20070723Complaint.pdf

c-; c: ("
B'1I(G,~StQJ1Nf &0J~v'r~" n ,
' :
; ti L.ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOU: ...\U\- C:...
Peter Richardson
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]~n;Ll ; \
peter~r ichardso n an doleary. com
O. Box 7218 Boise,1D 83707 - 515 N. 27rh Sr. Boise,1D 83702
23 July 2007
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POBox 83720
Boise 10 83720-0074
RE: Case ~C....~-O -/3
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed please find an original and seven (7) copies of the FORMAL
COMPLAINT OF EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF IDAHO, LLC, TO IDAHO
POWER COMPANY.
I have also enclosed an extra copy to be service-dated and returned to us for
our files. Thank you.
Sincerely,
CuJ\
Nina Curtis
Administrative Assistant
encl.
. .
Peter J. Richardson
ISB No. 3195
Richardson & 0' Leary
515 N. 2ih Street
O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone] Tel
Fax: [phone] Fax
peter~richardsonando leary. com
Attorneys for Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC
;:~ c:: ;: i I !: i:~
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Petitioner
CASE NO. IPC-07-
FORMAL COMPLAINT
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
COMES NOW, Exergy Development Group ofIdaho , LLC ("Exergy,), by and through
its attorneys of record, Richardson & O'Leary, and pursuant to this Commission s Rules of
Procedure, Rule 54 IDAPA 31.01.01.054 hereby files this Formal Complaint against the
Respondent, the Idaho Power Company.
Communications regarding this Formal Complaint should be sent to:
Exergy Development Group of Idaho, LLC
c/o Peter 1. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary
515 N. 27th St
O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter~richardsonando I eary. com
Copies of all pleadings, production requests, production responses, Commission orders
and other documents should be provided to Peter 1. Richardson as noted above and to:
James T. Carkulis
802 West Bannock Street
Boise, Idaho 8370e
(406) 459-30131
[phone] Fax
mlti~in-tch.com
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
The Petitioner, Exergy Development Group of Idaho , is an Idaho Limited
Liability Company that owns certain other Idaho Limited Liability Companies for the purpose of
developing, inter alia, wind power generating facilities for sale to Respondent, Idaho Power.
Petition s projects ("Projects ) that are the subject of this Formal Complaint
include Golden Valley Wind Park, a proposed 11.62 MW wind park located in Cassia County,
Idaho; Milner Dam Wind Park, a proposed 19.92 MW wind park to be located in Twin Falls
County, Idaho; the Notch Butte Wind Park, a proposed 19.92 MW wind park to be located in
Lincoln County, Idaho; the Lava Beds Wind Park, a proposed 19.92 MW wind park located in
Bingham County, Idaho; and, the Salmon Falls Wind Park, a proposed 19.92 MW wind park to
be located in Twin Falls County, Idaho.
Petitioner s Projects are located within Idaho Power s load control area.
Petitioner s Projects are located within the State ofIdaho.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
All of Petition s Projects have an agreement with Idaho Power for Idaho Power to
purchase the electrical output.
The power purchase agreements with Idaho Power have been duly approved by
this Commission.
In order for Petitioner s Projects to fulfill their respective obligations under the
five power purchase agreements, each Project must be interconnected to Idaho Power s electrical
grid.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over the interconnection
process for each of the five Projects.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has approved rules and regulations
governing Idaho Power s interconnection process.
10.The rules and regulations governing the interconnection process are published in
Idaho Power s Commission approved tariffs as Rate Schedule 72.
11.Despite the fact that Rate Schedule 72 applies to "the construction, operation
maintenance, Upgrade, Relocation, or removal of transmission and/or distribution lines and
equipment necessary to safely interconnect a Seller s Generation Facility to the Company
system" Idaho Power has published on its official web site a separate set of "Requirements for
Generation Interconnection
12.A copy of the front page of Idaho Power s Generator Interconnection Information
web site is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
13.Exhibit A was printed from Idaho Power s web site on July 20, 2007.
14.Idaho Power referred Petitioner to the information contained on its web site as the
controlling documents covering the interconnection process.
15.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has not approved Idaho Power
Generator Interconnection Information web site for interconnecting projects such as Petitioner
16.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over the interconnection
process for Petitioner s Projects.
17.Idaho Power has demanded Petitioner pay it certain deposits for the conduct of
studies allegedly necessary to interconnect its Projects to Idaho Power s electrical system.
COUNT ONE
18.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 16.
19.As a regulated electric utility subject to this Commission s jurisdiction, Idaho
Power must charge only such rates and charges as are authorized by the Commission.
20.Schedule 72 does not authorize the assessment of deposits as a condition to the
identification of the costs of interconnecting to Idaho Power s system.
21.Schedule 72 requires a seller of electrical energy to Idaho Power to pay for all
costs of interconnection prior to Idaho Power s commencing construction of the facilities
necessary to safely interconnect a seller s electrical generating equipment.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
22.Petitioner has agreed to pay for all necessary interconnection costs to safely
interconnect its Projects to Idaho Power s electrical system
23.Idaho Power has threatened to remove Petitioner from its transmission queue
unless the requested deposits are paid.
24.Removal from the transmission queue will effectively stop all work by Idaho
Power on interconnecting Petitioner s Projects to Idaho Power s electrical system.
25.Schedule 72 requires Idaho Power to provide Petitioner with "an initial cost
estimate of Company-owned Facilities (to)... be provided the Seller . Payment of the estimated
costs are to be made prior to Idaho Power s "ordering, installing, modifying, upgrading, or
performing any other work associated with the Interconnection Facilities.
26.Schedule 72 gives Idaho Power an affirmative obligation to provide the Petitioner
a cost estimate to complete "Company-owned Interconnection Facilities
27.Idaho Power should be required by this Commission to comply with Schedule 72
and provide Petitioner with an estimate of the costs of interconnecting to its system without the
assessment of pre-study deposits.
COUNT TWO
28.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
29.Idaho Power has sought a deposit to conduct what it calls a "Facility Study" for
the Notch Butte and Milner Dam projects of $100 000 each and a "Facility Study" deposit for the
Golden Valley Project in the amount of$35 000.
30.Idaho Power s web site published a "Facilities Study Agreement" that provides
for a deposit of only $26 000.
31.Exhibit B is a copy ofthe Facilities Study Agreement printed from Idaho Power
web site on July 20, 2007.
32.Paragraph 6.0 of Exhibit B provides that
, "
A deposit of the good faith estimated
facility study costs of $26 000 will be required from the Interconnection Customer
33.Idaho Power has arbitrarily changed the deposit required in its own unapproved
standard contract from $26 000 to $100 000 for each the Notch Butte and the Milner Dam
Projects and to $35 000 for the Golden Valley Proejct.
34.Although Idaho Power is not authorized to charge any deposit (Count One), this
Commission should not permit Idaho Power to arbitrarily change its published rates.
COUNT THREE
35.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
36.Exergy has relied in good faith upon the published deposit contained in Exhibit B
in making its plans for development.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
37.Idaho Power has increased the deposit from its published Facilities Study
Contract of $26 000 to $100 000 for Milner Dam and Notch Butte and to $35 000 for Golden
Valley.
38.This Commission should require Idaho Power to honor its published rates in order
to avoid the harm to its customers of not being able to rely on published statements of the power
company.
COUNT FOUR
39.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
40.Idaho Power has sought a deposit to conduct what it calls a "System Impact
Study" for the Lava Beds and Salmon Falls Projects in the amount of $10 000.
41.Idaho Power s web site published a "System Impact Study Agreement" that
provides for a deposit of only $3 000.
42.Exhibit C is a copy of the System Impact Study Agreement printed from Idaho
Power s web site on July 20 2007.
43.Paragraph 10.0 of Exhibit C provides that "A $3 000 deposit (the equivalent good
faith estimated cost of a distribution system impact study) will be required from the
Interconnection Customer
44.Idaho Power has arbitrarily changed the deposit required in its own unapproved
standard contract from $3 000 to $10 000 for each the Lava Beds and the Salmon Falls Projects.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
45.Although Idaho Power is not authorized to charge any deposit (Count One), this
Commission should not permit Idaho Power to arbitrarily change its published rates.
COUNT FIVE
46.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
47.Exergy has relied in good faith upon the published deposit contained in Exhibit C
in making its plans for development.
48.Idaho Power has increased the deposit from its published System Impact Study
Agreement of $3 000 to $10 000 for the Lava Beds and Salmon Falls Projects.
49.This Commission should require Idaho Power to honor its published rates in order
to avoid the harm to its customers of not being able to rely on published statements of the power
company.
COUNT SIX
50.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
51.Idaho Power has used the $26 000 deposit requirement on several occasions.
52.It is discriminatory for Idaho Power to follow its web based contract which calls
for a Facilities Study deposit of $26 000 for other developers and not your Petitioner.
COUNT SEVEN
FORMAL COMPLAINT
53.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
54.In response to a "Notice of Dispute" lodged by Petitioner with Idaho Power (see
Exhibit D, July 20, 2007 letter to Rowena Bishop), Idaho Power identified heretofore
undisclosed policies relating to its interconnection process. (see Exhibit E July 20 2007 EMAIL
letter to Mr. Richardson.
55.One such policy revealed in Exhibit E is that Facility Study deposits shall equal
ten percent of the project costs.
56.It is arbitrary to assess a strict percentage fee as a deposit to conduct a facility
study as all projects are unique.
57.Idaho Power s policies on interconnection study deposits have not been approved
or reviewed by this Commission. It is arbitrary and unreasonable to permit Idaho Power to
devise such policies without Commission review and approval.
COUNT EIGHT
58.Petitioner restates and re-alleges the common allegations contained in paragraphs
1 through 17.
59.Idaho Power tendered an invoice for charges against multiple projects for
Feasibility Study Reports for a total of$30 155.88 on June 26, 2007.
60.As noted in Count One such deposit charges and overcharges are not permitted
under Schedule 72.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
61.Idaho Power s web based rules of interconnection provide that any invoice would
be accompanied by a summary of the professional's time. A simple multiplication of a dollar
figure times a number of hours fails to comply with either the spirit or the letter of said
requirement and is therefore arbitrary and unreasonable.
RIGHT TO AMEND
Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Formal Complaint in any respect as motion
practice and discovery proceeds in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the following relief:
This Commission require Idaho Power to provide Petitioner with a cost estimate for
interconnection pursuant to Schedule 72.
This Commission prohibit Idaho Power from charging study deposits as a
precondition to providing cost estimates as provided for in Schedule 72.
This Commission prohibit Idaho Power from removing Petitioner s Projects from its
transmission queue
This Commission require Idaho Power to treat all interconnection customers in the
same manner.
This Commission require Idaho Power Publish and seek Commission approval for all
of its interconnection practices and policies.
DATED this 23rd day of July 2007.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
Richardson & O'Leary, LLP
Peter J. Richardson
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
FORMAL COMPLAINT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of July, 2007, a true and correct copy of the
within and foregoing FORMAL COMPLAINT, was served by personal service to:
Barton Kline
Monica Moen
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
Cw\~\
Nina Curtis
Administrative Assistant
FORMAL COMPLAINT
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Petitioner
CASE NO. IPC-07-
vs.FORMAL COMPLAINT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
EXHIBIT A
WallO .t'ower - About Us - Domg tlusmess WIth Us - Generator Interconnection Informati... Page 1 of2
Customer ').enTiCE: Energy Cent~CT Newsroom Riven-; & Ret.reaHon . About
C';cnerator Interconnection Information
Employmt!flt
Company Information
Community
Employee Portal
Doing Business With Us
"rchasi"-,g Terms
Generators and potential generators who wish to connect to Idaho Power Company s electrical
system will find the following information and links helpful. Applications are placed in the queue
and are processed on a first come, first serve basis. View the ill'pJjgatio U~1. This link will take
you to the OASIS site. From the left menu bar, click "Generation Interconnection" and thenGeneration Interconnection Queue.
. GE'nf,raLn, hl'~rcorne:,
;f1smog,-,,, Services
Net Metering (less than 1 OOKW) Application fOr=.158KB)
R.FP Sched.'!Jle 84 for Idaho POG 102KB)
9hedule 72 for Idaho POl:,279KB)A'~cil!;;ry Ser..,:'8S
Pah1"r'.I'."Oi F,,;;" f-',i'I~Ch"C:i
Regulatofy Ir.fmmation Generators less than 20 MW IlliLLoj:~.IT:on..o GtLon6P.-pJlc_~iQQ(POF, 21 KB)
Requirements for Generation InterconnectjQQ (EQE., 155KB)
Process for Generators less than 20 MW ;?m911Q_~n~.r~tQILO1E2I.Q.QJJJ1~_ctiQ_
PIQ_c5),Q,lJI:fOF, 149KB)
Step 1: The Interconnection AQQ!ication POE,21 KB) must be completed and
submitted for small Generator Interconnections to the Idaho Power System.
Step 2: Feasibilit Analysis E.OF 13KB) includes general review of system
impact, capacity constraints and possible problems with the customer s choice of
point of interconnection.
Step 3: System ImRact Study POF.16KB) provides a detailed assessment of the
transmission system adequacy to accommodate the application. This step may
not be necessary for some projects depending on size and location of the project.
Step 4(a): facility Study ?OF 27KB) includes design and engineering studies to
determine the design and specifications. Construction options are provided to the
customer.
Step 4(b):Generator Interconnection Agreement (GIA) (E..QE, 111KB) Generator Interconnection Agreement (GIA) must be filed with the FERC for all
projects greater than 20 MW. All projects less than 20 MW are subject to
technical requirements under the GIA once the project becomes operational.
Generators greater than 20MW
La~I1eratoLlntergQIL~_ction .EIQ..Q.EillJJr.~ E, 339KB)
Related Links
Transmission Services
Federal Energy RegulaJ:9I"Y...-G.ommissioQ (FERC) rulesIdaho Public Utilities Commissior) (IPUC)
daho Power s Integrated Resource plan (IRP)
daho pow~r CQ!I1Qany RatE;L$chEillules
http://www.idahopower.com! aboutus/business/ generationInterconnect/ defaul t.htm 7/20/2007
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Respondent.
CASE NO. IPC-07-
Petitioner FORMAL COMPLAINTvs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT B
TillS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day ofbeVween , aorganized and existing under the laws of the State of
Interconnection Customer ) and Idaho Power Company, a Corporation existing under the laws
of the State ofIdaho ("Transmission Provider ). Interconnection Customer and TransmissionProvider each may be referred to as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties.
Facilities Study Agreement
- by and
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer is proposing to develop a Small Generating Facility
or generating capacity addition to an existing Small Generating Facility consistent with the
Interconnection Request completed by the Interconnection Customer on , and
WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer desires to interconnect the Small Generating Facility
with the Transmission Provider s Transmission System;
WHEREAS, the Transmission Provider has completed a system impact study and provided the
results of said study to the Interconnection Customer; and
WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer has requested the Transmission Provider to perform
a facilities study to specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering, procurement and
construction work needed to implement the conclusions of the system impact study in
accordance with Good Utility Practice to physically and electrically connect the Small
Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider s Transmission System.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained herein
the Parties agreed as follows:
1.0 When used in this Agreement, with initial capitalization, the terms specified shall have
the meanings indicated or the meanings specified in the standard Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures.
The Interconnection Customer elects and the Transmission Provider shall cause a
facilities study consistent with the standard Small Generator Interconnection Procedures
to be performed in accordance with the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The scope of the facilities study shall be subject to data provided in Attachment A to this
Agreement.
The facilities study shall specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering,
procurement and construction work (including overheads) needed to implement the
conclusions of the system impact study(s). The facilities study shall also identify (1) the
electrical switching configuration of the equipment, including, without limitation
transformer, switchgear, meters, and other station equipment, (2) the nature and estimated
cost of the Transmission Provider s Interconnection Facilities and Upgrades necessary to
accomplish the interconnection, and (3) an estimate of the time required to complete the
construction and installation of such facilities.
Facilities Study Agreement Project
The Transmission Provider may propose to group facilities required for more than one
Interconnection Customer in order to minimize facilities costs through economies of
scale, but any Interconnection Customer may require the installation of facilities required
for its own Small Generating Facility if it is willing to pay the costs of those facilities.
A deposit of the good faith estimated facilities study costs of $26 000 will be required
from the Interconnection Customer.
In cases where Upgrades are required, the facilities study must be completed within 45
Business Days ofthe receipt of this Agreement. In cases where no Upgrades are
necessary, and the required facilities are limited to Interconnection Facilities, the
facilities study must be completed within 30 Business Days.
Once the facilities study is completed, a facilities study report shall be prepared and
transmitted to the Interconnection Customer. Barring unusual circumstances, the
facilities study must be completed and the facilities study report transmitted within 30
Business Days of the Interconnection Customer s agreement to conduct a facilities study.
Any study fees shall be based on the Transmission Provider s actual costs and will be
invoiced to the Interconnection Customer after the study is completed and delivered and
will include a summary of professional time.
10.The Interconnection Customer must pay any study costs that exceed the deposit without
interest within 30 calendar days on receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute.
the deposit exceeds the invoiced fees, the Transmission Provider shall refund such excess
within 30 calendar days of the invoice without interest.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their
duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above written.
Transmission Provider:Interconnection Customer:
Idaho Power Company - Delivery
Signed Signed
Name (Printed):Name (printed):
Title Title
Facilities Study Agreement - 2-Project
Attachment A to
Facilities Study Agreement
Data to Be Provided by the Interconnection Customer
with the Facilities Study Agreement
1. Provide location plan and simplified one-line diagram of the plant and station facilities.
For staged projects, please indicate future generation, transmission circuits, etc.
On the one-line diagram, indicate the generation capacity attached at each metering
location. (Maximum load on CT/PT)
On the one-line diagram, indicate the location of auxiliary power. (Minimum load on
CT/PT) Amps
2. One set of metering is required for each generation connection to the new ring bus or
existing Transmission Provider station. Number of generation connections:
Will an alternate source of auxiliary power be available during CT/PT maintenance?
Yes
4. Will a transfer bus on the generation side of the metering require that each meter set be
designed for the total plant generation? Yes
(Please indicate on the one-line diagram).
What type of control system or PLC will be located at the Small Generating Facility?
What protocol does the control system or PLC use?
7. Please provide a 7.5-minute quadrangle map of the site. Indicate the plant, station
transmission line, and property lines.
Physical dimensions of the proposed interconnection station:
Facilities Study Agreement - 3-Project
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Respondent.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
CASE NO. IPC-07-
Petitioner
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
EXHIBIT C
System Impact Study Agreement
Project
System Impact Study Agreement
TIDS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
between
by and
, a
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
, ("
Interconnection Customer
, "
) and Idaho Power
Company a Corporation existing under the laws of the State of Idaho
, ("
Transmission Provider
Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider each may be referred to as a "Party," or
collectively as the "Parties.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer is proposing to develop a Small Generating Facility
or generating capacity addition to an existing Small Generating Facility consistent with the
Interconnection Request completed by the Interconnection Customer on and
WHEREAS the Interconnection Customer desires to interconnect the Small Generating Facility
with the Transmission Provider s Transmission System;
WHEREAS, the Transmission Provider has completed a feasibility study and provided the
results of said study to the Interconnection Customer (This recital to be omitted if the Parties
have agreed to forego the feasibility study.); and
WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer has requested the Transmission Provider to perform
a system impact study( s) to assess the impact of interconnecting the Small Generating Facility
with the Transmission Provider s Transmission System, and of any Affected Systems;
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained herein
the Parties agreed as follows:
1.0 When used in this Agreement, with initial capitalization, the terms specified shall have
the meanings indicated or the meanings specified in the standard Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures.
The Interconnection Customer elects and the Transmission Provider shall cause to be
performed a system impact study(s) consistent with the standard Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures in accordance with the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The scope of a system impact study shall be subject to the assumptions set forth in
Attachment A to this Agreement.
A system impact study will be based upon the results of the feasibility study and the
technical information provided by Interconnection Customer in the Interconnection
Request. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to request additional technical
information from the Interconnection Customer as may reasonably become necessary
consistent with Good Utility Practice during the course ofthe system impact study. If the
System Impact Study Agreement
Project
Interconnection Customer modifies its designated Point of Interconnection
Interconnection Request, or the technical information provided therein is modified, thetime to complete the system impact study may be extended.
A system impact study shall consist of a short circuit analysis, a stability analysis, apower flow analysis, voltage drop and flicker studies, protection and set pointcoordination studies, and grounding reviews, as necessary. A system impact study shallstate the assumptions upon which it is based, state the results of the analyses, and providethe requirement or potential impediments to providing the requested interconnection
service, including a preliminary indication of the cost and length of time that would be
necessary to correct any problems identified in those analyses and implement the
interconnection. A system impact study shall provide a list of facilities that are required
as a result of the Interconnection Request and non-binding good faith estimates of costresponsibility and time to construct.
A distribution system impact study shall incorporate a distribution load flow study, an
analysis of equipment interrupting ratings, protection coordination study, voltage drop
and flicker studies, protection and set point coordination studies, grounding reviews, andthe impact on electric system operation, as necessary.
Affected Systems may participate in the preparation of a system impact study, with a
division of costs among such entities as they may agree. All Affected Systems shall be
afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon a system impact study that covers
potential adverse system impacts on their electric systems, and the Transmission Providerhas 20 additional Business Days to complete a system impact study requiring review by
Affected Systems.
If the Transmission Provider uses a queuing procedure for sorting or prioritizing projects
and their associated cost responsibilities for any required Network Upgrades, the systemimpact study shall consider all generating facilities (and with respect to paragraph 8.
below, any identified Upgrades associated with such higher queued interconnection) that
on the date the system impact study is commenced -
8.1 Are directly interconnected with the Transmission Provider s electric system; or
8.2 Are interconnected with Affected Systems and may have an impact on the
proposed interconnection; and
Have a pending higher queued Interconnection Request to interconnect with the
Transmission Provider s electric system.
A distribution system impact study, if required, shall be completed and the results
transmitted to the Interconnection Customer within 30 Business Days after this
Agreement is signed by the Parties. A transmission system impact study, if required
shall be completed and the results transmitted to the Interconnection Customer within 45
System Impact Study Agreement
Project
Business Days after this Agreement is signed by the Parties, or in accordance with the
Transmission Provider s queuing procedures.
10.A $3 000 deposit (the equivalent of the good faith estimated cost of a distribution system
impact study) will be required from the Interconnection Customer.
11.0 Any study fees shall be based on the Transmission Provider s actual costs and will be
invoiced to the Interconnection Customer after the study is completed and delivered and
will include a summary of professional time.
12.The Interconnection Customer must pay any study costs that exceed the deposit without
interest within 30 calendar days on receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute.
the deposit exceeds the invoiced fees, the Transmission Provider shall refund such excess
within 30 calendar days of the invoice without interest.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their
duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above, written.
Transmission Provider:Interconnection Customer:
Idaho Power Company
Signed Signed
Name (Printed):Name (Printed):
Title Title
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Petitioner
CASE NO. IPC-07-
vs.FORMAL COMPLAINT
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
EXHIBIT D
RIfe:BABDSQN &: (l)~F..F~RYATTORNEYS .'\T LAW
Peter Richardson
Tel: 208-'8-7901 Fox: 208-938-7904
pcto:rlii'r ichordsonoodo Icory. co
P.O.Bo"72J8.Bo;,,,.ID.83707 - S15 N. 27th St.. Boi",. ID.8370l
July 20, 2007 - Hand Delivered
Rowena Bishop
Operations Analyst, Interchange Operations
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re:Notice of Dispute
Dear Ms. Bishop:
This notice of dispute is submitted pursuant to Section 4 of Idaho Power s Small
Generator Interconnection Procedures. ("SGIP"). Those procedure require a written notice ofdispute. If, within two business days following receipt of the written notice the parties are
unable to resolve the dispute then they are free to pursue other remedies available to them.
One remedy provided for in the SGIP is to seek dispute resolution assistance from FERC'
Dispute Resolution Service. However, either party may, after the two day resolution perio~
exercise whatever rights they may have in equity or law. Although I am unable to locate any
order by the Idaho PUC approving Idaho Power s SGIP, I have no choice but to assume it is a
valid and binding process for purposes of this notice.
Our disputes can be roughly grouped into three separate categories, as follows:
Dispute No.1 Facilities Study Agreement Deposit Requests:
Project No. 155 Golden Valley $35 000
Project No. 157 Milner Dam $100 000
Project No. 158 Notch Butte $100 000
We respectfully dispute the offers to execute a Facilities Study Agreement with deposits in the
amounts requested. The basis of our dispute is found in Idaho Power s SGIP and also in the
standard agreements offered on Idaho Power s official interconnection page on its web site.
Idaho Power s SGIP process provides the standard from agreement for Interconnection
Facilities Study Agreements and may be found at your website at:
July 20 , 2007
http://wvvw.idahopower.com! aboutuslbusiness/ generationlnterconnectl defaul t.htm
The agreement offered on Idaho Power s web site is largely identical to the one found in the
document entitled SGIP except that it specifies the amount of deposit that may be requested in
an Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement. The amount provided for on Idaho Power
web site is set at $26 000. Indeed, my client has been charged exactly that amount for past
Interconnection Facilities Study Agreements by Idaho Power. Our dispute is, quite simply,that Idaho Power is exceeding the deposit amount that it is allowed to charge pursuant to the
offered agreements at the "Doing Business With Us" portion of its web site. In addition, itappears that it would be discriminatory for Idaho Power to charge my client $100 000 when it
has only charged $26 000 in the past for identical services and because its own standardagreement provides for a charge of only $26 000.
The second basis for our dispute of the requested deposits is found at Section 3.5 of IdahoPowers SGIP. That Section provides
, "
A deposit of the good faith estimated costs for the
facilities study may be required from the Interconnection Customer.Based on my client's
considerable experience in developing wind projects of the type under consideration here, wedo not believe the costs above represent a good, faith estimate of the costs for conducting the
facilities study. We respectfully request documentation of the efforts that were undertaken on
Idaho Power s part to meet the "good faith" estimate test required by the SGIP.
Dispute No.2 System Impact Study Deposit Requests:
Lava Beds Project No. 156 - $10 000
Salmon Falls Project No. 159 - $10 000
As with the Facilities Study Agreement, the System Impact Study Agreement offered on
Idaho Power s web site is largely identical to the one found in the document entitled SGIP
except that it also specifies the amount of deposit that may be requested in a System Impact
Study Agreement. The amount specified in Idaho Power s standard offered agreement is
000. As with the Facilities Study Agreement, our dispute is, quite simply, that Idaho
Power is exceeding the deposit amount that it is allowed to charge pursuant to the offered
agreements at the "Doing Business With Us" portion of its web site. We believe it would be
discriminatory for Idaho Power to charge us anything other than what is provide for on its
official web page that details the process for securing a System Impact Study agreement.
Dispute No.3 Invoice No. D0607001 - $30.155.
Projects No. 116 and 117 (Pilgrim Stage and Thousand Springs) are currently in the process of
having their Facilities Study conducted. The Facilities Study Agreement provides that
invoices are not to be sent until the study is completed. We therefore dispute the $14 044.
invoiced for Thousand Springs and the $969.56 invoiced for Pilgrim Stage.
Overall, however, we dispute the entire invoice on the grounds that it fails to provide therequired summaries of the professional's time spent on each project as required by the
Feasibility Study Agreement, the Facility Study Agreement and also the System Impact Study
July 20, 2007
Agreement. As an attorney who bills for my time, I can assure you that an hour multiplied by
a dollar amount does not rise to a summary of my time.
I am looking forward to working with you over the coming two days, as provided for in theSGIP, to see if a resolution can be achieved.
Sincerely yours
1lt:V Peter Richardson
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Petitioner
CASE NO. IPC-07-
FORMAL COMPLAINTvs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
EXHIBIT E
lDAHO
POWER
An IDACORP company
July 20, 2007
Via EMAIL
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Here are our responses to your Notice of Dispute received today:
Response No.1 Facilities Study Agreement Deposit Requests
A Facility Study produces the complete design of the project. Idaho Power s project design
costs are typically twenty percent of the total project cost. The Facility Study deposits are
calculated at ten percent ofthe project estimates provided in the Feasibility Study Report or
System Impact Study Report with a $100 000.00 cap.
The Golden Valley Feasibility Study Report indicates a $333 000.00 project cost, the Milner
Dam and Notch Butte projects are about $2 000 000.00 each. The two latter projects require
a transformer replacement and will incur additional design costs and thus a higher Facility
Study deposit. Note: two small distribution projects that were recently completed were
charged deposits of $25 000.00 and $30 000.00 based on the same cost allocation process.
The Facility Study Agreement deposits requested for Golden Valley, Milner Dam and Notch
Butte are good faith estimates of the cost to complete the study.
Response No.2 System Impact Study Deposit Requests
The System Impact Study deposit for Lava Beds and Salmon Falls are based on a good faith
estimate of the cost to complete a transmission system impact study. The $3 000 study
deposit you reference ITom our web site is based on a good faith estimate for a distribution
system impact study. Transmission system impact studies are more complicated, time
consuming and costly.
Res1'onse No.3 Invoice No. D0607001 - $30.155.
This invoice only includes charges ITom past study work that has been completed for these
projects, and not current facility study work. We have provided more information on the
invoice for clarity (see attached). The invoice amounts are correct and due.
The study deposits (refer to Response 1 & 2) will be past due on July 23 2007. Please pay these
amounts in an expedited fashion to retain your generation interconnection queue position. If youhave any further questions, please contact Dave Angell.
Sincerely,
&.~~1~
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXERGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF
IDAHO, LLC
Petitioner
CASE NO. IPC-07-13
FORMAL COMPLAINTvs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Respondent.
EXHIBIT F
An tOACORP Company
Exergy Development Group
Attn: James Carkulis
1424 Dodge Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
Department Delivery Finance
Invoice No 00607001
Date June 26, 2007
Account No 599 XOO001 999 142070
The labor cost identified below are for engineering evaluation of any thermal overload or voltage limit violations,
circuit breaker short circuit capability limits exceeded as a result of the interconnection, and production of theFeasibility Study Report with a description of facilities required and a non-bonding estimated cost of facilities
reQuired to interconnect.
Project 158 Notch Butte deposit received 12/22/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 45 hours
Senior Engineer - 2 hours
Labor Loadings
(500.00)
793.
83.
004.
Subtotal 381.
(500.00)
140.
83.
195.
Subtotal 919.
(500.00)
788.
83.20
001.
Subtotal 373.
(500.00)
333.
088.43
124.
750.
72.
354.
Subtotal 223.
Project 157 Milner Dam deposit received 12/22/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 53 hours
Senior Engineer - 2 hours
Labor Loadings
Project 155 Golden Valley deposit received 12/22/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 46 hours
Senior Engineer - 2 hours
Labor loadings
Project 156 lava Beds deposit received 12/22/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 60 hours
Engineer I - 44 hours
Senior Engineer - 3 hours
Engineer II - 28 hours
Engineering Project leader - 2 hours
labor loadings
Project 159 Salmon Falls deposit received 12/22/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 36 hours
Senior Engineer - 2 hours
Engineer I - 2 hours
Labor Loadings
Project 105 West SJope deposit received 03/19/04 & OS/24/04Labor
Senior Engineer - 47 hours
Engineer II - 12 hours
Labor Loadings
Project 116 Pilgrim Stage deposit received 01/12/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 43 hours
Engineer II - 16 hours
Labor Loadings
Project 117 Thousand Springs deposit received 01/12/05
Labor
Senior Engineer - 129 hours
Engineer II - 88 hours
Labor Loadings
Purchased Services - site survey work
Travel Expenses
Total Due Idaho Power Company
Remit Payment to:
Idaho Power Company
Attn: Corporate Cashier
O. Box 447
Salt Lake City, UT 84110-0447
Questions regarding this invoice please contact:
Aubrae Sloan
[phone]
asloancw.idahoDOwer. com
(500.00)
1,454.
83.
51.
823.
Subtotal 912.
000.00)
843.
353.
134.
Subtotal (668.94)
000.00)
522.
465.
982.
Subtotal 969.
(10 000.00)
050.
930.
668.
248.
146.
Subtotal 044.
30,155.
Wire Instructions:
Wells Fargo Bank
ABA NO. 121000248
For Credit To:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Concentration Account
ACCOUNT NO. 4000033514
REF: COMPANY NAME &
INVOICE NUMBER