20110407Motion.pdf

RECEIVED~r.Cl.tia~.y
A T TOR N E Y SAT LAW iOll APR -7 PH~: 26
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 7118 Boise. 1D 83707 . 515 N. 27th St. Boise. 1D 83702
April 7, 2011
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretar
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
RE: IPC-E-IO-62
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Weare enclosing for fiing in the above-referenced docket an original and seven (7)
copies of Grouse Creek Wind Park II, LLC's MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT.
An additional copy is enclosed for you to stamp for our records.
Sincerac
"¡Ory M. Adas
Rìchardson & O'Lear PLLC
encl.
Peter J. Richardson (ISB No. 3195)
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No: 7454)
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter(frichardsonandolear .com
greg(frichardsonandoleary.com
Attorneys for Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC
and Grouse Creek Wind Park II, LLC
RECEIVED
20" APR -7 PM~: 26
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR A DETERMINATION
REGARING THE FIRM ENERGY
SALES AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE
AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY BETWEEN IDAHO POWER
COMPANY AND GROUSE CREEK
WIND PARK, LLC
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR A DETERMINATION
REGARDING THE FIRM ENERGY
SALES AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE
AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY BETWEEN IDAHO POWER
COMPANY AND GROUSE CREEK
WIND PARK II, LLC
) CASE NO. IPC-E-IO-61
)
) MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL
) ARGUMENT
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-IO-62 V"
)
) MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL
) ARGUMENT
)
)
)
)
COMES NOW, Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC and Grouse Creek Wind Park II, LLC,
each of which is managed by Wasatch Wind Intermountain (the "Grouse Creek QF", the
"Grouse Creek II QF," or collectively the "Grouse Creek QFs"), and pursuat to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission's ("Commission's") Rules of Procedure, Rules 56 and 203, IDAPA
31.01.01.56 and 31.01.01.203, moves the Commission to set a time for oral argument.! The
Commission may issue a notice of oral argument in the above-captioned matters pursuant to
Rules of Procedure 204 and 241, IDAPA 31.01.01.204 and 31.01.01.241.01. Counsel for the
Grouse Creek QFs has conferred with counsel for Idaho Power and for Commission Staff. Idaho
Power is opposed to oral argument, but Commission Staf expressed no support or opposition.
In support of this request, the Grouse Creek QFs state as follows:
1. The Commission's Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure
(Order No. 32191) set a deadline of March 24,2011, for the filing of Comments by any person
desiring to state a position on the Applications, and a deadline of March 31, 2011, for Idaho
Power to file Reply Comments.
2. The Commission's Order No. 32191 stated that persons requesting a hearing
should request a hearing in Comments due on March 24, 2011.
3. On March 24, 2011, the Grouse Creek QFs and Commission Staff fied
Comments. The Grouse Creek QFs' Comments included as an attachment the Affdavit of
Christine Mikell, which contained several exhibits evidencing the development efforts and the
communications between Idaho Power and the Grouse Creek QFs. Expecting no conflcting
interpretations of the underlying evidence submitted, the Grouse Creek QFs did not request a
hearing at that time.
The relevant facts for each of these cases are substatially similar. The Grouse Creek
QFs have therefore fied identical requests for oral argument in each case, and propose a single
oral argument to address both cases.
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-1O-61, IPC-E-1O-62
PAGE 2
4. On March 31, 2011, Idaho Power filed Reply Comments.
5. The Company, in its Reply Comments, appears to have inadvertently included
statements of fact that are materially inconsistent with evidence in the record.
6. Idaho Power stated, "Discussions between Wasatch Wind and Idaho Power on a
single 150 MW project continued until April 2010, when Wasatch Wind informed Idaho Power
that it was now considering a single 65 MW project. . . ." Idaho Power's Reply Comments, Case
Nos. IPC-E-1O-61, IPC-E-10-62, p. 7 (March 31,2011).
7. There is no evidence that Wasatch Wind ever requested a contract from Idaho
Power for a 150 MW project, and the evidence of the initial request on Februar 26,2010 was
for "either a 10 aMW or something less than 80 MW Qualifying Facility under PURPA." See
Affdavit of Christine Mikell, at Exhibit A, p. 2; see also id at Exhibit A, p. 1 (containing the
email response of Mr. Randy Allphin of Idaho Power acknowledging receipt of this request).
Indeed, at that time, Wasatch Wind had already determined with BP A that it would be
impossible to deliver more than 93 MW to Idaho Power on the applicable transmission line, id. at
iiii 17, 19, and a request for a contract for 150 MW would therefore make no sense. Although
Wasatch Wind did initially plan a project up to 150 MW with BLM and the private landowner, it
does not ever recall requesting a contract from Idaho Power for a project sized at 150 MW.
8. Additionally, Idaho Power stated, "Discussions continued between the paries and
on December 2,2010, Wasatch Wind sent marked-up versions of previously sent draft PPAs sent
by Idaho Power. . . . These mark-ups were the first time Idaho Power was definitively informed
of the Projects' size and configuration (i.e. two 21 MW projects)." Idaho Power's Reply
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-10-61, IPC-E-10-62
PAGE 3
Comments, Case Nos. IPC-E-1O-61, IPC-E-1O-62, at p. 8.
9. The record demonstrates that Wasatch Wind clearly requested two contracts for
two 10 average megawatt projects in July 2010, Affdavit of Christine Mikell, at Exhibit at
Exhbit D, p. 1, and definitively described such projects with a maximum capacity of21 MWon
October 1,2010, well before December 2010. See id at Exhibit G at pp. 1,4,9, 12.
10. Idaho Power itself was well aware of the changes resulting in both projects being
sized at 21 MW. See id at Exhibit I, p. 2 (contaning Mr. Allphin's November 1, 2010 letter,
which stated: "In the letter dated October 1, 2010, the project has requested the Grouse Creek
Wind Park I be resized at 21 MW vs the previous information that the project be sized at 30
MW. Based on this latest information, Idaho Power will file TSR's for Grouse Creek Wind Park
I for a nameplate rating of 21 MW and Grouse Creek Wind Park II for a nameplate rating of 21
MW . . . ."). Indeed, the Complaints fied on November 8, 2010, in Case Nos. IPC-E-1O-29 and
IPC-E-1O-30 both stated the QFs would be 21 MW. See Complaints, Case Nos. IPC-E-1O-29
and IPC-E-10-30, ii 5 (Nov. 8,2010). The 21-MW maximum capacity of these projects was well
settled far in advance of December 2010.
11. Additionally, the Company, in its Reply Comments, appears to have revived its
argument made and then later retracted durng contract negotiations, that an off-system QF must
secure a Point to Point ("PTP") transmission agreement prior to Idaho Power agreeing to execute
a power sales contract. See Idaho Power's Reply Comments at p. 8 ("Notably. . . the Projects
have stil not entered into a definitive transmission service agreement with Bonnevile Power
Administration ('BPA') to enable it to deliver the energy to Idaho Power's system").
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-10-61, IPC-E-10-62
PAGE 4
12. The Grouse Creek QFs had objected to Idaho Power's requirement of firm
transmission rights prior to contract execution as the primary concern in the Complaints, which
were not litigated afer Idaho Power waived the firm transmission requirement prior to contract
execution. See Affdavit of Christine Mikell, at iiii 63,67-68, 73-74.
13. The Grouse Creek QFs understood Idaho Power to have agreed that a PTP
transmission agreement need not be a prerequisite if the QF agrees to a reasonable delay security
to protect Idaho Power and its ratepayers in the event a PTP transmission agreement canot be
secured. See Grouse Creek QFs' Comments, Case Nos. IPC-E-10-61, IPC-E-10-62, pp. 16-18
(March 24,2010).
14. Therefore, the Grouse Creek QFs, in their fiing in these cases, only briefly
described some of the reasons it is impractical to require a firm transmission agreement prior to
contract execution. Affdavit of Christine Mikell, at ii 33.
15. Counsel for the Grouse Creek QFs is not aware of any recent case where the
Commission has required a QF to secure a firm transmission agreement prior to contract
execution.
16. For the reasons stated above, the soundness of requiring firm transmission rights
has not been fully addressed in these cases.
17. Because the records in these cases are lengthy and Idaho Power appears to
interpret the evidence different than the Grouse Creek QFs, the Grouse Creek QFs submit that it
would beneficial for the Commission to hold oral argument in these cases.
18. The Grouse Creek QFs also submit that adoption of the firm transmission rights
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-10-61, IPC-E-10-62
PAGE 5
requirement prior to contract execution would constitute a drastic policy change with widespread
impacts, without the benefit of a full vetting of the issue. Therefore, oral arguent on that issue
would also be beneficial to the Commission in rendering its decision in these cases.
WHEREFORE, the Grouse Creek QFs respectfully request that this Commission grant
the Motion to Set a Time for Oral Argument in these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of April, 2011,
RICHARSON & O'LEARY, PLLC
~
r . Richardson
Gr ry M. Adams
Attorneys for Grouse Creek Wind Park,
LLC and Grouse Creek Wind Park II, LLC
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-1O-61, IPC-E-1O-62
PAGE 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of April, 2011, a tre and correct copy of the
within and foregoing MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served as
shown to the following parties:
Lisa Nordstrom
Donovan Walker
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
dwalker(fidahopower .com
lnordstrom(fidahopower .com
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
(x) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Randy Allphin
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, ID 83707
rallphin(fidahopower.com
( ) U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
(x) Hand Delivered
( ) Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Signed
MOTION TO SET TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
CASE NOS. IPC-E-10-61, IPC-E-1O-62
PAGE 7