Loading...
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