20131125Idaho Wind Letter to PUC.pdf

GIvENs PuRsLE’av 25 ii[i fl 15
)
LAW OFFICES Gary 0.A0n DonE Knlckrehm W.I-high ORtordan,LLM.
601 W.Banriock Street Peter 0.Barton Neal A Icoskella Angela M.Reed
PD Box 2720,BoIse,Idaho 83701 Chritophsr J.Beesort Dabora K sisteosan Mart C Smith
TELEPHONE [phone] Clint Ft.0alider Michael P.Lawrence P.Mark Thompson
FACSIMILE 208 358-1300 Erk Bounder Franklin 0 Lao Jettray A.Wart
WEBSITE piyanooureicy corn PI’aSIOIi N.Carter David R Conibardi Robert B.tMits
Jeremy 0.Chou Emily C.McClure
William C Cole Kenneth N McClure OfCounsel
Mihaol C,Creamer Kelly Greene McConnell Kimberly D.Maloney
Deborah B Nelson Amber N.Dine Alex P.McLaughlin
Direct Dial,2063681215 Elizboth M Donick Melodie A.McQuado Licenaed if)Vlrgin4e
E-maiL DENgivvrrspurstyv corn Thomas E.Dvorak Christopher H.Mayer
Jeffrey C Faraday t Edward Miller Retired.
Martin C Hendrickson Patrick .1 Miller Kenneth C,Puroloy
Steven J.Hippler Judson B.Montgomery Jeno A McClure (1024-2011)
Deborah 0.Nelson Raymond D.Given,(1917-2000)
November 25,2013
Via email Qean.jewettpuc.idaho.gov)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
do Jean Jewell,Secretary
472 W Washington St
Boise 1D $3702
Re:Proposed Consolidation of Idaho Wind Partners’Complaint and Petition for Declaratory
Order,Case No.IPC-E-13-19 and Idaho Power’s Tariff Advice No.13-05
Deat’Commissioners:
On behalf of Idaho Wind Partners I LLC (“Idaho Wind Partners”),I provide these
comments in response to the November 18,2013 Decision Memorandum in which Staff
recommends consolidation of Idaho Wind Partners’Complaint and Petition for Declaratory
Ot-der,Case No.IPC-E-13-19 (“Complaint”)with Idaho Power’s Tariff Advice No.13-05
(recommended to proceed by Modified Procedure)(“Schedule 86 Proceeding”).Idaho Wind
Partners opposes consolidation of the two proceedings.
Idaho Wind Partners’Complaint is a breach of contract action seeking interpretation of
specific language in eight firm Energy Sales Agreements (“FESAs”)and monetary damages.
Idaho Wind Partners seeks an expedient and fair resolution to a dispute that has cost them
approximately One Million Dollars from January 2011 to date.
The Schedule 26 Proceeding is a policy matter that may affect parties to future sales
agreements but that has no bearing on prior contracts or the payments due under the specific
terms of those contracts.Contrary to statements in the Decision Memorandum at page 2
suggesting that the Schedule 86 Proceeding could impact existing contracts,t the Commission’s
“[TJhe implications of Idaho Power’s proposed changes to its Schedule 86 potentially affect the
calctilation of avoided cost for surplus energy for numerous active QF contracts managed by the utility.”
“The Commission’s consideration of volume weighting as it applies to the calculation of Avoided Energy
Costs tinder Schedule 86 necessarily implicates the calculation utilized to derive Market Energy Costs in
numerous Idaho Power QF agreements.”
Idaho Public Utilitics Commission
November 25,2013 -
Page 2
consideration of new tariff language cannot retroactively apply to existing contracts as a matter
of law.
Conversely,the outcome of the Complaint proceeding could affect future amendments to
Schedule 86,As noted in the Decision Memorandum at page 3,“[T]he interpretation and
application of the language in Schedule 86 is meant to be —and in practice has been —a
reflection of the interpretation and application of the language in QF contracts.”It is the
Commission’s prerogative to consider all prior transactions and decisions and any new
information as it considers new tariff language.This does not mean that the Complaint decision
limits the Commission’s discretion in future tariff decisions.for example,the Commission
could decide the specific language in the FESAs does not support Idaho Power’s position that the
Price of surplus energy is based only on index prices with a reported volume,and,yet,in a
subsequent tariff proceeding,the Commission could agree with Idaho Power’s position as a
matter of policy and amend Schedule 86 to retlect those pricing terms for future contracts.
‘l’he Decision Memorandum also suggests consolidation is appropriate because other
parties will be impacted by the outcome of the Complaint.To the extent there are other parties
with the same contract language and the same impact (namely,in 90/110-era contracts,
establishing the price for energy outside of the 90/110 band),they may seek to intervene in the
Complaint proceeding or they may file their own case to seek redress of their own specific
damages.HOWeVer,the fact that other parties might have a similar concern as stated in the
Complaint does not justi’consolidation with the Schedule $6 Proceeding.for the same reasons
set forth above,a tariff proceeding does not impact existing contracts —whether Idaho Wind
Partners’or other parties’contracts.
Idaho Wind Partners fears that a consolidated case would (1)confuse forward-looking
policy considerations with existing contract language and (2)force Idaho Wind Partners into a
slower,broader,and more expensive process to resolve a contract dispute.For these reasons,
Idaho Wind Partners respectfully requests the Commission to decline to consolidate its
Complaint into the Schedule 86 Proceeding.
I will attend the Decision Meeting today to present these concerns and to address any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
7
%L
Deborah Nelson
cc:Kristine Sasser,Idaho Attorney General’s Office (kris.sasserpuc.idaho.gov)
Donovan Walker,Idaho Power Company ([e-mail])
11067-18 1932538_3