20161019PacifiCorp Comments.pdf

October 18, 2016
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
4 72 West Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Attn: Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
RE: CASE NO. IPC-E-16-21
r1-'"'E 1 /-D I , CG ' L.. 1407 W. North Temple, Suite 310
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING PROPER AVOIDED COST PRICING
FOR JACK POT SOLAR.
Please find enclosed an original and seven (7) copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Comments in
the above captioned matter regarding proper avoided cost pricing for Jack Pot Solar.
For informal questions related to this matter, please contact Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Affairs
Manager, at [phone]. s;v~
Jeffrey K. Larsen
Vice President, Regulation
Enclosures
Yvonne R. Hogle (ISB# 8930)
1407 West North Temple, Suite 320
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IDAHO POWER COMP ANY FOR A
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING
PROPER A VOIDED COST PRICING FOR
JACK POT SOLAR
) CASE NO. IPC-E-16-21
)
) COMMENTS OF
) ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
)
Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp ("Rocky Mountain Power" or the
"Company") hereby provides written comments pursuant to Idaho's Rules of Procedure 102
and Order No. 33619 issued by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") in the
case referenced above. In support of these Comments, Rocky Mountain Power states as
follows:
FACTS
1. The matter before the Commission arose as a request for indicative pricing
between Idaho Power Company and Jackpot Solar.
2. The specific facts related to the dispute that arose from the negotiations between
Jackpot Solar and Idaho Power Company are set forth in Idaho Power Company's Petition for
Declaratory Order ("Petition") filed September 26, 2016 and will not be restated here.
3. On October 4, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order and Notice of Modified Procedure ("Notice") in this case indicating that "the subject
COMMENTS OF Page 1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
matter of the Petition for Declaratory Ruling may have generic ramifications" ... and that it
"finds it appropriate to serve copies of this Notice on A vista Corporation dba A vista Utilities
and PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power as potentially affected utilities."'
4. In the Notice, the Commission indicated that the "affected utilities shall have
until October 18, 2016 to file written comments in support or opposition of the Petition."2
COMMENTS
Rocky Mountain Power appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in this case
involving a dispute between Idaho Power Company and Jackpot Solar over indicative pricing
requests for the sale of power to Idaho Power Company pursuant to several power purchase
agreements. The Company views the Petition as requesting the Commission to apply its
analyses and findings in Orders No. 33357 ("Original Order") and 33419 ("Reconsideration
Order") in Case No. IPC-E-15-01 to the narrow set of facts of this case. The Company does
not view the subject matter of the Petition as having any generic ramifications. Thus, the
Company will not comment on the specific facts in this case, or support or oppose the Petition.
For the same reason, the Company posits that a Commission ruling in this case should not
affect any party other than Idaho Power Company and Jackpot Solar.
Any ruling in this case must preserve the current rule of law as it relates to the two-year
term of power purchase agreements and the timing of when capacity rates are to be paid in
avoided cost pricing under such agreements. As to such and other issues that have already been
determined, the Original Order and the Reconsideration Orders are final and cannot be
changed. Any attempt to change them would be barred as an improper collateral attack under
1 Id., at 4.
2 Id.
COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Page 2
Idaho Statutes § 61-625 which provides: "All orders and decisions of the commission which
have become final and conclusive shall not be attacked collaterally." It would be inappropriate
for any party to attempt to undermine the finality of the Original Order and the Reconsideration
Order. While the Company does not take a position regarding the dispute over indicative
pricing between Idaho Power Company and Jackpot Solar, on the narrow issue of the timing
of the calculation and payment of the capacity rate portion of avoided costs pricing, the
Reconsideration Order is clear and unambiguous. The Commission found:
If the utility has a capacity surplus, then a first-time QF entering into its two­
year IRP contract is not eligible to receive any payment for capacity. However,
if the purchasing utility has a capacity deficit in the initial or subsequent two
year contract, then the QF is eligible to receive capacity payments from that
point forward.
Order No. 33419, p. 21 [Emphasis added]. Later in the Reconsideration Order, the Commission
found :
We find Petitioners misunderstand our Order and FERC regulations. The
regulations provide that a QF has the option to either provide energy or capacity
as available, or at avoided cost rates calculated "over [the] specified term."
18 C.F.R. § 292.304(d)(2)(1-11). If the QF chooses to sell power to the utility
over a specified term, the QF may have the rates calculated for the term at either
"the time of delivery; or . . . at the time the obligation is incurred."
18 C.F.R. § 292.304(d)(2)(1-11). In Order No. 33357, we determined that "the
specified term" for new standard !RP-based contracts is two years. Thus,
Clearwater and Simplot are entitled to receive avoided cost capacity rates for
the specified term calculated at either the time of delivery or at the time they
enter into their contract/obligation.
We also directed the Utilities to establish their capacity deficiency date when a
QF's initial IRP-based contract is signed. Order NO. 33357 at 25-26. This
capacity adjustment mechanism recognizes that if a QF continues to provide
energy to a utility through when the utility would otherwise experience a
capacity deficiency, the QF will be paid for its capacity contribution. But until
a QF enters into a contract during which that capacity deficit date occurs, the
avoided cost capacity rate is zero.
COMMENTS OF Page 3
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
As Mr. Wenner opined, a QF "is entitled to receive [capacity] rates based on
the capacity cost that the utility can avoid as a result of its obtaining capacity
from the [QF]." Tr. at 586, quoting 45 Fed. Reg. at 12,225. A capacity rate
calculated at the start of each specified term rather than upon a QF's initial
contract, is a truer reflection of the utility's avoided cost for capacity. The
capacity adjustment mechanism thus ensures the QF receives the full avoided
cost of the utility, consistent with FERC regulations.
Order No. 33419, pp. 22-23 (emphasis in the original and emphasis added).
Rocky Mountain Power appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in this case.
DA TED this 18th day of October, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
e R. Hogle
ey for Rocky Mountain Power
COMMENTS OF Page 4
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER