20070907final_order_no_30422.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 7 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR AN
ORDER REVISING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS
TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO
PURCHASE ENERGY GENERATED BY
WIND-POWERED SMALL POWER
GENERATION QUALIFYING FACILITIES
ORDER NO. 30422
CASE NO. P AC-07-
On April 23 , 2007, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (PacifiCorp; Company)
filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting a
change in the Company s PURPA obligations for wind QFs. PacifiCorp proposes restoring the
cap on entitlement to published avoided cost rates for wind-powered small power generation
facilities that are qualifying facilities (QFs) under Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) from the current level of 100 kW to 10 average
megawatts per month (10 aMW), subject to the following condition, among others:
5. Clarifying the rules governing the entitlement to published rates to
prevent all QFs, whether wind or non-wind, capable of delivering more
than 10 aMW per month from structuring or restructuring into smaller
projects for the purpose of qualifying for the published avoided cost
rates; and
The Commission in this Order denies the Company s requested rule change
regarding published rate eligibility.
Published Rate Eligibility - Disaggregation
PacifiCorp contends that wind projects are uniquely able to reconfigure themselves
into various legal ownerships solely for economic reasons, without disturbing or affecting in any
way the project site or structural design. In some circumstances, other generating technologies
it notes, may have a similar capability. Projects that are under common ownership, PacifiCorp
contends, should not be able to reconfigure themselves into smaller projects for the sole purpose
of qualifying for published avoided costs in Idaho.
PacifiCorp asks that the approach recommended by Idaho Power in Case No. IPC-
07-04 be applied to PacifiCorp s purchases as well. Additionally, while fundamental economic
differences in the avoided costs and wind integration costs exist for different utilities, PacifiCorp
contends a uniform approach among Idaho jurisdictional utilities is particularly useful to avoid
ORDER NO. 30422
unneeded incentives favoring one utility over another solely due to different QF rules that might
apply to different utilities.
On June 28, 2007 , the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure regarding
the issue of disaggregation and established a July 27, 2007 comment deadline. Comments were
filed by Commission Staff and a supporter of renewable energy. Both commenters oppose the
Company s disaggregation proposal.
Staff repeats the comments it filed in Case No. IPC-07-04. Staff believes that
rather than accomplishing its intended objective, the proposed disaggregation rule will instead
simply result in more creative QF ownership arrangements.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No. P AC-
07-07 regarding the Company s proposed change in published rate eligibility rules. We have
also reviewed our related Order No. 30415 in Idaho Power Case No. IPC-07-04. We continue
to find it reasonable to process this matter pursuant to Modified Procedure, IDAP A
31.01.01.204.
PacifiCorp in this case requests that it be accorded the same treatment we grant to
Idaho Power. In Order No. 30415 , we found that Idaho Power had failed to persuade the
Commission that there was a need to modify its rules for published rate eligibility to preclude
disaggregation. PacifiCorp offers no additional evidence that a change is needed.
We do not share the contention of Idaho Power and PacifiCorp that without change
abuse will occur and the public interest will not be served. It is a change that we find would
encourage and might actually promote gamesmanship. On the basis of the established record we
find no reason to change the eligibility criteria for published rates to require a standard different
than FERC QF status requirements.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction over PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power, an
electric utility, and the issues presented in Case No. PAC-07-07 pursuant to the authority and
power granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
of 1978 (PURPA).
ORDER NO. 30422
The Commission has authority under PURP A and the implementing regulations of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to set avoided costs, to order electric
utilities to enter into fixed term obligations for the purchase of energy from qualified facilities
(QFs) and to implement FERCrules.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission
does hereby deny PacifiCorp s proposal to clarify rules regarding published rate eligibility and
disaggregation.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 7-f/....
day of September 2007.
iJ~
1\RSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:PAC-07-
ORDER NO. 30422