20140221Answer to Motions.pdf

SEHm*
An IOACORP Company
4n t I rr-DTrri:: l'i-11 ?-i ilii ir' l6
February 21,2014
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-13-22
Update to Wind lntegration Rates and Charges - ldaho Power Company's
Answer to Motions to Dismiss, Joinders, and Comments
Dear Ms. Jewe!!:
Enclosed forfiling in the above matterare an original and seven (7) copies of ldaho
Power Company's Answer to Motions to Dismiss, Joinders, and Comments.
DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Gounsel
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. ldaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (lSB No. 5921)
JULIA A. HILTON (!SB No. 7740)
ldaho Power Company
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalker@ idahopower. com
i h ilton@idahopower. com
Attorneys for ldaho Power Company
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO UPDATE
ITS WIND INTEGRATION RATES AND
CHARGES.
ni1!' f---r_r a Ij r I l- tri,, ri, :'-')
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-13-22
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
ANSWER TO MOTIONS TO
DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND
COMMENTS
ln accordance with RP 56 and RP 256, ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/'or
"Company'') hereby respectfully requests the !daho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") deny various parties' Motions to Dismiss ldaho Powe/s Application to
update its wind integration rates and charges.
The intervening parties have asked the Commission to dismiss Idaho Powe/s
Application in its entirety; strike designated portions from Idaho Power's Application;
admonish ldaho Power for filing its Application; and to initiate workshops before filing
another Application-all based around the argument that there has been some kind of
improper or unlaMul unilateral modification of an existing contract. ldaho Power did not
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 1
unilaterally modify any existing agreements. Idaho Power did not seek any specific
method of allocation of the collection of wind integration costs in its Application. lt would
be improper to dismiss ldaho Power's Application in its entirety. lt would be improper to
strike selected portions of relevant evidence from ldaho Powe/s Application, and from
the Commission's consideration in this proceeding. Workshops are not necessary and
would only delay the inevitable consideration of the issues raised in ldaho Power's
Application by the Commission.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
ldaho Power filed its Application to update its wind integration rates and charges
on November 29, 2013. On December 31 , 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of
Application and Notice of lntervention Deadline, with an intervention deadline of January
21, 2014. The following parties intervened in the case: ldaho Winds, LLC ("ldaho
Winds"); Snake River Alliance ("SRq"1' Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC ("Cold Springs");
Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC ("Desert Meadow"); Hammett Hill Windfarm, LLC
("Hammett Hil!"); Mainline Windfarm, LLC ("Mainline"); Ryegrass Windfarm, LLC
("Ryegrass"); Two Ponds Windfarm, LLC ("Two Ponds"); Cassia Windfarm LLC
("Cassia"); Hot Springs Windfarm, LLC ("Hot Springs"); Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC
("Bennett Creek"); Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC ("Cassia Gulch"); Tuana Springs
Energy, LLC ("Tuana"); High Mesa Energy, LLC ("High Mesa"); Renewable Northwest
Project ("RNP"); American Wind Energy Association ("AWEA"); ldaho Wind Partners l,
LLC ("ldaho Wind Partners"); Meadow Creek Project Company, LLC ("Meadow Creek");
and Rockland Wind Farm, LLC ("Rockland"). The Commission granted intervention for
each of the above.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 2
On January 31 , 2014, Cold Springs, Desert Meadow, Hammett Hill, Mainline,
Ryegrass, Two Ponds, Cassia, Hot Springs, Bennett Creek, Cassia Gulch, Tuana, and
High Mesa ("Movants") collectively filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon ldaho R. Civ.
Pro. 12(c) ("Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss"). The Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss
alleges that ldaho Power expressly asked the Commission to amend existing contracts
when it proposed three alternative methods that the Commission may choose to
implement to account for wind integration costs.
On February 7,2014, AWEA and RNP filed Comments in support of the Cold
Springs Motion to Dismiss, which advocate for a series of workshops to collaborate on
the issues. SRA also filed Comments on the Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss. Meadow
Creek, Rockland, and ldaho Wind Partners filed to join in the Cold Springs Motion to
Dismiss with additional comments ("Meadow Creek Motion to Dismiss"). On February
7,2014, ldaho Winds also filed a Motion to Dismiss ("!daho Winds Motion to Dismiss").
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
The Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss, as well as the Joinders and Comments, rely
upon ldaho R. Civ. Pro. 12(c), which governs motions for judgment on the pleadings. A
motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a motion for summary judgment; thus,
the ldaho Supreme Court has held that standards of review applicable to a summary
judgment motion are applicable to a motion made under ldaho R. Civ. Pro. 12(c).
Bagley v. Thomason, 155 ldaho 193, 307 P.3d 1219, 1222 (2013) (citing Trimble v.
Engelking, 130 ldaho 300,302, 939 P.2d 1379, 1381 (1997)). Therefore, judgment
under Rule 12(c) is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 3
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." /d. (citing
|.R.C.P.56(c); G & M Farmsv. Funk lrr. Co., 119 ldaho 514,516-17,808 P.2d 851,
853-54 (1991)). Additionally, "[al!] doubts are to be resolved against the moving party,
and the motion must be denied if the evidence is such that conflicting inferences may be
drawn therefrom, and if reasonable people might reach different conclusions." /d.
While the Movants, joinders, and commentors all rely upon R. Civ. Pro. 12 (c),
judgment on the pleadings, their requested relief is structured as a motion to dismiss,
and, alternatively, as an evidentiary motion to strike. ldaho Power does not necessarily
agree that the Movants have properly cited to appropriate rule or statute for their
requested relief as required by RP 56. While this distinction is relevant to the proper
standard of review, ldaho Power's response herein would nevertheless be the same.
Movants rely upon various claims of preemption, including field preemption,
which applies when the federal government has regulated the entire field leaving no
authority to the states in that area.
Absent explicit preemptive language, we have recognized at
least two types of implied preemption: field preemption,
where the scheme of federal regulation is "'so pervasive as
to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room
for the States to supplement it,"' ld. a|153 (quoting Rrbe v.
Sanfa Fe Elevator Corp.,331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)), and
conflict preemption, where "compliance with both federal and
state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime &
Avocado Growers, lnc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143
(1963), or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz,3l2 U.S. 52,
67 (1941); Felder v. Casey,487 U.S. 131 , 138 (1988); Perez
v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 649 (1971).
Gade v. National Solid l4lasfes Management Associaflon, 505 U.S. 88, 112 S.Ct. 2374,
120 L.Ed.2d 73, 60 USLW 4587 (1992). Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 4
('PURPA") mandates and requires the joint exercise of federal and state authorities and
provides for exclusive state implementation and authority on any as-applied claims.
Consequently, any claim of field preemption fails.
Additionally, Movants rely upon Sa/es Hydro Assoc. v. Maughan,985 F.2d 451,
454 (gth Cir.1993) and Middle South Energy, lnc. v. Ark. Pub. Sery. Comm'n,772 F.2d
404 (8th Cir.1985) for the proposition that they "have a federal right to be free of the
state administrative proceeding" because "the hardship is the process itself. Process
costs money." Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss, p. 17. Movants' citation and reliance
upon this authority is at best misstated, and does not accurately represent the decisions
in those matters. ln Sa/es Hydro, the reference to "The hardship is the process itself."
ls in reference to a claim of ripeness from that case, and not to the claim of federal
preemption as Movants represent. Sa/es Hydro Assoc. v. Maughan, 985 F.2d 451,454
(9th Cir.1993)("Ripeness of an issue depends on two things, its current fitness for
judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding judicia! consideration.").
More importantly, Middle Soufh Energy requires some actual application-and suffered
injury from the application of regulatory requirements to the complainant before it is
appropriate that they "be free of the state administrative proceeding," not just the fact
that there may be administrative proceedings that they feel obligated to participate in.
MSE alleges such injury in the form of loss through
exhaustion of the very right-the right to be free of the state
administrative proceeding-it seeks to protect. The
Supreme Court recognized such a right on similar facts in
Public Utilities Commission v. United FuelGas Co., 317 U.S.
456,63 S.Ct.369,87 L.Ed.396 (1943), when an interstate
gas supplier sought to enjoin the enforcement against it of a
state agency order requiring it to prove the reasonableness
of the rates it charged a customer utility within that state.
Although the agency had done nothing to that point but
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 5
assert jurisdiction, ld. at 465, 63 S.Ct. al 374, the Court
upheld the injunction on the ground that the supplier
suffered injury from the enforcement of the order for
proof itself and that the expense of complying with such
orders uvas among the contingencies against which
Congress sought to guard in creating exclusive federal
jurisdiction. ld. aL469, 63 S.Ct. at 376; see also Public
Utilities Commission v. United Sfafes, 355 U.S. 534, 540, 78
S.Ct. 446, 450, 2 L.Ed.2d 470 (1958) ("But where the only
question is whether it is constitutional to fasten the
administrative procedure onto the litigant, the administrative
agency may be defied and judicial relief sought as the only
effective way of protecting the asserted constitutional right.");
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Public Service
Commission,332 U.S. 507, 512, 68 S.Ct. 190,192,92 L.Ed.
128 (1947)(state agency order requiring interstate gas
supplier to file certain tariffs, rules, and regulations was notjust a threat to apply the state regulatory plan but
constituted actual application of the plan in its initial
stages); cf. Monahan v. Nebraska, 645 F.2d 592,597 (8th
Cir.1981)(claim that state procedure itself conflicted with
federal act could not be effectively addressed by exhausting
state procedure).
Middle Soufh Energy, lnc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,772 F.2d 404,418 (8th
Cir.198S)(emphasis added). ln addition to the lack of actual application and harm
shown by Movants, the court in Middle Soufh Energy cites to authority that is different
than the present case before the Commission in that the Middle Soufh Energy authority
refers to the gas industry where Congress created exclusive federaljurisdiction to guard
against state administrative proceedings. This is not the case here. PURPA is to be
implemented by the State. State administrative proceedings are expected and routine.
III. DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION. IN WHOLE
The Cold Springs Motion to Dismiss, joined by the intervenors, requests that the
Commission dismiss ldaho Power's Application and require the Company to re-file its
Application; strike factual information from the Company's Application; and admonish
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 6
the Company that its Application was inappropriate. Movants' Motion to Dismiss and
requests for relief are based upon misstatements that ldaho Power "expressly asks the
Commission to amend existing contractually legally enforceable obligations." Motion to
Dismiss, p. 8. This misstates the Company's Application. The entire premise of the
Motion to Dismiss is based upon the argument that there has been some kind of
improper or unlaMul unilateral modification of existing contracts. There has been no
unilateral modification of any existing contract. While ldaho Power's Requested Relief
does ask for recovery of the updated wind integration costs, it does not specifically ask
for any particular type of cost allocation recovery. That is a determination to be made
by the Commission-not by ldaho Power, not by the intervening parties, and not the
existing PURPA Qualifying Facilities ("QF").
The Application presented the results of the Company's 2013 Wind lntegration
Study Report and requests that wind integration rates and charges be updated, as
contemplated by the Commission's Order No. 30488, which initially approved wind
integration charges. ldaho Powe/s Application set out alternative forms of allocation of
the identified wind integration costs that the Commission may, or may not, take in order
to update those rates, but did not advocate for, nor request implementation of, any
specific type of recovery. Whether or not the Commission has authority to modify the
existing contractua! obligations of a utility that it regulates does not preclude the
Commission's consideration of updated wind integration costs and a just and
reasonable allocation of those costs that is consistent with the public interest of the
people of the state of ldaho. lt is not proper to dismiss ldaho Power's Application, nor to
strike those portions of the Application and testimony referring to cost incurred by the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWERTO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 7
utility by inclusion of all wind on ldaho Powe/s system. This information is relevant
evidence to be before the trier of fact regardless of whether that trier of fact has the
requisite authority to allocate costs on that basis or not.
The specific Request for Relief in the Application states, "ldaho Power
respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order approving new rates and
charges for wind integration as indicated by the Updated 2013 Study presented
herewith." Application p. 9. ldaho Power asked for the costs identified by the previous
2007 wind integration study be updated to those identified in the 2013 wind integration
study. Additionally, ldaho Power asked for two specific changes to the way in which
wind integration costs are collected: "Change One: abandon the use of percentage of
avoided cost rate allocation and instead allocate a fixed amount based upon penetration
level; Change Two: decouple the wind integration charge from the avoided cost rate
contained in the power sales agreement and instead have wind integration costs
assessed as a stand-alone tariff charge." Application pp. 5-6.
The Application discusses and quotes Commission Order No. 30488, which first
authorized a wind integration charge for Idaho Power, including the language from the
Settlement Stipulation that "The integration charge . . . will remain fixed throughout the
term of the contract . . . ." Application pp. 3-4.
ln Case No. IPC-E-07-03, the Commission issued Order No.
30488 in February 2008 approving a joint settlement
stipulation and establishing a tiered integration cost structure
that increased as nameplate wind generation increased.
The stipulation also established a cap of $6.50/MWh with the
understanding that each of the utilities would update their
integration studies in the future as more wind generation was
added. Order No. 30488 states:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 8
ldaho Power's published avoided-cost rates for
Wind QFs will be adjusted to recognize an
assumed cost of integrating the energy
generated by Wind QFs as a part of the
Company's generating resource portfolio. The
rate adjustment will be applied in three tiers,
increasing as the total amount of wind
integrated onto ldaho Powe/s system grows.
The integration charge for each Wind QF
project will be calculated at the time a Wind QF
project achieves its Operation Date as that
term is defined in the Firm Energy Sales
Agreement (FESA) between the Company and
the wind QF. The integration charge will be
calculated as a percentage (7o/o, 8o/o or 9%) of
the current 20-year, levelized, avoided-cost
rate, subject to a cap of $6.50/MWh. The
integration charge as calculated on the
Operation Date will remain fixed throughout the
term of the contract and will be applied as a
decrement to the applicable published rate
according to the table below:
ltable omittedl
Order No. 30488, quoting Settlement Stipulation which was
approved by Commission.
Application pp.3-4.
Additionally, in Order No. 30488, the Commission discussed the expectation that
there would be continual updates to the wind integration study, costs, and if necessary
adjustment of the wind integration costs included in rates. Order No. 30488, pp. 12-14.
The Commission finds that the costs of wind integration are
real, not illusory . The Commission has continuing
oversight and we expect ldaho Power to provide wind
integration analysis and results to the Commission separate
from its biennial IRP filing As with variables in the
underlying avoided cost methodology, parties can petition
the Commission at any time to open a docket to review
and update wind integration cosfs if those costs are
believed to be outdated or inaccurate.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 9
ld., pp. 12-13 (emphasis added). Counsel for Movants has stood before the
Commission on several occasions demanding and asking when ldaho Power would be
updating its initial wind integration study. As stated in the Application, ldaho Power
considers the cost of integrating wind generation in its integrated resource planning
process when evaluating the costs of utility and third-party generation sources.
Application p.2. All parties to the case in which the wind integration charge was initially
approved understood, and minimally were on notice, that wind integration would be
continually examined and updated as needed by bringing the matter back to the
Commission for a determination-just as Idaho Power has done with the Application in
the present matter.
Movants strenuously argue against the Commission's ability to alter existing
contracts; however, no mafter what the Commission may or may not decide with
respect to its authority regarding existing obligations, dismissal of the Application and/or
exclusion of relevant evidence regarding all wind and its contribution to wind integration
costs is not appropriate. Whether or not the Commission has authority to modify the
existing contractual obligations of a utility that it regulates does not preclude the
Commission's consideration of updated wind integration costs and a just and
reasonable allocation of those costs that is consistent with the public interest of the
people of the state of ldaho. The factual information of the costs caused by all
megawatts of wind that exist on ldaho Powe/s system, whether that be from existing,
new, or future development, is relevant information that would be inappropriate to
exclude from the Commission's consideration and examination of wind integration
costs. ln fact, it would be inappropriate, if not impossible, to rationally look at wind
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 1O
integration costs without consideration and inclusion of all existing megawatts of wind in
operation on the system-regardless of how it is eventually determined that those costs
are allocated for collection and payment.
The intervenors in this proceeding are unabashedly concerned with only two
things: (1) promoting the unlimited development of additional wind generation and (2)
maximiZng the potential revenue to their own individual projects-regardless of the
effects upon the rest of the bulk system or the many other customers of the utility.
ldaho Power and the Commission have additional interests in meeting the public
interest-in providing reliable electric service to all those who demand it within the
Company's service territory, whenever they require it, on a least-cost basis. As stated
in the Application:
Due to the variable and intermittent nature of wind
generation, ldaho Power must modify its system operations
to successfully integrate wind projects without impacting
system reliability. ldaho Power, or any electrical system
operator, must provide operating reseryes from resources
that are capable of increasing or decreasing dispatchable
generation on short notice to offset changes in non-
dispatchable wind generation. The effect of having to hold
operating reserves on dispatchable resources is that the useof those resources is restricted and they cannot be
economically dispatched to their fullest capability. This
results in higher power supply costs that are subsequently
passed on to customers.
ldaho Power, similar to much of the Pacific Northwest,
has experienced rapid growth in wind generation over past
several years. ldaho Power currently has 577 megawatts
("MW") of wind generation capacity from Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA') projects and an
additional 101 MW of wind generation capacity from the
Elkhorn Valley Wind Farm, for a tota! of 678 MW of wind
generation capacity currently operating on its system. ln
addition, 505 MW of this wind generation capacity has been
added to ldaho Power's system during 2010, 2011, and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 11
2012. This rapid growth has led to the recognition that ldaho
Power's finite capability for integrating wind generation is
nearing its limit. Even at the current level of wind generation
capacity penetration, dispatchable thermal and hydro
generators are not always capable of providing the balancing
reserves necessary to integrate wind generation. This
situation is expected to worsen as wind penetration levels
increase, particularly during periods of low customer
demand.
ldaho Power considers the cost of integrating wind
generation in its integrated resource planning when
evaluating the costs of utility and third-party generation
resources. The costs associated with wind integration are
specific and unique for each individual electrical system
based on the amount of wind being integrated and the other
types of resources that are used to provide the necessary
operating reserves. In general terms, the cost of integrating
wind generation increases as the amount of nameplate wind
generation on the electrical system increases. Failure to
calculate and properly allocate wind integration costs fo
wind generators when calculating avoided cosf rates
impermissibly pushes those cosfs onto customers,
making them no longer indifferent to whether the
generation was provided by a PURPA Qualifying Facility
("QF") or otherwise generated or acquired by the
Company.
Application, pp. 1-3 (emphasis added).
IV. CONCLUSION
ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission deny the above Motions
to Dismiss, Joinders, and Comments filed by the intervening parties. The intervening
parties have asked the Commission to dismiss ldaho Power's Application in its entirety;
strike designated portions from ldaho Powe/s Application; admonish ldaho Power for
filing its Application; and to initiate workshops before filing another Application-all
based around the argument that there has been some kind of improper or unlavvful
unilateral modification of an existing contract. ldaho Power did not unilaterally modify
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 12
any existing agreements. ldaho Power did not seek any specific method of allocation of
the collection of wind integration costs in its Application. lt would be improper to dismiss
ldaho Powe/s Application in its entirety. lt would be improper to strike selected portions
of relevant evidence from ldaho Powe/s Application, and from the Commission's
consideration in this proceeding. Workshops are not necessary and would only delay
the inevitable consideration of the issues raised in ldaho Power's Application by the
Commission.
All parties to the case in which the wind integration charge was initially approved
understood, and minimally were on notice, that wind integration would be continually
examined and updated as needed by bringing the matter back to the Commission for a
determination-just as ldaho Power has done with the Application in the present matter.
Order No. 30488 states, "As with variables in the underlying avoided cost methodology,
parties can petition the Commission at any time to open a docket to review and update
wind integration costs if those costs are believed to be outdated or inaccurate." Order
No. 30488, pp. 12-13.
Failure to calculate and properly allocate wind integration costs to wind
generators when calculating avoided cost rates impermissibly pushes those costs onto
customers, making them no longer indifferent to whether the generation was provided
by a PURPA QF or otherwise generated or acquired by the Company. ldaho Power has
completed an updated wind integration study. That study identifies a need to update
the wind integration charge implemented by the Commission in 2008. ldaho Power has
initiated a docket with the Commission for it to examine the wind integration costs
charges, and asked the Commission to update the same in accordance with
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 13
and
the
updated study. ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission deny the above
Motions to Dismiss, Joinders, and Comments filed by the intervening parties, and set a
procedural schedule whereby it can fully consider the issues associated with a
determination of wind integration costs and recovery.
DATED at Boise, ldaho, this 21"t day of February 2014.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 14
Attorney for ldaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 21" day of February 2014 I served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS upon the following named parties by the method
indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff Hand Delivered
U.S. MailKristine A. Sasser
Deputy Attomey Genera!
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W est Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-007 4
ldaho Winds LLC
Dean J. Miller
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street (83702)
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, ldaho 83701
Rick Koebbe, President
ldaho Winds LLC
5420 West Wicher Road
Glenns Ferry, ldaho 83623
Snake River Alliance
Overnight Mail
X Email [e-mail]
X Email [e-mail]
Overnight Mail
FAX
Ken Miller, Clean Energy Program Director _U.S. Mail
Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC; Desert _Hand Delivered
Meadow Windfarm, LLG; Hammett Hill _U.S. Mail
Windfarm, LLC; Mainline Windfarm, LLC; _Overnight Mail
Ryegrass Windfarm, LLG; and Two Ponds _FAX
Windfarm, LLC
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Benjamin G. Huang, Manager
c/o Mountain Air Projects
6000 North FoxtailWay
Glenns Ferry, Idaho 83623
FAX
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
X Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
_Overnight Mail_FAXX Email [e-mail]
X Emai! [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Snake River Alliance
P.O. Box 1731
Boise, ldaho 83701
X Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS - 15
Gassia Wind Farm LLG; Hot Springs
Windfarm, LLG; Bennett Creek Windfarm,
LLC; Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLG; Tuana
Springs Energy, LLC; and High Mesa
Energy, LLG
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Paul Ackerman
Assistant General Counsel
Exelon Business Services Company, LLC
100 Constellation Way
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
American Wind Energy Association and
Renewable Northwest Project
Teresa A. Hill
K&L GATES, LLP
One S.W. Columbia Street, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97258
Dina M. Dubson
Renewable Northwest Project
421 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1125
Portland, Oregon 97204
Idaho Wind Partners l, LLC; Meadow
Creek Project Company, LLC; and
Rockland Wind Farm, LLC
Deborah E. Nelson
Preston N. Carter
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 West Bannock Street (83702)
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ldaho 83701 -2720
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand Delivered
_U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
p resto nca rte r@q ive nspu rslev. co m
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, JOINDERS, AND COMMENTS -,16
Christa Bearry, Legal