20150519IPC Objection.pdf

DONOVAN E. WALKER
Lead Counsal
Sfffi*.
An IDACORP Company
?015 finY l9 Pi{ t+: lB
1i;,:,1,.,r i .-._
i l-i I l-'lTi [$ ;ljr.',iri i,'; i l:i: i{.,i,
May 20,2015
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re: Case Nos. IPC-E-15-01 , AVU-E-15-01 , and PAC-E-15-03
Modify Terms and Conditions of PURPA Purchase Agreements - ldaho
Power Company's Objection and Motion in Opposition to Ecoplexus, lnc.'s
Petition to lntervene
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above matter please find an original and seven (7)
copies of ldaho Power Company's Objection and Motion in Opposition to Ecoplexus,
lnc.'s Petition to lntervene.
Donovan E. Walker
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W ldaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (lSB No. 5921)
ldaho Power Company
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwal ker@idahopower. co m
Attorney for ldaho Power Company
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION TO MODIFY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURPA
PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA
CORPORATION'S PETITION TO
MODIFY TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
PURPA PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER COMPANY'S PETITION TO
MODIFY TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
PURPA PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
Ii i:; i:,,Y I 3 Pii rr: I B
;:"-.:
l";TlLil r::'.:',1t. i,,, ) :' ),
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. !PC-E-15-01
CASE NO. AVU.E.15.O1
CASE NO. PAC-E-15-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS,
INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/' or "Compof,y"), pursuant
to ldaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") Rules of Procedure 73 and 75, and
hereby objects to Ecoplexus, lnc.'s ("Ecoplexus") Petition to lntervene filed on May 12,
2015. The basis for Idaho Power's objection is as fo!!ows:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 1
I. BACKGROUND
ldaho Power filed its Petition, as well as the accompanying direct testimony of
two witnesses, Lisa Grow and Randy Allphin, on January 30, 2015. On February 6,
2015, the Commission issued Order No. 33222, Notice of Petition and Notice of
lntervention Deadline. This Order set an intervention deadline of February 20,2015.
Additionally, on March 13,2015, the Commission issued Order No. 33250, by which it
consolidated the petitions of Rocky Mountain Power Company ("Rocky Mountain
Powe/') and Avista Corporation ("Avista") with ldaho Powe/s Case No. IPC-E-15-01.
This Order also directed that all parties granted intervenor status in Idaho Powe/s case
would be designated as parties in Rocky Mountain Powe/s and Avista's cases, and that
any other persons desiring to intervene in the Rocky Mountain Power and Avista
matters should file petitions to intervene no later than March 27,2015.
On March 18, 2015, the Commission issued Order No. 33253, by which it
granted clarification of its previously directed interim relief, adopted a procedural
schedule for the filing of direct and rebuttal testimony, and scheduled the technical
hearing for this proceeding. The Commission ordered that Staff and lntervenors file
direct testimony no Iater than April 23,2015, and that Staff and Intervenors file rebuttal
testimony no later than May 14, 2015. The utilities were directed to file rebuttal
testimony no later than June 11,2015. The Commission scheduled the technical
hearing in this matter for June 29, June 30, and July 1 ,2015.
On May 7,2015, the Commission issued Notice of Public Customer Hearings for
this proceeding. The Commission scheduled two public customer hearings: one in
person on June 24,2015, and one telephonic on June 30, 2015.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 2
Ecoplexus submitted its untimely Petition to lntervene on May 12,2015, well after
the February 20, 2015, deadline for intervention in ldaho Powe/s Case No.
IPC-E-15-01, and well after the March 27,2015, deadline for intervention in Rocky
Mountain Powe/s and Avista's cases.
!!. ARGUMENT
RP 73 sets forth timeliness requirements for petitions to intervene in a
Commission proceeding. The Rule states:
Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for
delay. The Commission may deny or conditionally grant
petitions to intervene that are not timely filed for failure to
state good cause for untimely filing, to prevent disruption,
prejudice to existing parties or undue broadening of the
issues, or for other reasons. lntervenors who do not file
timely petitions are bound by orders and notices earlier
entered as a condition of granting the untimely petition.
Idaho Power objects to the untimely Petition to lntervene filed by Ecoplexus for
failure to state good cause for its untimely filing, disruption of the proceedings, prejudice
to existing parties, and unduly broadening of the issues in the case. ln the altemative,
should the Commission be inclined to grant Ecoplexus's Petition to lntervene in the
case, the Commission should substantially limit Ecoplexus's participation to that of an
lnterested Person and Public Witness as defined by RP 39 and RP 76.
A. The Petition to lntervene Should be Denied for Failure to State Good Gause
for the Untimelv Filino.
ln this case, the time for which petitions to intervene must be filed was set by
Order No. 33222 as February 20, 2015-nearly 3 months ago. Pursuant to RP 73,
petitions filed after that date must state a substantial reason for delay. Ecoplexus
acknowledges that its Petition to lntervene "is not timely pursuant to Order No.33222;'
Petition to lntervene at 2. Ecoplexus states as the sole basis for its delay and
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOT]ON IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE.3
untimeliness that it was not aware of the proceeding: "Ecoplexus was not aware of this
proceeding until recently. Ecoplexus's participation will not broaden the issues, delay
the proceedings or result in prejudice to any party." Petition to lntervene at2.
Despite its statement that it was not aware of this case, the fact is that Ecoplexus
was specifically and expressly informed of ldaho Powe/s filing, including the case
number, on February 2, 2015. Idaho Power filed its Petition on Friday, January 30,
2015, and informed Ecoplexus in writing on the very next business day, Monday,
February 2, 2015. Please see Attachment 1, incorporated herein by this reference,
which is a copy of the February 2,2015, letter from ldaho Power to Ecoplexus.
Ecoplexus's failure to read and comprehend the issues raised in the Company's
January 30, 2015, petition and direct testimony is not a substantial reason for delay
under Rule 73. Ecoplexus had notice of the issues in this case for over three months,
and has been in continued correspondence with Idaho Power, both before and after the
February 2,2015, letter attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Petition to lntervene fails
to describe why Ecoplexus delayed until this late time, when the evidentiary
submissions from Staff and the intervening parties are now closed (as of May 14,2015')
to seek intervening party status.
Ecoplexus had ample time to review the testimony and make a determination
regarding whether the case would impact them prior to the February 20, 2015,
intervention deadline. lnstead, Ecoplexus put off filing for intervention until a couple of
days before the deadline for Staff and lntervenor rebuttal testimony. Ecoplexus's failure
to adequately assess the issues and make a timely determination, even though all
information needed to make such an assessment was publicly available for more than
three months, does not constitute good cause for delay. The Commission should deny
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE.4
the Petition to lntervene because a potential party's inability to ascertain whether issues
will impact it is not a substantial reason for untimely filing. Ecoplexus's only explanation
for being late is that it "was not aware of this proceeding until recently." This clearly is
not the case, as shown in Attachment 1. Consequently, the Petition to lntervene fails to
"state a substantial reason for delay'' as required by RP 73, and must therefore be
denied.
B. The Commission Should Denv the Petition for Late Intervention Because lt
Will Disrupt the Case. Preiudice the Parties. and Undulv Broaden the
lssues.
Ecoplexus's significant delay in filing for intervention will disrupt the proceedings,
prejudice existing parties, and unduly broaden the issues in the case.
Ecoplexus has chosen to intervene so late in the proceedings that such
intervention cannot be accommodated without disruption in the case. Notably,
Ecoplexus filed its Petition to lntervene well after the deadline for Staff and lntervenor
direct testimony, and just two days before the deadline for Staff and lntervenor rebuttal
testimony. This very objection to its late-filed Petition to lntervene is due just three
business days after the due date for lntervenor rebuttal testimony, during the time in
which the utilities are to prepare rebuttal to all other parties' direct and rebuttal
testimony submissions, which is due by June 11, 2015. ldaho Power, as well as the
other parties to this proceeding have devoted significant time and energy toward
preparing their respective testimonies and legal positions (as wel! as al! other aspects of
this case) and Ecoplexus's filing now requires parties to divert their attention from
preparing this case, and preparing for hearing, in order to object to Ecoplexus's untimely
Petition to lntervene. This alone is a substantial disruption and hardship.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PET]TION TO INTERVENE - 5
Additionally, due to the proximity of the filing of the petition seeking late
intervention to the deadline for Staff and Intervenors to file rebuttal testimony, there is
no way to allow Ecoplexus to participate without modifying the schedule, or allowing
untimely submissions, which disadvantages all other parties to the proceeding. In
addition, Ecoplexus's late request will also disrupt the case as, if granted, its attomey
will need to be afforded the opportunity to participate in the hearing, including cross-
examining the utilities' witnesses. This will require additiona! time at the technical
hearing; thus, disrupting the case. The Commission should not disrupt these
proceedings simply to accommodate Ecoplexus's untimely request and should deny its
request for intervention.
Similarly, this extremely late filing prevents the opportunity for discovery and
timely assessment of issues as they may relate to Ecoplexus and the impact its
intervention could have on the pending case. At this point in the case, when discovery
is complete and the parties are wrapping up their issues for the Commission, it is highly
prejudicia! to a!!ow a new potentia! party to join. The hearing in this case is set for June
29, 2015, and the time designated for Staff and lntervenors to submit testimony has
passed. This proceeding is nearing the tail end of a very involved case and it is
detrimental to current parties in the case to allow an extremely late filed intervenor to
enter the fray.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Ecoplexus is likely to unduly broaden the issues in
the case. Ecoplexus states that its intervention will not broaden the issues, delay the
proceedings, or result in prejudice to any party. However, one of the Petition to
lntervene's stated issues is to "introduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, call and
examine witnesses, and be heard in argument." Petition to lntervene at 2. lt is unclear
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION ]N
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 6
how Ecoplexus can maintain that its interests are not protected and yet it will protect
those interests without introducing new issues in the case. Ecoplexus affirmatively
states it wishes to raise new issues in the case relative to "grandfathered" entitlement to
previous terms and conditions. Petition to lntervene at 3. This constitutes broadening
of the issues, which is contrary to allowing late intervention.l Ecoplexus is a solar
developer. Several other solar developers have already timely intervened in this
proceeding, submitted testimony, and will participate at the hearing. Because
Ecoplexus is similarly situated to several other parties in this proceeding, it is likely that
its interests will be adequately represented by other parties to this proceeding.
ln light of the burdensome nature of the request, its disruption of proceedings,
prejudice to other parties, expansion of issues, and Ecoplexus's failure to promptly
address issues raised in ldaho Powe/s January 30,2015, Petition and direct testimony,
which was specifically brought to Ecoplexus's attention on the very next business day,
is not an adequate, much less a substantial, reason for delay that justifies granting the
petition for late intervention. Accordingly, the Commission should deny Ecoplexus's
request for intervention.
C. lf the Commission is lnclined to Grant the Petition to lntervene. Ecoplexus
Should be Granted the Status of "lnterested Person" and "Public Witness"
."
In the alternative, if the Commission is inclined to grant the untimely Petition to
lntervene, in order to mitigate the adverse effects on existing parties to the case, the
Commission should limit Ecoplexus's involvement to that of an "interested person" and
' As this Objection was being prepared, Ecoplexus, on May 18, 2015, submitted a motion to
admit testimony and direct testimony. ln this testimony, Ecoplexus clearly intends to broaden the scope
into issues of legally enforceable obligation and grandfathering. ldaho Power intends to separately object
to the motion and testimony and willdo so within the next seven days.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 7
a "public witness" pursuant to the Commission Rules of Procedure 39 and 76. RP 39
allows for the participation and the receipt of Notice, in administrative proceedings by
entities that are not parties to the case but are "interested persons." RP 39. RP 76
provides that persons that are not parties and not called by a party to testify can
participate in a Commission proceeding and have a right to introduce evidence at
hearing by their written or oral statements and exhibits introduced at hearing, but
otherwise do not have parties' rights to examine witnesses or otherwise participate in
the proceedings. Public Witnesses' written or oral statements and exhibits are subject
to examination and objection. lf the Commission is inclined to allow Ecoplexus to
participate in this proceeding, it should grant Ecoplexus "interested person" status to
allow notice and service upon Ecoplexus-and grant "public witness" status to
Ecoplexus, allowing it to submit written comments prior to the completion of the
technical hearing, the anticipated time when the evidentiary record in this case will
close. Allowing participation as an "interested person" and "public witness" strikes an
appropriate balance from a due process standpoint as it will allow Ecoplexus an
opportunity to provide evidentiary submissions into the record without unduly prejudicing
other parties and disrupting the case.
ilr. coNcLUSroN
Because Ecoplexus has not shown good cause or a substantial reason for the
untimely filing of the Petition to lntervene, and because granting the Petition to
lntervene at this late date would create disruption, prejudice, and unduly expand the
issues, ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission deny the Petition to
lntervene. ln the altemative, if the Commission is inclined to grant the Petition to
lntervene, Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission substantially limit
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 8
Ecoplexus's participation to that of an interested person and public witness as defined
by RP 39 and RP 76.
Respectfulty submitted this 20h day of May 20'15.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S O&'ECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 9
Attomey for ldaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20h day of May 2015 I served a true and conect
copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION lN OPPOSITION
TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE upon the following named parties
by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Donald L. Howel!, ll
Daphne Huang
Deputy Attomeys General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-OOT 4
J. R. Simplot Company and Glearwater
Paper Corporation
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83707
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ldaho 83703
Gleanrater Paper Corporation
ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Carol Haugen
Clearwater Paper Corporation
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
daphne. huang@puc. idaho.oov
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
q req @richa rd so nad am s. co m
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
heathe r@ mcd evitt-m i I le r. co m
lntermountain Energy Partners, LLG; _Hand Delivered
AgPower DCD, LLC; and AgPower Jerome, X U.S. Mail
LLC
Dean J. Miller
McDEVITT & MILLER, LLP
420 West Bannock Street (83702)
P.O. Box 2564
Boise, Idaho 83701
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOT]ON IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO ]NTERVENE - 1O
lntermountain Energy Partners, LLC
Leif Elgethun, PE, LEED AP
lntermountain Energy Partners, LLC
P.O. Box 7354
Boise, ldaho 83707
AgPower DCD, LLC, and AgPower Jerome,
LLC
Andrew Jackura
Camco Clean Energy
9360 Station Street, Suite 375
Lone Tree, Colorado 80124
ldaho Conservation League and Sierra Club
Benjamin J. Otto
ldaho Conservation League
710 North 6th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 844
Boise, ldaho 83701
Sierra Glub
Matt Vespa
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Snake River Alliance
Kelsey Jae Nunez
Snake River Alliance
223 North 6h Street, Suite 317
P.O. Box 1731
Boise, ldaho 83701
ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power
Daniel E. Solander
Yvonne R. Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 24OO
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email and rew. iacku [e-mail]
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail_FAXX Email knu nez@snakerivera I I ia nce. o rg
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mai!
Ovemight Mail
FAXX Email km i I ler@ sna kerivera I I iance. o ro
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
wonne. hoqle@pacifi corp. com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 11
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
Twin Falls Ganal Gompany, North Side Canal
Company, and American Falls Reservoir
District No.2
C. Tom Arkoosh
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
802 West Bannock Street, Suite 900 (83702)
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ldaho 83701
ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Erin Cecil
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
Avista Corporation
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue, MSC-23
Spokane, Washingto n 99202
Clint Kalich
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue, MSC-7
Spokane, Washington 99202
ldaho lrrigation Pumpers Association, lnc.
Eric L. Olsen
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE & BAILEY
CHARTERED
201 East Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ldaho 83204-1391
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand Delivered
_U.S. Mail
,Ovemight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail_FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
Email michae![e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail
FAX
Email clint. [e-mail]
I i nd a. qe rva is@avistacorp. com
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 12
Anthony Yanke!
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, Ohio 44140
Renewable Energy Coalition
Ronald L. Williams
WILLIAMS BRADBURY, P.C.
1015 West Hays Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
lrion Sanger
SANGER LAW, P.C.
1117 SW 53'd Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97215
The Amalgamated Sugar Company
Scott Dale Blickenstaff
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC
1951 South Saturn Wry, Suite 100
Boise, ldaho 83702
Micron Technology, lnc.
Richard E. Malmgren
Micron Technology, lnc.
800 South FederalWay
Boise, ldaho 83716
Frederick J. Schmidt
Pamela S. Howland
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
377 South Nevada Street
Carson City, Nevada 89703
Ecoplexus, lnc.
John R. Hammond, Jr.
FISHER PUSCH LLP
U.S. Bank Plaza, Seventh Floor
101 South Capito! Boulevard, Suite 701 (83702)
P.O. Box 1308
Boise, ldaho 83701
Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mai!_FAXX Email [e-mail]
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
_Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
phowland@ holland hart.com
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOS]TION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 13
John Gorman
Ecoplexus, lnc.
650 Townsend Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, Califomia 94103
_Hand DeliveredX U.S. Mail
Ovemight Mail
_FAXX Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN
OPPOSITION TO ECOPLEXUS, INC.'S PETITION TO INTERVENE. 14
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GASE NOS. IPC-E-15-01,
AVU-E-15-01, AND PAC-E-15-03
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT 1
fiEm.
An loAcoRP companv
February 2,2015
Ecoplexus,Inc.
Attn: Nathan Rogers
650 Townsend Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, CA 94103
Sent Via: Email ([e-mail], [e-mail]), U.S. Mail
Subject: Proposed Indicative Pricing for Mountain Home PVI
Dear Mr. Rogers,
As you are aware, on January 30, 2015, Idaho Power provided, via e-mail,2 years of indicative pricing
for your proposed PURPA solar project in compliance with the approved Idaho Power Schedule 73
process. On January 30, 2015 and on February l, 2015 ldaho Power received e-mails from your
organization requesting additional indicative pricing for a20 year period. As your proposed PURPA
solar project is over 100 kW, the price, terms, and conditions of the proposed PURPA sale to Idaho
Power must be negotiated and subsequently approved or rejected by the ldaho Public tJtilities
Commission ("IPUC"). Idaho Power is proposing a term of two-years, and thus has forwarded an
indicative pricing proposal consistent with the same.
In the last eleven orders issued by the IPUC approving PURPA solar Energy Sales Agreements the
IPUC has questioned the continued acquisition of such large amounts of PURPA generation when
there is no associated need for that generation on ldaho Power's system - and concem for passing
those substantial costs on to Idatro Power customers. The IPUC concluded in each of those Orders
expressing its concem about Idaho Power's ability to continue to take such large amounts of
intermittent generation, and stated that "avoided cost rates are not the only terms to a PURPA contract"
and that "The utilities are in the best position to inform the Commission if review of additional
PURPA contract terms and conditions is wananted." On January 30,2015Idaho Power filed with the
IPUC a petition requesting the IPUC to modify terms and conditions of prospective PURPA Energy
Sales Agreements (PUC Case No.IPC-E-15-01).
Idaho Power is not willing to lock-in rates for a twenty-year term for your proposed project when there
is currently no need for new generation resources on Idaho Power's system. Idaho Power is proposing
a term of trvo years, and thus has forwarded an indicative pricing proposal consistent with the same.
Upon expiration of a PURPA Energy Sales Agreement, a PURPA project may request a replacement
Pagc I ol2
Energy Sales Agreement that will be in compliance with the PIJRIA rules and regulations applicable
to Idalro Power at that time.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any comments, questions, concerns, etc.
Sincerely,r%#w
Michael Danington
Energy Contracts Coordinator, Sr.
Idaho Power CompanylPower Supply
[e-mail]
cc: Donovan Walker (IPC)
Randy Allphin (IPC)
Erik Stuebe (Ecoplexus)
John Gorman @coplexus)
Page 2 of2
P O Box 70 Boise, Idaho 83707 l22l W ldaho St. Boise, ldaho 83702