20110317PAC Motions for Clarification and Protective Order.pdf

LoVIGER I KAUFMA LLP
825 NE Multnomah . Suite 925
Portand, OR 97232-2150
offce [phone]
fax [phone]
Keet E. KaufKa~.co
March 16,2011
Via UPS Overnight Delivery and Electonic Mail
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5918
J ean.j ewell (fpuc.idaho. gov o..
Re: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMSSION'S INSTIGATION INO
DISAGGREGATION AN AN APPROPRITE PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATE ELIGmILITY CAP STRUCTURE FOR PURP A QUALIFYG
FACILITIES.
IPUC Docket No. GNR-E-ll-Ol
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed for fiing in the above-captioned docket an original and seven (7) copies
of Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarifcation and Motion for Protective Order.
An extra copy of this cover letter is enclosed. Please date stamp the extra copy and retur it to
me in the envelope provided.
Than you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
J!~ --
Ken Kaufman
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
cc: GNR-E-II-0l Service List
Enclosures
Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mark.moench(fpacificorp.com
daniel.solander(fpacificorp.com
/!:0Q-= . ~
Jeffrey S. Lovinger
Kenneth E. Kaufman
Lovinger Kaufman LLP
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925
Portland, Oregon 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
lovinger(flklaw.com
kaufman(flk1aw.com
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE TH IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIS COMMSSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION'S
INVESTIGATION INTO DISAGGREGATION
AND AN APPROPRITE PUBLISHED
AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP
STRUCTURE FOR PURP A QUALIFYING
FACILITIES
) CASE NO. GNR-E-11-01
)
) ROCKY MOUNTAIN
) POWER'S MOTION FOR
) CLARIFICATION AND
) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
) ORDER
)
) EXPEDITED REVIEW
) REQUESTED
)
Pursuant to IDAPA 31.01.01.056, PacifiCorp, dba Rocky Mountan Power,
respectfully moves for clarfication of Order No. 32195 and moves for a protective order
to stay discovery of matters not within the scope of the technical hearng noticed in Order
No. 32195.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND 1
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
I. Backgund
On November 5, 2010, Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation, and Rocky
Mountain Power (the "Utilities") filed a joint petition asking the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") to initiate an investigation to address various avoided cost
issues related to the Commission's implementation of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A).l The Utilities requested an immediate reduction in the
10aMW eligibility cap for published avoided cost rates while the Commission completed
its investigation.2 On Februar 7, 2011 the Commission issued Order No. 32176, which
temporarly reduced the eligibilty cap for published avoided cost rates from 10 aMW to
100 kW for wind and solar Qualifying Facilties ("QFs,,).3 Order No. 32176 also called
for a hearng the week of May 9, 2011, to investigate and determine requirements by
which wind and solar QFs can obtain a published avoided cost rate without allowing
large QFs to obtain a rate that is not an accurate reflection of a utilty's avoided cost for
such projects.4 The Commission declared that "other avoided cost issues identified in the
Joint Petition, including utilzation and/or modifcation of the IRP Methodology, wil be
considered after a determination regarding disaggregation. ,,5
On Februar 25,2011, the Commission published a Notice of Technical Hearng,
which reiterated the scope of its curent investigation:
i In the Matter of the Joint Petition of Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation, and Rocky Mountain
Power to Address Avoided Cost Issues and Joint Motion to Adjust the Published Avoided Cost Rate
Eligibilty Cap, I.P.U.C. Case No. GNR-E-lO-04, (Joint Petition to Address Avoided Cost Issues and Joint
Motion to Adjust the Published Avoided Cost Rate Eligibilty Cap) (November 5, 2010).
2 Id.
3 I.P.U.C. Case No. GNR-E-lO-04, Order No. 32176 (Februai 7, 2011).
4 Id at 9.
5 Id. at FN4 (emphasis added).
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
2
The Commission initiates this proceeding to investigate and determine in a
finite time frame requirements by which wind and solar QFs can obtain a
published avoided cost rate without allowing large QFs to obtain a rate
that is not an accurate reflection of the utility's avoided cost for such
projects.6
On March 7, 2011 Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition
("NIPPC") served on the Utilities its First Production Request (attached as Exhibit A).
All of the questions in NIPPC's First Production Request are about the IRP Methodology
and appear to have no relevance to the questions set for hearng in Order No. 32195.
II. Standard of Review
The Commission has adopted the rules governing discovery contained in the
Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.? I.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) governs the scope of discovery
allowed in Idaho and states: "Paries may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action."s
III. Argument
NIPPC's First Production Request is comprised entirely of questions about the
Utilities' IRP Methodology and seems relevant only to the question of whether the IRP
Methodology is a valid means for establishing the avoided cost under PURPA. For the
6 In the Matter of the Commission's Investigation into Disaggregation and an Appropriate Published
Avoided Cost Rate Eligibilty Cap Structure for PURPA Qualifing Facilties; I.P.U.C. Case No. GNR-E-11-01, Order No. 32195 at 1 (Februai 25, 2011) (the Commission fuer expressed its interest in
addressing only the disaggregation issue in the curent proceedings through the notifications ''the
Commission solicits information and investigation of a published avoided cost rate eligibilty cap strctue
that: (1) allows small wind and solar QFs to avail themselves of published rates for projects producing 10
aMW or less; and (2) prevents large QFs from disaggregating in order to obtain a published avoided cost
rate that exceeds a utilty's avoided cost." !d. at 3).
7 IDAPA 31.01.01.225; In the Matter of the Investigation into Whether Packsaddle Development
Corporation is a Public Utilty Subject to Commission Regulation, I.P.U.C. Case No. GNR-W-95-1, Order
No. 26399 (1996) (adopting the scope of discovery ofIR.C.P. 26(b)(I)).
8 I.R.C.P. 26(b)(1).
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND 3
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
reasons below, Rocky Mountain Power believes that NIPPC's inquiry is contrar to the
Commission's instructions in Order No. 32195.
A. The validity of the IR Methodology is not an issue noticed by the
Commission for hearig May 10,2011.
NIPPC's First Production Request suggests that NIPPC is planng to attack the
validity of the IRP Methodology at the May 10 hearing.9 Order No. 32176 and Order No.
32195 make clear the Commission's intent to address the validity of the IRP
Methodology after it makes a determination regarding disaggregation,lO and Rocky
Mountain Power has prepared for the May 10 hearng accordingly. If the Commission
allows NIPPC to question the validity of the IRP Methodology durng the May 10
hearng, paries (including Rocky Mountain Power) that wish to follow the Commission's
orders deferrng that issue until afer resolution of the disaggregation issue wil not have a
fair chance to produce their testimony and refute that offered by NIPPC. In effect, they
would be punished for conforming to the Commission's clearly defined scoping orders.
Persons desiring to paricipate in a proceeding regarding the IRP Methodology that are
not paries to this proceeding would be excluded without notice if the IRP Methodology
is put at issue in the May 10 hearng. Furthermore, entertaining NIPPC's inquiry into the
validity of the IRP Methodology would divert time and attention away from the
Commission's stated goal of making a final determination regarding disaggregation.
9 Rocky Mountain Power notes that NIPPC is entitled to fie its own complaint calling into question the
validity of the IRP Methodology, but is not entitled to raise this issue as a collateral attack in a Commission
proceeding regarding disaggregation. I.C. § 61-625 (2011) states: D"All orders and decisions of the
commission which have become final and conclusive shall not be attacked collaterally." The Commission
affirmed the validity of the IRP Methodology though final order in Orders Nos. 25882, 25883 and 25884.
10 See Section I, supra.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
4.
B. NIPC's First Producton Request is not relevant to the May 10 hearig.
If the Commission agrees that the IRP Methodology is not at issue at the May 10
hearing, then NIPPC's First Production Request is irrelevant to the subject matter of the
proceedings before the Commission. The Commission's rules do not permit discovery on
irrelevant matters.
1 1 Therefore, Rocky Mountain Power should not be required to provide
responses.
C. Expedited Review of Company's Motions is warrnted.
The Commission may modify its rules, including the rule permitting paries 14
days to respond to a motion, when compliance is impracticable.12 Permitting paries 14
days to respond to this motion is impracticable because the paries to the proceeding need
clarification on the scope of the May 10 hearng before the March 25, 2011 deadline to
file direct testimony. To the extent the Commission permits paries to file a response,
five days would afford more than ample opportty for paries to respond.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Rocky Mountain Power asks the Commission to
declare that the validity of the IRP Methodology is not relevant to the May 10, 2011
hearng. Rocky Mountain Power requests, fuher, that the Commission grant its motion
for protective order staying discovery on matters relating to the IRP Methodology until
after the Commission makes a final determination regarding disaggregation. Finally,
II I.R.C.P. 26(b)(1); In the Matter of the Application of Avista Corporationfor the Authority to Increase its
Rates and Charges for Electric and Natural Gas Service to Electric and Natural Gas Customers in the
State of !daho, I.P.U.C. Case No. AVU-E-04-01; AVU-G-04-1; Order No. 29583 (2004) (denying
discovery of information regarding an issue not properly before the Commission as irelevant to the subject
matter of the proceedings).
12 IDAPA31.01.0l.013.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
5
because Rocky Mountain Power and other paries wil be prejudiced if this matter is not
resolved promptly, Rocky Mountain Power asks that the Commission narow the time for
other paries to respond, from 14 days to five days, and make a ruling at least three days
prior to the deadline for fiing direct testimony. 13
Dated this _ day of March 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
¿t&tSB 2284
Danel E. Solander USB 11467
Rocky Mountain Power
Jeffrey S. Lovinger, OSB 960147
Kenneth E. Kaufman, OSB 982672
Lovinger Kaufman LLP
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
I3 This request could be satisfied if the Commission rules on or before March 22, 2011, or if the
Commission rules before March 25, 2011, and postpones the March 25, 2011 deadline for filing direct
testimony.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
6
Case No. GNR-E-ll-0l
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order
EXHIBIT A
First Production Request of the Northwest and Intermountain
Power Producers Coalition to Idaho Power Company, Avista
Corporation and Rocky Mountain Power in GNR-E-11-01
(March 7, 2011)
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 8
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Rocky Mountain Powets Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order
Boise, Idaho 83702
d Intermounta
BEFORE TH
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
TER OF THBCOMMISSION'S )
N ) CASE NO. GNR-E~ i i -01
Pursuant to Rule 225 of the Riles of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
(the "Commssioif'), the Northwest and Intermountan Power Producers Coalition ("NIPPC")
hereby requests that Idaho Power Company eIdaho Power"), Rocky Mountain Power, and
Avista Corpration (~llectiveiy the "Joint Utilties") provide responses to the following With
Ie.
This production request is to be considere as continuing, and the Joint Utilties are
requeSt to provide by \\uy of supplementa responses additional documents that they or any
ION REQUEST OF THE NORTHWEST AND
RODUCERS CUALITION - GNR-E.ll ~Ol
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 8
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Rocky Mountain Powets Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order
Exhibit A, Page 5 of 8
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order
In SUpport of the rting. dat inele
. and
(a) The inp power supply model used, including but not limited to:
the 20 years for: Co
&M costs for each year
Gas, Md Other.
e 20 year.
(iii) Capacity faètors,
(a) For existing resources,
(b) For the modeled wind reource.
(iv) Heat rates for existing resources
(v) Systei;.load for each year of the 20 yeas,r including On-peak by season, Md Qff-
seon.
(vi) DSMMWh for ea ofthei s
(6) Thè output yahies used in the energy supply model, inc
foJIo\\ing:
(i) Off system purchas for.eachyear of the 20 years, including MWh. and Pricê per
MWh.
Off syste~ saes,Ior each year of the. 20 years, including M\Vh, and Price per MWh.
. Capacity factors, including each existng resource. and the modeled wind resource.
the
(ii) the capital carying cost, (iv) tax
eral,local), (v) economic life of the system resources.
(d) The levelization model used incb;iding all assumptions.
- FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE NORTHWEST AND
WER PRODUCERS COALITION - GNR-E~ 1 i -01
Exhibit A, Page 7 of 8
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Rocky Mountain Powets Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order
TJi
cost of capita, (iii) the capita carg cost, (iv) ta
(v) economic life ofthe systemiesoures.
odel used including all assumptions.(d)
the "IRP Meth
IPC-E-95-09 to calcul
ased on uction data if the project were
t e follo
over the 20 year contract period
(b) on a non-levelied $/MWh basis anualy over the 20 year contract period,
(c) on a$/MWh basis seasonal,rates over the 20 year contract period,
ate the avoided cost between the capital and energy components.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
ata in electronic format where
and an ,explantion why parcular
(a) The inputs to supply model used, including but not limited to:
for: Coal, Natural Gas,ánd Other./
h year of the 20 years,
(ií) Capacity factors.
(a) . For existing resources,
(b) For the modeled wind resoure.
(iv) Heat rates fo:texisting resources
(v) System loads
peak by season.
year of the 20 years, including On-peak by season, and Off.
(vi) PSM MWh for each year of the 2Q years
Page 7'- FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST OF THE NORTHWEST AND
INTERMOUNAI POWER PRODUCERS COALITION - GNR-E.II-Ol
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on the 16th day of March, 201 i, I served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER in Case No. GNR-E-
11-01 on the following named persons/entities by UPS Overnight Delivery
(Commission Secretar only) and electronic mail:
Jean Jewell, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
4 72 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5918
jean. jewell§puc.idaho. gOY
(UPS Overnight Delivery)
Robert D. Kahn, Executive Director
Northwest and Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition
1117 Minor Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101
rkah(ßnippc.org
Daniel Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
daniel.solander(ßpacificorp.com
Michael G. Andrea
A vista Corporation
1411 East Mission Ave
Spokane, VV A 99202
michael.andrea(ßavistacorp.com
Ronald L. Wiliams
Willams Bradbur PC
1015 West Hays Street
Boise, ID 83702
ron(ßwiliamsbradbury.com
Dean J. Miler
McDevitt & Miler LLP
PO Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
i oe(ßmcdevitt -miler. com
Dana Zentz, Vice President
Sumit Power Group, Inc
2006 East Westminster
Spokane, VV A 99223
dzentz(ßsumitpower .com
Don Sturevant, Energy Director
J. R. Simplot Company
PO Box 27
Boise, ID 83707-0027
don.sturevant(ßsimplot.com
Robert A. Paul
Grand View Solar II
15690 Vista Circle
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241
robertapaul08(ßgmaiL.com
Scott Montgomery, President
Cedar Creek Wind LLC
668 Rockwood Drive
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
scott(ßwesternenergy. us
R. Greg Ferney
Mimura Law Offices PLLC
2176 East Franlin Road, Suite 120
Meridian, ID 83642
greg(ßmimuralaw.com
James Carkulis, Managing Member
Exergy Development Group of Idaho LLC
802 West Banock Street, Suite 1200
Boise, ID 83702
j carkulis(ßexergydevelopment.com
Thomas H. Nelson, Attorney
PO Box 1211
Welches, OR 97067-1211
nelsonCithnelson.com
Bil Piske, Manager
Interconnect Solar Development LLC
1303 East Carer
Boise, ID 83706
bilpiske(ßcableone.net
Brian Olmstead, General Manager
Twin Falls Canal Company
PO Box 326
Twin Falls, ID83303
olmstead(ßtfcanal.com
JohnR. Lowe
Consultant to Renewable Energy Coalition
12050 SW Tremont Street
Portland, OR 97225
jravensanarcosCiyahoo .com
Bil Brown, Chair
Board of Commissioners
of Adams County, ID
PO Box 48
Council, ID 83612
bdbrown(ßfrontiernet.net
Donovan E. Walker
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
dwalker(ßidahopower.com
lnordstrom(ßidahopower .com
Donald L. Howell II
Krstine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
don.howell(ßpuc.idaho.gov
krs.sasser(ßpuc.idaho.gov
M.J. Humphries
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
4515 S. Ammon Road
Ammon, ID 83406
blueribbonenergy(ßgmail.com
Aron F. Jepsen
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
10660 South 540 East
Sandy, UT 84070
aronesq(ßaol.com
Wade Thomas, General Counsel
Dynamis Energy LLC
776 West Riverside Drive, Suite 15
Eagle, ID 83616
wthomas(ßdynamisenergy.com
Paul Martin
Intermountain Wind LLC
PO Box 353
Boulder, CO
paulmarin(ßintermountainwind.com
Shelley M. Davis
Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP
1010 West Jefferson Street (83702)
PO Box 2139
Boise, ID 83701
smd(ßidahowaters.com
Glenn Ikemoto
11argaret Ftueger
Idaho Windfars LLC
672 Blair Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
glenniCienvisi onwind.com
margaret(ßenvisionwind.com
Gary Seifert
Kurt Myers
Idaho National Laboratory
Conventional Renewable Energy Group
2525 Fremont Avenue
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3810
garyseifert(ßinL.gov
kurtmyers(ßinL. gov
Ted Sorenson PE
Birch Power Company
5203 South 11 th East
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
ted(ftsorenson.net
Ted Diehl, General Manager
North Side Canal Company
921 North Lincoln Street
Jerome, ID 83338
nscanal(fcableone.net
Benjamin 1. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street (83702)
PO Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
botto(fidahoconservation.org
Megan Walseth Decker
Senior Staff Counsel
Renewable Northwest Project
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 303
Portland, OR 97205
megan(frnp.org
Ken Miler
Snake River Allance
PO Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
kmiller(fsnakeriverallance.org
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Lear PLLC
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
peter(frichardsonandoleary.com
greg(frichardsonandolear.com
DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.
LOVINGER KAUFMANN LLP
¡Kl5
Kenneth E. Kaufman, OSB 982672
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power