HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110823GrandView Answer to IPC.pdfPeter 1. Richardson
ISB No. 3195
Gregory Adams
ISB No. 7454
Richardson & O'Lear
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: (208) 938-7901 Tel
Fax: (208) 938-7904 Fax
peteriIrichardsonandolear .com
gregiIrichardsonandoleary .com
Attorneys for Grand View PV Solar Two
RECEIVEr":
23\ I AUG 23 PM 3i 02
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MA TIER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )
DETERMINATION REGARING THE FIRM )
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT WITH )
INTERCONNECT SOLAR DEVELOPMENT, )
LLC, FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF )ELECTRIC ENERGY )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-II-I0
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO'S
ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER
MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO
DISCOVERY ON IDAHO POWER
COMES NOW, Grand View PV Solar Two, hereinafer referred to as "Grand View," and
pursuant to this Commission's Rules of Procedure, Rule 57 IDAPA 31.01.01.57 hereby answer's
Idaho Power's motion in opposition to Grand View's Petition to Intervene.
IDAHO POWER'S MOTION
Idaho Power asserts thee reasons for denying Grand View's Petition to Intervene: (1)
Grand View PV has other opportties to address its issues before the Commission; (2) Grand
View's paricipation will cause additional delay and "unecessary confsion ofthe issues"; and
(3) the risk that confdential nature of information will be revealed to a competitor of
Interconnect Solar. None of the reasons Idaho Power advances for denying Grand View's
Petition to Intervene are valid. Each will be addressed in tu; however, first it will be
instructive to review the stadard the Commission applies when asked to deny a petition to
intervene.
THE COMMISSION APPLIES A LIBERA INTERVENTION STANDARD
Rule 74 of the Commission's rules provides a very liberal intervention stadard for the
Commission to apply:
If a petition to intervene shows a direct and substantial interest in any par of the
subject matter of a proceeding and does not unduly broaden the issues, the Commission
or the presiding officer wil grant intervention subject to reasonable conditions. If it later
appears that an intervenor has no direct or substatial interest in the proceeding, or that
the intervention is not in the public interest, the Commission may dismiss the intervenor
from the proceeding.
All that is required for a petition to be granted is for the petitioner to show a direct and
substantial interest in "any par of the subject matter" and for the intervention to not "unduly
broaden the issues." In applying this stadard the Commission has been consistent in broadly
interpreting this stadard to allow for interventions. Indeed, the Commission has explicitly
stated that it applies a "liberal invention policy."l
1 See In Re: Application ofPacifCorp and Washington Water Power for an Order Approving
the Sale and Transfer of Electric Properties in the State of Idaho Order Nos. 25786 and 25460 at
page 5 (internet pagination may var from offcial pagination) April 12, 1994 (approving
intervention by two non-regulated electric cooperatives in the application of two regulated
electric suppliers for the sale and transfer of electric properties.)
Answer Grand View PV Solar Two - IPC-E-ll-l 0 2
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO HAS A DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST
IN THE SUBJECT OF THIS DOCKET AND HENCE HAS MET THE COMMISSION'S
STANDARD
At page two of its petition to intervene Grand View stated its direct and substatial
interest:
Ths Intervenor understads that discovery is curently tang place between the
Staff of the Commission and Idaho Power that indicates changes in the maner in which
Idaho Power calculates avoided cost rates for solar projects that are larger than 100 kw
may be considered. Grand View PV Solar Two has a draft contract offer from Idaho
Power with similar rates to those found in Interconnect Solar's pending contract for
approval before this Commission.
That assertion, in itself, is a sufficient statement of Grand View's direct and substantial
interest in the subject matter of ths docket. If it is tre that Staf is considering changes in the
maner in which Idaho Power calculates avoided cost rates for solar projects that are larger than
100 kw, Grand View will be directly affected as it has a contract with rates that have been
calculated in the same maner as Interconnect Solar's rates are calculated. If, on the other hand,
it proves to be false and the Star s inquiries are merely informational and not intended to
instrct its Comments on the pending solar contract, then Grand View's intervention will be
generally supportive and it will not have to file comments in opposition to a move by Staff to
change the avoided cost methodology. In either case, however, Grand View will stil have a
direct and substatial interest in the subject matter of this docket.
Grand View's concerns are highlighted by discovery questions being propounded by
Staff on Idaho Power. In DR 12, Staff asks Idaho Power to recalculate the avoided cost rates by
using a different capacity resource, a CT rather than a CCCT. The result of such a change would
be a dramatic reduction in the avoided cost rate for Interconnect Solar, and by extension for
Grand View PV Solar Two. In DR 15 Staf asks Idaho Power to estimate a range of integration
Answer Grd View PV Solar Two - IPC-E-ll-lO 3
costs for Interconnect Solar. The identification of integration costs would natually lead one to
believe that Staf may ask that Interconnect Solar pay a solar integration cost. The result of such
a request would be a dramatic change in ths Commission's policy with respect to integration
costs for non-wind QFs and would have a direct and substatial impact on Grand View.
Idaho Power has not objected to Staffs discovery related to major changes in the
calculation of avoided cost rates for solar projects. Clearly such questions are irrelevant to
whether the power company has properly calculated the avoided cost rates using the curent IRP
methodology. Because Idaho Power has not objected to Stafrs discovery, it is apparent that both
Staff and Idaho Power believe that this docket is the proper docket to investigate changes in the
avoided cost methodology for solar projects. Hence, Grand View has not only a direct and
substatial interest, it has a compellng and immediate interest in the subject matter of this
docket.
GRA VIEW'S PARTICIPATION WILL NOT BROADEN
THE ISSUES IN THIS DOCKET AND HENCE IT HAS MET THE COMMISSION'S
STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION
Grand View intends to be supportive of approval of the contract fied by Idaho Power
between it and Interconnect Solar. To the extent the Stafrs discovery raises new issues relative
to determining the proper avoided cost rate for solar projects, Grand View intends to respond to
those issues. If there is a risk of issue expansion, that risk is raised by Stafr s inquiries into IRP
methodological questions, and not by Grand View being granted status as a pary.
GRAND VIEW'S PARTICIPATION WILL NOT CAUSE ANY DELAY AND HENCE
GRAND VIEW HAS MET THIS COMMISSION'S STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION AND
IDAHO POWER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY UNDER A
SHORTENED TIME SCHEDULE
Answer Grand View PV Solar Two - IPC-E-ll-l 0 4
In its Petition for Intervention, Grand View asserted that it would paricipate under the
existing schedule established by the Commission in Order No. 32308. That Order calls for initial
comments to be fied on September 29 and reply comments on October 6. Grand View has
served discovery on Idaho Power over a week ago; even now there is sufficient time for Idaho
Power to reply under the 21 day rue provided for in the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
However, delay caused by Idaho Power's Motion in Opposition may inhibit the abilty of Grand
View to have responses in time to prepare its initial comments. Grand View served its discovery
concurently with its Petition to Intervene in a good faith attempt to stay within the Commission
established time frame. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Commission to shorten the
time in which Idaho Power is to respond to Grand View's discovery questions.
GRAND VIEW HAS NO OTHER FORUM IN WHICH TO PROTECT ITS INTERESTS
Contrar to Idaho Power's claims, Grand View has no other foru in which to protect its
interest in preserving the integrity of the method for calculating avoided cost rates for solar
projects greater than 100 kw. Should the Commission Staf succeed in its apparent attempt to
radically alter the avoided cost methodology for setting the avoided cost rates for Interconnect
Solar, the precedent wil be set and the dye cast. Indeed, if Grand View fails to paricipate in this
docket and instead addresses Stars attempt to alter the IRP methodology for Interconnect Solar
in a different docket, it will ru the risk of being accused of making an impermissible collateral
attack on a final Commission order.
PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS A RED HERRG
One ofthe reasons advanced by Idaho Power in opposition to Grand View's intervention
is to protect Interconnect Solar from the risk of revealing confidential information to its
competitor. Interconnect Solar and Grand View are not competitors. Idaho Power forgets the
Answer Grand View PV Solar Two - WC-E-ll-l 0 5
fact that it is a monopsonist. Grand View and Interconnect Solar are not competing in a market
for customers. Idaho Power is the only buyer, the IPUC sets the price and the QF industr has
no choice but to tae it or else leave the 'market.' That said, the Commission has adequate
procedures in place to protect confdential information from disclosure and Grand View will
follow those procedures. Finally, Idao Power has no stading to assert its paternalistic concerns
for the protection ofInterconnect Solar's business modeL. Interconnect Solar is adequately
represented by competent counsel who will, no doubt, object to any improper inquiry by Grand
View Solar into Interconnect Solar's business affairs.
WHEREFORE, Grand View PV Solar Two respectfully requests that this Commission
deny Idaho Power's Motion in Opposition, grant its Petition to Intervene in these proceedings
and order Idaho Power to respond to Grand View's discovery withn seven days.
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.
Peter ichardson
Grand View PV Solar Two
Answer Grand View PV Solar Two - WC-E-11- 10 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of August, 2011, a tre and correct copy of the
withn and foregoing ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION AND
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME was served in the maner shown to:
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretar
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
K- Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
Lisa Nordstrom
Donovan Walker
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
InordstromiIidahopower .com
bklineiIidahopower .com
K- Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
Krss Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise ID 83702
Scott. woodburyiIpuc.idaho. gov
L Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
Ronald Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur P.C.
1015 W. Hays St
Boise ID 83702
roniIwiliamsbradbur.com
.- Hand Delivery
_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
~(p1\
Nina Curis
Administrative Assistant
Answer Grand View PV Solar Two - IPC-E-11- i 0 7