20080220final_order_no_30500.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
February 20, 2008
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
VISTA CORPORATION FOR AN ORDER
REVISING A VISTA CORPORATION'
OBLIGATIONS TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS TO PURCHASE ENERGY
GENERATED BY WIND-POWERED SMALL
POWER GENERATION FACILITIES
CASE NO. A VU-07-
ORDER NO. 30500
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has authority under Sections
201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the
implementing regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to set avoided
costs, to order electric utilities to enter into fixed-term obligations for the purchase of energy
from qualifying facilities (QFs) and to implement FERC rules.
In early 2007 Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities (Avista; Company), Idaho
Power Company (Idaho Power), and PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) filed
wind integration studies and petitions recommending utility-specific wind integration
adjustments to the published avoided cost rates. Case Nos. A VU-07-02 (4-07); IPC-07-
(2-16-07); and PAC-07-07 (4-23-07). The Commission in this Order addresses Avista
Petition and approves a comprehensive Settlement Stipulation of the issues presented.
increase the published rate eligibility cap for intermittent QF wind projects from 100 kW to 10
aMW /month, establish a wind integration adjustment to published avoided cost rates, and
eliminate the 90%/110% performance band for wind QFs that agree to provide a Mechanical
Availability Guarantee and share in the cost of wind forecasting services.
Background
On June 17, 2005 , in Case No. IPC-05-, Idaho Power requested a temporary
suspension of its purchase obligations for wind generation. A vista intervened and requested
similar treatment. On August 4, 2005 , the Commission issued Order No. 29839 finding good
cause to conduct further proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of adjustment, if any,
to integrate wind generation resources. The Commission declined to suspend the Company
purchase obligation. The Commission instead reduced the published rate eligibility cap for
intermittent QF wind projects from 10 aMW/month to 100 kW and required individual contract
ORDER NO. 30500
negotiations for wind QFs larger than 100 kW. This action was taken to investigate system
reliability and avoided cost issues regarding intermittent resources. In reducing the cap for
published rates for wind projects offering power on a non-firmed basis, the Commission found
that it had continuing authority to review PURP A rates in order to protect the public interest. 18
R. ~~ 292.304(a)(1)(i), (c)(1), (c)(3)(ii); Order No. 29839 p. 9. It was further established
that no utility is required to pay more than its avoided cost for QF purchases. PURP A ~ 21 O(b).
In the IPC-05-22 case, Idaho Power advised the Commission that it intended to
perform a study to quantify the additional costs it would incur directly related to purchasing a
significant amount of wind generation (the Wind Integration Study; the Study). Idaho Power
further advised the Commission that upon completion of the Study, Idaho Power would provide
it to the Commission for consideration. Pursuant to Commission direction, Idaho Power in
conjunction with Avista and PacifiCorp and in consultation with the other parties scheduled and
held four workshops (August 29, September 20, October 10, and November 18, 2005) and a
settlement meeting (January 12, 2006). The parties were unsuccessful in reaching mutual
agreement on interim settlement issues. No additional meetings were scheduled until completion
of Idaho Power s wind integration study. See Phase II Workshop Final Report, January 31
2006. See also September 6, 2005 and November 7 , 2005 Status Reports.
On April 2, 2007, Avista in Case No. A VU-07-02 filed a Petition with the
Commission presenting a final Wind Integration Study and proposing a wind integration
adjustment to published avoided cost rates of 12% to compensate for the increase in system costs
due to wind variability; and for QFs agreeing to deliver output on a firm hourly schedule, a
percentage reduction of 6%.1 The Company s proposal included the following additional
elements and conditions: elimination of the 90%/110% performance band for wind powered
QFs; sharing of costs for wind forecasting services; establishment of a "Mechanical Availability
Guarantee" demonstrating physical capability and availability of wind QFs to generate at full
output during 85% of the hours in a month; and, contingent on acceptance of the foregoing, an
increase in the published rate eligibility cap for intermittent QF wind projects from 100 kW to 10
aMW /month.
1 On February 6, 2007, Idaho Power filed a similar petition in Case No. IPC-07-03 proposing a wind integration
adjustment of$lO.72/MWh. On April 23, 2007, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp) filed a Petition
in Case No. PAC-07-07 proposing a wind integration adjustment of$5.04 per MWh.
ORDER NO. 30500
On October 4, 2007, Renewable Northwest Project and NW Energy Coalition
(Renewable Coalition) filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement Stipulation. IDAP A
31.01.01.271-276. The Settlement is a proposed resolution of the issues presented in this case
and is now signed and/or is supported by all parties except Exergy Development Group of Idaho
LLC (Exergy). The Settlement Stipulation provides for three tiers of wind integration charges
based upon increasing levels of wind development.
Parties of Record
The following parties requested and were granted intervenor status: Exergy
Development Group of Idaho LLC; Renewable Northwest Project and NW Energy Coalition;
Idaho Windfarms LLC; and INL Biofuels and Renewable Energy Technologies.
Wind Integration Study - Initial Filing and Petition
A vista s Wind Integration Study was included as an attachment to its April 2, 2007
Petition. To assist Avista in preparing its Study, the Company retained the services of EnerNex
Corporation, an acknowledged expert in analysis and preparation of wind integration studies.
Additionally, Avista notes that it participated in, and benefited from Wind Integration Action
Plan proceedings conducted under the auspices of the Bonneville Power Administration and the
Northwest Power & Conservation Council.
A vista s Wind Integration Study purports to quantify some of the additional costs the
Company incurs in purchasing energy from intermittent QF wind resources, costs that are not
included in the published avoided cost rates. The Study draws the following observations and
conclusions: (1) higher wind penetration equals higher integration cost; (2) integration costs are
correlated with market prices; (3) short-term markets can reduce cost of variability; (4) rising
forecast error increases integration cost; (5) geographic diversity has direct influence on
integration costs; and (6) operational coordination between the control center and wind
generators reduce integration costs. The Study, the Company concludes, confirms that avoided
cost rates paid to wind-powered QF resources do not reflect the actual costs the Company could
avoid by the purchases and must be reduced to be in compliance with PURPA. 18 C.R. ~
292.304( a)(2).
Based on its Wind Study conclusions, Avista requests a change in the Company
PURPA obligations for wind QFs. Avista proposes increasing the cap on entitlement to
ORDER NO. 30500
published avoided cost rates for wind QFs from the current level of 100 kW to 10 aMW/month
subject to the following conditions:
Elimination 0/90%/110% Performance Band Requirement
A vista believes there is benefit to a level of consistency in the structure of PURP
QF tariffs between utilities. Idaho Power Company in Case No. IPC-07-03 recommends that
the 90%/110% performance band requirement be eliminated in energy purchase contracts
involving wind powered QFs, provided certain conditions are satisfied. Avista recommends that
the same policies be applied to purchases of wind power by Avista from QFs, i.e.
1. Wind QFs Agree to Fund Their Share o/Wind Forecasting Services
A vista supports the concept that wind QFs should participate in funding wind
forecasting services, as a condition of not being bound by the 90%/110% performance band
requirement. Where such services are purchased or constructed by Avista within a geographic
area, A vista would propose to share such expense on a pro rata basis with wind QFs that are
selling their power to A vista under long-term contracts. QFs would pay a portion of the wind
forecasting expenses proportional to their percentage share of the wind-generator capability
being supplied to A vista from that geographic region.
2. Wind QFs Agree to Provide a Mechanical Availability Guarantee
A vista recommends that wind QFs be required to deliver a "mechanical availability
guarantee" (MAG) to A vista to demonstrate each month that, except for scheduled maintenance
and events of force majeure or uncontrollable force, the wind project is physically capable of
generating at full output during 85% of the hours in the month. Such guarantee, the Company
contends, would encourage wind developers to maintain the readiness of their equipment
throughout the full duration of the long-term contract.
3. Wind QFs Agree to be Paid Lower Rates
A vista recommends that the published avoided cost rates applicable to purchases by
Avista of electric power from wind-powered QFs be reduced by 12%, as a percentage reduction
to be applied against scheduled avoided cost rates except where the QF developer agrees in the
power purchase and sale contract with A vista to deliver QF output to A vista on a firm hourly
schedule, in which case the percentage reduction shall be 6%.
A vista s recommendation that published avoided cost rates be discounted by 12%
reflects Avista s assessment, based on its wind integration study, of the cost to its system
ORDER NO. 30500
associated with integrating up to 400 MW (nameplate capacity) of wind generation, both
constructed and purchased, delivered into its system on a dynamic moment-to-moment basis. In
instances where the QF developer agrees to deliver QF output to A vista on a firm hourly
schedule, A vista recommends that the published avoided cost rates instead be discounted by 6%
which reflects a lower level of costs incurred by the Company in integrating the wind power.
Settlement Stipulation (October 2, 2007)
Following the filing of the Company s Petition and Wind Integration Study, a series
of public and settlement workshops were held. Efforts to obtain a common generic wind
integration adjustment and comprehensive settlement in Case Nos. A VU-07-, IPC-07-
and P AC-07 -07 were unsuccessful. Apprised of the impasse, the Commission on August 22
2007 issued a Notice of Modified Procedure and established September 21 and October 5 , 2007
comment and reply deadlines to bring the matter to closure. In a Motion to Vacate Comment
Deadlines filed on September 14 2007, the Commission was notified that Renewable Northwest
Project/NW Energy Coalition had reached a settlement agreement in principle with two of the
three utilities and believed that an agreement in principle could be achieved with the third utility.
Additional time was requested to complete settlement discussions, to solicit support from other
parties and to prepare settlement documents. On September 19, 2007 , the Commission issued a
further scheduling Order establishing deadlines for presentation of settlement documents and the
filing of comments. Settlement Stipulations were filed in the three wind integration dockets.
The Commission then scheduled a consolidated prehearing conference of the parties
in Avista Case No. A VU-07-, Idaho Power Case No. IPC-07-, and PacifiCorp Case No.
PAC-07-07 for December 11 2007. The purpose of the prehearing conference was to identify
what issues remained, to determine at what point (if any) consensus existed, and to determine the
scope and timeline of further proceedings. The following parties appeared by and through their
respective representatives and counsel: Avista Corporation - Michael G. Andrea, Esq.; Idaho
Power - Barton L. Kline, Esq.; PacifiCorp - Jordan White, Esq.; Commission Staff - Scott
Woodbury, Esq.; Exergy - Peter 1. Richardson, Esq.; Renewable Northwest Project & NW
Energy Coalition - William M. Eddie, Esq.; Ridgeline Energy - Rich Rayhill; Idaho Windfarms
- Glenn Ikemoto; Cassia Gulch Wind Park & Cassia Wind Farms & Intermountain Wind - Dean
J. Miller, Esq.; Gerald Fleischman; Renaissance Engineering & Design - Brian D. Jackson; and
Blue Ribbon Energy - M. J. Humphries.
ORDER NO. 30500
At the commencement of proceedings on December II , 2007, clarification was
sought from the Commission that the Settlement Stipulation was still being considered. The
Commission was informed that, with the exception of Exergy, all parties of record in the
multiple dockets recommended that the Commission approve the Settlement Stipulations. The
following terms of Stipulation in Case No. A VU-07-02 were proposed as a fair, just and
reasonable compromise of the issues raised:
Settlement Stipulation - Section III
(7) Avista s published avoided cost rates for Wind QFs will be adjusted to
recognize an assumed cost of integrating the energy generated by Wind
QFs as a part of the Company s generating resource portfolio. The rate
adjustment will be applied in three tiers, increasing as the total amount
of wind integrated onto Avista s system grows. The integration charge
will be calculated as a percentage (7%, 8% or 9%) of the current 20-
year, levelized, avoided cost rate, subject to a cap of $6.50/MWh. The
integration charge as calculated on the Operation Date for each Wind
QF will remain fixed throughout the term of the contract and will be
applied as a decrement to the applicable published rate according to the
table below:
Amount of Wind Online
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
0 to 199 MW
200 to 299 MW
300 MW and above
Integration Charge (cap)
7% ($6.50/MWh)
8% ($6.50/MWh)
9% ($6.50/MWh)
(8)The term "amount of wind online" means the cumulative amount of
installed megawatts of wind generation capable of delivering energy in
real time to Avista s system which are subject to any power purchase
agreement (or are owned by Avista) on the expected delivery data
indicated in the Firm Energy Sales Agreement (FESA) between the
Company and the Wind QF.
(9)The term "applicable published rate" and "avoided cost rate" mean the
applicable avoided cost rate approved by the IPUC and updated
periodically for purchases of power from QFs producing less than
aMW /month, for the relevant contract year and time period of energy
generation.
(10) The 90%/110% performance band approved by the Commission in
Order No. 29632 will be eliminated from the Firm Energy Sales
Agreement for future Wind QFs. The 90%/110% performance band
will be replaced in future FESAs by the integration charge described in
paragraph 7 above, a MAG as described in Avista s Petition in this case
ORDER NO. 30500
and a wind forecasting charge (if A vista chooses to retain a forecasting
service) as described in paragraph 13 below.
(11) Avista will convene an informal wind integration cost working group
which will meet at least two times prior to the publishing of the
Company s 2009 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to discuss Avista
Wind Integration Study and new data related to wind integration costs.
(12) A vista will review its expected cost of wind integration in light of the
best available scientific data and actual operating experience. Expected
wind integration cost information will be included in the Company
IRP process in the same way that costs for other generating resources
are included in the IRP.
(13) If Avista, in its sole discretion, determines that forecasting is necessary
or desirable, A vista will contract with qualified wind energy
production forecasting vendor. The cost of this forecasting service will
be shared equally between A vista and any Wind QF, and will be
allocated to all Wind QFs holding FESAs with A vista and other wind
generation on A vista s system on a uniform per MW basis, will be
shared equally between Avista and the wind QF, with a monthly cap on
the Wind QFs maximum liability for such costs set at 0.1 % of the total
energy payments Avista made to the Wind QF. Avista will consult
with Wind QFs in setting up the protocols for the wind energy
forecasting program. It is Avista s intent that the wind energy
forecasting program be practical and cost effective.
Exergy
In an October 19 2007, filing with the Commission, Exergy Development Group of
Idaho LLC recommended that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Stipulation be denied.
Exergy contends that the proposed settlement is not supported by an adequate record and is
contrary to the public interest. Exergy contends that the Commission is being asked to proceed
in the face of "widely" varying integration costs that are based on a science in its "infancy" and
using "assumptions for numerous variables" with "imprecision and uncertainty." To do so
Exergy states, would result in a wind integration adjustment that is, by definition, arbitrary.
Reply of Renewable Coalition (and Avista)
The Renewable Coalition with the stated concurrence of Avista dispute Exergy
contention that a wind integration adjustment must be set at zero until the utility can demonstrate
actual integration costs based on actual wind generation on the Company s system. The parties
to the Settlement submit that the wind integration costs reflected in the Stipulation are within the
ORDER NO. 30500
range of reasonable estimated wind integration costs based on current conditions and
information. Reply p. 2.
Commission Staff
On October 5 , 2007, in comments filed in support of the Settlement Stipulation, Staff
recommends that the wind integration adjustment and other Settlement terms be approved. Staff
contends the proposed adjustment represents a reasonable approximation of the wind integration
costs over the 20-year term of new PURP A contracts. The proposed integration costs are
significantly below the values determined in the Company s Wind Integration Study. Staff
expects that over time integration costs should decrease as markets mature, geographic diversity
improves, technology advances, and experience is gained in operation and forecasting. Yet it is
also generally believed that as penetration levels increase, integration costs will increase.
Whether the factors causing integration costs to increase completely offset the factors causing
integration costs to decrease remains to be seen.Periodic reviews as provided for in the
Stipulation, Staff contends, will provide opportunities to revise the wind integration adjustment
if downward and upward pressures on wind integration costs get out of balance.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No.
A VU-07-02 including Avista s initial filing in this docket, the Company s Wind Integration
Study, the Motion for Approval of Settlement Stipulation, the supporting comments of
Commission Staff, the opposition filing of Exergy, and the reply filing of Renewable Coalition
(and Avista). We have reviewed public comments supportive of wind power and critical of
utility and regulatory policies that the commenters contend have stymied the development of
wind farms in Idaho. We have reviewed the transcript of the December 11 , 2007, Joint
Prehearing Conference in Case Nos. A VU-07-, IPC-07-, and PAC-07-07. We have
also reviewed our Orders in Case No. IPC-05-22 and the workshop reports filed in that docket
our mechanical availability guarantee Order in Case No. P AC-05-9 (Schwendiman), and our
90%/110% performance band Orders in Case Nos. IPC-04-(u.S. Geothermal)/04-
(Lewandowski).
In this case the Commission is presented with a comprehensive Settlement
Stipulation and terms of agreement that include a wind integration adjustment to published
avoided cost rates. The parties to the Stipulation believe that the integration charge will provide
ORDER NO. 30500
long-term stability for QF development and will provide flexibility to protect customers from
published rates that are too high. The Exergy Development Group is the only party to this case
that opposes the Stipulation.At the consolidated prehearing conference in this matter the
Commission inquired of Exergy as to the nature of the case it would intend to introduce if
granted a hearing.Based on Exergy s representations, we are satisfied that the principal
arguments that it would advance have already been addressed in its written filings of record. Tr.
p. 22. We consider and find this case to be fully submitted and find it reasonable to process this
matter without further hearing or notice. IDAP A 31.01.01.204.
Exergy contends that the Commission is legally prevented from determining a wind
integration adjustment to published avoided cost rates based on models, forecasts, projections
and assumptions. Exergy contends that wind integration costs must be based on "actual" wind
penetration on the Company s system. We find Exergy s argument to be unsound and evidence
of a misunderstanding of both "avoided cost" as defined in 18 c.F.R. ~ ~ 292.101 (b)( 6) and
292.304 and this Commission s authority and jurisdiction under PURPA and the implementing
regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In establishing avoided cost rates
this Commission acts pursuant to federal, not state law. Avoided costs are the incremental costs
to an electric utility of electric energy, capacity, or both which absent purchase from a QF, the
utility would generate itself or purchase. 18 C.R. ~ 292.101(b)(6). FERC does not prescribe a
specific methodology for the calculation of avoided costs. The QF rates we establish for long-
term firm contracts are forecast values and estimates and it has long been understood that the
avoided cost concept is not violated by use of such estimates. 18 C.R. ~ 292.304(b )(5).
The Commission also finds unreasonable Exergy s contention that utility contracts
with wind generators cannot, in advance of the projects coming online, be factored into the
Company s calculations of wind penetration on its system. To adopt such a position presupposes
that a contractual obligation of a wind developer to bring a project online by a certain date is
without consequence and results in no reciprocal obligations on the part of the utility or duty to
plan for the delivery of the power.
A review ofthe filings in IPC-05-, IPC-07-03 and this docket reveals that the
process of workshops and dialogue has resulted in constructive benefits to Avista and all parties.
The wind integration adjustment proposed in this case is representative of the operational
impacts and costs associated with integrating wind generation, both constructed and purchased
ORDER NO. 30500
into Avista s system. The Wind Integration Study performed by Avista and EnerNex
Corporation presents what we find to be a good estimate of the costs the Company will incur to
accommodate wind generation for a range of penetration levels. The Commission finds that the
costs of wind integration are real, not illusory. A wind integration adjustment recognizes that
variable wind generation presents operational integration costs to a utility that are different from
other PURP A qualified resources. The wind adjustment proposed in the Settlement is a result of
compromise and negotiation. Settlement Section III , ,-r 7. We find the use of the adjustment as a
decrement to the published avoided cost rate for wind QFs results in net rates that represent the
full avoided cost of wind generation; rates that are fair, just and reasonable. 18 C.R. ~
292.1 0 1 (b )(7); 292.304( a).
The Commission finds the Settlement Stipulation presented in this case and all of its
components to be fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest. In our u.S.
Geothermal/Lewandowski Orders in Case Nos. IPC-04-8/04-, the Commission stated its
belief that a legally enforceable obligation translates into reciprocal contractual obligations for
both parties; a quid pro quo. It is not just a lock-in of avoided cost rates, but is also an obligation
to deliver. Asked to make a decision regarding eligibility between firm and non-firm resources
we defined firmness as "predictability on a monthly basis.In establishing a 90%/110%
performance band requirement, a majority of the Commission defined the minimum degree of
predictability required for published rate eligibility. The Commission found the performance
requirement to be necessary to assure that the Company s customers received the generation
product that they were paying for. In our later Schwendiman Order in Case No. P AC-05-
we found that the mechanical availability guarantee did not alone provide a reasonable or
equivalent substitute for the 90%/110% performance band, and was not in itself sufficient to
protect ratepayers from overpaying. The wind forecasting and mechanical availability guarantee
in conjunction with other provisions of the Settlement in this case, we find, make elimination of
the 90%/110% performance band reasonable. We accept that the Stipulation is based on best
available data and analysis and expect that as experience and data increases, the ability to
calculate wind integration costs will improve. Our acceptance of the Stipulation is contingent on
a continuing and close monitoring of integration costs by A vista.
Avista proposes including a wind integration review in the Company s biennial
Integrated Resource Plan. This Commission has continuing oversight and we expect A vista to
ORDER NO. 30500
provide wind integration analysis and results to the Commission separate from its biennial IRP
filing. We expect continuing, utility-sponsored, wind integration workshops (at least two times
prior to the publishing of the Company s 2009 IRP) with participation extended to Commission
Staff, and the parties of record in Case No. A VU-07-02. As recognized by Avista, regional
wind integration efforts, improvements in wind forecasting, regulatory changes and actual
hands-on" experience will all have an impact on the cost of integrating wind energy. The
Commission is interested in the day-to-day mechanics of how wind is integrated into the
Company s system; the day-to-day impact on scheduling; and the ramifications of the Area
Control Error (ACE) Diversity Interchange sharing on integration costs. We expect annual
review by the Company and proposed adjustments when warranted. We expect the additional
data provided will be very important to our continued support of a wind integration adjustment.
further expect A vista notify the Commission when enough on-line
wind is accumulated to move it to a new tier at which the integration charge percentage increases
(7%\f8%\f9%). As with variables in the underlying avoided cost methodology, parties can
petition the Commission at any time to open a docket to review and update wind integration
costs if those costs are believed to be outdated or inaccurate.
The Commission expects the combined total of existing PURP A and non-PURP A
projects under Avista contract at the time of a new contract to be used for purposes of
determining the applicable tiered discount. Wind projects may drop to a lower tier if the tier
placement determined at the time of contract approval later proves inaccurate due to the failure
of other previously contracted wind projects to achieve commercial operation.
Intervenor Funding
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165. Section 61-617A(1) declares that it is the "policy of this
state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before this Commission so that all
affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings." The Commission
may order any regulated utility with intrastate annual revenues exceeding $3.5 million to pay all
or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for legal fees, witness fees and reproduction costs.
The statutory cap for total intervenor funding that can be awarded in anyone case is $40 000.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617A(2).
ORDER NO. 30500
Petition for Intervenor Funding was filed in this docket by the Renewable
Northwest Project and NW Energy Coalition (Renewable Coalition) in the amount of $2 876.55.
Rule 162 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content
requirements for a petition for intervenor funding. The petition must contain: (1) an itemized
list of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a statement ofthe intervenor s proposed finding
or recommendation; (3) a statement showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are
reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship
for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing how the intervenor s proposed finding or
recommendation differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff;
(6) a statement showing how the intervenor s recommendation or position addressed issues of
concern to the general body of utility users or customers; and (7) a statement showing the class
of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared. The filings of petitioner comport with the
form required by the Commission s Rules.
Commission Findings
Submitted for Commission consideration is a Petition for Intervenor Funding filed by
the Renewable Coalition. The Commission has reviewed the Petition, the comments and filed
testimony of the Petitioner and the supporting comments of Commission Staff.
Pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A(2) the Commission may order Idaho Power to
pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for legal fees, witness fees and
reproduction costs, not to exceed a total for all intervening parties combined of $40 000 in any
proceeding before the Commission. The amount requested by the Renewable Coalition is
876.55. We find that the Petition for Intervenor Funding in this case was timely filed and
satisfied all of the other "procedural" or technical requirements set forth in Rules 161-165 of the
Commission Rules of Procedure.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A includes a statement of policy to encourage participation by
intervenors in Commission findings. The Commission determines an award for intervenor
funding based on the following considerations:
(a)finding that the participation of the intervenor has materially
contributed to the decision rendered by the Commission; and
(b)A finding that the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and
would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; and
ORDER NO. 30500
(c)The recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially from
the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(d)The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of
concern to the general body of users or consumers.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A. We find that the Petition of the Renewable Coalition satisfies the
substantive findings that we are required to make to justify an award.IDAPA
31.01.01.165.01.a-e. We find that the participation and efforts of the Renewable Coalition, as
reflected in its comments and prefiled testimony were instrumental in bringing about the filed
Settlement Stipulation of the parties. Its participation we find materially contributed to the
Commission s decision and the record of proceedings in this docket. We find that the
recommendations of the Renewable Coalition provided measurable form and substance to the
Settlement Stipulation and differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of Commission
Staff.
The Renewable Coalition is comprised of two non-profit corporations with limited
budgets. The Renewable Coalition participated in workshops and settlement conferences in this
docket "as a strong proponent of renewable energy, but not as a proponent for any particular
renewable energy project." We find it fair, just and reasonable to award the total request of the
Renewable Coalition in the amount of $2 876.55 and find that the public interest and all utility
customers are well served by such award.We find the itemized costs of the Renewable
Coalition to be reasonable and recognize that the cost to the Renewable Coalition of participating
in this proceeding constitutes a significant financial hardship.
The Commission finds that the intervenor funding award to the Renewable Coalition
is fair and reasonable and will further the purpose of encouraging "participation at all stages of
all proceedings before the Commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair
representation in those proceedings.Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A( 1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over A vista Corporation dba
Avista Utilities, Idaho Power Company, and PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power, electric
utilities, pursuant to the authority and power granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A).
ORDER NO. 30500
The Commission has authority under Sections 201 and 210 of PURPA and the
implementing regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to set avoided
costs, to order electric utilities to enter into fixed-term obligations for the purchase of energy
from qualified facilities (QFs) and to implement FERC rules.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described and qualified
above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby approve the Settlement
Stipulation filed in Case No. A VU-07-02.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission hereby authorizes Avista to enter
into new contracts with wind QFs utilizing the charges, terms and conditions contained in the
Settlement Stipulation. The resultant adjusted rates for QF wind projects are attached to this
Order. The rates are derived from the avoided-cost rates included in Order No. 30480. These
rates include the application of heavy and light load hour differentials, seasonalization factors
and wind integration adjustments. Rates are shown for 2008 online dates only. For later online
dates, contact the Commission Staff or the utility. The wind integration adjustments approved in
this Order shall also be applied to future avoided cost rates as they may be changed due to
changes in gas prices or other input data variables.
We will also permit wind QFs with existing Firm Energy Sales Agreements with
A vista to amend their contracts to replace the 90%/110% performance band with a Mechanical
Availability Guarantee should they also agree to fund their share of wind forecasting services
and accept a wind integration adjustment. Amendments must be signed by the QF and utility
and submitted for Commission review and approval. No change to the underlying published rate
in existing contracts will be authorized.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission hereby increases the published
rate eligibility cap for intermittent QF wind projects from 100 kW to 10 aMW/month.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Petition of the Renewable Northwest Project
and NW Energy Coalition (Renewable Coalition) for intervenor funding is granted in the amount
of $2 8876.55. Reference Idaho Code ~ 61-617A. Avista is directed to pay said amount within
28 days from the date of this Order to Advocates for the West as counsel for the Renewable
Coalition for proper distribution. IDAP A 31.01.01.165.02. Avista shall include the cost ofthis
ORDER NO. 30500
award of intervenor funding to the Renewable Coalition as an expense to be recovered in the
Company s next general rate case proceeding. Idaho Code ~ 61-617A(3).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
DONE by Order ofthe Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ()o~
day of February 2008.
MACK A. REDFO
M RSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
JI . MPTON, ~ISS
ATTEST:
~~
~CWJ
Bar ara Barrows
Assistant Commission Secretary
bls/O:A VU-07-02 sw3
ORDER NO. 30500
...., a:0 wa: ...JDo ...JcI:
:;:
...J
::J 0
II;
cI: 0 l-I- Z cI:
- 0 cI:
::t u.. C!en
:;:
I- WcI: C!a: cI:I- en
::tc ZW W
::t
'" '"
~ 3
'" ....,
u.. '
, -5~ m
~ ~
.9 .9
"C "C
'!! .'!!
a. a.Co Co
~ ~q g
..t
u..
~ '"
c: c:0 0
'" '"
co co
'" '"
en en
00 -0 ~0 0
en '" 1:-W Z I- - cI: W c:cI: a: z ~ C :;i ~
:;~~~
cI: ...J I- C
~ U ~W W '"...J d
a: II::Do W
""'O"""oo"""CDO"""""'~"'OOO""'"CDooO"'~"'O~...oo~"""...oo",....~",ai 00 00 ,..:
,..: ,.;
,..: ,..: ,..: ,..: 00 00 00 ai ai ci ci
.,..: .,..:... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" '" '"
N",...",oo"'ro",m"'Nm","""""O"'CON",~",o",m...ggg:;;:;;:;;~~~~~~~:2
O""""""'CD~ooooO"""OO~""'"""'OOO"'O"""O""""""~CDO'"
~~~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~
",...mo~mmN"'..."'oo"'co"'m"'Nm'",,"""""co~co""""mN"'O"'CO"""'N""~'"
~ ~ ~ g
:2 :2 ~ ~ ~ :2 :2 g g
g ~ ~ ~ ~ g g
""'O"""""""'CD~ooooO~"'OO~""'""""CDO"""'CD""O"""'~CDO"'oo"""~.,..: ci ci ai ai ai ai ci ci ci .,..: .,..: N N N ..; ..; ..t
'" '" '" '" ... ... ... ... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
o~mmN",...",oo"'co"'m"""m'""""""""""""CON,,,o...m"'CO"""'N~~~~~~~~~~~~~ww"':"':oO
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~""~~""""""""CD"""""""""~"""'CD"""CDO"""""""'OCD~"""cicicicici"":"":"":NN";..t~~~,.;CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ID ID ID ID
""""""'O"'~COO"""N~~OOO"""~mON",o,,,~...."'m"'~""'"w~~~~~~ww"':"':oOoOmcici"":
"""""""""""""""""""""............
""""O"'oolDoo~CD~"""""'"CD"""""O""""'O"'~CD"""'".,;.,;.,;.,;,.;,.;,.;"':oOoOaiaicici"":CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD .... .... ....
"""'O"'~COO"""N~~OOO"""...",o...o"'~...."'m"'~""cicicici"":"":NN~~~~~WW
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
oo""""'CD'" 0"""'0'" 0"'00.,00"'0'"~ ~ 0 ., '" .... 00 0 ., 00 '" 00 ., 00
... '" '" ~
"':,.;.,;..tMMM~~..t~";";";"':"':oOaiaiCD CD CD CD CD CD CD ID CD CD CD CD ID CD CD CD CD CD
","""'o"'~COo"",,~oooom"""""CON"'N...."'m"'~"""'co00 00 00 00 m m ci ci .,..: .,..: N ~
~ ~ ~"""""""""....................................
",o"'o"""oo~"'m""oo~"'o"'~"'N""""""""~~"""'~"'~""Noo"'m"'o~ N .,..: ci ci ci ci ci ci .,..: .,..: N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"
",o...o",...co~"'m""co~"'o"'~"'N"""""","'~~"""'~"'~""Nco"'m...o00 ,..: w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ,..: ,..: 00 00 m m ci
.,..:"""""""""""""""""""""""""'........
"""'CO""~"'CONo~...co",m...m'"""O""""""'O"'O"'O"'~"'N""'"~~~~~~~~~~ww"':"':oOoOm
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
~N"'..."""....com~~~""""'
~~~~~
A TT ACHMENT
ORDER NO. 30500
CASE NO. A VU-07-
AV
I
S
T
A
AV
O
I
D
E
D

C
O
S
T

R
A
T
E
S

F
O
R

N
O
N
-
FU
E
L
E
D

P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
TE
N

A
V
E
R
A
G
E

M
E
G
A
W
A
T
T
S

O
R

S
M
A
L
L
E
R
Se
a
s
o
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
s
Se
a
s
o
n

1
Se
a
s
o
n

2
10
8
.
00
%

(
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

J
u
l
y

-

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
)
84
.
00
%

(A
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

M
a
r
c
h

-

J
u
n
e
)
AV
I
S
T
A
NO
N
-
LE
V
E
L
I
Z
E
D

R
A
T
E
S
Ra
t
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

D
a
t
e
:

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

0
1
, 2
0
0
8
20
0
8
67
.
69
.
64
.
73
.
68
.
75
.
69
.
69
.
64
.
57
.
53
.
58
.
4
4
54
.
54
.
50
.
20
0
9
65
.
67
.
4
5
62
.
4
5
71
.
66
.
72
.
67
.
67
.
4
4
62
.
55
.
51
.
56
.
52
.
52
.
4
6
48
.
20
1
0
63
.
4
2
65
.
60
.
68
.
4
9
63
.
70
.
65
.
64
.
60
.
53
.
49
.
54
.
50
.
50
.
4
7
46
.
20
1
1
60
.
62
.
57
.
65
.
61
.
67
.
62
.
62
.
57
.
51
.
47
.
52
.
48
.
48
.
4
1
45
.
20
1
2
60
.
62
.
57
.
65
.
60
.
66
.
62
.
61
.
57
.
50
.
47
.
52
.
48
.
47
.
44
.
20
1
3
61
.
63
.
58
.
66
.
61
.
68
.
63
.
62
.
58
.
51
.
47
.
52
.
49
.
48
.
45
.
20
1
4
61
.
63
.
4
7
58
.
4
7
66
.
62
.
68
.
63
.
63
.
58
.
51
.
48
.
53
.
49
.
49
.
45
.
20
1
5
63
.
65
.
60
.
69
.
64
.
70
.
65
.
65
.
4
5
60
.
53
.
49
.
55
.
51
.
50
.
47
.
20
1
6
66
.
4
9
68
.
63
.
71
.
66
.
73
.
68
.
68
.
63
.
55
.
51
.
57
.
53
.
53
.
49
.
20
1
7
68
.
70
.
65
.
74
.
4
7
69
.
76
.
70
.
70
.
65
.
57
.
53
.
59
.
55
.
55
.
51
.
20
1
8
71
.
73
.
68
.
77
.
6
3
72
.
79
.
4
3
73
.
74
.
68
.
60
.
56
.
61
.
57
.
57
.
53
.
20
1
9
74
.
76
.
71
.
80
.
74
.
82
.
76
.
76
.
71
.
62
.
58
.
63
.
59
.
59
.
55
.
20
2
0
76
.
78
.
73
.
83
.
77
.
84
.
78
.
79
.
73
.
64
.
60
.
66
.
61
.
61
.
57
.
20
2
1
79
.
81
.
76
.
85
.
79
.
87
.
81
.
82
.
76
.
66
.
62
.
68
.
63
.
4
7
64
.
59
.
20
2
2
82
.
83
.
78
.
88
.
82
.
90
.
84
.
85
.
79
.
69
.
64
.
70
.
65
.
66
.
61
.
no

20
2
3
85
.
86
.
81
.
91
.
85
.
93
.
87
.
88
.
82
.
71
.
4
7
66
.
72
.
67
.
68
.
63
.
S"
"
20
2
4
88
.
89
.
84
.
95
.
88
.
96
.
90
.
91
.
85
.
73
.
68
.
75
.
70
.
71
.
66
.
r:n

..
.
,
20
2
5
91
.
92
.
87
.
98
.
91
.
10
0
.
93
.
94
.
88
.
76
.
4
9
71
.
77
.
72
.
73
.
68
.
tT
J

t
T
J

:
P
20
2
6
94
.
96
.
91
.
10
1
.
95
.
10
3
.
97
.
98
.
91
.
79
.
73
.
80
.
75
.
76
.
4
7
71
.
Z~
n
OZ
:
:
C
:
20
2
7
97
.
99
.
94
.
10
5
.
99
.
10
7
.
10
1
.
10
2
.
95
.
82
.
76
.
4
9
83
.
77
.
79
.
4
5
73
.
~
0

~
20
2
8
10
1
.
4
6
10
3
.
98
.
10
9
.
10
3
.
11
1
.
10
4
.
10
5
.
99
.
4
8
85
.
79
.
86
.
80
.
82
.
4
3
76
.
tT
J
20
2
9
10
5
.
10
6
.
10
1
.
11
3
.
10
7
.
11
5
.
4
8
10
8
.
11
0
.
10
3
.
88
.
4
2
82
.
89
.
83
.
85
.
79
.
~
W

Z
20
3
0
10
9
.
11
0
.
10
5
.
11
7
.
11
1
.
11
9
.
11
3
.
11
4
.
10
7
.
91
.
85
.
93
.
86
.
88
.
82
.
..
.
,
I
V
1
tT
J

-..
.
.
.
)