20140131Motion to Dismiss.pdf

Peter J. Richardson (ISB No. 3195)
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter@richardsonadams. com
Attorney for Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC; Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC;
Hammett Hill Windfarm,LLC; Mainline Windfarm, LLC;
Ryegrass Windfarm, LLC; and Two Ponds Windfarm, LLC
Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
gre g@ rishardsonadams. com
Attorney for Cassia Wind Farm LLC; Hot Springs Windfarm,LLC;
Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC; Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC;
Tuana Springs Energy, LLC; and High Mesa Energy, LLC
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF ) LPC-E-13-22
ii
IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO UPDATE ITS)
WIND INTEGRATION RATES AND ) NAOTTON TO DISMISSCHARGES. )
)
L INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to ldaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or "Commission") Rules of
Procedure ("RP"; 56 and 256, and Idaho R. Civ. Pro. l2(c), Cold Springs Windfarm,LLC,
Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC, Hammett Hill Windfarm, LLC, Mainline Windfarm,LLC,
Ryegrass Windfarm, LLC, Two Ponds Windfarm, LLC, Cassia Wind Farm LLC, Hot Springs
MOTION TO DISMISS
[PC-E-13-22
PAGE 1
Windfarm, LLC, Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC, Tuana Springs
Energy, LLC, and High Mesa Energy, LLC (collectively'oMovants") hereby move the
Commission to dismiss Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Powero'or the o'Company")
Application. Idaho Power's Application recommends that the Commission modifu the rates and
terms in existing contractual legally enforceable obligations of qualifying facilities ("QFs")
without the consent of the QFs. However, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
("PURPA") and implementing regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC") preempt such unilateral modification of existing contractual legally enforceable
obligations. Indeed, federal law preempts the entire administrative process of entertaining tdaho
Power's Application because the process itself subjects Movants to a preempted burden.
Therefore, the Commission should dismiss Idaho Power's Application in its entirety and
allow the Company to re-file an Application that does not recommend applying a new wind
integration charge to existing contractual legally enforceable obligations. Alternatively, at the
bare minimum, the Commission should dismiss and strike from the record the portions of Idaho
Power's Application and testimony that recommend that the Commission alter the rates and
terms in existing contractual legally enforceable obligations. Finally, the Commission should
instruct Idaho Power that efforts to unilaterally modiff existing contractual relationships with
QFs are preempted and inconsistent with this Commission's orders, and will not be entertained
in this docket or any future dockets.
[. BACKGROUND
A. Movants'QF Projects
Movants' QF projects can be grouped into two different classes based upon upstream
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-I3-22
PAGE 2
ownership. Cassia Wind Farm LLC, Hot Springs Windfarm,LLC, Bennett Creek Windfarm,
LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC, Tuana Springs Energy, LLC, and High Mesa Energy, LLC,
are each a wholly owned subsidiary of Continental Wind, LLC which is an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Exelon Wind, LLC. Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC, Desert Meadow
Windfarm, LLC, Hammett Hill Windfarm, LLC, Mainline Windfarm,LLc, Ryegrass Windfarm,
LLC, and Two Ponds Windfarm, LLC (collectively the o'Mountain Air Projects QFs") are each a
wholly owned subsidiary of Mountain Air Projects, LLC.
Each of Movants' projects is a self-certified QF that utilizes wind as the renewable fuel
source. See 18 C.F.R. 5 292.201 et seq. As explained below, each elected to exercise its right,
under 18 C.F.R. S 292.304(dx2xii), to execute and obligate itself to a Firm Energy Sales
Agreement ("FESA") with Idaho Power containing fixed avoided cost rates for the duration of a
2}-year contract term. See Affidavit of Gregory M. Adams (containing the FESAs of Cassia
Wind Farm LLC, Hot Springs Windfarm,LLc, Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC, Cassia Gulch
Wind Park LLC, Tuana Springs Energy, LLC, and High Mesa Energy, LLC); Affidavit of Peter
J. Richardson (containing each of the Mountain Air Projects QF FESAs).t
Cassia Wind Farm, LLC owns and operates a wind generation facility with a maximum
nameplate capacity of 10.5 megawatts ("MW"), and sells its entire net output to Idaho Power
under a2}-year FESA approved by the Commission on June 30, 2006. See IPUC Order No.
30086. Among the negotiated terms and conditions of the agreement, Cassia Wind Farm, LLC's
FESA contains the Commission-approved9}Yolll0% band provision intended to improve
performance of the QF. Cassia Wind Farm, LLC also agreed to certain curtailment provisions
' The fixed rates are set forth in Article VII or an exhibit to each FESA.
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-t3-22
PAGE 3
(referred to as o'Cassia redispatch") in a separate Commission-approved agreement with Idaho
Power related to transmission upgrades. See IPUC Order No. 30414.
Hot Springs Windfarm,LLC and Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC each own and operate a
wind generation facility with a maximum nameplate capacity of 21 MW. They sell their entire
net output to Idaho Power under two separate,2}-year FESAs, each of which was executed on
December 20,2006, amended July 2,2007, and approved by the Commission on February 20,
2007, and August8,2007, respectively. See IPUC OrderNos. 30245,30246,30398, 30399.
Among the negotiated terms and conditions of the FESAs, the Hot Springs Windfarm, LLC and
Bennett Creek Windfarm, LLC FESAs each contain the Commission-approvedg0%oll10% band
provision intended to improve the performance of the QF.
Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC owns and operates a wind generation facility with
maximum nameplate capacity of 18.9 MW, and Tuana Springs Energy, LLC owns and operates
a wind generation facility with maximum nameplate capacity of 16.8 MW. These two projects
sell their entire net output of the combined nameplate capacity of 35.7 MW to Idaho Power
under a single, 2}-year FESA approved by the Commission on October 5,2009. See IPUC
Order No. 30917.2 This FESA contains negotiated rates generated, in part, from Idaho Power's
AURORA economic dispatch model, consistent with the Commission's then-effective policy for
projects that generate more than l0 MW on an average monthly basis. The purchase price
established by running the AURORA economic dispatch model was then blended with the prices
contained within the pre-existing Cassia Gulch Wind Park FESA in order to preserve the value
of the existing Cassia Gulch Wind Park FESA for Idaho Power's ratepayers. Id. at l-2. The
2 Previously, Cassia Gulch Wind Park LLC sold its entire net output pursuant to a FESA executed
in 2006, but that FESA was terminated once Tuana Springs Energy, LLC achieved online status.
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-I3-22
PAGE 4
negotiated rates also incorporate the wind integration charge in effect at the time of the
Operation Date, reducing the fixed avoided cost rates in the FESA. See id.
High Mesa Energy, LLC owns and operates a wind generation facility with maximum
nameplate capacity of 40 MW, and sells its entire net output to Idaho Power under a2}-year
FESA approved by the Commission on February 17,2012. See IPUC Order No. 32462. The
High Mesa Energy, LLC FESA contains fixed rates generated in Idaho Power's AURORA
economic dispatch model and contains the wind integration charge in effect at the time of the
Operation Date, reducing the fixed avoided cost rates in the FESA. See id.
Cold Springs Windfarm,LLC, Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC, Hammett Hill
Windfarm, LLC, Mainline Windfarm,LLc, Ryegrass Windfarm, LLC, and Two Ponds
Windfarm, LLC (the "Mountain Air Projects QFs") each owns and operates a wind generation
facility with maximum nameplate capacity of 23 MW. The Mountain Air Projects QFs sell their
entire net output to Idaho Power under six separate 2}-year FESAs approved by the Commission
through orders issued on December 23,2010. See IPUC Order Nos. 32144,32145,32146,
32147,32148, and32149. All six of the Mountain Air Projects QFs' FESAs are identical except
for the rulmes and locations of the projects. Among the rates and terms in the FESAs, each of the
Mountain Air Projects QFs' FESAs incorporates the wind integration charge in effect at the time
of the Operation Date, reducing the fixed avoided cost rates in the FESA. See id. The Mountain
Air Projects' FESAs also incorporate the Commission approved mechanical availability
guarantee ("MAG"), which improves the performance of the QFs.
In summary, all of Movants' FESAs incorporate multiple provisions from Commission
policies in effect at the time the QFs obligated themselves which are intended mitigate ldaho
MOTION TO DISMISS
IPC-E-13-22
PAGE 5
Power's concerns with respect to the cost of the intermittency and availability of the QF output.
Furthermore, each of the Movants' FESAs expressly provides: "No modification to this
Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by fo11h Parties and subsequently
approved by the Commission." (emphasis added).3
2. The Movants' FESAs Each Comport with the IPUC Orders in Effect At the
Time of Execution and IPUC Approval.
As evidenced by the Commission's orders approving the Movants' FESAs, each of the
FESAs comports with the orders and requirements of the Commission in effect at the time of
execution and approval of the FESAs. Some of the FESAs contain the wind integration charge
in effect at the time of the applicable Operation Date. The remaining FESAs pre-date
implementation of the wind integration charge, but contain other contractual rates and terms,
such as the 90%oll l0olo performance band, approved by the Commission to account for estimated
value of the energy and capacity supplied by QF generation. However, each of Movants' FESAs
contains fixed avoided cost rates based upon the estimated avoided costs to Idaho Power at the
time the Movants obligated themselves to sell net output to Idaho Power over a 20-year term.
See tB C.F.R. 52e2.304(dx2)(ii).
The fixed rates in Movants' FESAs are entirely consistent with the Commission's orders.
Specifically, when the Commission approved the stipulation that implemented the current wind
integration charge, the Commission recited the terms of that approved stipulation as follows:
"The integration charge as colculated on Operation Date will remain.fixed throughout the term
E[ the contract and will be applied as a decrement to the applicable published rate . . . ." In the
Matter of Idaho Power Company's Petition to Increase the Published Rate Eligibility Capfor
This Modification clause is contained in either Article XXIII or Article XXVI of each of Movants' FESAs.
MOTION TO DISMISS
[PC-E-13-22
PAGE 6
Wind-Powered Small Power Production Facilities and To Eliminate the 90o/o/l1094 Performance
bandfor Wind Powered Small Power Production Facilities,IPuc Case No. IPC-E-07-03, Order
No. 30488 at 8 (2008) (hereinafter "IPUC Order No. 30488") (emphasis added). [n approving
this framework, the Commission specifically found: "The QF rates we establish for long-term
firm contracts are forecast values and estimates and it has long been understood that the avoided-
cost concept is not violated by use of such estimates." Id. at I I (citing 18 C.F.R. $
292.304(b)(5)). The Commission further explained: 'oWe find the use of the adjustment as a
decrement to the published avoided-cost rate for wind QFs results in net rates that represent the
full avoided cost of wind generation; rates that are fair, just and reasonable ." Id. at 12.
Furthermore, the order and stipulation implementing the wind integration charge
exempted pre-existing FESAs from wind integration charges, by stating:
QFs currently holding FESAs which include the 90%oll l0% performance band
can elect to amend their existing FESAs to replace the 90ohll l0% performance
band with the mechanical availability guarantee but f they make that election,
they will be subject to the wind integration chorge and wind forecasting charge in
effect when their Wind QF project achieves its Operation Date.
Id. at8 (emphasis added). [n approving this provision of the stipulation, the Commission
specifically ordered: "Amendments must be signed by the QF and utility and submitted for
Commission review and approval." Id. at l7 (emphasis added).
B. Idaho Power's Application to Adjust Wind Integration Charges
Idaho Power's Application requests authorization to update Idaho Power's wind
integration rates and charges consistent with its 2013 Wind lntegration Study (*2013 Study").
See Application at 1. In supporting testimony, Idaho Power complains that "most of the current
wind generators are not even paying the full cap of $6.50/MWh." Youngblood, DI at 14. The
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-t3-22
PAGE 7
Application's over-arching request is that the Commission "decouple the wind integration charge
from the avoided cost rate contained in the power sales agreement and instead have wind
integration costs assessed as a stand-alone tariff charge." Application at 5-6. The Application
proposes three methods to implement changes. Id. at 6-8. The Application appears to imply that
Method I and Method 2 could affect QFs with existing FESAs, or at least fails to assert that
Method I and2will not affect existing projects. However, Idaho Power's proposed Method 3
expressly requests that the Commission modifu the rates and terms of Movants' existing
contractual legally enforceable obligations. Id. at7-8.
Specifically, under Method 3, ldaho Power requests approval of its proposed Tariff
Schedule 87 that would apply the results of the 2013 Study to all existing wind QF FESAs to
increase the wind integration charge and thus decrease the fixed avoided cost rates paid to those
QFs. See id. at7-8 Youngblood, D[ at Ex. No. 4. Thus, under Method 3, ldaho Power
expressly asks the Commission to amend existing contractual legally enforceable obligations.
Although Idaho Power recommends amending existing FESAs, the Application does not state
that Idaho Power contacted any of its QF counter parties to seek their consent to amend their
contractual legally enforceable obligations - thus making Idaho Power's proposal entirely
unilateral.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard for the Commission's Review
Under Idaho R. Civ. Pro. l2(c), "where the record reveals no issues of disputed fact, the
question is one of law." Trimble v. Engelking, l30ldaho 300,302,939P.2d1379,1381(1997);
see also Helman v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, lnc.,637 F.3d 986, 988-g219th Cir. 201 l) (affirming
MOTION TO DISMISS
tPC-E-13-22
PAGE 8
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c) on preemption grounds). In ruling on motions to dismiss,
a court considers "the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine
when ruling on Rule l2(bX6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v.
Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,55l U.S. 308,322 (2007), cited os consistent with ldaho law in
Taylor v. McNichols, 149 ldaho 826, 833, 243 P.3d 642, 649 (20 I 0).4
B. Federal Law Preempts Unilateral Modification of Movants' Contractual Legally
Enforceable Obligations.
1. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Invalidates State Laws that
Conflict with Federal Statutes or Regulations.
Under the Supremacy Clause, preemption occurs (l) when federal law expressly
preempts state law, (2) when "Congress intends federal law to occupy the field," or (3) when
there is "any conflict with a federal statute." Crosby v. Natl. For. Trade Council,530 U.S. 363,
372 (2000) (internal quotation omitted); U.S. Const., art. V[, cl. 2. Conflict arises when
"compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," or when state
law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress." Id. (internal quotations omitted). Federal law includes federal
regulations, which have no less preemptive effect than federal statutes. See Capital Cities Cable,
Inc. v. Crisp,467 U.S. 691,699 (1984). And federal courts "give 'great weight' to any
reasonable construction of a regulatory statute adopted by the agency charged with its
o Although the court rules do not strictly govern proceedings before the Commission, see McNeal
v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n,l42ldaho 685, 690,132P3d 442,477 (2006), abrogated on other grounds
by Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, I 5 I Idaho 889, 895, 265 P.3d 502, 508 (201 I ),
the Commission's rules also provide for dismissal of an application for lack of authority to issue the
requested relief. See IDAPA 31.0.01 .056; In re Petition of J.R. Simplot Co.for a Determination of Price
Regarding the Purchase and Acquisition of Certain Assets Owned by ldaho Power Co., IPUC Case No.
IPC-E-13-17, Order No. 32970 (2013).
MOTION TO DISMISS
IPC-E-I3-22
PAGE 9
enforcement." Bank of Am. v. City & County of 5.F.,309 F.3d 551, 563-64 (9th Cir.2002)
(intemal quotation omitted).
2. PURPA Preempts Unilateral Modification of Movants' Fixed-Price FESAs.
a. Section 210(b) of PURPA and Sections292.304(b)(5) and (d)(2)(ii) of
FERC's regulations preempt modification of the rates in all of
Movants'FESAs.
"Section 210 of PURPA specifies the benefits to which QFs are entitled." Ind. Energt
Prod. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n,36F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 1994). Section 210(b)
requires FERC to adopt regulations for the purchase of QF output. Id. (citing l6 U.S.C. $ 824a-
3(b)). FERC exercised this authority to require that utilities purchase electric energy from QFs at
the utility's tull avoided cost rate. Id, at 851 (citing 18 C.F.R. $ 292.304(d)). FERC's
regulations also provide that each QF has the option to sell energy on an "as available" basis or
pursuant to a contract or other legally enforceable obligation over a specified term. Id. (citing 18
C.F.R. S 292.304(d)(l) & (2)). If electric energy is purchased pursuant to a contractual legally
enforceable obligation, the rate for such purchases is based, at the QF's option, on either the
avoided cost as calculated at the time of delivery, or the avoided cost as calculated at the time the
obligation is incurred. Id. at85l-52 (citing 18 C.F.R. 5 292.304(d)(2xi) & (ii)). "In the case in
which the rates for purchases are based upon estimates of avoided costs over the specific term of
the contract or other legally enforceable obligation, the rates for such purchases do not violate
this subpart if the rates for such purchases differ from avoided costs at the time of delivery." 18
c.F.R. S 2e2.304(bxs).
In promulgating these regulations, FERC explained that Sections 292.304(b)(5) and (d)
of its regulations are intended to "provide certainty with regard to return on investment in new
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-t3-22
PAGE I O
technologies." Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities; Reg. Implementing Sec.
210 of the Pub. Util. Reg. Pol. Act of 1978, OrderNo. 69,45 Fed. Re5.12,214,12,224 (Feb. 25,
1980). "The import of [Section292.304(bx5)] is to ensure that a qualifying facility which has
obtained the certainty of an arrangement is not deprived of the benefits of its commitment as a
result of changed circumstances." Id. Additionally, in affirming FERC's full avoided cost rule,
the U.S. Supreme Court cited at length from the legislative history of Section 210(b) of PURPA,
regarding the rate to be paid to QFs, and concluded: "Congress did not intend to impose
traditional ratemaking concepts on sales by qualifring facilities to utilities." Am. Paper Inst.,
Inc. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402,414 (1983) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-
1750 at97-98 (Oct. 10, 1978)).
The Ninth Circuit's decision in Ind. Energ,t Prod. Ass'n, Inc. is directly on point here. 36
F.3d 848. In that case, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") sought to "adjust[]
the avoided cost rate to reflect the reduced efficiency of a QF that is not in compliance with
operating and efficiency standards." Id. at857. The Ninth Circuit held, however, that the
CPUC's attempt to "eliminate[] a consumer subsidy" violated the QFs' federal right, contained
in 18 C.F.R. g 292.304(d), to sell at long-term, fixed avoided cost rutes. Id. at 858.
The Ind. Energt Prod. Ass'n, Inc. court explained:
The underlying motivation behind the CPUC program is to lower the rates set in
appellees' standard offer contracts because they are higher than the Utilities'
current avoided costs. As noted above, this differential exists because the standard
offer contracts lock the Utilities into paying rates that were calculated on incorrect
assumptions about the future cost of fossil fuels, the primary fuel source used by
the utility to generate electric energy. However, the fact that the prices for fuel,
and therefore the Utilities' avoided costs, are lower than estimated, does not give
the state and the Utilities the right unilaterally to modiff the terms of the standard
offer contract. Federal regulations provide that QFs are entitled to deliver energy
to utilities at an avoided cost rate calculated at the time the contract is signed. 18
MOTION TO DISMISS
IPC-E-13-22
PAGE I1
c.F.R. $ 2e2.304(d)(2).
1d. "While the actual avoided cost might vary over time, under current law the QF remains
entitled to receive the avoided cost rate specified in its contract." Id; see also Wilson v. Harlow,
860 P.2d 793,799-800 (Okla. 1993) (holding that l8 C.F.R. 292.304(b)(5) and (dX2) provide
QFs the "right to receive the benefit of the contract even if due to changed circumstances, the
contract price for power at the time of delivery is unfavorable to the utility," and thus preempted
contrary state law); Smith Cogeneration Mgt. v. Corp. Comm'n, 863 P.2d 1227,1240-4I
(OkIa.1993) (same).
Furthermore, FERC has interpreted PURPA and Sections292.304(bX5) and (d)(2) of its
own regulations to prohibit re-opening of executed contracts. o'If we were to . . . allow the
reopening of QF contracts that had not been challenged at the time of their execution,
financeability of such projects would be severely hampered. Such a result is not, in our opinion,
consistent with Congress's directive that we encourage the development of QFs." N.Y. State
Elec. & Gas Corp.,7l FERC n 61,027 , at 6l,l 17- I 8, reconsid. denied,72 FERC n 61,067
(1995), appeal dismissed sub nom. N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FERC,117 F.3d 1473 (D.C.
Cir. 1997).
As was the case in the decisions cited above, the Movants here each exercised their
federal right, under 18 C.F.R. g 292.304(bX5) & (dX2)(iD, to sell to ldaho Power at fixed-price
avoided cost rates calculated at the time they incurred a contractual legally enforceable
obligation. Consistent with federal law, the Commission approved the wind integration
stipulation that provides, "The integration charge as colculated on Operation Date will remain
.fixed throughout the term q[ the contract and will be applied as a decrement to the applicable
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-13-22
PAGE 12
published rate . . . ." IPUC Order No. 30488 at 8 (emphasis added). The Commission-approved
stipulation further provided wind QFs with FESAs pre-dating the wind integration charge with
the option, but not the requirement, to amend their FESAs to remove the 90ohll10olo performance
band and substitute the MAG and the then-effective, fixed wind integration charge. Id.
Conflict preemption bars tdaho Power's Application because unilateral modification of
the rates frustrates the purpose of Sections 292.304(b)(5) and (dx2xii) by depriving Movants'
QFs of the right to benefit from the fixed avoided cost rates in their FESAs. Idaho Power cannot
side-step the law with its proposal to "de-couple the wind integration rate from the avoided cost
rate contained in the power sales agreement." Youngblood, DI at 12. Under federal law,
Movants "are entitled to deliver energy to utilities at an avoided cost rate calculated at the time
the contract is signed." Ind. Energt Prod. Ass'n, Inc.,36 F.3d at 858. To grant Idaho Power's
proposed modification of the avoided cost rates, would "deny to QFs one of the benefits to which
they are statutorily entitled under PURPA . . . ." Id. at855. Thus, federal law conflicts with
and preempts unilateral amendment of the fixed avoided cost rates contained in Movants'
FESAs, either directly or through application of a stand-alone wind integration tariff.
b. Section 210(e) of PURPA and Section292.602 of FERC's regulations
independently preempt the entire field of ongoing state regulation
over wind QFs sized 30 MW and under.
In addition to Section 210(b) of PURPA and Sections292.304(bx5) and (d)(2)(ii) of
FERC's regulations, Section 210(e) of PURPA and Section 292.602 of FERC's regulations
independently preempts the entire field of ongoing state regulation of wind QFs sized 30 MW
and under. See 16 U.S.C. $ 824a-3(e)(l); l8 C.F.R. 5292.602. This broad exemption displaces
the entire field of "state laws and regulations respecting the rates, or respecting the financial or
MOTION TO DISMISS
IPC-E-I3-22
PAGE I3
organizational regulation, of electric utilities." l6 U.S.C. $ 824a-3(e)(1); l8 C.F.R. $
292.602(c).
Numerous courts have relied upon Section 210(e) of PURPA to prohibit state
commissions from engaging in any form of ongoing utility-type regulation of QF contracts rates
or terms. In Freehold Cogeneration Assoc. , L. P. v. Bd. of Reg. Com 'rs of State of N.J. , the Third
Circuit held "once the [state utility commission] approved the power purchase agreement
between Freehold and [the utility] on the ground that the rates were consistent with avoided cost,
any action or order by the [state commission] to reconsider its approval or to deny the passage of
those rates to [utility's] consumers under purported state authority was preempted by federal
law;' 44 F.3d I 178, 1 194 (3rd Cir. 1995); accord In Re Petition of Atlantic City Elec. Co., 708
A.zd775,778-79 (N.J. Super. 1998); Or. Trail Elec. Consumers Co-op, Inc. v. Co-Gen Co.,7
P.3d 594, 605-06 (Or. App. 2000); West Penn Power Co. v. Penn. Pub. Util. Comm'n,659 A.2d
1055, 1066 (Pa. Cmmw. 1995).
The Commission's orders comport with Movants' position. See Grand View PV Solar
Two, LLC v. Idaho Power Co., IPUC Case No. IPC-E-I1-15, Order No. 32580 at 14 (2012).
"Once a PPA has been executed and approved by the Commission - once the contract terms are
set - they are generally not subject to future change absent the express language of the PPA, or
the agreement of the parties." Id. (citing Rosebud Enter., Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n,128
Idaho 609,622-23,917 P.2d766,779-80 (1996); Afton Energ/, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co. ("Afton
f'), 107 Idaho 781, 786-87,693 P.2d 427, 432-33 (1984)).
Therefore, in addition to Section 210(b) of PURPA and Sections292.304(bX5) and (d)(2)
of FERC's regulations which apply to all of Movants' FESAs, Section 210(e) of PURPA
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-t3-22
PAGE 14
preempts the entire field covering ldaho Power's proposal to unilaterally modiff the contractual
legally enforceable obligations with Movants' wind QFs sized 30 MW and under.
c. Movants have not agreed to revision of their fixed avoided cost rates.
Although not addressed in Idaho Power's Application, Idaho Power may point to a clause
it has required to be included in virtually all Idaho PURPA contracts, including Movants'
FESAs, as a purported basis to update wind integration costs allocated to Movants. That clause,
contained in Article VII of each of Movants' FESAs, provides:
Continuing Jurisdiction of the Commission - This Agreement is a special contract
and, as such, the rates, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement will be
construed in accordance with Idaho Power Company v. Idaho Public Utilities
Commission and Afton Energy, Inc., I 07 Idaho 781 , 693 P .2d 427 ( 1 984), Idaho
Power Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 107 Idaho 1122,695 P.2d
I [sic] 261 (1985), Afton Energy, Inc, v. Idaho Power Company, 111 Idaho 925,
729P.2d 400 (1986), Section 210 of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978 and l8 CFR $292.303-308.
Contrary to any arguments Idaho Power may make, this clause expressly incorporates
Section 210(b) of PURPA and Sections292.304(bX5) and (d)(2) of FERC's regulations, under
which Movants "are entitled to deliver energy to utilities at an avoided cost rate calculated at the
time the contract is signed." Ind. Energt Prod. Ass'n, Inc.,36 F.3d at 858. The clause also
expressly incorporates Section 210(e) of PURPA, which forbids ongoing utility-type regulation.
16 U.S.C. $ 82aa-3(e)(l).
The clause's reference to the Idaho Supreme Court's Afton decisions also incorporates the
federal law restriction against unilateral price modification. See Afton I,l0T Idaho at 786-88,
693 P.2d at 432-34 (subjecting contract prices to later modification based on regulatory
determination that they are contrary to the public interest results in utility-type regulation, which
Congress rejected in enacting PURPA), on reh'g 107 Idaho at793,693 P.2d at 439 (hereinafter
MOTION TO DISMISS
tPC-E-t3-22
PAGE 15
"Afton 11') (holding that a PURPA contract, "while not constituting a tariff, is a special type of
contract. The Commission should apply the fair, just and reasonable standard, in a manner not
inconsistent withfederol low to the extent that it may be applicable, to determine whether the
rates need to be adjusted in this particular type of contract." (emphasis added)); accord ldaho
Power Co. v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n ("Afton III'),107 Idaho 1122,695 P.2d 126l (1985).
ln one recent dispute over a different contract clause, the Commission determined'owe
generally agree in principle with Grand View that a contract provision that would require future
changes in the rates or terms of PPAs would be impermissible under PURPA . . . ." Grqnd View
PV Solar Two, LLC,IPUC Order No. 32580 at 14. To construe the clause in Movants' FESAs to
allow revision of the rates would require the Commission to conclude that virtually every Idaho
Power PURPA FESA contains a clause that is "impermissible under PURPA." 1d.
Courts have consistently rejected reliance on contract clauses similar to those in
Movants' FESAs as a basis to "re-open" fixed avoided cost rates. In Freehold Cogeneration
Assoc., L.P.,the Third Circuit rejected a utility's attempted reliance on a similar clause because
the clause'oreflected no intent on the part of Freehold to surrender any of the protection from
state rate regulation conferred upon it by Section 210(a)" of PURPA. 44 F .3d at ll93-94.
Likewise, in Oregon Trail Elec. Consumers Co-op, Inc., the Oregon appellate court found that
the utility "added the price-modification clause in the hope that PURPA would be interpreted to
authorize state regulators to modifu prices if they were contrary to the public interest." 7 P.3d at
604. But ultimately, the Oregon court held, "The flaw in this contract is that it sought to use a
state regulator, exercising utility-type authority, as the mechanism for modifuing the prices set
by the contract. PURPA bars that." Id. at 606.
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-|3-22
PAGE 16
The same is true here. The clause Idaho Power requires to be included in each of its
PURPA contracts evidences no intent on the part of Movants to modifu the fixed avoided cost
rates in Movants' contractual legally enforceable obligations, and provides no basis to do so.
Because Idaho Power cannot allege that Movants have consented to the proposed update to the
wind integration costs, the Commission must dismiss the Application.
C. Federal Law Preempts Further Administrative Proceedings Related to the Proposal
to Unilaterally Modiff Existing Contractual Legally Enforceable Obligations.
Prompt dismissal of the Application is necessary because federal law preempts subjecting
Movants to the adjudicatory process of litigating the merits of ldaho Power's proposed wind
integration costs. Under similar circumstances, the Ninth Circuit explained, "The hardship is the
process itself. Process costs money." Sayles Hydro Assoc. v. Maughan, 985 F.2d 451, 454 (gth
Cir.1993). Litigating the merits of Idaho Power's wind integration study would require highly
technical expert witnesses and other costly litigation expenses. The state regulatory process
itself is a preempted burden because it would require Movants to spend "a fortune to pay
lawyers, economists, accountants" and others to meaningfully protect their interests. .Id.
Movants have a federal right to 'obe free of the state administrative proceeding." Middle
South Energl, Inc. v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,772F.2d 404,412-131Sft Cir. 1935) (enjoining
further administrative proceedings after state utility commission denied motion to dismiss);
accord Pub. Util. Comm'n v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U.S. 456, 465, 470 (1943) (enjoining
state utility commission proceeding that was only in "embryonic stage" because proceeding
conflicted with federal law). This precedent is directly applicable here. Indeed, in Freehold
Cogeneration Assoc., L.P.,the Third Circuit enjoined a state commission's re-examination of
fixed-price PURPA rates well before the process was compl ete. 44 F.3d at 1 189.
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-t3-22
PAGE 17
ln order to ensure that Movants are not subjected to this preempted burden, the
Commission should dismiss Idaho Power's entire Application and allow it to be re-filed without
recommending modification of existing contractual legally enforceable obligations. Because
Idaho Power's unlawful proposal is so interwoven with the rest of its filing, dismissal of the
entire Application is warranted. However, in the altemative, the Commission should dismiss and
strike from the record the portions of Idaho Power's Application and testimony that recommend
that the Commission alter the rates and terms in existing contractual legally enforceable
obligations. To assist the Commission, Movants have provided, as Attachment 1 to this Motion,
a copy of the Application that demonstrates in strike-out the portions that should be stricken
from the record. Additionally, the following portions of the direct testimony should be stricken:
Youngblood, DI at p. 8 lns. 8-13, p. I I lns. 5-9 and 15,p. l2lns. 8-13 and 19-22, p. 19 ln.4
through p. 23 ln. 10, Ex. Nos. 2, 4; DeVol, DI at p. 22lns.l-4. Dismissing the entire
Application or, at a minimum, striking the above-referenced material from the record is the only
way to relieve Movants of the burden to engage in a preempted process.
D. The Commission Should Admonish Idaho Power Not to File Future Requests to
Unilaterally Modiff Existing Contractual Legally Enforceable Obligations.
The Application in this case is the latest of repeated proposals that undermine the value
of Movants' commitment to supply energy and capacity at fixed rates over the term of their
contractual legally enforceable obligations. These efforts are diminishing the value of Movants'
substantial investments in Idaho and depriving Movants of the benefit of their bargain.
For instance, Idaho Power also recently proposed to unilaterally revise PURPA
agreements to provide itself with a right to economic curtailment under l8 C.F.R. 5 292.304(t).
But, after that proposal forced many QFs to expend resources to oppose and respond to unilateral
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-I3-22
PAGE I8
contractual modifications, the Commission found that "curtailment under this section was not
reasonably contemplated when the parties entered into their agreements." See In the Matter of
the Comm'n's Review of PURPA QF Contract Provisions Including the Suruogate Avoided
Resource (SAR) and Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Methodologies for Calculating Avoided
Cost Rates, IPUC Case No. GNR-E-I1-03, Order No. 32697 at36 (2012). The Commission
ultimately instructed Idaho Power: "If the Company believes that the over-supply of QF power
presents operational problems during light-load periods then it should address this issue when it
negotiates new PPAs." Id Similarly, at least one of Movants' FESAs has already suffered
economic harm from Idaho Power's unilateral modification of the market index pricing
provisions of the 90%lll0% performance band in PURPA FESAs in a manner that has resulted
in no payment for a substantial amount of energy delivered to Idaho Power in at least one month.
The burden of responding to these repeated proceedings frustrates the intent of PURPA
and this Commission's prior determination that the rates and integration charges will remain
fixed throughout the terms of the Movants' contractual legally enforceable obligations. Idaho
Power's efforts are not only at odds with the Commission's prior orders, but they are also in
direct contradiction with the requirement in each of the FESAs that no modifications can be
made without the consent of the QF. The Commission should reaffirm its commitment to
PURPA and the sanctity of contracts by instructing ldaho Power to stop affempting to
unilaterally revise fixed price PURPA agreements.
MOTION TO DISMISS
rPC-E-13-22
PAGE I9
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Movants respectfully request the following relief:
The Commission should dismiss Idaho Power's Application in its entirety and allow the
Company to re-file an Application that does not recommend applying a new wind
integration charge to existing contractual legally enforceable obligations.
Alternatively, at the bare minimum, the Commission should dismiss and strike from the
record the portions of Idaho Power's Application and testimony that recommend that the
Commission alter the rates and terms in existing contractual legally enforceable
obligations. Attachment I to this Motion is a copy of the Application that demonstrates
in strike-out the portions that should be stricken from the record. Additionally, the
following portions of the direct testimony should be stricken: Youngblood, DI at p. 8 lns.
8-13, p. 11 lns. 5-9 and 15,p.12lns. 8-13 and19-22, p. 191n.4 through p.23Ln.10, Ex,
Nos. 2,4; DeVol, DI at p. 22lns.l-4.
Finally, the Commission should instruct Idaho Power that efforts to unilaterally modify
existing contractual relationships with QFs are preempted and inconsistent with this
Commission's orders, and will not be entertained in this docket or any future dockets.
MOTION TO DISMISS
[PC-E-I3-22
PAGE 20
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
Attorney for Cold Springs Windfarm, LLC;
Desert Meadow Windfarm, LLC; Hammett
Hill Windfarm, LLC; Mainline Windfarm,
LLC; Ryegrass Windfarm,LLC; and Two
Ponds Windfarm, LLC
Attorney for Cassia Wind Farm LLC; Hot
Springs Windfarm, LLC; Bennett Creek
Windfarm, LLC; Cassia Gulch Wind Park
LLC; Tuana Springs Energy, LLC; and High
Mesa Energy, LLC
MOTION TO DISMISS
LPC-E-I3-22
PAGE 2I
MOTION TO DISMISS
ATTACHMENT 1
DONOVAN E. WALKER (lSB No. 5921)
JULIA A. HILTON (lSB No. 7740)
ldaho Power Company
1221 West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalker@ idahopower.com
i h i lto n @ ida h opower. com
Attorneys for ldaho Power Company
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO
UPDATE ITS WIND INTEGRATION RATES
AND CHARGES.
rrl - ^
2il l:irli 2:j Pll tr: 0t*
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
cAsE NO. !PC-E-13-22
APPLICATION
ln accordance with RP 052, ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/' or
'Company") hereby respectfully requests the ldaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") authorize ldaho Power to update its wind integration rates and charges
consistent with its 2013 Wind lntegration Study Report ("2013 Study").
ln support of this Application, ldaho Power represents as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Due to the variable and intermittent nature of wind generation, ldaho
Power must modify its system operations to successfully integrate wind projects without
impacting system reliability. ldaho Power, or any electrical system operator, must
provide operating reserves from resources that are capable of increasing or decreasing
dispatchable generation on short notice to offset changes in non-dispatchable wind
generation. The effect of having to hold operating reserves on dispatchable resour@s
APPLICATION - 1
is that the use of those resources is restricted and they cannot be economically
dispatched to their fullest capability. This results in higher power supply costs that are
subsequently passed on to customers.
2. Idaho Power, similar to much of the Pacific Northwest, has experienced
rapid growth in wind generation over past several years. ldaho Power currently has
577 megawatts (.MW) of wind generation capacity from Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 ('PURPA) projects and an additional 101 MW of wind generation
capacity from the Elkhorn Valley Wind Farm, for a total of 678 MW of wind generation
capacity currently operating on its system. ln addition, 505 MW of this wind generation
capacity has been added to ldaho Power's system during 2010,2011, and2012. This
rapid grov'rth has led to the recognition that ldaho Power's finite capability for integrating
wind generation is nearing its limit. Even at the current level of wind generation
capacity penetration, dispatchable thermal and hydro generators are not always
capable of providing the balancing reserves necessary to integrate wind generation.
This situation is expected to worsen as wind penetration levels increase, particularly
during periods of low customer demand.
3. ldaho Power considers the cost of integrating wind generation in its
integrated resource planning when evaluating the costs of utility and third-party
generation resources. The costs associated with wind integration are specific and
unique for each individual electrical system based on the amount of wind being
integrated and the other types of resources that are used to provide the necessary
operating reserves. !n general terms, the cost of integrating wind generation increases
as the amount of nameplate wind generation on the electrical system increases. Failure
to calculate and properly allocate wind integration costs to wind generators when
calculating avoided cost rates impermissibly pushes those costs onto customers,
APPLICATION - 2
making them no longer indifferent to whether the generation was provided by a PURPA
Qualifying Facility ("QF') or otherwise generated or acquired by the Company.
II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
4. ldaho Power completed its initial wind integration study and published the
study report and a subsequent addendum in 2007 ("2007 Study"). The results of the
study indicated that at approximately 500 MW of nameplate wind generation, there was
an associated integration cost of $7.92lmegawatt-hour ('MWh'). The other ldaho
investor-owned utilities, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain Power, completed wind
integration studies at approximately the same time and each utility filed a petition with
the Commission asking to reduce avoided cost rates for wind projecls based on the
results. Although the Commission did not combine the three utility petitions into a single
case, all three were processed simultaneously (Commission Case Nos. IPC-E-07-03,
AVU-E-O7 -O2, and PAC-E-07-07).
5. !n Case No. IPC-E-07-03, the Commission issued Order No. 30488 in
February 2008 approving a joint settlement stipulation and establishing a tiered
integration cost structure that increased as nameplate wind generation increased. The
stipulation also established a €p of $6.50/MWh with the understanding that each of the
utilities would update their integration studies in the future as more wind generation was
added. Order No. 30488 states:
ldaho Power's published avoided-cost rates for Wind QFs
will be adjusted to recognize an assumed cost of integrating
the energy generated by Wind QFs as a part of the
Company's generating resource portfolio. The rate
adjustment will be applied in three tiers, increasing as the
total amount of wind integrated onto ldaho Power's system
grows. The integration charge for each Wind QF project wil!
be calculated at the time a Wind QF project achieves its
Operation Date as that term is defined in the Firm Energy
Sales Agreement (FESA) between the Company and the
APPLICATION - 3
wind QF. The integration charge will be calculated as a
percentage (7o/o, 8o/o or 9%) of the current 20-year,levelized,
avoided-cost rate, subject to a cap of $6.50/MWh. The
integration charge as calculated on the Operation Date will
remain fixed throughout the term of the contract and will be
applied as a decrement to the applicable published rate
according to the table below:
Amount of Wind Online
0 to 300 MW
301 [A/U to 500 MW
501 MWand above
Order No. 30488, quoting Settlement Stipulation which was approved by Commission.
III. 2013 WIND INTEGRATION STUDY REPORT
6. ln support of its Application requesting the Commission update ldaho
Power's wind integration charge, ldaho Power presents its current Wind lntegration
Study Report ("2013 Study") as Exhibit No. 1 to the testimony of Philip DeVol ("DeVol
Testimony"), filed contemporaneously with this Application. The 2013 Study was also
filed with ldaho Power's 2011 lntegrated Resource Plan ('!RP") Update on February 14,
2013, in Case No. IPC-E-11-11.
7. As described in Mr. DeVol's Testimony, the 2013 Study analyzed three
different levels of wind penetration: 800 MW; 1,000 MW; and 1,200 MW. The 2013
Study, which was completed in February 2013, was conducted using inputs from the
2011 IRP. Res't+ltr oF the- o,ts $8-06AMlh,
$13.06/MWh, afld $19-0JJS,4IAIE re€pectiyeth if all+vind integra+ierees{s rr€re Ep{€ad
@geneatiot'AsdescribedinMr'DeVol,sTestimony,oncethe
2013 IRP was completed and filed, the 2013 Study was updated with 2013 IRP inputs
for the load forecast, Mid-C electric market prices, natural gas price forecast, and the
coalpriceforecast(..Updated2013Study'').Theresulte.ef
tha+ integretie+ eests-went- d€yyft to- S6,83/MWh, $10,22lMWh, an* $J4221[d\Alh,
APPLICATION .4
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
lnteqration Charge
7% ($6.50/MWh)
8olo ($6.50/MWh)
e% ($o.so/Mwh)
respe€tivelltif allr#ind integratien€e€ts wer€€preaC equall)r€er€ss atlr,vif,d genefatien.
Based upon the very conservative assumption that all of the current 678 MW of wind
generation capacity were being assessed the cap of $6.50/MWh (which they are not)
and that they would continue to be assessed just $6.50/MWh in the future, the
incremental costs of wind integration at the three different levels for new wind
generators would be $8.67/MWh at 800 MW, $24.00/MWh at 1,000 MW, and
$34.70/MWh at 1,200 MW. The Updated 2013 Study results are summarized in the
table below from Mr. DeVol's Testimony:
IV. REQUEST TO MODIFY THE WIND INTEGRATION CHARGE
8. The testimony of Michael J. Youngblood, filed contemporaneously with
this Application, sets forth the Company's proposals regarding the regulatory treatment
to assess and collect the wind integration charges quantified in Mr. DeVol's Testimony.
The Company discusses three separate methods from which the Commission could
choose to implement to account for wind integration costs in avoided cost rates. Those
methods are identified as Method 1: Maintaining Current Allocation; Method 2: Current
Allocation with lntegration Tariff; an* AAethed 3r Eq+itable+[oeatie+ ef€eet* The
Company proposes two overall changes, which have been incorporated into each of the
methods discussed in Mr. Youngblood's testimony, to address the collection of wind
integration costs. Change One: abandon the use of percentage of avoided cost rate
allocation and instead allocate a fixed amount based upon penetration level; Change
APPLICATION - 5
UPDATED 2013 STUDY (using 2013 IRP inputs)
Penetration Level 8OO MW 1,000 MW 1.200 MW
AJleeated equa{y+e
alFtAlind f/fvtWh)
$6.83 $1022 $1.+22
lncremental Cost
Allocation (/MWh)
$8.67 $24,00 $34.70
Two: decouple the wind integration charge from the avoided cost rate contained in the
power sales agreement and instead have wind integration costs assessed as a stand-
alone tariff charge.
9. The costs associated with wind integration are currently under collected.
They are assessed on a percentage basis of various avoided cost rates, which results in
an inequitable contribution of the various wind QFs to the cost of integrating wind on the
system. The use of the percentage of avoided cost rates really has no relation to actual
costs of the additional reserves necessary to integrate variable and intermittent
resources on the system. Additionally, setting the amount of wind integration charge for
the entire duration of the power sales agreement assures further under collection of
integration costs as those costs rise. This under ce+l€€tie+ frem existing,irird- QF€
res'ttlt+ in{ft ffi ta netrwin* QF€--+he- if,€remef,taf ditreref,€e-
Fequire+ te make the aa* remair inditrefen+ t'F the
additien+f PURPA OF gef,eratien win+rntegratie+ eest
fur new wind proieetr
10. The first method discussed from which the Commission could choose to
implement integration charges-Proposed Method 1: Maintaining Current Allocation-
does not change the existing structure but updates the rates and penetration levels. As
discussed in Mr. Youngblood's testimony, if the Commission were to adopt this method,
the three tiers and applicable charges are listed in the table below:
Amount of Wind Online lnteqration Charqe
Tier I
Tier 2
Tier 3
800 MW to 999 MW
1,000 MWto 1,199 MW
1,200 MW and above
$8.67/MWh
$24.0o/MWh
$34.70/MWh
11. .The second method discussed to account for integration costs-
Proposed Method 2: Current Allocation with Integration Tariff-is a slight modification
APPLICATION .6
to Method 1. For Method 2, rather than embedding the integration charges as part of
the avoided cost prices in the contract rates, as is currently done, the Company would
implement a new integration charge tariff which would identify the integration charges at
the respective levels, separately from the power sales agreement. Exhibit No. 3 to Mr.
Youngblood's testimony is a draft Tariff Schedule 87, Variable Generation lntegration
Charges, depicting the associated charges and penetration levels with Method 2.
Under this method, the current deduction of $6.50/MWh would be used unti! total
nameplate wind generation reached 700 MW. Once 700 MW is reached, the wind
integration charge would be increased to $6.89/MWh. As shown in the graph below,
subsequent increases would occur as each incremental 100 MW of wind generation is
added.
1* The third m€th€+ the C€mmiesi€'+ maf cen€id€F te aeeeunS for urind
integ+atie+ eests-+repesee llethed 3- W €ests--is te+prea++ne
i@ €l€roes a+ PURPA+Af,d- generater#F this.+ay6l+ utinC
APPLICATION - 7
Wlnd lntegration Cost and Proposed Deduction from Avoided Cost Rates
Sgo
Ssz
3 S28
E.tIi 524o(J
5 szo
gt!I Srst;i stz
Sa
S+
gererator+ reul+ be- eharing-€quitab{f ift the eests- oF if,teg{€tirg- wind+nt+ the
eempany+ systetu l+ etre€t e+ redurting th€+harge per
W eefalize genefation frem 6€ming en{+n+ g1#;5it Ne
a+a is{-d{€ftJ€ri+FWc€n€#ati€n
in+ the @ an+ penetratior levels- with
llethed + tnd€r thie @ generation weu{C be+lassifie4as +}?e
l- @ien ffi ae *pe Hs under the dra* tariff.
M cu{+e{*4€du€tio* ef $650AAIld[ bu+ T,pe-+ projeetq urh€, ar€
afeaAy+sses'sed a wind integratien ehargei weuld have a nekharge ef zee k+ a
16'
ea€h 109 MW e+ penetratior+- T{?e F proieets ureul4 pay the fu}F intesr€tien ehe+ge
utnere+ype+ pr€ieeE ureu{+ pay the ne+ M +u+ ena+C€+na th€
emSeaaee+ap-ef $6SlMUl+ T,fe l+ @ iF the graph beletr-ly9e 1
eherg€€ rveuld be $650 @ en+h€ graph b€lesr.
Wind lntegration Cost and Proposed Deduction from Avoided Cost Rates
s35
Saz
a
= s28E
g\
Z 524oI
.E szo
.!
S srtEE
$ stz
Ss
Sc 500 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 L,200
Nameplate Wind (Mw)
APPLICATION - 8
V. MODIFIED PROGEDURE
13. ldaho Power believes that a technical hearing is not necessary to consider
the issues presented herein and respectfully requests that this Application be processed
under Modified Procedure; i.e., by written submissions rather than by hearing. RP 201
ef seg. ldaho Power has contemporaneously filed Direct Testimony of Philip DeVol and
Michael J. Youngblood in support of this Application. Should the Commission
determine that a technical hearing is required, the Company stands ready to present the
testimony at hearing in support of this Application.
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVIGE OF PLEADINGS
14. Communications and service of pleadings with reference to this
Application should be sent to the following:
Donovan E. Walker
Regulatory Dockets
ldaho Power Company
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
dwalker@idahopower. com
dockets@idahooower. com
MichaelJ. Youngblood
Greg Said
ldaho Power Company
1221 West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
myou noblood@ idahopower. com
[e-mail]
VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
15. As described in greater detail above, ldaho Power respectfully requests
that the Commission issue an order approving new rates and charges for wind
integration as indicated by the Updated 2013 Study presented herewith.
DATED at Boise, tdaho, this 29th day of November 2013.
Attorney for ldaho Power Company
APPLICATION - 9
CERTITICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on ,n. fO ay otsrn +/ , 2014, a true
and correct copy of the within and foregoing MOTIONTO DISMISS was
served as shown to:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
424 W Washington
Boise lD 83702
Jean jewell@puc. id. gov
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
PO Box 2564
Boise ID 83701
j o@mcdevitt-miIler. com
Rich Koebbe, President
Idaho Winds LLC
5420 W Wicher Rd
Glenns Ferry ID 83623
[e-mail]
Deborah E Nelson
Preston N Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
PO Box 2720
Boise ID 83701-2720
den@qiven spursley. com
pre sto nc arter@give n spursley. com
Donovan E Walker
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 7O
Boise ID 837O7-OO7O
dwalker@idahopower. com
docke ts@idahopower. com
Julia Hilton
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise lD 837O7-OO70
j hilton@idahopower. com
X Hand Delivery
_ U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
_ Electronic Mail
_ Hand DeliveryX U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
_ Electronic Mail
_ Hand DeliveryX U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
_ Electronic Mail
_ Hand DeliveryX U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
Electronic Mail
_ Hand DeliveryX U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
_ Electronic Mail
_ Hand DeliveryX U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
_ Facsimile
_ Electronic Mail
Teresa A Hill _ Hand Delivery
K&L Gates LLP X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
One SW Columbia St Ste 1900 - Facsimile
Portland OR 97258 Electronic Mail
Teresa. H ill(2klqates. com
Dina M Dubson _ Hand Delivery
Renewable Northwest Project X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
421 SW6ftAve Ste 1125 - Facsimile
Portland OR972O4 Electronic Mail
[e-mail]
Ken Miller _ Hand Delivery
Snake River Alliance X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid
PO Box l73l - Facsimile
Boise ID 83701 Electronic Mail
kmille@snakeriveralliance. org
Bv: '---\ /')," \ r1lt6-rLtAstq
Nina Curtis