8More..pdf

HOME ADDRESS
1099 NORTH 400 WEST
RUPERT, IDAHO 83350
HOME [phone]
OFFICE [phone]
COMMITTEESJOHN A. "BERT" STEVENSON
DISTRICT 24
MINIDOKA & JEROME
COUNTIES AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS
.~ -
STATE AFFAIRS
~.. (:. l.
",
Li' ,
House of Repres~lltatives
, '- ;" ~
State ofIdaho-
- '-~-
March 14 2002
Jean Jewell, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
472 West Washington St.
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTINUED
REASONABLENESS OF CURRENT SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR PURP A OF
PUBLISHED RATE ELIGffiILITY (i., 1 MW) AND RESTRICTIONS ON
CONTRACT LENGTH (i., 5 YEARS)
Case No. GNR-02-01.
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the people of Legislative District 24, and myself, we recommend the PURPA
qualified facility ("QF") contracts be increased not to exceed ten (10) megawatts, and the length
of the contracts be extended for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years.
In the past few months, I have had many contacts telling us to legislatively make these
changes. I was pleased to see the commission put this matter before the public. I feel it is more
appropriate for the commission to take this action, than to put it in statute.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, ~-
1;p. John A. "Bert" Stevenson
cc: Avista Corporation
PacificCorp
Idaho Power Company
/;!p~, ~'
J)
\'1 \
.10
~t-1
.,1
V;5 I;p / (~~
";~CE i \leD
SORENSON ENGINEERING'
5203 South 11th East ZOJ2'a ":
""'
1'),.1 1..1 U, '
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83404
'-', ':: ~.
. h-
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E- Mail: ted(illtsorenson.net
" ~. ';:-
c;,c..I"-.,)l"ilvj:'
March 15 2002
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
FAX: [phone]
RE: Case No. GNR-02-
Dear Secretary:
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment. This letter is written in
support of reinstatement of the 20-year contract for avoided costs for the QF Industry and
increasing the size allowable to 10 megawatts. I have been in the small hydroelectric
business now for 18 years. I have been the design engineer for 19 small hydroelectric
projects; the majority of them here in the State ofIdaho. Almost all of these have been
for farmers, ranchers or canal companies utilizing an existing irrigation feature. The
majority of these have been in 10 megawatt range. The income produced by these small
hydro plants has been of benefit to the agricultural based community. Construction of anew hydroelectric plant is capital intensive. To try and amortize the plant over five years
I find impossible. All of the contracts associated ':/ith the plants that have been built havc
been 20 years or longer in length. Therefore, I support extending the contract length to
20 years.
I also support increasing the maximum size of the QF Facility up to 10
megawatts. This will allow the farmers, ranchers and canal companies to have access to
the market for development of a clean renewable energy resource. In addition, this will
have a benefit of increasing the supply of power here in Idaho in smaller increments.
TSS/ptj
WordiTZOO2Ietter/CommSec.ltr
Ted S. Sorenson, P.
~t:JtI'I:.!'It:J (::1':1 (:jU~~UC;H JANE
A-l- jJ' . 6NI(-E'-O;;'-
-r F
/.
it- J'~
rCfi
yJ'
PAGE Ell
March 15.2002
\"511 :,\, lid, ::",'.-1. ~',~I.. !rl.J.t:H..;.,., Icl..I... .,: HII20tio342o3+54 '
F... 20~o424O0759
...........
intfon't.ortic Utilities CommissiOn
Po Box 83720
BoIse, Id 83720.0074Dear Commissioners:
Over the past year, Idaho has experienced extreme fluctuations in the cost of electricity.
adversely atrecting the ecoi1om;c viability
01 many Idaho businesses. Deyelopment and. . investment in alternative new electric power generation facilities using Idaho'
s renewableresources. SUCh as biomass, \WOd fiber and others materials could positively contribute to Idaho.becoming more self-sufficient in elec:trIcity, production, create Jobs and increase tax retenuss.Such developmenhyould also help provIde ratepayers
with electrical ~r at' stable andpredictable prices.
In 1978. as part of the National Energy N::t and other legislation designed to address the
then prevailing nationat energy crisis, passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).Its purpose was to promote the development of renewable energy technol9Qies as alternatives to
the use of fossil fuels and the construction
c:A new generating facilities by eleCtric utilities. UnderPURPA electric utilities must offer to purcJ,ase power prcduced by co-generators or small power
' produce~ that obtain qualified facility (QF) status. The rates to be paid
fa OF power are not toexceed the na b I ramal- costs to the utility 01 atternatlve efec1ric energy. The fntennountaln Forest Association (IFA) represents foresuand owners and mill
P8t1ltors in the intermountain west. All of our member companies
\frtIo own mills were negatively, affected by the increa..,;.in energy costs last year and are interested. in assisting in crafting publicpolicy that encourages stable energy prices and encourages the use of renewable energy
sources. As such we provide the followtng' canmentS to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission('PAC) for consideration under Case No. GNR-E-0201 , In the matter 01 the,lnvestlgatior:! of the,continued reasonableness of current size limitations for PURPA QF Published rate eligibility and,
restrictl~ on contract length.
IFA encourages the IPUC. to do the followtng:
' Expand entitJement to the Commission s published avoided cost rates to all OF's that
are 10 WoI or less in capacity; and;2. Increase the standard PURPA Contract length for atl QF's 10 MW or less in
capacityfrom 5 to 20 yea"" with the QF developer retaining the light to choose th~ teon up to20 years, and;
3. Reexamine rates to sfl OF's to ensure that current avoided cost rat~ are adequate to stimulate and support new generation facility d8\telopment.
We believe that if the IPUC takes these steps. additional generating capacity will be
Created,lncreas;rig energy security and stability pf energy markets in Idaho.
Thank you for theOC)pOItunity to comment. We look fofward to continued discussions on this matter.Sin~,
() ~"--
A. Gorsuch
Idaho 'Affairs '
CC: Jim Yost. OGOV '
- 57;r--.
MIDDLE SNAKE REGIONAL F:ECEiVEDWATER RESOURCE COMMISSIQi~L~D
Lew Pence, Chairman
Bob Muffley, Acting Executive Director ZO02 r::c: 12 n: i 8: t;.
122 5tb Ave. West
Gooding, Idaho 83330
208-934-4781
208-934-5648 fax
rT1
...-;"
., '- I '
uTiLi: .~~ CrJi;;-;iS::.;r=:J
February 8 , 2002
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
RE: Case # GNR-02-
Commissioners:
I am writing to lend my commissions support to the P.C ruling on small generating projects
fueled by animal waste. Anaerobic digesters have been used successfully in Europe for many
years and it's time that our power generating companies start to look at these and other
alternatives. It is our belief that Idaho Power has been blowing smoke on this issue for a very
long time and because of their attitude the consumer will be the ultimate looser. Why should we
allow Idaho Power to purchase high price power from the grid when there remains a huge
potential for new generating sources right here in Idaho. It has been estimated that in south
central Idaho alone, animal waste could generate as much as 50 megawatts. The power generated
by this source would ultimately be far less expensive to the consumer then the construction of
new gas fired facilities or purchasing power for peeks loads from the grid.
A byproduct of generating power from animal waste is the betterment of the environment.
The use of anaerobic digesters will do much to reduce the nutrient loading to our regions above
ground and underground water resource. Many areas of our region are already approaching the
unacceptable level of 10 parts per million of nitrogen in ground water. This trend must be
reversed in the near future.
If the dairy industry, which is a big chunk of our local economy, is going to expand within this
region, anaerobic digesters must be made a tool for managing dairy waste. Before it can become
a tool, however, the Idaho Power Company must purchase the power generated from this source
at a price that makes sense to the producer. Our investigation indicates that producers could
easily afford the cost of putting in anaerobic digesters if the power could be sold for as little as
5 cents per kilowatt and this is the rate that we would recommend.
Sincerely
Lew Pence, Chairman
Formed by ajoint powers agreement between Cassia, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln
Minidoka and Twin Falls counties in south central Idaho
~-'!'
,~r-
t(a t.V' r~J1tJ 'ib
5f ~~J
(;!1If:-E-O;l-O I
--,
, -----.--" !'-- r.
, ~
~-' L. i. C. U
ZJJ2 i;--s P;; 3: 25
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise , Idaho 83720-0074
;' ;
:~:March:3(~2B(:\2)lic..ili~Vu,JII~I.),ul'f
In the Matter of the Investigation of the
Continued Reasonableness of Current
Size Limitations for PURPA QF
Published Rate Eligibility (Le., 1 MW)
and Restrictions on Contract Length
(Le., 5 Years)
Case No. GNR-02-
Commissioners
I am a consulting engineer based in Boise. I was the owner s project manager
during the construction of the 9.5 MW Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Project and
continue as a consultant on operation and maintenance issues. Additionally, I am
a member of Water Power LLC. In conjunction with the latter, I am trying todevelop thirteen potential hydroelectric sites in the Magic Valley and the
Treasure Valley, with a combined potential of approximately 15 MW and 66 287million MW-hr.
In response to the Notice of Investigation , Notice of Modified Procedure, andNotice of CommenUProtest Deadline , please consider the following comments in
favor of raising the maximum capacity of a QF plant to 10 MW and extending the
term of contract to 20 years:
The cost to design, permit and arrange the power sales agreement for a
small power-generating project is relatively insensitive to the size of the
proposed powerplant. These costs are high and completing all these
arrangements is time consuming - and becoming more so all the time.Increasingly, public agencies choose to err on the side of more rather than
less public access to the permitting process, all of which add to the time
and cost of project development. The process was far simpler when
PURPA was originally enacted in 1978. Therefore , for a project to be able
to absorb these costs and remain a cost-effective project, it must be
greater than 1 MW. Depending on project details , hydroelectric projects in
the 1 to 10 MW range seem to be financially viable.
Idaho Public Utilities ComrTlIssion
March 3 2002
Page 2 of 3
-----'
Under the best of circumstances, the rates available for QF power sales
agreements are presently and likely will continue to be insufficient to
amortize the construction costs of a power project in five years or less.
Project financing is only available over a term equal to or less than the
term of the power sales agreement. The currently estimated project
revenues are not sufficient to amortize a project loan over the presently
mandated term. Therefore, the term of the contract must be significantly
longer than presently required. A typical finance term of 20 years would
make many more projects financially feasible.
Many parties recognize a lack of transmission capacity throughout the
country. This can be alleviated to some extent by, in effect, installing
distributed generation, i.e., generating capacity near the load. A large
number of small generating plants distributed throughout the service area
is a good strategy for improving reliability and minimizing transmission
costs. For example, the six sites we are presently considering in the
Treasure Valley would add generating capacity in rapidly-developing Adaand Canyon Counties. Therefore, public policy should foster more PURPA
projects, rather than render them infeasible. The record of construction of
such projects in recent years speaks volumes: it has ground to a halt.
Virtually all new generation in Idaho is based on combustion turbine
technology, requiring the delivery of natural gas, the emission of
greenhouse gases , and further loading the gas and electricity transmission
systems. The recent example of the Garnet Powerplant in Middleton
demonstrates the public s acceptance of such projects, even thougheveryone recognizes the unprecedented growth in Idaho and the
attendant growth in electricity demand.
The surplus electricity supply caused by the shutdown of the furnaces at
the Astaris phosphate plant in eastern Idaho will soon be consumed by the
growth in power demand from other customers. A process that allows the
. orderly addition of generating capacity, especially from renewable
resources, will go a long way to satisfying the growth in demand.
For the reasons presented above, I urge you to approve the requested change to
increase the size of the QF project to at least 10 MW and to extend the term of
the power sales agreements to at least 20 years, with the actual term to bedetermined by the offeror.
Sincerely,
;a~~
cYb"), e (';
:daho Public Utilities Commission
March 3, 2002
Page 3 of
David A. O'Day, P.
PO Box 603
Boise, Idaho 83701-0603
[phone]
Cc:Avista Corporation - Robert J. Lafferty
Blair Strong
PO Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220
Pacificorp -Gregory N. Duvall
Jim Fell
Pacificorp
424 Public Service Building
920 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
John M. Erickson
Utah Power & Light
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
Idaho Power Company - Barton L. Kline, Senior Attorney
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise , 1083707-0070
5g5
;ECEI 'fED
:: iI.- ~ 0John J. Straubhar, P.
Water Power, LLC
P. o. Box 5071
Twin Falls, Idaho 83303-5071
r~l
r--
22J2 F~G 28 Pi; 5: 03
T!L..:; ;;:S C'
=;:,;;'
::SSiO:;
~,,, "
February 27, 2002
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utility Commission
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 083720-0074
Re:Case No. GNR-02-, PURPA QF'
Dear Commissioners:
I am the president of Shorock Hydro, Inc. which owns and operates two small
hydroelectric Qualifying Facilities (QF) of2.1 Mw and 975 Kw, near Twin Falls and
Shoshone, Idaho, respectively. In addition, I am managing partner ofa 1.5 Mw
hydroelectric plant on the MiJner-Gooding Canal that has operated since 1994. The
Shorock plants were constructed in 1982 and 1981 respectively. I helped license, permit
design, construct, and currently operate and manage these plants. I have also worked on
numerous other plants as a consuhing engineer and project manager, and feel I
understand the business.
I am the president of Water Power, LLC. Weare currently working with the
American Falls Reservoir District, Twin Falls Canal Company, North Side Canal
Company, and Boise Project Board of Control to develop thirteen (13) small
hydroelectric qualifying facilities, all on seasonal canals that operate typically from April
through October. These plants represent some 15 Mw of capacity and 66 287 Mw hrs of
production, all of which could be on line in 3 - 5 years.
The primary hindrance is a five-year contract and a 1 Mw limitation to the
published SAR based avoided cost rates. The above facilities were available for
development in 1995 when the Commission stopped QF development by the
implementation of Order No. 25884 and No. 26576. In order to reinstate the PURPA
Laws as intended, we need a contract term of at least twenty (20) years and a 10 Mw
limitation to the published SAR based avoided cost rates. The aforementioned plants
could operate very effectively at an avoided cost rate of$.06 seasonalized by the 1.2
factor currently bemg used. What the QF mdustry needs is the following:
Long term, fixed rate, contracts for projects up to ten megawatts.
Avoided cost rates determined over the term of the contract and equal to the life
of Idaho Power s new resources.
Standardized contract terms.
Standardized mterconnection terms and conditions.
Avoided cost rates determined usmg Idaho Power s actual new plan additions for
avoided cost rate calculations.
It appears to me that deregulation will not happen and the regulated utilities fear
of stranded costs due to QF facilities is unfounded.
QF facilities on seasonal canals are very environmentally benign and would
greatly benefit the canal companies allowing them to better mamtam and enhance their
systems. An example of this is the Twin Falls Canal Company who owns QF facilities or
receives mcome from existmg QF', they have made some excellent improvements to the
irrigation systems and their stockholders have benefited greatly.
QF facilities are good for the local ratepayer as they can provide local economic
stability with a fixed rate over a 20 year period.
The QF mdustry is very reliable and competitive contrary to rumor and innuendo.
Our existmg plants typically run the entire irrigation season at an exceptionally high plant
factor. The canal companies demand that the plants be run very efficiently with no impact
on their system
The QF mdustry is very positive for Idaho and power consumers. We need a
level playing field and the IPUC is m a position to help us achieve this goal while also
benefitmg all ofIdaho.
Ifl can be of further service or if you wish to discuss my comments I can be
reached at 208-736-8255.
Smcerely,
Water Power, LLC
~~ ~:::~
President
JJS/ss
"""
1d
~~ ~.
f~w
j;r~1
"-
'Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Wednesday, February 27 , 2002 11 :30 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WNW Form Submission:
Wednesday, February 27 , 2002
11:30:23 AM
Case: GNR-E-02-01
Name: Michael Jones
Street Address: 811 S. Oneida
Ci t y: Rupert
State: 10
ZIP: 83350
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: rmj ones~pmt. org
Company: Idaho Power ~
mailing list _yes - no
Comment description: Dear Commissioners;
In Case GNR-E-02-01, you ask for comments from Qualifying Facility owners re: our thoughtson term and maximum size. As Director of Operations for a company that operates two QF'
in Idaho and several others throughout the U.S. and with extensive waste-fueled facility
experience, I offer the following:
Project term should preferably be a minimum of 10 years for combustion turbine-based
facilities and, because they are more capital-intensive to design and construct, 15 yearsfor waste-fueled facilities. These contract lengths allow reasonable debt amortization
periods; lenders generally do not allow a QF's amortization to extend beyond firm contractlength.
As for proj ect size, limits should be high enough to allow for economies of scale. It isextremely difficult to earn a reasonable rate of return on any gas-fired proj ect less thanabout 30 MW in size and waste-fueled project less than roughly 15 MW in size for thefollowing reasons:
Labor: Because they have the same skill set, facility staff earn approximately the same
per person whether they work at a 10 MW facility or a 100 MW facility. Staffing levelsare likewise similar. Although equipment is physically smaller at a 10 MW facility, thenumber and complexity of the pieces is the same and so it takes similar staff size andexpertise to operate and maintain. (By way of example, we employ six people for each 10
MW Idaho facility. We employ 9 at our 120 MW Denver combined-cycle facility. 1100%output increase, 50% staff size increase.
Original Plant Construction: A 30 MW combined-cycle facility is roughly $850 perinstalled kW, while for a 10 MW facility that cost is over $1200/kW. The differences aresimilarly dramatic for waste-fueled facilities.
Efficiency: The heat rate of a 30 MW combined-cycle QF facility will be in theneighborhood of 8,250 Btu/kWh (using the Higher Heating Value-HHV-of natural gas fuel andmeeting QF efficiency requirements) while for a 10 MW facility that value will be about
10,750 Btu/kWh. (This difference comes mainly from higher technology available in higher-
output combustion turbines, which dramatically improves the efficiency of these units.
That 20%+ efficiency improvement represents sound energy policy, not to mention improvedproj ect viability. (Heat rate variations are not so pronounced for waste-fueled
facilities of varying sizes.
These factors of project term and facility size greatly affect a QF's ability to be viableon a lower electricity price, which should of course be a prime goal. All else beingequal, a 30 MW combined-cycle QF is viable on a roughly 10-15% lower electricity price
SENT BY: GREEN POWER;5413172879 ;MAR -15.02 5: 23PM;PAGE 1
~J;:,fORE THE, New..EXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISS.l
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUIRY
INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY AS A
SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY
Petitioner.
Utility Case No. 3619
UTILITY DIVISION STAFF OF THE
PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission ("NMPRC" or the "Commission ) proposes to adopt a new Rule 572 to
replace existing Rule 572 and a portion of Rule 591, and to encourage the development
of renewable energy in New Mexico.
The proposed new Rule has two parts: In the first, public utilities are to provide
to all customers an energy portfolio with a progressively greater percentage of service
from renewable sources, on a least cost basis and preferably from generators in New
Mexico. By September 1 , 2003, the portfolio standard will be 2%. Then , the standard
increases to 5% by September 1 2005.Finally, the standard becomes 10% by
September 1 , 2007. A utility may satisfy some or aU of these requirements through
acquisition of certificates from any other New Mexico generator.
The second part of the proposed Rule specifies that every utility must provide
electricity from renewable sources to any customer who requests it. and who is willing
to purchase renewable energy. regardless of cost, based on availability.The pri~e
8cN I ~y: GREEN POWER;5413172879 ;MAR -15-02 5: 24PMj PAGE 2
charged for these voluntary programs is to be established in renewable energy tariffs
filed with and approved by the Commission.
The proposed rule would be adopted under the authority granted the
Commission by the New Mexico Constitution. Article XI. Section 2. and by the
Legislature pursuant to NMSA 1978 Sections 4: 8-15; 62-1; 62.3A-2; 62-3A-19;
62-3A.20; 62-6-4; and 62-19.
A copy of the proposed rule to be promulgated as NMPRC Rule 572 is attached
hereto as "Exhibit A". The rule has been formatted for inclusion in the New Mexico
Administrative Code pursuant to NMSA 1978 Section 14-4-3 and, if adopted as
proposed. would be cited as 17 NMAC 10.572.
The proposed Rule specifies an effective date of May 31 , 2002. Any person
wishing to comment on the proposed NMPRC Rule 572 17 NMAC 10. 572 may do so
by submitting. written comments no later than April 1. 2002. Any person wishing to
respond to comments may do so by submitting written response comments no later
than April 16, 2002. Comments suggesting changes to the rule as proposed shall state
and discuss the particular reasons for the suggested changes and shall include all
specific language necessary or appropriate to effectuate the changes being suggested.
All pleadings , including comments, shall bear the caption and case number
contained at the top of this notice and must be served on all persons in the Commission
official service list for this case. Additional copies of the proposed Rule can be obtained
...
from, and comments on the proposed Rule shall be sent to:
Notice of Proposed kulemaking
Utilit). Case No. 3619
SENT BY: GREEN POWER 5413172879 j MAR -15-02 5: 24PMj PAGE 3/12
Maria Brito, Records Manager
NMPRC-Utmty Division
Marian Hall
224 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Telephone: [phone]
Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 8-15(8), this notice , including Exhibit A, shall
be mailed at least thirty days prior to the hearing date to all persons who have
requested advance notice , and it must be published, without Exhibit A, in two
newspapers of general circulation in the state and in the New Mexico Register.
A public hearing will begin at 10:00 on April 23, 2002 at the offices of the
Commission at Marian Hall, 224 East Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico, to
receive oral comment.
Copies of any Final Order adopting the proposed Rule will be sent, along with
copies of the particular rules adopted or amended, to all affected utilities, commentors
in the case, and individuals requesting such copies.
Notice of Pl'Opo~cdRulcm9killg
Utility Cn~c NCI. 3619
SENT BY: GREEN POWER 5413172879 j MAR-15-02 5: 24PMj PAGE 4/12
EXHIBIT A
TITLE 17
CHAPTER 10
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UTILITY SERVICES
ELECTRIC UTILITIES
PART 572 RENEWABLE ENERGY AS A SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY
ISSUING AGENCY: New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
Commission ), Utility Division, 224 East Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, NM
87501-2013. (5-31-2002)
SCOPE: This rule applies to every person generating or selling electricenergy for ultimate consumption in New Mexico that is subject to the
jurisdiction of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission as provided
by the Public Utility Act. (5-31-2002)
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: The New Mexico Constitution, Article XI
Section 2; NMSA 1978 Sections 4: 8-15; 62-1: 62-3A-2: 62-3A-19;
62-3A-20; 62-4; and 62-19. (5-31-2002)
DURATION: . This rule shall remain in effect until amended by the
Commission. (5-31-2002)
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Rule shall become effective on May 31, 2002
unless a later date is cited at the end of a section or paragraph.
(5-31-2002)
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this rule is to the maximum extent practical
encourage the development of renewable energy in New Mexico in order
to (1) increase energy efficiency and conservation of non-renewable
resources; (2) increase energy supply diversity in a volatile energy market
place in order to assure just and reasonable rates; (3) increase the
SENT BV: GREEN POWER;5413172879;MAR -15 . 02 5: 25PM;PAGE 5/12
likelihood of long-term energy price stability for consumers in order to
insure just and reasonable rates on a long term basis; (4) stimulate
economic development and water conservation and enhancement; (5)reduce potential pollution emission from fossil fuels; (6) decreasedependency on fossil fuels: and (7) improve the public health and
potentially protect against wild fire occurrence. (5-31-2002)
DEFJNITIONS:
(5-31-2002)
Unless otherwise specified, as used in this rule:
certified source means a generator or seller of renewable energy
who self certifies that its output or energy supplies will comply or complies
with the definition of "renewable energy" as set forth in Section 7,7 of thisRule; (5-31-2002)
Certified Generator or Seller means a certified source locatedwithin the geographic boundaries of New Mexico or doing business in New
Mexico or a certified source located in another state who accepts all of
New Mexico s generated renewable energy from generation located inNew Mexico for purposes of satisfying that states' renewable energyportfolio standards: (5-31-2002)
person is defined as set forth in Section 62-3 of the New MexicoPublic Utility Act; (5-31-2002)
portfolio standard is the percentage amount of total energygenerated or procured and distributed by a public utility from renewable
energy required by the Rule; 15-31-2002)
procure means to contract for renewable energy from a certifiedsource for a period of ten years or greater; (5-31.2002)
public utility means a utility operating in New Mexico that is
subject to the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Public RegulationCommission as provided by the Public Utility Act; (5-31-2002)
Renewable Energy RuJe
SENT BY: GREEN POWER;5413172879 ;MAR -15 - 02 5: 25PM;PAGE S/12
renewable energy means electrical energy generated by means of
a low- or zero-emissions generation technology that has substantial long-
term production potential and may include, without limitation, solar, wind,
hydropower, geothermal, biomass, including but not limited to agriculture
or animal waste, small diameter timber, salt cedar and other phreatophyte
or woody vegetation removed from river basins or watersheds in New
Mexico, landfill gas, anaerobically digested waste biomass or fuel cells
that are not fossil fueled. "Renewable energy" does not include fossil fuel
or nuclear energy; provided however a renewable energy source shall
qualify as renewable energy for purposes of this Rule if it is developed in
combination with a fossil fuel source. However, only the amount of energy
from the renewable resource shall qualify for purposes of meeting the
portfolio standard of this Rule; (5-31-2002)
renewable energy certificate means the documentation issued by
the Commission that certifies that the certified source has established the
quantity of renewable energy available for generation or sale in NewMexico; and (5-31-2002)
trading credit means a mechanism whereby one public utility can
fulfill its portfolio standard requirement through the purchase of renewable
energy certificates from another public utility or renewable energy
generator or seller: each credit represents one kilowatt-hour (kWh) ofrenewable energy at the point of output of the renewable energy facility or
point of sale; 15-31-2002)
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION: This rule shall be liberally construed tocarry out its intended purposes. If any provision of this rule, or theapplication thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, theremainder of the rule, or the application of such provision to other persons
or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. (5-31-2002)
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER COMMISSION RULES: This rule replacesa portion of NMPRC Rule 591 , whose implementation has been delayed
by Laws 2001, Chapter 5. This rule repeals NMPRC Rule 572. Unlessotherwise specified, this rule does not supers~de any other rule of the
Commission but supplements rules applying to~ public utilities, including,but not limited to, NMPRC Rules 570 and 571. in the case of confJic;t, theprovisions of this rule shall apply. (5-31-2002)
Renewable Energy Rule
SENT BY: GREEN POWER 5413172879 j MAR -15 - 02 5: 2BPM j PAGE 7/12
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROCUREMENT:
10.Each public utility or person supplying power to New MexicoCustomers shall procure and commence distribution of renewable energy
or renewable energy credits as a minimum percentage of its total annualenergy supplies according to the following portfolio standards:(5-31-2002)
September 1 , 2003: 2%
September 1 , 2005: 5%
September 1 , 2007 and thereafter: 10%
10.2 A public utility may apply to the Commission for approval of "tradingcredits" as a means of satisfying its portfolio standard requirements;
(5-31-2002)
10.The application shall include the following information: (1) thesource of renewable resources; (2) the selling utility or certified generator
or seller; (3) the terms and conditions of the credit; (4) an explanation of
why the approval of the trading credit is in the public interest. Notice ofthe application shall be served on NMPRC Staff, the Attorney General and
persons listed on the Commission approved renewable resource
certificate list. The application shall be deemed approved thirty days after
filing unless the Commission finds probable cause to suspend the filing;
(5-31-2002J
10.Purchases: In procuring renewable energy to meet the portfoliostandards of this Rule, a public utility or certified generator or seller
supplying power to New Mexico customers may purchase renewableenergy on a competitive bid or direct negotiation" basis. The public utility inmaking its purchase decisions shall consider the following factors:availability of transmission capacity, location and reasonable transmission
access to the renewable energy resources, the long term and short term
marginal costs of the renewable energy, the benefit of a diversified
Renewable "F:uergy Rule
,,"'.. I '" I. \;In t;;t;;I~ r VVVt;;n J ~41;;S1 (2B(9j MAR .15.02 5: 26PMj PAGE 8/12
portfolio of renewable and non-renewable energy sources, the dispatchflexibility of the renewable energy, reliability, availability and load factor of
the renewable energy source, and the economic, health, safety andenvironmental benefits to be derived by the public from the procurement.Because of the diversity of renewable energy resources in New Mexicoand the Commission s intent to encourage the maximum development of
New Mexico renewable energy resources, no more than fifty percent of a
public utility's renewable energy resources portfolio shall be from anysingle type of renewable energy resource for purposes of complying with
the portfolio standard of this Rule. However, for purposes of qualifying fora reward under this Rule, the total amount of energy procured from allrenewable energy resources shall be counted. A public utility's purchaseof renewable energy resources which does not raise the utility's total costof energy above .08 cents per kwh of the utility s last three years averagecost of overhead residential rates on a fully allocated basis shall bedeemed prudent and subject to assured costs and reward recovery;(5-31-2002J
10.Each public utility shall offer a voluntary renewable energy tariff for
those customers who want the option to purchase renewable energy inexcess of the utility'5 average energy costs including the renewableenergy portfolio standard based on availability. The tariff shall set out any
applicable conditions as ta price, quantity and term of agreement. Thetariff may also include provisions which enables consumers to purchase
renewable energy within certain energy blocks and by source ofrenewable energy and provides consumer lease-purchase options or lawinterest loans for renewable energy facilities such as photovoltaicsystems. Additionally, each public utility shall develop an educationalprogram on the benefits and availability of its voluntary renewable energy
program. The tariff along with the details of the consumer educationalprogram 5hall be filed with the Commission not later than sixty days after
the effective date of this Rule; (5-31-2002J
10.Interconnection: A public utility shall develop a standard farminterconnection agreement for renewable energy sources less than 250Kw
consistent with achieving the maximum amount
of renewable energy andavoiding any harm to the operation or safety of the utility electricalsystem. The cost of interconnection shall be the sale responsibility of the
renewable energy provider. Provided, however~ for renewable energy
sources of 250Kw ar less the utility shall provide ,a reasonable long termpayment schedule to cover interconnection costs including reasonableinterest and non-payment remedies; (5-31-2002J
Renewable Energy Rule
o~~ I C I; ~n~~N rUW~n ::I41~1 (26(9;MAR -5.02 5: 27PM;PME 9/12
10.Net Metering: In submitting tariffs to implement this rule. a utility
shall offer to renewable energy sources generating less than 250Kw a
reasonable net metering option which avoids any harm to the operation
and safety of the utility electrical system; (5-31-2002)
10.Penalty: Any utility that fails to procure its renewable energyportfolio or adequate credits in accordance with the time frame in this rule
shall be fined the maximum amount allowed by law under the PUA, unless
a variance has been granted by the Commission pursuant to Sections
12.1 or 12.2 of this Rule; (5-31-2002)
10.Reward: Any utility which procures and distributes in excess of the
portfolio standard contained in this Rule shall be allowed to mark-up its
costs for the renewable energy in excess of the then prevailing renewable
standard by .008 cents per kwh of renewable energy delivered and shallbe allowed to retain the mark-up revenues as a reward; Additionally, apublic utility may in its discretion file a tariff to promote small scalerenewable energy development within its service territory by offering low-
interest loans or lease-purchase options to customers to install distributed
renewable energy facilities. The public utility may seek an appropriate
reward for making this offering by the Commission. The utility may include
these small scale facilities in meeting or exceeding the portfolio standardof this Rule and for purposes of obtaining an additional reward;
( 5-31-2002J
10.10 Renewable Energy Preference: In procuring, acquiring orconstructing facilities for its electric energy supply, a public utility shall
prefer renewable energy over non-renewable sources if the life cycle costs
of the renewable energy are similar to non-renewable sources on a net
present value cost basis; (5-31-2002)
10.11 Transmission Access: Subject to federal law, a public utility orelectric generator or other seller of energy shall reserve at least ten
percent of its firm transmission capacity imports and or rights forrenewable energy resources on both a system wide and point to pointtransmission basis. All existing and future transmission agreements shall
be modified within ninety days of the effective date of this Rule to insurecompliance. In the event a selling entity refuses to amend its agreement,the public utility shall only distribute ninety percent of the selling entities
energy to New Mexico consumers; (5-31-2002)
Renewable Energy Rule
~~N I ~y: GH~~N ~OWER 5413172879 j MAR-15-02 5: 27PMj PAGE 1 0/1 ~
11.CERTIFIED SOURCES
SUBMITTAL:
PORTFOLIO STANDARDS DATA
11.Certification of Sources. Every generator or seller selling energy
for ultimate consumption in New Mexico shall self certify as to the quantityof electricity generated that is from a source meeting the definition of
renewable energy". (5-31-2002)
11.Self Certification Procedures: All renewable energy generators
or sellers shall submit the self certification form attached to this Rule as
FORM 11.2 prior to commencement of energy deliveries to a public utility.
publish public notice of its submittal in a newspaper of general circulation
in New Mexico, and serve a copy of its self generation certification to the
New Mexico Attorney General , the Staff, and any other person contained
on a Commission approved renewable energy certificate list. Thegeneration will be deemed a certified source within thirty days of its
submittal unless the Commission determines that there is probable causeto investigate the self certification. Such investigation and any
Commission final ruling on the matter shall be concluded within forty-five
days from the date of the probable cause order. (5-31-2002)
11.Portfolio Filing. The utility shall certify the amount of energy from
renewable energy certified sources it intends to purchase for the reporting
period and certify that its procurement of energy from renewable energy
certified resources will comply with the applicable portfolio standard.
Within ninety days of the effective date of this Rule and by December 31 of
each year, each public utility shall file with the Commission its proposed
portfolio of power supply, including anticipated power, energy, and
ancillary services requirements and power, energy. and ancillary services
resources anticipated to be relied upon, including estimated costs, for the
following 36 months and a computation of any rewards to be collectedpursuant to this Rule. The portfolio shall be updated as necessary to
reflect any changes in the utility's projected portfolio standard and reward
entitlement. (5-31-2002)
11.Annual Portfolio Review. By March 31 of each year, the public
utility shall file with the Commission a report on its power supply for the
previous calendar year. This report shall include an itemization .of allpower and energy purchases and sales from certified sources , and allpurchases and sales of renewable energy certificates to be applied astrading credits, including the seller's name, term of each transaction
Reo,"-w:.able Energy Rule:
~cN I ~T: uHccN ~UWcH 5413172879 ;MAR-15-02 5:28PM;PAGE 11/12
quantity purchased, the purchase price, and other data useful to the
Commission in evaluating the public utility's compliance with this Rule.
This report shall also include a reconciliation of the public utility's monthly
purchased power adjustment factor, if any and a computation of rewards
allowed by this Rule. (5-31-2002)
12.EXEMPTION, VARIANCE AND COMPLAINTS.
12.1 Any interested person may file an application for an exemption or a
variance from the procedural requirements of this rule. Such application
shall:
12.1 identify the section(s) of this rule for which the exemption or
variance is requested;
12.2 describe the situation which necessitates the exemption or
variance;
12.3 set out the effect of complying with this rule on the public utility and
its customers if the exemption or variance is not granted;
12.4 define the result which the request will have if granted;
12.5 state how the exemption or variance will achieve the purposes of
this rule;
12.6 state why no other reasonable alternative is available; and
12.7 state why the proposed alternative is in the public interest and is abetter alternative than that provided by the existing rule.(5-31-2002)
Renew~b)e ED~rgy Rule
SENT BY: GREEN POWER;5413172879 ;MAR -is - 02 5: 2SPM ;PAGE 12/12
12.2 A public utility may file an application for an exemption or variance
from the Portfolio Requirements of this Rule if it can demonstrate the
unavailabili~y of renewable energy resources or credits to meet the
portfolio standard or if the renewable energy resources available to it will
result in an increase of .08 cents kwh to its overhead residential rates on
fully allocated basis. The filing shall comply with applicable provisions of
Section 12.1 above. (5-31-2002)
12.3 Complaints: Any interested person may file a complaint against any
person who is alleged to be in violation of this rule or the generators or
sellers self certification. Complaints will be governed pursuant the rule of
the Commission. (5-31-2002)
Renewable Energy RulE!