20141031ICL Comments.pdf

Benjamin J. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6'h Street
Boise,lD 83701
Ph: [phone]x12
Far [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY FOR APPROVAT OR )
REJECTION OF AN ENERGY SALES )
AGREEMENT WITH GRAND VIEW )
soLAR PV TWO FOR THE SALE AND )
PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY. )
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
*, * r\ ; l\
?0!\ 0[T 3 I
Il.-,.',;1'.,-Ii:iil l:'i::i ,;i-t
CASE NO. IPC-E.14-19
TDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
COMMENTS
PH lr: l+l
;,,1',j jriii(_)i
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) recommends the Commission approve, without
modification, this Energy Sales Agreement (ESA). ICL and our members strongly support solar
development that is appropriately located and priced according to approved methodologies. The
Grand View PV Solar Two project has both these features.
The Grand View Solar project is a good example of an appropriate location. While ICL
recognizes the Commission does not address power facility siting, we note this project is located
on fallow agricultural land and is unlikely to effect wildlife values or scenic vistas.
In terms of pricing, ICL notes Idaho Power and Grand View Solar properly applied the
avoided cost methodology in effect at the time of the contract formation. In the ESA, both parties
agreed to an effective date of |uly 17,2014. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
Idaho Supreme Court have both ruled that the date when the utility and Qualifting Facility enter
into a binding obligation both parties are entitled "to receive avoided costs calculated at the time
the obligation is incurred[.]" Afton Energy Inc., v. Idaho Power Company,l0T Idaho 781,788
(Idaho 1984). JD Wind 1,129 FERC p 61,148 at J 29.
The Commission may only reject the ESA by finding it would result in an adversity to the
public interest or if it is inconsistent with federal law. Afton Energy Inc., v. Idaho Power Company,
1 11 Idaho 925,929 (Idaho 1986), Bunker Hill v. WWP,98 Idaho 249 (1977), Agricultural Products
v. IPUC 557 P.2d 617 (1976), CDA Dairy Queen v. State Insurance Fund,l54 Idaho 379 (2013).
Here, PURPA is the applicable federal lay and embodies a public policy decision to encourage
QF development at fair and reasonable rates. As stated above, the Idaho Supreme Court has
interpreted PURPA and the key regulation 18 C.F.R. 5292.304(d), as entitling the QF and utility
to the avoided costs calculated at the time these entities enter into a binding obligation. Here that
date is ltly 17,2014. On December 18,2012 the Commission determined that the IRP
methodology used in negotiating this ESA results in fair, just, and reasonable rates. Order No
32697.
Approving the ESA is also in the public interest generally. This ESA represents a relatively
minor addition to Idaho Power's overall power costs and thus will have a marginal effect on
customer rates. Because this ESA will provide carbon-free power, incorporating this project into
the electric system can help Idaho meet pollution control rules currently under development.
Further, the ESA contains an integration charge to ensure the QF pays its share of any costs to
integrate into the larger system. Most importantly, the record in the case shows a strong
statement of public support for approving this ESA.
ICL respectfully requests the Commission approve the Grand View PV Solar Two ESA
without modification.
Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October 2014.
Benjamin I. Otto
Idaho Conservation League