20180126Avista to Staff_DR_034.docx

AVISTA CORP.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
JURISDICTION:OregonDATE PREPARED:11/15/2017
CASE NO.:UM 1897WITNESS:Mark Thies
REQUESTER:PUC StaffRESPONDER:Collins SpragueTYPE:Data RequestDEPT:Government Relations
REQUEST NO.:Staff – 034(AVA)TELEPHONE:[phone]EMAIL:[e-mail]:Regarding TWS 007, as Avista reviewed each of three recently proposed US Senate energy bills, sponsored by Senator Wyden, did Avista find it would not be disqualified to participate in related cost share demonstration and infrastructure grants from elements of the US Government, such as the US Department of Energy and related agencies post-merger?RESPONSE:
The Company does not foresee it being ineligible to participate in Federal or State grant or loan programs post-merger.
The question posed by staff, with respect to both its reference to legislation sponsored by Senator Wyden and its general reference to “infrastructure stimulus,” hinges on the concept of “eligibility.” Whether the Company would or would not be eligible to participate in any particular Federal or State program is a question that must be answered on a case-by-case basis, as it would depend upon eligibility criteria either set forth in legislation, or adopted through administrative rule by an implementing agency. The three bills sponsored by Senator Wyden offer an opportunity for illustration.
S. 1874 – This legislation directs the “Secretary of Energy to establish certain demonstration grant programs relating to the demonstration of advanced distribution systems, smart water heaters, vehicle-to-grid integration, and granular retail electricity pricing, and for other purposes.” It explicitly defines entities that would be “eligible” to participate in several programs the measure would create. The measure relies on a definition of “electric utility” from the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to establish eligibility criteria in some circumstances. “Post-merger,” Avista will remain an “electric utility” under PURPA. Participants in the proposed “advanced distribution system grant program” would include “an investor-owned electric utility.” Avista should be construed as being an “investor-owned electric utility,” as that term includes the defined phrase “electric utility.” An “eligible entity” under the proposed “smart water heater demonstration program” includes “an electric utility.” Avista should be eligible as an “electric utility.” A variety of parties would be eligible to participate in the “vehicle-to-grid integration demonstration grant program,” including “an electric utility.” Avista would be eligible to participate in this program. The “granular retail electricity pricing grant program” defines an “eligible entity” as an “investor-owned electric utility; a publicly owned utility; and an electric cooperative.” Avista should be eligible to participate in this grant program as an “investor-owned electric utility.”
S. 1875 – This bill would “move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the flexibility, efficiency, and reliability of the electric grid, to increase the competitiveness of the United States economy, to protect consumers, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.” The operative provisions of this comprehensive measure, aside from program requirements established for FERC and the Department of Energy, include directives for the provision of “assistance” to various entities, as well as requirements for including “relevant stakeholders” in consultation. The legislation also authorizes appropriations, demonstration projects and specific grant programs (i.e., the Advanced Distribution System Grant Program). Among the entities eligible to receive assistance, to be involved in demonstration projects and consultation, and to participate in grant programs are “energy distribution utilities,” “electric utilities” (as defined under PURPA), and “investor-owned electric utilities”, respectively. Post-merger, Avista would remain an “electric utility” under PURPA (as well as “an investor-owned electric utility”) and it could be construed as being an “energy distribution utility.”
S. 1876 – This legislation establishes a program within the Department of Energy to “advance energy storage deployment by reducing the cost of energy storage through research, development, and demonstration, and for other purposes.” The bill does not appear to explicitly authorize a grant or loan program, and it does not enumerate any eligibility criteria nor delegate to the department any authority to establish eligibility criteria. It does, however, identify “electric utilities,” including “investor-owned electric utilities,” as parties that would qualify to consult with the agency. As an investor-owned electric utility, Avista should “qualify” to engage in such consultation.
None of these bills would explicitly prohibit participation by an “electric utility,” “energy distribution utility,” or an “investor-owned electric utility” that is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation and directly owned by a holding company incorporated in the United States.