20120720Legal Brief.pdf

McDevitt & Miller LLP
Lawyers RECEIVE)
420 W. Bannock Sti
[phone] P.O. Box 2S64837M1L JUL 20 An tu Chas. F. McDevitt
[phone] (Fax) Boise, Idaho 83702 FijI: Dean J. (Joe) Miller
tJT t CJ1I
July 20, 2012
Via Hand Delivery
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re: GNR-E-11-03
Renewable Northwest Project
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above matter, please find an original and seven (7) copies of Renewable
Northwest Project's Legal Brief.
Kindly return a file stamped copy to me.
Very Truly Yours,
McDevitt & Miller LLP
DJM/hh
Enclosures
ORIGINAL
Dean J. Miller (ISB No. 1968)
Chas. F. McDevitt (ISB No. 835)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
joe(mcdeviU-mi1Ier.com
chas(mcdevitt-miller.com
Dina M. Dubson
Staff Counsel
Renewable Northwest Project
421 SW 6th Avenue, Ste. 1125
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: [phone]
dinamp.org
Attorneys for Renewable Northwest Project
RE C E". V ED
2012JUL20 At11100
JAII() PUi UTILTES) GOMMcSSO
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF PURPA
QF CONTRACT PROVISIONS
INCLUDING THE SURROGATE
AVOIDED RESOURCE
(SAR) AND INTEGRATED RESOURCE
PLANNING (IRP) METHODOLOGIES
FOR CALCULATING PUBLISHED
Case No. GNR-E-11-03
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE
NORTHWEST PROJECT
IPlts)ø1SIW we) 1
Renewable Northwest Project ("RNP") respectfully submits this Legal Brief
("Brief') in the above-captioned proceeding. In its limited participation in this
proceeding, RINP takes the following two positions: (i) federal law prevents automatic
assignment of renewable energy credits ("RECs") generated by certain qualifying
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -1
facilities ("QFs") to utilities that purchase energy and capacity from those QFs at avoided
cost rates, at least when no provision of state law mandates such assignment, and (ii) the
curtailment provision proposed in this proceeding is impermissible with respect to both
existing contracts and fixed-rate contracts.
Before addressing those issues, Part I of this Brief provides an overview of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), including the historical
context, the purpose for which it was enacted, and key provisions regarding utilities'
obligations to purchase the energy and capacity made available by generating facilities
approved as QFs.
Part II of this Brief argues that federal law prevents the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") from automatically assigning the RECs generated by
certain QFs to the utilities that purchase energy and capacity from those QFs pursuant to
PURPA. Under PURPA, utilities purchase the output from QFs at rates based on the
utilities' avoided energy and capacity costs. These avoided cost rates do not compensate
for environmental attributes, and any such compensation would have to occur pursuant to
state law—not under PURPA. In Idaho, no state law provides for the assignment of
RECs from QFs to the purchasing utilities. Moreover, automatically assigning RECs to
utilities without compensating the QFs for their environmental attributes would
discriminate against the QFs. Accordingly, RNP urges the Commission to reject the
proposal advanced by PacifiCorp, d.b.a. Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain")
and supported by Commission Staff and Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power") to
automatically assign RECs generated by QFs to the purchasing utilities.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -2
In Part III, RNP encourages the Commission to reject Idaho Power's proposed
Schedule 74 insofar as it would unilaterally amend existing QF contracts and
impermissibly apply to fixed-rate contracts. If applied to future, non-fixed-rate contracts,
the curtailment provision should be refined to be consistent with PURPA, balanced with
other tools to manage system generation, and sufficiently bounded to give QFs
reasonable certainty about curtailment exposure.
ARGUMENT
I. PURPA Is Intended to Encourage the Development of Generation Produced
by Indetendent Co-generators and Small Power Producers.
PURPA has its genesis in the national energy crisis of the 1970's, which exposed
the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to dependence on foreign oil and a lack of adequate
competition in the supply of electricity. See, e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Comm 'n v.
Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 745-46 (1982). In response to the energy crisis, Congress
enacted PURPA in 1978 to lessen the nation's dependence on oil imports and promote
the development of independent, domestic generating facilities. See, e.g., id.; Grandview
PVSolar Two, LLC v. Idaho Power Co, Case No. IPC-E-1 1-15, Order No. 32580 at 3
(June 21, 2012) [hereinafter Order 32580].1 To accomplish this, Section 210 of PURPA
directs electric utilities to purchase any available energy and capacity from eligible co-
generators and small power producers that obtain QF status under PURPA. See 16
U.S.C. § 824a-3(b) (2006); 18 C.F.R. § 292.303(a) (2012). This mandatory purchase
requirement is intended to encourage the development of wholesale markets generally
1 Order 32580 did not attempt to resolve the broad issue of REC ownership. Rather, it
narrowly held that because the issue was undecided, Grandview's motion for summary
judgment could not be granted. The broad issue of assignment of RECs is reserved for
this proceeding. See Case No GNR-E- 11-03, Order No. 32352 at 4 (Sept. 1, 2011).
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -3
and QFs in particular. See Direct Testimony of William Hieronymus on behalf of Idaho
Power Co., P. 18; Rebuttal Testimony of Don Reading on behalf of Clearwater Paper
Corp., J.R. Simplot Co., and Exergy Development Group, LLC, P. 12 [hereinafter
Reading Rebuttal]; Order 32580 at 3.
PURPA requires that utilities buy energy and capacity from QFs at rates that (i)
are just and reasonable to the utilities' ratepayers, (ii) are in the public interest, and (iii)
do not discriminate against the QFs. 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b); 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(a).
Such rates paid to QFs for their energy and capacity are not to exceed the purchasing
utility's incremental cost of alternative electric energy, commonly referred to as the
utility's "avoided cost." See 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b); 18 C.F.R. § 292.101(b)(6).
"Avoided costs" are defined as "the incremental costs to an electric utility of electric
energy or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from the qualifying facility or
qualifying facilities, such utility would generate itself or purchase from another source."
18 C.F.R. § 292.101(b)(6).
II. The Commission Should Reject the Proposal to Automatically Assign the
RECs Generated by OFs to the Purchasing Utilities.2
As discussed above, PURPA requires utilities to purchase the output from QFs at
avoided cost rates based on the utilities' avoided energy and capacity costs. These
avoided cost rates do not compensate for RECs or any other environmental attributes—
nor could they, as any such compensation would have to occur under state law, not
PURPA. No Idaho law provides for the assignment of RECs from QFs to the purchasing
utilities, and in the absence of such a law, the Commission cannot automatically assign
2 See the Direct Testimony of Paul H. Clements on behalf of Rocky Mountain at 6-10 for
the proposal to directly assign the RECs generated by renewable energy QFs to utilities
that purchase energy and capacity from those QFs at avoided cost rates.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -4
the RECs to the purchasing utilities. Moreover, automatically assigning RECs to utilities
that purchase energy and capacity without compensating the QFs for their environmental
attributes would discriminate against the QFs and discourage future QF development.
Accordingly, RNP urges the Commission to reject the proposal to automatically assign
RECs generated by QFs to utilities that purchase energy and capacity from those QFs.
1. RECs are a creature of state law and exist outside of PURPA.
A REC is a certificate that represents the environmental attributes associated with
1 MWh of electricity generated from a renewable resource. Order 32580 at 4. Although
renewable energy generation is what enables the REC to be created in the first instance,
the environmental/renewable/green aspect of the generation is "unbundled" from the
energy itself and sold separately from the underlying energy. See id. (citing
Wheelabrator Lisbon v. Connecticut Dept. Public Utility Control, 531 F.3d 183, 186 (2d
Cir. 2008). Thus, a REC compensates only for the environmental or green attributes of
renewable energy generation—not energy or capacity. California Public Utilities
Comm'n, 133 FERCJ 61,059 at 31 (Oct. 21, 2010); American Ref-Fuel Co., 105 . FERC
¶ 61,004 at P 23 (Oct. 1, 2003).
RECs are a fairly recent invention of state law, and are often used by utilities to
comply with state Renewable Portfolio Standards ("RPSs"). Order 32580 at 4-5;
American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC ¶ 61,004 at P 23. RPSs are programs that have been
adopted by various states in order to promote the development of renewable energy
resources and meet the related goals of improved air and water quality, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and increased fuel security and fuel diversity. Order 32580 at
3-4; American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC ¶ 61,004 at P 4. Pursuant to most state RPSs, subject
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -5
utilities must generate or purchase a certain percentage of their annual electric generation
or retail sales from eligible renewable energy resources. Order 32580 at 3. Although
RPS programs share some overlapping goals with PURPA, these programs are separate
and distinct from PURPA, and tend to be more focused on the environmental attributes of
the generation, rather than the project size or ownership. See Order 32580 at 3-5;
American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC 161,004 at P 4, 23.
Because RECs are "created by the States [and] exist outside the confines of
PURPA," PURPA does not address the ownership of RECs. American Ref-Fuel, 105
FERC 161,004 at P 23. Thus, any decision as to who owns the RECs generated by a
renewable energy facility must be made outside of the PURPA context, such as via the
adoption of an RPS. In adopting programs that give rise to REC creation, states have the
power to determine who owns the RECs and how they may be sold or traded. Id The
State of Idaho has not adopted an RPS or created another REC program and thus no
Idaho law provides for the automatic assignment of RECs generated by QFs to the
purchasing utilities. See Order No. 32580 at 5; Direct Testimony of Donald W.
Schoenbeck on behalf of North Side Canal Company, Twin Falls Canal Company, and
Renewable Energy Coalition, P. 27 [hereinafter Schoenbeck Direct].
2. Avoided cost rates do not compensate for a OF's environmental
attributes—RECs or otherwise.
As the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has consistently
concluded, under PURPA, avoided cost rates may only compensate QFs for purchased
energy and capacity; environmental attributes, such as RECs, are not part of the avoided
cost payment. Morgantown Energy Associates et al., 139 FERC 161,066 at P 47 (Apr.
24, 2012); American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC ¶ 61,004 at P 22; California Public Utilities
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -6
Comm 'n, 133 FERC ¶ 61,059 at P 31; Order 32580 at 3. This requirement is because
avoided cost rates are intended to put the purchasing utility in the same position when
purchasing QF energy and capacity as if the utility had generated the energy itself or
purchased it from another source. See 18 C.F.R. § 292.101(b)(6); American Ref-Fuel,
105 FERC ¶ 61,004 at P 22. In other words, the avoided cost rate should render the
utility indifferent from a pricing standpoint as to whether the energy and capacity comes
from a renewable resource or a fossil fuel plant.3 American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC ¶
61,004 at P 22; Rebuttal Testimony of Donald W. Schoenbeck on behalf of North Side
Canal Company, Twin Falls Canal Company, and Renewable Energy Coalition, P. 9
[hereinafter Schoenbeck Rebuttal].
In states where a utility is obligated to build or purchase renewable generation
pursuant to a law other than PURPA (such as an RPS), it may be appropriate to calculate
the avoided cost based on the cost of the next avoidable renewable resource. However, in
Idaho, the avoided cost rate is set based on (i) the levelized cost of a combined cycle
combustion turbine under the SAR methodology, and (ii) a number of resources, the
majority of which are fossil fuel plants, under the IRP methodology. See, e.g., Reading
Rebuttal at 7-8; Schoenbeck Rebuttal at 10-11. Neither the SAR nor the IRP
methodology factors in the renewable attributes of the QF generation in setting the
avoided cost rate, and thus, neither compensates for a renewable QF's environmental
attributes in any fashion. See Schoenbeck Direct at 26-27; Schoenbeck Rebuttal at 10-11;
Direct Testimony of Don Reading on behalf of Clearwater Paper Corp., J.R. Simplot Co.,
Standard avoided cost rates may differentiate among QFs on the basis of supply
characteristics; however, these characteristics are separate from the renewable or
environmental attributes of a QF. See 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(c)(3)(ii).
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -7
and Exergy Development Group, LLC, P. 58-59 [hereinafter Reading Direct]. Even if
the Idaho avoided cost rate were set pursuant to the next avoidable renewable resource,
the RECs themselves could only be conveyed to the utilities pursuant to a state law
separate from PURPA.
Contrary to Rocky Mountain's assertions, a facility's renewable or other
environmental attributes are not what enable it to achieve its QF status under PURPA.
Rather, as discussed in Part I, PURPA was enacted during a time when ratepayers' costs
were going up due to utilities' heavy reliance on oil imports and the general lack of
competition in electricity markets. PURPA was intended to help foster a market for
power produced by domestic, independent generators—renewable and non-renewable
alike. Indeed, PURPA expressly allows for non-renewable generators, such as co-
generators, to obtain QF status and sell their power to utilities at avoided cost rates. See
18 C.F.R. §§ 292.203(b), 292.205. Moreover, if Rocky Mountain were correct that the
only reason why utilities must buy from QFs under PURPA is because of the QFs'
environmental attributes, states would not need to resort to adopting RPS programs that
are specifically aimed at promoting renewable energy and REC sales (as opposed to
independent generation that may or may not be renewable).
Because avoided cost rates do not compensate for environmental attributes,
Rocky Mountain's assertion that utilities purchasing energy and capacity from QFs
would pay twice for the renewable attributes of the generation is both factually and
legally incorrect. Quite the opposite is true—automatically conveying a renewable QF's
RECs to the purchasing utility without providing the QF separate compensation for the
RECs would provide a windfall to the utility.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -8
3.Automatically assigning RECs to utilities purchasing from OFs would
discriminate against OFs, in violation of PURPA.
PURPA provides that avoided cost rates must not discriminate against QFs. 18
C.F.R. § 292.3 04(a)(1); Morgantown Energy Associates, 139 FERC ¶ 61,066 at P 47;
American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC 161,004 at P 20. As noted above, FERC has consistently
concluded that PURPA avoided cost rates do not compensate for RECs. Morgantown
Energy Associates, 139 FERC ¶ 61,066 at P 47; American Ref-Fuel, 105 FERC ¶ 61,004
at P 22-23. In addition, Idaho's avoided cost rates are not set based on the next avoidable
renewable resource and thus do not factor any of the renewable or environmental
attributes of the QF generation into the avoided cost calculation. Because the
environmental attribute reflected in a REC is a separate and distinct commodity from the
energy generated by the facility that produced the REC, the renewable energy generator
should receive separate compensation for the environmental component—either through
a renewable energy avoided cost rate or a separate REC payment. Automatically
assigning the RECs from renewable QFs to the utilities without compensating the QFs for
their environmental attributes would mean that the utilities are receiving energy, capacity
and environmental attributes but only paying an avoided cost rate for energy and
capacity. Such a result would render the avoided cost rates discriminatory towards QFs,
in violation of PURPA. In addition to running afoul of PURPA' s anti-discrimination
provision, assigning the RECs to the utilities would undermine PURPA's policy objective
of encouraging independent, domestic generation because it would make it more difficult
for renewable energy QFs to obtain financing for their projects.
4.The Commission should conclude that OFs are the default owners of
RECs unless and until a state law or mutually agreed-upon contractual
provision between OFs and utilities provides otherwise.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -9
In this proceeding, the Commission should hold that REC payments are separate
from compensation to QFs for energy and capacity at avoided cost rates, that QFs are the
default owners of RECs from QFs, and that QFs and utilities are free to negotiate as to
who owns the RECs under their contracts. Because there is no state or federal law in
place that would allow Idaho utilities to be automatically assigned the RECs from
renewable QFs, the most logical and equitable conclusion would be to find that
renewable QFs are the default owners of the RECs. Such a finding would recognize that
QFs are the ones generating the RECs in the first instance and are entitled to
compensation for those RECs that is separate from the compensation for energy and
capacity under Idaho's avoided cost rates. Finding that QFs are the default owners of the
RECs would also help prevent against QFs being paid avoided cost rates that discriminate
against them and would reinforce PURPA's policy goal of encouraging QF development.
As the Commission has correctly held, parties to a QF contract are free to contract
for the ownership of RECs. Order 32580 at 10. Thus, while a QF may be the default
owner of the RECs it generates, in entering into a contract with a utility for the sale of
energy and capacity, the QF may agree to convey its RECs to the purchasing utility at a
price that is equal to the utility's avoided capacity and energy costs or at another price.
However, under PIJRPA, the utility is not automatically entitled to the RECs.
III. The Commission Should Reject Idaho Power's Proposed Schedule 74 as
Impermissible With Respect to Existing OF Contracts, and Reject or Refine
the Proposal for Application to Future Contracts.4
See the Direct Testimony of Tessia Park on behalf of Idaho Power at 18-26 for details
on the proposed Schedule 74.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -10
RNP supports the positions taken by Ridgeline Energy LLC ("Ridgeline") in its
Brief with respect to Idaho Power's proposed Schedule 74 and encourages the
Commission to reject Schedule 74 as an impermissible curtailment of QF output,
particularly as applied to existing contracts. As Ridgeline notes in its brief, the sanctity
of contracts is a cornerstone of American law that is reflected in a plethora of legal
opinions as well as the Idaho Constitution. See, e.g., Idaho Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 16;
Fidelity State Bank v. North Fork Highway Dist., 35 Idaho 797 (1922). Neither the Idaho
Legislature nor state agencies may infringe upon existing contracts. Allowing Idaho
Power's proposed Schedule 74 to apply to existing contracts without mutual agreement of
the parties to those contracts would constitute an impermissible encroachment upon such
contracts. Reading Direct at 50-51; Schoenbeck Direct at 37-38.
Even if Schedule 74 did not seek to curtail existing QFs via unilateral contract
modification, it would still be problematic. RNP agrees with Ridgeline that 18 C.F.R. §
292.304(f) does not allow for the curtailment of QFs with fixed-rate contracts, and that
such a curtailment proposal is not necessary to compensate Idaho Power for changes in
the utility's operating costs because fixed rates take these variations into account. See
also Reading Direct at 48-58; Schoenbeck Direct at 36-42.
RNP understands that there are certain times when limited curtailment of QF
generation may be appropriate. However, proposals to curtail QF generation must be
consistent with PURPA rules, regulations and policy objectives. Such proposals should
also be fair and reasonable, providing a sufficient level of certainty to permit QF
developers to understand the extent of curtailment exposure to which a contract provision
exposes them before entering into the contract. In addition, these proposals should be
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -11
balanced with other methods for managing generation that spread the responsibility for
system management across all generating resources without placing a disproportionate
burden on QFs. Accordingly, RNP encourages the Commission to reject Idaho Power's
proposed Schedule 74, particularly as applied to existing contracts and fixed-rate
contracts, and encourages Idaho Power and the Commission to work toward a narrower
and more balanced curtailment proposal that would be consistent with PURPA.
CONCLUSION
RNP appreciates the challenge that the Commission faces in sifting through
diverse perspectives to arrive at a balanced PURPA implementation policy. RNP has
focused its arguments primarily on the REC ownership issue because, on that issue in
particular, existing federal law establishes clear sideboards that constrain the
Commission's decision. To remain consistent with PURPA, the Commission should
conclude that (i) REC payments are separate from compensation to QFs for energy and
capacity at avoided cost rates; and (ii) QFs are the default owners of RECs from QFs, but
are free to negotiate with the utilities that purchase energy and capacity from those QFs
as to who owns the RECs under their contracts.
With regard to curtailment, RNP encourages the Commission to reject unilateral
modification of existing contracts, particularly when the modification is a curtailment
provision that is inconsistent with federal PURPA regulations. Going forward, the
Commission should ensure that any curtailment provision applied to future, non-fixed
rate contracts is consistent with federal regulations, is sufficiently certain to allow QFs to
plan for exposure to curtailment events, and is complemented by other tools that fairly
apportion responsibility for managing system conditions.
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -12
DATED this L day of July, 2012.
MCDEVITT & MILLER, LLP
By*illerWL
Attorney for Renewable Northwest Project
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the RV!lay of July, 2012, I caused to be served, via the
method(s) indicated below, true and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secretary Hand Delivered
Idaho Public Utilities Commission U.S. Mail
472 West Washington Street Fax
P.O. Box 83720 Fed. Express
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Email
jjewell(ähuc.state.id.us
Donovan E. Walker Hand Delivered
Idaho Power Company U.S. Mail
1221 W. Idaho Street Fax
P.O. Box 70 Fed. Express
Boise, ID 83707 Email
dwa1kercidahonower.com
Donald L. Howell, II Hand Delivered
Kristine A. Sasser U.S. Mail
Deputy Attorneys General Fax
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Fed. Express
472 W. Washington (83702) Email
P0 Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
don.howellpuc.idaho.gov
kris.sasserpuc.idaho.gov
Michael C. Andrea Hand Delivered
Avisita Utilities U.S. Mail
P.O. Box 3727 Fax
1411 E. Mission Ave Fed. Express
Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Email
Michael.andrea(avistacorp.com
Daniel Solander Hand Delivered
Rocky Mountain Power U.S. Mail
One Utah Center Fax
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300 Fed. Express
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Email
daniel.solanderpacificorp.com
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -14
Dr. Don Reading Hand Delivered
6070 Hill Road U.S. Mail
Boise, Idaho 83703 Fax
dreadinginindspring.com Fed. Express
Email
Ronald L. Williams Hand Delivered
Williams Bradbury U.S. Mail
1015 W. Hays Street Fax
Boise, ID 83702 Fed. Express
[e-mail] Email
Glenn Ikemoto Hand Delivered
Margaret Rueger U.S. Mail
Idaho Wind Farms, LLC Fax
672 Blair Avenue Fed. Express
Piedmont, California 94611 Email
gIenniEnvisionWind.com
mar garetEnvisionWind.com
Greg Ferney Hand Delivered
Mimura Law Office U.S. Mail
2176 E. Franklin Road Fax
Meridian, ID 83642 Fed. Express
[e-mail] Email
C. Thomas Arkoosh Hand Delivered
Lori Thomas U.S. Mail
Capital Law Group, PLLC Fax
205 N. 10th St., 0 Floor Fed. Express
P.O. Box 2598 Email
Boise, Idaho 83701
[e-mail]
Ithomascapito1lawgrouD.com
Don Schoenbeck Hand Delivered
RCS U.S. Mail
900 Washington Street, Suite 780 Fax
Vancouver, WA 98660 Fed. Express
dws(iir-c-s-inc.com Email
Robert D. Kahn Hand Delivered
Executive Director U.S. Mail
Northwest and Intermountain Power Fax
Producers Coalition Fed. Express
117 Minor Ave., Suite 300 Email
Seattle, WA 98101
rkahnininc.org
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -15
Don Sturtevant Hand Delivered
Energy Director U.S. Mail
J.R. Simplot Company Fax
P0 Box 27 Fed. Express Li
Boise, ID 83707-0027 Email )4.
don.sturtevanttsimolot.com
Robert A. Paul Hand Delivered
Grand View Solar II U.S. Mail Li
15960 Vista Circle Fax
Desert Hot Springs, CA Fed. Express
[e-mail] Email
James Carkulis Hand Delivered Li
Managing Member U.S. Mail
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC Fax
802 W. Bannock St., Suite 1200 Fed. Express Li
Boise, ID 83702 Email
[e-mail]
M.J. Humphries Hand Delivered
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC . U.S. Mail Li
4515 S. Ammon Road Fax
Ammon, ID 83406 Fed. Express Li
[e-mail] Email
Aaron F. Jepson Hand Delivered
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC U.S. Mail
10660 S. 540E. Fax
Sandy, UT 84070 Fed. Express
[e-mail] Email
John R. Lowe Hand Delivered Li
Consultant to Renewable Energy Coalition U.S. Mail Li
12050 SW Tremont St. Fax Li
Portland, OR 97225 Fed. Express Li
jravensanmarcosvahoo.com Email
Bill Piske, Manager Hand Delivered Li
Interconnect Solar Development, LLC U.S. Mail Li
1303 E. Carter Fax Li
Boise, ID 83706 Fed. Express Li
billpiskecableone.net Email
Wade Thomas Hand Delivered Li
General Counsel U.S. Mail Li
Dynamis Energy, LLC Fax Li
776 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 15 Fed. Express Li
Eagle, ID 836 16 Email
wthomasdvnamisenerg.com
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -16
Brian Olmstead Hand Delivered J
General Manager U.S. Mail
Twin Falls Canal Company Fax
P0 Box 326 Fed. Express
Twin Falls, ID 83303 Email
[e-mail]
Ted Diehl Hand Delivered
General Manager U.S. Mail
North Side Canal Company Fax
921 N. Lincoln St. Fed. Express
Jerome, ID 83338 Email
[e-mail]
Peter J. Richardson Hand Delivered
Gregory M. Adams U.S. Mail
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC Fax
P0 Box 7218 Fed. Express
Boise, ID 83702 Email
peter(richardsonandolearvcom
greglrichardsonandolearv.com
Bill Brown, Chair Hand Delivered '-
Board of Commissioners of Adams County U.S. Mail
P0 Box 48 Fax
Council, ID 83612 Fed. Express
[e-mail] Email
Benjamin J. Otto Hand Delivered
Idaho Conservation League U.S. Mail
710 N. Sixth Street (83702) Fax
P0 Box 844 Email
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
Ken Miller Hand Delivered
Liz Woodruff U.S. Mail
Snake River Alliance Fax
P0 Box 1731 Email
Boise, ID 83701
kmiIIersnakeriveralliance.org
[e-mail]
Megan Walseth Decker Hand Delivered
Senior Staff Counsel U.S. Mail
Renewable Northwest Project Fax
917 SW Oak Street, Suite 303 Email
Portland, OR 97205
meganxnp.org
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -17
Mary Lewallen Hand Delivered
Clearwater Paper Corporation U.S. Mail
601 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1100 Fax
Spokane, WA 99201 Email
[e-mail]
Ted S. Sorenson, P.E. Hand Delivered
Birch Power Company U.S. Mail
5203S .11thE. Fax
Idaho Falls, Idaho Email
[e-mail]
Tauna Christensen Hand Delivered
Energy Integrity Project U.S. Mail
769NllOOE Shelley, Idaho 83274 Fax
taunaâenergvintegritvproject.org Email
BY:
MCDEVITT & MILLER LP
LEGAL BRIEF OF RENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT -18