20111104Petition.pdf

DONOVAN E.WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwalker(idahopower.com
r r r V
Z11 NOV —3 P11 L:56
IHO
PAIER©
An IDACORP Company
November 3,2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D.Jewell,Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Re:Case No.IPC-E-11-23
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING PURPA JURISDICTION
Dear Ms.Jewell:
Enclosed for filing please find an original and seven (7)copies of Idaho Power
Company’s Petition for Declaratory Order in the above matter.
Very truly yours,
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W.Idaho St.(83702)
RO.Box 70
Boise,ID 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]
dwalkeridahopower.com
jwiIIiams(idahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
E I V
I —C’’’I
:4:h :
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY’S PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING
PURPA JURISDICTION.
)
)CASE NO.IPC-E-11-23
)
)PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
)ORDER
)
Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power”or “Company”),pursuant to RP 101,
hereby petitions the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)to issue an Order
determining that the Commission will exercise its jurisdiction over the proposed Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”)Qualifying Facility (“QF”)
transaction(s)proposed by Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.(“Kootenai Electric”).
In support of this request,Idaho Power states as follows:
I.BACKGROUND
Kootenai Electric has a proposed PURPA QF project called the Fighting Creek
Landfill Gas to Energy Station located in Kootenai County near the city of Bellgrove,
Idaho (“Project”).The Project is a 3.2 megawatt landfill gas generating facility.On
October 19,2011,Kootenai Electric,through counsel,delivered via e-mail to Idaho
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -1
Power a letter requesting a “Standard Oregon Power Purchase Agreement”with Idaho
Power for the output from the Project.See October 19,2011,letter to Donovan Walker
and Randy Aliphin from Gregory Adams attached hereto as Attachment No.I and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Kootenai Electric also forwarded to Idaho Power a copy of its Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Form 556,which is the Self-Certification of QF Status for a
Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility.Kootenai Electric proposes that the
Project will interconnect with its own electrical distribution system and then deliver the
output to Avista Corporation (“Avista”)under an amended interconnection agreement
with Avista that is yet to be executed.Attachment No.1,pp.5-6.Kootenal Electric then
proposes to wheel the generation across Avista’s system for delivery to Idaho Power.
Id.at p.6.Regarding delivery to Idaho Power,Kootenai Electric states:
From the point of delivery to Avista,Kootenai will wheel the
output under a point to point transmission agreement with
Avista to Idaho Power’s electrical system.The point of
delivery will be the point where the point of ownership of
transmission facilities on the 230 kilovolt Lob to Oxbow
transmission line changes from Avista to Idaho Power near
the Lob substation but in the State of Oregon.We
understand that Avista’s point of scheduling will be at the
Lola substation,but the point of change of ownership of
facilities occurs across the state line in Oregon.Kootenai
has investigated availability of transmission on Avista’s
system for this arrangement and is confident firm
transmission is currently available...and expects to have a
firm transmission agreement with Avista in place within two
months.
Attachment No.1,p.6.
Idaho Power responded to Kootenai Electric’s request for a Standard Oregon
Power Purchase Agreement with a November 3,2011,letter stating that the request
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -2
was received but that Idaho Power was not required to offer a standard Oregon PURPA
contract,and refers Kootenai Electric to this filing.See November 3,2011,letter from
Donovan E.Walker regarding the request for a Standard Oregon Power Purchase
Agreement attached hereto as Attachment No.2 and incorporated herein by this
reference.
II.THE COMMISSION SHOULD ASSERT PRIMARY JURISDICTION
OVER THE PROPOSED PURPA TRANSACTION
The Commission has addressed the issue of QF projects proposing to wheel
power across state lines and has given clear direction as to which state’s PURPA rules
will apply to such transactions.Earth Power Energy and Minerals,Inc.vs.Idaho Power
Company,Case No.IPC-E-92-29,Order Nos.25174,25249 (1993);Island Power
Company,Inc.vs.PacifiCorp,dba Utah Power &Light Company,Case No.UPL-E-93-
4,Order Nos.25245 (1993),25528 (1994);Vaagen Bros.Lumber,Inc.vs.The
Washington Water Power Company,Case No.WWP-E-94-6,Order No.25176 (1994).
Please see Idaho Power’s Petition for Declaratory Order,Case No.IPC-E-1 1-14,
incorporated herein by this reference,for a more detailed discussion of the above-
referenced cases.Please also see Rocky Mountain Power’s Petition to Intervene and
Comments,Case No.IPC-E-11-14,incorporated herein by this reference,for a more
detailed discussion regarding multi-state PURPA jurisdictional issues and the federal
PURPA obligations implicated thereby.1
The Commission has established that it has federally derived jurisdiction
pursuant to PURPA over any utility that it has ratemaking authority over.Order No.
1 The points and authorities cited by Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain Power in Case No.IPC-E
11-14 are relevant to the Commission’s requested determination in this matter.To avoid undue
repetition,they are not fully duplicated or repeated here.However,those points and authorities are fully
incorporated herein by reference and properly before the Commission in this matter.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -3
25245,p.5;Order No.25174,p.6-7.Additionally,the Commission has stated that this
federally derived jurisdiction over a multi-state utility may exist concurrently with other
state regulatory authorities that also have ratemaking authority over the utility.Order
No.25249,P.2.Through the cases cited above,the Commission has discussed certain
circumstances where it determines whether it will elect to exercise that jurisdiction or
not.What necessarily follows the Commission’s exercise,or deferral,of its jurisdiction
is whether the Commission’s PURPA rules,regulations,and procedures —including
which states avoided cost rates and contract —will apply to the proposed QF
transaction.It is proper and in the public interest that the Commission assert its
jurisdiction over Kootenai Electric’s proposed QF transaction with Idaho Power.
Although not identical,this case is similar to —and involves the same authorities
as —Case No.IPC-E-11-14,the Western Desert Energy 1,LLC (“Western Desert”)and
Tumbleweed Energy II,LLC (“Tumbleweed”)declaratory order case.In Western Desert
and Tumbleweed,both PURPA wind QFs located in Idaho Power’s Idaho service
territory and interconnecting with Idaho Power’s system in Idaho propose to compel
Idaho Power to wheel their generation across its system into its Oregon service territory
and then compel Idaho Power to contract with them pursuant to an Oregon standard QF
contract containing Oregon avoided cost rates.Here,Kootenai Electric proposes a
similar transaction,except it will interconnect with Avista and wheel its generation
across Avista’s system to reach Idaho Power.Kootenai Electric,similar to Western
Desert and Tumbleweed,seeks to compel Idaho Power to contract with an Idaho QF
under an Oregon standard QF contract using Oregon avoided cost rates.Even if the
Commission determines that Idaho Power has an obligation to purchase Kootenai
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -4
Electric’s QF output,Idaho Power asks that the Commission assert primary jurisdiction
over the transaction and declare that the avoided cost and contracting process is that of
the Idaho jurisdiction.
There are many factors that directly support the Commission’s assertion of its
jurisdiction over this transaction,both as a matter of law and as a matter of public policy.
The proposed delivery from Avista to Idaho Power occurs where the two utilities’
systems meet —at the jointly owned Oxbow-Lob 230 kilovolt transmission line.
Terminal facilities between Avista and Idaho Power are located at the Lob substation,
which is located entirely within the state of Idaho.Idaho Power has facilities located in
the Lob substation,which include the meter for such transactions/transfers.Kootenai
Electric even states itself that it understands “that Avista’s point of scheduling will be at
the Lob substation.”Attachment No.1,p.6.This all takes place in the state of Idaho.
The transmission line crosses over into Oregon,and Idaho Power’s Oxbow dam and
related facilities span the Snake River that forms the border of the two states.It is but a
mere technicality that the particular ownership point on the transmission line may occur
at a point in Oregon along the transmission line that spans the border between the two
states.
Kootenai Electric’s proposed transaction is a blatant manipulation of PURPA’s
rules and regulations by a QF developer in order to financially profit to the direct and
substantial detriment of Idaho Power’s customers.Kootenai states in its demand letter
to Idaho Power that it has attempted to obtain an Idaho QF contract with Avista but has
“reached an impasse which would require litigation to resolve.”Attachment 1,p.2.
Thus,Kootenai Electric seeks out any strained argument it can find to try to avoid
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -5
addressing the real problems associated with obtaining a QF contract in the jurisdiction
where both its project is located and where it interconnects to the transmission grid.
Kootenai Electric’s proposed transaction stretches the bounds of legitimacy,and such
manipulation has the possible practical effect of saddling Idaho customers with
additional costs and higher power rates which exceed Idaho Power’s avoided costs.
This Commission and the state of Idaho have a substantial interest in the
proposed transaction because Idaho customers bear approximately 95 percent of the
power supply costs associated with Idaho Power’s QF purchases in Oregon.
Traditionally,Oregon has allowed Idaho Power to set Oregon avoided cost rates
consistent with,and very close to,its avoided costs as established in Idaho.However,
recently,in Docket No.UE 241,the Public Utility Commission of Oregon denied Idaho
Power’s request to utilize the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s updated
natural gas forecast to adjust Oregon published,or standard,avoided cost rates to be
consistent with those set in Idaho.Thus,at present,Oregon’s avoided cost rates for
Idaho Power are much higher than the published avoided cost rates in Idaho.This
inevitably results in manipulation and gamesmanship by QF developers,such as
Kootenai Electric,looking to boost profits at the expense of Idaho Power customers,
most of which are located in Idaho.The end result is that if transactions such as that
proposed here by Kootenai Electric are permitted,idaho Power’s customers pay a price
for QF energy that exceeds the utility’s avoided cost and customers are not held
indifferent to the utility’s purchase from the QF as required by federal law.
Just as is the case with the Western Desert and Tumbleweed QF projects,this is
a blatant attempt by Kootenai Electric to manipulate and avoid the Commission’s rates,
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -6
rules,and regulations that are designed to implement PURPA and protect Idaho
customers.This is another example,just as argued by Idaho Power and the other
utilities in Case No.GNR-E-10-04 and Case No.GNR-E-11-01,of how QF projects will
seek to manipulate and game the system,and go to creative and great lengths to do so,
when there is a perceived economic incentive driving them.The Commission
recognized this incentive to manipulate and game the system when it ordered the
continued application of the 100 kilowatt (“kW”)published rate eligibility cap for wind
and solar QFs:
Based upon the record in this case and after careful
consideration of the positions presented,the Commission
finds it appropriate to maintain the 100 kW eligibility cap for
published avoided cost rate for wind and solar QFs.We find
that any attempt to implement criteria in an effort to prevent
disaggregation would be met by attempts to circumvent such
criteria.The economic incentive for the projects is obvious.
QF developers are working within the current structure
provided by this Commission.However,we emphasize that
PURPA and our published rate structure were never
intended to promote large scale wind and solar development
to the detriment of utility customers.Avoided cost rates are
to be just and reasonable to the utility’s ratepayers.18
C.F.R.§292.304(a)(1).PURPA entitles QFs to a rate
equivalent to the utility’s avoided cost,a rate that holds utility
customers harmless —not a rate at which a project may be
viable.18 C.F.R.§292.304(a)(2).If we allow the current
trend to continue,customers may be forced to pay for
resources at an inflated rate and,potentially,before the
energy is actually needed by the utility to serve its
customers.This is clearly not in the public interest.
Case No.GNR-E-11-01,Order No.32262,p.8.The Commission continues to
recognize the need to accurately establish a proper avoided cost rate for QF generation
in Idaho as evidenced by the continued investigation and litigation into avoided cost
methodologies in Case No.GNR-E-1 1-03.The Commission in exercising its jurisdiction
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -7
in this matter will preserve and protect the public interest that its recent orders regarding
published QF rates and avoided cost methodologies are aimed at upholding.
III.CONCLUSION
Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Declaratory
Order finding that under the facts of Kootenai Electric’s proposed PURPA QF
transaction,the Commission will exercise its jurisdiction in implementing PURPA
regulations and require that such transaction be conducted pursuant to Idaho’s PURPA
rules,rates,and regulations.Moreover,should the Commission find that Kootenai
Electric has the right to interconnect,wheel,and deliver its project output as proposed,
that the Commission assert primary jurisdiction over the sale to Idaho Power and
declare that the applicable avoided cost for the Project’s output is the Idaho avoided
cost rate and contract terms.To allow Kootenai Electric’s proposed transaction to take
place would unduly inflate energy costs for Idaho customers and allow a gross
manipulation and avoidance of the Commission’s rules and regulations designed and
implemented to protect the customers of Idaho Power and the public interest.
Respectfully submitted at Boise,Idaho,this 3rd day of November 2011.
OVAN E.ALKER
ttorney for Idaho Power Company
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3rd day of November 20111 served a true and
correct copy of the within and foregoing PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER upon
the following named parties by the method indicated below,and addressed to the
following:
Commission Staff X Hand Delivered
Kristine A.Sasser
____U.S.
Mail
Deputy Attorney General
____Overnight
Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
____FAX
472 West Washington (83702)X Email Kris.Sasserpuc.idaho.qov
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
____Hand
Delivered
PeterJ.Richardson X U.S.Mail
Gregory M.Adams
____Overnight
Mail
RICHARDSON &O’LEARY,PLLC
___FAX
515 North 27th Street (83702)X Email [e-mail]
P.O.Box 7218 qrecirichardsonandolearv.com
Boise,Idaho 83707
Doug Elliott,General Manager
____Hand
Delivered
Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.X U.S.Mail
P.O.Box 278
____Overnight
Mail
Hayden,Idaho 83835-0278
____FAX
X Email deIliottc2kec.com
/7&
(9t1ovan E.Walker
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER -9
S I 0
5
-a
C)
c
-I
I
w
-I
0
m
-D
m
0
z p
m
m
z
-
-I
C,
m
m
z
0
i;
n
o
c-
m
•
-a
-I
-
z
()
(1
)
C,
)z
c4jLDS:QN &-QJLE’RY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Tcl;208-938-7900 Fax [phone]
P.O.Box 7218 Boise ID 83707 -515 N.27th St.Boisc,ID 83702
October 19,2011
Via U.S.Mail and Electronic Mail
Donovan Walker
Randy Aliphin
Idaho Power Company
P.O.Box 70
Boise,Idaho 83707
Re:Kootenai Electric Cooperative’s Fighting Creek Landfill Gas to Energy StationRequestforStandardOregonPowerPurchaseAgreement
Mr.Walker and Mr.Allphin:
I write on behalfofmy firm’s client,Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.(Kootenai),to formallyrequestastandardpowerpurchaseagreement(PPA)for its Fighting Creek Landfill Gas to EnergyStation,which is a self-certified qualifying facility (QF)under the Public Utilities Regulatory PolicyActof1978(PURPA).The facility will generate under 10 megawatts (MW)for delivery to IdahoPower’s system in Oregon,and therefore requests the standard PPA for an off-system,non-intermittent QF,currently approved and on file with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon(Oregon Commission).Kootenai requests the published avoided cost rates currently on file inSchedule85.
Kootenai is willing to agree to all ofthe standard provisions in the standard offer contract on filewiththeOregonCommission.We have included all ofthe information required in Schedule 85 onpage4(items (a)through (r))in the enclosed information sheet to be inserted into the standardcontract.
To summarize,the Fighting Creek Landfill Gas to Energy Station will have a nameplate capacityratingof3.2 MW,consisting of two 1.6 MW generators,and will interconnect directly to
Kootenal’s own system.Kootenai has an existing interconnection agreement with Avista and is inthefinalstagesofexecutinganamendedinterconnectionagreementthatwillgovernAvista’s
acceptance ofthe Fighting Creek output.From the point of delivery to Avista,Kootenai will wheeltheoutputunderapointtopointtransmissionagreementwithAvistatoIdahoPower’s electrical
system.The point of delivery will be the point where the point of ownership of transmission
facilities on the 230 kilovolt Lob to Oxbow transmission line changes from Avista to Idaho Power
Mr.Donovan Walker
Mr.Randy Aliphin
October 19,2011
Page 2
near the Lob substation but in the State of Oregon.We understand that Avista’s point of
scheduling will be at the Lob substation,but the point of change of ownership of facilities
occurs across the state line in Oregon.Kootenai has investigated availability oftransmission on
Avista’s system for this arrangement and is confident firm transmission is currently available.
Kootenai is initialing its transmission service request under Avista’s Open Access Transmission
Tariffcontemporaneous with this PPA request,and expects to have a firm transmission agreement
with Avista in place within two months.We have attached the OASIS Available Transmission
Capacity Summary for this route to demonstrate transmission is available.
The project is currently under construction and will be online in the very near future.Kootenai has
been engaged in discussions with Avista regarding interconnection and sale ofthe output of this
project to Avista under the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s PURPA tariffs.Unfortunately,the
parties have reached an impasse which would require litigation to resolve.I inform you ofthis only
so that Idaho Power knows Kootenai is now committed to a PPA with Idaho Power should Idaho
Power furnish one,regardless of what Idaho Power may have heard regarding negotiations with
Avista.
Kootenai expects to begin start up testing in March 2011,and requests a full commercial online date
of May 1,2012 with the term ending fifteen years later.Because the project will be online soon,
Kootenai requests that Idaho Power complete the standard PPA as soon as possible,but in any event
no later than the timelines for response set forth in Schedule 85 so that the project is not sitting idle
awaiting a PPA.Along those lines,Kootenai also requests that Idaho Power initiate the process of
investigating Idaho Power’s ability to designate this project as a network resource with Idaho
Power’s transmission personnel at this time,and that you please advise us ofthe results as soon as
possible.
Please contact me regarding this request,at 208-938-2236,at your earliest convenience.We
look forward to hearing back from you soon and progressing towards an executed agreement.
Vi truly yours,
Gregory Adams
RICHARDSON AND O’LEARY,PLLC
Attorneys for Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
cc:Doug Elliott,Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
Enclosures:Schedule 85 Fighting Creek Project Specifics
Avista OASIS Transmission Tables
FERC Form 556 and Docket Print-out for Docket QF1 1-178
Idaho Power Company —Oregon Schedule 85
PURPA Information Request List
a)Date of Request
October 19,2011
b)Company/Organization that will be contracting party
Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
c)Contract notification information including name,address and telephone
number
Doug Elliott
General Manager
Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
P.O.Box 278
Hayden,Idaho 83 83 5-0278
[e-mail]
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)
Alternate:
Shawn Dolan
Kootenai Electric Cooperative,Inc.
P.O.Box 278
Hayden,Idaho 83 835-0278
[e-mail]
[phone] (phone)
d)Verification that the Qualifying Facifity meets the “Eligibifity for Standard
Rates and Contract”criteria
Kootenai’s Fighting Creek Project meets the Eligibility criteria contained in Oregon
Commission orders and Idaho Power’s standard PPA Appendix D because the nameplate
capacity is under 10 MW and Kootenai does not own any other qualifying facilities.
e)Copy of the Qualifying Facility’s QF certificate
See attached Form 556,and FERC Docket No.QF1 1-178 print out.
I)Copy of FERC license (applicable to hydro projects only)
I
N/A.
g)Location of the proposed project including general area and specific legal
property description
Kootenai County Solid Waste Facility,near Bellgrove,Idaho (Wi 16.93 ,N47.532)
I.
t
3,
Rôckfod
Coey
Fghting
I¶k,,q#e,,*4
2l 3*4*CANC C2O
h)Description of proposed project including specific equipment models,types,
sizes and configurations
Seller’s Facility is described as the Fighting Creek Landfill Gas to Energy Facility and
consists of:Two 1.6 MW generators each powered by a Caterpillar Model 3520,spark
ignited,reciprocating internal combustion engines electrically interconnected to Seller’s
24.9 kV distribution facilities terminated on the project busbar.The Project will use
methane gas produced by decomposition of waste interned within landfill.
i)Type of project (wind,hydro,geothermal,etc.)
The project is a landfill gas station.
j)Nameplate capacity of the proposed project
3.2MW.
k)Schedule 85 pricing option selected
Kootenai requests the Fixed Price Method.
Creek LGTE Project
4
4.F
c
/‘S
wS’*4
5’
1*_I 1**
2
1)Desired term of the Energy Sales Agreement
The Scheduled Operation Date of May 1,2012,and a 15 year term.
m)Annual net energy amount
For the first contract year,Kootenai estimates that the “Annual Net Energy Amount,”as
defined in §1.1 of the standard Schedule 85 PPA,will be 11,654,860 kwh.This estimate
takes into account estimates during the first contract year for station use,fuel availability,
capacity factor of the facility,and distribution and transmission line losses.Kootenai
reserves the right to update this estimate prior to commercial operation pursuant to §6.2.2.1 of the standard PPA,and after the commercial online date pursuant to §6.2.2.2.
n)Maximum capacity of the Qualifying Facifity
Appendix B of the standard PPA defines Maximum net output as the maximum amount
that could be delivered to Idaho Power’s system.
Nameplate capacity 3,200 kW
Facility Service Power 140 kW
Maximum Capacity =3,060 kW
o)Estimated first energy date
March 1,2012.
p)Estimated operation date
For Scheduled Operation Date for Appendix B,Kootenai requests May 1,2012.
q)Point of Delivery
The point where Avista interconnects to Idaho Power’s system in Oregon,near the Lob
substation.
r)Status of Generation Interconnection Process
The 3.2 MW Fighting Creek Landfill Gas to Energy Station will interconnect at the
electrical point of attachment to Kootenai Electric Cooperative’s 24.9 kV distribution
facilities terminated on the project busbar.Kootenai will use its own distribution system to
deliver the output of the project to Avista’s distribution and transmission system.The only
interconnection requirements are with Avista,which is the balancing authority in the area of
the project.Kootenai has an existing interconnection agreement with Avista and is in the
final stages of executing an amended interconnection agreement that will govern Avista’s
acceptance ofthe Fighting Creek output at the point where Avista’s Dower —Post Falls
115kV Tap Transmission Line and Kootenai’s Dower —Post Falls 115kV Tap
3
Transmission Line are connected.The agreement will call for alternate points ofdelivery
at the point where Avista’s Dower—Post Falls 115kV Tap Transmission Line served via
Avista’s Post Falls —Ramsey 115kV Transmission Line and Kootenai’s Dower —Post
Falls 115kV Tap Transmission Line are connected,and the point where Avista’s
Rockford Tap 115 kV Transmission Line is connected to Kootenai’s Setters Substation
115 kVTap.
The Point ofmetering will be in Seller’s Facility,on the 24.9 kV side of the generator
step-up transformer over which electric power and energy flows.
From the point of delivery to Avista,Kootenai will wheel the output under a point to point
transmission agreement with Avista to Idaho Power’s electrical system.The point of
delivery will be the point where the point of ownership of transmission facilities on the 230
kilovolt Lob to Oxbow transmission line changes from Avista to Idaho Power near the Lob
substation but in the State of Oregon.We understand that Avista’s point of scheduling
will be at the Lob substation,but the point of change of ownership of facilities occurs
across the state line in Oregon.Kootenai has investigated availability of transmission on
Avista’s system for this arrangement and is confident firm transmission is currently
available.Kootenai is initiating its transmission service request under Avista’s Open Access
Transmission Tariff contemporaneous with this PPA request,and expects to have a firm
transmission agreement with Avista in place within two months.
4
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO.IPC-E-11-23
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PNER®
Ar IDACCRP Corn?any
DONOVAN E.WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwalker(idahopower.com
November 3,2011
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
Gregory M.Adams
RICHARDSON &O’LEARY,PLLC
515 North 27th Street
P.O.Box 7218
Boise,Idaho 83707
Re:Invalid Request —Your October 19,2011,Oregon Standard Qualifying
Facility (“QF”)Contract Request on Behalf of Kootenai Electric
Cooperative,Inc.
Mr.Adams:
This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Kootenai Electric
Cooperative,Inc.(“Kootenai”)for an energy sales agreement pursuant to Idaho Power
Company’s (“Idaho Power”)Oregon Tariff Schedule 85,Cogeneration and Small Power
Production Standard Contract Rates (March 1,2010).Because the proposed QF
project is located in the state of Idaho,with an interconnection to a public utility in the
state of Idaho,as well as other additional factors,if Kootenai wishes for its project to
obtain a power sales agreement pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (“PURPA”)with Idaho Power,Kootenai must do so according to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission’s PURPA rates,rules,and regulations —not those of Oregon.
Idaho Power has filed a case today with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
seeking a declaratory order on this matter.Idaho Power will forward a copy of said filing
to you under separate cover.
Sincerely,
-;7
I ——
7
Dànovan E.Walker
DEW:csb
cc:Randy Aliphin (via e-mail)
1221 N.idaro 5:‘Th72
.O 3cx 70
0 33707