20110422Griswold Reb.pdf

~~~OUNTAIN
April 22, 2011
RECEIVED
20fl APR 22 AM fO= 27
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
VI OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell
Commssion Secreta
Idao Public Utilities Commssion
472 W. Washigton
Boise,ID 83702
RE: IN TH MATTER OF THE COMMSSION'S INSTIGATION INTO
DISAGGREGATION AN AN APPROPRITE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST
ELIGIBILITY CAP STRUCTURE FOR PURP A QUALIFYING FACILITIES.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. GNR-E-ll-Ol
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Pleas fid enclosed for filing in the above-captioned case an origi and nie (9) copies of
Rocky Mounta Power's Rebutt Testimony of Bruce Grswold.
Sincerely,~/tU
Cc: GNR-E-II-Ol Servce List
Enclosurs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certfy that on this 22nd day of April, 2011, I caused to be served, via E-mail, a
tre and correct copy of Rocky Mounta Power's Rebutt Testimony in Case No. GNR-
E-II-0l to the following:
Donovan E. Walker
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
E-mail: dwalkercmidahopower.com
lnordstromcmidahopower.com
Danel Solander
PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mounta Power
201 S. Mai St., Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
E-mail: daniel.solandercmpacificorp.com
Donald L. Howell, II
Krstine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utiities Commssion
472 W. Washington
POBox 83720
Boise, il 83720-0074
E-mal: don.howeiicmpuc.idaho.gov
krs.sassert$uc.idaho.gov
Robe D. Ka
Nortwest and Intermounta Power
Producers Coalition
1117 Minor Ave., Suite 300
Seattle, W A 98101
E-mail: rkahcmnippc.org
Robert A. Paul
Grd View Solar II
15690 Vista Circle
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241
E-mail: robertpau108cmgmail.com
Michal G. Andrea
A vista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave.
Spokae, W A 99202
E-mail: michael.andreacmavistacorp.com
Ken Kaufi (E-mail Only)
Lovinger Kaufan LLP
825 NE Multnoma Suite 925
Portland, OR 97232
E-mail: Kaufrancmlklaw.com
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adas
Richardson & 0' Lear, PLLC
POBox 7218
Boise, il 83702
E-mail: peter(ßchardsonandolear.com
gregcmrichardsonandoleary.com
Don Stuevant
Energy Dirctor
J.R. Simplot Company
PO Box 27
Boise, ID 83707-0027
E-mail: don.sturevantcmsimplot.com
James Carkuis
Manging Member
Exergy Development Group of Idao, LLC
802 W. Banock St., Suite 1200
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: jcarkuliscmexergydevelopment.com
Ronald L. Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise il, 83702
E-mail: roncmwillamsbradbur.com
Dana Zentz
Vice President
Sumt Power Group, Inc.
2006 E. Westmnster
Spokane, W A 99223
E-mail: dzentzcmsuritpower.com
JohnR. Lowe
Consultat to Renewable Energy Coalition
12050 SW Tremont St.
Portand, OR 97225
E-mail: jravenesanarcoscmyahoo.com
Bil Piske, Manager
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC
1303 E. Carer
Boise,ID 83706
E-mail: bilpiskecmcableone.net
Paul Marin
Intermounta Wind, LLC
PO Box 353
Boulder, CO 80306
E-mail:
paulmarincmintermountainwind.com
Shelley M. Davis
Barker Rosholt & Simpson, LLP
1010 W. JeffersonSt. (83702)
PO Box 2139
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: smdcmidahowaters.com
Ted Diehl
Genera Manger
Nort Side Canal Company
921 N. Lincoln St.
Jerome, il 83338
E-mail: nscanaicmcableone.net
Scott Montgomery
President
Ceda Creek Wind, LLC
668 Rockwood Dr.
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
E-mail: scottcmwesternenergy.us
Thoma H. Nelson
Attorney
PO Box 1211
Welches, OR 97067- 1211
E-mail: nelsoncmthelson.com
R. Greg Ferney
Mimur Law Offces, PLLC
2176 E. Franin Rd., Suite 120
Meridian ID 83642
E-mal: gregcmmimuralaw.com
Dean J. Miler
McDevitt & Miler, LLP
POBox 2564
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: joecmmcdevitt-miler.com
Wade Thoma
General Counsel
Dynamis Energy, LLC
776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15
Eale, ID 83616
E-mail: wthomascmdynamisenergy.com
Brian Olmstea
General Manager
Twi Falls Canal Company
PO Box 326
Twi Falls, ID 83303
E-mail: olmsteadcmtfcanal.com
Bil Brown, Cha
Board of Commssioners
of Adas County, il
PO Box 48
Council, il 83612
E-mail: bdbrowncmfrontiernet.net
Ted S. Sorenson, P.E.
Birch Power Company
5203 South 11th Eat
Idaho Falls, il 83404
E-mal: tedcmtsorenson.net
M.J. Humphres
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
4515 S. Amon Road
Amon, il 83406
E-mail: blueribbonenergycmgmail.com
Gar Seifert
Kur Myers
Idaho Nationa Laboratory
Conventiona Renewable Energy Group
2525 Fremont Ave
Idaho Falls, il 83415-3810
E-mail: gar.seifertcminl.gov
Kur.myerscminl. gov
Megan Walseth Decker
Senior Sta Counsel
Renewable Nortwest Project
917 SW Oak Strt, Suite 303
Portland, OR 97205
E-mail: megan(frnp.org
Glenn Ikemoto
Margaret Rueger
Idaho Windfars, LLC
672 Blai Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
E-mail: glennicmenvisionwind.com
Margaretcmenvisionwind.com
Aron F. Jepson
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
10660 South 540 East
Sandy, UT 84070
E-mail: aronesqcmaol.com
Ken Miler
Snae River Alliance
PO Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: kriler(fsnakeriveralliance.org
Benjam J. Oto
Idao Conservation League
710 N. Sixt Street (83702)
POBox 844
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: botto(fidahoconservation.org
Came Meyer
Coordinator, Admstative Services
RECEIVFnlj A,- ,;"....
2m, APR 22 Mi fO: 27
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S
INVESTIGATION INTO
DISAGGREGATION AND AN
APPROPRIATE PUBLISHED
A VOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY
CAP STRUCTURE FOR PURP A
QUALIFYING FACILITIES
)
) CASE NO. GNR-E-11-Ol
)
) Rebuttal Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
)
)
)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
CASE NO. GNR-E-ll-Ol
April 2011
1 Q.
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7 Q.
8
Please state your name, business address and position with PacifiCorp dba
Rocky Mountain Power (the Company).
My name is Bruce W. Griswold. My business address is 825 NE Multnoma,
Suite 600, Portland, Oregon. I am the Director, Short-term Origination and QF
Contracts at PacifiCorp Energy, which is responsible for the Company's electric
generation and energy trading functions.
Are you the same Bruce W. Griswold who provided diect testimony in this
proceeding?
9 A. Yes.
10 Purpose and Summary of Testimony
11 Q.
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
22
23
What is the purpose of your testimony?
My testimony wil respond to and compare sets of rules proposed by Mr. Rick
Sterling of the Idaho Public Utilty Commssion staff ("Staf'), Ms. Megan
Decker of Renewable Northwest Project ("RNP"), and Mr. Benjamn Otto of the
Idaho Conservation League ("ICL") to reinstate the 1 0 aMW eligibilty theshold
but restrict disaggregation of large single wind and solar projects. I wil also
address why the Company's proposed set of rules and procedures from my diect
testimony (as updated in my rebuttal testimony) wil work more effectively than
those proposed by others.
Please summarize your testimony.
While a set of criteria to limt the disaggregation of large wind and solar projects
can be developed and implemented, it is clear from the Company's experience
that any such approach is not fool-proof and it is our experience that it can
Griswold, Di-Reb - 1
Rocky Mountain Power
1 ultimately be manipulated by large project developers. The Company's first
2 position continues to be that the correct method of ensurng that there are controls
3 regarding disaggregation is for the Commssion to make permanent the 100 kW
4 eligibility theshold for wind and solar QFs seeking Idao's published avoided
5 cost prices. Absent that directive by the Commssion, Rocky Mountan Power has
6 completed a comparson of the thee strawman proposals submitted by the Staff,
7 RNP and ICL to the Company's proposed strawman and prepared a table
8 comparg the four proposals, attached hereto as Rocky Mountain Power Exhbit
9 No. 204. After that review, the Company believes that its proposed strawman is
10 stil the most reasonable of the four proposals before the Commssion and wil
11 provide the best assurance that large QFs wil not receive the Idao published
12 avoided cost rates. However, the Company believes that a number of the elements
13 of Staff's proposal are valid and the Company has modified its proposal to
14 incorporate those elements that strengthen the Company's proposaL. Even with
15 specific disaggregation criteria in place, the ultimate eligibilty test should remai
16 whether the QF (together with any other wholesale generators developed in
17 concert with the QF) exceeds the size eligibilty cap. Therefore, the Commssion
18 should require developers to demonstrate that they are in fact not disaggregating a
19 large project and retain the discretion to deny eligibilty for published rates in the
20 event a large QF finds a way to meet the eligibilty criteria but is found by the
21 Commssion to be a large QF on other grounds.
Griswold, Di-Reb - 2
Rocky Mountain Power
1 Review of Strawman Proposals
2 Q.
3 A.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Please recap Rocky Mountain Power's strawman proposal.
Rocky Mountain Power's proposed rules are modeled after a Minnesota Statute
216F.011, adopted in 2007.1 This statute established rules for size determnation
when determning permtting requirements for wind projects. While the rules are
not based on any specific megawatt size limit the Company proposes using a
nameplate capacity of 10 MW as an absolute theshold versus the 10 aMW
threshold. The 10 aMW theshold is a somewhat subjective level and can lead to
disputes between the utilty and the QF both on the acceptance by the utilty that
the QF project meets the 10 aMW threshold and on the monitoring and
enforcement of the theshold thoughout the term of the power purchase
agreement. This is especially true when the estimated output from multiple wind
or solar plants must be added together in the evaluation. Adding up nameplate
capacity is very strightforward with no room for disagreement over proposed
production of each QF system. The nameplate capacity of the applicant QF must
be combined with the nameplate capacity of any other wholesale generator2 that:
(1) is located within five miles of the QF;
(2) is constrcted within 24-months of the QF; and
(3) exhibits characteristics of being a common development.
i Minn. Stat. § 216F.OII (2010) (available at https:/Iwww.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=216F.011).
2 The Company uses the term "wholesale generator" to make clear that the rules apply to a QF that is
developed in concert with a non-QF project.
Griswold, Di-Reb - 3
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Q.
12 A.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Under Rocky Mountain Power's proposal, the utility would be responsible
for determning the size of the QF using information provided by the QF project
developer. The Company would provide a written determation within 30 days of
receipt of the request with any dispute resolved by the Commssion. The
determnation would be completed as par of the normal due diligence process
prior to the power purchase agreement being prepared. The QF would warant
that it meets the size eligibilty theshold at the purchase power agreement
("PPA") execution and not make any changes in ownership, control, or
management durng the term of the contract to reduce the abilty of a developer to
manipulate the size eligibility theshold.
Why do you believe the Company's proposal is the most appropriate?
The Company's proposal presented in my direct testimony established a clear and
concise method to stop disaggregation, however to improve the Company's
proposal, I have incorporated some of the other paries' proposal characteristics
into a revised proposal summzed later in this testimony. The Company's
proposal sets a five-mile limit on the distance between projects while the other
proposals use a one-mile criterion. We have already observed, as evidenced by
Cedar Creek Wind's five QF PPAs in front of the Commssion for review and
decision, that a one-mile separation requirement does not prevent disaggregation.
The Company's proposal establishes that the projects cannot corne on-line within
24 months of each other which severely limits the abilty to finance or construct
the projects as if they were a single project. Finally, Rocky Mountain Power
proposes using a nameplate capacity size limit instead of a limit based on average
Griswold, Di-Reb - 4
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Q.
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
megawatts. While this is a major divergence from the current eligibility threshold,
it does provide a very clear size thshold on projects, eliminating futue disputes
over project production capacity. In our revised proposal we establish 10 MW
nameplate capacity as the threshold because this wil continue to allow
individuals and communities the abilty to develop renewable resources, very
much in line with the directives of PURA. The Company's standard QF
experience in Oregon demonstrates that 10 MW nameplate is a reasonable
theshold for published avoided cost rates while not deterrng project
development.
Please summariz the I CL proposal.
The ICL proposal summarzed by Mr. Otto utilizes four criteria to determne the
size of a QF system comprised of more than a single electrcal generator. Those
criteria are:
1. Energy Source - Uses the same energy source.
2. Ownership - Owned by the same person or affiliate where the affilate
does not include passive investors whose sole purose is tax credits, green
tags or depreciation; or control of management, operation or policies over
the person of owning the electrical generator.
3. Location - Electrical generator is located within one-mile of any other
electrcal generator with the exception of the hydroelectrc generators
which use the same impoundment or canal drop.
4. Timing - The electricity is initially delivered by each electrcal generator
to the utilty within the same 24-month period.
Griswold, Di-Reb - 5
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Q.
9 A.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
22
23
As with the Rocky Mountain Power's proposal, the size determnation is
completed by the utility based on submitted documentation by the QF. The QF
must warant and represent that its maximum size is 10 aMW and that ownership,
control or management wil not change the size eligibilty over the term of the
PPA. However, unlike Company's proposal, the utility has only 15 days to mae
the determnation. In the event the QF is in disagreement with the determation,
the QF can request a Commssion review within 15 days.
Please explain the deficiencies of the ICL proposaL.
The major deficiency of the ICL proposal is that it does not address a number of
the common ownership characteristics of being a single development, including
an umbrella sales arangement, shared interconnection and infrastrcture, shared
transmission services agreement (off-system resource only), revenue sharng
arangements, and common debt or equity financing, to name a few. The
Company also notes thatthe amount of time to make a determation is woefully
short. In the varous cases where the Company had to complete due diligence on
the varous criteria, the time to complete ranged from 30 to 45 days due to the
need for additional data from the QF. The Company fuer notes that the 10
aMW threshold can be subjective and provides an opportnity for disputes to
occur between the utilty and the developer on the project's output.
What is contained in the RNP proposal?
RNP's proposal summzed by Ms. Decker's testimony also has four major
points to determne if a project with multiple generation sources is a single QF.
They are:
Griswold, Di-Reb - 6
Rocky Mountai 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
1. Uses the same motive force as the QF.
2. Owned or controlled by the same person or affiliate where the affilate is a
person or legal entity sharng common ownership, management or control
of management, operation or policies over another person or entity but the
affiiate does not include passive investors whose sole purose is tax
credts, green tags or depreciation.
3. The generation source is placed into service within 12 months of the QF's
on-line date.
4. Shares common interconnection, controls and infrastructure as the QF.
As with Company's proposal, the size determnation is completed by the
utility based on documentation submitted by the QF. In the event the QF is in
disagreement with the determnation, the QF can request a Commssion review.
The QF must warrant and represent that the project satisfies the four requirements
and that ownership, control or management wil not change the size eligibilty
over the term of the PP A.
Do you see any deficiencies in the RNP proposal?
Yes. The RNPproposal, similar to the ICL proposal, does not address a number
of important common ownership characteristics of being a single development.
More importantly, the RNP proposal requires that the multiple facilities must
meet all four of the conditions and be over 10 aMW in order to be deemed a
single entity. A project could easily sidestep one of the conditions and all of the
multiple projects are eligible for standard rates. Nor does the RNP proposal
establish any minimum distance requirement; in fact, it does not even discuss the
Griswold, Di-Reb - 7
Rocky Mountain Power
1
2
3
4 Q.
5 A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Q.
14 A.
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
22
23
one-mile PURP A distance requirement. Thus, the Company believes the RNP
proposal is flawed and could be manipulated. As with the ICL proposal, Company
notes that the 10 aM theshold can lead to disputes over the project's size.
Please describe Staff's propoal.
Stas proposal as presented in Mr. Sterling's diect testimony is the most
comprehensive of the proposals. It identifies 15 characteristics that multiple
generation sources may exhibit and qualify as a single project. Many of the
characteristics are similar to the other proposals but Mr. Sterling also identifies
several that are not included in the Company's, RNP's or ICL's proposal
including permtting multiple projects as a single entity, sharng engineering and
procurement contracts, sharing common land leases. The list proposed by Mr.
Sterling is very complete and his methodology for evaluation is reasonable.
Do you find any deficiencies in Staff's proposl?
Yes. I believe the 12 month period for constrction is too lenient. For example,
the Company has wind QF PP As in other states that are a single project split into
two projects and constructed to corne on-line 12 months apar to meet a regulatory
stipulation. The projects are owned by the same entity, share common ownership
traits including land lease, interconnection, and construction and procurement
contracts.
Does the Company have a revised diaggregation proposal?
Yes. After reviewing the thee proposals by Staff, RNP and ICL, the Company
has prepared a revised set of proposed criteria, attched hereto as Rocky
Mountain Power Exhibit No. 205. A redline showing changes from my direct
Griswold, Di-Reb - 8
Rocky Mounta Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Q.
10
11 A.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Q.
21 A.
testimony is included along with a clean version of the revised proposaL. The
revision incorporates a number of characteristics from Staff's proposal including
shared common land leases, shared construction and procurement contracts, and
permtting of multiple projects as a single entity. Like the other proposals, the
Company has modified its rule to apply generally to all types of QFs, rather than
limiting it to wind and solar QFs. The proposal also sets the theshold limit at 10
MW nameplate capacity which is a key component to limiting disaggregation
while maintaining viabilty for small community developed projects.
Wil you describe the Company's revisions to the Qualifying Facilty Size
Determination Application?
Yes. Because the revised proposal treats all QF applicants of any motive force
equally, the solar and wind specific application forms are replaced by a form
suitable for any QF applicant. Because the Company added elements of Staff's
proposal to its proposed rule, it added request for information about those
elements to the application form. The Company made additional organizational
changes and edits intended to mae the applcation form shorter and easier to
understand. A clean version of the revised proposed Qualifying Facility Size
Determnation Application is attached hereto as Rocky Mountain Power Exhibit
No. 206.
Does this conclude your rebuttl testimony in this proceeding?
Yes.
Griswold, Di-Reb - 9
Rocky Mountain Power
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Exhibit No. 204
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit AccompanyingRebuttl Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
April 2011
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 204 Page 1 of 3
Case No. GNR-E-11-Q1
Witness: Bruce W. Gnswold
Proposed common Rocky Mountain Commission Staff ICL RNP
characteristics between Power
projects that indicate a
single project of 10 aMW
or a larger, disaggregated
project
Shared Motive Force or fuel ;/1 All tyes .. All tyes. (lPUC,;/ All tyes. ICL,;/ All tyes. (RNP,
(Rocky Mountain GNR-E-11-01, Exhibit Statement of Position GNR-E-11-01,
Power, GNR-E-301, page 1 of 4 to and Strawman Decker, Di,
11-01, Exhibit Sterling Di)Proposal, GNR - E-11-Attchment 1, at 1)
205, page 2 of 2 to 01, at 1.
Grwold, Rebuttal
Testimony)
Common Owership or ;/ "Owership by ;/ Owed or controlled ;/ Same person or .. Suggests
Control the same or by "affliated affiiate. "Ows"excluding passive
affiiated entities."person(s)". Includes means holds more owners whose only
(ld.)entities but not passive than 50% equity in benefit is obtaining
investors whose generator. Person tax credits and
ownership benefit are includes entities.green tags. (ld.)
only tax credits, and/or Affliate includes
green tags. (Id. at 2)person who shares
common control over
project. "Control"
power to direct
operations, policies
or people. (Id.)
Proximate time placed in .. Similar ;/ Similar generator .. Similar generator
Serice generator becomes becomes operational .. Similar generator becomes operational
opertional within within 12 months of becomes operational within 12 months of
24 months of an affliated project as within same 24 a similar project.
similar project.specified in PPA. (ld,month perod. (ld).(ld.)
(Id.)at 1.)
Common Interconnection .. "Shared .. Common point or .. Included under
point inteconnection interconnection shared transmission
point, facilities facilities. (Id.)infrascte. (ld.)
and/or
inteconnection
agreement." (Ill
Contrl, communications ;/ (ld.).. (ld.);/ (lef
and Ooeration facilities
Transmission ;/ "Shared ;/ (ld. at 2).. (lef
inteconnection Agreement trnsmission
agreement." (Id.)
Similar facility in same .. Within 5 miles.;/ "Same vicinity" not .. Within one mile of .. One or five miles.
vicinity or proximity.(ld.)dermed, left to similar generator (RN, GNR-E-11-
Commission with same fueL.01, Decker Di, at 8).
deterination. (ld.)Hydr is same
impoundment. (ld.)
1 ., indicate that the pa has included a parcula criterion in pa of their analysis of whether a project is a single QF lOaM
projec or is par of a lager, disaggregate project.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 204 Page 2 of 3
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Proposed common Rocky Mountain Commission Staff ICL RNP
characteristics between Power
projects that indicate a
single project of 10 aMW
or a larger, disaggregated
project
Operated/maintained by " (Id.)" (Id.)" Power to control " Includes staffng,
same entity electrcal personneL. (Id.)
generator. (Id, at
í )..
Constructed by the same " Included in the " (Id.)" Shared constrction
entity size determination contracts. (Id.)
application.
(Rocky Mountain
Power, Exhibit
206, page 2 of 5 to
Grswold, Rebuttal
Testimony)
Common debt/equity " (Exhibit 204," (Id.)" Interdepndent
financing page 2 of2).fmancing schemes
may indicate a single
oroiect. (Id.)
Subject to common revenue " (Id.)" (Id.)" (Id.)
sharii agreement
Peritting done by same " (Id.)" (Id.)-: Siting applications
entity/application completed by single
entity. (Id.)
Engineerng/procurement " (Id.)" (Id.)"Use of same
contract equipment (Id.)
Common land leases " (Id.)" (Id.)
Warants single facility in " (Id.)" QF Must warant QF must warrant
PPA . project satisfies single and represent that the
project requirement,seller will not make
that seller wil not any changes in its
change ownership,ownership, control or
control or management durg
management durg the te ofthe PPA
term of PPA that that would cause it not
would cause it to not to be in compliance
be a single project,with the single QF
acknowledge that if requirment. (Id.)
the Commission fmds
not a single project,
wil be in default
under PPA. (Id. at 3)
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 204 Page 3 of 3
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Proposed Application and PacifCorp Staff ICL RNP
Adminitrative process to
determine whether a QF
project is a single 10 aMW
project or par of a larger
disaeereiated Droiect
Proposed Application Project must file At the time the Upon request, the QF
Process out a size Project must provide qualifyg facility wil verfy to the utility
determination the utility with any initiates a formal the ownership,
application and relevant information request to enter into a management and
provide and in reasnably power purchase fmancial strctue of
information suffcient detail to agreement for the the QF in reasonably
intended to reveal allow the utility to published rate the suffcient detail to
whether the project make an initial qualifyg facility allow the utility to
is a single project deterination of must submit make an initial
or par of a larger,compliance with the suffcient deteination of
disaggregated single project documentation to compliance with the
project. (ld.)crteria. (ld).reasnably allow the ownership requiement.
purchasing utility to (RNP,GNR-E-ll-Ol,
make an initial Decker, Di,
deterination of the Attachment 1, at 1)
maximum size. The
utility must make an
initial size
deteination within
15 days based upon
the submitted
information. (ld. at 2)
Proposed Administrative Application is Aftr an initial size If the utility finds Disputes over the
Process submitted to deterination, if a that the project does initial size
potential dispute arses, the not satisfy the crteria deterination made by
contracting utility paries may resolve needed to establish the utility are to be
and the utility the siz the project is a single resolved before the
makes a size deterination before 10 aMW project, the Commission. (RN,
deteination the Commission.utility must submit a GNR-E-ll-Ol, Decker,
within 30 days.(ld, at 4)full wrtt Di, Attchment 1, at 2)
Any disputes over explanation detailing
the size of a project their fmdings and
are to be resolved explaining how the
by the project exceeded 10
Commission. (ld.)aMW based on the
critea and the
submittd
information. A
project may challenge
the initial
deteination before
the Commission
within 15 days of
receiving the initial
deterination. (ld)
Case No. GNR-E-ll-01
Exhibit No. 205
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Rebuttal Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
April 2011
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 205 Page 1 of 2
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Criteria for Determining Published A voided Cost Eligibilty
(a) The total size of a combination of a small qualifying facilty generating project for the pur-
pose of determing whether that project is eligible for published avoided cost prices, must be de-
termned according to this section. The nameplate capacity of the applicant's project must be com-
bined with the nameplate capacity of any other wholesale generating project that:
(1) is located within five miles of any generator comprising the applicant's project;
(2) is constructed within the same 24-month period as the applicant project; and
(3) exhibits characteristics of being a developed in common with the applicant's project, includ-
ing, but not limited to,
a. ownership by the same or affiliated entities,
b. an umbrella sales arangement,
c. shared interconnection point, facilities and/or interconnection agreement,
d. shared transmission agreements,
e. common control, communication or operations facilities,
f. permtted as a single application or entity,
g. shared land leases
h. shared engineering or procurement contracts,
1. revenue sharng arrangements, and
j. common debt or equity financing.
(b) The utility shall provide forms and assistace to project applicants requesting a size determ-
nation. Upon written request of a project applicant, the utilty shall provide a written size determna-
tion 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 is not
complete without a size determnation made under this rule.
(d) Any power purchase agreement including published avoided cost rates shall include a war-
ranty from the seller that: (1) the information provided to the utility is complete and accurate as of
the execution date of the power purchase agreement; and (2) that the seller wil remain in com-
pliance with the size eligibility criteria for the term of the power purchase agreement.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 205 Page 2 of 2
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Criteria for Deterl11ining Published A voided Cost Eligibilty
(a) The total size of a combination ofwlflà-'B-"-Søia1:"€fl..6rg'Y..€øfl'VffffleH"S3'fft-el-S..f-ei.:..the-'p-in:pøse
of determifli~""ifleth er a QF!~UH~n..~:u!.~ljfyjX!z...fflçjÀÜY..Zt.ntnHiIlß..P'I.~?j~r¿t..f~::r.lhft..1:~lJmg:~ft..~::f.~~~.ttI:-.
mining whetherJhat proiect is eligible for published avoided cost prices" must be determned ac-
cording to this section. The nameplate capacity of E.me..w'iflà-'-ei.:"sB-lfH:..eflei:gy..eE.)fl'Vef&ie=n...s~:'St€t1'lthe
flI:~l:)jçA\nrS..imÚftç.t must be combined with the nameplate capacity of any other \yi~id or :.olar eneFg
conversion Sj'3teff thatwholesale generatin~ project that:
(1) is located within five miles of the 'lAnd or Gobr energy conversion :.ìysti..m;.m!':...g~nf:mtm:
comprising the applicant's project;
(2) is constrcted within the same 24-month period as the ';,ind or solar e~iergy eonversion sys
teapplicant project; and
(3) exhibits characteristics of being a toingle de'ie1opmentg~.~:t.h?pJ~~t.Lri..f~mJgl~1D...wJtb.Jb.~..A\1:1:li:-.
cant's project, including, but not limited to,
iL ownership structure, lnz..b.e..sA\nAt..~:KJäljJflte~tftntHÀt.§s..
h,-an umbrella sales arangement,
c. shared interconnection, point, facíltíes and/or inten:.xmnection agreement,
çJ.,.....S1!J)Ie~Hm.n.snltss.LeX!..A\grf:tIlleD..tS.,
e, common control, communication or operations facilities,
f. permitted as a single applÜ.~atíon or entitv.
g. shared land leases
h. shared en~ineering or procurement contracts.
Lrevenue sharng arangements, and-
Lcornon debt or equity financing.
(b) The utility shall provide forms and assistance for project dt'\'elOpefS to make a requeSt for
project applicants requesting a size determnation. Upon wntten request of a project de¥ele-~~e'lppli..
fm.H, the utilty shall provide a written size determation within 30 days of receipt of the request
and of any information requested by the utility. In the case of a dispute, the Commssion shall makethe final size determnation._ .
(c) An application for a power purchase agreement with published avoided cost prices by u wind
~)f selar 8Hefgy €B-WefStEH.' &yfitem is not complete without a size determnation made under this
rule._
(d) Any power purchase agreement induding published avoided cost rates shaH include a war-
ranty from the seUe:. that: 0) the irifonnation provided to the utility is complete and accurate as of
the execution date of the po\ver purchase a~reement: and (2) that the seHer \víH remain in com.
pLiance with the size eligihiHtv criteria for the term of the power purchase agreement.
Case No. GNR-E-ll-01
Exhibit No. 206
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Exhibit Accompanying Direct Testimony of Bruce W. Griswold
April 2011
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 206 Page 1 of 2
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
Qualifying Facility Size Determination Application
Directions for Applicant:
This form has been developed to gather information and assist (utilty) in determining the size of proposed
Oualifying Facilities (OF) pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Order No.
. (Utilty'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 (utili-
ty). Within 30 days of receipt of this application plus any information (utilty) reasonably requires, (utilty)
wil 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 (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 (utilty) during negotiations are subject to revision by Com-
mission order and QF is not entitled to a specific avoided cost rate until the Commission has ap-
proved an executed agreement between QF and (utilty).
Please answer the questions below, attach your answers to this form, sign the attestation
at the bottom of the form, and return to:
(Contact information forperson responsible for
reviewing this form at the
Utility)
A. Project Description and Location
A.1 Please provide a description of the applicant's project including: (1) generator size, make,
and model, (2) number of generators, (3) location of the project (county, township), and (4) the
proposed point of interconnection.
A.2 Please provide a map of the project showing:
(a) Proposed generator locations (latitude and longitude, or other fixed location)
(b) A USGS survey map, current aerial photograph or scale drawing showing:
(i) a distance scale
(ii) the location of each generator in the project
(iii) a line indicating a distance of 5 miles from the nearest project generator
(iv) property lines surrounding the project site
(v) any other wholesale power generator, in operation or in development, within 5
miles of the project.
Rocky Mountain Power
Exhibit No. 206 Page 2 of2
Case No. GNR-E-11-01
Witness: Bruce W. Griswold
B. Applicant Characteristics
B.1. Please provide the following information about the applicant:
(a) the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of applicant's representa-
tive.
(b) applicant's business entity type, its ownership (including any upstream ownership)
and financial structure.
(c) the Idaho Secretary of State organizational 10 number for applicant's business entity,
all subordinate entities, and all wind developer entities involved with the proposed
project.
B.2 Please identify any existing or planned wholesale power generator, QF or otherwise, with-
in 5 miles of the project in which the applicant, or a principal, partner, or affiliate of the applicant,
has an ownership interest or other financial interest.
8.3 Please identify any wholesale power generator, QF or otherwise, within 5 miles of the
project which shares any of the following with the project: power purchase agreement, intercon-
nection, revenues, procurement contracts, debt or equity financing.
C. Project Details
C.1 Please provide a schedule for completing the project, including dates for permitting, con-
struction (start and end dates), and commercial operation.
C.2 Please describe the status of the project within an interconnection queue, including the
transmission application queue number(s).
C.3 Please identify who will design and construct the project.
C.4 Please identify who will operate and maintain the project.
C.5 Please identify and provide contact information for the person or persons who wil be the
permittee for the proposed project permits, if different than the applicant.
I attest that the information provided above is accurate.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date: