20050415Decision memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
J.. .COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:APRIL 14, 2005
SUBJECT:CASE NO. IPC-05-6; 05-7; 05-8; 05-9 (Idaho Power)
FIRM ENERGY SALES AGREEMENTS THOUSAND SPRINGS (05-6);
PILGRIM STAGE STATION (05-7); OREGON TRAIL (05-8); TUANA
GULCH (05-
On February 24, 2005 , Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed four
Applications with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting approval of
Firm Energy Sales Agreements (Agreements) between Idaho Power and Thousand Springs Wind
Park, LLC (Thousand Springs); Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC (Pilgrim Stage); Oregon
Trail Wind Park, LLC (Oregon Trail); and Tuana Gulch Wind Park, LLC (Tuana Gulch),
collectively the Wind Projects. The Agreements are dated February 18 , 2005. The Wind
Projects are qualified small power production facilities (QFs) under the app e prOVISIons o
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). All of the Wind Projects are
located near Hagerman, Idaho. Each project consists of seven 1.5 MW GE wind turbines the
nameplate rating of each project is 10.5 MW. Under normal and/or average conditions the
projects will not exceed 10 aMW on a monthly basis. If energy in excess of this amount
(Inadvertent Energy) is accidentally generated, Idaho Power will accept Inadvertent Energy that
does not exceed the 10.5 MW maximum capacity amount, but will not purchase or pay for it.
Agreement ~ 7.
As represented by Idaho Power, the Agreements comport with the terms and
conditions of Commission Order No. 29632 (V.s. Geothermal et at. v. Idaho Power) and
avoided cost Order No. 29646. The Agreements are for a 20-year term and contain the published
non-Ievelized avoided cost rates set forth in Order No. 29646.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
On March 15, 2005 , the Commission issued Notices of Application and Modified
Procedure in Case Nos. IPC-05-6 through -9. The deadline for filing written comments was
Tuesday, AprilS , 2005. Comments were filed by Commission Staff and a number of interested
parties and project area residents.
In its comments, Commission Staff notes that all four wind projects are located in the
Bell Rapids area west of the City of Hagerman. Attachment A shows the location of these four
projects. In addition to these four projects, Staff notes that the Fossil Gulch project previously
approved by the Commission, is also located in the same vicinity. Constnlction of the Fossil
Gulch project is nearly complete. These four projects, in addition to the Fossil Gulch project
bring the total installed capacity in the vicinity to 50 MW. Staff recommends approval of the
Agreements with the Company recommended effective date of February 18 , 2005.
The comments filed by interested parties and area residents generally support
renewable energy and wind power. Concern was expressed regarding the siting decisions for the
towers, however. Many commenters had not expected to see the 7 Fossil Gulch wind towers on
the rim, and believe that the placement of 21 additional towers on or close to the rim will ruin the
scenic beauty in the valley and is unconscionable. It is recommended that the towers be sited
west of the rim, out of sight. The flashing aircraft warning lights on the existing Fossil Gulch
windmills were cited as an extremely annoying feature for the residents of the Hagerman valley.
Considering that the valley floor is nearly 1 000 vertical feet be1ow the tops of these towers
commenters suggest that the lights need to be shielded so that the lights are only visible 200 feet
above the ground level at the towers. Lights should be shielded, they contend, to avoid light
pollution on the ground. One commenter suggests that it is important that the siting decisions be
done in conformance with environmental studies that minimize the impacts upon night flying
birds, bats, and raptor flyways. It is also important, the commenter states, that habitat for prairie
grouse (sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and lesser and greater prairie-chicken) be kept intact
and not fragmented by wind turbine development. Leks and traditional mating grounds, the
commenter cautions, should be avoided. The commenter assumes that environmental studies
have been completed by competent scientists and that the Applicants have configured their
development proposals to conform with them.
One commenter notes that in the case of the proposed winqmills Exergy is
changing the viewshed along the Thousand Springs Scenic Byway. This, the commenter states
DECISION MEMORANDUM
is a negative impact but, as good neighbors, Exergy has an opportunity to offset that impact and
turn their existence into a plus for the local area. Instead of operating merely for their own profit
and to supply electricity to other regions, as a good neighbor, the commenter suggests that
Exergy could assist in local efforts to promote the Thousand Springs Scenic Byway, assist in the
cost of interpreting the wise uses of natural resources, aid in developing recreation attractions
and tourism businesses and support green energy education and resource protection in the
Hagerman area.
COMMISSION DECISION
Four Firm Energy Sales Agreements have been presented for Commission
consideration and approval. All four Agreements are for 10.5 MW wind projects located in the
Hagerman area. Under normal and/or average conditions the projects will not exceed 10 aMW
on a monthly basis. All commenting parties support the development of wind energy. Local
residents express concerns, however, regarding the siting of the turbines, environmental impact
and light pollution. James Carkulis of Exergy, developer of the four projects, informs the Staff
that concerns of area residents will be addressed during local conditional use permit hearings.
The terms of the submitted Agreements comport with the Commission s Order No. 29632 (Us.
Geothermal, et al. v. Idaho Power) and avoided cost Order No. 29646. Does the Commission
find it reasonable to approve the submitted Agreements?
Scott Woodbury
bls/M:IPCE0506 07 08 09 sw
- - - -
DECISION MEMORANDUM