20170405Comments.pdf

Peter Richardson (ISB # 3195)
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel. [phone]
peter@richardsonadams. com
Attorney for Franklin Energy Storage Projectsl
rN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR )
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING )
PROPER CONTRACT TERMS, )
CONDITIONS, AND AVOIDED COST )
PRICING FOR BATTERY STORAGE )FACILITIES )
' - rt , r'" 1-l
i-l ..r.-/
J 5 i'li 31 2l;
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-17-OI
FRANKLIN ENERGY STORAGE
PROJECTS' COMMENTS
COMES NOW, the Franklin Energy Storage Projects, collectively herein, and pursuant
to Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") order No. 33727 issued in the above
captioned docket and hereby provides its Comments on Idaho Power Company's ("Idaho Power"
or "Company") Petition for Declaratory Order ("Petition") initiating this docket.
I.
INTRODUCTTON
Idaho Power's Petition fails to comply with the legal requirement for the issuance of a
petition for a declaratory order as the Power Company has failed to identify any adverse legal
relations or issues. The Commission's extant orders are clear, unequivocal policy rulings
I Franklin Energy Storage One, LLC; Franklin Energy Storage Two, LLC; Franklin Energy
Storage Three, LLC and Franklin Energy Storage Four, LLC (Herein collectively "Franklin
Energy Storage Projects").
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
rPC-E-17-01
1
creating entitlement to published avoided cost rates for up to twenty-years for all QFs' other than
solar and wind QFs. Because the Franklin Energy Storage Projects are QFs other than wind or
solar QFs, they are unquestionably encompassed under the Commission's policy as "Other
Projects." Idaho Power's alleged factual assertions that the Franklin Energy Storage Projects fail
to provide distinct benefits from intermittent solar and wind projects are false, unsubstantiated
and, ultimately irrelevant.
The Commission is respectfully requested to issue its order denying Idaho Power's
Petition for the reasons stated herein.
II.
IDAHO POWER ASKS THE COMMISSION
TO DEPART FROM AN AVOIDED COST
METHODOLOGY PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN FINAL ORDERS
Idaho Power fashions its pleading as a "Petition for Declaratory Order," but that label is
inaccurate and misleading. Idaho Power does not seek a declaration of rights in the context of an
actual legal controversy, as required by law. Rather, it asks this Commission to depart from the
unambiguous language of prior orders. In its Petition Idaho Power requests:
Idaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission issue a declaratory order, without
prejudice to Idaho Power's position on the validity of the underlying self-certifications,
finding that, under the facts presented, the Proposed Battery Storage Facilities are subject
to the same 100 kw published avoided cost rate eligibility cap applicable to wind and
solar facilities.2
Idaho Power's Petition is not a request for a declaration of legal rights, but rather is a request that
the Commission reconsider its orders adopting a specihc rate-making methodology for QFs. The
2 Petition at 13
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
2
orders adopting that methodology, discussed in detail below, provide that all QFs other than
wind and solar QFs are eligible for the 10 aMW rate cap and twenty-year contract terms. Thus,
Idaho Power's request invites the Commission to reconsider issues previously resolved in orders
that are final and non-appealable. It does so relying on alleged changes in circumstances set
forth in those prior orders. These allegations are without merit. Idaho Power alleges:
The status and applicability of the Commission's implementation of PURPA with regard
to proposed battery storage facilities was not considered and/or addressed in the
Commission's determinations as to published rate eligibility cap, differentiation of
applicable avoided cost rates to different generation technologies, or its determinations
regarding other contractual terms and conditions, such as contract term.3
While Idaho Power has the right to request the Commission to reassess its prior decisions on the
basis of changed circumstances, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment is not the proper vehicle by
which to make that request. Idaho Code $ 6l-624 specifically permits the Commission to
revisit its prior orders. That statute provides:
6l-624. Recession or change of orders. The Commission may atany time, upon notice to
the public utility affected, and after opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of
complaints, rescind, alter or amend any order or decision made by it.
Idaho Power claims that "under the facts presenteda" the Commission may "clarify" its prior
orders, citing to RP 325s. A request for clarification would lie only if the referenced order were
unclear. It is not. Because the order is not unclear, Idaho Power is actually seeking a declaratory
judgment to circumvent the more onerous procedural requirements contained in ldaho Code $
6l-624 dealing with a petition to ooalter or amend" a final Commission order. That code section
3 Id. at7.
a Idatp. 13.
s PUC Rules of Procedure, Rule 325, IDAPA 31.01 .01.325. Petition at p. 6.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
J
requires the Commission to provide "an opportunity to be heard" which necessarily requires that
all affected parties be given an opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and
otherwise be afforded the full rights of participation. Of course, had it filed a Petition to "alter or
amend," and were the Commission to grant such a Petition, the effect of the Commission's
ensuing order would be prospective only and would not apply to the Franklin Energy Storage
Projects.
Furthermore, Idaho Power's Petition is based, in part, on oothe facts presented." The
purported "facts" have not been supported by any affidavit, and have not been submitted under
oath. Moreover, in a declaratory judgment action, they are not subject to examination. Hence,
"the facts presented" are, at this juncture, mere allegations. Idaho Power's Petition is based on
unsupported and unsubstantiated factual allegations as to the benefits (or lack thereof) and the
alleged operational characteristics of battery storage systems. Were the Commission interested
in ascertaining the veracity of Idaho Power's alleged facts, the appropriate forum would, of
course, be a full evidentiary hearing for the benefit of the Commission. [n such a case, all
potentially affected parties would have the right to fully present their cases and cross-examine
witnesses.
III.
WERE THE COMMISSION TO
REVISE ITS ORDER, SUCH REVISION COULD
ONLY BE APPLIED PROSPECTTVELY
The Commission has the full power to entertain Idaho Power's request that it revisit its
prior orders making twenty-year published avoided cost rates available to ALL QFs except for
wind and solar QFs. The question of eligibility for published rates and twenty-year contracts is a
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
4
substantive policy question6. This Commission has been clear that the promulgation of a
substantive policy rule requires a formal process including prior notice and hearing.T The
Commission has also been clear that the question of eligibility to published rates is, indeed, a
policy question.8 Here of course, the Franklin Energy Storage Projects have relied on existing
Commission orders setting policy as to eligibility for published rates. They have fully complied
with all process established by this Commission for the creation of a legally enforceable
obligation relative to their projects. They had no prior notice that Idaho Power would be seeking
(or that this Commission would even entertain a request) to 'change the rules in the middle of the
game.' However, the results of any proceeding changing Commission policy can only have
prospective effect. The status of the Franklin Energy Storage Projects is beyond the reach of the
result of any subsequent proceedings this Commission may initiate in terms of changing its prior
policy orders implementing PURPA.
IV.
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS ARE
UNAMBIGUOUS
It has long been established, and long recognized, by this Commission that rate-making is
a legislative act. This Commission explained, in the context of a different PURPA case:
As Justice Scalia discussed . . . there is a difference between rulemaking (the PURPA
investigation) and adjudication (this complaint case). He explained:
Rulemaking [(i.e., the PURPA investigation)] is agency action which regulates
the future conduct of either groups of persons or a single person; it is essentially
6 See OderNo. 32176 atp.4, declaring the eligibility cap issue to be a "policy question."
7 See Order No. 23271 atp.20.
I Id.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
5
legislative in nature, not only because it operates in the future but also because it
is primarily concerned with policy considerations.e
As the result of the "legislative in nature" act of ratemaking, the Commission's orders on QF
eligibility to published rates are subject to long-standing rules of statutory construction.
Specifically: (l) when a statute is written in plain, clear and unambiguous language, no further
interpretation is permitted as the language speaks for itself, (See Koon v. Bottolfsen, 66ldaho
771,189 P.2d 345 (1946); Ha-worthv. Bernsten 68Idaho 539,200P.2d1007 (1948)), and (2) the
inclusion of certain provisions in a statute implies the exclusion of others. See U.S. v Katatin
2l4F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the Commission's orders are clear, unambiguous and plain
- only solar and wind projects are subject to the 100 kW eligibility cap. Further, the
Commission's orders mandate that QF's "including but not limited to" [all specified entities
other than wind and solar] are not subject to that cap. Battery storage facilities are neither wind
nor solar; and clearly fall within the "including but not limited to" language of the Commission's
orders. Thus, the exclusion of other interpretations (beyond just solar or wind QFs) from the
Commission's orders is, in this case, not implied but is actually stated explicitly.
e IPUC DocketNo. IPC-I1-15, OrderNo.32974 p.25,(2014). Quoting Bowenv. Georgetown
University Hospital,488 U.S. 204,208,109 S.Ct. 469 (1988). Parentheticals in original PUC
order. Bracketed material added by the Commission.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
6
V
BATTERY STORAGE QFs CLEARLY
QUALIFY AS "OTHER PROJECTS" UNDER
THIS COMMISSION'S EXTANT ORDERS
This Commission has limited the availability of published rate 'standard offer' contracts
to two years for iust solar and wind Oualifyins Facilities. It specifically allows for standard offer
contract rates of up to twenty-years for all other PURPA Oualifring Facilities. The
Commission's rulings in this regard are explicit and unequivocal:
After careful consideration, the Commission ultimately determined that it was
appropriate to maintain the 100 kW eligibility cap for published avoided cost rates for
wind and solar OFs.
OrderNo. 32697 atp.3. Emphasis provided.
This commission is confident that, with other changes to the avoided cost methodologies
incorporated in the Order, changing eligibility from 10 aMW for resources other than
wind and solar is unnecessary at this time. We find that a 10 aMW eligibility cap for
access to oublished avoided cost rates for resources other than wind and solar is
approoriate to continue to encourage renewable development while maintaining ratepayer
indifference. Maintaining a 10 aMW eligibility cap is also consistent with our long
history of encouraging PURPA projects and renewable energy generation in Idaho.
Id. atp.14. Emphasis provided.
We maintain the eligibility cap at l0 aMW for QF projects other than wind and solar
(includine but not limited to biomass, small hydro, cogeneration, geothermal, and waste-
to-energy).
Order No. 321 76 at p. 9. Emphasis provided.
The Franklin Energy Storage Projects are "QF projects other than wind and solar QFs."
Even Idaho Power concedes that the Franklin Energy Storage Projects are distinct QFs and that
the question of the QF status of these projects is well beyond the jurisdictional reach of this
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
7
Commission. Idaho Power, in its Petition, correctly observed this Commission's lack of
jurisdiction to question the QF status of the Franklin Energy Storage Projects:
QF status is within the exclusive jurisdiction and properly before FERC, not this
Commission for determination.
Petition atp.7.
Idaho Power, also appropriately, conceded any concem as to the distinct QF status of the
Franklin Energy Storage Projects by asserting that, "ldaho Power does not dispute that the
facilities are self-certified QFs." Id
The question of whether energy storage facilities are separate and distinct Qualifuing
Facilities has been answered by FERC in the affirmative. The only caveat FERC imposed on
energy storage facilities, as distinct QFs, is that the energy input to the storage system must
comply with the same energy source requirements applicable to any other qualifying facility.
According to FERC:
ln sum, energy storage facilities . . . are a renewable resource for purposes of QF
certification. However, such facilities are subject to the requirement that the energy input
to the facility is itself biomass, waste, a renewable resource, a geothermal resource, or
any combination therefore. . .
Luz Development and Finance Corp 5l FERC fl 6 I ,078 at p. 9, ( I 990).
As FERC explained:
[I]n order for a storage facility to be a QF the primary energy source for generation of
this energy must be one of those contemplated by the statute for conventional small
power production facilities, e.g., biomass, waste, renewable resources, geothermal
resources or any combination thereof.
Id. atp.8
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
8
No party has challenged, or even intervened in, the Franklin Energy Storage QF filings.
See, FERC DocketNumbers QFlT-581 through QFl7-584.
ln sum, the Commission's decision tree is simple and leads to a single conclusion. This
Commission has explicitly ruled that any QF other than a solar QF or a wind QF is entitled to
published rates and a twenty-year contract. tdaho Power concedes that the Franklin Energy
Storage Projects are valid QFs and that the very question of QF status is exclusively for FERC to
determine as it is beyond the jurisdictional reach of this Commission. FERC has ruled that
energy storage facilities (like the Franklin Energy Storage Projects) are distinct renewable QFs.
Thus, the Franklin Energy Storage Facilities are QFs other than wind or solar and are, by
definition, entitled to rates as "Other Projects" pursuant to this Commission's orders.
VI.
TDAHO POWER INCORRECTLY ASSERTS
THAT ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WERE
NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION
Idaho Power sells the Commission short when it argues, atp.7 of its Petition that
"battery storage facilities w[ere] not considered" as to "the Commission's determinations as to
published rate eligibility cap, differentiation of applicable avoided cost rates to different
generation technologies or its determinations regarding other contractual terms and conditions,
such as contract term." While it is true the Commission did not specifically address battery
storage facilities it its orders on wind and solar QF eligibility for twenty-year term PURPA
contracts, it is also true that the Commission similarly did not specifically address any other type
of resource other than in passing. For instance, the Commission, in an attempt to be all inclusive
as to the types of resources NOT restricted to two-year contracts ruled that;
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
9
We maintain the eligibility cap at l0 aMW for QF projects other than wind and solar
(includine but not limited to biomass, small hydro, cogeneration, geothermal, and waste-
to-energy.)
Order No. 32176 atp.9, (emphasis provided). There are not very many other types of QF
projects (other than energy storage facilities) the Commission could have been contemplating
when it used the phrase "but not limited to." Indeed, the phrase "but not limited to" is expansive
not restrictive. It can only mean exactly what it says, that is that all QF projects, other than solar
and wind, are eligible for the 10 aMW cap and twenty-year contract. It is not a mere rhetorical
question to ask, 'What other types of QFs projects was the Commission considering when it
ruled that its list of eligible QFs included but was "not limited to biomass, small hydro,
cogeneration, geothermal, and waste-to-energy"?' The Commission is presumed to know what
is in its orders, and this Commission, through its orders, has been encouraging Idaho Power (and
the other investor owned electric utilities in ldaho) to consider the development and possible
deployment of energy storage devices for decades. For Idaho Power to suggest that the
Commission was not mindful of this fact when it issued its order limiting just wind and solar QF
projects to two-year contracts is utterly speculative and unsupported by reason or facts. The
Commission has considered energy storage options for the utilities it regulates in at least a half a
dozen orders over the years - both before and after its order restricting wind and solar QFs to just
two-year contract terms: See, e.g., Docket No. U-1006-207 (Order No. 17954, March 1983);
Docket No. PAC-E-I l-10 (Order No. 32351, September 20ll); Docket No. IPC-E-16-I I (Order
No. 33563 August 20ll); Docket No. IPC-E- 13-22 (Order No. 33 150, October 2014); Docket
No. U-I500-170 (OrderNo.22636, July 1989); and, DocketNo. IPC-E-I5-19, (OrderNo.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
10
33441, December 2015). In fact, two of the three current Commissioners participated in at least
some of these proceedings.
vII.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEGAL CONTROVERSY
AT ISSUE IDAHO POWER'S PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY RULING
MUST BE DENIED
Idaho Power seeks a declaratory judgment from this commission on an alleged "legal
controversy" (Petition at p. 6). As noted in Idaho Power's Petition:
For a declaratory judgment to be rendered, there must be o'an actual or justiciable
controversy" that is "real and substantial," and "definite and concrete, touching the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests." [citations omitted]10
According to Idaho Power:
The legal controversy or question for the Commission is, under the facts presented by the
requests of the Proposed Battery Storage Facilities, whether they are entitled to published
avoided cost rates and 2}-year contract terms . . . 1l
But here there is no legal controversy and there are no adverse legal interests. The standard set
by this Commission for entitlement to published rate contracts up to twenty-years is that the
project must be under l0 aMW and must not be a wind or a solar QF. Idaho Power explicitly
states that it does not question the non-wind and non-solar QF status of the Franklin Energy
Storage LLCs:
[F]or purposes of the determination as to the rate eligibility and contract term length for
the AS in this Idaho
not dispute that the facilities are self-certified QFs...12
ro Petition at p. 5.tt Id. atp.6.
t2 Id., emphasis provided.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
rPC-E-17-01
1l
Obviously, the Franklin Energy Storage LLCs do not question their own legal status as QFs. The
Commission's ruling that QFs other than solar and wind are eligible for twenty-year contracts is
clear and has not been questioned by Idaho Power or the Franklin Energy Projects. Hence there
is not only no justiciable controversy, there is no controversy at all: The Franklin Energy Storage
Projects are 'oQFs other than wind or solar" and Idaho Power has conceded as much. Hence, the
Franklin Energy Storage Projects are "QF projects other than wind or solar" and because this
Commission has ruled that "QF projects other than wind or solar" are eligible for published
avoided cost rates up to l0 aMW there is no legal controversy to be settled by this Commission.
That should be the end of the analysis, period.
As the Idaho Supreme Court, in Witney v. Randallti explained, there must be some
specifi c adversary question presented.
In .ltnto v. State Rnnrd nf Fdttrntinn 56 Idqhn 210 52P.2d t4r we had occasion to
consider a question presented under the Declaratory Judgment Act and said:
"The Declaratory Judgment Act (chap. 70,1933 Sess. Laws) contemplates some specific
adversary question or contention based on an existing state of facts, out of which the
alleged 'rights, status and other legal relations' arise, upon which the court may predicate
a judgment'either affirmative or negative in form and effect.' (Sec. I of Declaratory Act.)
"The questioned 'right' or'status' may invoke either remedial or preventive relief; it may
relate to a right that has either been breached or is only yet in dispute or a status
undisturbed but threatened or endangered; but, in either or any event, it must involve
actual and existing facts." (Citing cases.)
We there held that in order to obtain a declaratory judgment under this act, some specific
adversary question must be presented. There must be a justiciable issue presented. No
judicial declaration is necessary or seemly where no difference or threat, present or
prospective, exists between the parties to the action or proceeding. The authorities under
the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act generally sustain this view of the scope and
purpose of the act.(Jefferson Countv v. Joh ; State v.
13 58 Idaho 49,58 (1937)
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
t2
Dammann.220 Wis. 17 .264 N.W . 627 . 103 A. L. R. 1089; Countv Board of Education,
otn v Rnrcon 1Q)Minn.5l2 257 N.W. 92 Stewart v. Herten,125 Neb. 210, 249 N.W
552; Burton v. Durham R. & I. Co..l88N.C. 473. 125 5.8.3.)
There is simply no justiciable issue as to whether the Franklin Energy Storage Projects are
Battery Storage QFs, Idaho Power, itself, concedes this point. Nor is there a justiciable issue as
to the meaning of the Commission's ruling that: "We maintain the eligibility cap at 10 aMW for
QF projects other than wind and solar (including but not limited to biomass, small hydro,
cogeneration, geothermal, and waste-to-energy." In short, there is no question as to the rights,
status, or other legal relations between Idaho Power and the Franklin Energy Storage Projects.
VTII.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE DISTRACTED
BY IDAHO POWER'S RED HERRINGS
As discussed above, the Commission was well aware of the existence of battery storage
technologies, including their operational characteristics and benefits when it issued its order
restricting wind and solar QFs from eligibility for twenty-year published rate QF contracts.
Nevertheless, Idaho Power asserts several false claims as to the efficiency of battery technologies
in general and the Franklin Energy Storage Projects in particular - despite the fact that this case
is not about battery technologies. Idaho Power's misguided assertions as to the operating
characteristics of batteries should therefore be dismissed as irrelevant.
A. Ancillary Services
In order to clear some of the smoke, the Franklin Energy Storage Projects direct the
Commission's attention to some of the many factual errors contained in the Power Company's
pleading. For example, ldaho Power asserts that the energy source for energizing the Franklin
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
l3
Energy Storage Projects' battery systems is solar. However, the projects contemplated energy
sources in addition to, or in place, of solar. Idaho Power next asserts that the battery facilities
would not realize the benefits of energy storage facilities. Again, Idaho Power is factually
mistaken as the facilities have offered to be dispatchable. Idaho Power argues that the facilities
propose to operate with substantially the same generation profile as a solar generator. Again,
Idaho Power is factually mistaken as the facilities will have the ability to shift load pursuant to
dispatch signals from Idaho Power. Idaho Power mistakenly questions the ability of the facilities
to "provide ancillary grid services, such as reserve capacity, surge capacity, load-balancing, or
voltage support; firming of variable generation; or time-shifting generation to match load."14
Again, Idaho Power is factually mistaken as the projects have the ability to do all of the above to
varying degrees. Unfortunately, in its rush to judgment, Idaho Power never once inquired of the
projects as to their ability to provide these services. Instead it filed this misguided Petition for
Declaratory Judgment without having first conducted due diligence by inquiring how these
projects will provide many, if not all, of the ancillary services it wrongfully asserts are not part of
the Franklin Energy Storage QFs' output.
Unsubstantiated claims made by Idaho Power as to the lack of ancillary benefits offered
by the Franklin Energy Storage Projects are irrelevant to the question of whether there is a legal
controversy such that its Petition for a Declaratory ruling should be granted or denied.
Furthermore, such unsubstantiated (and disputed) factual claims cannot form the basis for any
ra Petition at p. 8
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
t4
findings of fact by the Commission as they have not been made under oath, affidavit or pursuant
to official notice by the Commission.
In addition, the Franklin Energy Storage Projects (not to mention other interested parties)
have not been afforded minimal due process rights of examination, discovery and/or response
regarding Idaho Powers misguided factual assertions. As such, the only reason for their
inclusion in Idaho Power's pleading is to confuse the issue and sidetrack the Commission from
the threshold and determinative question; "Are QFs, other than wind and solar QFs, entitled to
rely on this Commission's prior decisions declaring them eligible for twenty-year contracts at
published avoided cost rates?"
B. Not a Simple Pass Through of Kilowatts
Idaho Power suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the working of the proposed
Franklin Energy Storage Projects' battery energy storage systems when it asserts that:
When operated as proposed by the Proposed Battery Storage Facilities, [Franklin Energy
Storage Projects] it appears to be structured in a way that passes through as many kW hours
as possible.ls
Energy storage systems, like the battery storage facilities proposed by the Franklin Energy
Storage Projects, utilize renewable energy as input into the battery storage system. That energy
is then used to provide a non-intermittent, dispatchable product. Hence the suggestion that the
Franklin Energy Storage Projects are a mere "pass through" of solar power (or whatever
renewable resource is providing input into the system) is incorrect. Contrary to Idaho Power's
1s Petition at p. 8
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
rPC-E-17-01
15
mistaken assertion, the Franklin Energy Storage Facilities will not, and cannot, simply'pass
through kilowatt hours.'
Unlike water, natural gas, or soybeans, electricity cannot be stored. It must be generated
the instant it is needed. This instantaneous balancing requirement has led to expensive
inefficiencies in the construction and operation of the nation's power grid. The solution to these
inefficiencies is energy storage. Energy storage facilities like the Franklin Energy Storage
Projects reduce the need for instantaneous use and as a result will reduce ldaho Power's costs of
maintaining the grid. Of course, innovative technologies like the deployment of the Franklin
Energy Storage Projects make monopoly providers of traditionally generated electricity
uncomfortable. This discomfort may explain ldaho Power's unwillingness to recognize the
obvious benefits of battery storage facilities connecting to its system.
C. Schedule 73 Compliance
Idaho Power also apparently objects to the fact that the Franklin Energy Storage projects
are being developed by the same individual who has developed other projects and that they are
represented by the same legal counsel who has represented other projects.l6 Oddly, Idaho power
is also using the same legal counsel, Donovan Walker, in this proceeding as it has in prior
PURPA proceedings before this Commission. Apparently, from Idaho Power's perspective, it is
acceptable for the Power Company to utilize the same legal counsel in different proceedings, but
not for developers. It is true, that the four Franklin Energy Storage Project are adjacent to one
another. However, they are in full compliance with this Commission's requirement that such
t6 Id. at p. 9.
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
l6
projects have completely separate ownership. The facts that these projects are adjacent to one
another, share the same developer and use the same legal counsel, have no relevance to the
question presented in Idaho Power's Petition, which is whether there is a legal controversy as to
entitlement of a Battery Storage QF to published avoided cost rates for a twenty-year period.
Finally, it should be noted that the Franklin Energy Storage Projects have fully complied
with all the requirements contained in Idaho Power's Tariff Schedule 73. Idaho Power's Tariff
Schedule 73 outlines PURPA contracting procedures, which the Commission approved in
December 2014, in Order No. 33 197. Tariff Schedule 73 requires QF applicants to provide
general information to the utility (ownership, location, size, and type of QF) - all of which the
Franklin Energy Storage Projects have provided to Idaho Power. Significantly, Idaho Power has
not alleged that the Franklin Energy Storage Facilities have failed to comply with any other
provision from Tariff Schedule 73. Therefore, pursuant to tdaho Power's Tariff Schedule 73,the
Franklin Energy Storage Projects have created legally enforceable obligations and are therefore
entitled to published rates and twenty-year Energy Sales Agreements.
WHEREFORE, the Franklin Energy Storage Projects respectfully request this
Commission issue its order denying Idaho Power's Petition for Declaratory Order.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day April2017.'of
Peter J ISB # 3195
Attorney for Franklin Energy Storage Projects
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
rPC-E-17-01
t7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on this 5ft day of April2017,I delivered true and correct copies of
the enclosed FRANKLIN ENERGY STORAGE PROJECTS' COMMENTS in this Docket No.
IPC-E-I7-01 to the following persons via the service method indicated (o'E" electronic; "H" hand
delivery; 66IJS" United States Mail, postage prepaid):
Diane Hanian (E, H)
Commission Secretary
Idatro Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Diane.hanian@puc. idaho. gov
Donovan Walker (E, H)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
dwalker@ idahopower. com
dockets@ idahopower. com
David Bender (E, US)
Earth Justice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 53711
dbender@ earthj usti ce. ors
Franklin Energy Storage Projects'
Comments
IPC-E-17-01
18
Camille Christen (E, H)
Daphne Huang
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W est Washington Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Camille. christen@puc. idaho. gov
Daphne.huane@puc. idaho. gov
Brian Lynch (E, US)
Black Mesa Energy, LLC
PO Box 2731
Palo Verdes, CA 90274
[e-mail]
Ben Otto (E, US)
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th Street
Boise,Idaho 83701
botto @ idahoconservation. org