20050823final order no 29851.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 23, 2005
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AN
ORDER TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING
IDAHO POWER'S PURP A OBLIGATION TO
ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO PURCHASE
ENERGY GENERATED BY WIND-
POWERED SMALL POWER PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
CASE NO. IPC-O5-
ORDER NO. 29851
On June 17, 2005, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed a Petition
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting a temporary suspension of
the Company s obligation under Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 (PURP A) and various Commission orders, to enter into new contracts to purchase
energy generated by qualifying wind-powered small power production facilities (QFs). On July
, 2005 , the Commission issued Notices of Petition and Intervention Deadline in Case No. IPC-
05-22. A public hearing and oral argument was held on July 22 , 2005 in Boise, Idaho to
address the requested temporary suspension of Idaho Power s PURP A obligation to enter into
contracts to purchase energy generated by wind powered small power production facilities, the
need for and appropriateness of such relief and related procedural and jurisdictional matters
and/or the Commission s power to suspend the PURP A avoided cost rate for wind facilities.
On August 4, 2005, the Commission issued Interlocutory Order No. 29839. The
Commission s Order reduces the published rate eligibility cap for non-firm wind projects to 100
, requires individual negotiation for larger wind QFs, establishes criteria for assessing QF
contract entitlement and discusses further procedure. The Commission s Order, in part, contains
the following findings:
At the beginning of hearing on July 22, the Commission adjourned to allow
the parties to explore whether any consensus could be reached regarding
those PURP A projects that were in various stages of negotiation with Idaho
Power. The parties were unable to reach consensus. Accordingly, this
Commission finds it reasonable to establish the following criteria to
determine the eligibility of PURP A qualifying wind generating facilities for
contracts at the published avoided cost rates. For purposes of determining
eligibility we find it reasonable to use the date of the Commission s Notice in
this case, i., July 1 , 2005. For those QF projects in the negotiation queue on
ORDER NO. 29851
that date, the criteria that we will look at to determine project eligibility are:
(1) submittal of a signed power purchase agreement to the utility, or (2)
submittal to the utility of a completed Application for Interconnection Study
and payment of fee. In addition to a finding of existence of one or both of the
preceding threshold criteria, the QF must also be able to demonstrate other
indicia of substantial progress and project maturity, e., (1) a wind study
demonstrating a viable site for the project, (2) a signed contract for wind
turbines, (3) arranged financing for the project, and/or (4) related progress on
the facility permitting and licensing path.
On August 5, 2005, Windland Incorporated (Windland) filed Petition for
Reconsideration of Order No. 29839. Reference Idaho Code 9 61-626; Commission Rule of
Procedure 331.01. Windland requests that the Commission reconsider its decision regarding
grandfathering," contending the published avoided cost rates for wind QFs do not accurately
reflect the cost of alternative energy and are unjust and unreasonable. On August 10, 2005
Windland filed a Petition requesting that the Commission treat as final that part of Order No.
29839 that established grandfathering criteria to determine the eligibility of certain PURP
qualifying wind generating facilities for contracts at the published avoided cost rates established
in Order No. 29646. Reference Commission Rules of Procedure 321.01; 323.03.
On August 9, 2005 , Windland filed a Petition for Stay of the Commission s Order
No. 29839 until such time as Windland'Petition for Reconsideration regarding
grandfathering" is resolved and/or until such time as the Commission issues an Order regarding
the law governing grandfathering and the parties' relationships concerning wind powered QF
contracts. Reference Commission Rule of Procedure 324.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No. IPC-
05-22 including our Order No. 29839 and the related Petitions of Windland Incorporated.
Windland Incorporated, an intervenor in this case, has filed three Petitions with the
Commission, i.e.
August 5 , 2005 Petition for Reconsideration, reference Idaho Code
61-626; RP 331.01
August 10, 2005 Petition requesting that the Commission treat as final its
findings in Order No. 29839 regarding
grandfathering." Reference RP 323.03.
ORDER NO. 29851
August 9 2005-Petition for Stay of the Commission s Order No. 29839
regarding "grandfathering until such time
Windland's Petition for Reconsideration is considered
and resolved. Reference RP 324.
The Commission s Order No. 29839 was not designated as a final Order and by
Commission Rules is therefore an Interlocutory Order. Reference Commission Rule of
Procedure 321.01 (Interlocutory Orders) and 323.01 (Final Orders). Pursuant to Commission
Rule of Procedure 323.03 whenever a party believes that an Order not designated as a final Order
according to the terms of the Commission s Rules should be a final Order, the party may petition
the Commission to designate the Order as final. Once an Order is designated as final after its
release, its effective date for purposes of reconsideration or appeal is the date of the Order of
designation. Once designated as final, the statutory time lines for petitions for reconsideration
and cross-petitions are triggered. Reference Idaho Code 9 61-626, RP 331.01 - Petition for
Reconsideration (21 days) and .02 - Cross-Petition for Reconsideration (7 days).
The Commission finds it reasonable to grant Windland's RP 323.03 Petition and by
this Order treats as final only that portion of Order No. 29839 that establishes grandfathering
criteria to determine the eligibility of certain PURP A qualifying wind generating facilities to
contracts at the published avoided cost rates established in Order No. 29646. As Windland'
Petition for Reconsideration was filed prior to the Interlocutory Order being designated as a final
Order, we find it reasonable to treat Windland's August 5, 2005 Petition for Reconsideration as
filed on the first business day following the date of service of this Order. We make no findings
regarding the merits of Windland' s Petition for Reconsideration.
Regarding Windland' s Petition for Stay, the Commission notes that any person may
petition the Commission to stay any order, whether interlocutory or final. Reference
Commission Rule of Procedure 324. Windland's Petition for Stay was filed August 9, 2005.
Answers to Petitions are timely under Commission Rule of Procedure 57.02 if filed within
days. An answer to Windland's Petition for Stay is timely if filed on or prior to August 30
2005. As the time for answer has not expired and because the Commission wishes to provide
other parties with an opportunity to respond, we find that no action by the Commission regarding
Windland's Petition for Stay is required at this time.
ORDER NO. 29851
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over Idaho Power Company,
Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities, and PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company,
electric utilities, pursuant to the authority and power granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code
and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A).
The Commission has authority under PURP A and the implementing regulations of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to set avoided costs, to order electric
utilities to enter into fixed term obligations for the purchase of energy from qualified facilities
(QFs) and to implement FERC rules.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT
HEREBY ORDERED that Windland Incorporated's RP 323.03 Petition is granted and the
following language set forth in prior Interlocutory Order No. 29839 is hereby designated a final
Order for purposes of reconsideration and appeal.
At the beginning of hearing on July 22, the Commission adjourned to allow
the parties to explore whether any consensus could be reached regarding
those PURP A projects that were in various stages of negotiation with Idaho
Power. The parties were unable to reach consensus. Accordingly, this
Commission finds it reasonable to establish the following criteria to
determine the eligibility of PURP A qualifying wind generating facilities for
contracts at the published avoided cost rates. For purposes of determining
eligibility we find it reasonable to use the date of the Commission s Notice in
this case, i.e., July 1 2005. For those QF projects in the negotiation queue on
that date, the criteria that we will look at to determine project eligibility are:
(1) submittal of a signed power purchase agreement to the utility, or (2)
submittal to the utility of a completed Application for Interconnection Study
and payment of fee. In addition to a finding of existence of one or both of the
preceding threshold criteria, the QF must also be able to demonstrate other
indicia of substantial progress and project maturity, e., (1) a wind study
demonstrating a viable site for the project, (2) a signed contract for wind
turbines, (3) arranged financing for the project, and/or (4) related progress on
the facility permitting and licensing path.
Order No. 29839, pp. 9-10.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 5 , 2005 Petition for Reconsideration of
Windland Incorporated is to be viewed for statutory and procedural purposes as filed on the first
business day following the service date of this final Order.
ORDER NO. 29851
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code 9 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this t23;-N.
day of August 2005.
~~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:IPC-05-22 sw2
ORDER NO. 29851