ON29147.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 1 2002
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION
OF THE CONTINUED REASONABLENESS OF
CURRENT SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR PURP
QF PUBLISHED RATE ELIGIBILITY (i.e., 1
MW) AND RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACT
LENGTH (i.e., 5 YEARS).ORDER NO. 29147
CASE NO. GNR-O2-
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 1 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, and Avista 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 A vista 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 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.
ORDER NO. 29147
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. (Plummer) on October 2002, filed
an Application for intervenor funding. Reference Idaho Code S 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
Petition for Reconsideration and participated in the hearing on reconsideration. Plummer in its
testimony recommended that the first deficit year for A vista be set at the year 2002.
Alternatively, Plummer joined in the recommendation of Commission Staff and Independent
Energy Producers of Idaho (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. By contrast, Plummer
states that it focused specifically on Avista s first deficit year calculation. Plummer contends
that its testimony and argument enabled the Commission to make the findings related to
problems inherent in the first deficit year.
No. 29124, pp. 6-
Reference first deficit year discussion, Order
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 $3 537.50 attorney fees ((ill $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 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
ORDER NO. 29147
the case differed materially from the testimony and exhibits presented by Commission Staff.
Reference IDAPA 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
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 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 FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed and considered the Application for intervenor funding
filed by Plummer, the Motion in Opposition filed by Idaho Power and the related statute (Idaho
Code S 61-617A) and rules (IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165). We have also reviewed the underlying
record and transcript of proceedings, our final Order No. 29029 and our final Order on
Reconsideration, Order No. 29124.
We find that the Application of Plummer was timely filed and satisfies the procedural
requirements set forth in Rules 161-165 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure.
Rule 165 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure contains the following
substantive" requirements: (a) Plummer s involvement in this case must have materially
contributed to the Commission s final decision, (b) the costs of intervention award must be
reasonable in amount, (c) the costs of intervention must be a significant hardship for Plummer
(d) the recommendations of Plummer must have differed materially from the testimony and
exhibits of the Commission Staff, and ( e) Plummer must have addressed issues of concern to the
general body of ratepayers.
While Staff in this case recommended that the first deficit year be eliminated as a
variable in the avoided cost methodology, we find that Plummer s participation and utility-
specific information aided us in our assessment of the reasonableness of its continued use in the
pricing of avoided cost and contributed to our ultimate decision to eliminate it as a utility-
ORDER NO. 29147
specific variable for all of the electric utilities participating in this case.That being said
however, we note of significance that Plummer in its filed testimony chose to address only the
first deficit year and not the other variables at issue in this case. We find its limited focus to be
reflected in the small amount ($600) of funding requested for Mr. Crowley s consultant fee, a
figure that we find to be reasonable. We find the amount of attorney fees requested by Plummer
however are significantly above our past awards for similar services. We therefore adjust the
$175 hourly rate requested to $125 per hour. In so doing, we bring the rate more in line with the
historical awards granted by this Commission. The attorney fee that we find reasonable for
inclusion in an award of intervenor funding is $2 812.50 (22.5 hrs (ill $ 125/hr). Reference
Intervenor Request-Exhibit A.
We find that Plummer s Application for Intervenor Funding complies with the letter
and spirit of Idaho Code S 61-617A. The total amount of intervenor funding that we find fair
just and reasonable to award Plummer is $3,412.50. We find that these costs and expenses do
constitute a significant hardship for Plummer. We find Plummer s contribution to be of generic
benefit to the customers of all three utilities, Avista, PacifiCorp and Idaho Power.
accordingly reject Idaho Power s proposal to limit recovery of intervenor funding to only A vista
customers. We find it reasonable to require that the three utilities equally share in the total
amount of intervenor funding awarded. We authorize the utilities to book the payment as a
purchased power expense and to recover same in their next Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) filing
or general rate case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp, electric utilities, pursuant to the
jurisdiction granted under Title 61 Idaho Code and the Commission s Rules of Procedure
IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby award intervenor funding to Plummer
Forest Products, Inc. in the amount of $3 412.50. Reference Idaho Code S 61-617A. Idaho
Power Company, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp are each directed to pay $1 137.50 to
Plummer Forest Products, Inc. within 28 days from the date of this Order.
ORDER NO. 29147
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 with regard to any
matter decided in 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 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this I si
day of October 2002.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
vld/O:GNRE020 1- sw3
ORDER NO. 29147