The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110428PAC Answer to NIPPC Motion to Strike.pdf~~~~OUNTAIN rtECEIVED tt" ~lR 28 MHO:' 0 201 South Main, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 April 27, 2011 VI ELECTRONIC FILING AN OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Jean D. Jewell Commission Secreta Idao Public Utilities Commssion 472 W. Washigton Boise, ID 83702 RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMSSION'S INSTIGATION INTO DISAGGREGATION AN AN APPROPRIATE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST ELIGmILITY CAP STRUCTUR FOR PURP A QUALIFYNG FACILITIES. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION CASE NO. GNR-E-ll-Ol Dear Ms. Jewell: Pleas find enclosed for filing in the above-captioned case an origi and seven (7) copies of Rocky Mounta Power's answer to Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition's motion to stre testimony of Mr. Bruce Grswold. ~(/l1 eguation Cc: GNR-E-11-01 Service List Enclosurs Mark C. Moench Danel E. Solander Rocky Mounta Power 201 South Main Str Suite 2300 Salt Lae City, Uta 84111 Telephone: (801) 220-4014 Fax: (801) 220-3299 mark.moench~acificoip.com daei.soland~acificoip.com Jeffey S. Lovier Kenneth E. Kauf Lovinger Kaufan LLP 825 NE Multnomah Suite 925 Portand, Orgon 97232 Telephone: (503) 230-7715 Fax: (503) 972-2921 loviger(gw.com kaufan(glkw.com Atteys for Roky Mounta Power RECEIVED lOll APR 28 MHO: 10 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTLITIES COMMSSION IN TH MATIR OF TH COMMSSION'S INSTIGATION INTO DISAGGREGATION AND AN APPROPRITE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGfflLITY CAP STRUCTU FOR PURA QUALIFYIG FACILITIES ) CASE NO. GNR-E-ll-01 ) ) ) ROCKY MOUNTAI ) POWER'S ANSWER TO ) NORTHST AN ) INTOUNTAI POWER ) PRODUCERS COALITION'S ) MOTION TO STR ) TESTIMONY OF BRUCE ) GRISWOLD ) ) Puuat to IDAPA 31.01.01.057 of the Rules of Procedur of the Idao Public Utiities Commion (the "Commssion"), PacifiCoip, dba Rocky Mounta Powe ("Rocky Mounta ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIMONY OF 1 BRUCE GRISWOLD Powet' or "Compay") maes ths Answer to Nortwest and Intermounta Power Producers Coaltion's (NIPPC) Motion to Strke. Bruce Grswold's dict testiony filed April 14,2001. i BACKGROUN The Commssion limted the scpe of ths docket in Order No. 32195 by stati tht the proceedgs will focus on an investigation into a published avoided cost eligibilty stcte that: (l) allows sml wid and solar QFs to avail theiselves of published rates for projects producing 10 aM or less; and (2) prevents large QFs frm disagegating in order to obta a published avoided cost ra tht exce a utlity's avoided cost2 Las month NIPPC sent prouction reuest to Rocky Mounta Power, A vista Corp (Avist), and Idao Power Compay (Idao Power) seekig inormtion regardig th adequay of the IR methodology used to calculate avoided cost rates for QF projects over 10 aMW. In rens, the Compay filed a motion for clarcation and for a prtectve or agai NIPC's discovery reques.3 The Company's motion argued tht NIPPC's prouction reuest wer the beginning of a collateal attck on the IRP metodology, th they were irelevant to identiing a published avoided cost eligibilty strctue tht will allow QFs smaler th 10 aM to obta published ras but will prevent large QFs frm disagrgatig, and tht NIPPC's reuest wer unduly burdensme.4 The Commssion grted the Compay's motion by bench ord.s The Commion found tht the proucton request sougt evdece relate to the i In the Matter of the Commission's Investigation into Disagegation and an Appropriate Published Avoided Cost Rate Eligibilty CapStrtuefor PURPA Qualijing Facilities, Cas No. GNR.E.II-GI.Direct Testimony of Bruce W. Griold (Mar. 25. 201 I). 2 Cas No. GNR-E-II-oi, Order No. 32195, 3 (Feb. 25, 2011). 3 Case No. GNR-E-ll-OI, Rocky Mounain Power's Motion for Clarifcation an Motion for Protctive Order (Marh 7, 201 I). 41d. S Cas No. GNR-E-l 1-01, Bench Order, 1-2 (Mar. 23,201 I). ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIMONY OF 2 BRUCE GRISWOLD validity of the IR methodology and suh evidene was irelevant to ths docket. 6 The Commssion resered challenges to the adequay and validity of the IR metodology for a later heang? NIPPC ha now filed a motion to stre portons of the direct testmony prvided by the Compay' exp, Bruce Grswold, on the bass th Mr. Grswold seeks to enter into evidence irelevant testony regardig the IR. 8 APPUCABLE LAW The Commssion ha discretion to adt or reject any evidence on the basis of relevancy.9 The Commssion limte the scope of ths proceedig to the relevant topics of investgating QF disaggation and identig a rue tht wil prevent QF disagegation.IO The Commission has stted evidence regardig the validity of the IRP is irlevant. i i ARGUMNT With one exception (discussed below), the Commssion should deny NIPPC's motion to stre the testiony of Bruce Grswold. The Commsion ha propely limite th scope of ths proced to quickly investgate QF disagregation and idetify a rue tht will prevent large QF disagaton.12 The Commssion's Order prhibit evidece introduced to supprt or 61d. 71d. 8 Case No. GNR-E-II-01, HIPPC's Motion to Strike Testimony 0/ Bre Grisold an Join in Motions to Stik Testimony o/Clint KaJ;ch and Mark Stokes (April 14, 2011) ("NIPPC's Motion to Stre"). II IDAPA 31.01.01.261. 10 Orer No. 32195, at 3; Bench Order, at 1-2 II Id. 121d. ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIMONY OF 3 BRUCE GRISWOLD disprove the accurcy or validity of IRP methodology, but do not prohibit mere mention of the curnt approved avoided cost stctu.13 Most of Mr. Grswold's teony that NIPC seeks to strke is dicty relevant to explai: (a) the curnt published avoided cost eligibilty stcte, (b) why QF disagggation occur, (c) the negative impats caus by disaggrgation and (d) how promulgati a rue to prevent disagrgation will stp lare QFs from obtag avoided cost rate they are not entitled to. Followig NIPC's reest to restct any mention of the curnt us of the IR would exclude evidence frm the reord tht put disagation in context. Therfore, the Commission should deny the NIPC's motion to ste with the single exception as set fort below. 1. PacifiCo wil withdrw the teny NIPC seks to st on Page 6 line 15 th 21 of Mr. Grold's teny. PacifiCoip acknowledges tht Mr. Grswold's testony on page 6 li 15 though 21 is irlevant to ths proceedng and withdrws such teony. 2. Mr Grswold's testy on Pag 9 is relevant to the issues of suQUdig OF disaggrgation and provides examples of QF disaggrgation. The Commssion should deny NIPPC's motion to stre Mr. Grold's tesny on Page 9, lie 3 thugh 6 and line 12 thugh 21. The testony in ths passage is relevant to addrssing disaggation as it demonstrtes how QFs by disagggatig projec may obta an avoided cost rate that they would not otherwse be entitled to. The tesony provides exaples of a disagate 133 MW wid project and a disagated solid wate fuel QF th obted the higher published avoided cost rate by disagregat thei project. Nowhe in th pae does Mr. Grswold addrss the irlevant topic of the IR's validity. Rather ths testiony only 13 ld; The Commision afed the validity of the IR Metodolog though fial order in Orders Nos. 25882, 25883 and 25884. ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S ANSWE TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIONY OF 4 BRUCE GRISWOLD provides a factu account of recet QF disaggaton. Such inonntion is relevant beuse underdig the natu of disaggrgation by large QFs is helpfu in design rules and procedur to prevent it from contiuig in the fu. 3. Mr. Grold's teony on Page 10 is relevant to the issues suunding OF disagrgation and exlains tht the IRP is available for non-clsaggat OF project. The Commssion should deny NIPC's motion to stre Mr. Grswold's tesony on Page 10 line 9 thugh 20. Mr. Grswold's tesony in ths passage explai tht, although the Company has not reently execute an Idao PPA with IRP derved pricing, the Compy ha a fuctionig IR pricin pros aleady in place, and tht the Company has retly us ths process to develop IRP derved prcing for a QF applicant. Ths testony does not cross into the irelevat ar of the validity of the IR method but only demonstates tht the IR method is available to lare QFs seekig PPAs, includg those tht may in the futu be prvente frm diggregatig. 4. Mr. Grswold's Tesony on Page II. 12 and 14 is relevant to the issues sudi OF clsagregatin an eXP the neø;ative cost of OF clsagrø;ation. Mr. Grwold's testony on pages 11, line 10 thugh page 12, line 23 and page 14t lie 3 thugh 12 is also relevant to th docket, and NIPC's Motion to Stre th testony should be denied. Mr. Grswold's testiony on these pages explains the incrd cost borne by cusomers becaus of QF disagregation, including mium load cost, integtion cost and system power purha costs. Mr. Grswold explai that large volumes of inteimittt genertion frm QFs who obta avoide cost thoug the published rate deved from the SAR metodology do not account for thse cost and th exen ar simply pad though to customer. The fact tht Mr. Grswold points out in his tesony tht the IRP method incoiprates these costs and requi the developer to be them doe not make the tesony ROCKY MOUNAI POWER'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIMONY OF 5 BRUCE GRISWOLD irlevant. Rather, ths testony only sees to reinorce the point tht there is a nee to prvent disagggation and have large QFsutliz a metodology other th the SAR baed published rates tht account for the chaterstics of large QF projects. 5. Mr. Grswold's teony on Page 16 is relevant to OF disaggregation an offer a way of limtiii the cost Qf lare inteittnt OF disagregation. NIPPC's motion to stre the testiony of Mr. Grswold on page 16 lie 20 to pae 17 line 16 should be denied. NIPPC clai ths teony is irrlevant beus it proposes tht the published avoided cost rate eligibilty cap should be bas on naeplate capacity rather than average monthy capacity without addressing the naw disagregation issue.14 However, Mr. Grswold's testony in ths passage diretly addresses the negative cost associate with large QF disaggrgation by formulatig a rue tht wi bas publishe avoided cost rate eligibilty on naeplate capacity. Mr. Grswold's testmony rend to the Commssion's naow reues by proposing rues and procedurs tht wil work to exclud disagate project at any size detened by the Commssion. At the same tie, the chalenged testiony of Mr. Grswold on paes 16 and 17 provides the Commsson with evidence tht 10aM may be larer th the Commssion needs to achieve its policy objective of promotig sm renewable energy prjec. In his rebutt testony, Mr. Grswold testies th usin an averae-megawatt siz dett is inertly more subjecve th usin naeplate capaity to dete siz. As the Commssion consders whether an anti-dsaggrgation rue baed on averae megawatt is likely to spawn disputes between the applicant and the utility versus the use of a clearly delineate naeplat capacity, it may also consider Mr. Grswold's testiony on pages 16 and 17. Because th testony addrsses the prblems caus by QF disagaton and prposes a solution, it is relevant to th docket. 14 NIPC's Motion to Strike, at 6. ROCKY MOUNAI POWE'S ANSWE TO MOTION TO STRKE TESTIMONY OF 6 BRUCE GRISWOLD CONCLUSION For the reasons stted above, the Commission should deny NIPC's motion to ste portons of Mr. Grswold's dict testiony, with one exception explaied above. Respectfy submitt Lz£~Mächûš 84 Danel E. Solande USB 11467 Rocky Mounta Power - Jeffer S. Lovier, OSB 960147 Kenet E. Kaufann, OSB 982672 Loviger Kaufman LLP Attornes for Rocky Mountain Power ROCKY MOUNAI POWE'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO S1R TESTIONY OF 7 BRUCE GRISWOLD CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certfy tht on ths 27th day of April, 2011, I causd to be served, via E-mail, a tre and corrct copy of Rocky Mounta Power's Answer to NIPPC's Motion to Strke Testimony in Case No. GNR-E-11-0l to the followig: Donovan E. Waler Lisa D. Nordstrom Idaho Power Company POBox 70 Boise, il 83707-0070 E-mail: dwalker(iidahopower.com lnordstrom(iidahopower.com Danel Solander PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power 201 S. Mai S1., Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84 I I 1 E-mail: daniel.solander(ipacificorp.com Donad L. Howell, II Krstine A. Sasser Deputy Attorneys Genera Idao Public Utilties Commssion 472 W. Washington POBox 83720 Boise, il 83720-0074 E-mail: don.howell(iuc.idaho.gov krs.sasser(iuc.idaho.gov Robert D. Ka Nortwest and Intermounta Power Producers Coalition 11 17 Minor Ave., Suite 300 Seattle, W A 98 101 E-mail: rkah(inippc.org Robert A. Paul Grand View Solar II 15690 Vista Circle Desert Hot Sprigs, CA 9224 I E-mail: robertpau108(igmail.com Michael G. Andrea A vista Corporation 14 I I E. Mission Ave. Spokane, W A 99202 E-mail: michael.andrea(iavistacorp.com Ken Kauf (E-mail Ony) Loviger Kaufm LLP 825 NE Multnomah Suite 925 Portland, OR 97232 E-mail: Kaufman(ilklaw.com Peter J. Richardson Grgory M. Adams Richardson & 0' Lear, PLLC PO Box 7218 Boise, ID 83702 E-mail: peter(irichardsonandolear.com greg(irichardsonandolear.com Don Stuevant Energy Dirctor J.R. Simplot Company PO Box 27 Boise, ID 83707-0027 E-mail: don.stuevant(isimplot.com James Carkuis Manging Member Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC 802 W. Banock S1., Suite 1200 Boise, ID 83702 E-mail: jcarkulis(iexergydevelopment.com Ronald L. Wiliams Wiliams Bradbur, P.C. 1015 W. Hays St. Boise ID, 83702 E-mail: ron(fwillamsbradbur.com Dan Zentz Vice President Sumt Power Group, Inc. 2006 E. Westmnster Spokae, W A 99223 E-mail: dzentz(fsumitpower.com JohnR. Lowe Consultat to Renewable Energy Coalition 12050 SW Tremont St. Portland, OR 97225 E-mail: jravenesanarcos(fyahoo.com Bil Piske, Manger Interconnect Solar Development, LLC 1303 E. Carer Boise, il 83706 E-mail: bilpiske(fcableone.net Paul Marn Intermounta Wind, LLC PO Box 353 Boulder, CO 80306 E-mal: paulmarin(fintermountainwind.com Shelley M. Davis Barker Rosholt & Simpson, LLP 1010 W. Jeffern St. (83702) PO Box 2139 Boise, ID 83701 E-mail: smd(fidahowaters.com Ted Diehl General Manger North Side Canal Company 921 N. Lincoln St. Jerome, ID 83338 E-mail: nscanal(fcableone.net Scott Montgomery President Cedar Creek Wind, LLC 668 Rockwood Dr. Nort Salt Lake, UT 84054 E-mail: scott(fwestemenergy.us Thomas H. Nelson Attorney PO Box 1211 Welches, OR 97067- 121 i E-mail: nelson(fthelson.com R. Greg Ferney Mimur Law Offices, PLLC 2176 E. Franin Rd., Suite 120 Meridian, ID 83642 E-mal: greg(fmimuralaw.com Dean J. Miler McDevitt & Miler, LLP PO Box 2564 Boise, ID 83701 E-mail: joe(fmcdevitt-miler.com Wade Thomas Genera Counel Dynams Energy, LLC 776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15 Eagle, ID 83616 E-mail: wthomas(fdynamisenergy.com Brian Olmstead General Manager Twi Falls Can Compay PO Box 326 Twi Falls, ID 83303 E-mail: olmstead(ftfcana1.com Bil Brown, Cha Board of Commissioners of Adas County, ID PO Box 48 Council, il 83612 E-mail: bdbrown(ffrontiemet.net Ted S. Sorenson, P.E. Birch Power Company 5203 South 11 ti East Idaho Falls, ID 83404 E-mail: tedaYtsorenson.net M.J. Humphres Blue Ribbon Energy LLC 4515 S. Amon Road Amon, il 83406 E-mail: blueribbonenergyaYgmail.com Gar Seifert Kur Myers Idao National Laboratory Conventional Renewable Energy Group 2525 Fremont Ave Idaho Falls, iD 83415-3810 E-mail: gar.seifertaYinl.gov Kur.myersaYinl.gov Megan Walseth Decker Senior Sta Counsel Renewable Nortwest Project 917 SW Oak Street, Suite 303 Portland, OR 97205 E-mal: meganaYmp.org Glenn Ikemoto Margaret Rueger Idaho Windfars, LLC 672 Blai Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 E-mail: glenniaYenvisionwind.com Margaret(ßenvisionwind.com Aron F. Jepson Blue Ribbon Energy LLC 10660 South 540 East Sandy, UT 84070 E-mail: aronesqaYaol.com Ken Miler Snae River Alliance PO Box 1731 Boise, ID 83701 E-mail: kmiler(ßsnakeriveralliance.org Benjam J. Oto Idaho Conservation League 710 N. Sixt Stret (83702) POBox 844 Boise,ID 83701 E-mail: bottoaYidahoconservation.org (1AJRr Care Meyer Coordinator, Admstrtive Services