20110906Answer.pdf

DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwalker(âidahopower.com
1SIDA~POR~
An IDACORP Company
September 6, 2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-11-15
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO, LLC, COMPLAINANT, VS. IDAHO
POWER COMPANY, RESPONDENT
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing please find an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Answer in the above matter.
Very truly yours,Aq:wcv
Donovan E. Walker
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
JASON B. WILLIAMS
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalkercæidahopower.com
jwilliamscæidahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
nr-c".,p,j f"'t\ t./ t: ! v t)
ZOII SEP -6 Pt1 4: 23
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO, LLC,
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
Respondent.
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-11-15
)
) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
) ANSWER
)
)
)
)
)
Pursuant to the Summons issued by the Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") on August 15, 2011, and pursuant to RP 57, Idaho Power Company
("Idaho Powef' or "Company"), by and through its attorneys of record, hereby submits
its Answer to the Complaint of Grand View PV Solar Two, LLC ("Grand View").
I. INTRODUCTION
In Grand View's Complaint it is requesting that the Commission order Idaho
Power to enter into a 20-year, long-term, fixed rate Public Utilty Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978 ("PURPA") contract in which Idaho Power would explicitly disclaim any
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 1
ownership. of the environmental attributes, or Renewable Energy Certificates ("RECs"),
associated with the purchase of that energy. Grand View seeks to extract additional
value, above and beyond the avoided cost to which it is entitled, from Idaho Power's
customers. Idaho Power does not believe PURPA, nor this state's implementation
thereof, requires it to disclaim any possible legal claim that it may have to the
environmental attributes associated with its purchase of power from a PURPA
Qualifying Facilty ("QF") for the next 20 years. In fact, such a disclaimer has potentially
costly consequences for Idaho Power's customers should the Legislature or other legal
body determine some time during the proposed 20-year term of the contract that the
environmental attributes from the purchase of QF power in Idaho are in fact owned by
the purchasing utility and its customers.
Contrary to Grand View's allegations, Idaho Power has not proposed language
for the PURPA contract that purports to allocate ownership to either the QF or the utilty
and its customers. Instead, Idaho Power has proposed language that states the
ownership of environmental attributes wil be determined by the applicable federal or
state laws and/or the appropriate regulatory body or agency deemed to have authority
to regulate environmental attributes or to implement federal and/or state laws regarding
the same. When Grand View resisted this language, Idaho Power proposed, as an
alternative and in a good faith attempt to resolve this particular dispute between the
parties, to proportionately allocate ownership of the project's environmental attributes
associated with this project. Grand View rejected these proposals and demanded Idaho
Power disclaim ownership of all environmental attributes associated with the project.
Forcing Idaho Power to affirmatively disclaim all environmental attributes for the next 20
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 2
years, and filing its system with intermittent, renewable generation sources that it
cannot claim are renewable, could have large and costly consequences for customers
should the Company come under future federal and/or state renewable portolio
standards that require such environmental attributes for compliance.
Idaho Power has not only negotiated in good faith with Grand View for the
purchase of energy from its proposed projects, it has expended great effort and energy
to attempt to accommodate the project's concerns and requests. However, the
Company believes that a disclaimer, such as that requested by Grand View, is not in the
best interests of its customers, and wil not willngly agree to insert such a disclaimer
into its PURPA contracts unless directly ordered to do so by this Commission.
II. ANSWER
Idaho Power hereby answers Grand View's Complaint as follows. Idaho Power
denies any allegation not specifically admitted and reserves the right to supplement this
answer if Grand View amends its Complaint.
1. The factual allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 1 are admitted.
The remaining legal conclusions require no response. That said, Idaho Power
acknowledges that it is a public utilty subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission, the
Public Utilty Commission of Oregon, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC").
2. Idaho Power has insuffcient information or knowledge regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, which relate to the identity and
corporate structure of Grand View. The Company acknowledges that Grand View has
provided to it a certification of its QF status.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 3
3. The allegations in paragraph 3 are legal conclusions and require no
response. The allegations identify provisions of PURPA, FERC's implementing
regulations, and Idaho's PURPA-implementing statutes.
4. There was no paragraph identified as number 4 in the Complaint.
5. Idaho Power has insufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, which describe Grand View's project
development. The Company acknowledges, however, that it has been advised by
Grand View that it desires to develop a solar electric generating project near Grand
View, Idaho. The Company also acknowledges that Grand View has indicated the
project wil be designed to have a 20 megawatt nameplate capacity.
6. Idaho Power has insufficient information or knowledge regarding the truth
of the allegations in first sentence of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. With respect to. the
second sentence of paragraph 6, the Company has insufficient information or
knowledge regarding the truth of the allegations related to the maturity of Grand View's
project. The remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are conclusions of law that require no
response.
7. Idaho Power admits the allegations in paragraph 7 that Grand View has
contacted Idaho Power and Idaho Power has discussed contract terms and conditions
with Grand View.
8. Idaho Power has insufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 8 relating to the wilingness of Grand View to enter into a
PURPA power purchase agreement ("PPA").
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 4
9. Idaho Power both admits and denies portions of paragraph 9. Idaho
Power denies that it refuses to enter into a PURPA PPA with Grand View. Idaho Power
admits that it refuses to affrmatively disclaim REC ownership for the next 20 years in
the proposed PURPA PPA with Grand View.
10. Idaho Power both admits and denies portions of paragraph 10. Idaho
Power denies a "historical" and "routine" disclaimer of REC ownership in PURPA
contracts. Idaho Power admits that there have been PURPA contracts in the past
where the Company has disclaimed REC ownership, and that those contracts were
approved by the Commission.
11. Idaho both admits and denies portions of paragraph 11. Idaho Power
denies that it proposed to split the REC ownership on a 50/50 basis in the PURPA
contract. Idaho Power admits that it proposed language for the PURPA contract stating:
Under this Agreement, ownership of Green Tags and
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), or the equivalent
environmental attributes, directly associated with the
production of energy from the Seller's Facility sold to Idaho
Power wil be governed by any and all applicable Federal or
State laws and/or any regulatory body or agency deemed to
have authority to regulate these Environmental Attributes or
to implement Federal and/or State laws regarding the same.
Idaho Power admits that, upon Grand View's disagreement with the above-cited
language for the contract, the parties discussed a split of REC ownership on a 50/50
basis as a good faith attempt to settle the dispute between the parties.
12. Idaho both admits and denies portions of paragraph 12. Idaho Power
denies that it proposed to split the REC ownership between the first 10 contract years
and the last 10 contract years in the PURPA contract. Idaho Power admits that it
proposed language for the PURPA contract stating:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 5
Under this Agreement, ownership of Green Tags and
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), or the equivalent
environmental attributes, directly associated with the
production of energy from the Seller's Facilty sold to Idaho
Power wil be governed by any and all applicable Federal or
State laws and/or any regulatory body or agency deemed to
have authority to regulate these Environmental Attributes or
to implement Federal and/or State laws regarding the same.
Idaho Power admits that, upon Grand View's disagreement with the above-cited
language for the contract, the parties discussed a split of REC ownership between the
first 10 contract years and the last 10 contract years as a good faith attempt to settle the
dispute between the parties.
13. Idaho Power has insufficient knowledge or inforrTation regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 13. Idaho Power was under the impression, prior to the
filing of Grand View's Complaint, that Grand View desired a PURPA contract that
remained silent as to REC ownership.
14. Idaho Power both admits and denies portions of paragraph 14. Idaho
Power admits that it proposed language for the PURPA contract stating:
Under this Agreement, ownership of Green Tags and
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), or the equivalent
environmental attributes, directly associated with the
production of energy from the Seller's Facilty sold to Idaho
Power wil be governed by any and all applicable Federal or
State laws and/or any regulatory body or agency deemed to
have authority to regulate these Environmental Attributes or
to implement Federal and/or State laws regarding the same.
Idaho Power denies that it offered "alternative language for the Commission's
consideration. . .." However, Idaho Power admits that it agreed to Grand View's
request to submit a signed contract for the Commission's review containing the
proposed language cited above - to which Idaho Power would seek Commission
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 6
approval, and to which Grand View would seek Commission rejection of, and Grand
View would advocate that the contract remain silent as to REC ownership - and that the
parties would accept the Commission determination approving or rejecting the language
in the signed contract. Upon Idaho Power's agreement to this proposal by Grand View
to submit the issue to the Commission in a signed contract with the parties' rights
reserved to argue alternatively as described above, Grand View instead filed this
Complaint.
15. Idaho Power has insuffcient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in the first paragraph identified in the Complaint as number as 15.
Idaho Power admits that there is uncertainty in Idaho as to REC ownership. Idaho
Power denies that it is impossible to market RECs.
Regarding the second paragraph identified in the Complaint as number 15 which
re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, please see Idaho Power's
answers to paragraphs 1 through 15 above.
16. Idaho Power has insufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny
whether Grand View "has attempted in good faith to engage in negotiations. . .." Idaho
Power acknowledges that Grand View has requested a PURPA contract from Idaho
Power.
17. The allegations in paragraph 17 are legal conclusions and require no
response.
18. The allegations in paragraph 18 are legal conclusions and require no
response.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 7
19. The allegations in paragraph 19 are legal conclusions and require no
response. Idaho Power denies that the language it proposes in the PURPA contract
makes any reference to amending the agreement.
20. The allegations in paragraph 20 are legal conclusions and require no
response.
21. In response to paragraph 21, Idaho Power admits that the Idaho
Legislature has not legislatively created RECs. Idaho Power denies the factual
insinuation that RECs are neither created nor exist in the state of Idaho.
22. In response to paragraph 22, Idaho Power admits that the Idaho
Legislature has not imposed a renewable portolio standard on utilties operating in
Idaho. Idaho Power denies the factual insinuation that RECs are not created within the
state of Idaho.
23. Idaho Power has insufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny
the allegations of paragraph 23. Idaho Power admits that the Idaho Legislature has not
imposed a renewable portolio standard upon utilties operating in Idaho. Idaho Power
denies the factual insinuation that RECs are not created within the state of Idaho.
24. Idaho Power admits the allegations in paragraph 24 to the extent that
markets exist for RECs.
25. Idaho Power has insuffcient knowledge or information to admit or deny
the allegation of paragraph 25. Idaho Power denies that the language it proposes in its
PURPA contracts prevents RECs from being marketable.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 8
26. The allegations in paragraph 26 are legal conclusions and require no
response. Idaho Power denies that the language it proposes in its PURPA contracts
prevents RECs from being marketable.
27. The allegations in paragraph 27 are legal conclusions and require no
response. Idaho Power denies that the language it proposes in its PURPA contracts
prevents RECs from being marketable.
28. The allegations in paragraph 28 are legal conclusions and require no
response.
WHEREFORE, Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission issue its
Order denying the relief sought by Grand View in its Prayer for Relief and dismissing the
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of September 2011.
dif:WçJ
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of September 2011 I served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER upon the following named
parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Kristine Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
-1 Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-1 Email Kris.Sassercæpuc.idaho.gov
Grand View PV Solar Two, LLC
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY, PLLC
515 North 2ih Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83707
Hand Delivered
-1 U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-1 Email petercærichardsonandolearv.com
gregcærichardsonandoleary.com
c£~Donovan E. Walker
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER - 10