20101222Comments.pdf

('r- ¡i"jCi
Ronald L. Wiliams, ISB No. 3034
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ronCÐwiliamsbradbur .com
iOW fJEC22 PH l: 55
Attorneys for Dynamis Energy, LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT )
PETITION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY,)
AVISTA CORPORTION, AND ROCKY )
MOUNTAIN POWER TO ADDRESS )
AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND JOINT )
MOTION TO ADJUST THE PUBLISHED )
AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP)
Case No. GNR-E-1O-04
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO
JOINT PETITION TO ADJUST
PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE
ELIGIBILITY CAP FOR NON-WIND
PROJECTS
Pursuat to Order No. 32131 of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission"),
Dynamis Energy, LLC ("Dynamis") files these Comments in Opposition to the Joint Petition of
Idaho Power Company, A vista Corporation and PacifiCorp (PAC) dba Rocky Mountain Power
("RMP); collectively the "Joint Utilties". For the reasons stated below, Dynamis requests that
the Commission refuse to grant the Joint Utilities request for an Order adjusting the published
avoided cost rate eligibility cap ("Cap") for non-wind QFs from 10 MW to 100 kW.
BACKGROUND
Dynamis is an Eagle Idaho based company with proprieta waste-to-energy technology.
Dynamis designs, builds and owns low emission Municipal Solid Waste to Energy ("MSW
Energy") generating facilities. In June, 2010 Ada County selected Dynamis to design, build and
operate a MSW Energy facility to be located at the Hidden Hollow Landfill. Dynamis is also in
Dyamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 1
final negotiations with the Eastern Idaho Solid Waste District ("EISWD") for deployment of a
Dynamis designed and operated MSW Energy facility in Clark County, Idaho. Additionally,
Dynamis is in discussions with Elmore County, Banock County, and Kootenai County for
deployment of Dynamis designed and operated MSW Energy facilities. The Hidden Hollow and
the EISWD Dynamis MSW Energy facilities will provide employment for an estimated 270
people during construction and wil require collectively 94 employees to operate and maintain
the respective facilties.
Dynamis and Idaho Power have had preliminar discussions concernng the Hidden
Hollow Landfill project at a size larger than 10 MW, while the EISWD is in negotiations with
PAC/RP for a project involving generation capacity less than 10 MW. Projects in Elmore and
Banock County (Idaho Power), and Kootenai County (A vista) will likely involve generation
capacity less than 10 MW. Each Dynamis project has the ability to sell not only energy, but to
also offer firm capacity in excess of90 percent. A Dynamis MSW Energy facility is as
dispatchable as any of the purchasing utility's own generation plants not equipped with AGC
(i.e., load following capabilties). A Dynamis MSW Energy facility can be scheduled by the
purchasing utility on a day-ahead basis ranging from a low of 20 percent to high of 110 percent
(for limited periods of time) of nameplate capacity, with a ramp rate of 1 MW every ten minutes.
NON-WIND QUALIFYING FACILITIES SHOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM ANY REDUCTION IN THE 10 MW ELGIBILITY CAP
The justifications provided by Idaho Power in support of its request that the published
avoided cost rate eligibility cap (the "10 MW Cap") be dropped from 10 aMW to 100 kw are: (i)
Idaho Power has over 208 MW of wind generation on its system, 264 MW of additional QF wind
generation under contract and 570 MW of proposed QF wind contracts, and (ii) Idaho Power
could have over 1100 MW of wind power generation on its system in the near future, nearing or
Dynamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 2
exceeding minimum loads. PAC/RP alleges that "the same situation (as Idaho Power's) exists"
but provides no comparable information or metrics as to how or why it is "similarly" impacted.
PAC/RP asserts that 64 MW of contracted-for Idaho QF wind power and 358 MW of potential
Idaho wind QF contracts will cause a resource emergency on a system that peaks at slightly over
10,000 MW. Avista offers no quantitative support as to why it is experiencing a QF resource
emergency justifying a drop of the Cap from 10 aMW to 100 kw.
A. The Commission Should Distinguish Between Intermittent and Firm PURPA
Resources in Evaluating Whether to Reduce the 10 MW Cap: Nowhere in the Joint Petition or
in any supplemental information fied are there any allegations or evidence presented that non-
Wind QFs, such as a Dynamis thermal based MSW Energy facility, are creating a resource
management issue for the three petitioning utilities, either collectively or individually. However,
in a prior case on this very topic, Case No. IPC-E-05-22, Idaho Power asserted that 640 MW of
firm, dispatchable thermal resources would need to be added "in order to safely integrate 1,000
MW of intermittent wind generation." Order No. 29839, p. 5. Dynamis has the abilty to
provide firm power from a certified renewable facility that offers capacity and energy and is
schedulable and dispatchable; operating characteristics necessar for the integration of
intermittent wind power. Development of base load PURPA resources should be encouraged
through the continuation of the 10 MW Cap, as this tye of PURP A resource is not causing the
alleged problem and if such problem exists, can be par of the solution.
B. The Commission Should Distinguish Between Concentrated and Dispersed
PURP A Fuel Sources in Evaluating Whether to Reduce the 10 MW Cap: The Joint Petition
asserts that par of the current problem involves the abilty oflarge wind fars to be broken
down into multiple less than 10 aMW projects. This can occur because wind tubines rely on a
Dynamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 3
highly dispersed fuel source- the wind. For example, a 50 MW wind far will involve dozens
of tubines potentially spread over hundreds of acres; thus, giving the developer the opportunity
to divide a single larger project into a number of smaller ones with roughly the same access to a
homogonous fuel source. On the other hand, a MSW Energy production facilty, by its very
natue, needs to be located strategically near its aggregated fuel source - garbage. For a
Dynamis MSW Energy facility to generate on average 14 MW over the course of one day, it
needs to have access to approximately 250 to 300 tons of garbage per day. A communty with
enough solid waste to generate 50 MW of power would, in most cases, look to generate that
amount of power with a single turbine on a 10 acre site located within a landfill that has enough
available daily garbage to fuel the plant. It is not economical or even practical to instead permit,
establish and operate five smaller and separate waste collection sites, purchase five 10 MW
combustion tubines and pay for five sets of ancilar electrical facilities and interconnections.
MSW Energy is highly sensitive to economies of scale. Nor would it be likely that a local
community or a county would allow for the siting of five dispersed dumps or waste collection
stations, when one would accomplish the same muncipal purose located an already existing
landfilL. Local communties would prefer to see a single MSW Energy facilty located at an
existing dump than at one or more new locations. By its nature, the solid waste that is the fuel for
a MSW Energy facilty is not easily divided, dispersed and relocated at multiple 10 aMW sites
located one mile from another.
CONCLUSION
As noted above, there are a number of Idaho communities, besides Ada County, that are
interested in Dynamis MSW Energy projects, for the primar reason that it helps them resolve
landfill capacity issues. Many or most of these communities will be generating waste streams
Dynamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 4
that will support projects of a capacity size less than 10 aMW. These communities and their
MSW Energy projects should continue to have the choice and abilty to forgo the additional cost
and delay associated with individually negotiating PURP A avoided cost rates and other contract
terms and conditions. The 10 MW Cap and standard avoided cost rates should remain in place
for non-wind PURP A facilities.
Dated this 22 day of December, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
RAß LL)~i
Ronald L. Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
Telephone: [phone]
ronCÐwiliamsbradbur.com
of Attorneys for Dynamis Energy, LLC
Dynamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisi ~ day of December, 2010, I caused to be served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following individuals in the manner
indicated below:
Donovan E. Walker
Lisa Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho Street
Boise, ID 83707
dwalker~idahopower.com
lnordstrom~idahopower.com
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Danie1.solander~pacificorp.com
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Avenue - MSC-23
Spokane, W A 99202
Michael.andrea~avistacorp.com
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Scott Woodbury
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (zip: 83702)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
scott. woodbury~puc.idaho.gov
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, ID 83702
peter~richardsonandoleary .com
greg~richardsonandoleary .com
Attorneys for NIPPC, Simplot,
Grand View, Exergy and Board of
County Commissioners of Adams
County, Idaho
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Dynamis Energy, LLC Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 6
Robert D. Kahn
NIPPC, Executive Director
1117 Minor Ave, Suite 300
Seattle, W A 98101
rkahn~ippc.org
Don Sturtevant
Energy Director
J.R. Simplot Company
999 Main Street, P.O. Box 27
Boise,ID 83707-0027
don.sturtevant~simplot.com
Robert A. Paul
Grand View Solar II
15690 Vista Circle
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241
robertpaul~gmail.com
James Carkulis, Managing Member
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC
802 West Bannock Street, Ste. 1200
Boise,ID 83702
jcarkulis~exergydevelopment.com
Scott Montgomery
Cedar Creek Wind, LLC
668 Rockwood Drive
North Salt Lake, Utah 84054
scott~westemenergy .us
Bil Brown, Chair
Board of Commissioners of Adams County
PO Box 48
Council,ID 83612
dbbrown~frontiemet.net
Dana Zentz, Vice.President
Summit Power Group, Inc.
2006 E. Westminster
Spokane, W A 99223
on behalf of Cedar Creek Wind, LLC
dzentz~summitpower.com
Dynamis Energy, LLC
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 7
Thomas H. Nelson
Attorney for Renewable Energy Coalition
PO Box 1211
Welches, OR 97067-1211
ne1son~thnelson.com
JohnR. Lowe
Consultant to Renewable Energy Coalition
12050 SW Tremont Street
Portland, OR 97225
jravenesanmarcos~yahoo.com
Glenn Ikemoto
Margaret Rueger
Idaho Windfarms, LLC
672 Blair Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
glenni~Envision Wind.com
margaret~nvision Wind.com
R. Greg Ferney
Mimura Law Offces, PLLC
2176 E. Franklin Road, Suite 120
Meridian, ID 83642
greg~mimuralaw.com
Attorneys for Interconnect Solar
Bil Piske, Manager
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC
1303 E. Carter
Boise, ID 83706
bilpiske~cableone.net
Dean J. Miler
McDevitt & Miler LLP
PO Box 2564-83701
Boise,ID 83702
joe~mcdevitt-miler.com
Attorneys for Intermountain Wind
Paul Martin
Intermountain Wind LLC
PO Box 353
Boulder, CO 80306
paulmartin~internountainwind.com
Dynamis Energy, LLC
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 8
Wade Thomas, General Counsel
Dynamis Energy
776 E. Riverside Drive, Suite 15
Eagle, ID 83616
wthomas~dynamisenergy .com
Shelley M. Davis
Barker Rosholt & Simpson, LLP
1010 W. Jefferson St., Ste. 102
PO Box 2139
Boise,ID 83701-2139
smd~idahowaters.com
Attorneys for Twin Falls Canal Company
And North Side Canal Company
Ted S. Sorenson
Birch Power Company
5203 South 11 th East
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
ted~tsorenson.net
Dynamis Energy, LLC
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
o Hand Delivery
~ US Mail (postage prepaid)
o Facsimile Transmission
o Federal Express
o Electronic Transmission
Comments in Opposition to Joint Motion Page 9