20140930Response and Objection.pdf

DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Counsel
i:it;r\t:t\i-.il:'1 f-\-'r-
z8lq$P 30 PH l: ltr
'' i r Lr'ii= b-i;lx',.,iii J s' o't
38ffi*.
An IDACORP Company
September 30,2014
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re: Case No. !PC-E-14-22
Confirming Use of Capacity Deficiency Period in IRP Methodology - ldaho
Power Company's Response and Objection to the ldaho Conservation
League's Motion to Extend the Comment Period
Dear Ms. Jewel!:
Enclosed for filing in the above matter please find an original and seven (7)
copies of ldaho Power Company's Response and Objection to the ldaho Conservation
League's Motion to Extend the Comment Period.
Donovan E. Walker
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. ldaho St. (83702)
PO. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (lSB No. 5921) RECHlli iiilr
ldaho Power Company
1221 West ldaho Street (83702) 20lli StP 30 Pil l: lh
P.O. Box 70 ,-.r
Boise, Idaho 83707 i:"1/'; i'-' ' i';''.-"''
Telephone: [phone] i:"ilr"lTi;s cO:'1iii'Ssi6i;
Facsimile: [phone]
dwal ker@ idahopower. com
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
oF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-14-22
CoNFTRMATTON OF THE CAPACITY )
DEFICIENCY PERIOD FOR ) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
TNCREMENTAL COST, INTEGRATED ) RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
RESOURCE PLAN, AVOTDED COST ) THE TDAHO CONSERVATION
METHODOLOGY.) LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND
) THE COMMENT PERTOD
)
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 5, 2014, the ldaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission")
directed the use of Modified Procedure with written comments due no later than
September 30,2014, and reply comments due no later than October 7,2014. Order
No. 33116. On September 29,2014, the day before comments were due, the ldaho
Conservation League ("!CL") filed a motion, seeking Commission action on shortened or
no notice pursuant to Rule 256, requesting to extend the comment period for 60 days.
ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powed' or "Company") believes ICL's motion is without
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 1
merit, misrepresents the proceedings, and requests an unreasonable delay. Idaho
Power hereby objects to !CL's motion. Additionally, Idaho Power with this objection and
response will briefly address !CL's several mischaracterizations of these proceedings
and offer, in the alternative, to expedite discovery responses and suggest a brief
extension of time for comments.
II. DISCUSSION
ICL alleges that it "has addressed this case on a reasonable timeline and the
complex nature of this case supports extending the comment period." ICL Motion, p. 1.
Neither claim is correct. A party's intervention, especially late intervention, is not
supposed to unreasonably delay the proceedings, nor unduly expand the issues. Rule
71-75. ICL's motion to extend the comment period attempts to do both.
A. IGL Has Not Proceeded in a Timelv Manner.
ldaho Power filed the Application for this matter on August 13, 2014.
Commission Staff ("Staff') submitted discovery requests to Idaho Power on August 20,
2014, and the Company provided answers to Staffs discovery requests on September
9, 2014. On September 5, 2014, the Commission issued its Notice of Modified
Procedure and set the comment deadline of September 30,2014. Order No. 33116.
ICL petitioned for intervention on September 15, 2014, 10 days after the Notice of
Modified Procedure and 33 days after the filing of the Application. Then, another nine
days later, on September 19,2014, ICL served discovery requests (consisting of seven
questions) upon ldaho Power. Finally, on September 29, 2014, just one day before the
written comment deadline, ICL filed an expedited request to extend the comment period
by another 60 days.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 2
ICL had prior substantive knowledge of the issues involved in this proceeding.
ICL participates in the Company's lntegrated Resource Plan ("lRP") planning process.
ICL also directly participated in Case No. IPC-E-13-14, and was a signatory to the
stipulation adopted by the Commission regarding the Company's demand response
(.DR") programs. This case also discusses, refers to, and was affirmatively brought
pursuant to the Commission's Order No. 33084 in Case No. IPC-E-13-21, where the
Commission determined that the Company's capacity sufficient period extended to July
of 2021.
ICL waited until 33 days after filing of Idaho Power's Application and 10 days
after the Notice of Modified Procedure to seek intervention. Additionally, ICL then
waited an additional four days after that to serve discovery-which at this point in time
(September 19, 2014) is only 10 days prior to the comment deadline of September 30,
20'14. ICL did not seek to extend the comment deadline at either the time it petitioned
to intervene (September 15) or the time at which it served discovery requests
(September 19); instead, ICL waited until the day before comments were due
(September 29). lCL never has asked ldaho Power if it was possible for the Company
to expedite its responses to its discovery requests and did not ask the Company about
extending the comment deadline until the morning of September 29. ICL has not
proceeded in a timely manner.
B. ICL Seeks to Unreasonablv Broaden the lssue.
ICL makes claims in its motion that "this case raises significant and complex
technical issues that are unique to using the lntegrated Resource Plan methodology for
avoided costs." ICL Motion, p. 2. This is simply not the case. This case is neither
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 3
complex, nor technical, and does not require any calculations or modeling involved with
the IRP methodology. This case directly and simply involves the correct application of
the Commission's resource sufficiency determination for the Company. The
Commission determined in Case No. IPC-E-13-21 that with the inclusion of up to 440
megawatts ("MW') of DR as referenced in the approved stipulation from Case No.
IPC-E-13-14, the Company's capacity sufficiency extends to July of 2021. Whether the
capacity component of avoided cost rates determined pursuant to the approved
incremental cost IRP methodology is included starting in 2016, or included starting in
2021, does not require any calculation or re-running of any modeling. The capacity
component of avoided cost rates is what it is. lt is determined pursuant to the
Commission's direction in its final orders from Case No. GNR-E-11-03. The capacity
component is simply removed for those years that the Company is capacity sufficient.
The determination sought in this case is not a fact based challenge to the
avoided cost methodology. That is settled by the final, non-appealable orders from
Case No. GNR-E-11-03. Additionally, this case does not involve a fact-based
determination of the Company's capacity deficiency period. That is settled by the final,
non-appealable Orders from Case No. IPC-E-13-21. This case seeks a legal
determination from the Commission that the Company's use of the capacity sufficiency
period established in Case No. IPC-E-13-21 is appropriate for use in negotiated avoided
cost rates. ICL's representations that this case raises "complex" and "technical" issues
are simply not the case.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 4
Lastly, ICL alleges that the Company's Application "lacks" the necessary "factual
record" and "proof' upon which the Commission can make a determination. ICL Motion,
pp. 2, 4. This, similar to ICL's other claims, is not correct. When the Commission
proceeds pursuant to its rules on Modified Procedure, it determines that it will proceed
without hearing and will process the case upon written submissions. This includes the
application and any comments filed. ldaho Power's Application in this proceeding
provides the reference and incorporation of final orders from Case Nos. GNR-E-11-03,
IPC-E-13-14, and IPC-E-13-21, and requests the Commission's determination as to the
proper application of its orders from those cases to the present negotiated avoided cost
rates pursuant to the IRP methodology. ln addition, the Company provides in its
Application the present context and potential impact to customers which, despite ICL's
allegation that "this docket will not directly impact customers," is shown to be a very
substantial and significant impact to avoided cost rates that are directly passed through
to all Idaho Power customers. Application pp. 7-10. ICL's representations are without
merit.
C. ICL Seeks an Unreasonable Delav.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Commission determines to grant additiona!
time for ICL to submit comments in this matter, ICL's request for an additional 60 days
is an unreasonable delay to these proceedings. ICL's motion is silent as to the pre-
scheduled upcoming avoided cost rate update that is effective as of October 15,2014.
On October 15, the incremental cost IRP avoided cost methodology will update the
natural gas and load forecasts utilized in the model to arrive at a specific proposed
project's indicative avoided cost rate. This October 15 update is an annual update
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 5
directed by the final and final reconsideration orders from GNR-E-11-03. This 2014
update will be the second such annual update to occur since issuance of the GNR-E-
11-03 orders. As such, the several proposed solar qualifying facility ('QF") projects
referenced in the Application, as wel! as severa! others, are presently seeking to obtain
signed contracts prior to the October 15 change in rates. (ldaho Power currently has 12
separate solar QF projects, for a total of 361 MW, seeking to obtain signed contracts
prior to the October 15, 2014, avoided cost update). Currently, this case is schedule to
be completed prior to that October 15 rate change, which is significant to the projects
disputing the capacity deficiency period. Further delay creates uncertainty that carries
past another rate change and further complicates an otherwise straightforward
determination.
ldaho Power believes the Commission should deny ICL's motion. However, if
the Commission is inclined to grant ICL additional time, the additional 60 days
requested by ICL is unreasonable. lf the Commission determines to grant ICL
additional time, ldaho Power requests that the Commission retain a procedural
schedule that resolves this issue prior to the October 15, 2014, avoided cost update.
ldaho Power proposes, altematively, that it will expedite its responses to ICL's discovery
requests, and file the same tomorrow, on October 1, 2014, on the condition that ICL's
comments will then be filed on October 6,2014. ldaho Power would then file any reply
comments by October 10, 2014, so that the matter could be fully submitted for the
Commission's October 14,2014, decision meeting-which is prior to the effective date
of the new avoided cost rates on October 15,2014.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 6
III. CONGLUSION
ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission deny ICL's request for
extension of time to file comments, and reiterates its Requested Relief that the
Commission issue an order confirming use of a first capacity deficit of July 2021 for
purposes of avoided cost prices determined by the incremental cost, IRP Methodology.
This determination is a straightforward application of the Commission's prior orders to
the present negotiated avoided cost rate determinations relevant to several pending
contracts. It has a direct and substantial potential effect upon ldaho Power customers
estimated to be a difference of more than $170 million in avoided cost rates locked in for
the next 20 years. Alternatively, should the Commission determine to grant any
additional time to submit comments, Idaho Power requests that the case be concluded
prior to the October 15, 2014, avoided cost update.
Respectfully submitted this 30h day of Septelber 2014.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 7
AN E. WALKER
Attorney for ldaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of September 20141 served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD
upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:
Commission Staff
Kristine A. Sasser
Deputy Attomey General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-007 4
ldaho Conservation League
Benjamin J. Otto
ldaho Conservation League
710 North 6th Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD - 8