20040608Notice of Hearing Order No 29517.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
June 8, 2004
BOB LEWANDOWSKI and BOB SCHROEDER, )
S. GEOTHERMAL, INC. AN IDAHO
CORPORATION,
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY, AN IDAHO
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Complainants,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY, AN IDAHO
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
CASE NO. IPC-O4-
CASE NO. IPC-O4-
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
OTI CE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
Two complaint proceedings are pending before the Commission against Idaho Power
Company, Case Nos. IPC-04-8 and IPC-04-10. The Commission in this Order consolidates
the two cases, approves scheduling and establishes a hearing date.
Case No. IPC-O4-8 - U.S. Geothermal
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that on March 25 2004, U.S. Geothermal, Inc. in
Case No. IPC-04-8 filed a complaint against Idaho Power Company alleging that Idaho Power
was proposing PURPA contract tenDS that were unjust, unreasonable and unlawful. U.
Geothennal is the owner and developer of the Raft River Geothennal Power Plant, a 15 MW air-
cooled, closed cycle geothennal electric generating plant to be constructed in Cassia County,
Idaho (Raft River Facility). The Raft River Facility is a Qualifying Facility as that term is used
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
and defined in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A) and 18 C.F .
~ 292.207.
s. Geothermal alleges Idaho Power s contract demands are unjust, unreasonable
and contrary to law because:
1. Idaho Power refuses to purchase an annual average of 10 MW of power from U.
Geothermal at the Commission-approved non-Ievelized posted rates. Instead, Idaho Power
insists that it will only purchase a maximum of 10 MW in any given hour at the posted rates.
s. Geothermal contends that there is no basis in law or in fact with such a limitation.
2. Idaho Power insists on extreme financial penalties if U.S. Geothermal's total
output in any month falls below 90%, or above 100%, of its projected output. U.s. Geothermal
contends that there is no basis in law or in fact for such penalties.
3. Idaho Power insists that it must have the ability to terminate its contractual
obligation to purchase U.S. Geothermal's power if (1) Idaho law is modified to permit any other
party to sell electricity at retail in Idaho Power s service territory and (2) such change in law
results in Idaho Power being unable to recover in its retail revenue requirement all costs
attributable to the agreement with U.S. Geothermal. U.S. Geothermal contends that there is no
basis in law or in fact for Idaho Power s position, and it would effectively nullify this
Commission s rules by making it extremely costly, if not impossible, to finance PURPA projects.
On April 19th, Idaho Power filed its Answer.
Case No. IPC-O4-10 - Mssrs. Lewandowski and Schroeder
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that on April 28 , 2004, Bob Lewandowski and
Mark Schroeder filed a complaint against Idaho Power Company in Case No. IPC-04-10.
Both Mr. Lewandowski and Mr. Schroeder are in the process of developing wind power projects
in Idaho that will be qualifying facilities pursuant to PURP
Mr. Lewandowski and Mr. Schroeder complain that:
1. Idaho Power is insisting on contract provisions that obviate the requirement that a
purchase of all of the output from these projects be at full avoided cost rates when said output is
less than 90% or more than 110% of proj ected output.
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
2. Idaho Power is also insisting on a contract provision called "shortfall energy
which would actually require the developer to pay Idaho Power for electricity not produced by
the proj ect with no cap or ceiling on the price.
3. By later amendment the complainants also incorporated a third count regarding
Idaho Power s proposal to terminate the agreement should retail deregulation be implemented in
Idaho. They contend there is no basis in law or fact for this position and that it would effectively
nullify the Commission s rules by making it extremely costly, if not impossible, to finance
PURP A projects.
On May 17, 2004, Idaho Power filed its Answer. The complainants allege that a
further answer as to its third count should not burden Idaho Power Company. The complainants
expect that the Company s response on that issue will be the identical one sentence denial it filed
in ,its Answer to u.s. Geothermal's complaint.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
On May 12, 2004, complainants Lewandowski and Schroeder filed a Motion to
Consolidate their complaint in Case No. IPC-04-10 with the U.S. Geothermal complaint in
Case No. IPC-04-8. Alternatively, they request authority to intervene as a party in the U.
Geothermal docket.
Mr. Lewandowski and Mr. Schroeder contend that the issues raised in Case
Nos. IPC-04-10 and IPC-04-8 both deal with PURPA contract terms insisted on by Idaho
Power Company. The issues in both complaints, they contend, are essentially identical. The
defendant in both dockets is Idaho Power Company and the complainants in both dockets are QF
developers who seek Commission guidance on Power Purchase Agreement issues that are
essentially identical.
Commission Rule of Procedure 247 (IDAPA 31.01.01.247) allows the Commission to
consolidate dockets when "it finds that they present issues that are related and that the rights of
the parties will not be prejudiced." Mr. Lewandowski and Mr. Schroeder contend that no party
will be prejudiced by consolidation because no procedural actions have been taken in either
docket except for the actual filing of the Complaints and the Company s Answers. In addition
they contend that there is no prejudice because the issues in both dockets are so closely related.
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
IDAHO POWER RESPONSE
Idaho Power by way of response recommends consolidating Case Nos. IPC-04-
and IPC-04-10. The principal differences between the two complaints, the Company notes
appear to be (1) interconnection issues arising out of the fact that U.S. Geothermal's Raft River
Project is physically located in the service area of the Raft River Co-op and (2) U.
Geothermal's request that the Commission order Idaho Power to purchase generation from the
Raft River Project at the published rates approved for QF's smaller than 10 MW even though
S. Geothermal's Raft River Project has a capacity larger than 10 MW. Mr. Lewandowski'
and Mr. Schroeder s respective projects will be directly interconnected with the Company
system and have capacities less than 10 MW.
Idaho Power contends that if the two cases are consolidated, the issues that are unique
to U.S. Geothermal's complaint could be easily separated from the issues that are common to
both complaints. Under the circumstances, Idaho Power does not believe it is either necessary or
desirable for the Commission to conduct two separate proceedings when both of the complaints
seek a resolution of the same issues.
us. GEOTHERMAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
S. Geothermal opposes Mr. Lewandowski's and Mr. Schroeder s Motion
Consolidate. In order to speed the resolution of this case, U.S. Geothermal states that it has
agreed to an expedited filing of its testimony. Pursuant to informal agreement of U.
Geothermal, Idaho Power and Commission Staff, a schedule for prefile of testimony and a
tentative hearing date of September 2-, 2004 were agreed to.
Granting the Motion to Consolidate, U.S. Geothermal contends, would undoubtedly
require the Commission to establish a schedule for the proceeding other than the one agreed to
thus prejudicing U.S. Geothermal's attempt to resolve this case as rapidly as possible. Because
of the prejudice or impact on U.S. Geothermal, it contends that consolidation is not appropriate
under the provisions of Rule 247 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission finds that the two complaint proceedings pending against Idaho
Power Company, Case Nos. IPC-04-8 and IPC-04-, both have at issue the contract terms
required by Idaho Power for PURP A QFs. Although the Motion for Consolidation is opposed by
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
s. Geothermal, the Commission believes that consolidation can be done in a manner that does
not delay the proceedings nor prejudice U.S. Geothermal.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission finds the issues presented in
both dockets are related and that the rights of the parties will not be prejudiced by consolidation.
Reference Commission Rules of Procedure 247, IDAPA 31.01.01.247. The Commission finds
that the issues unique to each complaint related to generation technology, size of project and
location are issues that can be separated from the contract issues that are common. The
Commission finds consolidation to be a more efficient and economical use of Idaho Power s and
the Commission s time and resources and therefore finds it reasonable to consolidate Case Nos.
IPC-04-8 and IPC-04-10. Approving consolidation of the two complaint proceedings, we
find no need to address the alternate Motion to Intervene filed by Mssrs. Lewandowski and
Schroeder.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that pursuant to agreement of U.S. Geothermal
Idaho Power, Mssrs. Lewandowski and Schroeder, and Commission Staff, the Commission
adopts the following scheduling in Consolidated Case Nos. IPC-04-8 and IPC-04-10:
Direct testimony deadline-S. Geothermal June 9 2004
and Mssrs. Lewandowski and Schroeder
Direct testimony deadline-Idaho Power July 15, 2004
Direct testimony deadline-Staff (and
Intervenors)
August 5, 2004
Rebuttal testimony deadline August 19, 2004
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission will conduct a public
hearing in consolidated Case Nos. IPC-04-and IPC-04-10 on THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004, COMMENCING AT 9:30 A.M. AT THE COMMISSION
HEARING ROOM, 472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, BOISE, IDAHO and continuing
if necessary on September 3, 2004 at the same location.
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this case will be held
pursuant to the Commission s jurisdiction under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and that the
Commission may enter any final Order consistent with its authority under Title 61.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this matter will be
conducted pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.000 et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that discovery is available in consolidated Case
Nos. IPC-04-8 and IPC-04-10 pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA
31.01.01.221-234.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings and prehearing conferences in
this matter will be held in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons needing the help of a sign language interpreter or other
assistance in order to participate in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing
may ask the Commission to provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance at the hearing.
The request for assistance must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing by
contacting the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (FAX)
Mail: secretary(fYpuc.state.id.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT
HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby grant the Motion for Consolidation filed
by Mssrs. Lewandowski and Schroeder and approves the consolidation of Case Nos. IPC- E-04-
and IPC- E-04-1 O.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission does hereby approve the foregoing
schedule for filing of testimony and hearing in Consolidated Case Nos. IPC-04-8 and IPC-
04-10.
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 8tJ'
day of June 2004.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
vld/O:IPCEO408 10 sw
NOTICE OF CONSOLIDATION
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF HEARING
ORDER NO. 29517