20120723Legal Brief.pdf

UDA LAW FIRM, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
MICHAEL J. UDA, MS 7 WEST 6TH AVENUE, SUITE 4E
HELENA, MT 59601
TELEPHONE: [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]
July 20, 2012
OVERNIGHT MAIL:
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
RE: GNR-E-1 1-03
Dear Ms. Jewell,
r-
-> r Q r
cn
C) c, o,.
0)
WIWI
Enclosed for filing please find the original and seven copies of Mountain Air Projects, LLC 's
Pre-Hearing Legal Brief. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
cz_ae_~~ Cathleen N. Uda
Legal Secretary
To Michael J. Uda
Enclosures
Admitted in Oregon and Montana
J. Kahle Becker (ISB No. # 7408)
The Alaska Center
1020 W. Main St. Suite 400
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: kahle(Zikahlebeckerlaw.com
RECEIVE
2012JUL23 PM 2: 15
!D.HCP.J.L1C
Michael J. Uda
Uda Law Firm, P.C.
7 W. 6" Avenue, Suite 4E
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: nuda(Eirnthelena.com
Attorneys for Mountain Air Projects, LLC.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
I IN THE MATTER OF THE I
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA QF Case No. GNR-E-1 1-03
CONTRACT PROVISIONS INCLUDING I THE SURROGATE AVOIDED MOUNTAIN AIR PROJECTS,
I RESOURCE (SAR) AND INTEGRATED LLC'S PREHEARING LEGAL
RESOURCE PLANNING (I) BRIEF
METHODOLOGIES FOR
CALCULATING PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATES
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's ("Commission") Notice of
Scheduling Order No. 32388, dated November 2, 2011, potential Intervenor Mountain Air
Projects, LLC' ("Mountain Air") hereby submits its prehearing legal brief. Mountain Air
1 Mountain Air is a subsidiary of Terna Energy USA. Terna is an independent energy company involved in
the development, construction, financing and operation of renewable energy projects. The Mountain Air projects
are Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC ("Cold Springs"); Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC ("Desert Meadow"); Hammett
Hill Windfarm, LLC ("Hammett Hill"); Mainline Windfarm, LLC ("Mainline"); Ryegrass Windfarm, LLC ("Ryegrass");
and Two Ponds Windfarm, LLC ("Two Ponds") (collectively, the "Mountain Air QFs").
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 1
believes that Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power") proposed schedule 74 does not comport
with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3.
Specifically, Mountain Air believes there is substantial federal authority that Idaho Power's
proposed Schedule 74 would violate PURPA by permitting the unilateral and retroactive
modification of Mountain Air's existing QF contracts. Mountain Air also contends that Idaho
Power's proposed Schedule 74 may not be applied to any QF contract with forecast rates, as
those rates necessarily reflect situations where a utility is experience low loading events, and the
forecast rates in the QF contracts concomitantly reflect a lower avoided cost to reflect the lower
value of QF energy in such low load hours. Finally, Mountain Air does not believe that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") regulation, 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(e) permits
curtailment except in very specific and limited "light loading" circumstances, and these do not
include curtailment on economic and environmental grounds. The Commission should not
approve Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Facts
Each of the Mountain Air QFs is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Mountain Air, and
is developing, and will own and operate, wind generation facilities with a gross capacity of 23.0
MW, and an average net output of less than 10 MW per month, that will interconnect to the Idaho
Power transmission system. Each of the Mountain Air QFs has been self-certified as a QF, and
will sell all of its net output under PURPA to Idaho Power, pursuant to a long-term PURPA PPA
with forecast avoided cost rates (the "Mountain Air PURPA PPAs"). Each of the Mountain Air
PURPA PPAs was executed on November 12, 2010, and approved by order of the Idaho PUC
issued on November 16, 2010. Mountain Air has a substantial investment backed expectation in
the revenues to be derived from the rates to be paid in these existing Mountain Air PURPA PPAs,
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 2
and Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 curtailments may substantially undermine those
expectations.
B. Idaho Power's Proposed Schedule 74 Cannot Be Applied To Existing
PURPA PPAs, As This Would Constitute An Impermissible, Retroactive
Modification.
As stated previously, Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 would authorize Idaho Power
to modify, unilaterally and retroactively, the curtailment provisions of existing PURPA PPAs -
PPAs that have already been executed by Idaho Power and reviewed and approved by this
Commission. If the Commission were to approve schedule 74, it would run afoul of FERC's
long-standing FERC policy against invalidating, or permitting retroactive modifications, of pre-
existing PURPA PPAs. Furthermore, there is substantial federal and state court precedent which
forbids just such retroactive application of existing contracts.
FERC has consistently held that an existing PURPA PPA cannot be retroactively modified
to change the avoided cost rate, or other terms and conditions set forth therein, whether the
retroactive modification has been proposed by the QF or the host utility. In Connecticut Valley
Elec. Co. v. Wheelabrator Claremont Co.,2 FERC explained that:
It would not be consistent with Congress' directive to encourage
cogeneration and small power production to upset the settled
expectations of parties to, and to invalidate any of their obligations
and responsibilities thereunder, such executed PURPA sales
contracts.3
2 82 FERC 161,116 (1998), on reh'g, clarification and reconsideration, 83 FERC 11 61,136, aff'd Connecticut
Valley Elec. Co. v. FERC, 208 F.3d 1037 (2000).
Id. at 61,419-20. See also Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 70 FERC 161,215
at 61,677-78 ("SoCal Edison"), order denying reconsideration, 71 FERC 161,269 at 62,079 (1995) (same).
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 3
Instead, the "appropriate time to challenge a state-imposed rate is up to or at the time the contract
is signed, not several years into a contract which has heretofore been satisfactory to both
parties. "4
FERC further elaborated on the rationale underlying its policy against retroactive PURPA
contract modification in New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.5 There, the Commission
rejected a request by New York State Electric & Gas Company ("NYSEG"), a host utility, to
revise the forecast avoided cost rates in PURPA PPAs that, in the utility's view, had become
uneconomic (i.e., the forecast avoided cost rates in the contracts exceeded its avoided cost at the
time of delivery), where NYSEG had not challenged the rates at the time it executed the contract
or in the proceeding in which the contracts were approved by the New York State Public Service
Commission. FERC rejected NYSEG's request to modify the pre-existing PURPA contracts,
first pointing out that FERC's regulations explicitly provide that PURPA is not violated where
forecast avoided cost rates exceed avoided costs at the time of delivery, and that the QFs at issue
here and their investors:
[I]nvested in these projects in the reasonable belief that, once the deadline for
timely challenges had passed, their contracts with NYSEG were lawful and
binding under PURPA.6
These PURPA contracts "allocated risks to both buyers and sellers,"7 and, like NYSEG, the QFs
"bore risks that their agreement would become uneconomic over time."8 FERC further
emphasized that QFs and their investors bear greater development risks than a traditional utility
Connecticut Light & Power Co., 70 FERC 1161,012 at 61,029 ("CL&P"), order denying reconsideration, 71
FERC 161,035 at 61,154 (1995), appeal dismissed sub nom. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FERC, 117 F.3d 1485
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
71 FERC 1161,027, 1995 WL 216781 ("NYSEG"), order denying reconsideration, 72 FERC 1161,067 (1995),
appeal dismissed, New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. V. FERC, 117 F.3d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1997). See also New York
State Elec. & Gas Co. v. Saranac Power Partners, L.P., 117 F.Supp.2d 211 (N.D.N.Y. 2000); Niagara Mohawk Power
Corp. v. FERC, 162 F.Supp.2d 107 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
6 NYSEG, 1995 WL 216781 at * 16.
Id.
Id.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 4
like NYSEG, and, "[a]s a result, they must rely on their power purchase agreements to obtain
project financing."9 FERC then reaffirmed the policy adopted in CL&P and SoCal Edison
against modifying existing PURPA contracts and rejected NYSEG's request, holding that:
If we were to grant the relief requested by NYSEG and allow the reopening of QF
contracts that had not been challenged at the time of their execution,
financeability of such projects would be severely hampered. Such result is not, in
our opinion, consistent with Congress' directive that we encourage the
development of QFs.'°
Following FERC's decision to deny NYSEG the relief it had requested, NYSEG filed an
action in federal district court. In the course of granting defendants' motions to dismiss
NYSEG's federal district court action, the court summarized the holdings of various courts on
the permissibility of retroactively modifying existing PURPA QF contracts:
As discussed above, FERC's regulations, which account for and forgive a rate in
excess of avoided costs in NYSEG's very circumstances, are not illegal and QFs
are entitled to rely on purchase rates in long-term PPAs even if they violate
PURPA's rate cap. See Connecticut Valley, 208 F.3rd at 1043-44; Indep. Energy
Producers Assoc., Inc. V. California Public Utilities Comm 'n, 36 F.3d 848, 858-59
(9th Cir. 1 994)("IEP") (federal regulations provide that QFs are entitled to "lock
in" energy sales at an avoided cost rate calculated at the time the contract is
signed even if the utilities' avoided costs are lower than estimated at the time the
energy is delivered); Smith Cogeneration Management, Inc. v. Corp. Comm 'n,
863 P.2d 1227, 1240 (Okla. 1993) (cogenerator which chooses to set purchase rate
based on avoided costs in long-term PPA as estimated at time contract is signed is
entitled to receive benefits of contract even if, due to changed circumstances,
contract price for power at time of delivery is unfavorable to utility).'
Like NYSEG, Idaho Power could have proposed to include its proposed QF curtailment
provisions before executing any of its existing PURPA contracts, or it could have challenged the
provisions in the executed contracts in the Commission proceeding approving the Mountain Air
PURPA PPAs, but Idaho Power failed to take either action. In fact, Idaho Power submitted the
Id.
10 Id.
Saranac Power Partners, L.P., 117 F.Supp.2d at 237.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief
PURPA PPAs to this Commission for review and approval. Even assuming arguendo that the
curtailment provisions of Schedule 74 as proposed were consistent with PURPA (which they are
not), the time for Idaho Power to challenge the curtailment provisions in its existing PURPA
contracts has passed. FERC and the federal courts have clearly stated that Idaho Power may not
now, years after executing the contracts, challenge the contracts or seek unilateral and retroactive
modification thereof.
C. Schedule 74 Cannot Be Applied To Any PURPA PPA With Forecast Avoided
Cost Rates.
PURPA and FERC's implementing regulations thereunder do not permit Idaho Power to
apply Schedule 74 to curtail a QF that has a PURPA contract with forecast avoided cost rates. In
FERC Order No. 69, FERC explained that QF curtailment under 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(f) of
FERC's regulations is permitted only in very limited circumstances, namely, during "light
loading" periods where "operational circumstances" would drive base load generation units
below minimum generation limits.12 Such a "light loading" justification does not apply to a QF
with forecast avoided cost rates because such rates are calculated as an average avoided cost over
a long term (e.g., 20 years), and therefore already reflect the lower value of QF energy during
low loading periods where the time of delivery avoided costs could be lower than the average,
long-run forecast avoided costs in the contract. In Order No. 69, FERC ruled that that forecast
avoided cost rates will, by necessity, be higher than time of delivery avoided costs at some points
and lower at others, but that, "in the long run, 'overestimations' and 'underestimations' will
balance out."13 Similarly, in Entergy, FERC held that forecast avoided cost rates "already reflect
the variations in the value of the purchase in the lower overall rate," and that "the utility is
12 Order No. 69, 45 Fed. Reg. 12,214, 12,227-28.
13 Id. at 12,224.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief
already compensated," through this lower overall rate, "for any periods in which it purchases
unscheduled QF energy even though that energy's value is lower than the true avoided cost." 4
The forecast avoided cost rates set forth in the Mountain Air PURPA PPAs were
calculated using the SAR methodology, which estimates the value of QF energy and capacity
based on a number of variables, including fuel costs, capital costs, and fixed and variable
operation and maintenance costs. In addition, these forecast avoided cost rates are further
adjusted to account for seasonal variations in value and the time of day in which energy is
delivered. Most importantly, these rates already account for the additional, incremental costs to
Idaho Power of integrating wind generation through the Wind Integration Charge of up to
$6.5 0/MWh, which is deducted from the avoided cost rate in its PURPA contracts with wind
generators. Thus, Idaho Power is already purchasing QF output under its existing PURPA PPAs
on a basis that takes into account the fact that there will be times of both higher value of QF
energy and lower value of QF energy, for instance during "light loading" periods when purchases
could result in negative avoided costs, and is compensated for these lower value periods through
the long-term average rate that it pays to QFs with forecast avoided cost pricing.
D. Schedule 74 Violates FERC's PURPA Regulations Because It Authorizes QF
Curtailment On Economic And Environmental Grounds.
Section 292.304(f) of FERC's PURPA regulations permit curtailment of QF output only
due to operational circumstances that occur during the "light loading" conditions where the
accommodation of QF purchases would require a base load unit to shut down or reduce its output
below minimum generation limits below which it could not increase its output level rapidly when
system demand later increases because of the long lead time (e.g., several days or weeks)
14 Entergyat P56.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 7
required to restart certain base load generation (e.g., coal and nuclear units). 15 Idaho Power's
Schedule 74 is not consistent with FERC's PURPA regulations because it authorizes Idaho Power
to curtail QF output, and avoid its statutory PURPA purchase obligation, in circumstances
beyond the "operational circumstances" contemplated by Section 292.304(f), namely, based on
impermissible economic and environmental considerations.
Specifically, Idaho Power's testimony in this proceeding indicates that Idaho Power
would be permitted to curtail QF output under Schedule 74 in three distinct sets of
circumstances: (1) when base load coal generation would be turned down below its minimum
generating limits, such that the coal units would be forced off line, and would not be able to
return to service for several days; 16 (2) to avoid backing down its run-of-the-river hydro facilities
because of economic concerns; 17 and (3) to avoid backing down its Hells Canyon hydro dam
facility because of environmental license conditions. 18 Idaho Power acknowledges that it can
ramp its hydroelectric resources down and back up again 19 and that it can otherwise sell excess
energy from its through off-system sales or on the spot market at the Mid Columbia hub .20
Only the first of these three circumstances - curtailment to avoid reducing Idaho Power's
base load coal units below minimum generation limits - fits within Section 292.304(f) of
FERC's PURPA regulations. That is to say, the proposed curtailment fits within the
Commission's PURPA regulations provided that (1) it is not applied to existing PURPA PPAs,
and (2) is implemented as Idaho Power says it will be (i.e., only when base load coal facilities
15 Order No. 69, 45 Fed. Reg. 12,214, 12,227.
16 See Direct Testimony by Idaho Power witness Tessia Park, at 21:17-24.
17 See Id. at 20:13-17.
18 See Id. at 20:12-13.
19 See Park Rebuttal Testimony at 10:19-11:23.
20 See Park Direct Testimony at 4:22-5:8 and 9:6-10.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 8
would be pushed below minimum generation limits), and not, as Idaho Power implies in other
places in its testimony, at any time the output of any base load unit is reduced.2'
The second two proposed circumstances in proposed Schedule 74 - economic curtailment
and environmental curtailment - are not authorized under Section 292.304(f) of FERC's
regulations. Idaho Power cannot curtail QF output, and avoid its statutory PURPA purchase
obligation, just because the forecast avoided cost price established by Idaho Power turns out to
be uneconomic at certain points in time. Likewise, Idaho Power cannot use its environmental
obligations as a basis to prioritize its own generation over QF generation, and thereby avoid its
statutory PURPA purchase obligation.
First, by its terms, Schedule 74 permits curtailment during Must Run Periods where, "due
to operational circumstances," continued QF purchases would require Idaho Power (1) "to
dispatch higher cost, less efficient resources to serve system load" or (2) "to make Base Load
Resources unavailable for serving the next anticipated load .,,22 The use of the disjunctive "or"
means that QF curtailment is authorized where continued QF purchases would require Idaho
Power to use higher-cost generation, i.e., for purely economic reasons, without any requirement
that there also be "light loading" conditions for base load units as described in Order No. 69.
This proposal directly contradicts 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(f), as FERC has held that this provision
"cannot be relied upon to curtail purchases of unscheduled QF energy for general economic
reasons."23
Second, Schedule 74 impermissibly permits QF curtailment based on the environmental
limitations on certain hydroelectric resources. Such environmental requirements do not
constitute "operational circumstances" within the meaning of 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(f), and
21
See, e.g., Park Direct Testimony at 15:10-15.
22 Schedule 74 at 1.
23 Entergy at P 55 (citing Order No. 69, 45 Fed. Reg. 12,214, 12,227).
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 9
therefore cannot be used as a ground to justify QF curtailment. FERC has strictly interpreted the
exceptions to the PURPA purchase obligation, and has not permitted utilities to curtail QF output
for any other reason than those set forth in FERC's regulations. 24 Moreover, just last year, in
Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 25 FERC rejected a similar
proposal by Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") to use environmental curtailment to give
BPA's own hydro units priority rights over all other generation on the system and to allow BPA
to curtail all firm wind generation based on BPA's environmental obligations. FERC found that
BPA did not have the right to impose such environmental curtailment of firm wind transactions
on BPA's system because it resulted in unduly discriminatory treatment of wind generators. 26 In
SPP, FERC found that QFs have curtailment rights at least equivalent to firm transactions. 27
Therefore, just like BPA, Idaho Power cannot use environmental curtailment as a basis to give its
hydro units priority rights over all QFs selling under PPAs to Idaho Power and avoid its PURPA
purchase obligation. Such environmental curtailment does not fall within the curtailment
allowed under Section 304(f) of FERC's regulations.
In addition, Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 is inconsistent with 18 C.F.R. §
292.304(f) insofar as it contends that hydroelectric resources are the type of slow ramping base
load units addressed by this provision. As Idaho Power acknowledges, its hydroelectric
resources, have "effectively no incremental cost"28 and can be dispatched "on demand ,,29 "to
meet system balancing needs ... of the wind generators."30 Idaho Power's claim that these
24 See Entergy at PP 52-58.
137 FERC 61,185 (2011) ("BPA").
26 See Id. at P 78.
27 See, e.g., SPP at PP 14-15.
28 Park Direct Testimony at 11:5-6.
Id. at 12:11-12.
30 Id. at 12:23-24.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 10
resources cannot be rapidly ramped up or down to accommodate QF purchases is therefore not
credible. 31
Moreover, Idaho Power freely acknowledges that it can, and routinely does, sell excess
power through off-system sales and on the spot market. Curtailment under 18 C.F.R. §
292.304(f) is limited to specific "operational circumstances" in which Idaho Power would
actually have to back down its base load coal units below their minimum generation limits and
the units could not be returned to service in a timely manner when needed to serve load, not
when economic conditions are not to Idaho Power's liking.
Finally, the Montana Public Service Commission ("MPSC") recently rejected a request
for declaratory ruling by North Western Energy ("NorthWestern") that would have permitted that
utility to curtail QFs for economic reasons. 32 In refusing to accept NWE's interpretation of 18
C.F.R. § 292.304(f) and Montana's own "light loading" curtailment rule, the MPSC held:
12. In light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that N WE's proposed curtailment
language is not authorized by state or federal law, and NWE is prohibited from
demanding that new QFs with whom it is negotiating accept such language as a pre-
condition of contracting with NWE for the sale of their output to the utility. If market
conditions occasionally result in prices less than NWE' s tariffed avoidable costs, that
is not in itself a sign that the principle of consumer indifference is unlawfully being
violated-no more than if a long-term acquisition of NWE's own were to result in a
fixed-and-variable cost-per-unit which were higher than prices available on the spot
market. Sec. 18 CFR 292.304(b) (5).
Note that NorthWestern did not propose, as Idaho Power has, that its economic
curtailment language could be applied to existing QF contracts. Note further that the MPSC
adopted the reasoning of many federal and state courts that the economic justification for
31 With respect to Idaho Power's run-of-river resources, Idaho Power initially claimed that it cannot ramp
down these resources to accommodate OF purchases due to FERC licensing requirements for its run-of-river
resources, but it subsequently acknowledged that it is capable of decreasing generation from its run-of-river
resources in compliance with the Commission's licensing requirements. See Park Rebuttal Testimony at 10:19-
11:23.
32 Montana Public Service Commission Docket No. D2011.7.57, Order 7172 (Sept. 13, 2011) at p. 8, 1112.
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 11
curtailment - i.e., that QF contract rates temporarily exceed market - do not violate avoided cost
principles thus justifying curtailment of QF contracts.
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mountain Air requests that the Commission: (1) not approve Idaho
Power's proposed Schedule 74 to permit curtailment of Mountain Air's existing PURPA PPAs as
this result is plainly contrary to well established law and precedent as a violation of PURPA; (2)
not approve the application of Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 to any QF with forecast
avoided cost rates; and (3) not approve Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 because it exceeds
the scope of permissible curtailments set forth in FERC's PURPA regulation, 18 C.F.R. §
292.304(f); and (4) grant such other relief as may be necessary to protect Mountain Air's
interests.
DATED this 20th day of July 2012.
By:
J. Kahle Becker, Idaho (ISB No. # 7408)
The Alaska Center
1020 W. Main St. Suite 400
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: kahie(ilkahlebeckerlaw.com
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Prehearing Legal Brief was served via e-
mail on this 201h day of July, 2012 upon the following:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY:
(Exhibit Nos. 1-100)
AVISTA CORPORATION:
(Exhibit Nos. 101-200)
Donovan E. Walker
Jason B. Williams
Idaho Power Company
P0 Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
E-mail: dwalker(didahopower.com
[e-mail]
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave.
Spokane, WA 99202
E-mail: michae1.andrea(avistacorp.com
PACIFICORP, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER: (Exhibit Nos. 201-300)
Daniel Solander
PacifiCorp/ dba Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main St., Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 13
COMMISSION STAFF: Kristine A. Sasser
(Exhibit Nos. 301-400) Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities
Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
P0 Box 83720
Boise, ED 83720-0074
E-mail: [e-mail]
THE NORTHWEST AND Peter J. Richardson
INTERMOUNTAIN POWER Gregory M. Adams
PRODUCERS COALITION: Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
(Exhibit Nos. 401-500) P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
greg(richardsonando1eary.com
Robert D. Kahn
Executive Director
Northwest and Intermountain Power
Producers Coalition
1117 Minor Ave., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: rkahnnipDc.org
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY: Peter J. Richardson
(Exhibit Nos. 501-600) Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail:
peter (iirichardsonandolear. corn
greg(richardsonandoleary.com
Don Sturtevant
Energy Director
J.R. Simplot Company
P0 Box 27
Boise, ID 83707-0027
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief
GRAND VIEW SOLAR II:
(Exhibit Nos. 601-700)
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT
GROUP OF IDAHO, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 701-800)
RENEWABLE ENERGY COALITION:
(Exhibit Nos. 801-900)
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: peter(richardsonandoleary.com
greg(richardsonandoleary.com
Robert A. Paul
Grand View Solar II
15690 Vista Circle,
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241
E-mail: robertalaui 08cgmaii.com
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: peter,richardsonandoleary .com
gregirichardsonandoleary.com
James Carkulis
Managing Member
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC
802 W. Bannock St., Suite 1200
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail:
jçtrkulis(exergydeve1opment.com
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83703
E-mail: dreading(iimindspring.com
Ronald Williams
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: ronwi1liamsbradbury.com
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 15
John R. Lowe
Consultant to
Renewable Energy Coalition
12050 SW Tremont St.
Portland, OR 97225
E-mail:
I ravenesanrnarcos(d',yahoo.com
INTERCONNECT SOLAR
DEVELOPMENT, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 901-1000)
DYNAMIS ENERGY, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 1001-1100)
R. Greg Ferney
Mimura Law Offices, PLLC
2176 E. Franklin Rd., Suite 120
Meridian, ID 83642
E-mail: greg(mimuraiaw.com
Bill Piske, Manager
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC
1303 E. Carter
Boise, ID 83706
E-mail: bil Ipiske@,cableone. net
Ronald L. Williams
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
1015 W. Hays Street
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
Wade Thomas
General Counsel
Dynamis Energy, LLC
776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15
Eagle, ID 83616
E-mail:
wthomasdynamisenergy. com
NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY
TWIN FALLS CANAL COMPANY:
(Exhibit Nos. 1101-1200)
C. Thomas Arkoosh
Capitol Law Group, PLLC
205 N. 10th St., 4th Floor
P0 Box 2598
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail:
tarkoosh(capitollawgroup.com
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 16
ELECTRONIC SERVICE ONLY
Brian Olmstead
General
Manager
E-mail: [e-mail]
Ted Diehl
General Manager
North Side Canal Company
E-mail: nscana1(cableone.net
Don Schoenbeck RCS
E-mail: [e-mail]
Lori Thomas
Capitol Law Group, PLLC
E-mail: 1thomas(dcapitollawgroup.corn
THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ADAMS COUNTY,
IDAHO: (Exhibit Nos. 1201-1300)
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
greg(drichardsonandoleary.com
Bill Brown, Chair
Board of Commissioners
of Adams County, ID
P0 Box 48
Council, ID 83612
E-mail: [e-mail]
BIRCH POWER COMPANY: Ted S. Sorenson, P.E. Birch
(Exhibit Nos. 1301-1400) Power Company 5203 South 1 I 1
East Idaho Falls, ID 83404
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 17
IDAHO WINDFARMS, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 1401-1500)
BLUE RIBBON ENERGY LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 1501-1600)
RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT:
(Exhibit Nos. 1601-1700)
Glenn Ikemoto
Margaret Rueger
Idaho Windfarms, LLC
672 Blair Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
E-mail: glennicenvisionwind.com
margaret(envisionwind.com
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420 W. Bannock St. (83702)
P0 Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: [e-mail]
M.J. Humphries
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
3470 Rich Lane
Ammon, ID 83406
E-mail: b1ueribbonenergygmaiLcorn
Arron F. Jepson
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
10660 South 540 East
Sandy, UT 84070
E-mail: arronesg(aol.com
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420 W. Bannock St. (83702)
P0 Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: joe(ihncdevitt-mi1ler.com .
Megan Walseth Decker
Senior Staff Counsel
Renewable Northwest
Project
421 SW 6th Avenue, Suite
1125 Portland, OR 97204
E-mail: meganrnp.org
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 18
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE:
(Exhibit Nos. 1701-1800)
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE:
(Exhibit Nos. 1801-1900)
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street (83702)
P0 Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail: botto(idahoconservation.org
Liz Woodruff
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P0 Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
Email: woodruff(,snakerivera11iance.org
knii1ler(snakeriveralliance.org
CLEAR WATER PAPER CORPORATION:
(Exhibit Nos. 1901-2000)
ENERGY INTEGRITY PROJECT:
(Exhibit Nos. 2001-2 100)
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
P0 Box 7218
Boise, ED 83702
E-mail: peter(ri chard sonandoleary. com
gregLa
Mary Lewallen
Clearwater Paper Corporation
601 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100
Spokane, WA 99201
E-mail: [e-mail]
Tauna Christensen
Energy Integrity Project
769N 1100E
Shelley, ID 83274
E-mail: taunaPa
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 19
IDAHO WIND PARTNERS I, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 2101-2200)
RIDGELINE ENERGY, LLC:
(Exhibit Nos. 2201-2300)
Deborah E. Nelson
Kelsey J. Nunez
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock Street (83702)
P0 Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701-2720
E-mail: dengivenspurs1ey.com
kjn(givenspursley.corn
Dean J. Miller
Chas. F. McDevitt
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420 W. Bannock St. (83702)
P0 Box 2564
Boise, ED 83701
E-mail: joemcdevitt-miEier.com
chasrncdevitt-mi1ler.eorn
The foregoing was filed via overnight service (original and 7 copies) and e-mail to the following:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: Jean.Jewell(puc.idaho.gov
Legal Secretary to
Michael J. Uda
Mountain Air Projects Pre-Hearing Legal Brief 20