20120905Motion to Supplement Record.pdf

Peter J. Richardson (ISB # 3195)
Gregory M. Adams (ISB # 7454)
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
greg(richardsonando1earv.com
RECEI'IED
2UI2SEP-5 PM 14:01
j JJL
ITIES )MMS ZAI;
Attorneys for Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-11-23
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING
PURPA JURISDICTION.
) KOOTENAI ELECTRIC
) COOPERATIVE, INC.'S
) MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD
)
)
)
)
)
Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("Kootenai") hereby respectfully moves the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or "Commission") to allow Kootenai to
supplement the record with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ("FERC")
recent decision on the proposed transmission agreement relevant to this matter. Although
this case has been fully submitted under the Commission's modified procedure rules,
Kootenai makes this filing pursuant to the Commission's Rule of Procedure 66. Kootenai
also makes this filing out of its ongoing obligation to apprise the Commission of recent
developments in related matters.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E- 11-23
PAGE - i
On June 20, 2012, Kootenai filed its Factual Update Filing and Request to Stay
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Determination in this matter. In that filing, Kootenai
informed the IPUC that the FERC would likely address the disputed issue in this matter -
whether Kootenai can use Avista's Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") to
deliver its qualifying facility output to the point of interconnection with Idaho Power on
the Lob-Oxbow line near Imnaha, Oregon. Kootenai directs the IPUC to its June 20,
2012 filing for additional background, and incorporates that filing herein by reference.
As Kootenai noted in the June 20, 2012 filing, on May 31, 2012, Avista tendered
an executable Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement which
described the Point of Delivery as follows:
The point on the Lob-Oxbow 230 kV Transmission Line where the 230
kV facilities of Idaho Power Company and Avista are interconnected, and,
for scheduling purposes, the LOLO point of delivery.'
Kootenai expected that Avista's description of the Point of Delivery would resolve Idaho
Power's concern that Kootenai would be unable to deliver to the point of interconnection
near Imnaha, Oregon. But Idaho Power maintained that Avista could not provide point-
to-point transmission service all the way across Avista's system to the point near Imnaha,
Oregon. Thus, Kootenai requested that Avista file the proposed transmission agreement
unexecuted with FERC for resolution.
FERC has now ruled on Avista's proposed point of delivery. See Avista
Corporation, 140 FERC ¶ 61,165 (August 31, 2012). For the IPUC's convenience,
Kootenai has provided FERC' s decision as Attachment 1, and requests that the IPUC take
official notice of FERC's decision. See IPUC Rule of Procedure 263.01 (a)(1). Idaho
Avista's tendered transmission agreement is included in Exhibit ito the Affidavit of Mr. Doug
Elliott, which Kootenai included as an attachment to its June 20, 2012 filing at the IPUC.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E-1 1-23
PAGE-2
Power argued before FERC (similar to its arguments to the IPUC) that Kootenai could
not deliver past Avista's Lolo Substation, relying on the abbreviation "LOLO" used for
the POR/POD in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's ("NERC")
Transmission System Information Network ("TSIN") directory. See, e.g., Avista
Corporation, 140 FERC ¶ 61,165 at ¶ 15 ("Idaho Power contends that a point along a
transmission line where ownership changes is not, in and of itself, a valid POD where a
transmission customer can make a delivery to Idaho Power."). Kootenai protested
Avista's proposed agreement to the extent that the description did not unambiguously
indicate that Avista would provide non-discriminatory access for a point-to-point delivery
all the way across Avista's transmission system to Imnaha, Oregon. Id. at ¶J 8-12.
FERC determined that Avista's description met the applicable rules for describing
a point of delivery, and stated, in pertinent part:
21. We conclude that it is not uncommon for a FOR/POD to
represent multiple facilities or capacity between multiple transmission
service providers, not just a single control area interface. Additionally,
we conclude thatAvista's description of the POD provides Kootenai
non-discriminatory transmission service all the way across Avista's
transmission system, because the description incorporates the entirety of
Avista's transmission assets on the Lob-Oxbow line. Finally, we find
that Kootenai's requested clarification that the term "near Imnaha,
Oregon" be in the description of the POD or, alternatively, that the order
state that Imnaha, Oregon is the only location to which Avista will deliver
the QF output for Idaho Power's purchase and use is unnecessary in light
of our finding that Avista's proposed language meets the standards set
forth in both the NAESB and NERC guidelines.
Id. at ¶ 21 (emphasis added).
FERC thus determined that Avista will provide point-to-point service past the control
area boundary at Lolo Substation and all the way across its assets to the point in change
in ownership near Imnaha, Oregon. Avista will schedule the deliveries to a POR/POD in
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E- 11-23
PAGE-3
NERC's TS1N directory described as "LOLO," which incorporates multiple facilities, not
just the single control area interface at Lolo Substation. But Avista will provide point-to-
point transmission service to deliver the electricity "all the way across Avista' s
transmission system" to the point in change in ownership near Imnaha, Oregon.
Because Idaho Power has still not agreed to accept and purchase deliveries
pursuant to the Oregon Schedule 85 power purchase agreement at issue in the proceeding
before the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Kootenai could not execute the
proposed transmission agreement approved by FERC. Kootenai had to request that
Avista remove Kootenai' s transmission service request from its transmission queue
instead of executing the long-term transmission agreement containing a capacity
reservation charge of $6,000 per month. Kootenai understands, however, that
transmission capacity is currently still available over Kootenai's proposed transmission
path.
Kootenai remains committed to a power purchase agreement with Idaho Power
under its OPUC Schedule 85 for Kootenai's QF deliveries over Avista's transmission
system to Idaho Power's electrical system in Oregon. For the reasons set forth in detail
in Kootenai's pleadings in this docket, Kootenai again respectfully requests that the IPUC
dismiss Idaho Power's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E-1 1-23
PAGE-4
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of September 2012.
RICHARDSON AND O'LEARY, PLLC
Gregn'y M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
Attorney for Kootenai Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E- 11-23
PAGE - S
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of September, 2012, a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD BY
KOOTENAI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. was served by ELECTRONIC MAIL
and HAND DELIVERY, to:
Donovan E. Walker
Jason Williams
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E- 11-23
PAGE-6
IPUC DOCKET NO. IPC-E-11-23
KOOTENAI'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
ATTACHMENT 1
140 FERC ¶ 61,165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman;
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris,
Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark.
Avista Corporation Docket No. ER12-21 19-000
ORDER ACCEPTING CONFORMING
LONG-TERM FIRM POINT-TO-POINT SERVICE AGREEMENT
(Issued August 31, 2012)
1.On June 27, 2012, Avista Corporation (Avista) filed an unexecuted long-term firm
point-to-point service agreement (service agreement) between Avista and Kootenai
Electric Cooperative (Kootenai). The service agreement is a conforming transmission
service agreement under Attachment A of Avista's Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT). In this order, we accept the service agreement for filing without modification,
effective September 1, 2012.
I. Background and Description of Filing
2.Avista explains that on May 3, 2012, Kootenai submitted a request to Avista for
long-term firm point-to-point transmission service for 3 MW of reserved capacity from a
point of receipt (P OR) on Avista' s system to a point of delivery (POD) at the LOW
scheduling point. 1 Avista states that it tendered the service agreement to Kootenai on
May 31, 2012 and that Kootenai did not execute the agreement but instead requested
Avista file the service agreement unexecuted with the Commission. Avista states that it
understands that Kootenai is seeking a more specific description of the POD than the
description that is currently contained in the service agreement. The service agreement
1 Transmittal at 2 (asserting that Kooteani followed its OASIS request with a
written application requesting a POD as "[t]he Imnaha Point of Interconnection. The
point where Avista's Lolo-Imnaha 230 kV Transmission Line connects with Idaho
Power's Imnaha-Oxbow 230 kV Transmission Line, at Idaho's Engineer Station 1600
plus 97.3 (on the section line between Section 16 and 21, Township 1 North, Range
48 East, W M) near Imnaha, Oregon").
Docket No. ER12-21 19-000 -2-
describes the POD as "the point on the Lob-Oxbow 230 kV transmission line where the
230 kV facilities of Idaho Power Company and Avista are interconnected and, for
scheduling purposes, the LOLO POD."
3.According to Avista, the Lob-Oxbow 230 kV Transmission Line (Lob-Oxbow
line) is a single 108-mile jointly-owned line connecting the transmission systems of
Avista and Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) where the point of change of ownership
is at the approximate mid-point of the line at a point near Imnaha, Oregon.2 Avista states
that it owns the transmission line facilities to the north of that point to Avista's Lob
230 kV Substation (located in the State of Idaho) and Idaho Power owns the transmission
line facilities south of that point to Idaho Power Company's Oxbow 230 kV Switching
Station (located in the State of Oregon). Avista states that the metered interchange
boundary between the Avista and Idaho balancing authority areas is located at Avista's
Lolo Substation. Further, Avista explains that the Lolo Substation is the only point where
the balancing authority areas of Avista and Idaho Power meet and the point on the Lob-
Oxbow line near Imnaha is the only point where the Avista and Idaho transmission
systems connect.
4.Avista states that from a transmission service standpoint, Avista provides
transmission service over the entirety of its assets on the Lob-Oxbow line, and therefore
provides transmission service to the point of change of ownership. Avista states from a
scheduling standpoint, consistent with all applicable reliability standards, energy
scheduled between Avista and Idaho is exchanged or "handed off' at the balancing
authority area boundary between the two systems.
5.Avista states that it understands that Kootenai and Idaho Power are parties to a
pending proceeding before the Oregon Public Utility Commission (Oregon Commission)
in which the Oregon Commission has been asked to determine whether Idaho Power is
obligated to enter into an Oregon power purchase agreement for the output of Kootenai's
QF facility. Avista states it is not a party to the Oregon Commission proceeding.
II. Notice of Filin2 and Responsive Pleadin gs
6.Notice of Avista's filing was published in the Federal Register 77 Fed.
Reg. 40,353 (2012), with interventions and protests due on or before July 18, 2012. On
July 18, 2012, Idaho Power filed a timely motion to intervene and a protest. On
July 18, 2012, Kootenai filed a timely motion to intervene and a protest. On
July 30, 2012 Avista filed an answer.
2 See Transmittal Appendix A (diagramming the physical geography of the Lob-
Oxbow 230 kV Transmission Line).
Docket No. ER12-21 19-000 -3-
III. Discussion
A. Procedural Matters
7. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, C.F.R.
§ 385.214 (2012), Idaho Power's and Kootenai's timely, unopposed motions to intervene
serve to make them parties to this proceeding. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2) (2012), prohibits an answer to a
protest unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We will accept Avista's
answer because it has provided information that assists us in our decision-making
process.
B. Kootenai's Protest
8.Kootenai protests Avista's proposed service agreement to the extent it does not
unambiguously provide that Avista will deliver Kootenai's QF output all the way to the
interconnection point near Imnaha, Oregon.3 Specifically, Kootenai argues that the 1958
Interconnection Agreement on file with the Commission is controlling over the location
of the POD between Idaho Power and Avista. Kootenai states that the 1958 Agreement
reads "The Points of Delivery for energy supplied between the parties hereto, unless
otherwise specified, shall be at the place and in the interconnecting circuit between the
parties where ownership and control of the facilities changes."4 Kootenai states that in
2003, Idaho Power filed an amended version of the 1958 Interconnection Agreement
with the Commission that was accepted for filing by unpublished letter order issued on
July 26, 2004 in Docket No. ER03-953-001, et al. which still defines the POD as the
point of change in ownership, and is still in effect.
9.Kootenai argues that Avista's OATT entitles Kootenai to deliver its QF output all
the way across Avista's transmission system to the point of interconnection near Imnaha,
Oregon. Kootenai states that Avista's OATT reads "The Transmission Provider will
provide Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service over, on or across
its transmission system to any Transmission Customer that met the requirements of
Section 16 .,, Accordingly, Kootenai argues that it is entitled to deliver its QF output all
the way across Avista's transmission system.
Kootenai Protest at 1.
4 1d. at 3.
Avista's OATT at § 15.1.
Docket No. ER12-2119-000 -4-
10.Kootenai further argues that Avista's OATT does not specify any limitation on the
manner in which a customer may request that Avista describe the POD in the service
agreement only that the POD be specified in the service agreement. Accordingly,
Kootenai's application for transmission service included a specific request to have the
POD precisely described as the point of interconnection near Imnaha, Oregon. Kootenai
states that its intent was to obtain contractual assurance as to the precise location where
Avista would deliver Kootenai's QF output.6
11.Kootenai states that OASIS does not control the precise location of the POD.
Kootenai further states that the Commission's regulations require transmission providers
to post available capacity across posted paths, which includes "any control area to control
area interconnection."7 Kootenai asserts that the word interconnection means all
facilities connecting two adjacent systems or control areas and therefore, the regulation
requires the posted path to LOLO on OASIS to include a posting of available
transmission capacity at least up to the point of interconnection near Imnaha, Oregon, not
merely the available capacity to Lolo Substation.8
12.Further, Kootenai states that even if the OASIS abbreviation were somehow
determinative on the matter, the abbreviation of LOLO in Avista's OASIS does not
describe the terminus for the posted path as "Lolo Substation" any more than it describes
it as "Lob-Oxbow." Kootenai states that LOLO is a scheduling point for a posted path
which would be used to implement deliveries to the transaction-specific POD set forth in
the service agreement. Kootenai states abbreviations on OASIS cannot be used to deny
Kootenai non-discriminatory transmission service all the way across Avista's
transmission system.9
C. Idaho Power's Protest
13.Idaho Power maintains that the POD designated in the service agreement
impermissibly conflates two distinct locations to describe the POD: the Lolo Substation
and the point where ownership changes along the Lob-Oxbow line. Idaho Power states
that Avista interconnects to Idaho Power at only one point on the Lob-Oxbow
6 Kootenai Protest at 9.
7 1d. at 17.
8 1d. at 18.
9 1d.
Docket No. ER12-21 19-000 -5-
transmission path and therefore there can only be one POD and that POD is the Lob
Substation. Idaho Power maintains that the QF's output will be delivered to Idaho. 10
14.Idaho Power states that both Avista's and Idaho Power's OASIS websites confirm
that the Lolo Substation is the designated POD for transmission across the Lob-Oxbow
line. Idaho Power states that the Commission's rules require that all control area-to-
control area interconnections be posted on OASIS and that Kootenai is requesting
transmission from Avista's control area to Idaho Power's control area through the Lob
Substation interconnection. Therefore, Idaho Power asserts that Kootenai is requesting
transmission across a path that Avista and Idaho Power are required to post on OASIS.11
15.Idaho Power also argues that PODs must be approved by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and included in NERC's Transmission System
Information Network (TSIN) directory. Idaho Power states that according to the TSIN,
the only designated POD for the Lob-Oxbow line is the Lolo Substation. Idaho Power
contends that a point along a transmission line where ownership of the line changes is
not, in and of itself, a valid POD where a transmission customer can make a delivery to
Idaho Power. Idaho Power states this can only be done at a designated POD, which in
this case is the Lolo Substation, rather than the point of change of ownership near
Imnaha, Oregon. 12
16.Idaho Power argues that it is inappropriate to request a new POD from Avista by
asking it to submit an unexecuted point-to-point transmission service agreement to the
Commission. Idaho Power states that the creation of a new POD would be a substantial
undertaking and would require the construction of a new substation, the installation of
new metering equipment, and most likely an amendment to the existing facilities
interconnection agreement between Idaho Power and Avista.'3
D. Avista's Answer
17.Avista states that while the description of the POD in the service agreement may
not satisfy Kootenai or Idaho Power's desire to have the service agreement resolve their
pending case before the Oregon Commission, Avista maintains that the service agreement
is conforming and that the description of the POD satisfies the Commission's
requirements. Avista states that it provides transmission service to, and delivers energy
10 Idaho Power Protest at 3.
11 1d. at 7.
12 1d. at 11.
13 1d. at 10.
Docket No. ER 12-2119-000 -6-
to, both the point of change of ownership and the Lolo point of interchange for
scheduling purposes. 14 Avista states that Kootenai does not identify any violation of any
Commission requirement as a result of the description of the POD currently stated in the
service agreement. Avista maintains that it is common for a POR/POD identifier to
represent multiple facilities or capacity between multiple transmission service providers,
not just a single control area interface. Avista argues that its LOLO POR/POD includes
and incorporates both the scheduling boundary between the Avista and Idaho Power
balancing authority areas and the entirety of Avista's transmission assets on the Lob-
Oxbow line. 15
E. Commission Determination
18.We find that Avista's unexecuted service agreement meets the standards set forth
in both the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and NERC guidelines, as
required by Commission precedent. Accordingly, we accept Avista's proposed service
agreement for filing without modification, effective September 1, 2012.
19.In Order No. 676, the Commission required any public utility that owns, operates,
or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce,
as well as any non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with jurisdictional
transmission tariff reciprocity conditions, to comply with standards promulgated by the
NASEB Wholesale Electric Quadrant (NAESB-WEQ).'6
20.Under the NAESB Business Practices Standards, transmission service providers
must register all PODs and PORs in NERC's TSIN registry. 17 The NERC Rules of
Procedure define a POD as "a location that a Transmission Service Provider specifies on
14 Avista Answer at 3.
15 1d. at 6.
16 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public
Utilities, Order No. 676, 71 FR 26199, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles
¶ 31,216, order on reh'g, Order No. 676-A, 116 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2006), Order
No. 676-B, 119 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2007), Order No. 676-C, 124 FERC ¶ 61,070, order
on reh'g, Order No. 676-D, 124 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2008), Order No. 676-E, 129 FERC
¶ 61,162 (2009), Order No. 676-F, 131 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2010).
17 NAESB WEQ Standard 00 1-3.4 (providing that a transmission provider must
register and thereafter maintain on the OASIS Home Page at http://www.tsin.com all
PORs and PODs to and from which a transmission customer may reserve and schedule
transmission service).
Docket No. ER12-21 19-000 -7 -
its transmission system where an Interchange Transaction leaves or a Load-Serving
Entity receives its energy."18 Additionally, this registry facilitates identification and
communication of interchange transaction between parties in accordance with the NERC
Interchange Scheduling and Coordination Reliability Standards.
21. We conclude that it is not uncommon for a POR/POD to represent multiple
facilities or capacity between multiple transmission service providers, not just a single
control area interface. Additionally, we conclude that Avista's description of the POD
provides Kootenai non-discriminatory transmission service all the way across Avista's
transmission system, because the description incorporates the entirety of Avista's
transmission assets on the Lob-Oxbow line. Finally, we find that Kootenai's requested
clarification that the term "near Imnaha, Oregon" be in the description of the POD or,
alternatively, that the order state that Imnaha, Oregon is the only location to which Avista
will deliver the QF output for Idaho Power's purchase and use is unnecessary in light of
our finding that Avista's proposed language meets the standards set forth in both the
NAESB and NERC guidelines.
The Commission orders:
Avista's unexecuted long-term firm point-to-point service agreement under
Attachment A of Avista's OATT is hereby accepted, as discussed in the body of this
order, effective September 1, 2012.
By the Commission.
(SEAL)
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
18 NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 2, Definitions Used in the Rules of
Procedure at 12 (2012).