20120126Answer to First Amendment.pdf

RECEIVE
eslDA~POR~
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwalkerCãidahopower.com
An 10ACORP Company
January 25, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-11-15
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR . TWO, LLC, COMPLAINANT, VS. IDAHO
POWER COMPANY, RESPONDENT
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for fiing please find an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Answer to First Amendment to Formal Complaint by Grand View PV Solar
Two in the above matter.
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise. 10 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
JASON B. WILLIAMS (ISB No. 8718)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalker(qidahopower.com
jwilliams(qidahopower.com
RECEIVED
20LZ JAN 2S PH~: SO
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO, LLC,
Respondent.
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-11-15
)
) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
) ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
) TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY
) GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO
)
)
)
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
Pursuant to the Summons issued by the Idaho Public Utilties Commission
("Commission") on January 4, 2012, and pursuant to RP 57, Idaho Power Company
("Idaho Powet' or "Company"), by and through its attorneys of record, hereby submits
its Answer to the First Amendment to Formal Complaint ("Amended Complaint") of
Grand View PV Solar Two, LLC ("Grand View").
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO - 1
ANSWER
Idaho Power hereby answers Grand View's First Amendment to Formal
Complaint1 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. In response to the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that the initial Complaint is focused upon Renewable Energy
Credits/Certificates ("RECs"). Whether the initial Complaint was "predicated on the PPA
tendered by Idaho Power to Grand View Two on March 10, 2011," is a legal conclusion
and requires no response.
2. Idaho Power both admits and denies the allegations in paragraph 30 of
the Amended Complaint. Idaho Power admits that the quoted language is taken from
an e-mail communication between counsel for Grand View and counsel for Idaho
Power. Idaho Power denies the allegation that the e-mail evidences "That the PPA
tendered on March 10 and ready for execution was confirmed." The e-mail actually
evidences the fact that "there is currently no agreement on the terms of the contract" as
stated in the first sentence of the e-maiL. Please see Attachment No.1, July 10, 2011,
e-mail from Donovan Walker to Peter Richardson. The language quoted in paragraph
30 of the Amended Complaint when viewed in the full context of the e-mail
communication shows that such communication was in response to a specific offer of
settlement by counsel for Grand View by which the issue of RECs could be submitted to
1 Normally, a complainant must seek leave or permission of the courtCommission to amend its
complaint once that complaint has been answered by the respondent. Additionally, Grand View has no
language adopting or incorporating the content and/or allegations of its initial Complaint with its Amended
Complaint. Furthermore, Grand View's request is not to supplement the initial Complaint but to amend
such Complaint. Without a specific request to supplement, or a specific incorporation of and reference to
the initial Complaint, the only allegations left before the Commission are those now contained in this
Amended Complaint.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO - 2
the Commission for its consideration. Although this course of action was requested by
counsel for Grand View, it was rejected by Grand View when it instead chose to file a
complaint with the Commission.
3. In response to the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that the March 10, 2011, power purchase agreement ("PPA") was
rejected by Grand View.
4. In response to the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that the March 1 0, 2011, PPA was rejected by Grand View. Idaho
Power denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 32. Grand View did not file a
complaint "seeking an order requiring Idaho Power to execute the tendered contract
with language disclaiming Idaho Powets ownership of RECs." Grand View filed a
complaint seeking an order "Requiring Idaho Power to resume inserting language in
standard PURPA PPAs to the effect that Idaho Power makes no claim to REC
ownership." The initial Complaint makes no mention of any PPA tendered on March 10,
2011.
5. In response to the allegation in paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that a draft Public Utilty Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA")
PPA was sent to Grand View on December 2, 2011, for the purposes of discussion and
negotiation pursuant to the Commission's negotiated avoided cost rate process
applicable to Grand View's proposed project.
6. In response to the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that the draft PURPA PPAs sent to Grand View for the purposes of
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO - 3
discussion and negotiation pursuant to the Commission's negotiated avoided cost rate
process applicable to Grand View's proposed project are not identicaL.
7. Idaho Power denies the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Amended
Complaint.
8. There is no paragraph identified and numbered 36 in the Amended
Complaint.
9. The allegations in paragraph 37 are legal conclusions and require no
response.
10. In response to the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint,
Idaho Power admits that the initial Complaint did not "request grandfather rights to the
rates and contract terms" of the draft agreement sent to Grand View on March 10, 2011.
The initial Complaint makes no mention of any "PPA tendered on March 10, 2011."
Whether the initial Complaint was predicated on that draft agreement is a legal
conclusion and requires no response.
11 . Idaho Power denies the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Amended
Complaint.
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
First Amendment to Formal Complaint, as well as the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of January 20
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO - 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of January 2012 I served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO
FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO upon the following named
parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Kristine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
-. Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-. Email kris.sasser(qpuc.idaho.gov
Grand View PV Solar Two, LLC
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Hand Delivered
-. U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-. Email peter(qrichardsonandoleary.com
greg(qrichardsonandoleary.com
Avista Corporation
Michael G. Andrea, Senior Counsel
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue - MSC-23
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-3727
Hand Delivered
-. U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-. Email michael.andrea(qavistacorp.com
Clint Kalich, Manager
Resource Planning and Analysis
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue - MSC-7
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, Washington 99220-3727
Hand Delivered
-. U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-. Email clint.kalich(qavistacorp.com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FORMAL COMPLAINT BY GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO - 5
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO.IPC-E-11-15
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.1
I response to your July 9 e-mail requesting IPC to tender a contract, there is currently no agreement on the terms of
t e contract. I apologize that we were unable to schedule the meeting you requested last week, although trading voice
ails in that regard. IPC has tendered a draft contract for this project, which was rejected by the project. Where we
I ft, i believe, is evidenced by your June 8 e-mail that i have attached below. After the comments you filed in the Clark
nyon matter, I am assuming that this is still the project's position with regard to the REC language in the draft
c ntract? Is that correct?
Walker, Donovan
Sunday, July 10, 2011 10:39 AM
'Peter Richardson'; Allphin, Randy
Robert Paul; Wiliams, Jason
RE: Grand View PV Solar Two Contact
alker, Donovan
i so, pursuant to your June 8 request below, IPC would agree to submit a signed contract for the Commission's review
c ntaining the current language in the draft - to which we would include language requesting the Commission to
a prove or reject the Article 8 language - and the parties will accept that Commission determination. To clarify: the
p rties wil sign the last tendered draft contract, to which you indicated the project was in complete agreement with -
e cept for a change in the project name, and the Environmental Attribute language in Article 8. The contract would
c ntain the current Article 8 language:
" nder this Agreement, ownership of Green Tags and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), or the equivalent
e vironmental attributes, directly associated with the production of energy from the Seller's Facilty sold to Idaho Power
ill be governed by any and all applicable Federal or State laws and/or any regulatory body or agency deemed to have
a thority to regulate these Environmental Attributes or to implement Federal and/or State laws regarding the same."
T which we will add:
" s of the date of this Agreement, Idaho Power seeks inclusion of the above language in Article 8. Seller seeks to have
A icle 8 remain blank. The parties have agreed to all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, and hereby agree
t submit the issue of whether to include the above language in Article 8 or to leave Article 8 blank in this Agreement to
t e Commission for its determination. The parties intend to submit comments to the Commission supporting their
r spective positions, and hereby agree to abide by the Commission's determination of this issue in this Agreement. The
fi al Order of the Commission in response to the inclusion of this Article 8 language will be included and become an
i tegral part of this Agreement, which the parties agree to support and uphold."
P ease let me know how your client wishes to proceed.
F om: Peter Richardson (petert§richardsonandoleary.coml
S nt: Wednesday, June 08, 201111:01 AM
T : Walker, Donovan; Allphin, Randy
C : Robert Paul
S bject: Grand View PV Solar Two Contract
1
Donovan, we are wiling to sign the contract with the REC language you have if we make it contingent upon whether the
Commission specifically requires that language. In other words we sign and submit two versions of the contract; one
with the language and you argue for and one without and we accept the judgment of the Commission as the final
outcome. I have seen the company do that on other issues with PURPA developers.
From: Peter Richardson (mailto:petert9richardsonandoleary.com)
sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 12:05 PM
To: Walker, Donovan; Allphin, Randy
Cc: Robert Paul
Subject: Grand View PV Solar Two Contact
Donovan and Randy, this is a follow up to my prior communications relative to the contract for Grand View PV Solar
Two. I know you guys are busy, but i think it is time for Idaho Power to tender the contract. let me know when we can
hear from you. -Pete
2