20040309Comments.pdf

BONNEVILLE
ENVI'RONMENTAL
FOUNDATION
u,
(~ 3/q/o 111 1+
q,!~
; /1
hECEIVED
February 28, bO04 2na~ flJI\D
, _
~ D' t:'
-~
rll'H, H.1 O'
RALPH CAVANAGH
Na~Resources
fense Council
Vice-C;;hairman
Commissioners
Public Utility Commission
State of Idaho
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83120-0074
---',.
1' ,C; C'
;;
UTILI tiES C:OT-it'SSION
" '
THE HONORABLE'
MARK O. HATFIELD
S. Senate (tet.
Chairm(ln
\ ,
RACHEL SHIMSHAK
, Renewable Northwest
Project
Secretary
RE: Case Number IPC-04-
Commissioners:
BRETT WilCOX
Golden Northwest Aluminum
Treasurer
, Blll DRUMMOND
Western-:Monrana G&T
CooperaQ,ve
I am writing in my capacity as President of the Bonneville Environmental
Foundation (BEF), 133 SW Second Avenue, Suite 410, Portland, Oregon
97204. BEF is a non-profit business that markets Green Tags
representing the.en\ir-onmental attributes of the output of certain
renewable power generating facilities. BEF's net revenues are dedicated
to the development of new renewable pow~r facilities in the Pacific
Northwest, and to restoration of watersheds in the same four states,including Idaho.
I am writing in support.ot the general position taken by the Idaho Power
Company (IPC) in the above captioned Case 'underlPUC consideration.
support and encourage the IPUC to adopt the general proposition that
the environmental attributes, or Green Tags, associated with the output
of renewable power facilities are and remain the property oftl1.e owner of
that facility until and unless the owner consents to a transfer of those
Green Tags to another party.
, #
DON' FRISBEE
PacifiCotp (ret.
, STEVE HICKOK
Bonneville Power Administration
J..;.MES LlCHATOWICH
Aldet Pork Consulting
JAIME A. PINKHAM
NeZ Petce Tribe
WilLIAM T. TOWEY
B Engineers, Inc.
AlDO BENEDIiTTI
Tacoma Public Utiliti~ (rer.)
Emeritys
ANGUS DUNCAN
Presiden
This proposition should be upheld by thelPUC irrespective of the status
of the facility as a Qualifying Facility under PURPA, just as 1he Green
Tags remain wi'h the owner irrespective of any federal or state tax
credits or other incentives that are employed by the owner to develop his
facility...lJnless otherwi~e specified , these Incentives are intended by the
public bodies that established them to be employed in aggregate by a
developer ora renewable facility, in recognition tbatoften the economic
disincentives act in aggregate to discotJrage such developments. Thus
the Federal government does not demand custody of the Green Tags
from a proj~tt that takes advantage of Federal tax credits and
accelerated depreciation. Thusal~o a cogeneration facility that uses
fossil fuels and may have no Green Tags to sell is not disqualified from
exercising its QF rights under PURPA.
133 SW 2nd Av~, #410
Portland, OR 97204
503,248-1905
/503-248-190
www.b-e-f.org
The c~ncentric circle was
a design frequently used in
Native American Columbia
River pictographs. It may
signify the sun, or a pool
0/ water; or may simply be
decorative. This example,
from the Big Eddy reach,
was submerged irz 1957.
Apart from questions of law, BEF applauds IPC's recognition of the
compelling value to the State of Idaho of incenting prospective facility
developers to proceed with their renewable energy projects. Idaho will
be more likely to see broader development of new renewable energy
--.....
Printed with Joy-based inks on
/(10% poSt-con;umer recycled paper.
'\..
facilities if the IPUC issues a decision consisten with this 'recommendatio oregon
Washington and,other states in which renewable facilities are being actively developed do
not challenge the owner s Green Tag rights.
, I
And the GreEID Tag market has proven an important additional incentive to new
. development. I3EF, which origiQated the Green Tag product, sold for delivery in excess of
100 000 Tags in 2~, and expects to substantially improve on this mark in ,2004. In
addition , BEF as, a project developer has responded itself to the Green Tag market signal by
directly developin9 or sourcing from other developers nearly a quarter of a megawatt of new
Pacific Northwest solar generation , and is developing (with six public utility partners) a 200
MWwind farm in the State of Washington. We expect to develop suph projeCts in 'Idaho as
- '
well (and already have our first solar installations in the state).
. BEF is obliged to part company with IPC on the narrower questipn of whether IPC.should
...
retain a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for the Green Tags from the facilities in question. We,
understand IPC's reasoning in seek1ng to protect its customer access to the Tags, but we
believe the market will meet this concern.' And an ROFR effectively diminishes the market
value of the Tags to the owner by discouraging a third party from expending the effort and
paying the opportunity cost of negotiating to purchase such Tags, only to have IPC exercise
its ROFR. As a marketer, if we have an equivalent opportunity to acquire Tags from another
sellern.6t constrained by such a ROFR, we will of necessity prefer the unencumbered Tagsand seller.
With this one reservation , we ~ncourage the IPUC to adopt a rule consistent with the,
broader recommendation of IPC.
. '
We also commend IPC for its early commitment - in 2001 -~ to offering a green power
product to its customers. So far as we know, IPC was the first utility inthe nation to field
such a program using Green Tags (and the IPUC was the first state regulatory body to
approve this use of TagS). 'The state of Idaho arid BEF were thus abl~ to pioneer this
market mechanism, which has subsequently spread coast to coast (BEF now markets Tags
nationw,ide and in Canada, and also supports with its Tags and' programs the retail
programs of seven other major utilities, investor-owned and public, in the four Northwest
states~.
We believe it is no less commendable that IPC determined on its own volition to offer a
green power producUo its customers, rather than doing so in compliance with a legal
mandate j We appJaud IPC's consistency in supporting the program , and the success it has
- had' in signing up customers.
Thank you ,for your attention to this ~mportant' question.
. i'
v'
~ .::-
3JqfD 'f 1/10 Ai.
~ If
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, March 08, 2004 10:48 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, March 08, 2004
10:47:31 PM
Case: IPC-E-04-
Name: Norman E. Anderson
Street Address: 1253 Cow Horse Drive
City: Kuna
State: ID
ZIP: 83634-1429
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: normaneanderson~msn. com
Company: Idaho Power mailing list _yes _no:
Comment description: It seems to me that the green tag should belong to the entity that
made the investment in the power proj ect. That entity ought to be able to trade or sellthe green tag in a free market environment. To give any utility (Idaho Power or others)
first right of refusal seems to bring up a restrict of trade issue and gives the utility
an unfair position if the investment entity w~nts to sell the green tag and can only deal
with the utility. Only if the utility decides to pass on the green tag can the entity
that made the investment negotiate with others. It sounds like a bad idea, and the green
tag ought to be owned by the samll power producer.
Transaction ID: 382247.Referred by: http: I Iwww. puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dIll ipucUser Address: 67.14.129
User Hostname: 67.14.129