20140519Idaho Conservation League Comment.pdf

www. idahoco n*rvat i on org
RECfiIVLi}
?$l\ ttAI I I Plt l2: 2lr
$rJrtffi1*Cbffi''$u'oo'Conservation League
PO Box 8,*4, Boisc, ID 83701
2@.345.6933
May 19,2014
Via Hand Delivery and Electronic Transmission
Honorable Paul Kjellander
Honorable Marsha Smith
Honorable Mack Redford
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Re: Idaho Power Company Petition to Suspend Purchase of Solar Powered Energy, IPC-E-14-09.
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing to express the Idaho Conservation League's (ICL) opposition to Idaho Power's
request to suspend their obligation to enter into PURPA contracts. The purpose of this letter is to
make ICL's position known prior to the Commission's decision meeting today, May 19'h, to
discuss Idaho Power's petition. ICL notes this discussion comes before any public notice of, and
just three business days after, Idaho Power's filing. As the Commission considers this filing ICL
expects all stakeholders will have a full and fair opportunity to be heard prior to any Commission
decision.
Based on our review of Idaho Power's filings and applicable law ICL believes this filing is
premature. First, the claimed flood of solar projects requesting PURPA contracts is in reality a
trickle. The testimony of Randy Alphin notes that only 60 MW of solar projects have signed
power purchase agreements with Idaho Power, a small fraction of the 501 MW the Company
alleges are "attempting'to sign agreements.t And Idaho Power has repeatedly rejected ICL and
others request to consider potential PURPA projects during the Integrated Resource Plan process
as entirely speculative. The Commission should reject Idaho Power's attempt to have it both
ways, either prospective PURPA projects are a virtual certainty, as Idaho Power alleges here, or
they are mere speculation as Idaho Power claims during the IRP process.
Second,Idaho Power's petition makes several factual allegations and legal conclusions the
Commission should test through a properly noticed and convened public process. Chief among
t Direct Testimony of RandyAlphin at 3, IPC-E-14-09.
these allegations is the appropriate integration costs. Idaho Power discloses they are still at the
"data gathering" phase of their integration cost study and have yet to conclude even reviewing
this data.2 At this stage Idaho Power has no credible claim as to the actual integration costs. The
study could conclude the costs are substantial. But the study could also conclude the costs are de
minimus, especially at the exceedingly low penetration level of 60 MW. Until Idaho Power can
establish that solar integration costs are high enough to be meaningful, the Commission should
withhold dedicating time and resources to this issue. At the very least, before granting Idaho
Power's request to suspend their PURPA obligation, the Commission should require a factual
showing that some meaningful harm to Idaho Power truly exists. Because suspending PURPA
will immediately harm other businesses in Idaho, independent power developers, as well as Idaho
counties who stand to collect royalties from PURPA projects.
Third, the Commission should deny Idaho Power's attempt to get through Commission order
what the Company is free to negotiate for on its own. Mr. Alphin states the "none of these
contracts or potential contracts/obligations include any reductions related to solar integration
costs"[.]3 ICL acknowledges the Company's solar integration study intended to determine the
actual costs in incomplete. But that does not prevent the Company from negotiating a rate or a
contractual placeholder with PURPA developers. The Commission should refrain from using
scare resources when Idaho Power has a method to protect themselves and customers without
Commission intervention.
ICL recommends the Commission reject Idaho Power's request for an immediate suspension of
PURPA obligations. The alleged harm to the Company is uncertain, while the harm to
independent power developers from granting the request is certain. The Company's request is
based on several factual and legal allegations the Commission should test through a full public
process. And Idaho Power is free to protect themselves through negotiating an interim rate or
contractual placeholder with developers. Because the harm is speculative and the facts and law
unclear, the Commission should deny Idaho Power's request.
Yours truly,
fr444Bdnjamin Otto
Energy Associate
Idaho Conservation League
Cc: via electronic mail
|ean |ewell, Commission Secretary
Kris Sasser, Deputy Attorney General
Donovan Walker, Idaho Power Company
Ioe Miller, Idaho Clean Energy Association
2 Direct Testimony of Phil Devol at 7.
3 Direct Testimony of Randy Alphin at 3.