20050830Complaint.pdf

C~: f=-
\/'
- n
- --- ,,",.
1. U
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter~ri chardsonando I eary. com
...~
ZOOS ttUG 30 Pii 3: 25
II..
(-!
ESU d~H~~~T/~: S I ON
Mike Uda (pro hoc vice application pending)
DONEY, CROWLEY, BLUMQUIST, PAYNE & UDA
Suite 200
Diamond Block
Helena, MT 59601
[phone]
[phone]
muda~doneylaw. com
Attorneys for Complainant Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
THOMSPON RIVER CO-GEN, LLC, a
Colorado Company
Respondent
COMPLAINT
CASE NO.AVU-G --()'7
Complainant
vs.
VISTA CORPORATION, dba, Avista Utilities
a Washington Corporation
COMES NOW Complainant Thompson River Co-Gen, LLC, (hereinafter "TRC"), by
and through their attorneys complains against Respondent A vista Corporation, dba A vista
Utilities ("A vista" or the "Company") and alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
COMPLAINT
Copies of all pleadings and other correspondence in this matter should be served upon
counsel for TRC at the above noted addresses.
Mr. Uda pro hoc vice application is pending.
This is a formal complaint filed pursuant to Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission ), IDAP A 31.01.01.054.
COMPLAINT
TRC is a cogeneration facility located in Thompson Falls, Montana.
TRC is a self-certified Qualifying Facility ("QF") as defined by the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.C. ~ 824 et seq. PURPA"and the implementing regulations
adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"
TRC is a new, base-load generation resource in the Pacific Northwest and does not currently
maintain a long-term wholesale sales off-take agreement.
Under normal or average design conditions the TRC facility will generate at no more than 10
aMW in any given month.
As constructed, actual operating results of integrating the used components of the facility,
attributes of the blended coal and waste-wood fuels, and the ordinary conditions normally
associated with the co-generation process cause the facility to be boiler limited.
COMPLAINT
A vista is an Idaho electric utility with service territory in Idaho.
A vista is subj ect to the Commission s jurisdiction pursuant to Title 61 , Idaho Code and 16
C. ~ 824a-
The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this Complaint pursuant to Idaho Code
61-612 and 16 U.C. ~ 824a-3(g)(2).
On or before March 11 , 2005 , TRC officially notified A vista that it desired to provide service
under the QF avoided cost standard offer rate in Avista s Idaho service territory.
10.
For several months, and culminating on August 22 2005 , TRC has attempted good faith
negotiations to reach an agreement to sell the entire net output from the facility to A vista under
Avista s non-Ievelized published standard offer rate for fueled projects that under normal or
average design conditions will generate no more than 10 aMW in any given month.
11.
Despite meetings, an exchange of draft contracts, and numerous other efforts to reach agreement
on rates, terms and conditions for a QF agreement, TRC and Avista have been unable to reach
agreement.
12.
A vista wrongly asserts that TRC does not qualify for its standard offer rate.
COMPLAINT
13.
A vista wrongfully disregards information from TRC verifying that the actual net output has never
exceeded 10 aMW in any month, since commercial operation began in late December 2004.
14.
Avista wrongfully disregards previous Commission orders, which state that even ifTRC could
provide net output greater than 10 aMW in a month, that A vista would be entitled to such energy
at no cost, though TRC has repeatedly confirmed it has no intent to do so.
15.
Avista s refusal to offer the published non-Ievelized, fueled standard offer rate to TRC is a
violation ofPURP A's requirement that a utility purchase energy and capacity from QFs at the
utility s administratively determined full avoided cost.
16.
Avista s refusal to offer the published non-Ievelized, fueled standard offer rate to TRC is a
violation of the Commission s orders implementing PURP A, particularly but not limited to the
Commission s decision in S. Geothermal v. Idaho Power Company, et aI., IPC E-04-
(November 22, 2004).
17.
TRC will, at normal or average design conditions, generate no more than 10 aMW in any given
month.
18.
Actual generation from TRC, since it was deemed operational in late 2004, clearly demonstrates
that the facility does not exceed 10 aMW.
COMPLAINT
19.
TRC is eligible for Avista s standard offer, non-Ievelized, fueled avoided cost rate.
20.
Contract negotiations have hit an impasse due to a disagreement over this fundamental issue of
TRC's eligibility for Avista s published, non-Ievelized rate for fueled projects.
21.
Neither TRC nor Avista are willing to Yield on this issue.
22.
Avista informed TRC the week of August 22 2005, that further discussions regarding TRC'
eligibility for Avista s standard non-Ievelized rate for fueled QF projects would not be fruitful.
23.
A vista informed TRC the week of August 22, 2005, that the only resolution of our dispute would
be for this Commission to formally provide its guidance.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE TRC respectfully prays this Commission for an order requiring A vista to
immediately complete the purchase ofTRC's energy at the published non-Ievelized rate for
fueled projects that under normal and average design conditions generate no more than 10 aMW
monthly in a manner reflective of earlier Commission orders.
RICHARDSON & 0 'LEARY PLLC
By:
Peter J. Richardson, ISB #3195
Attorneys for Thompson River Co-Gen
LLC
COMPLAINT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of August 2005, I caused to be served an
original and seven true and correct copies of the foregoing Complaint by hand to the following:
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho
o~ CWJ ch\
Nina Curtis
Legal Assistant
COMPLAINT