20050718Brief.pdf

BARTON L. KLINE , ISB # 1526
MONICA B. MOEN , ISB # 5734
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]FAX: [phone]
E-mail: BKline~idahopower.com
MMoen ~ idahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
F)ECEIVED
f~._~,; ;LED
~nnr, un r- tJ L. ;..j)v,-i\)UL. J . f1
..,. .
1 fJ liD PUB LIe
U ilL! flES COt'1r'llSSJON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AN
ORDER TEMPORARilY SUSPENDING
IDAHO POWER'S PURPA OBLIGATION
TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO
PURCHASE ENERGY GENERATED BY
WIND-POWERED SMAll POWER
PRODUCTION FACiliTIES.
CASE NO. IPC-05-
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY
INTRODUCTION
On June 17 , 2005, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or the
Company ) filed a Petition with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("PUC" or the
Commission ) requesting that the Commission issue its order temporarily suspending
Idaho Power s obligations under 99 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 ("PURPA") and various Commission orders to enter into new contracts to
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page
purchase energy generated by qualifying wind-powered small power production facilities
QFs" or "qualifying facilities
As set out in its Petition in this matter, Idaho Power requests this
temporary suspension of its obligations to purchase energy produced by wind-powered
QFs for a sufficient period of time to allow the Commission to investigate the impacts
Idaho Power s customers arising out of the substantial amounts of wind-powered
generation projects that have either been approved by the Commission or that are
proposed by wind developers since approval of Commission Order No. 29646 issued on
December 1 , 2004 in Case No. IPC-04-25 in which the Commission established the
current avoided cost purchase rates ("avoided cost rates
Idaho Power hereby submits its brief in support of its Petition for the
temporary suspension of its obligations under 99 201 and 210 of PURPA to permit an
analysis of the impact of substantial amounts of wind-generated QF development on the
Company s electrical system.
II.
CONGRESSIONAL AND REGULATORY HISTORY OF PURPA
Congress enacted PURPA in 1978 as part of a package of legislation
designed to address a nationwide energy crisis. Pub. L. 95-617 , 92 Stat. 3117 (1978).
Under PURPA 99 201 and 210 , electric utilities are required to purchase power
produced by cogenerators or small power producers that obtain qualifying facility status.
16 U.C. 9 824a-3(a), (b), (d) (1994). Under PURPA 9 210(b), the rates to be paid for
1 As noted in the Petition in this proceeding, the suspension which Idaho Power requests would not affect
new contracts between Idaho Power and OFs that propose utilizing technologies other than wind power.
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY , Page 2
such power shall not exceed "the incremental cost to the electric utility of alternative
electric energy." 16 U.C. 9 824a-3(b) (1994).
Pursuant to congressional directive, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC") promulgated rules implementing 99 201 and 210 of PURPA.
Under FERC rules, the rate a qualifying facility is to receive for the sale of its power is
generally referred to as the avoided cost rate; that is , the incremental cost to an
electrical utility of electric energy or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from
the qualifying facility, such utility would generate itself or purchase from another source.
18 C.R. 101 (b)(6) (1996). PURPA 9 210(b) and related FERC regulations provide
that the rates for QF purchases "(1) be just and reasonable to the electric consumers of
the electric utility and in the public interest and (2) shall not discriminate against
qualifying cogenerators or qualifying small power producers." 16 U.C. 9 824a-3(b)
(1994). Under FERC's rules
, "
no utility is required to pay more than its avoided cost for
purchases from qualifying facilities." 43 FERC ~ 61 067, 61 186 (1988)(citing 18 C.
9 292.401 (1987)).
While the FERC regulations promulgated the PURPA requirements , FERC
left implementation of those requirements to the regulatory authorities of the individual
states. 16 U.C. 9 824a-3(f)(1) (1994). See also, A. W. Brown Co., Inc. v. Idaho Power
Co.121 Idaho 812, 814 , 828 P.2d 841 , 843 (1992). The states' role in implementing
PURPA includes the responsibility to determine avoided cost rates. Ida In response to
these FERC and PURPA requirements , the IPUC established regulations and rates
under which Idaho utilities are to purchase power from qualifying facilities.
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 3
III.
IMPACT OF PURPA REGULATORY ACTIONS ON IDAHO POWER COMPANY
On September 26 , 2002 , in conformance with the FERC regulations
implementing PURPA , the IPUC issued Order No. 29124 in which the Commission set
the avoided cost rate at approximately $49 per MWh for a 20-year contract for energy
purchases from qualifying facilities that would come on-line in 2003 (Case No. GNR-
02-1). In Order No. 29646 issued on December 1 , 2004 in Case No. IPC-04-, the
Commission established the current avoided cost rate that Idaho Power is legally
obligated to offer QFs that do not generate more than 10 average MW per month. The
current levelized avoided cost rate for 20-year QF contracts coming on-line in 2006, as
established by Order No. 29646, is approximately $61 per MWh or about 250/0 higher
than the average levelized avoided cost rate in effect in 2003.
Prior to the issuance of Order No. 29646, Idaho Power had less than
MW of QF wind-powered generation under contract. Since issuance of Order No.
29646 less than seven months ago, Idaho Power has received approval from the
Commission for QF wind contracts with a total nameplate capacity of 82.5 MW , an
exponential increase in wind-generated electrical production on the Company
system.
The Company has also been contacted by wind developers intending to
pursue new QF projects with a nameplate capacity of 193 MW of wind-generated
2 At the time the Company s Petition was filed with the Commission, Idaho Power received IPUC approval
for OF wind contracts with a total nameplate capacity of 61.5 MW; at the same time, applications for
approval of contracts representing 21 MW of wind energy were pending before the Commission for
approval. Those pending applications have subsequentlybeen approved by the Commission.
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 4
electricity.3 Furthermore , in response to its 2004 Integrated Resources Plan ("IRP") that
was accepted by the Commission in Order No. 29762 issued on April 22 , 2005 , the
Company issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for 200 MW of wind-powered
resource on January 13, 2005.4 The bids received , on average , propose prices of
approximately $55 per MWh, 280/0 higher than the cost anticipated in the 2004 IRP.
Furthermore, wind generation , unlike other sources of QF generation
eligible for the Commission-established avoided cost rate, is an intermittent resource.
As a result, generation from wind-powered resources must be "firmed" by ancillary
services to assure the overall reliability of Idaho Power s system. Adding intermittent
resources without also adding ancillary firming capacity would adversely affect system
reliability and diminish the quality of service provided to the Company s customers. The
addition of ancillary services to Idaho Power s system to assure system reliability would
affect the Company s incremental cost of providing alternative resources to its system.
In light of the large number of MWs of QF wind resources already
acquired and proposed , the high bid prices received in the 2005 wind RFP and the
ancillary services required to firm wind resources , it is likely that Idaho Power will be
required to reduce the amount of wind generation acquired through its 2005 RFP. For
3 Other factors that may also be stimulating wind-powered development are the Federal production tax
credit equal to $18.00 per MWh, accelerated depreciation rules and the recently enacted Idaho sales tax
exemption encouraging the development of alternative generating resources (Idaho Code 9 63-362200).4 The 2004 IRP was developed in consultation with the Integrated Resource Plan Advisory Council
IRPAC"
).
Based on consultations with the IRPAC, Idaho Power calculated a 30-year levelized cost of
$42.94 per MWh in assessing the cost of wind resources and in determining the amount of wind-powered
resources to be acquired by the Company in the near term. (IRP at 2).5 Any unsuccessful wind developers who submitted a bid in response to Idaho Power s 2005 RFP, could
physically reconfigure their projects in conformance with the PURPA requirements and, thus, qualify for
the OF avoided cost rates. Idaho Power would be required to purchase that generation via the
mandatory purchase obligations of PURPA.
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 5
the same reasons , it is likely that the Company s 2008 RFP will need to be deferred or
perhaps , eliminated.
Idaho Power requests a temporary suspension of its obligations to
purchase energy produced by wind-powered QFs for a sufficient period of time to allow
the Commission to investigate the impacts on Idaho Power s customers arising out of
the substantial amounts of wind-powered generation projects that have either been
approved by the Commission or that are proposed by wind developers since approval of
Commission Order No. 29646. The Commission can legally grant the Company the
requested suspension and it is just and reasonable and in the best interest of the
Company s customers that the suspension be granted.
IV.
ARGUMENTS
The Commission Has Authority To Grant Idaho Power A
Temporary Suspension Of The Company s PURPA Obligations
To Enter Into Contracts To Purchase Energy Generated By
Wind-Powered QFs.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is the agency authorized and
directed to supervise and regulate electrical utilities and to have ratemaking authority
over such utilities. LC. 99 61-501 , 61-129. Furthermore , the IPUC is authorized by
FERC to regulate the purchase of energy by Idaho utilities from QFs as required by
PURPA 9 210.16 U.C 9824a-3(a).6 While FERC promulgated the general scheme
and rules of PURPA, it left implementation of PURPA to the regulatory authorities of the
individual states. The grant of authority to the states in implementing the regulation of
6 The Idaho Supreme Court recognized that "it is clear that PURPA was intended to confer upon state
regulatory commissions responsibilities not conferred under state law.Afton Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power
Co.107 Idaho 781 785, 693 P.2d 427 431 (1984).
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 6
sales and purchases between QFs and electric utilities and specifically, in determining
avoided costs, is broad. Empire Lumber Co. v. Washington Water Power Co.114
Idaho 191 192 755 P.2d 1229,1230 cert den.488 U.S. 892 109 S. Ct. 228 (1988).
See also, Independent Energy Producers Ass , Inc. v. California Pub. Uti/. Comm
3d 848 856 (9th Cir. 1994).
PURPA delegates to the states broad authority to
!ffiplement ~ 210 of the statute which includes theability of the IPUC to temporarily suspend Idaho
Power s obligations under PURPA to enter into
contracts to purchase energy from wind-powered
QFs.
FERC provides no precise formula for calculating a utility s avoided cost.
Such latitude is necessary, FERC believes, in order to accommodate local conditions
and concerns. See Policy Statement Regarding the FERC's Enforcement Role Under
Section 210 of PURPA (1978), 23 FERC ~ 61 304 , 61 646 (May 31 , 1983); Southern
California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas Elec. Co.70 FERC ~ 61 215 , 61 675
(1995)(asserting that FERC gives States wide latitude in implementing PURPA in
recognition of the role Congress intended to give to States).
There are two general caveats under PURPA that direct and guide the
actions of States: (1) electric utilities are not required to pay more than the avoided cost
for purchases (PURPA 9 210(b)); and (2) cogeneration and small power producers in
their sales to utilities are not to be subjected to pervasive utility-type regulation (PURPA
9 210(e)). In fulfilling its duties and obligations under 99 201 and 210 of PURPA and
the implementing regulations promulgated by FERC, the IPUC determines, among other
things, the avoided cost rates that electric utilities are to pay for QF-generated power.
The PUC requires that Idaho Power purchase electric energy from QFs at the
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 7
Company s avoided costs , that is, the Company s "incremental costs for electric energy
or capacity which, but for the purchase from the QF, the utility would generate itself or
purchase from another source." 18 C.R. 9 292.101 (b)(6)?
Under FERC's rules
, "
no utility is required to pay more than its avoided
cost for purchases from qualifying facilities unless the utility otherwise agrees." 43
FERC ~ 61 067, 61 186 (1988)(citing 18 C.R. 9 292.401 (1987)). To ensure that utility
ratepayers are indifferent with regard to utility purchases, Congress in PURPA and
FERC in the QF rules limited a utility s obligations to purchase power from QFs to
purchases at the utility s avoided costs, which is the cost the utility avoided through the
purchase of generation.
PURPA 9 210(b) and related FERC regulations provide that the rates for
QF purchases "(1) be just and reasonable to the electric consumers of the electric utility
and in the public interest , and (2) shall not discriminate against qualifying cogenerators
or qualifying small power producers." 16 U.C. 9 824a-3(b) (1994). The U.S. Supreme
Court stated that PURPA "sets full avoided cost as the maximum rate that the
Commission may prescribe.American Paper Inst., Inc. v. American Elec. Power Servo
Corp.461 U.S. 402, 413 (1983).
Avoided cost rates , once fixed by the IPUC, are subject to continuous
change as the value of power rises and falls.
7 Avoided costs include both energy costs and capacity costs. Energy costs are the costs associated
with the incremental production of electric energy, including the cost of fuel and certain operating and
maintenance costs. Capacity costs are the costs associated with providing the capabilities to meet the
demand for electric energy. These costs may be incurred by a utility in order to build generating facilities
to institute conservation programs or to purchase power on the wholesale market. Administrative
Determination of Full Avoided Costs, Sales of Power to Qualifying Facilities, and Interconnection
Facilities IV Federal Energy Reg. Comm n Rep. (CCH) ~ 32,457, at 32, 157 (Mar. 16, 1988).
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 8
As the electric utility industry becomes increasingly
competitive , the need to ensure that the States are using
procedures which ensure that QF rates do not exceed
avoided cost becomes more critical. This is because
rates that exceed avoided cost, will , by definition , give QFs
an unfair advantage over other market participants (non-
QFs). This in turn will hinder the development of
competitive markets and hurt ratepayers, a result clearly at
odds with ensuring the just and reasonable rates required by
PURPA section 210(b).
70 FERC ~ 61 215 , 61 675-76 (1995).
Rates paid to QFs that exceed avoided costs at the time rates are
imposed would be in violation of PURPA 9 210(b).Thus, the Commission must
continuously monitor conditions and circumstances to assure that the avoided costs
paid to qualifying facilities are reflective of the incremental costs to the utility of
alternative electric energy at the time the utility enters into agreements with QFs and no
more than those costs. Failure to monitor these conditions places the ratepayers at risk
of paying more for utility services.
The Commission is authorized to rescind or alter former orders or past
decisions to assure that those orders and decisions continue to address conditions or
circumstances as they presently exist. When the purpose of a commission s act "is one
of regulatory action , as distinguished from merely applying law or policy to past facts , an
agency must at all times be free to take such steps as may be proper in the
circumstances irrespective of its past decisions.Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho
Pub. Utile Comm 101 Idaho 567 579 617 P.2d 1242 (1980)(citation omitted). "
long as the Commission enters sufficient findings to show that its action is not arbitrary
and capricious , the (Idaho Public Utilities) Commission can alter its decisions.Id.
(citations omitted).
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 9
Avoided cost rates are dynamic and change in response to varying
conditions and circumstances.Even when conditions remain the same, the
Commission s understanding of those conditions may change.Even under those
circumstances
, "
the agency must be free to act." Id. In the past, the Commission has
recognized that avoided costs are not static and that , instead , those costs are subject to
adjustments. In Order No. 19673 issued by the Commission on May 8, 1985 in Case
No. U-1006-248, the Commission determined that it "has continuing authority to review
those rates" and that it is "just, fair and reasonable
, .
. . to protect the public interest in
paying no more than avoided costs for this energy.
In January 1994, in response to an application filed by Idaho Power for a
change in the methodology for determining the avoided cost rate , the IPUC suspended
the avoided cost rates it had previously established. See, Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho
Pub. Uti/. Comm 131 Idaho 1 , 951 P.2d 521 (1998). In 1997, the IPUC determined
that the avoided cost rates the Commission "approved in 1994 in Case No. IPC-92-
are no longer a fair, just and reasonable representation of (Idaho Power) Company
avoided costs." IPUC Order No. 26795 February 14 1997 (citations omitted).
Thus, in carrying out its authority under PURPA to regulate the purchase
of energy by Idaho utilities from QFs as required by PURPA 9 210(b), it is the duty of
the Commission to assure that the rates offered QFs are "just and reasonable to the
electric consumers of the electric utility and in the public interest" and , if necessary,
following a reasonable evaluation , to adjust those rates to insure that the PURPA
mandate is satisfied and that the ratepayer remains indifferent to the fees it pays for
utility services. 16 U.C 9824a-3(b)(1) (1994). The IPUC has broad authority to
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 10
temporarily suspend Idaho Power s obligations under PURPA to enter into contracts to
purchase energy from wind-powered QFs for a sufficient amount of time to evaluate
whether the avoided cost rates set by the Commission accurately reflect local conditions
and the Company s incremental cost of providing wind-powered electrical generation
and that that ratepayers remain indifferent with regard to utility purchases.
A QF is not entitled to a lock-in of an avoided cost
rate until it has entered into a legally enforceable
Q.Q!!gation for the delivery of energy and capacity
and the Commission has aeproved the contract
According to FERC
, "
(i)t is up to the States, not (FERC), to determine the
specific parameters of individual QF power purchase agreements , including the date at
which a legally enforceable obligation is incurred under State law.West Penn Power
Co.71 FERC ~ 61 153 (1995)(footnote omitted).The Idaho Supreme Court
determined that "(c)onferment of grandfathered status on (a) qualifying facility is
essentially an PUC finding that a legally enforceable obligation to sell power existed by
a given date. Such a finding is within the discretion of the state regulatory agency.
Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Utile Comm 128 Idaho 609 624-917 P.2d 766
780-81 (1996).
Consistent with the foregoing, the IPUC has determined that, until a
qualifying facility has entered into a legally enforceable obligation for the delivery of
energy and capacity to Idaho Power and the Commission has approved that agreement
the QF is not entitled to a lock-in of an avoided cost rate. See IPUC Order No. 19673
(May 8 , 1985)(establishing the applicability of the avoided cost rate during the pendency
of an action filed by Idaho Power to suspend its purchases of power produced by QFs);
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY , Page
see also, A. W. Brown Co., Inc.121 Idaho at 814.8 Thus , should the Commission
temporarily suspend Idaho Power s obligations under PURPA to enter into purchase
agreements for energy generated by wind-powered qualifying facilities Idaho Power
would not enter into any new QF agreements for which negotiations have not been
completed until the suspension period was lifted and the issues raised in the Company
Petition were addressed.
The Commission Should Grant Idaho Power A Temporary
Suspension Of The Company PURPA Obligations To EnterInto Contracts To Purchase Energy , Generated By Wind-
Powered QFs.
Idaho Power requests a temporary suspension of its obligations to
purchase energy produced by wind-powered QFs for a sufficient period of time to allow
the Commission to investigate the impacts on Idaho Power s customers arising out of
the substantial amounts of wind-powered generation projects that have either been
approved by the Commission or that are proposed by wind developers since approval of
Commission Order No. 29646 about seven months ago.The avoided cost rate
established by the Commission in Order No. 29646 does not reflect the incremental cost
to the Company of purchasing wind-powered energy. Those rates, as they apply to
wind-generated energy purchases, are neither just, fair reasonable or in the public
interest nor do they assure that QFs are not given an unfair advantage over other
market participants (non-QFs) as required by PURPA 9210. 16 U.C. 9 824a-3(b)
(1994).
8 The Idaho Supreme Court determined that "qualifying facility is entitled to receive avoided cost rates if
it obligates itself to the delivery of energy or capacity and if that obligation is legally enforceable against
the qualifying facility.A. W. Brown Co., Inc.121 Idaho at 818 (emphasis in original).
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 12
Wind generation , unlike other sources of QF generation eligible for the
Commission-established avoided cost rate , is an intermittent resource. As a result
generation from wind-powered resources must be firmed by ancillary services to assure
the overall reliability of Idaho Power s system. Adding intermittent resources without
also adding ancillary firming capacity would adversely affect system reliability and
diminish the quality of service provided to the Company s customers.
The Company can provide the necessary firming services by either (a)
purchasing load-following services and reserves from a third party supplier if those
ancillary services are available on a firm , long-term basis or (b) providing those services
through the acquisition by Idaho Power of peaking resources, such as gas-fired
combustion turbines , that the utility can dispatch. Either method would incur additional
costs to the Company and its customers that are directly attributable to only wind-
powered resources. These costs are not reflected in the Commission-adopted avoided
cost rates.
When the Commission issued Order No. 29124 , the Commission used
the combined cycle combustion turbine as the surrogate avoided cost resource for
setting the avoided cost rate.The combined cycle combustion turbine, unlike
intermittent wind resources, does not require the same level of ancillary services to
sustain system reliability. The combined cycle combustion turbine can be dispatched
and can provide load following services.The methodology employed by the
Commission to establish the avoided cost rate adopted in December 2004 did not
consider the costs associated with the ancillary services necessary to reliably and safely
integrate intermittent wind resources into the utility s system. As a result, the total cost
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 13
of adding QF wind resources, including the rate paid to qualifying facilities generating
energy via a wind resource are likely higher than the Company s incremental cost
providing alternative electric energy and in direct conflict with the tenets of PURPA.
In the last seven months since issuance of the current avoided cost rates
by the Commission, Idaho Power has experienced an exponential increase in the
amount of wind-powered resources either added to its portfolio or in line for Company
consideration. Prior to the issuance of Order No. 29646, Idaho Power had less than
MW of QF wind-powered generation under contract. Since issuance of Order No.
29646 less than seven months ago, Idaho Power has received approval from the
Commission for QF wind contracts with a total nameplate capacity of 82.5 MW. The
Company has also been contacted by wind developers intending to pursue new QF
projects with a nameplate capacity of 193 MW of wind-generated electricity. Wind
energy proposals constitute 720/0 of the inquiries the Company has received from
developers intending to pursue new QF projects.
While tax incentives at the state and federal levels may also be stimulating
wind-powered QF development , the Company believes that the published avoided cost
rates have created a windfall opportunity particularly for wind developers.The
Company suspects that the bids it received in response to its January 13, 2005-issued
RFP for 200 MW of wind-powered resource were influenced by the Commission-issued
avoided cost rates set at the end of last year.
The Company was hopeful that a bidding process would allow the
Company to take advantage of competition and the economies of scale associated with
larger-sized wind generation projects. Idaho Power expected that this strategy would
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 14
moderate the total cost of wind energy acquired by the Company by averaging the
higher cost of smaller QF wind purchases acquired at the avoided cost rates with the
presumably lower cost of wind acquired through the competitive RFP process.
Unfortunately, the bid process generated proposed purchase rates of 900/0 of the
Commission present avoided cost rate and 730/0 higher than the price recently
approved by the Montana Commission for 135-150 MW of a wind-powered resource.
Unless the Commission issues a temporary suspension of Idaho Power
obligations under 99 201 and 210 of PURPA and various Commission orders to enter
into new contracts to purchase energy generated by qualifying wind-powered facilities
the Company will likely be inundated with contract and interconnection requests to
obtain "grandfather" status. That status would guarantee that QF wind developers
would be eligible to receive an avoided cost rate that the Company believes is
inconsistent with the requirements of PURPA since the Company s cost of providing
wind-powered energy within its portfolio exceeds its incremental cost of providing
alternative energy resources. The grandfathering status would also assure that those
intermittent resources would be added to the Company s system and compromise the
reliability and safety of the system unless the Company expended significant resources
to firm that energy.
To undertake an orderly and reasoned wind resource avoided cost
investigation, it is imperative that the Commission implement a temporary suspension of
mandatory purchases of wind QF resources.Unless the Commission orders a
temporary suspension, Idaho Power is concerned that wind QF developers will
overwhelm the Company with requests for contracts and file complaints , meritorious or
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, Page 15
otherwise , in order to position themselves for an entitlement to the current avoided cost
rates established by the Commission in Order No. 29646.
Idaho Power s request for a temporary suspension of its obligations to
purchase wind QF resources does not represent a retreat by the Company from a
commitment to acquire a significant amount of renewable resources, including wind
power. Instead , the Company s request for a temporary suspension is necessitated by
the potentially adverse and acute consequences to its customers attributable to the
acquisition of large quantities of wind energy that neither the Commission nor the
Company could have foreseen when the current process for setting avoided cost rates
for QF-generated energy was established. For these reasons , the Commission should
grant Idaho Power a temporary suspension of its PURPA obligations to enter into
contracts to purchase energy generated by wind-powered QFs.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing arguments Idaho Power Company respectfully
requests that the Commission issue its Order temporarily suspending Idaho Power
obligations under 99 201 and 210 of PURPA to enter into new contracts to purchase
energy generated by wind-powered QFs to permit a review of utility system reliability
issues associated with wind-powered QF generation and wind-specific avoided costs.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of July 2005.
MONICA B. MOEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
BRIEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY , Page 16
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of July, 2005 , I served a true and
COITect copy of the BRJEF OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY upon the following named parties
by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
O. Box 7218
Boise, ID 83707
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Mr. James T. Carkulis
Exergy Development Group of Idaho LLC
1424 Dodge Avenue
O. Box 5212
Helena, MT 59604
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Richard L. StOITO
Director, Power Supply
A vista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Avenue
O. Box 3727, MSC- 7
Spokane, W A 99220-3727
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
R. Blair Strong
Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke & Miller
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
Spokane, W A 99201-3505
Hand Deli vered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
William J. Batt
John R. Hammond, Jr.
Batt & Fisher, LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 500
O. Box 1308
Boise, ID 83701
Hand Deli vered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
CER TIFICA TE OF SERVICE
Michael Heckler
Director of Marketing & Development
Windland Incorporated
7669 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 102
Boise, ill 83714
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 W. Bannock
Boise, ill 83702
Armand Eckert
Magic Wind LLC
716-B East 4900 North
Buhl, ill 83316
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Hand Deli vered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Hand Delivered
--L- U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
~-
t8.
MONICA B. MOEN