20101222Comments.pdf

John A. Rosholt, ISB No. 1037
Travis L. Thompson, ISB No. 6168
Shelley M. Davis, ISB No. 6788
BARR ROSHOLT & SIMSON LLP
1010 W. Jefferson St., Ste. 102
P.O. Box 2139
Boise, ID 83701-2139
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
f' i-
t-J r:~
1Q\n nEe 22 PM 3: 42
Attorneys for Nort Side Canal Company and Twin Falls Canl Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, AVISTA
CORPORTION, AND PACIFICORP DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TO ADDRESS
AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND TO ADJUST
THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE
ELIGIBILITY CAP.
) CASE NO. GNR-E-10-04
)
) COMMENTS OF THE NORTH
) SIDE CANAL COMPANY AN
) TWI FALLS CANAL COMPANY
) IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
) OF JOINT PETITION DATED
) DECEMBER 3, 2010
COMES NOW, the North Side and Twin Falls Canal Companes (hereinafer the
"Companes"), by and though their counsel, Barker Rosholt & Simpson, LLP, and submit these
comments in response to the Idaho Public Utilties Commssion's (hereinafer the
"Commission") request for comments as set fort in its Notice of Joint Petition, dated December
3,2010.
COMMNTS
The Commission requested that interested persons, whether they be pares to the
proceedings or not, submit comments in response to the "Joint Petition to Address Avoided
COMMENTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY AND
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3, 2010
1
Costs Issues and Joint Motion to Adjust the Published Avoided Cost Rate Eligibility Cap" filed
on November 5, 2010, by Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain
Power. Specifically in its Notice of Joint Petition, issued December 3,2010, the Commssion
requested at ths preliminar stage in the proceedings that the comments submitted address thee
basic areas of inquir, "(1) the advisabilty of reducing the published avoided costs eligibility
cap; (2) if the eligibilty cap is reduced, the appropriateness of exempting non-wind QF projects
from the reduced eligibilty cap; and (3) the consequences of dividing the larger wind projects
into 10 aMW projects to utilize the published rate." These comments submitted by the
Companes will address the first two areas of inquiry sought to be addressed, but decline to
address the thrd as it is outside of their area of concern and expertise.
The Companes are irrgation companes with a substantial network of delivery canals
and ditches. Over the past several decades these Companes have developed small hydropower
facilities utilzing the irrgation flows withn their irrgation delivery canals. The small hydro
facilties are quaifyig facilties with power sales agreements with Idaho Power Company for
the sale of the power produced. In addition to the hydropower facilties already constrcted, the
Nort Side Canal Company has water rights and is in the process of explorig several more sites
for the development of small hydropower facilties.
Within the past congressiona session there were at least two signficant pieces of
legislation prepared that proposed to streamine the process of developing small hydropower
facilties withn existing irgation systems. The proposals are based on the belief tht
"( d)eveloping projects in man-made water delivery systems would mean little by way of impacts
COMMNTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPAN AND
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPAN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3,2010
2
on environment or wildlife."i Among other measures, both pieces oflegislation, H.R. 5922, and
s. 3570, sought changes to the Federal Power Act tht would alleviate some of the burden of
substatial and expensive consultation with a multitude of action agencies before a license or
exemption could be issued for a project from the Federal Energy Reguatory Commission
(hereinafer "FERC") for a small hydropower project. Both bils also sought new ways of
assisting small power producers through additional fuding and grants from the federal
governent.
In addition to these two bils, the Ary Corps of Engineers, the u.s. Deparent of
Energy and the Deparent of the Interior signed a Memorandum of Understadig (hereinafter
"MOU") in March 2010 wherein each pledged to work collectively in support of "a new
approach to hydropower development that will haronize the production of clean, renewable
power generation with avoidance or reduction of environmenta impacts or maintenance or
enhancements of the viabilty of the ecosystems."i The MOU tasks the agencies with exploring
federal Bureau of Reclamation da facilties that do not yet have a hydropower component, to
evaluate basin-scale additional opportties for hydropower development and to generally
"evaluate the goal of increasing hydropower generation as a priority of each Agency."
Additional MOUs have been implemented between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
and the states of Colorado, Californa, Washigton, Maie and Oregon, to develop pilot
programs "to test options for simplifying and streamlining procedures for authorizing conduit
i Comments of Congressman Adrian Smith, (I Nebraska) in aricle titled "Bil Seeks to Cut Red Tape for small
Hydropower Projects," published at www.brighterenergy.org on July 30, 2010.
2 "Memorandum of
Understanding for Hydropower Among the Deparent of Energy, the Deparent of the
Interior, and the Deparent of the Ary," signed March 2010 by Ken Salaz, Steven Chu, and Jo-Ellen Darcy.
COMMNTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY AND
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPAN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3,2010
3
exemptions and small 5MW or less exemption projects while ensurng environmenta
safeguds." 3
It would not be an overstatement to clai that the past eight months have seen
unprecedented federal interest in the development of new small scale and conduit hydropower
projects. The reports generated, legislation contemplated, and memorandums of understadig
executed in fuerance of these ais at least suggests that there is near-term potential for small
scale hydropower to find beneficial rules and new sources of fuding that have never before been
available to them. The Idaho Public Utilty Commssion, overseeing a state with thousands of
miles of irrgation cans and conduits, as well as a network of irrgation companes and distrcts
with past experience in the development of in-canal hydropower projects, and who already have
approved permits and pending applications for water rights for power puroses withn these
systems, simply should not foreclose those opportties by decreasing the rate eligibilty cap
from 10 aMW to 100kW for hydropower qualifyg facilities.4
If small hydropower project developers in irrgation systems are faced with the prospect
of having to individually negotiate contracts for each small hydropower project, and, based on
past Idaho case law, in each case be requied to demonstrate the avoided cost rate for that
specific project, it would have the opposite effect that the curent federal authorities are
promoting. Many small hydropower projects in Idao fall in the 2 to 10 MW range. In the past,
these projects that generate power durng the irrgation season have provided a very reliable
3 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission New Release dated August 25, 2010, titled "FERC, Colorado Sign
Agreement on Small Hydropower Development."4 The Utilties in their joint petition implied that the project developers using the PUR A model are "sophisticated"
and therefore capable of individually negotiating each project. Whle the Companies have developed some projects
have developed more expertise in these areas, that does not mean that they have the fiancial abilty to hire the
necessar expert to negotiate each individual project.
COMMNTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY AND
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPAN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3,2010
4
additional source of power for Idaho Power Company durg the peak sumer season.
Reducing the eligibilty cap for these hydropower projects rus diectly counter to the newly
ariculated national goals to promote and encourage new small hydropower development.
CONCLUSION
The Companes provide these comments in conformance with the Commission's "Notice
of Joint Petition" dated December 3,2010. These comments are prelimina and addressed only
to the questions upon which the Commission has sought early comment. Given the foregoing
explantion of the position of the Companes, and based on a review of the relevant and recent
authorities concerng small hydropower production, it is inadvisable for the Commssion to
reduce the published avoided cost eligibilty cap, uness hydropower is specifically exempted.
Dated ths 22nd day December, 2010.
BARR ROSHOLT & SIMPSON LLP
ç:-----
/Jd.D~~S
Attorneys for Nort Side Canal Company and
Twin Falls Canal Company
COMMNTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY AND
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3,2010
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22nd day of December, 2010, a tre and correct copy of
the foregoing COMMENTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPAN AND TWIN
FALLS CANAL COMPAN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF JOINT PETITION
DATED DECEMBER 3, 2010 was served upon the followig by the method indication below.
Original and Seven Copies to:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
J ean.Jewell(guc.idaho. gov
Served by Electronic Mail Upon the Following:
Donovan E. Walker
Lisa Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idao St.
Boise, il 83707-0070
dwalker~idahopower.com
Inordstrom~idahopower.com
Danel E. Solander
Rocky Mountan Power
20 i South Mai
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Danel. solander(gacificorp. com
Michael G. Andrea
A vista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave. - MSC-23
Spokane, W A 99202
Michael.andrea~avistacorp.com
g~~Shelley M. Davis
Attorneys for Nort Side Canal Company and
Twin Falls Can Company
COMMENTS OF THE NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY AND
TWI FALLS CANAL COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE
OF JOINT PETITION DATED DECEMBER 3, 2010
6