20021203Sur-Reply of Clean Energy Advocates.pdf

2.1"l~
Brad M. Purdy (ISB # 3472)
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
bmpurdy~hotmail.com
f~:ECEIVED
~n Cr ._
znllZ DEC -3 P~1 3:
'n i'
, "
! t, "."i (,
UTiLIT lIS COf'lMISSION
,"""""'~~". "
William M. Eddie (ISB # 5800)
LAND AND WATER FUND OF THE ROCKIES
O. Box 1612
Boise, ID 83701
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
billeddie(illnnc i .net
Attorneys for Idaho Rivers United, NW Energy Coalition, Land and Water Fund of the
Rockies, and Idaho Rural Council
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING
BY IDAHO POWER COMPANY OF
ITS 2002 INTEGRATED RESOURCE
PLAN (IRP)
Case No. IPC-02-
SUR-REPLY OF CLEAN
ENERGY ADVOCATES ON
MOTION TO INITIATE
FORMAL PROCEEDING
Idaho Rivers United, NW Energy Coalition, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
and Idaho Rural Council ("Advocates ) hereby file this sur-reply in support of their
Motion to Initiate Fonnal Proceedings in the above matter. Although not provided for in
the Commission s Rules of Procedure, Advocates assert that the Commission should
accept and review this Sur-Reply brief because Idaho Power Company s Reply
Comments on its 2002 Integrated Resource Plan (dated October 30, 2002) raise new
issues bearing on Advocates ' Motion herein.
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 1
In the alternative to the Commission s review of this Sur-Reply brief, the
Advocates request the Commission hold oral argument on Advocates' Motion to Initiate
Fonnal Proceedings.
Garnet PP
Idaho Power s Reply Comments confinn that Idaho Power is unlikely to secure an
agreement for purchases of electricity from the proposed Garnet power plant; and that
alternative means of meeting customer load will need to be explored. Indeed, Idaho
Power appears to already have engaged in negotiations to secure power purchase
contracts from other sources in the regional market.
Advocates are left to wonder what relevance - if any - Integrated Resource Plans
are to have with respect to the actual acquisition of resources by Idaho utilities. What
meaning does the IRP hold ifIdaho Power s actual plans to meet customer loads change
radically between the time the Company submits its IRP and the Commission reviews it?
The Advocates are concerned that the IRP process is now reduced to a paper exercise
and a waste ofthe Company , the Commission , and the public s time.
The Advocates believe - and hope the Commission believes as well - that the IRP
holds more meaning than Idaho Power argues. The IRP should be a truly integrated
look at the Company s resources and plans to meet customer loads; and further should be
a document upon which the Commission and the public can rely when actual acquisitions
of resources are proposed. The 2002 IRP filed by Idaho Power fails that test.
Energy Efficiency
Idaho Power alleges that consideration of available conservation savings in the
IRP "would be inconsistent with prior Commission orders and has the potential to short-
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 2
circuit the Commission s recently approved Energy Efficiency Advisory Group (EEAG)
process).Reply Comments at p.
Taking the Company s latter argument first, consideration of energy efficiency
measures in the IRP could not possibly "short circuit" the EEAG; and indeed Idaho
Power does not explain how this might happen. It is plain that consideration of the
Garnet facility in the IRP did not "short circuit" the Company s negotiations over the
Garnet PP A. As with its other resource acquisition efforts, the Company should have
taken the detailed infonnation that is available for energy efficiency investments
(including infonnation developed at the EEAG) for analysis and consideration in the IRP.
Unfortunately, such analysis did not occur.
Idaho Power also argues that Commission precedent precludes the Company from
closely considering potential investments in energy efficiency. Of course, the
Commission s prior orders are precedential to the extent the facts and circumstances of
the prior cases are applicable to the current matter. The circumstances of 2002 are
markedly different from the circumstances in 1989, when the Commission issued Order
No. 22636, from which the Company prominently quotes. Indeed, the 2002 IRP plainly
demonstrates that Idaho Power has done a reversal since the time when it planned to "use
conservation as (its) next resource" and generally had "new-found enthusiasm for
conservation." Order No. 22636 at 51-52.
Moreover, the Commission s historic findings that there is not "sufficient industry
experience in estimating the quantity, quality, and cost of conservation resources so that
they are procurable and reliable " must be reevaluated under the circumstances of 2002.
Although Idaho Power seems unwilling to acknowledge this fact, the energy efficiency
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 3
industry has matured sharply in recent years, as the testimony and infonnation filed in
IPC-01-42 (Garnet matter), IPC-01-7 and -11 (2001 PCA matter), IPC-Ol-
(DSM docket), and IPC-02-2 and -3 (2002 PCA matter) all demonstrate. Indeed
increasingly precise infonnation is available about the potential for investments in energy
efficiency in the Northwest; but this infonnation was disregarded by Idaho Power in its
IRP. Moreover, it appears that a major thrust of the Order No. 22636 was to ensure that
utilities "contract only for reasonably confinnable conservation resources." Order No.
22636 at 52. Available energy efficiency resources today are certainly "reasonably
confinnable" and should have been considered in the IRP.
Idaho Power eschews the need for and importance of "end-use" studies. Reply
Comments at 9. However, it is plain that one first must ascertain the magnitude and
character of a given DSM resource so that targets worth pursuit can be detennined
strategies designed, budgets and implementation plans developed and resources acquired.
If the first step-customer load research-is not taken, then the follow-up steps will not
be forthcoming and no demand-side resource will accrue.
Conclusion
The Advocates do not believe the Commission will set a precedent for future IRP
reviews by holding fonnal proceedings over Idaho Power s 2002 IRP. The initiation ofa
fonnal docket in this matter will require an investment of time and resources by all
parties and the Commission - but we believe this investment is worthwhile to ensure a
meaningful and adequate IRP is ultimately approved for Idaho Power, and to assist all
regulated utilities in preparing IRPs going forward.
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 4
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 3rd day of December 2002.
William M. Eddie
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of December 2002, true and correct copies of the
foregoing SUR-REPLY TO MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDING were delivered
to the following persons via the method of service noted:
Via Hand-Delivery:
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Via U.S. Mail:
Barton Kline
Greg Said
Idaho Power Company
O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
ADVOCATES' SUR-REPLY ON MOTION TO INITIATE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
-- 6