HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050303Said Exhibits 1-3.pdfBEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-O5- Ie)
r-- ~
~J~::
~::j'
':!11j
!""""""
r-"'
-- --' '-
C) C';li
~",.~
L;,.':'~
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.
GREGORY W. SAID
Direct Testimony of Gregory W. Said
Case No. IPC-O3-
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-O3-12
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE RATE-BASING
OF THE BENNETT MOUNTAIN POWER
PLANT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
GREGORY W. SAID
EXIDBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page lof21
Please state your name and business address.
My name is Gregory W. Said and my business
address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise , Idaho.
By whom are you employed and in what
capacity?
I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the
Manager of Revenue Requirement in the pricing and Regulatory
Services Department.
Please describe your educational background.
In May of 1975, I received a Bachelor of
Science Degree with honors from Boise State University.
1999, I attended the Public Utility Executives Course at
the Uni versi ty of Idaho.
Please. descr ibe your work experience with
Idaho Power Company.
I became employed by Idaho Power Company in
1980 as an analyst in the Resource Planning Department.
1985 , the Company applied for a general revenue requirement
I was the Company witness addressing power supplyincrease.
expenses.
In August of 1989, after nine years in the
Resource Planning Department, I was offered and I accepted a
Wi th theposition in the Companys Rate Department.
Companys application for a temporary rate increase in 1992
my responsibilities as a witness were expanded.While I
SAID, D1
Idaho Power Company
EXIDBITNO.
IPC-O5- /0
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 2 of21
continued to be the Company witness concerning power supply
expenses, I also sponsored the Companys rate computations
and proposed tariff schedules.
Because of my combined Resource Planning and
...
Rate Department experience, I was asked to design a Power
Cost Adj ustment (PCA) which would impact customers rates
based upon changes in the Companys net power supply
expenses.I presented my recommendations to the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission in 1992 at which time the
Commission established the PCA as an annual adjustment to
the Companys rates.I have sponsored the Companys annual
PCA adjustment in each of the years 1996 through 2003.
In 1996 , I was promoted to Director of
Revenue Requirement.At year-end 2002, I was promoted to
the senior management level of the Company.
During 1999 and 2000 , I directed the
preparation of the Companys 2000 Integrated Resource Plan
(IRP) .I managed the Request for Proposals (RFP) process
that resulted from the Near-Term Action Plan identified in
that Resource Plan.I also participated in the preparation
of the 2002 IRP and subsequent 2003 RFP process.The RFP
issued as part of the Near-Term Action Plan outlined in the
2002 IRP report has resulted in the selection of the
Mountain View Power , Inc. proj ect as the Companys preferred
addi t ion of a new peaking resource.
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC- E-5-lJd
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 3 of21
Please outline the major topics you will
address in your testimony in this proceeding.
There are four major topics that comprise my
test imony .First, I will briefly describe the history that
preceded Idaho Powers issuance of the RFP on February 24
2003 .Second, I will describe the bid evaluation process
that led up to the selection of the Mountain View Power
Inc.(MVP) as the winning bidder.Third, I will discuss
some of the significant provisions of the agreement with MVP
for the Bennett Mountain Power Plant ( Project
) .
Finally, I will discuss the Companys proposed ratemaking
treatment of the costs associated with the proj ect
What are the maj or events that preceded the
selection of the MVP proposal?
The maj or events leading up to the selection
of the MVP proposal are the issuance of the 2002 IRP in June
2002, the supplement to the 2002 IRP often called the
Garnet Report filed in October 2002, the Commission
acknowledgement of the 2002 IRP as supplemented with the
Garnet Report in February 2003, the issuance of the current
RFP in February 2003 and Commission approval of the PPL
Montana, LLC contract in July 2003.The 2002 IRP, the
Garnet Report and the PPL Montana contract are all on file
wi th the Commission and as such, Idaho Power requests that
the Commission take administrative notice of these
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-lf)
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 4 of21
documents.
What were some of the assumptions that formed
the basis of the 2002 IRP?
The first assumption of the 2002 IRP was that
the Garnet facility would be constructed.In addition to
that assumption, the Company also shifted its emphasis from
the median water planning criteria to the evaluation of a
ili percentile water and 70th percentile load condition.
This shift in emphasis resulted in less reliance on market
purchases during periods of low water and a greater need for
resource acquisition.
Based upon those assumptions, what did the
Company conclude was required to satisfy future loads in the
planning horizon?
The Company planned to continue seasonal
market purchases in June, July, November and December in the
near term, to integrate demand-side measures where
economical , to issue an RFP for a 100 megawatt resource
be available in 2005, to purchase up to 250 megawatts of
seasonal capacity and energy beginning in June 2005, to
proceed with the Brownlee to Oxbow transmission line to be
in service in 2005 and to upgrade the Shoshone Falls project
to be in service in 2007.
How was the 2002 plan modified as a result of
Garnets inability to acquire acceptable financing for its
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXIDBITNO.
IPC-O5- ..!.Q
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 5 of21
proj ect ?
At the request of the Commission, the Company
supplemented its 2002 IRP with the Garnet Report in October
2002.In the supplemental Garnet Report, the Company
identified alternatives to the Garnet project including
potential purchases from the east side of our system.The
Garnet Report also stated that the Company was seriously
considering increasing the 2003 RFP to approximately 170
megawatts.
Has the Company been able to acquire any of
the alternatives to Garnet discussed in the 2002 IRP
supplemental Garnet Report?
Yes, on May 13, 2003 the Company applied to
the Commission for approval of a Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA) with PPL Montana, LLC.The PPA with PPL Montana, LLC
calls for an 83 megawatt firm power purchase for the heavy
load hours, six days a week , sixteen hours a day (6X16) in
the months of June, July and August beginning in June 2004.
Adjusting for losses, the 83-megawatt purchase replaces
approximately 80 megawatts of the Garnet project, which was
anticipated to provide up to 250 megawatts during the same
summer season peak hours.In July 2003, the Commission
approved the PPL Montana, LLC Power Purchase Agreement.
When did the Company issue its most recent
RFP?
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXIDBITNO.
IPC-O5- -Lc)
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 6 of21
The most recent RFP was issued on
February 24, 2003.
Please describe the 2003 RFP issued by the
Company.
Because the Company was unsure of the extent
to which the Garnet proj ect could be replaced, the Company
issued a somewhat flexible RFP request.Rather than
requesting 100 megawatt proposals as suggested in the
original 2002 IRP , the Company allowed bidders to propose
projects up to 200 megawatts.In the RFP, the Company
advised bidders it was willing to consider either Power
Purchase Agreements or build and transfer arrangements.
Discussions at the pre-bid meeting covered the assumption
that for a PPA to be successful it would need to provide
significant savings to the Companys customers as a result
of the bidders ability to operate the plant as a merchant
plant and sell the output from the plant to third parties
whenever the Company was not utilizing it.
Please describe the response the Company
received to the RFP.
The Company received 21 Notices of Intent to
bid projects into the RFP.Ultimately, the Company received
11 bids , including simple cycle combustion turbine
proposals, combined cycle combustion turbine proposals and a
The proposals were about evenly splitbiomass proposal.
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 7 of21
between build and transfer proposals and PPAs.
Did the Company engage an independent third
party to review the Companys RFP and bid evaluation
process?
Yes, as in our 2000 RFP evaluation , the
Company utilized R. W. Beck as an independent third party to
assist in the development of the 2003 RFP and evaluation
criteria and to provide further assistance in the review and
evaluation of bids.
Please describe the process that led up
acceptance of the proposal from Mountain View Power, Inc. as
the successful RFP respondent.
The Idaho Power RFP team received all bids by
April 28 , 2003, including a self-build proposal prepared
under a joint teaming arrangement consisting of Black &
Veatch, TIC and a separate group within Idaho Powers Power
On April 29, 2003 the RFP evaluationSupply Department.
team opened the proposals and began the initial screening
process based on predetermined price criteria and non-price
criteria methodology established with the assistance of R. W.
In May 2003, based upon initial screening, the topBeck.
five proposals were short-listed and face-to-face meetings
with representatives of the short-listed entities were
scheduled for June 2003.The Company sent a document to
each of the short-listed bidders detailing the Companys
SAID, 01
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC- E-O 5 - JS;
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 8 of21
understanding of that bidders bid.CompanysThose
understanding documents, prepared for the review and
concurrence of the bidders , became the basis for face-to-
face discussions with each of the short-listed bidders.
Following the face-to-face meetings with the short-
listed bidders, the Company pursued final negotiations with
two bidders, Mountain View Power, Inc. and the Idaho Power
Self -Build team.These two bidders offered the best
proposals based upon the price and non-price criteria.
Additional face-to-face meetings were conducted and final
modifications to bids were accepted through September 12
2003 .Based on the final negotiations, the RFP evaluation
team made its recommendation to the Companys management and
on September 17 , 2003 the Companys management recommended
to the IdaCorp Board of Directors that Mountain View Power
Inc. be selected as the successful bidder.On September 18
2003, the Board of Directors approved the selection of the
Mountain View Power, Inc. proposal to construct the Bennett
Mountain proj ect
Please give a general description of the
proj ect
The Project will consist of a Siemens-
Westinghouse 501FD simple-cycle natural gas-fired combustion
turbine rated at 162 MWs, together with typical balance of
plant facilities and equipment.The Project is currently
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 9 of21
scheduled to begin generating in the summer of 2005.The
Project will be located on an almost ten (10) acre site
wi thin the Mountain Home Industrial Park in Mountain Home,
Idaho.The City has issued a Conditional Use Permit for a
power plant for the site.The Industrial Park site may
accommodate an additional future generating unit and the
Project can also be modified to operate as a combined cycle
plant at some point in the future.
The proj ect wi II be connected to the
Companys existing 230 kV transmission system that passes
approximately four (4) miles north of the Project.
A natural gas fuel supply will be delivered
from the Williams Northwest Pipeline that passes less than
one (1) mile from the site.
Water for generation will be supplied by and
purchased from the City of Mountain Home, Idaho.The City
has constructed a network of wells, lines and storage
facilities and has substantial water supply capacity and
priority water rights.
The proj ects waste water will be discharged
to the City of Mountain Homes sewer system.
The Project will operate in compliance with
all appropriate DEQ air and water quality standards.
Maps showing the location of the Project are
attached to the Companys application.
SAID , DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5- -'!J
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 10 of21
proj ect ?
What is the firm contract price for the
The firm contract price for the 162-megawatt
Project is $44.6 million.
What fuel cost assumptions were used in
evaluating the bids?
Gas prices were assumed to be $4.52 per
million BTU in 2005 and were escalated throughout the life
of the proj ect The same gas price was utilized for all
natural gas-fired project proposals and, as a result,
projects with lower guaranteed heat rates had lower fuel
costs on a dollar per megawatt basis.
What capacity factor was used to evaluate the
bids?
While the RFP team looked at costs for a
number of capacity factors , bids were evaluated assuming a
20 percent capacity factor reflective of peak hour
production in the five months June, July, August November
and December only.
Were there other material considerations used
in evaluating the bids?
Yes.The selected bidder had to demonstrate
the financial strength and experience to provide Idaho Power
with a high level of confidence that output from the project
would be available June 1, 2005.In addition, the Companys
SAID, 01
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-jp
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 11 of21
Tax Department was consulted because of potent ial bonus tax
depreciation benefits that could be derived based upon
percentage of completion of power plants by December 31,
2004.Bidders were encouraged to prepare their construction
schedules to maximize the tax benefits while at the same
time ensure that they would not complete the project too far
in advance of the Companys identified need in June 2005.
Mountain View Power, Inc. was very cooperative in proposing
a schedule that would complete 95% of the project by year-
end 2004 , but ownership of the project would not be
transferred until April 2005.
Would you please describe what you believe
are the significant provisions of the turnkey construction
arrangement with Mountain View Power, Inc. for acquisition
of the proj ect?
One of the most significant attributes of the
MVP turnkey Project is that MVP has contracted with Siemens-
Westinghouse Power Corporation (SWPC) to furnish all of the
labor, equipment and materials and to perform all of the
engineering and construction of the Project.The contract
with MVP provides that if MVP defaults , Idaho Power can
step-through MVP and work directly with SWPC to complete
the proj ect As a result, Idaho Power can rely on SWPC and
the financial strength and experience of both SWPC and its
parent, Siemens Corporation, to assure the performance of
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT N5. IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 12 of21
the contract and the successful completion of the Project.
As I have mentioned, Mountain View Power, Inc. will
have the project approximately 95% complete by year-end
2004 .Liquidated damages will occur if the Siemens-
Westinghouse gas turbine has not been delivered to the site
by December 1, 2004.Completion of construction and all
performance testing of the proj ect, including guaranteed
capaci ty and guaranteed heat rate, are scheduled to be
completed by April 1 , 2005.proj ect ownership will transfer
to Idaho Power at that time provided that all provisional
Acceptance Criteria identified in the contract have been
If not , liquidated damages will be owed.satisfied.
back -loaded payment schedule insures that Mountain View
Power, Inc. and SWPC have adequate incentive to see the
proj ect through to complet ion.
Are there other attributes of the Project
that you believe are important to the Commissions
consideration?
The proj ect is located approximately 4 miles
southwest of the Companys existing 230 kV transmission
The transmission system will require additionalsystem.
investment in order to integrate the proj ect However, the
total cost of this proj ect (on a revenue requirement basis)
including transmission costs is lower than the alternatives.
Mountain View Power , Inc. has worked closely with the
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 13 of21
Mountain Home community to gain support for the proj ect .
selecting this proj ect, the Company will have two expandable
sites at which to place additional gas-fired resources in
the future if future IRPs identify such resources as the
resource of choice.
Is it likely that the Company will need
additional peaking resources in the future?
Yes.The 2002 IRP identified the need for
approximately 450 megawatts of capacity and energy to
satisfy deficiencies found primarily in three summer months
and two winter months.The plan was to utilize 250
megawatts from the Garnet Project, acquire another 100
megawatts via an RFP and establish market purchases of
approximately 100 megawatts.The Garnet proj ect will not be
built and the PPL Montana Contract has replaced only
megawatts of that 250-megawatt project.With the addition
of this 162-megawatt Project, 242 megawatts of required
capacity will have been acquired.That leaves approximately
208 megawatts to be acquired via the market or development
of additional projects.That 208 megawatt amount is 108
megawatts greater than the level of planned market purchases
in the 2002 IRP and exceeds the Companys comfort level for
resource adequacy.
I s the Company providing a commi tment
estimate for the capital cost portion for the Project?
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 14 of21
The Company is willing to commit to theYes.
Commission that the total cost of the Project to be included
in the Companys rate base will not exceed $54.0 million.
This amount includes the $44.6 million MVP contract amount,
plus additional costs the Company knows it will incur but
cannot precisely quantify at this time.These additional
costs include, but are not limited to, sales taxes, AFUDC on
progress payments made to MVP during construction , the cost
of Idaho Power oversight of the project, and the cost of
capitalized start-up fuel.The Commitment Estimate amount
also covers contingencies such as change orders and other
unforeseen circumstances.Transmission costs are not
included in the Commitment Estimate.
Were transmission costs considered when
evaluating the total cost of the proj ect?
Yes.The total Project costs including
estimated transmission costs were evaluated within the
selection process.However , transmission costs have not
traditionally been included in the Companys commitment
estimates for power projects.While the Company is
satisfied that the approximately $11.6 million estimate for
transmission costs associated with this Project is a
reasonable upper limit estimate , no definitive studies have
been completed and the Company is not including transmission
costs in its commitment estimate.
SAID, OI
Idaho Power Company
EXIDBITNO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 15 of21
How is fuel supply handled for the proj ect?
Because the Project will ultimately be owned,
opera ted and maintained by Idaho Power Company, the Company
will coordinate the fuel supply and transportation for the
Project concurrently with the fuel supply and transportation
requirements of the Danskin Power Plant.Idaho Power has
purchased firm fuel transportation rights that can be used
for both Danskin and the proj ect Idaho Power anticipates
that management of the fuel transportation and fuel supply
will be either by Idaho Power personnel , or by Idaho Power
personnel in conjunction with a third party such as IGI,
Inc.
How does the Company propose that the
Commission treat the costs associated with construction and
operation of the Project for ratemaking purposes?
Provided that the Project costs are less than
the commitment estimate of $54.0 million , Idaho Power
Company would expect the Commission to approve the total
Project investment to be included in the Companys rate base
for ratemaking purposes.Fuel costs should be approved for
PCA inclusion prior to full review of operational costs in a
general revenue requirement proceeding.
Why does the Companys request include
recovery of AFUDC?
Even though the proj ect will be owned by
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5- ffi
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 16 of21
Mountain View Power, Inc. until ownership is transferred to
Idaho Power in April 2005, AFUDC is appropriate for recovery
as a Project cost because the Company is helping to finance
the proj ect by making progress payments during construction.
Such financing by the Company allows for a lower total cost
to customers than if Mountain View Power, Inc. were to
finance the Project in a different manner.
How do the costs of the proj ect compare to
alternative resources?
Due to a current abundance of turbines
available in the market, Mountain View Power, Inc. is able
to construct the Project at significantly lower costs than
similar projects constructed just a short time ago.The
commitment cost of $54.0 million for the 162-megawatt
Bennett Mountain Project is just $5 million more than the
$49 million cost of the 90-megawatt Danskin project
completed in September, 2001.Including the upper end
estimate of $11.6 million for the cost of transmission and
all capital costs associated with the proj ect, the Company
estimates that the ten-year present value cost per megawatt
hour will be approximately $78 based upon a 20 percent
capaci ty factor.The 20 percent capacity factor assumes the
Project will only be utilized during the peak hour need
periods identified in the 2002 IRP.The $78 per MWh figure
also assumes that the additional transmission capability
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC- E-O 5 - jIJ
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 17 of 21
constructed to accommodate the Project is only used to move
power from the proj ect This cost will be reduced whenever
the plant is utilized to a greater extent than assumed in
this analysis.However , even at $78, the cost of the
Project is very similar to the ten-year cost of $77 per
megawatt hour cost that was anticipated for the Garnet
Unlike the Garnet project, this Project will becontract.
available year round rather than just during certain months
of the year.Whereas the Garnet contract offered
signif icant discounts from total proj ect costs in order to
retain a merchant role for their proj ect, current -day
proj ects can be developed at lower costs such that todays
undiscounted project costs are similar to discounted Garnet
costs.Ultimately, as market conditions changed, merchant
projects were considered risky and the Garnet Project could
not obtain acceptable financing.It should also be noted
that the Garnet contract evaluation assumed gas prices of
$3 . 75 per MMBtu whereas the RFP evaluation process assumed
gas prices of $4.52 per MMBtu in 2005.The total first year
fuel plus variable O&M cost for the proj ect is expected to
be $57.55 per megawatt hour compared to the $44.50 per
megawatt hour cost (not including transmission cost) of the
However , it is important to remember thatPPL Montana PPA.
the PPL Montana PPA is a take or pay contract whereas this
Project is dispatchable.I f the resource is not needed,
SAID, 01
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 18 of 21
fuel costs can be avoided.
In its final order acknowledging and
accepting the Companys 2002 IRP , the Commission directed
Idaho Power to consider the potential for cost-effective DSM
as an alternative to supply-side resources.I s the proj ect
compatible with available DSM options?
In my opinion, the proj ect dovetails very
well with the Companys ongoing efforts to develop DSM
programs targeting summer peak loads.As noted in the
Companys 2002 IRP , the Companys peak load requirements
occur during summer months with a secondary peak occurring
in November and December.The Project is specifically
targeted at the heavy-load hours during the peak summer
months.Not all of the Companys anticipated deficiencies
are satisfied by the Project.The potential to utilize
cost-effective DSM alternatives still exists.In accordance
with Commission Order No. 29207 , the Company is currently
pursuing a pilot program to implement a residential air
conditioner cycling program.As noted in Order No. 29207
the Energy Efficiency Advisory Group EEAG ) has
concurred with the Companys proposal to use energy
efficiency rider funds collected under Idaho Powers
Schedule 91 , to finance the air conditioner cycling pilot
program.The air conditioner cycling program targets heavy-
load hours during June, July and August.If it is
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 19 of21
ultimately determined that an air conditioner cycling
program would be a cost-effective way to reduce critical
system peaks, such a program would address essentially the
same peak periods of time that are the primary concern
addressed by the proj ect, and could potentially mitigate the
continuing need for additional resources similar to this
The Company has also recently announced the launchproj ect
of a new DSM program that would target irrigation usage,
another contributor to the Companys peak load during the
June, July and August period covered by the proj ect This
program pays financial incentives to irrigation customers
that modify existing irrigation systems or install new
efficient irrigation systems.For all of these reasons, I
believe that the Project is consistent with the Commissions
expectations regarding consideration of DSM within the
Companys integrated resource planning process.
The Company is requesting that the Commission
expedite its review of this Application.Please explain
why.
In order to meet the April 1 , 2005
Provisional Acceptance Date under the Agreement , Mountain
View Power has indicated it needs to receive a notice to
proceed on or before December 31, 2003.Idaho Power has
advised Mountain View that a condition precedent to issuance
of the notice to proceed is receipt of an acceptable
SAID, DI
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-O5- It)
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 20 of 21
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission.Depending on when the
Certificate is issued , MVP may need to adjust the completion
date and possibly the price of the Project.
Does this complete your testimony?
Yes.
SAID, 01
Idaho Power Company
EXHIBIT NO.
IPC-05- / lJ
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 21 of21
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-05
C: ,'
::::~~:::; ~:;:;"""",
:":4
(:::" ~:
\"11'1 .
--..: "~""
. t-
r"T
:~ ,/
::0 .-
:;;-(j) ;::
rT1
(j
~:: N
~~'
(J) C:::, U1
(J)
, .....-
r"".,.r--:I
c:i t_,j r2:1
""'-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.
GREGORY W. SAID
Certificate No. 420
Case No. IPC-03-
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE RATEBASING OF
THE BENNETI MOUNTAIN POWER PLANT.
CASE NO. IPC-03-
CERTIFICATE NO. 420
On September 26, 2003, Idaho Power Company filed an Application for a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a new natural gas-fired generating plant in
Mountain Home, Idaho pursuant to Idaho Code 9 61-526.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the future public convenience and necessity require
and will require Idaho Power Company authorization to construct and subsequently operate
162 MW natural gas-fIred power plant and related interconnection facilities at Mountain Home.
The Bennett Mountain generating plant will be located in the Mountain View Industrial Park in
Mountain Home and will be interconnected to the natural gas transmission system approximately
3,400 feet away. Idaho Power shall operate and maintain the Bennett MoWltain power plant to
furnish electric energy to its customers.
THIS CERTIFICATE is predicated upon and issued pursuant to the findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained in Order No. 29410 service dated January 2, 2004, in the
above-referenced case.
DATED at Boise, Idaho this
g"""
day of January 2004.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
IS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~~1
Commission Secretary
Vld/O:IPCE0312 - Cert 420
EXIDBIT NO.
IPC-
G. SAID, IPCO
Page 1 of 1
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-O5 -/0
......;):-:-,:"'" '""-'."', "'--
t:::::::;) ,..,,- rT\r- c..C"."
......-- .,..
::r:. r'f1 (-1 '1"'
;~
".,.., r. iM.." 50 "~'
:;:
u')
(; ,
r;:;
c-, .
:::~, '(",,-"... -"
:3~ F::
u:; c::
::.
Cf)tt)
...-
I'" r'ILJ L:::)-i""
.......-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT NO.
GREGORY W. SAID
Bennett Mountain Revenue Requirement
ID
A
H
O
P
O
W
E
R
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
.
.
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T
TW
E
L
V
E
M
O
N
T
H
S
E
N
D
E
D
D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R
3
1
,
2
0
0
3
ID
A
H
O
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
BA
L
A
N
C
E
P
E
R
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
4
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
AJ
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
WI
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
5
*
*
*
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
*
*
*
6
R
A
TE
OF
RE
T
U
R
N
U
N
D
E
R
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
R
A
T
E
S
TO
T
A
L
C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D
R
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
52
1
,
63
1
,
87
0
49
,
34
1
,
01
9
57
0
,
97
2
,
88
9
SA
L
E
S
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
54
3
,
4
3
8
,
51
9
54
3
,
4
3
8
,
51
9
OT
H
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
36
,
27
7
,
4
1
2
36
,
27
7
,
4
1
2
TO
T
A
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
57
9
,
71
5
,
93
1
57
9
,
71
5
,
93
1
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
34
7
,
30
1
,
24
0
10
7
,
84
3
34
7
,
4
0
9
,
08
4
DE
P
R
E
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
86
,
12
2
,
04
9
59
0
,
65
4
71
2
,
70
2
AM
O
R
T
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
E
R
M
P
L
A
N
T
08
8
,
06
6
08
8
,
06
6
TA
X
E
S
O
T
H
E
R
T
H
A
N
I
N
C
O
M
E
19
,
04
8
,
70
4
94
6
,
63
0
19
,
99
5
,
33
4
PR
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
F
O
R
D
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
07
5
,
4
1
6
39
5
,
92
9
11
,
4
7
1
,
34
5
IN
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
T
A
X
C
R
E
D
I
T
A
D
J
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
(3
0
4
83
3
)
(3
0
4
,
83
3
)
FE
D
E
R
A
L
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
16
,
32
6
,
34
4
(6
,
4
0
7
,
56
9
)
91
8
,
77
5
ST
A
T
E
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
31
8
,
19
9
(2
9
6
,
93
6
)
02
1
,
26
2
TO
T
A
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
48
3
,
97
5
,
18
5
33
6
,
55
1
48
8
,
31
1
,
73
6
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
95
,
74
0
,
74
6
(4
,
33
6
,
55
1
)
91
,
4
0
4
19
5
AD
D
:
I
E
R
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
68
7
,
18
5
68
7
,
18
5
CO
N
S
O
L
I
D
A
T
E
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
10
2
,
4
2
7
93
1
33
6
,
55
1
)
98
,
09
1
,
38
1
RA
T
E
O
F
R
E
T
U
R
N
U
N
D
E
R
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
R
A
T
E
S
73
1
%
78
9
%
24
4
%
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
O
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
RA
T
E
O
F
R
E
T
U
R
N
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
~
1
0
.
25
R
O
E
85
2
%
85
2
%
85
2
%
RE
T
U
R
N
A
T
C
L
A
I
M
E
D
R
A
T
E
O
F
R
E
T
U
R
N
11
9
,
4
7
8
,
53
4
87
4
,
25
7
12
3
,
35
2
79
1
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
D
E
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
17
,
05
0
,
60
3
21
0
,
80
7
25
,
26
1
,
4
1
1
NE
T
.
TO
.
GR
O
S
S
T
A
X
M
U
L
T
I
P
L
I
E
R
64
2
64
2
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
27
,
99
7
,
09
0
FI
R
M
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
48
4
,
06
7
,
28
3
TO
T
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
E
R
O
R
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
2
9
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
51
2
,
06
4
,
37
3
51
2
,
06
4
,
37
3
RE
V
E
N
U
E
D
E
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
B
E
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
13
,
4
8
2
,
14
6
TO
T
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
W
I
T
H
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
O
F
B
E
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
52
5
,
54
6
,
51
9
PE
R
C
E
N
T
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
63
3
%
EX
H
I
B
I
T
N
O
.
CA
S
E
N
O
.
I
P
C
-
-1
D
G.
S
A
I
D
.
I
P
C
O
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
2
pa
c
:
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
M
t
n
A
d
j
.
xls
.
Su
m
m
a
r
y
-
P1
.
2I
2
8
/
2
0
0
5
.
9:3
1
A
M
.
ID
A
H
O
P
O
W
E
R
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
-
-
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T
TW
E
L
V
E
M
O
N
T
H
S
E
N
D
E
D
D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R
3
1
,
20
0
3
TO
T
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
ID
A
H
O
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
BA
L
A
N
C
E
P
E
R
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
BA
L
A
N
C
E
P
E
R
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
OR
D
E
R
N
O
S
.
BE
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
4
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
AJ
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
WI
B
E
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
29
5
0
5
&
2
9
5
4
7
AJ
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
WI
B
E
N
N
E
T
T
M
T
N
.
44
*
*
*
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
OF
RE
S
U
L
TS
*
*
*
45
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
OF
RA
TE
BA
S
E
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
IN
T
A
N
G
I
B
L
E
P
L
A
N
T
69
,
4
2
4
05
1
69
,
4
2
4
05
1
64
,
21
7
22
8
21
7
,
22
8
PR
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
T
1,
4
4
6
,
90
3
,
62
1
50
,
29
8
,
4
9
2
1,
4
9
7
,
20
2
,
11
3
36
6
,
62
9
,
70
7
47
,
50
7
,
94
2
1,
4
1
4
,
13
7
,
64
9
TR
A
N
S
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
T
52
6
,
01
6
,
26
7
92
5
,
11
4
53
2
,
94
1
,
38
1
44
8
,
4
2
1
56
3
98
7
,
37
3
45
4
,
4
0
8
,
93
6
DI
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
T
92
5
,
33
5
,
12
3
17
1
,
04
0
92
5
,
50
6
,
16
3
86
4
,
25
9
,
86
4
15
8
,
13
3
86
4
,
4
1
7
,
99
7
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
T
19
6
,
09
4
,
51
8
62
8
,
33
7
19
6
,
72
2
,
85
5
18
1
,
37
3
,
95
0
58
1
16
9
18
1
95
5
,
11
9
TO
T
A
L
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
16
3
,
77
3
,
58
1
58
,
02
2
,
98
3
22
1
,
79
6
,
56
3
92
4
90
2
,
31
3
23
4
61
6
97
9
,
13
6
,
92
9
LE
S
S
:
A
C
C
U
M
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
F
O
R
D
E
P
R
E
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
31
2
,
16
0
,
4
4
7
84
9
,
4
5
6
31
3
,
00
9
,
90
3
21
4
,
50
7
,
24
€
80
5
,
22
9
21
5
,
31
2
,
4
7
5
AM
O
R
T
O
F
O
T
H
E
R
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
l
30
,
4
3
1
65
6
30
,
4
3
1
65
6
28
,
14
9
,
51
3
28
,
14
9
,
51
3
NE
T
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
82
1
,
18
1
,
4
7
S
57
,
17
3
,
52
7
87
8
,
35
5
,
00
5
68
2
.
24
5
,
55
4
53
,
4
2
9
,
38
8
73
5
,
67
4
,
94
1
LE
S
S
:
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
A
D
V
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
07
9
,
52
5
11
,
07
9
,
52
5
11
,
01
9
,
15
7
01
9
,
15
7
LE
S
S
:
A
C
C
U
M
D
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
23
0
,
34
0
,
31
2
4,4
2
2
,
31
2
23
4
,
7
6
2
,
62
4
21
2
,
94
6
,
56
2
08
8
,
36
9
21
7
03
4
,
93
1
AD
D
:
P
L
T
H
L
D
F
O
R
F
U
T
U
R
E
+
A
C
Q
U
I
S
A
D
J
(1
9
5
,
03
6
)
(1
9
5
,
03
6
)
(1
9
5
,
03
6
)
(1
9
5
,
03
6
)
AD
D
:
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
27
,
38
9
,
05
0
27
,
38
9
,
05
0
25
,
4
4
0
,
78
3
25
,
4
4
0
,
78
3
AD
D
:
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
+
O
T
H
E
R
D
F
R
D
P
R
O
G
.
25
,
65
6
,
36
5
25
,
65
6
,
36
5
25
,
4
1
1
78
5
25
,
4
1
1
,
78
5
AD
D
:
S
U
B
S
I
D
I
A
R
Y
R
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
13
,
4
9
0
,
66
0
13
,
4
9
0
,
66
0
12
,
69
4
,
50
4
12
,
69
4
,
50
4
TO
T
A
L
C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D
R
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
64
6
,
1
0
2
,
68
C
52
,
75
1
,
21
5
69
8
,
85
3
,
89
5
52
1
,
63
1
87
C
49
,
34
1
01
9
57
0
,
97
2
,
88
9
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
O
F
N
E
T
I
N
C
O
M
E
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
SA
L
E
S
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
57
6
,
14
5
,
09
2
57
6
,
14
5
,
09
2
54
3
,
4
3
8
,
51
9
54
3
,
4
3
8
,
51
9
OT
H
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
42
,
4
6
4
,
05
7
42
,
4
6
4
,
05
7
36
,
27
7
,
4
1
2
36
,
27
7
,
4
1
2
TO
T
A
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
61
8
,
60
9
,
14
9
61
8
,
60
9
,
14
9
57
9
,
71
5
,
93
1
57
9
,
71
5
,
93
1
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
37
1
08
5
,
18
5
11
6
,
04
6
37
1
,
20
1
,
23
1
34
7
,
30
1
,
24
0
10
7
,
84
3
34
7
,
4
0
9
,
08
4
DE
P
R
E
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
93
,
10
6
,
21
8
69
8
,
91
2
94
,
80
5
,
12
9
86
,
12
2
,
04
9
59
0
,
65
4
71
2
,
70
2
AM
O
R
T
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
E
R
M
P
L
A
N
T
82
5
,
38
6
82
5
,
38
6
08
8
,
06
6
08
8
,
06
6
TA
X
E
S
O
T
H
E
R
T
H
A
N
I
N
C
O
M
E
20
,
98
5
,
59
0
01
5
,
4
0
6
22
,
00
0
,
99
5
19
,
04
8
,
70
4
94
6
,
63
0
19
,
99
5
,
33
4
PR
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
F
O
R
D
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
10
9
,
04
3
8,
4
8
7
,
73
2
59
6
,
77
5
07
5
,
4
1
6
39
5
,
92
9
11
,
4
7
1
,
34
5
IN
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
T
A
X
C
R
E
D
I
T
A
D
J
U
S
T
M
E
N
T
(3
0
8
,
16
6
)
(3
0
8
,
16
6
)
(3
0
4
83
3
)
(3
0
4
83
3
)
FE
D
E
R
A
L
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
16
.
61
2
,
31
8
(6
,
54
1
,
74
2
)
10
,
07
0
,
57
5
16
,
32
6
,
34
4
(6
,
4
0
7
,
56
9
)
91
8
,
77
5
ST
A
T
E
I
N
C
O
M
E
T
A
X
E
S
37
6
,
32
0
(3
0
8
,
82
0
)
06
7
50
1
31
8
,
19
9
(2
9
6
,
93
6
)
02
1
26
2
TO
T
A
L
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
51
7
,
79
1
,
89
4
4,
4
6
7
,
53
3
52
2
,
25
9
,
4
2
7
48
3
,
97
5
,
18
5
33
6
,
55
1
48
8
,
31
1
,
73
6
OP
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
10
0
,
81
7
,
25
6
(4
,
4
6
7
53
3
)
96
,
34
9
,
72
2
95
,
74
0
,
74
6
33
6
,
55
1
)
91
,
4
0
4
19
5
AD
D
:
I
E
R
C
O
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
10
6
,
58
3
10
6
,
58
3
68
7
,
18
5
68
7
,
18
5
CO
N
S
O
L
I
D
A
T
E
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
I
N
C
O
M
E
10
7
92
3
,
83
9
(4
,
4
6
7
,
53
3
)
10
3
,
4
5
6
,
30
5
10
2
,
4
2
7
.
93
1
(4
,
33
6
,
55
1
)
98
,
09
1
,
38
1
PO
W
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
C
O
S
T
S
:
AC
C
T
.
4
4
7
/
S
U
R
P
L
U
S
S
A
L
E
S
63
,
09
4
,
80
0
63
,
09
4
,
80
0
59
,
37
1
23
6
59
,
37
1
,
23
6
AC
C
T
.
5
0
1
/
F
U
E
L
.
TH
E
R
M
A
L
P
L
A
N
T
S
95
,
14
9
,
4
0
0
95
,
14
9
,
4
0
0
89
,
53
4
,
12
2
89
,
53
4
12
2
AC
C
T
.
5
4
7
/
F
U
E
L
.
OT
H
E
R
25
6
,
53
3
25
6
,
53
3
06
4
,
34
7
06
4
34
7
AC
C
T
.
5
5
5
/
N
O
N
.
FIR
M
P
U
R
C
H
A
S
E
S
12
,
37
6
,
90
0
12
,
37
6
,
90
0
11
,
64
6
,
4
7
3
11
,
64
6
,
4
7
3
SU
B
.
T
O
T
A
L
:
N
E
T
P
O
W
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
C
O
S
T
S
47
,
68
8
,
03
3
47
,
68
8
,
03
3
44
,
87
3
,
70
5
44
,
87
3
,
70
5
AC
C
T
.
5
5
5
/
C
S
P
P
P
U
R
C
H
A
S
E
S
46
,
19
1
,
95
2
46
,
19
1
95
2
43
,
4
7
5
,
86
9
43
,
4
7
5
,
86
9
TO
T
A
L
P
O
W
E
R
S
U
P
P
L
Y
C
O
S
T
S
93
,
87
9
,
98
5
93
.
87
9
98
5
88
,
34
9
,
57
5
88
,
34
9
,
57
5
EX
H
I
B
I
T
N
O
.
CA
S
E
N
O
.
I
P
C
-
G.
S
A
I
D
,
I
P
C
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
2