20110325Griswold Di.pdf

.
.
.
RECEIVE
ion MAR 25 AM '0: 00
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S
INVESTIGATION INTO
DISAGGREGATIUN AND AN
APPROPRIATE PUBLISHED
A VOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY
CAP STRUCTURE FOR PURP A
QUALIFYING FACILITIES
)
) CASE NO. GNR-E-11-Ol
)
) Direct Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
)
)
)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER"
CASE NO. GNR-E-11-Ol
March 2011
.
.
1 Q.
2
3 A.
Please state your name, busines address and position with PacifiCorp dba
Rocky Mountain Power (the Company).
My name is Bruce W. Griswold. My business address is 825 NE Multnomah,
4 Suite 600, Portland, Oregon. I am the Director, Short-term Origination and QF
5 Contracts at PacifiCorp Energy, which is responsible for the Company's electrc
6 generation and energy trading functions.
7 Qualifications
Please briefly describe your education and business experience. '
I have a B.S. and M.S. degree in Agricultural Engineering from Montana State
and Oregon State, respectively. I have been employed with PacifiCorp over 25
years in varous positions of responsibilty in retail energy services, engineering,
marketing and wholesale energy services. I have also worked in private industr
and with an environmental fir as a project engineer. I curently work in
. Commercial and Trading at PacifiCorp Energy. My responsibilties include
negotiation and management of wholesale power supply and resource acquisition
agreements as well as direct responsibilty for all Company Qualifying Facility
("QF") power purchase agreements. I have represented the Company in multiple
PURP A related proceedngs across our six -state jurisdictions, including providing
testimony as well as parcipating as an expert witness.
20 Purpose and Summary of Testimony
21 Q.
22 A.
23
What is the purpose of your testimony?
My testimony wil:
. explain why the surest method of controllng disaggregation of wind QF
Griswold, Di - 1
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.12
13
14
15
16 Q.
17 A.
18
19
20
21
22.23
projects is for the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion (the "Commssion") to
continue the present stay on size eligibilty threshold at 100 kW for wind and
solar QFs seekig Idaho published avoided cost prices;
· explain the rationale behind keeping the 100 kW eligibilty threshold in place,
and why other methods to limit disaggregation are not as effective as the 100
kWcap;
. explain the rationale for basing a size limt on nameplate capacity rather than
on monthly average generation;
· provide examples of disaggregation limits used in other states;
· provide documentation of the current volume of wind QF projects proposed to
Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) and the potential impact on the Company's
customers; and
· submit a set of rules that the Company believes could be employed should the
Commssion seek to reinstate a higher eligibilty theshold but restrct
disaggregation.
Please provide the background for your testimony.
In Order No. 32176 issued in Case No. GNR-E-I0-04 on February 7, 2011, the
Commssion temporarly set the size eligibilty threshold for published avoided
cost rates for wind and solar qualifying facilities at 100 kW. The Commssion
also established Case No. GNR-E-II-0l (the second phase of Case No. GNR-E-
10-04) to set up an investigation and solicitation of information whereby the end
result would allow wind and solar QFs that met the 10 aMW theshold limit and
specific project criteria to obtain a published avoided cost rate without allowing
Griswold, Di - 2
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q.
10 A.
11.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
large wind or solar projects to break up into multiple smaller QF projects and
obtain a rate that is not an accurate reflection of a utilty's avoided cost for such
large projects.Specifically, the Commssion sought "information and
investigation of a published avoided cost rate eligibilty cap strcture 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."i
Please summarize your testimony.
Rocky Mountain Power has experienced a shar increase in the number and
magnitude of QF projects seeking published rate contracts with the Company in
Idaho recently. Most of the recent activity has come from large wind projects that
are disaggregating into two or more smaller projects in order to satisfy the 10
aMW size eligibilty threshold, although disaggregation may occur in other
resource types of QF projects, as welL. The current Idao published rates are
significantly higher than pricing from alternative offers which Rocky Mountain
Power receives; whether though its competitive request for proposal ("RFP")
process or through the Commssion-ordered Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP")
methodology that the Company utilzes to price QF projects over 10 aMW in
Idaho. The 10 aMW eligibilty theshold allows a wind QF project with a
nameplate capacity range of up to 30 MW to qualify for published rates. The
resulting costs to the Company and customers to integrate the intermttent
. i Order
No. 32176 page 11.
Griswold, Di - 3
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
resource are significant and need to be revisited. Left unchanged, the
Commission's current rules and methodologies implementing PURPA are likely
to have a long-term, significant impact on the Company's power supply costs and
its customers' rates. Rocky Mountain Power, Idaho Power Company, and Avista
have asked the Commssion to reassess the rules, in GNR-E-I0-04. While there
are proposed criteria to limit the disaggregation of large wind and solar projects, it
is clear from the Company's experience in other states such an approach is less
reliable compared to implementing a permnent lower size threshold for these
types of resources. Therefore the Commssion should make permanent the size
eligibilty threshold of wind and solar QFs seeking Idaho published avoided cost
prices at 100 kW as the surest method of controlling disaggregation. Should the
Commssion seek to reinstate a higher eligibility theshold but restrct
disaggregation, the Commssion should retain discretion to deny eligibilty for
14 published rates in the event a large QF finds a way to meet the eligibilty criteria
15 but is found by the Commssion to be a large QF on other grounds.
16 Disaggregation
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20
21 Q.
22 A.
23
What is disaggregation?
Disaggregation is defined by BusinessDictionary.com as "Breakng up of a total
(aggregate), integrated whole, or a conglomerate, into smaller elements, parts, or
units, usually for easier handling or maagement."
Why is disaggregation an issue in Idaho?
In 2009, the Company began receiving requests from developers for multiple
published avoided cost PURPA contracts. Rocky Mountain Power realized that
Griswold, Di - 4
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18 A.
19
20
21
this same phenomenon also was occurrng with the other Idaho investor-owned
utilties. Each utilty was receiving requests for multiple published rate power
purchase agreements where these proposed PURP A projects were owned and
controlled by the same entity, share interconnection facilties, engineering
procurement contracts, wind leases, and other common features. Under the
dictionar definition for disaggregation above, you would believe that a developer
seeking a PURP A contract, as long as that project met Federal Energy Regulatory
Commssion's (FERC) 80 MW ruié for a small power producer, would seek a
single contract or seek to limit the number of contracts in order to minimize the
legal and administrative costs of securing a contract(s). A developer who is
disaggregating a large project and seeking multiple contracts will incur
incremental costs as well as time for additional legal review, meeting additional
permt and regulatory requirements, and project admnistration. Having multiple
power contracts as opposed to a single contract for the larger single aggregate
project increases the cost of project development, increases the handling, and
increases the overall management of the projects for the QF developer.
Is this an issue that is limited to wind Qualifying Facilities in Idaho?
No. In the current Idaho Legislature there is a proposed bil, House Bil No. 2653,
under consideration which proposes to implement a moratorium on all wind fars
and wind turbines in excess of 100 feet in height and 100 kilowatts. This
moratorium is proposed to be implemented immediately and enforced until July 1,
2 18 C.F.R § 292.204(a).
. 3 H B 2 65 O:i!p.,lf.egl;?M~!re,.i~hin.Q,g~~yLl~gl,s.Mi!;¿nL?.QU!.Ql.~:2,lHm),
Griswold, Di - 5
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Q.
11
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Q.
23 A.
2013.The moratorium is proposed to allow time for a report and
recommendations to be completed by varous Idao stakeholders that wil address
some fundamental questions on the need for more intermttent wind power, the
impact to wildlife, the effect on the utilities, and the costs being passed on to
ratepayers for the addition of new wind fars. These recommendations would be
considered as possible amendments to the 2007 Idaho Energy Plan. If, in fact, the
Idaho Legislature is considered such a moratorium statewide then this proceeding
and the decisions facing the Commssion regarding the eligibilty cap threshold
and disaggregation have become even more importnt and timely.
Why would a QF developer disaggregate a large project into multiple smaller
projects increasing the cost of the project?
It is clear to the Company that the drver fordisaggregation is the Idaho published
avoided cost rate. Developers are wiling and able to disaggregate large projects
into separate smaller projects to meet the 10 aMW size theshold in order to
qualify for published avoided cost prices ordered by the Commssion. Those rates
do not accurately approximate the avoided cost of a large project because they do
not take into account the specific characteristics of the project. The Company's
IRP methodology, on the other hand, addresses the specific operating
characteristics of the QF as part of the Company's resource portfolio. This results
in avoided cost prices that are tied to that specific resource and generally, at a
lower cost than the generic SAR-derived avoided cost prices.
Can you cite specific examples of project disaggregation?
Yes. On August 18, 2010, Rocky Mountain Power executed identical power
Griswold, Di - 6
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Q.
14 A.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
.
purchase agreements ("PPAs") with Power County Wind Park Nort, LLC, and
Power County Wind Park South, LLC. These two contracts were approved by the
Commssion on October 6,2010 with a taget on-line date of December 31,2011.
Both projects are owned and controlled by the same entity, share common
interconnection facilities, engineering procurement contracts, wind leases, and
other common featues. Each has a nameplate capacity of 21.78 MW and a peak
monthly average generation of less than 10 aMW. Prior to applying for the two
QF contracts with published avoided cost prices, the developer bid a single
100MW wind project into a PacifiCorp Request For Proposal (RFP). When the
project was not selected through the RFP process because it was not competitive
to the alternatives, the developer held discussions with PacifiCorp regarding the
sale of the aggregate wind far site.
Are there any other examples of project disaggregation?
Yes. On December 20, 2010, Rocky Mountain Power executed five identical
published avoided cost price PPAs with Cedar Creek Wind, LLC (Cedar Creek).
The five QF projects are owned and controlled by the same entity, share
interconnection facilties under the original single large project's interconnection
agreement, engineering procurement contracts, wind leases, and other common
features. The five projects complied with all federal regulations including the 1-
mie separation requirement, and met all Idaho rules and Commssion Orders.
Each has a nameplate capacity of 25 MW or above, and a peak monthly average
generation of just below 10 aMW.
Griswold, Di - 7
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1 Prior to applying for a QF contract with published prices, Ceda Creek
2 submitted a bid into the Company's 2009 renewable RFP as a single 151 MW
3 project but their bid was not selected by the Company because their proposed
4 price was too high and not competitive with the alternatives. In March 2010, the
5 developer requested QF pricing for two 78 MW projects. . The projects' avoided
6 cost prices were determned using the Commssion-ordered IRP methodology for
7 Idaho QFs over 10 aMW. The Company prepared and delivered a term sheet
8 containing a twenty-year stream of avoided cost prices. On a twenty-year nominal
9 levelized payment basis the resultant avoided cost price was $56.06 per MW
10 assuming a star date in 2012. The avoided cost prices were rejected by the
11 developer due to the price being too low.
12 In May 2010, the developer resubmitted five distinct projects totaling 133
13 MW and requested the published avoided cost prices. Cedar Creek is a large-
14 scale, sophisticated developer with legal and technical assets who dis aggregated a
15 single large project that was not selected though the Company's competitive bid
16 process into multiple projects in order to meet the 10 aMW threshold and qualify
17 for much higher published avoided cost contracts.
18 Because the Company and Cedar Creek reached agreement on all terms of
19 their power purchase agreements including the avoided cost price prior to
20 December 14, 2010, (the effective date of Commssion Order No. 32131) Rocky
21 Mountain Power executed final power purchase agreements and, on Januar 10,
22 2010, fied them with the Commssion. These contracts are currently before the
23 Commssion for review and decision. On a comparative basis, the 20-year
Griswold, Di - 8
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Q.
8 A.
9
10
11.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
nominal levelized published avoided cost price was $79.21 per MWh (after
subtracting the $6.50 per MW wind integration cost), only slightly lower than
their original bid into the Company's RFP. Allowing disaggregation of the single
133 MW aggregate project into these five projects resulted in an overpayment of
$23.16 per MW when compared to the appropriate IRP-based avoided cost rate
as a single project.
Can you cite a non-wind example of project disaggregation?
Yes. Eastern Idao Regional Solid Waste District (EIRSWD) , a proposed QF
using solid waste for fuel, initially requested a PURP A contract for a project that
exceeded 10 aMW and then later revised its request to be a published price QF
project. EIRSWD's initial project was sized to accommodate the municipal solid
waste from the region that it serves. Rocky Mountain Power modeled the project
using its IR methodology based on the project characteristics and delivered
avoided cost pricing to EIRSWD in September 2010. On a twenty-year nominal
levelized payment basis the IRP methodology avoided cost price was $65.38 per
MWh assuming a start date in 2012. EIRSWD rejected those prices as being too
low in October 2010 and resized the project to meet the published rate theshold
while discussing the option of constrcting a second non-QF project located
adjacent to the QF to accommodate the same volume of fuel that the original 17.6
MW project was designed for. On a comparative basis, the twenty-year nominal
levelized published avoided cost price was $85.71 per MWh.
Griswold, Di - 9
Rocky Mountain Power
.1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q.
10
11 A.
.-12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.
Are there off-system disaggregated QF projects in the queue for published
avoided cost price contracts?
Yes. Several of the pending requests for published price contracts are from QFs
that plan to wheel their output to Rocky Mountain Power via another utilty's
system. Some of these projects appear to be a single project, disaggregated into
multiple projects, interconnected though a common interconnection to the
transmission provider, to be delivered via a common transmission service
agreement to the Company's electric system.
Has the Company executed any contracts with QF projects who have
requested pricing under the IRP methodology in Idaho?
Not as of this proceeding; however one off-system wind QF has recently accepted
the proposed IRP methodology pricing and is in the contract negotiation process
with the Company, having been provided a draft power purchase agreement for
review. Until this recent QF activity with the large wind projects, the Company
had no requests for avoided cost pricing under its IRP methodology. Prior QF
project requests to the Company consisted of small hydro and bio-gas projects at
dai fars, all less than 10 aMW. Since 2010, the Company has received four
requests for IRP methodology pricing and has responded with pricing. As I noted
above, one wind QF project has requested IRP methodology pricing and has been
provided a draft contract for review.
Griswold, Di - 10
Rocky Mountain Power
.1 Other Impacts of Disaggregation
2 Q.
3
4 A.
5
6
7
8
9
10 Q.
11 A..12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.23
Does disaggregation cause other issues besides increased cost to the
customers?
Yes. Large volumes of generation, paricularly intermttent wind generation, may
cause system reliability issues durig periods of minimum utilty loads. The
Company believes that the abilty for large single wind projects to dis aggregate
into smaller projects and qualify for published avoided cost rates provides these
large wind projects the pathway to stil be built when they otherwise might not be
built on the same physical scale.
Can you explain what "minimum load issues" means to you?
In cases where a generation resource delivers power to Rocky Mountain Power's
system that exceeds the customer load in that area, the Company must move the
excess generation elsewhere. This is primaly expected to be the case in the off-
peak time period when customer loads are normally lower and cannot absorb the
operating generation. Durng minimum load conditions, Rocky Mountain Power
must either back down its own resources, move the generation elsewhere (if
feasible), or curtail the generator. While the Company recognizes that locational
transmission constraints and the need for transmission upgrades should not
prevent project development, any incremental cost resulting from the constraint or
upgrade should be borne by the developer and not customers. Analysis of
transmission system' constraints and the cost of options for dealing with those
constrints should be incorporated into the QF pricing and contract process so that
appropriate adjustments can be made. Under the SAR methodology, there is no
Griswold, Di - 11
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1
2
3
4 Q.
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Q.
19 A.
20
21
22
23
abilty of the utilty to reflect transmission constraints or the incremental cost to
move power out of one load area to another. Using the IRP methodology, the
Company can model this impact over the term of the agreement.
Does recent QF development impact the cost of wind integration?
Yes. Historically the generation threshold for published avoided cost rates had
been much lower than the 10 aMW in Idaho, and the costs associated with
capacity contribution and integration for an intermttent resource had been
deemed to have minimal impact on the Company's electric system. With curent
thresholds in Idaho at 10 aMW (which equates to a wind QF project in the
nameplate capacity range of up to 30 MW), the costs to the Company and
therefore to its customers to integrate these large intermttent resources are
signifcant and need to be revisited in the determnation of avoided costs. As
Rocky Mountain Power is required to purchase more QF generation the
incremental cost to integrate such a high volume of intermttent resources
increases because the Company has to hold additional reserves, provide additional
load-following, curtail its own generation, or move the QF generation elsewhere
on the system.
Are minimum load issues unique to QF resources?
No. However in the case of other purchases, minimum load issues affect the price
Rocky Mountain Power pays for energy. In the case of QFs under 10 aMW,
currently Rocky Mountain Power must pay the published price even if a seller's
generation exceeds load in the area and must be delivered to another place on
Rocky Mountain Power's system.
Griswold, Di - 12
Rocky Mountain Power
.1 Q.
2 A.
3
Is integration unique to disaggregated QF projects?
No. However the minimum load issues could be more significant if disaggregated
QF projects are completed because of their combined size. When the
4 Commssion adopted published prices for QFs under 10 aMW, nobody assumed
5 that the majority of resulting development (in terms of total installed capacity)
6 would come from projects much larger than 10 aMW, disaggregated into 10 aMW
7 sub-projects.
8 Impact of Disaggregation on Customers
9 Q.
10
11 A..12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.23
How many MW of QF published avoided cost contract requests does Rocky
Mountain Power currently have pending?
The Company submits Exhibit 201, attached hereto, which documents its pending
wind QF requests. As of March 22, 2011, there were 10 wind projects totaling
229 MW requesting Idaho published avoided cost QF PP As that are in varous
stages including contract preparation and due dilgence but have not been
executed by the Company. In addition, five published rate contracts totaing 133
MW have been submitted to the Commssion for review and a decision on their
published avoided cost contracts. The Company has one project of 78 MW that
has requested pricing under the IRP methodology and two Commssion-approved
but not operational wind QF projects totaling 43.6 MW. In all there is a total of
483 MW of proposed, executed. or Commssion-approved wind QF contracts in
Idaho. None of the executed or Commssion approved QF projects are
operational as of March 22, 2011. If all of these wind projects were developed
and came on-line, the 483 MW would typically exceed the Company's load in
Griswold, Di - 13
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1
2
3 Q.
4
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Q.
15
16
17 A.
18
19 Q.
20
21 A.
22
23
Idaho eight or nine months of the year, makng it necessar for the Company to
wheel the excess to other load outside of Idaho.
Would purchase of all 229 MW of pending requests at the published Idaho
QFprice tend to increase Rocky Mountain Power's system power purchase
costs?
Yes. The majority of these pending requests are large wind projects that have
been disaggregated into smaller wind QF projects of less than 10 aMW. I
compared their contract volume (assuming typical capacity factors) multiplied by
avoided cost prices to an equivalent volume of new QF capacity multiplied by an
estimate of avoided cost prices Rocky Mountain Power would have paid under its
IRP methodology for QFs over 10 aMW. I estimate that the additional cost of 229
MW of published price QF contracts would exceed the IRP cost to customers by
$12 millon annually.
Do you believe that lowering the eligibilty threshold for published prices
from 10 aMW down to 100 kW on a permanent basis would stop developers
from disaggregating their large projects into smaller ones?
Yes. Keeping the published avoided cost eligibility cap at 100 kW would
elimiate disaggregation by large wind project developers.
Does keeping the eligibilty cap at 100 kW eliminate the Company's PURPA
obligation to purchase from a QF?
No. The Company would continue to meet its PURPA obligation by providing
SAR methodology published rates for QF projects 100 kW or less and IRP
methodology avoided cost rates for larger projects.
Griswold, Di - 14
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Q.
17 A.
Does a lower eligibilty cap for published or standard avoided cost rates deter
wind development?
No. In fact, one has only to look at the Company's other jursdictions to see that a
lower eligibilty threshold for published avoided cost projects and the use of an
IRP methodology for larger projects is appropriate and does work. Wyoming, for
example, has been a hot bed for wind development in recent years. The Company
has acquired wind resources in that state including company-owned assefs, power
purchase agreements, and QF purchases. In Wyoming, the Company has a
published avoided cost tarff, Schedule 37, A voided Cost Purchases from
Qualifing Facilities4. QF projects qualify for the standard avoided costs if they
are 1 MW or less and have a capacity factor of seventy percent or less. A wind
project is below this seventy percent capacity factor threshold so QF wind
projects in Wyoming have to be below 1 MW to receive standard avoided cost or
be priced through the Company's non-standard avoided cost methodology - an
IRP methodology.
What has been the QF development in Wyoming?
To date, the Company has executed 5 PURPA contracts totaling 256.2 MW, the
18 average size of the projects was 51.4 MW, with three of the projects currently
19 operating. The five projects all were evaluated as QFs based on their project
20 specific characteristics. All were significantly below the Idaho published avoided
21 cost rates and the project renewable energy credits ("RECs") were included in the
22 purchase price.
. 4 Insert copy of Wyoming Schedule 37.
Griswold, Di - 15
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5 Q.
6
7
8
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
22
23
What about small wind QFs in Wyoming that qualify for standard avoided
cost rates?
The Company has also received requests for wind projects less than a megawatt
and is in the process of finalizing a wind QF project for 125 kW.
Do you believe that lowering the eligibilty threshold for published prices
from 10 aMW down to a lower cap based on average monthly production
(rather than nameplate capacity) would, by itself, stop developers from
disaggregating their large projects?
No. It is clear that the monthly production threshold that only Idaho uses is an
ineffective method to control disaggregation. Let's say the threshold is set at
5 aMW. What stops wind developers from dividing their 10 aMW projects into
two 5 aMW projects? They could stil share all the common attrbutes that they
need for 10 aMW and only have to incur some additional project costs to split into
5 aMW. A 5 aMW project is stil a 15 MW nameplate wind project assuming a
30 percent capacity factor. It wil be shown later in my testimony that even with
the equivalent of a 10 MW nameplate capacity threshold, disaggregation can
occur. If the published avoided costs are in the $80 per MW range compared to
an IRP rate in the $60 per MWh range, there is significant economic room to
cover the project costs to disaggregate.
What if the eligibilty threshold was based on nameplate capacity?
This would be a step in the right direction but stil subject to the QF manipulating
the rules to disaggregate a large single project as I wil discuss an actual example
later in my testimony. Using nameplate capacity as the threshold goes a long way
Griswold, Di - 16
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1 towards neutralizing the impact of low capacity factor and intermttency of wind
2 projects. None of the Company's other jursdictions use QF monthly production
3 for their threshold on published or standard rates, they all use nameplate capacity
4 ranging from 1 MW to 10 MW. When you compare a 10 MW nameplate QF
5 project you are lookig at 3 aMW wind project versus a 10 aMW QF project in
6 Idaho. U sing an eligibilty threshold of 10 MW nameplate capacity would
7 encompass 84 percent of the Company's existing QF projects. Set the threshold
8 to 5 MW nameplate capacity and you stil cover all of the Company's Idaho QFs
9 with the exception of one 6.0 MW hydro and the seven recently executed wind
10 QF contracts. Expand that to the Company's other jurisdictions, and a 5 MW
11 nameplate capacity limit captures 67 percent of all the QFs the Company has
12 contracts with regardless of resource type. PURP A was designed to assist and
13 support the small community.,based independent power producer and for 67
14 percent of our QF contracts, a realistic eligibilty threshold based on nameplate
15 capacity works. In Idaho, the unrestrcted 10 aMW threshold is allowing large
16 wind QF projects access to published avoided cost rates.
17 Multiple QF Project Eligibilty
18 Q.Does the Company have a position regarding the eligibilty criteria for
19 published avoided cost prices and contract terms that should be used when
20 multiple QF projects are developed by a single entity or similar ownership
21 structure?
22 A.Yes. While the Company believes that the surest method of restrcting
23 disaggregation is to maintain the existing 100 kW size threshold, the Company
Griswold, Di - 17
Rocky Mountain Power
also understands that the Commssion may be seeking criteria that could be
applied to a developer seeking to disaggregate a large project. While PURP A
provides the overlying criteria that apply to whether the QF project qualifies as a
single project or multiple QF projects, it does not provide the criteria at a
sufficient granular level related to state stadard price and contract offers. Rather,
it leaves that control to the state.
Does the Company have experience with multiple QF project eligibilty in its
other jurisdictions?
Yes. The Company paricipated in an Oregon QF docket, UM 1129, which
resulted in a Partial Stipulation in 2006. I have attached it hereto as Exhibit 202.
In Order No. 06-538, the Oregon Commssion adopted clarfying language for
determning when generating facilties located near each other and using the same
motive force should be deemed a single facility, for purposes of determning the
Facilty Capacity Rating which establishes the size threshold for eligibilty for
Oregon Schedule 37 standard avoided cost prices and contract ("Partial
Stipulation"). The purose of the Parial Stipulation was to develop a mechanism
that would allow independent family or community-based QF projects the abilty
to share common infrastructure and have common passive investors without
violating PURPA or state regulations. After the Partial Stipulation was approved
by the Oregon Commssion, the Company received a multiple QF project request
for nine QF contracts ranging in size from 1.65 MW to 10 MW, totaling 64.5
MW. The projects clearly were a disaggregation of a large single wind project.
Under the Parial Stipulation Eligibilty Test, projects located at the same site
Griswold, Di - 18
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
24
.
25.
using the same motive force are ineligible for the Oregon Schedule 37 if they are
owned or controlled by the same or affiliated person(s). In this case, there was a
single common owner who owned at least 99 percent of each of the nine projects,
thus initially disqualify a number of the projects. However, the Parial Stipulation
also provides an exception whereby the projects may stil be eligible even if they
are owned by the same person. That exception provides:
"two facilties wil not be held to be owned or controlled by the same person( s) or
affiliated person(s) if such common person or persons is a 'passive investor'
whose ownership interest in the QF is primary related to utilzing production tax
credits, green tag values and MACRS depreciation as the primary ownership
benefit." ("passive investor exception").
After significant due dilgence by the Company and a review of the
projects ownership structue with the Oregon Commssion staff, the Oregon
Department of Energy, it was agreed that a single majority owner for the nine
projects met the passive investor exception and therefore was eligible under the
Parial Stipulation for Oregon Schedule 37.
Do you believe the Oregon Partial Stipulation provided a successful
mechanism to limit disaggregation?
No. While the Parial Stipulation provided specific eligibilty criteria, those
criteria, as it turned out, did not prevent a large (64.5 MW) project from devising
an ownership structure that enabled it to meet the eligibilty criteria and therefore
receive published rates. As a result, nine small projects were built by a large
sophisticated developer who received Oregon standard avoided cost prices which
were higher than the prices they would have otherwise received as a single large
QF project. Those nine projects are operated by a single developer and deliver
Griswold, Di - 19
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
1
2
3
4 Q.
5 A.
6
7
power to the Company as a single large project. The projects retained the
renewable energy credits, and the individual projects secured the maximum
Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC).
What did the Company and its customers receive in this case?
The Company paid rates above its avoided cost for a large non-standard wind QF
and also must absorb the cost of wind integration which is not par of Oregon
Schedule 37 avoided cost prices.
8 Q. . Would the Company support a similar disaggregation mechanism in Idaho?
9 A. Maybe, but clearly not as it is written in Oregon. As can be seen from the nine
10
11
12
13
14 A.
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
project example above, the Parial Stipulation was effectively manipulated by the
developer to secure the higher avoided cost prices as well as more lenient
standard contract terms.
Q.Does the Company have a suggested set of rules to limit disaggregation?
Yes. The rules are modeled after a Minnesota Statute 216F.OLL, adopted in
2007.5 This statute, while not specifically used in Minnesota for QF projects,
establishes a set of rules for size determnation when determning permtting
requirements for wind projects. From discussions with experts on the statute, the
Company leared that it was enacted to restrict disaggregation of wind projects,
and therefore may have application in this proceeding.
Please explain the Company's proposed set of rules.
The Company submits Exhibit 203 which outlines a set of rules based on the
22 Minnesota statute that the Company believes would restrict disaggregation as well
. 5 Minn. Stat. § 2I6F.OLL (2010) (availabIe at https.llwww.revisor.mn.gov/statutesl?id=2I6F.Oll).
Griswold, Di - 20
Rocky Mountain Power
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.12
13
14 Q.
15 A.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.23
as the application forms that the wind or solar QF would submit to the utility
regarding' their projects. The rules are not based on any specific megawatt size
limit but rather are structured to be used with any size limit adopted by the
Commssion. The rules consist of three simple triggers to determne the total size
of a QF system for the purpose of determning whether a QF is eligible for
published avoided cost prices. The nameplate capacity of one QF system must be
combined with the nameplate capacity of any other QF system that:
(1) is located within five miles of the QF system;
(2) is constructed within 24-months of the QF system; and
(3) exhibits characteristics of being a single development, including, but
not limited to, ownership structure, an umbrella sales argement, shared
interconnection, revenue sharng arangements, and common debt or equity
financing.
How would the Company manage the disaggregation rules?
If the rules are adopted, the Company would be responsible for determning
whether the resource meets the disaggregation rules. It is proposed that the utilty
would provide forms for the QF project developers to complete a request for a
disaggregation determnation. Upon submittal of completed application forms by
the QF project developer, the utilty shall provide a written disaggregation
determnation within 30 days of receipt of the request subject to validation of any
information requested by the utilty. In the case of a dispute, the QF project
developer can request the Commssion to review and make a final disaggregation
determnation. Under these rules, the QF must have a final disaggregation
Griswold, Di - 21
Rocky Mounta Power
.1
2
3
4 Q.
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Q.
14
15 A.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
.
determnation completed prior to the power purchase agreement for published
avoided cost prices being prepared. This process simply becomes part of the early
due diligence being completed by the utilty when a QF project request is made.
Are there other steps you would recommend?
Yes. I would recommend thatthe QF be required to warant that it meets the size
eligibilty threshold at the time the contract is executed. I also recommend that it
warant that it wil not make any changes in ownership, control, or management
during the term of the contract that would cause it not to be in compliance with
the size eligibilty threshold. Both waranties cause the lender to a project to tae
an active interest in whether the developer has complied with the requirements for
eligibilty for published rates and, therefore, wil tend to reduce the likelihood of a
developer gamng the size eligibility threshold.
Are you confident that the rules you discuss wil be successful at preventing
large QFs from disaggregating and receiving published rates?
No. Experience has taught me that, where there is a financial incentive to do so,
QF developers are very innovative at working around anti-disaggregation rules.
However, the rule proposed by Company has an important safeguard in that a QF
that meets the criteria in the rule does not automatically qualify for published
rátes. If there is evidence that the applicant is really a large QF notwithstanding
that it has met the criteria, the Commssion has the discretion to deny the QF
eligibility for published rates. This is an essential featue of any rule the
Commssion may adopt.
Griswold, Di - 22
Rocky Mountain Power
.
.
.
1 Q.
2 A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Q.
17 A.
Do you have any final comments?
Yes. The Company acknowledges it has a clear obligation under PURPA to
purchase the output from a QF resource at the Company's avoided cost. This
proceeding is seeking to determne how to allow wind and solar projects to sell
their output to the utilities as a QF at the appropriate avoided cost for the resource
operating characteristics. The Company believes a permanent 100 kW size
threshold for wind and solar is the surest mechanism to allow smal independent
projects to continue to receive published avoided cost prices while restricting
large resources from disaggregating to smaler projects to acquire published
avoided cost prices. The Company does not support returning the eligibilty
theshold back to 10 aMW. However if the Commssion seeks the alternative-
to establish a set of rules that restricts disaggregation - then the Company has set
fort a set of rules that it believes can be implemented quickly and faily. These
rules have been drafted with no set eligibilty cap, rather they are wrtten as
general rules that can be applied regardless of size.
Does this conclude your direct testimony in this proceeding?
Yes.
Griswold, Di - 23
Rocky Mountan Power
.
.
.
20il MAR 25 AM 10: 00 Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Exhibit No. 201
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Direct Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
March 2011
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 201 Page 1 of 3
Case No. GNR.E.11.01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.~~
t'~
~"
"~"
oJ:0"
'-
"l
('ib"
en...i,,()
Q)....$ib..0S-a."~.a."..
0:~
::~a.
E
.fib..
Q)~....en~~"(f
S-
Q)
. ~"
~0 . G
a.~"
c:. '\".-
CO .$~..c:::'\0
:E '\"~~.()~"00:"66"
~~§~l ~8 8 o ~"lt
......;¡ is ..N il":a..z
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 201 Page 2 of 3
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.:l il0N
~I¡fa
::~I~¡¡
..
::1
..i:¡¡
S S!I
..¡¡
l ~I
81
..¡¡
~sl
¡¡
s
~i:
.8 IN
. ~~I
en ..
t)g ~I
Q)N
~I.~.0
~L.
~Ic.~~~~Ia.~..ii0
~i:-:)CI
lIa.e'ia.'t0c
il.c ~..c ..
ro 0 ~
IIz'",
~..
~l¡IIL.::a.
Q)0 ..
lI~,¡
l¡l0 '"
~Ia.- m
c:on ml.-
ro - æ-+!ic:..::..~
II
0~..;~..~m(..0 ..~m
0
~
l 0 8 0 .!§0 ~o !
~¡¡CD 0..ll ..
iz
.
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 201 Page 3 of 3
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
W"md F
:;-:-"r: ::;::::¡,,:;~:,;,;:,,:: ::":'i¡;n Ë;;:¡r:J;:il~r"
~E~gai¡: ,:,::":,,.,::4:.-,:Jò "''':'''";~;;;,,.:;;'';,. :'gi;~¡tj
":',,';;,,=,;,:t¡!:ji(:, ::,:.""",,;,;i;;::
. ",,,,,g
F5'II.KeeBunWi i
re Wind 2
Ce Cre Wind 3
Ce Cre W"md 4
CreW"md5r NoPo
Comiiid
.. Co'ComisCoisiodi' dce
7
27,5
7
Wi
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
21.
2.8
, of Pro.
16
II
10
18
MW
4398
30.9
2
8 .4
MW
497.0
nd F
Toia wi F. iii ow Comison a
In ue bu not ex
In and so . ee to eli "bil11 wind F ... .. no coeral
r roO
20
RenuP or FPro" IIbinoClaI
.
.
.
10= 00 Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Exhibit No. 202
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
\fr:')
2UlI
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Direct Testimony of BruceW. Griswold
March 2011
HAY MYRS.uomey General
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 1 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold PETER D. SHEPHERDDeputy Attorney Genera
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
GENERA COUNSEL DIVSION
February 6,2006
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AN HA DELIVERY
Public Utility Commission of Oregon
Attention: Filing Center
550 Capitol Street NE, #215
P.O. Box 2148
Salem, OR 97308-2148
Puc.filingcenter(astate.or. us
.
Re: In the Matter of Public Utilty Commission of Oregon Staffs Investigation Relating to
Electric Utilty Purchases from Qualifing Facilties
OPUC Docket No. UM 1129
DOJ File No. 330-020-GN0041-04
Enclosed for filing are originls and five copies of Oregon Departent of Energy's
Motion to Admit Parial Stipulation, Partial Stipulation with attchment, and certificate of
service in the above-captioned matter.
Sincerely,
lsI Janet L. Prewitt
Janet L. Prewitt
Assistat Attorney General
Natual Resources Section
Enclosures
c: Phi Carer, ODOE (email only)
Jeff Keto, ODOE(email only)
UM 1129 Service List
JL:jrs/GENP1683:.
1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] TI: [phone]
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 2 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMSSION
OF OREGON
UM1129
In the Matter of the
PUBLIC UTIITY COMMSSION OF
OREGON
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY'S MOTION TO ADMI
PARTI STIPULATION
Staff s Investigation Relating to Electric
Utility Purchases from Qualifying Facilities
.
The Oregon Departent of Energy ("ODOE") moves to admit the Parial
Stipulation resolving Issue Number 4 in the Issues List for Track I, as set fort in
Appendix A of the Correct Ruling issued herein on November 292005.
Current paries to this stipulation areldaho Power Company ("Idaho Power"),
PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, the Staff of the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon ("Sta'), Sherman Count/J.R. Simp lot ("Sllerman- County/Símplot'), and ODOE.
Industrial Customer of Nortwest Utilities ("ICND") has indicated that it neither opposes
nor supports the stipulation. The partial stipulation is available to any other paries to the"
docket, who may paricipate by signing and fiing a copy of the Parial Stipulation.
III
III
III
III
III
III
.Page 1- ODOE'g MOTION TO ADMIT PARTI STIPULATION
JLP:jrs/GENP 1686
Deparent of Justice
1162 Cour Stret NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
[phone] I Fax: [phone]
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibìt No. 202 Page 3 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold!.
This stipulation is supported by the Rebuttal Testimony of Carel Dewinel,
ODOE Exhbit No.8 and the statement made during the cross examination on Februar
2, 2006 by Staff witness Lisa Schwar.
Dated this 6th day of Februar, 2006.
Respectflly submitted,
HAY MYRS
Attorney General
/s/ Janet 1. Prewitt
Janet L. Prewitt, #85307
. Assistat Attorney Generals
Of Attorneys for Oregon
Deparent of Energy.
.Page 2 - ODOE's MOTION TO ADMIT PARTI STIPULATION
JLP:jrs/GENP1686
Deparent of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
[phone] I Fax: [phone]
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 4 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.CERTDnCATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 6th day of Februar, 2006, I served the foregoing
MOTION TO ADMIT PARTIA STIULATION and PARTIAL STIULATION upon
the persons named on the attached UM 1129 service list by electronic mail and by
mailing a full, tre and correct copy thereof addressed to the persons at the addresses on
" the UM i 129 service list (with the exception of those paries who have waived paper
service).
Dated: Februar 6, 2006
lsi Janet L. Prewitt
Janet 1. Prewitt, #85307
Assistant Attorney General
.
.CERTIICATE OF SERVICE
GENP1678
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 5 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.UM 1129 SERVICE LIST
.
. _.
SAR J ADAMS LIEN MA ALBERT
STOEL RIVES LLP VUCAN POWER COMPAN
900 SW FIFTH AVE - STE 2600 1183 NW WALL ST STEG
PORTLAÑTI OR 97204-1268 BEND OR 97701
sj adamslientßstoel.com malberttßvulcanpower.com
RANDY ALLPHI MICK BARO
IDAHO POWER COMPAN DOUGLAS COUNTY FOREST PRODUCTS
PO BOX 70 POBOX 848
BOISE ID 83707-0070 WICHESTER OR 97495
rallphintßidahopower.com micktßdcfp.com
... ...__....-,
R THOMAS BEACH - CONFIDENTIL LAUR BEAN
CROSSBORDER ENRGY PACIFICORP
, 2560 NITH ST - STE 316 825 MOTNOMA STE 800
BERKLEY CA 94710 PORnAN OR 97232-2153
tombtßcrossborderenergy.com laur. beanetßpacificorp.com
KA BOKENK LOWRY R BROWN
. IDAHO POWER COMPANY CITIZENS' UTITY BOAR OF OREGON
" PO BOX 70 610 SW BROADWAY - STE 308
BOISEID 83707-0070 PORnAND OR 97205
kbokenkamptßidahopower.com lowreytßoregoncub.org
JOAN M BUnER BRIAN COLE
IDAHO POWER COMPANY SYMIOTICS, LLC
PO BOX 70 POBOX 1088
BOISE ID 83707-0070 BAKER CITY OR 97814
jbutlertßidahopower.com bctßorbisgroup.org
_......_.., .............._.._".....-.. ._._..... ._--"'"
BRUCE CRAG RANDY CROCKET
ASCENTERGY CORP DR JOHNSON LUMER COMPANY
440 BENM DR STE 2230 PO BOX 66
HOUSTON TX 77060 RIDLE OR 97469
bcraigtßasc-co.com randyctßdrjlum ber.com
.
CHRS CROWLEY DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
COLUMIA ENERGY PARmERS PACIFICORP
100 E 19TH STE 400 825 NE MO TNOMA - STE 800
VANCOUVER WA 98663 PORnAN OR 97232
ccrowleytßcolumbiaep.com datarequesttßpacificorp.com
CARL DE WINL CRAIG DEHAT
OREGON DEPARTMNT OF ENERGY MIDDLEFORK IRGATION DIS1RCT
625 MAON STRET NE PO BOX 291
SALEM OR 97301 PARALE OR 97041
carel.dewinkeltßstate.or.us mfidcraig§hoodriverelectrc.net
i I.UM 1129 - SERVICE LIST
GENP1678
Rocy Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 6 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
.
ELIZABETH DICKSON JASON EISDORFER
HUEY, LYNCH & RE, PC CITIZENS' UTILITY BOAR OF OREGON
747 SWMILVIW WAY 610 SW BROADWAY STE 308
BEND OR 97702 PORTLAND OR 97205
eadickson(ghlr-law.com jason(goregoncub.org
JOHN M ERIKSSON RANDALL J FALKENBERG --
STOEL RIVES LLP CONFIDENTIAL
900 SW FIFTH AVE - STE 2600 RFI CONSULTIG INC
PORTLAN OR 97204-1268 PMB 362
jmeriksson(gstoel.com 8351 ROSWELLRD
ATLANTA GA 30350
consultrfi(gaoLcoin
...
JOHNRGALE J RICHA GEORGE - CONFIDENTIAL
IDAHO POWER CON. ANY PORTLAN GENERA ELECTRC COMPANY
POBOX 70 121 SW SALMON ST
BOISE ID 83707-0070 PORTLAND OR 97204
rgale(gidahopower.com richard.george(pgn.com
THOMAS M GRI DAVID HAWK
CABLE HUSTON BENEDICT ET AL J R SIMLOT COMPANY
1001 SWFIFHAVESTE2000 PO BOX 27
PORTLAN OR 97204-1136 BOISE ID 83707
tgrim(gchbh.com david.hawk(gsimplot.com
.1 STEVEN C JOHNSON BARTON L KLIN
CEN OREGON IRRGATION DISTRCT IDARO POWER COMPAN
2598 NORTH HIGHWAY 97 POBOX 70
REDMOND OR 97756 BOISE ID 83707-0070
stevej(gcoid.org bkline(gidahopower.com
_. .". ~ -.-...
ALAN MEYER - CONFIDENTIAL MONICA B MOEN
WEYERHUSER COMPAN IDAHO POWER CON. AN
698 12TH ST . STE 220 POBOX 70
SALEM OR 97301.4010 BOISE ID 83707.0070
alan.meyer(gweyerhaeuser .com mmoen(gidahopower.com
THOMAS H NELSON LISA F RACKNR
THOMAS H NELSON & ASSOCIATES A TER WYN UP
825 NE MU TNOMA STE 925 222 SW COLUMIA ST STE 1800
PORTLAND OR 97232 PORTLAND OR 97201-6618
nelson(gthelson.com Ifr(gaterwnne.com
,..
PGE-OPUC FILINGS RATES &DON REING - CONFIDENTIL
REGULATORY AFFAIS BEN JOHNSON AS SOCIA TES
PORTLAN GENERA ELECTRIC 6070 HIL ROAD
COMPAN BOISE ID 83703
121 SW SALMON ST 1WTC0702 dreading(gmindspring.com
PORTLAN OR 97204
pge.opuc.filings(gpgn.com
.
.UM 1129. SERVICE LIST
GENP1678
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 7 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witess: Bruce W. Griswold
.
PETER J RICHASON - CONFIDENTIAL IRON SANGER - CONFIENTIAL
RICHASON & O'LEARY DAVISON V AN CLEVE
PO BOX 7218 333 SW TAYLOR- STE 400
BOISE ID 83707 PORTLAND OR 97204
peter(grichardsonandolear .com ias(êdvclaw.com
...
LISA C SCHWARTZ - CONFIDENTIAL MA TALLMAN
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMSSION OF PACIFlCORP
OREGON 825 MU TNOMA STE 800
PO BOX 2148 PORTLAND OR 97232-2153
SALEM OR 97308-2148 mark. tallman(gpacificorp.com
lisa. c .schwar:zstate.or ;us
S BRALEY V AN CLEVE -MICHL T WEIRCH - CONFIDENTIA
CONFIDENTIAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DAVISON V AN CLEVE PC REGULATED UTILITY & BUSINSS
333 SW TAYLOR - STE 400 SECTION
PORTLAND OR 97204 1162 COURT STNE
mail(gdvclaw.com SALEM OR 97301-4096
michael. weinch(state.or.us
n........""_...,,'-"".
LINA K WILLIAS PAUL WOODIN
KAOURY & MCDOUGAL WESTERN WIN POWER
10266 SW LANCASTER RD 282 LARGENT LN
PORTLAN OR 97219-6305 GOLDENDALE WA 98620-3519
lind~lindawiliams.net pwoodin(êgorge.net
,-
TOM YAROROUGH MICHAL YOUNGBLOOD
WEYERHUSER IDAHO POWER COl'ANY
MASTOP: CH lK32 POBOX 70
PO BOX 9777 BOISE ID 83707
FEDERA WAY WA 98063-9777 myoiiniibloodrmjdahopowel.com
bruce. wittman(gweyerhaeuser .com
-.
.UM 1129 - SERVICE LIST
GENP1678
Rocky Mountain. Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 8 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold~.
BEFORE TH PUBLIC UTITY COMMSSION
OF OREGON
UM 1129
In the Matter of Public Utility Commssion
of Oregon Staff s Investigation Relating to
Electrc Utility Purchases from Qualifying
Facilities.
PARTIAL STIPULATION
This Paral Stipulation is entered into for the purpose of resolving a specific issue
identified in this docket and does not addrss issues other than the specifically identified issue.
PARTIES
1. The initial pares to this Paral Stipulation are Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
.
Power"), PacifiCorp, Portand General Electric Company ("PGE"), the Staff of the Public Utility
Commssion of Oregon ("Staff'),. Sherman County CourtJ .R. Simplot ("Sherman
County/Simplot"), and the Oregon Depiument of Energy C'ODOE") (together "the Paries").
This Paral Stipulation wil b~ made åvailable to the other pares to this docket, who may
paricipate by signing and fiing a copy of this Parial Stipulation.
BACKGROUN
2. On May 13,2005, the Commssion issued Order No. 05-584 in this Docket which
specified terms and conditions to be included in standard QF contracts. The order also indicated
that a second phase of Docket No. UM 1129 would be opened to address issues that required
further evidentiary development.
3. Each of the electrc utilties filed avoided costs, revised tarffs and new standard
QF contracts on July 12, 2005. On August 2, 2005, the Commssion allowed the filings to go
into effect, but ordered that an investigation of the filngs be undertaken.
. PAGE 1 - PARTIAL STIPULATION
Poitlndl-2214809.1 0020011-00149
.
.
.
Rocy Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 9 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
4. Phase II of this Docket was divided into tracks, with one track addressing
compliance issues and another addressing the issues the Commssion identified in Order No. 05-
584 to be furter investigated. Following the pares' development of proposed issues lists and
the fiing of comments, a Corrected Ruling was issued November 29,2005, adoptng an Issues
List for Track I, as set forth in Appendix A of the Corrected Ruling, and an Issues List for Track
II, as set fort in Appendix B of the Corrected Ruling.
5.Issue number 4 in Appendix A ("Issue 4") states:
"Should the Commssion adopt criteria for determning whether
multiple energy projects are in fact a single Qualfying Facility to
protect the intent of Order No. 05-584, which directs that only
projects 10 MW and smaller are eligible for standard avoided cost
rates and a standard contract? For example, if a 60 MW wind far
is divided into six 10 MW instalments in close proximity to one
another, all built in the same calendar year, and with underlying
ownership strctues containing similar persons or entities, should
each installment be eligible for standard rates and standard
contracts? What criteria determne when a Qualifying Facilty is
10 MW or less and eligible for the standard contract when the
project/site has multiple generating units?
6.Pursuant to Admnistrative Law Judge Kirkpatrck's August 23, 2005 Prehearng
Conference Memorandum, a settlement conference on UM 1129 issues was held on November 1,
and an additional settement conference was held on December 13, 2005. The settlement
conferences were open to all paries.
7. As a result of the settlement conferences, the Paries have reached agreement on
the matters set forth below. The Paries submit this Parial Stipulation to the Commssion and
request that the Commssion approve the settlement as presented.
PAGE 2 - PARTIA STIPULTION
Portlndl-2214809.1 0020011-00149
ie
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 10 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
AGREEMENT
8. The Pares agree that the definitions and terms set fort in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein, are fair and reasonable and should be adopted by the
Commssion as a resolution to Issue 4.
9. The Pares agree that this Parial Stipulation represents a compromise in the
positions of the Pares. As such, conduct, statements and documents disclosed in the negotiation
of this Paral Stipulation shall not be admssible as evidence inthis or any other proceeding.
10. This Paral Stipulation wil be offered into the record of this proceeding as
evidence pursuant to OAR 860-:14-0085. The Paries agre to support this Parial Stipulation
thoughout this proceeding and any appeal, provide witnesses to sponsor this Paral Stipulation
at the hearng and recommend that the Commssion issue an order adopting the settlements
contained herein.
11. The Paries agree that they wil continue to support the Commssion's adoption of
the terms of this Paral Stipulation. If this Parial Stipulation is challenged by any other pary to
ths proceeding, the Pares agree to cooperate in cross-examnation and put on such a case as
they deem appropriate to respond fully to the issues presented, which may include rasing issues
that are incorporated in the settlements embodied in this Paral Stipulation.
12. The Pares have negotiated this Paral Stipulation as an integrated document. If
the Commssion rejects all or any material portion of this Paral Stipulation or imposes
additional material conditions in approving this Paral Stipulation, any pary disadvantaged by
such action shall have the rights provided in OAR 860-014-;0085 and shall be entitled to seek
reconsideration or appeal of the Commssion's Order.
PAGE 3 - PARTILSTWULATION
Poitlndl-2214809.1002ooii-0149
.
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 11 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
13. By entenng into this Paral Stipulation, no pary shall be deemed to have
approved, admitted or consented to the facts, pnnciples, methods or theones employed by any
other pary in arving at the terms of this Partial Stipulation, other than those specifically
identified in the body of ths Paral Stipulation, including Exhibit A. No pary shall be deemed
. to have agreed that any provision of ths Parial Stipulation is appropnate for resolving issues in
any other proceeding, except as previously identified in Paragraph 8 of the Paral Stipulation.
14. This Paral Stipulation may be executed in counterpars and each signed
counterpar shall constitute an original document.
This Paral Stipulation is entered into by each pary on the date entered below such
pary's signature.
Signatures follow on next page
PAGE4- PARTMLSTæULATION
Portlndl.iiI4B09.1 0020011-0149
.
.
.
IDAHO POWER COMPAN
By:
Date:
~i~~f'~~
PACIFICORP
By:
Date:
PORTLA GENERA ELECTRIC
By:
Date:
PAGE 5 - PARTIAL STIPULATION
Ponlndl-2214809.l 002001 1-00149
STAF
By:
Date:
ODOE
By:
Date:
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 12 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
SHERM COUNY/SIMPLOT
By:
Date:
.
.
.
IDAHO POWER COMPAN
By:
Date:
PACIFICORPBY.~~/ ". .Date: ,t /8' =Oó ,
PORTLAN GENE ELECTRIC
By:
Date:
PAGE 5 - PARTIA STIPULATION
Portndl-2214809.1 0020011-0149
STAF
By:
Date:
ODOE
By:
Date:
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 13 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
SHERM COUNTY/SJMLOT
By:
Date:
.
.
i.
- IDAHO POWER COlvANY~I~
Date: ~ 19; ~~
By:
PACIFCORP
By:
Date: "
PORTL GENRAL ELECTRIC
By:
Date:
PAGE5- PAR~ST~ULATION
Porlndl-2214809_1oo20011-00149
STAF
By:
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 14 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Date:
ODOEByt:. x~Da.. ~,
SHERMAN COUNY ¡SIMLOT
By:
,Date:
.
.
.
IDAHO POWE COMPAN
ßE1~Date: ~ 14) 2d t.
By:
PACIFCORP
By:
Date:
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRlC
By:
Date:
PAGE5- PART~STWULTION
Potlndl-2214809.l 0020011-00149
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 15 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
STAF .. "-
B)" fÍr& ~
Date: (' /1(: / 06/ i ¡
-=
ODOE
By:
Date:
, SHEAN COUNY/SIMLOT
By:
Date:
.
IDAHO POWE COMPANY~I~
Date: ~ 14) ~!e
By:
PAClFCORP
By:
Date:
PORTLAN GENERAL ELECTRIC
BY:d'~~
Date: ii i I ( ti~
.
.PAGE5- PAR~STWULATION
Portdl-2214809.1002oo11-oo149
STAFF
By:
Date:
ODOE
By:
Date:
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 16 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
SHERM COUNY/SIMLOT
By:
Date:
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 17 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
PAGE 5 - PARTI STIPULATION
Poindl-2214809.1 0020011 -00149
.
.
.
EXHIBIT "A"
TO PARTIAL STIPULATION
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 18 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Definition of. a Small Cogeneration Facilty or Small Power Production Facilty
Eligible to Receive the Standard Rates and Standard Contract:
A Oualifying Facilty (either a small power production facilty or a cogeneration facilty)
("OF") will be eligible to receive the standard rates and standard contract if the
nameplate capacity of the OF, together with any other electric generating facilty using
the same motive force, owned or controlled by the same person(s) or affilated
person(s), and located at the same site, does not exceed 10 MW.
Definition of Person(s) or Affilated Person(s):
As used above, the term "same person(s)" or "affilated person(s)" means a natural
person or persons or any legal entity or entities sharing common ownership, ,
management or acting jointly or in concert with or exercising influence over the policies
or actions of another person or entity. However, two facilties wil not be held to be
owned or controlled by the same person(s) or affilated person(s) solely because they
are developed by a single entity. Furthermore, two facilties wil not be held to be owned
or controlled by the same person(s) or affilated person(s) if such common person or
persons is a "passive investor" whose ownership interest in the OF is primarily related to
utilzing production tax credits, green tag values and MACRS depreciation as the
primary ownership benefit. A unit of Oregon local government may also be a "passive
investot' if the local governmental unit demonstrates that it wil not have an equity
ownership interest in or exercise any control over the management of the OF and that'
its only interest is a share of the cash flow from the OF, which share wil not exceed
20%. The 20% cash flow share limit may only be exceeded for good cause shown and
only with the prior approval of the Commission.
Definition of Same Site:
For purposes of the foregoing, generating facHities are considered to be located at the
same site as the OF for which qualification for the standard rates and standard contract
is sought if they are located within a five-mile radius of any generating facilties or
equipment providing fuel or motive force associated with the OF for which qualification
for the standard rates and standard contract is sought.
Shared Interconnection and Infrastructure:
OFs otherwise meeting the above-described separate ownership test and thereby
qualified for entitlement to the standard rates and standard contract wil not be
disqualified byutilzing an interconnection or other infrastructure not providing motive
force or fuel that is shared with other OFs qualifying for the standard rates and standard
Page 1
".
.
.
EXHIBIT" A"
TO PARTIAL STIPULATION
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 202 Page 19 of 19
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
contract so long as the use of the shared interconnection complies with the
interconnecting utilty's safety and reliabilty standards, interconnection contract
requirements and Prudent Electrical Practices as that term is defined in the
interconnecting utilty's approved standard contract.
Dispute Resolution:
Upon request, the OFwil provide the purchasing utilty with documentation verifying the
ownership, management and financial structure of the OF in reasonably sufficient detail
to allow the utility to make an initial determination of whether or not the OF meets the
above-described criteria for entitlement to the standard rates and standard contract.
Any dispute concerning a OF's entitlement to the standard rates and standard contract
shall be presented to the Commission for resolution.
Standard Contract Provision
To insure continued compliance with the requirements stated above, the standard
contracts shall contain a representation in substantially the following form: "Seller wil
notmake any changes in its ownership, control or management during the_term of this
Agreement that would cause it to not be in compliance with the Definition of a Small
Cogeneration Facilty or Small Power Production Facilty Eligible to Receive the
Standard Rates and Standard Contract approved by the Commission at the time this
Agreement is executed. Sellerwill provide, upon request by Buyer not more frequently
than every 36 months, such documentation and information as may be reasonably
required to establish Seller's continued compliance with such Definition. Buyer agrees
to take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of any portion of the above-
described documentation and information that the Seller identifies as confidential except
Buyer wil provide all such confidential information to the Public Utilty Commission of .
Oregon upon the Commission's request."
Page 2
.
.
.
ion MAR 25 AM \0: 01 Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Exhibit No. 203
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Direct Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
March 2011
.
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 203 Page 1 of 5
Case No. GNR-E-11-D1
Witness: BruceW. Griswold
Proposed Criteria for Published A voided Cost Eligibilty
(a) The total size of a combination of wind or solar energy conversion systems for the pur-
pose of determning whether a QF is eligible for published avoided cost prices must be deter-
mined according to this section. The nameplate capacity of one wind or solar energy conversion
system must be combined with the nameplate capacity of any other wind or solar energy conver-
sion system that:
(1) is located within five miles of the wind or solar energy conversion system;
(2) is constructed within the same 24-month period as the wind or solar energy conversion
system; and
\ (3) exhibits characteristics of being a single development, including, but not limited to, own-ership structure, an umbrella sales arangement, shared interconnection, revenue sharng ar-
rangements, and common debt or equity financing.
(b) The utilty. shall provide forms and assistance for project developers to make a request for
asize determination. Upon written request of a project developer, the utilty shall provide a writ-
ten size determnation within 30 days of receipt of the request and of any information requested
by the utilty. In the case of a dispute, the Commssion shall make the final size determnation.
(c) An application for a power purchase agreement with published avoided cost prices by a
wind or solar energy conversion system is not complete without a size determnation made under
this rule.
.
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 203 Page 2 of 5
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Qualifying Facility Size Determination Application (Wind)
Directions for Applicant:
This form has been developed to gather information and assist (utility) in determining the size of proposed
Solar Oualifying Facilties (OF) pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Order No.
. (Utility's) determination of size wil determine whether a proposed OF is eligible for the
avoided cost rates published by the Commission. An applicant seeking a power purchase agreement
with published rates must first submit this application along with the information requested herein to (util-
ty). Within 30 days of receipt of this application plus any information (utility) reasonably requires, (utilty)
will provide applicant a written determination of the size of its OF. If applicant does not agree with the
determination, it may within 30 days appeal (utility's) decision to Commission, who shall then make a final
determination based upon the materials provided to (utility), (utilty's) written determination, applicant's
petition and (utility's) answer. If (utility) or the Commission determines that the size of the OF is less than
the Commission's eligibility cap, then OF may apply for a power purchase agreement containing the
Commission's published avoided cost rates.
Please note that prices set forth in any power purchase agreement or otherwise provided by (util-
ty) during negotiations are subject to revision by Commission order and OF is not entitled to a
specific avoided cost rate until the Commission has approved an executed agreement between OF
and (utilty).
Please complete the form, sign it, date it, and return the completed form to:
(Contact information forperson responsible for
reviewing this form at the
Utility)
A. Project Description and Location
Please provide the following information regarding the design and location of the proposed
project:
A.1 Please describe the proposed project including: (1) turbine size, make, and model, (2)
number of turbines, (3) location of the project (county, township), and (4) the area within the
project boundary (acres).
A.2 A map of the project showing the proposed project boundary, the interconnection site,
wind turbine locations, and associated facilities. "Associated facilities" includes access roads,
collector and feeder lines, and substations. The map should be a USGS survey map or current
aerial photography or similar. The map must include a scale and the proposed latitude and lon-
gitude of each turbine in the project.
A.3 A map with the same elements as A.1 (providing for scale), but including a line indicating
a distance of 5 miles from the proposed project boundary.
A.4 Please describe and identify on a map any other Wind QFs, in operation or in develop-
ment, that the applicant or developer knows or believes is within 5 miles of the proposed project.
B. Project Construction
B.1 Please provide the anticipated schedule for completing the proposed project, including
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 203 Page 3 of 5
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold.dates for permitting, construction (start and end dates), and commercial operation.
B.2 Please identify any Wind OFs that the applicant or developer knows or believes: (1) wil be
constructed within a similar timeframe as the proposed project, and (2) is within 5 miles of the
proposed project.
C. Project Characteristics
C.1 Please provide the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant and any autho-
rized representative.
C.2 Please provide the name, address, and telephone number of the person or persons who
would prepare the application to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, if such an application
would be prepared by an agent or consultant of the applicant.
C.3 Please briefly describe the applicant business entity including its ownership (including any
upstream ownership) and financial structure.
C.4 Please provide the Idaho Secretary of State organizational ID number for the applicant
business entity, all subordinate entities, and all wind developer entities involved with the project.
C.5 Please describe the status of the proposed project within an interconnection queue. If the
project has been given queue number by a transmission provider, please include it.
. C.G Please describe who wil be constructing the project.
C.7 Please describe who wil be operating and maintaining the project.
C.S Please identify and provide contact information for the person or persons who would be
. the permittees, if different than the applicant, if the Solar OF is permitted by an Idaho County.
e.g Please identify any Wind OFs within 5 miles of the proposed project in which the appli-
cant, or a principal, partner, or affilate of the applicant, has an ownership or other financial in-
terest.
C.10 Please identify any Wind OFs within 5 miles of the proposed project which shares any of
the following with the proposed project: power purchase agreement, interconnection, revenues,
debt or equity financing.
I attest that the information provided above is accurate.
Signature:
Title:
Date:
Qualifying Facility Size Determination Application (Solar).Directions for Applicant:
This form has been developed to gather information and assist (utility) in determining the size of proposed
.
.
.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 203 Page 4 of 5
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Solar Oualifying Facilities (OF) pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Order No.
. (Utility's) determination of size wil determine whether a proposed OF is eligible for theavoided cost rates published by the Commission. An applicant seeking a power purchase agreement
with published rates must first submit this application along with the information requested herein to (util-
ty). Within 30 days of receipt of this application plus any information (utility) reasonably requires, (utility)
will provide applicant a written determination of the size of its OF. If applicant does not agree with the
determination, it may within 30 days appeal (utility's) decision to Commission, who shall then make a final
determination based upon the materials provided to (utility), (utility's) written determination, applicant's
petition and (utilty's) answer. If (utilty) or the Commission determines that the size of the OF is less than
the Commission's eligibility cap, thén OF may apply for a power purchase agreement containing the
Commission's published avoided cost rates.
Please note that prices set forth in any power purchase agreement or otherwise provided by (util-
ty) during negotiations are subject to revision by Commission order and QF is not entitled to a
specific avoided cost rate until the Commission has approved an executed agreement between QF
and (utilty).
Please complete the form, sign it, date it, and return the completed form to:
(Contact information for person re-
sponsible for reviewing this form at
the Utility)
A. Project Description and Location
Please provide the following information regarding the design and location of the proposed
project:
A.1 Please describe the proposed project including: (1) solar panel size, make and model, (2)
number of panels, (3) location of the project (county, township), and (4) the area within the
project boundary (acres).
A.2 A map of the project showing the proposed project boundary, the interconnection site,
wind turbine locations, and associated facilities. "Associated facilities" includes access roads,
collector and feeder lines, and substations. The map should be a USGS survey map or current
aerial photography or similar. The map must include a scale and the proposed latitude and lon-
gitude of each turbine in the project.
A.3 A map with the same elements as A.1 (providing for scale), but including a line indicating
a distance of 5 miles from the proposed project boundary.
A.4 Please describe and identify on a map any other Solar QFs, in operation or in develop-
ment, that the applicant or developer knows or believes is within 5 miles of the proposed project.
B. Project Construction
B.1 Please provide the anticipated schedule for completing the proposed project, including
dates for permitting, construction (start and end dates), and commercial operation.
B.2 Please identify any Solar QF projects that the applicant or developer knows or believes:
(1) will be constructed within a similar timeframe as the proposed project, and (2) is within 5
miles of the proposed project.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 203 Page 5 of 5
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
. C. Project Characteristics
.
.
C.1 Please provide the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant and any autho-
rized representative.
C.2 Please provide the name, address, and telephone number of the person or persons who
would prepare the application to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, if such an application
would be prepared by an agent or consultant of the applicant.
C.3 Please briefly describe the applicant business entity including its ownership (including any
upstream ownership) and financial structure.
C.4 Please provide the Idaho Secretary of State organizational ID number for the applicant
business entity, all subordinate entiies, and all solar developer entities involved with the project.
C.5 Please describe the status of the proposed project within an interconnection queue. If the
project has been given queue number by a transmission provider, please include it.
e.G Please describe who wil be constructing the project.
C.7 Please describe who wil be operating and maintaining the project.
C.8 Please identify and provide contact information for the person or persons who would be
the permittees, if different than the applicant, if the Solar OF is permitted by an Idaho County.
e.g Please identify any Solar OFs within 5 miles of the proposed project in which the appli-
cant, or a principal, partner, or affilate of the applicant, has an ownership or other financial in-
terest.
C.10 Please identify any Solar OFs within 5 miles of the proposed project which shares any of
the following with the proposed project: power purchase agreement, interconnection, revenues,
debt or equity financing.
I attest that the information provided above is accurate.
Signature:
Title:
Date: