20141031ICL Comments.pdf

Benjamin J. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise,ID 83701
Ph: [phone]xt2
Fax [phone]
botto@idahoconservation. org
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OR
R3IECTION OF AN ENERGY SALES
AGREEMENT WITH BOISE CITY
SOLAR, LLC FOR THE SALE AND
PURCHASE OF ELECTRJC ENERGY
.5-r\i-rlr-'' --/.-,I t-r1,." :
?l}l\ OCT 3l Ffl lr: l+7
i!l',ir ..,- i.,,-,:,':.;
:.rT i t.il' I i: i I ;C i'''i,,i ili$ itrr';
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-14-20
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
COMMENTS
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
Boise City Solar project has both these features.
The Boise City 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 city owned land and is unlikely to effect wildlife values or scenic vistas.
In terms of pricing, ICL notes Idaho Power and Boise City 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 Qualiffing Facility enter
into a binding obligation both parties are entitled "to receive avoided costs calculated at the time
theobligationisincurred[.]" AftonEnerglrInc.,v.IdahoPowerCompany,107Idaho781,788
(Idaho 1984). IDWindl,l29 FERCp61,148 atJ29.
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,
111 Idaho 925,929 (Idaho 1986), Bunker Hillv. WWP,98 Idaho 249 (1977), AgriculturalProducts
v.IPUC 557 P.2d617 (1976), CDADairy Queeny. State Insurance Fund,l54Idaho 379 (2013).
Here, PURPA is the applicable federal law 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 luly 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 Boise City Solar ESA without
modification.
Respectfully submitted this 31" day of October 2014. .-{2#_
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
2