, Plummer Forest Products, Inc. on October 1 , 2002, filed an Application for
intervenor funding. Reference Idaho Code 61-617A; IDAPA 31.01.01.161-164. On October 10
2002, Idaho Power made a filing opposing Plummer s request.
Plummer Forest Products, Inc. was granted intervenor status in Case No. GNR-02-
submitted comments in the underlying case, filed a formal answer to Avista s Petition for
Reconsideration and participated in the hearing on reconsideration.Plummer in its testimony
recommended that the first deficit year for Avista be set at the year 2002. Alternatively, Plummer
joined in the recommendation of Commission Staff and IEPI that the first deficit year be eliminated as
a component of the avoided cost calculation. Plummer contends that the Commission adopted its
alternative recommendation. While both Plummer and Commission Staff addressed the first deficit
year issue, Plummer contends that Staffs analysis was more generic in nature. Plummer, by contrast
states that it focused specifically on Avista s first deficit year calculations. Plummer contends that its
testimony and argument enabled the Commission to make the findings related to problems inherent in
the first deficit year on page 8 of Order No. 29124. See discussion first deficit year Order No. 29124
pp. 6-
Plummer contends that it is a small privately-owned business in a struggling industry and
that payment of fees and costs related to its participation in this proceeding would constitute a
hardship. Plummer requests an award of intervenor funding in the amount of $4 137., comprised of
537.50 attorney fees
(~
$175/hr) and an expert witness fee for Mr. Larry Crowley of $600.
Plummer contends that its testimony and argument address the benefits accruing from some diversity
DECISION MEMORANDUM
in a utility's power supply portfolio, an issue of concern to the general body of utility users and that its
advocacy was not limited to any specific customer class.
Idaho Power challenges Plummer s Application for intervenor funding contending that
Plummer has failed to demonstrate that the positions and recommendations it presented in the case
differed materially from the testimony and exhibits presented by Commission Staff. Reference IDAP
31.01.01.162.05-Statement of Difference. Noting that Plummer essentially admits that the only real
difference between its presentation in this case and the presentation of Commission Staff is that
Plummer focused its testimony and exhibits specifically on Avista s first deficit year calculations
Idaho Power believes that it is questionable that Plummer is entitled to any intervenor funding. Should
the Commission find that Plummer s Avista-specific presentation was sufficiently different from
Staffs to support an intervenor funding award, Idaho Power contends that any intervenor funding
award should be paid solely by Avista s customers and not by Idaho Power s customers. Reference
IDAPA 31.01.01.162.06-07. Idaho Power requests that the Commission issue an Order either denying
an award of intervenor funding to Plummer, or, in the alternative, directing that the award be paid by
Avista s customers and not by Idaho Power Company s customers.
Commission Decision
Plummer Forest Products, Inc. requests an award of intervenor funding in the amount of
137.50. Idaho Power contends that the recommendations of Plummer do not differ materially from
the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff and that pursuant to IDAPA 31.01.01.165.01.d
Plummer does not qualify for intervenor funding. Alternatively, Idaho Power recommends that should
an award be made, that the award be paid by Avista s customers and not by Idaho Power s customers.
Does the Commission find that the participation of Plummer materially contributed to the
Commission s decision and that the recommendations of Plummer differed materially from the
testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff? If an award is appropriate, does the Commission find the
requested amount to be reasonable? If an award is granted, to whom should the intervenor funding be
chargeable?
Scott Woodbury
Vld!M:GNREO20 I sw4
DECISION MEMORANDUM