20140515ICL Comments.pdf

Benjamin l. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6ft Street
Boise,ID 83701
Ph: [phone] xt2
Fax [phone]
botto@idahoconservation. org
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
AVU-E-14-03
ICL Comments
REOE,Vf i]
?0tttilI ,5 Pfi *?3
'.,ffi*iuu,o*
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBTIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF AVISTA
CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
SCHEDULE 62
COMMENTS
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) submits the following comments on Avista
proposed revisions to Schedule 62.\n order to facilitate the cost-effective expansion of Idaho's
clean energy resources, ICL and our supporters have an interest in ensuring a fair, transparent,
and timely process to finalize power purchase agreements in Idaho. To further this interest ICL
participated in prior dockets concerning PURPA in Idaho GNR-E-11-01 and GNR-E-I1-03.
During this process ICL proposed ideas to clarifr the procedure for developers and utilities when
negotiating PURPA contracts. Based on this interest and prior involvement ICL finds Avista's
proposed revisions generally acceptable except for the changes detailed below.
Rates, tariffsheet 62B
General
Subsection 3 sets forth the available rates for Qualifying Facilitites. This section does not
include a rate option for qualifring facilities larger than the Eligibility Cap. The tariffshould
include an additional option, number (6) for these projects to seek pricing under the IRP
methodology.
Short-Term Rates, tariff sheet 628
The "(3) Short-Term Rate" should be available to any size qualifring facility as the "as
available" rate option providedby l8 C.F.R. $ 292.304(dX1). The Commission should strike the
words "up to the Eligibility Cap" from the fourth sentence.
cAsE NO. AVU-E-14-03
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
May 15,2014
Contracting Procedures, tariff sh eet 62C
General
Avista proposed list of information developers must provide to receive indicative pricing
to exhausting. But the list also includes the term "shall include, but not be limited to". This open
ended requiring adds confusion and uncertainty. Instead ICL recommends the Commission
strike the phrase "shall include, but not be limited to" in the last sentence of subsection (l)A.
Output Files
Subsection 1.A.iv requires all Qualifring Facilitates to provide 8760 hours of output to
receive indicative pricing. This level of detail is unnecessary and overly burdensome for projects
seeking published avoid costs rates. ICL recommends the Commission add the term "if the
Qualifying Facility exceeds the Eligibility Cap," at the beginning of subsection 1.A.iv.
Company Time to Confirm
Subsection B allows Avista ten (10) business days to confirm the developer's request.
provides the necessary information. ICL recommends the Commission shorten this time to five
(5) business days, which is sufficient time to complete this ministerial task.
Company Time to Respond
Subsection C allows Avista twenty five (25) business days to provide indicative pricing
under the IRP methodology. ICL recommends the Commission shorten this to twenty (20)
business days, which is consistent with the 30 calendar days provided for the same task by Idaho
Power's tariffs in Oregon.
Creating Binding Rate Offers
Subsection D imposes a new standard to creating a binding legal obligation between
Avista and Qualifying Facilities. ICL recommends the Commission strike subsection D.ii.b.,
which requires a Qualifying Facility to ensure delivery within 180 days of receiving a power
purchase agreement. This is a wholly new requirement that goes far beyond the Commission
precedent of requiring a fully executed and approved contract or the filing of a meritorious
complaint. History shows that the intricate dance of reaching contracting benchmarks and
financing projects requires a longer window of opportunity for project developers. ICL
AVU-E-14-03
ICL Comments trv{.ay 15,2014
recommends the Commission maintain the existing standards for creating a legally enforceable
obligation.
Developer Request for Draft Agreement
Subsection E sets forth the information Qualifring Facilities must submit to receive a
draft power purchase agreement from Avista including a requirement for developers to have
completed interconnection studies. ICL recommends the Commission strike this term in
subsection E.iv. Adding this term to Schedule 62 will merely create confusion as to the exact
point in the interconnection process at which a facility can request a power purchase agreement.
The Qualifring Facility already bears the risk of not performing on the power purchase
agreement if they cannot complete the interconnection process in time.
Company Time to Confirm
Like above, subsection E allows Avista ten (10) business days to confirm the developer's
request provides the necessary information. ICL recommends the Commission shorten this time
to five (5) business days, which is sufficient time to complete this ministerial task.
Developer Time to Return Final Power Purchase Agreement
Subsection L provides developers with only five (5) business days to review, execute, and
return a final power purchase agreement. ICL recommends the Commission extend this time to
ten (10) business days to provide sufficient time for this complex task. The Commission should
also clarifr the timing by changing the term "return" to "forward" in both this Subsection and
Subsection M.
ICL appreciates Avista's efforts to clarifr and simplifr the contract procedures for
Qualifring Facilities. The comments above are intended to further clarifr the process and
balance the public interest in developing Idaho's clean energy resources while ensuring Idahoans
continue to pay fair and reasonable rates. Approving Avista's proposed Schedule 62, with ICL's
recommended changes, will foster this balance.
Benjamin I. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
AVU-E-14-03
ICL Comments
Respectfully submitted,
May 15,2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifr that on this 15th day of May,20I4,I delivered true and correct copies of
the foregoing COMMENT to the following persons via the method of service noted:
Hand delivery:
Jean Iewell
Commission Secretary (Original and seven copies provided)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Electronic Mail:
Michael G. Andrea
Senior Counsel
Avista Corporation
P.O.Box3727
1411 E. Mission Avenue
Spokane, Washingto n 99220-37 27
Michael. [e-mail]
Linda M. Gervais,
Manger, Regulatory Policy
P.O.Box3727
1411 E. Mission Avenue
Spokane, Washingto n 99220 -37 27
Linda. gervais@avistacorp. com
D
Benjamin I. Otto
AVU-E-14-03
ICL Comments 4 May 15,2014