The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110318NIPPC Answer re PAC Motions.pdflH.J~r &:((lJLli.."E p:t ATTORNEYS AT LAW Tel: 208-938-7900 Fax: 208-938-7904 P.O. Box 7218 Boise, ID 83707 - 515 N. 27th St. Boise, ID 83702 lOll MAR f8 AM 9= 5f March 18,2011 Ms. Jean Jewell Commission Secretar Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Boise, ID 83702 RE: Case No. GNR-E-ll-Ol Dear Ms. Jewell: We are enclosing for filing in the above-referenced case an original and three (7) copies of the ANSWER OF THE NORTHWEST AND INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCERS COALITION IN OPPOSITION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. An additional copy is enclosed for you to stamp for our records. ~èu Greg Adams Richardson & O'Lear PLLC encL. Peter J. Richardson (ISB # 3195) Gregory M. Adams (ISB # 7454) Richardson & O'Lear, PLLC 515 N. 27th Street P.O. Box 7218 Boise, Idaho 83702 Telephone: (208) 938-7901 Fax: (208) 938-7904 peter(ßrichardsonandoleary.com greg(ßrichardsonandoleary.com RECE riLJ lOll MAR 18 AM 9: 5 , IDAHO PilHjÎ ¡C"UTiUTIES COÁiMIŠSION Attorneys for Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION'S ) INVESTIGATION INTO DISAGGREGATION) CASE NO. GNR-E-11-01 AND AN APPROPRITE PUBLISHED ) AVOIDED COST ELIGIBILITY CAP ~ ANSWER OF THE NORTHWEST AND STRUCTURE FOR PURPA QUALIFYING ) INTERMOUNTAIN POWERFACILITIES ) PRODUCERS COALITION IN ) OPPOSITION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) POWER'S MOTION FOR ) CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR ~ PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to IDAPA 31.01.01.057, the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition ("NIPPC") hereby files this Answer in Opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarification and Motion for Protective Order. For the reasons set forth below, NIPPC respectfully requests that the Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission") deny Rocky Mountain Power's motions. BACKGROUND This case evolved from the Commission's Order No. 32176, reducing the eligibility cap available to wind and solar qualifying facilities ("QFs") under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 ("PURP A") from 1 0 average monthly megawatts ("aMW") to 1 00 kilowatts ("kw"). NIPPC incorporates its filings in Case No. GNR-E-1O-04 by reference. Relevant to this motion, Idaho Power Company, Avista Utilities, and Rocky Mountain Power ("Joint Utilities") complained that large wind projects were "dis aggregating" to obtain published avoided cost rates. NIPPC asserted in Case No. GNR-E-10-04 that the reason "disaggregation" of PURP A QFs ever even began occuring is that the IRP Methodology, as curently implemented, provides a rate that is a gross underestimate of the true avoided costs for projects over 10 aMW. See Tr., Case No. GNR-E-10-04, p. 49-50 (Jan. 27, 2011). NIPPC attempted to offer evidence at oral argument in support of its position. Id at pp. 6-7, 48, 96-99. Avista too offered its witness to testify to the adequacy of the IRP Methodology. Id at pp. 97- 98. In Order No. 32176, the Commission opened a new docket to investigate the "disaggregation" problem. Specifically, the Commission stated: (T)he Commission solicits information and investigation of a published avoided cost rate eligibility cap strctue 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 utility's avoided cost. Order No. 32176 at p. 11. NIPPC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and attached a White Paper, asserting, in par, that the IRP Methodology implemented by each of the Joint Utilities does not compensate QFs for the full avoided costs, and does not faithfully implement the methodology as approved by the NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 2 Commission in Case No. IPC-E-95-09. NIPPC's Petitionfor Reconsideration, GNR-E-1O-04, at pp. 10-14 and Attachment 1. In response, Rocky Mountain Power argued the IRP Methodology will be addressed at some unspecified, later date "when all parties wil be able to present full evidence over the adequacy of the IRP Methodology." Rocky Mountain Power's Answer to NIPPC's Petitionfor Reconsideration, GNR-E-10-04, at p. 6. But Idaho Power and Avista both challenged NIPPC's assertions regarding the IRP Methodology. Idaho Power's Answer to NIPPC's Petition for Reconsideration, GNR-E-1O-04, at pp. 8-12; Avista's Answer to NIPPC's Petition for Reconsideration, GNR-E-1O-04, at pp. 4-5. Idaho Power also made the remarkable arguent that "there is no . . . 'full avoided cost' stadard,'" Idaho Power's Answer to NIPPC's Petitionfor Reconsideration, GNR-E-1O-04, at p. 19, which is arguably a concession that NIPPC is correct regarding the IRP Methodology's failure to provide full avoided cost rates. The Commission opened Case No. GNR-E-11-01 to investigate the perceived disaggregation problem. See Order No. 32195. NIP PC filed Production Requests on the Joint Utilities, inquiring into the Joint Utilties' implementation of the IRP Methodology on March 7, 2011, the responses to which NIPPC intends to use to develop its testimony for the hearing on May 10, 2011. Nine days after NIPPC fied its request, on March 16, 2011, Rocky Mountain Power fied the instant motions for clarification and protective order against NIPPC's inquiry into how it implements the IRP Methodology with its GRID ModeL. According to Rocky Mountain Power, implementation of the IRP Methodology is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and if the Commission allows NIPPC to comment on the matter at the May 5, 2011 hearng, Rocky Mountain Power "wil not have a fair chance to produce (its) testimony and NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 3 refute that offered by NIPPC." Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarifcation and Motion for Protective Order, Case No. GNR-E-11-01, p. 4. LEGAL STANDAR Rocky Mountain Power's request for protective order is governed by IDAP A 31.01.01.221, and LR.C.P. 26. Paries are entitled to discovery "regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to a claim or defense of the pary seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other par." LR.C.P.26(b)(1). "It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." A tribunal may issue a protective order to protect a pary from "anoyance, embarassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," but only "for good cause shown." LR.C.P. 26(c). "If the motion for protective order is denied in whole or in par, the cour may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any pary or person provide or permit discovery." Id ARGUMENT NIPPC has repeatedly expressed its position that the mandatory purchase provisions of PURPA require utilties to pay each QF the fùll avoided costs, including any QF that is a small power production facility up to 80 megawatts in size and meets applicable distance separation characteristics. 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(a), (b); Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilties; Regulations Implementing Section 210 of the Public Utilty Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, 45 Fed. Reg. 12,214, 12,222-12,223 (Feb. 25, 1980). The U.S. Supreme Cour directly affirmed the "full-avoided-cost rule," American Paper Institute, Inc. v. FERC, 461 U.S. 402, NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 4 417-18, 103 S.Ct. 1921, 1930 (1983), and that rule is stil in effect today. NIPPC submits that the adequacy of the methodology for calculating avoided cost rates for projects over the eligibility threshold for published avoided cost rates is the critical issue in any investigation into methods to prevent "disaggregation." If there were a way to obtain a full avoided cost rate without the published rates, QFs able to aggregate small projects would have no incentive to choose to do so. NIPPC's position on how to prevent "disaggregation" is obviously "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." LR.C.P. 26(b)(1). That the adequacy of the IRP Methodology is central to solving any perceived disaggregation problem is highlighted by Rocky Mountain Power's own testimony. With regard to the Cedar Creek wind QF, Rocky Mountain Power's PURPA contracts administrator, Bruce Griswold, testified: In March 2010, the developer requested QF pricing for two 78 MW projects. The projects were priced using the Commission- ordered IRP-methodology for Idaho QFs over 10 aMW. RMP prepared and delivered avoided cost prices which were rejected by the developer due to the price being too low. In May 2010, the developer resubmitted five individual projects totaling 133 MW and requested published avoided cost prices. Direct Testimony of Bruce Griswold, Rocky Mountain Power, Case No. GNR-E-10-04, p. 5. According to Mr. Griswold and Rocky Mountain Power, the problem is that the QFs refuse to go through the IRP Methodology and instead "disaggregate" their projects. Rocky Mountain Power NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 5 then stated at oral arguent that its GRID model values "both energy and capacity of a QF." Tr., GNR-E-1O-04, pp. 101-02.1 Under these circumstaces - where Rocky Mountain Power itself has attempted to rely on the IRP Methodology in its arguents regarding disaggregation in its January 20, 2011 testimony and its Januar 27, 2011 oral arguent - the adequacy of the IRP Methodology is clearly relevant to the matter of disaggregation. To test Rocky Mountain Power's arguents, NIPPC's pending Production Requests have asked Rocky Mountain Power to ru its self-built Rolling Hils wind far through its IRP Methodology to test the model's ability to generate rates that accurately reflect the value of that project's output. See Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Clarifcation and Motion for Protective Order, Case No. GNR - E-11-0 1, Exhibit A, p. 7. In theory, the rates produced by the IRP Methodology should be similar to the rates Rocky Mountain Power charges its customers for that rate-based facility to place prospective QFs on equal footing with the utility. In sum, the adequacy of the methodology to calculate non- published rates is highly relevant to any investigation into ways to prevent large QFs from obtaining published rates. But the Cedar Creek QF indicated that, after three months of waiting, Rocky Mountain Power provided it with an unbelievably low calculation of $37 per MWh. Tr., Case No. GNR-E- 10-04, at pp. 55-57. The principle of the Cedar Creek QF stated in a sworn affidavit that, "based on CCW's bidding experience with PacifiCorp in earlier wind or renewable RFPs, the rates proposed by PacifiCorp were far below 'market' prices for wind generated electricity being built by PacifiCorp, bid to PacifiCorp and/or sold to PacifiCorp." Afdavit of Dana Zentz, Case No. PAC-E-11-0 1, ~ 11 (Jan. 26, 2011). NIPPC is also aware of one wind QF that recently requested IRP Methodology rates from Rocky Mountain Power, but never received any estimated rates whatsoever. See XRG LLCs' Answer to Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. PAC-10-08, p. 6 (Feb. 22, 2011) (stating that Rocky Mountain Power never provided IRP Methodology rates for two over-10aMW wind QF projects). NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 6 Rocky Mountain Power's argument regarding its ability to prepare by May 5, 2011 is fuer undermined by the fact that Avista is working cooperatively with NIPPC's expert to demonstrate how it implements the IRP Methodology in response to NIPPC's production requests. NIPPC's expert, Dr. Don Reading is, in fact, traveling to Spokane on Monday, March 21,2011 for that purose. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, NIPPC respectfully requests that the Commission deny Rocky Mountain Power's motions, and order Rocky Mountain Power to respond to NIPPC's Production Requests. Respectfuly submitted this 18th day of March, 2011. RICHARDSON AND O'LEARY, PLLC fllll; pet f.dson (ISB No: 3195) Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454) Attorneys for the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of March, 2011, a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER was served as shown to the following paries: Jean Jewell Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Boise, ID 83702 jean. jewell(ßpuc.idaho. gov Donald L. Howell II Krstine Sasser Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Boise, ID 83702 don.howeiirgpuc.idaho. gov krs. sasserrgpuc. idaho . gov Donovan E. Walker Lisa D. Nordstrom Idaho Power Company POBox 70 Boise, ID 83707-0070 dwalkerrgidahopower.com lnordstromrgidahopower .com Michael G. Andrea A vista Corporation 1411 E. Mission Street Spokane, W A 99202 michael.andreargavistacorp.com Danel Solander PacifiCorp/dba Rocky Mountain Power 201 S. Main St., Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 daniel.solander(ßpacificorp.com l. Hand Delivery _U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail X- Hand Delivery _U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery iU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 8 Ronald L. Wiliams Wiliams Bradbur PC 1015 W. Hays Street Boise, ID 83702 ron(ßwiliamsbradbury.com Scott Montgomery President, Cedar Creek Wind, LLC 668 Rockwood Dr. North Salt Lake, UT 84054 scott(ßwesternenergy. us DanaZenta Sumit Power Group, Inc. 2006 E. Westminster Spokane, W A 99223 dzentz(ßsummitpower.com Thomas H. Nelson PO Box 1211 Welches, OR 97067 nelson(ßthnelson.com JohnR. Lowe Renewable Energy Coalition 12050 SW Tremont St Portland, OR 97225 jravensanarcos(ßyahoo.com Don Stuevant J.R. Simplot Company PO Box 27 Boise, ID 83707-0027 don. sturtevant(ßsimplot. com Robert A. Paul Grand View Solar II 15690 Vista Circle Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241 robertapaul 08~gmail.com _ Hand Delivery 2LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail ~ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery iU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery iU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile 1l Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 9 James Carkulis Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC 802 W. Banock, Ste 1200 Boise, ID 83702 j carkulisrgexergydevelopment.com R. Greg Ferney Mimura Law Offices, PLLC 2176 E. Franklin Rd., Ste 120 Meridian, ID 83642 greg(ßmimuralaw.com Bil Piske Interconnect Solar Development, LLC 1303 E. Carer Boise, ID 83706 bilpiskergcableone.net Dean J Milere McDevitt & Miler, LLP PO Box 2564 Boise, ID 83701 j oergmcdevitt -miler .com Paul Martin Intermountain Wind, LLC PO Box 353 Boulder, CO 80306 paulmarinrgintermountainwind.com Ronald L. Wiliams Wiliams Bradbur, PC 1015 W. Hays Street Boise, ID 83702 ron(ßwiliamsbradbury.com _ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 10 Wade Thomas Dynamis Energy, LLC 776 W. Riverside Dr., Ste. 15 Eagle, ID 83616 wthomas(ßdynamisenergy.com Shelley M. Davis Barker Rosholt & Simpson, LLC PO Box 2139 Boise, ID 83701 smdrgidahowaters.com Brian Olmstead Twin Falls Canal Company PO Box 326 Twin Falls, ID 83303 olmstead(ßtfcanal.com Ted Diehl North Side Canal Company 921 N. Lincoln St. Jerome, ID 83338 nscanal(ßcableone.net Bil Brown Board of Commissioners of Adams County, ID PO Box 48 Council, ID 83612 bdbrownrgfrontiernet.net Glen Ikemoto Margaret Rueger Idaho Windfars, LLC 672 Blair Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 glenni(ßenvisionwind.com margaret(ßenvisionwind.com Jeffrey S. Lovinger Lovinger Kaufman LLP 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925 Portland, OR 97232 lovinger(ßLKLaw.com _ Hand Delivery -LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail ~ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-01 PAGE 11 Kenneth E. Kaufman Lovinger Kaufmann LLP 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925 Portland, OR 97232 Kaufman(ßLKLaw.com Benjamin J Otto Idaho Conservation League 710 N 6th Street Boise ID 83702 botto(ßidahoconservation.org Gar Seifert Kur Myers Idaho National Laboratory Conventional Renewable Energy Group 2525 Fremont Ave Idaho Falls, ID 83415 _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile lL Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery LU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile Electronic Mail S¡gnediWL M.Adams NIPPC'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GNR-E-11-0l PAGE 12