20060627Initial comments.pdf

BARTON L. KLINE ISB #1526
MONICA MOEN ISB #5734
Idaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise , Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
FAX Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: bkline~idahopower.com
E-mail: mmoen ~ idahopower.com
- - . ";, ;
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF)
MAGIC WIND LLC TO DETERMINEEXEMPTION STATUS
CASE NO. IPC-05-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'
INITIAL COMMENTS
BACKGROUND FACTS
On August 4 2005 , the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission
in Case No. IPC-05-, Order No. 29839 , reduced the eligibility cap for avoided cost
published rates for non-firm wind projects from 10 aMW to 100 kW , requiring individual
negotiation for larger wind qualifying facilities ("OFs ) and establishing criteria for
assessing OF contract entitlement.
On October 20, 2005, Magic Wind LLC ("Magic Wind") initiated this
proceeding to determine its exemption status with the Commission.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page
Part of the documentation that supported Magic Wind's claim of exemption
was a Firm Energy Sales Agreement that Magic Wind had signed and tendered to Idaho
Power on June 14 , 2005. When Magic Wind presented the signed Firm Energy Sales
Agreement to Idaho Power, it requested that Idaho Power sign the tendered Firm
Energy Sales Agreement. By tendering this signed Firm Energy Sales Agreement to
Idaho Power, Magic Wind satisfied one of the primary criteria for entitlement to
exemption from the eligibility cap established by the Commission in Order No. 29839.
Following receipt of additional information concerning the secondary
criteria discussed in Order No. 29839 , Idaho Power advised Magic Wind that it agreed
that the Magic Wind Project was exempt from the rate eligibility cap. Idaho Power also
advised that it was prepared to enter into a Firm Energy Sales Agreement in the form
previously executed by Magic Wind once Magic Wind corrected some erroneous
information and provided certain missing information needed to complete the June 14
2006 Firm Energy Sales Agreement. Idaho Power made multiple attempts between
November of 2005 and April of 2006 to obtain the information from Magic Wind that was
needed to finalize the Firm Energy Sales Agreement for the Magic Wind Project.
Ultimately Magic Wind providing the missing information and Idaho Power
was in the process of preparing the "for-signature" agreements when , on April 5 , 2006
Idaho Power was advised by Magic Wind that it did not intend to enter into the Firm
Energy Sales Agreement it had previously signed and submitted to Idaho Power. Magic
Wind advised Idaho Power that it desired to obtain a contract that deleted material
provisions from the Firm Energy Sales Agreement it had previously signed and
Copies of documents confirming Idaho Power s efforts to proceed with the June 14 2005 FESA are
attached to Idaho Power s Answer to Magic Wind's Motion for Declaratory Order.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 2
tendered to Idaho Power and substituted selected provisions from the contract that had
been negotiated between PacifiCorp and Schwendiman Wind LLC ("Schwendiman
and approved by the Commission in Order No. 3000. ("Schwendiman Agreement"
By letter dated April 25, 2006 , Idaho Power reiterated its offer to purchase
the generation from the Magic Wind Project in accordance with the recently completed
June 14 , 2006 Firm Energy Sales Agreement. In the April 25 2006 letter Idaho Power
indicated it was not willing to modify its purchase offer to include the revised rates Magic
Wind was seeking. A copy of the April 25 , 2006 letter from Idaho Power to Magic Wind
is Exhibit D to Magic Wind's Motion for Declaratory Order.
Magic Wind subsequently filed its Motion for a Declaratory Order that is
the subject of these comments.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
Has Idaho Power fully complied with its obliQations under
PURPA?
Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 ("PURPA"
16 U.C. 99796, 824a-, 824i , 824k, 2601 (1982), obligates electric utilities like Idaho
Power to offer to purchase electric energy from OFs like Magic Wind pursuant to rates
that meet certain criteria. Specifically, PURPA provides as follows:
(b)Rates for purchases by electric utilities
The rules prescribed under subsection (a) of this section shall
insure that, in requiring any electric utility to offer to purchase electric
energy from any qualifying cogeneration facility or qualifying small power
production facility, the rates for such purchase-
(1) shall be just and reasonable to the electric consumers
of the electric utility and in the public interest, and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 3
(2) shall not discriminate against qualifying cogenerators
or qualifying small power producers.
No such rule prescribed under subsection (a) of this section shall provide
for a rate which exceeds the incremental cost to the electric utility of
alternative electric energy. (16 U.C. 99 824a-3(b))
In this instance Idaho Power has offered to purchase the energy to be
generated by Magic Wind in accordance with the rates that this Commission has
determined, on multiple occasions , meet the above-described criteria and are just
reasonable and non-discriminatory. Magic Wind has not alleged that the rates in the
Firm Energy Sales Agreement Idaho Power has offered to sign are not consistent with
the above-referenced provisions of PURPA. Magic Wind has not alleged that the Firm
Energy Sales Agreement , or any portion of it , offered by Idaho Power is unreasonable.
This brings us to the first question presented by Magic Wind's Motion for
Declaratory Order. Under PURPA, once a utility has offered to purchase electric
capacity and energy from a OF in accordance with a legally-enforceable obligation
containing rates, terms and conditions that this Commission has previously determined
to be just , reasonable and non-discriminatory, can the OF require the utility to accept
alternative rates , terms and conditions solely because the OF believes those alternative
rates, terms and conditions are more favorable to the OF?
Idaho Power does not believe that PURPA or the orders of this
Commission permit such a result. It is the utility s obligation to offer to purchase in
accordance with 16 U.C. 99 824a-3(b). If the utility has offered to purchase the OF's
capacity and energy in accordance with a legally enforceable obligation that contains
rates , terms and conditions that the Commission has found to be just, reasonable and
non-discriminatory, the utility has fully complied with its obligations under PURPA.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 4
Magic Wind has the burden of proof to demonstrate that Idaho Power is
not in compliance with PURPA. If Magic Wind claims that any portion of the Firm
Energy Sales Agreement that it signed and tendered to Idaho Power and Idaho Power
has agreed to sign is inconsistent with the requirements of 16 U.C. 99 824a-3(b), it
must identify those provisions and present a prima facie case to the Commission that
the selected provisions are inconsistent with PURPA. Magic Wind's Motion for
Declaratory Order does not raise any such claims or present any evidence of PURPA
non-compliance and as a result its Motion should be dismissed. While Idaho Power
believes that Magic Wind's failure to identify any non-compliance on Idaho Power s part
is dispositive, if the Commission decides to further consider the Motion , it should
address the following questions.
What remedy should be applied when a OF Qenerates an
amount of enerQY that is outside of the 90%/110% performance band?
Magic Wind is not requesting that the Commission modify the 90%/110%
performance band. The 90%/110% performance band is the contract mechanism that
encourages OFs to accurately estimate the amounts of energy they will deliver to the
utility each month.
Magic Wind is requesting that the Commission do away with the remedy
that the Commission itself established in Orders Nos. 29632 and 29682 issued in Case
Nos. IPC-04-08 and IPC-04-, to be applied if a OF fails to provide the amount of
energy it committed to deliver during the month and the deviation between the contract
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 5
amount and the actual delivered amount falls outside the 90%/110% performance
band.
The remedy contained in the Firm Energy Sales Agreement that Idaho
Power offered to Magic Wind is the remedy the Commission itself established in Orders
Nos. 29632 and 29682 issued in Case Nos. IPC-04-08 and IPC-04-10 ("
Geothermal Case ). In the U.S. Geothermal Case , Idaho Power had proposed that if
the OF delivered an amount of energy outside the 90%/110% performance band , it
would be paid the full contract price for the energy actually provided within the 90% /
110% performance band, but would be required to reimburse Idaho Power for its costs
to replace any shortfall in deliveries. Idaho Power proposed that its replacement costs
be measured by using non-firm energy prices determined in accordance with Idaho
Power s Commission-approved Schedule 86 Coqeneration and Small Power
Production , Non-Firm Enerqy , prices less the contract price.3 If the non-firm energy
prices were less than the contract price, there was no shortfall liability calculated. If the
Schedule 86 prices exceed the contract price the OF's total shortfall liability was capped
at a level equal to 150% of the contract price multiplied by the shortfall amount. Energy
provided in excess of the 110% upper bound of the performance band would be
purchased at Schedule 86 rates. Prior to the U.S. Geothermal case, the Commission
In their responses to Idaho Power s comments in Case No. PAC-05-, both PacifiCorp and
Schwendiman objected to Idaho Power s describing the remedy to be applied when a OF fails to
generate the amount of energy it had previously agreed to provide as "damages" or "liquidated
damages . They preferred the term "non-conforming energy." Because Idaho Power will be required
to make up any shortfalls or dispose of any excess energy delivered by OFs, Idaho Power believes it is
correct to describe any costs Idaho Power incurs due to the OF's failure to deliver the agreed-upon
amounts of energy as damages. However, to avoid creating an issue, in these comments Idaho Power
will not refer to liquidated damages but will refer to the provisions as the "remedy" for deliveries of
energy outside the 90%/110% performance band.
3 Idaho Power s Schedule 86 non-firm energy prices are set at 85% of the monthly weighted average of
non-firm Mid-C index prices.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 6
had approved 3 contracts between Idaho Power and various OFs which contained the
above-described remedy for deliveries outside the 90%/110% performance band.
In the U.S. Geothermal Case, the Commission rejected Idaho Power
proposed remedy and directed Idaho Power to use the remedy that is included in the
Firm Energy Sales Agreement Idaho Power has tendered to Magic Wind. In the remedy
the Commission adopted in U.S. Geothermal decision , when energy deliveries in any
month fall short of the 90% performance band , that month's energy deliveries are
purchased at Schedule 86 prices or the contract price, whichever is lower. Deliveries in
excess of 110% are also paid at Schedule 86 prices.
Since the Commission established the remedy described in the U.
Geothermal case , the Commission has approved 17 contracts between Idaho Power
and various OFs which include the remedy described in the U.S. Geothermal case.
These OF contracts represent 185.8 MW of OF capacity. Clearly the remedy the
Commission established in U.S. Geothermal has not prevented robust growth in OF
contracts.
As Idaho Power understands the provisions of the Schwendiman
Agreement, if the OF fails to deliver within the 90%/110% performance band , the
published rate is reduced by an amount equal to PacifiCorp s assumed fixed cost for a
simple cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbine. This payment structure sets a price
floor and price cap for all deliveries outside the 90%/110% performance band. This
price floor and cap is equal to about 80% of the published rates. Market price at the
time of the deliveries outside the 90%/110% band is not a consideration in the
Schwendiman Agreement.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 7
A general comparison of the operation of the two remedies discloses the
following: If the Commission grants Magic Wind's Motion and requires all utilities to
adopt the Schwendiman remedy, in months when market prices are less than the
Schwendiman price floor, utility customers would pay more than they would have paid
under the market-based performance band established by the Commission in the U.
Geothermal Case. As shown in Exhibit 1 , in 2003, 2004 and so far in 2006, Idaho
Power s Schedule 86 prices have been lower than 80% of OF contract prices.
Conversely, when market prices are higher than the capped prices in the
Schwendiman Agreement, customers will pay less than they would have under the
market-based price remedy established in the U.S. Geothermal Case. As shown in
Exhibit 1 , there was a benefit to customers under the Schwendiman remedy in 2005.
Idaho Power can certainly understand why OF developers would prefer a
price floor that limits their down-side exposure. Under the Schwendiman price floor
concept, OFs can safely adjust their monthly energy delivery commitment amounts
upward within the 90%/110% performance band with less risk. This approach subtly
shifts financial risk from the OF developers to Idaho Power s customers.
If the Commission chooses to consider Magic Wind's proposal to do away
with the remedy the Commission fashioned in the U.S. Geothermal Case , Idaho Power
believes the Commission should also consider allowing Idaho Power to utilize the
remedy included in Idaho Power OF agreements prior to the U.S. Geothermal Case as
a reasonable choice alternative. As will be discussed later in these comments, this
remedy presents a more accurate measure of the costs Idaho Power and other utilities
will experience if OFs fail to generate within the 90%/110% performance band.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 8
Should QF developers be permitted to unilaterally select the
rates, terms and conditions to be included in QF contracts?
By seeking a Declaratory Order, Magic Wind is requesting that the
Commission order Idaho Power, PacifiCorp and Avista to include one selected portion
of a contract negotiated between PacifiCorp and Schwendiman in all subsequent OF
contracts. If the Commission issues the order Magic Wind is seeking, OFs will then
have the unilateral right to "cherry pick" each of the contracts that this Commission
approves between utilities and OFs and select those rates, terms and conditions that
the OF prefers and require all three utilities to include only those provisions in the
agreements between the OFs and the utilities.
A specific example of this situation is contained in the Firm Energy Sales
Agreement Magic Wind has presented to Idaho Power. Paragraph 5.3 of the Firm
Energy Sales Agreement Idaho Power has offered to Magic Wind provides that "Seller
failure to achieve the Operation Date within ten (10) months of the Scheduled Operation
Date will be an event of default." The counterpart for this provision in the Schwendiman
Agreement requires Schwendiman to achieve its Commercial Operation Date on or
before the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date. If this does not occur, Delay
Liquidated Damages shall be calculated and collected from the seller for every day after
the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date until the actual Commercial Operation Date
occurs (limited to 120 days) Magic Wind has not proposed to include Section 2 of the
Schwendiman Agreement in the Firm Energy Sales Agreement it is now seeking to
obtain from Idaho Power.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 9
This is the asymmetrical result Magic Wind is seeking to obtain with its
Motion. Granting Magic Wind's Motion will , at a minimum, have a chilling effect on
meaningful contract negotiations between OFs and utilities.
The ultimate outcome of the granting of Magic Wind's Motion may well be
a mandatory standard form contract applicable to all three utilities. The Commission
has considered and rejected this approach in the past. In its initial implementation of
PURPA in Idaho, the Commission required each utility to file a standard form contract
that would not be subject to negotiation. In relatively short order, this Commission
recognized that standard form contracts were not desirable and eliminated the standard
form contract requirement. In Order No. 18190 , issued in Case No. U-1006-200, the
Commission stated:
In keeping with the freedom to contract approach announced in this
Order, the Commission will no longer require that Idaho Power
Company retain a standard form contract on file at the Commission
in the Company s official tariff book. Our position on this issue
remains essentially unchanged. A standard form contract will
automatically evolve (and has already done so) to meet the needs
of the typical project. . .. However, we shall henceforth look to
results and will no longer involve ourselves in the drafting of such
documents unless called upon to assist by the utility. We retain the
right, or rather the duty, to hear complaints that arise during the
negotiating process and to order relief from unconscionable
contract terms.
Case No. U-1006-200, Order No. 18190.
By filing this Motion Magic Wind is asking that the Commission move
away from its above-described "freedom to contract" approach and return to a
Commission mandated standard form contract for all utilities. Idaho Power submits that
it is not in the public interest for th~ Commission to return to a policy of standardized
one-size-fits-all OF contracts.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 10
Of course, if the Commission decides that it intends to grant Magic Wind'
Motion , and order Idaho Power , Avista and PacifiCorp to adopt the remedy from the
Schwendiman Agreement, the utilities should be permitted to include Section 2 from the
Schwendiman Agreement in the Firm Energy Sales Agreement that is developed by the
Commission.
Is there a better remedy to address the costs Idaho Power and
its customers will incur when QFs qenerate outside the 90%/110% performance
band?
Idaho Power believes that it is important that any remedy to be applied
when a OF generates outside of the 90%/110% band be based on market prices.
Regardless of whether a OF under-delivers or over-delivers, in all likelihood , Idaho
Power will use the wholesale markets to make up the shortfall or dispose of the excess.
As a result, market prices are an appropriate component of the measurement of the
costs Idaho Power will incur if a OF fails to perform.
To some extent, both the Schwendiman remedy and the Commission
S. Geothermal remedy fail to fully recognize the role market prices play in
replacement costs of energy.
If the Commission decides to consider changes or alternatives to the
remedy it fashioned in the U.S. Geothermal case , Idaho Power recommends that the
Commission also consider re-instituting the remedy it approved in Idaho Power
contracts with Fossil Gulch Wind Park LLC , Renewable Energy of Idaho and Horseshoe
Bend Wind Park LLC as a reasonable choice. This remedy more accurately models
Idaho Power s potential damages if the OF fails to generate within the 90%/110%
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page
performance band. This remedy allows the OF to be paid full price for energy actually
delivered up to 110% but requires the OF to reimburse Idaho Power for the costs Idaho
Power incurs to replace an energy delivery shortfall. This approach is consistent with
normal commercial practices and industry standard measurement of costs for failure to
deliver in wholesale energy purchase and sale transactions.
The rates contained in Exhibits Band C of MaQic Wind'
Motion should not be considered on modified procedure.
With one caveat , Idaho Power agrees that processing this case on
modified procedure is appropriate. In the main , Magic Wind's Motion presents the
Commission with purely legal and policy questions. However, determination of the
specific rates described in Exhibits Band C to Magic Wind's Motion is not a policy
question. If the Commission decides, as a matter of policy, to consider elimination of
the U.S. Geothermal remedy, then a formal hearing will need to consider the new rates
requested by Magic Wind. Idaho Power has been unable to fully understand or
replicate the rates computed by Dr. Reading and set out in Exhibits Band C to Magic
Wind's Motion. In addition , Dr. Reading indicates that the rates he has computed are
based on data from the Company s 2004 IRP. Idaho Power cannot confirm or agree
that Dr. Reading has accurately or reasonably applied 2004 IRP data. In addition , the
Company s 2006 IRP is in the final stages of preparation and Idaho Power submits that
it would be appropriate to compare, and if necessary, update any numbers Dr. Reading
may have used from the 2004 IRP to make sure they are consistent with current
estimates of simple cycle combustion turbine costs , assumed capacity factors and other
cost assumptions Dr. Reading made. As a result, if the Commission decides to
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 12
eliminate the U.S. Geothermal remedy and require use of the Schwendiman remedy for
Idaho utilities, the Commission should bifurcate this proceeding to allow for adequate
time and process to analyze the new rates proposed by Magic Wind. In that case , a
hearing would be necessary and modified procedure would not be appropriate for
determining the specific rates to be included in any contract with Magic Wind and other
future OF contracts.
CONCLUSION
Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission deny Magic
Wind's Motion for Declaratory Order and refrain from issuing the declaratory order
requested by Magic Wind. Idaho Power has offered to sign the Firm Energy Sales
Agreement which Magic Wind tendered to Idaho Power on June 14, 2005. In so doing
Idaho Power has fully complied with its obligations under PURPA by offering to enter
into the Firm Energy Sales Agreement tendered by Magic Wind. Magic Wind has not
alleged or proven that Idaho Power is not in compliance with PURPA in its transactions
with Magic Wind.
The Firm Energy Sales Agreement offered to Magic Wind is the
same Firm Energy Sales Agreement that this Commission has approved 17 times
resulting in contracts equal to 185.8 MW of new OF capacity. Four additional contracts
(34.5 MW) are currently progressing through the Commission process seeking
approval. These 21 projects , totaling approximately 220 MWs, consist of hydro
geothermal , wind , landfill gas , industrial waste and anerobic digestor projects. In light of
this robust and diverse contracting record , it is impossible for Magic Wind and other
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 13
OFs to legitimately argue that the U.S. Geothermal remedy adversely impacts OF
development.
The Commission should be reluctant to retrace its prior steps and
encourage the establishment of what amounts to a standard form contract for all utilities
in Idaho. This is the logical ultimate outcome of granting Magic Wind's Motion.
If the Commission is inclined to reconsider the remedy it
established in the U.S. Geothermal case, the Commission should also consider the
remedy it approved in the OF contracts Idaho Power submitted prior to the U.
Geothermal case. This remedy does the best job of measuring Idaho Power s potential
costs if a OF fails to generate within the 90%/110% performance band.
If the Commission desires to revisit the remedy it established in the
S. Geothermal case, it should allow utilities to include other provisions that the
Commission has approved in other OF contracts such as Section 2 of the Schwendiman
Agreement.
Modified procedure is an appropriate process for deciding the
policy and legal issues presented by Magic Wind's Motion. It is not a sufficiently
rigorous process for review and approval of the new rates Magic Wind proposes to
implement via its Motion.
DATED at Boise , Idaho, this 2ts,day of June , 2006.
(i
~~-
BARTON L. KLINE
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS Page 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2G"day of June , 2006 , I served a true
and correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S INITIAL COMMENTS 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
scott.woodburv~ puc.ldaho.qov
Hand Delivered
S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
O. Box 7218
Boise, ID 83707
peter~ richardsonandolearv.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Richard L. Storro
Director , Power Supply
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Avenue
O. Box 3727, MSC-
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
dick.storro~ avistacorp.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
R. Blair Strong
Paine, Hamblen , Coffin , Brooke & Miller
717 West Sprague Avenue , Suite 1200
Spokane , WA 99201-3505
blair.stronq ~ painehamblen.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420 W. Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise , ID 83701
ioe
(g)
mcdevitt-miller.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Glenn Ikemoto
Energy Vision LLC
672 Blair Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
qlenni ~ pacbell. net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Page
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Bob Lively
PacifiCorp
One Utah Center, 23rd Floor
201 S. Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
bob.livelv~pacificorp.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
Lisa Nordstrom
PacifiCorp
825 N.E. Multnomah , Suite 1800
Portland , OR 97232
lisa. nord strom ~ pacificorp.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
William M. Eddie
Advocates For the West
1320 W. Franklin Street
O. Box 1612
Boise, ID 83701
billeddie~ rmci.net
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
David Hawk, Director
Energy Natural Resources
R. Simp lot Company
999 Main Street
O. Box 27
Boise , ID 83702
dhawk ~ simplot.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
R. Scott Pasley
Assistant General Counsel
R. Simplot Company
999 Main Street
O. Box 27
Boise , ID 83702
spaslev~simplot.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
William J. Batt
John R. Hammond , Jr.
Batt & Fisher , LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 500
O. Box 1308
Boise, ID 83701
wib ~ battfisher.com
irh ~ battfisher.com
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Page 2
Michael Heckler
Director of Marketing & Development
Windland Incorporated
7669 W. Riverside Drive , Suite 102
Boise, ID 83714
mheckler~ windland .com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Page 3
Hand Delivered
x U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX [phone]
E-mail
BARTON L. KLINE
EXHIBIT 1
",-, '
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
560
Non Levelized 2005 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
$1,352 079
577,618
$1,802 899
382,904
$2,647,502
912 100
$3,137,638
$3,362,919
588,458
813 698
038 939
$4,264,477
$4,489,758
270 679
$1,482 642
$1,694 360
382 904
647 502
912,100
$3,124 063
335,781
547 744
759,422
971 100
183 063
$4,394 782
Made use of 2005 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sap
Oct
Nov
Dec
$38.
- $40.
$41.
$40.
$23.
$28.
$35.28-
$52.
$60.
$67.
$59.
$72.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
- $81,400
$94 976
$108 539
$13 575
$27,138
$40,714
$54,276
$67 838
$81 413
$94,976
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
560
Non Levelized 2003 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
$937 682
$1,094 100
$1,250 336
$1,931 787
$2,146 293
$2,360,798
$2,517 217
673,452
829 870
986 074
142 277
298,695
$3,454,931
$1,030 122
201 957
373 594
$1,931 787
$2,146,293
360,798
532 634
704 271
876,106
047,711
219 315
391 151
$3;562 788
Made use of 2003 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
- Nov
Dec
$27.
$32.
$35.
$25.
$21.
$24.
$37.
$33.
$30.
$27.
$29.
$32.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
($92,440)
($107 857)
($123 258)
($15,417)
- ($30,819)
($46,236)
($61 637)
($77 038)
($92,456)
($107,857)
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00
30.00%
52,560
Non Levelized 2004 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
$1,080 713
260 992
$1,441 054
117 424
$2,352 542
$2,587 661
767 940
948,002
$3,128 281
$3,308,312
$3,488,343
668,622
848 684
129,112
317,460
505,591
117,424
352 542
587,661
776 009
$2,964,140
$3,152,488
$3,340,583
$3,528 678
$3,717,026
$3,905,157
Made use of 2004 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$42.
$31.
$31.59
$36.
$31.
$26.
$40.
$30.
$29.
$34.
$39.
$36.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
($48,399)
($56,468)
($64,537)
($8,069)
($16 138)
($24,207)
($32 271 )
($40,335)
($48,404)
($56,473)
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 8
Theoretical "roject
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
560
Levelized 2003 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
$937 682
094 100
250 336
$2,300 968
$2,556 468
$2,811 968
968 386
$3,124 621
281 040
$3,437 243
$3,593,446
$3,749,865
906 100
226 987
$1,431 662
636 100
300 968
556,468
811 968
016 642
221 ,081
$3,425,755
630,155
$3,834 555
$4,039 229
243 668
Made use of 2003 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$27.
$32.
$35.
$25.
$21.
$24.
$37.
$33.
$30-
$27.
$29.
$32.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
($289,305)
($337,561 )
($385 764)
($48,256)
($96,459)
($144 716)
($192 912)
($241,109)
($289,365)
($337 568)
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 4 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
560
Levelized 2004 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
080 713
260 992
$1 ,441 ,054
557 579
841 572
125 566
$3,305 845
$3,485,907
666,186
846 217
$4,026 248
206 526
386 589
$1,363 824
591 324
818 562
557 579 -
841 572
125 566
353 066
580 304
$3,807,805
035,000
262,195
489,695
716 933
($283 111 )
($330 333)
($377,508)
($47 222)
($94 397)
($141 619)
($188,783)
($235,947)
($283,169)
($330 344)
Made use of 2004 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$42.
$31.
$31.
$36.
$31.
$26:25
$40.
$30.
$29.
$34.
$39.
. $36.
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 5 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Annual estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00
30.00%
52,560
Levelized 2005 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
352 079
$1,577 618
802 899
382 904
647 502
912 100
137 638
362 919
588 458
$3,813 698
038,939
264,477
$4,489 758
270 679
$1,482 642
$1,694 360
382,904
647 502
912,100
$3,124 063
335,781
547 744
759,422
971 100
$4,183 063
$4;394 782
Made use of 2005 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dee
$38.
$40.
$41.
$40.
$23.
$28.
$35.
$52~71
$60.
$67.
$59.
$72.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
$81,400
$94 976
$108 539
$13 575
$27 138
$40 714
$54,276
$67 838
$81,413
$94 976
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 6 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Jan - May estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
744
Non Levelized 2006 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
$396,516
$462 660
$528 748
$845 144
$938 981
032 818
098,961
165 049
231 193
297 240
363,287
$1,429,431
$1,495 519
$450,662
$525 833
$600 944
$845 144
$938,981
032 818
107 989
183 100
258 271
333,341
$1,408,410
$1,483 581
558 692
($54 146)
($63 173)
($72 196)
($9 028)
($18,050)
($27 078)
($36 101 )
($45 123)
($54 151)
($63,174)
Made use of 2006 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$37.
$41.
$36.45
$14.
$22.47
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 7 of 8
Theoretical Project
Nameplate
Capacity Factor
Jan - May estimated MWH
Percent of estimated
performance
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
110.00%
120.00%
130.00%
140.00%
150.00%
160.00%
170.00%
180.00%
Idaho Power Company
Cogeneration and Small Power Production
20.00 MW
30.00%
21,744
Levelized 2006 Prices
Idaho Power contract PacifiCorppayment Contract Payment
$396,516
$462 660
$528 748
000 943
112 079
223,214
289,358
355,446
$1,421 590
$1,487 637
553,684
619,827
685 915
$533 740
$622 769
$711 726
000,943
112 079
223 214
312 243
$1,401 200
$1,490 229
579 138
668 046
757 075
846,032
Made use of 2006 Idaho Power Schedule 86 Prices
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
$37.
$41.
$36.45
$14.
$22.47
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
$0.
Difference between Idaho Power
contract and PacifiCorp contract
($137 224)
($160,109)
($182 978)
($22 885)
($45 754)
($68 640)
($91 501 )
($114 362)
($137 248)
($160 117)
Comments of Idaho Power
Exhibit 1
Page 8 of 8