20160303final_order_no_33474.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 3.2016
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF PACIFICORP DBA )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S )CASE NO.PAC-E-16-O1
APPLICATION TO APPROVE ELECTRIC )
SERVICE SCHEDULE NO.38 )
QUALIFYING FACILITY AVOIDED COST )ORDER NO.33474
PROCEDURES )
In Order No.33357,the Commission directed PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power
Company (Company or Rocky Mountain)to file a tariff schedule outlining the Company’s
negotiating process under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).On
January 13,2016,pursuant to that directive,Rocky Mountain filed an Application for
authorization to implement Electric Service (Tariff)Schedule No.38 —“Qualifying Facility
Avoided Cost Procedures.”Rocky Mountain requested an effective date by April 1,2016.
The Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure.
Order No.33454.Commission Staff timely filed the only written comments.Rocky Mountain
filed a reply after the reply deadline.The Commission now approves the Application.
BACKGROUND
In Case No.GNR-E-1l-03,the Commission directed Idaho’s electric utilities to
participate in workshops to “begin to form a structure for fair and reasonable ...procedures and
rules”for negotiating power purchase agreements (PPAs)under PURPA.Order No.32697 at
48.Avista,Idaho Power,and Rocky Mountain participated in such workshops and discussed
negotiating procedures.However,the utilities did not agree upon or finalize a universal set of
procedures.Instead,the utilities decided to file separate tariffs specifying their own PURPA
negotiating procedures.Avista and Idaho Power filed Tariff Schedules 62 and 73,respectively,
which were both approved by the Commission.
In February 2015,Rocky Mountain petitioned the Commission for approval to
modify the Company’s “indicative”or “incremental”pricing practice in its Integrated Resource
Plan avoided cost methodology.’Application at 2;Order No.33357 at 26.As to the indicative
pricing practice,the Commission found it reasonable and appropriate to create “a queue to track
the order in which QF projects have entered negotiations with a utility,so that incremental
‘The petition also asked to modify terms and conditions related to PURPA PPAs,which is not at issue here.Order
No.33357.
ORDER NO.33474 1
pricing can be calculated to reflect the actual impacts of each project.”Order No.33357 at 28.
Accordingly,the Commission directed Rocky Mountain “to file a tariff schedule ...which
outlines its PURPA negotiating process.”Id.The Commission further provided,“The schedule
should include specific criteria for management of the queue to eliminate uncertainty and to
facilitate negotiations between Rocky Mountain and [qualifying facilities (QFs)under PURPA].”
Id.
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO.38
Rocky Mountain’s proposed Schedule 38 is closely based on its Utah Schedule 38,
approved by the Utah Public Service Commission in 2015,which addressed similar issues to
those addressed here.The purpose of proposed Schedule 38 is to govern the Company’s
negotiating practices and queue management related to PPAs executed under PURPA.
“Schedule 38 lists the information required by the Company to prepare indicative prices for a
proposed QF project,includes a timeline and actions to be followed by developers to receive a
PPA as well as the consequences for failure to comply with the tariff.”Application at 2.The
Company submitted testimony by Kyle T.Moore,Originator/Power Marketer for Rocky
Mountain,explaining the purpose and development of Schedule 38.
STAFF COMMENTS
Upon its review of proposed Schedule 38,Staff supported approval of Rocky
Mountain’s Application.Staff compared the Company’s proposed schedule with Idaho Power’s
and Avista’s Commission-approved schedules,noting differences,but finding that none
warranted rejection of the Application.
Staff noted that Rocky Mountain’s proposed schedule includes details regarding
queue management that are helpful for mitigating confusion and conflict.Comments at 3.Also,
Staff expressed that Rocky Mountain’s proposed milestones and requirements for forming a PPA
would be effective in ensuring a smooth process and protecting ratepayers.Id.at 3-4.Staff
recommended that the Commission direct Rocky Mountain to clarify whether “days”in the
proposed tariff refers to calendar or business days.Id.at 3.Ultimately,Staff determined that the
Schedule was “reasonable and necessary to ensure a clear,standard QF contracting procedure,”
and recommended approval.Comments at 5.
ORDER NO.33474 2
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPLY
Although the deadline for the Company’s reply was February 19,2016,Rocky
Mountain filed its reply on February 22,2016.In its reply,Rocky Mountain noted that Staff
recommended approval of its Application,and also recommended that the Company clarify its
reference to “days”in the proposed schedule.Reply at 1-2.The Company responded,indicating
that “days”in proposed Schedule 38 is meant to refer to calendar days.The Company attached
clean and legislative copies of its proposed Schedule with this clarification.Id.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain,an electric utility,and the issues raised in this matter under the authority and power
granted it under PURPA and Title 61 of the Idaho Code,in particular Idaho Code §§61-129,61-
307,61-503,and 61-507;Rosebud Enterprises v.Idaho PUC,128 Idaho 609,612 (1996).We
have thoroughly reviewed the Application and the revised Schedule 38,as well as Staff
Comments.
As an initial matter,we discuss whether to accept Rocky Mountain’s reply,filed after
the deadline we set in Order No.33454.Under Rule 14,the Company’s reply was untimely.
IDAPA 31.01.01.014.02.Rule 13 allows us to deviate from Commission rules where strict
compliance would be “impracticable,unnecessary or not in the public interest.”IDAPA
31.01.01.013.We find that accepting Rocky Mountain’s late-filed reply is not appropriate.
Rejecting the filing is not impracticable or contrary to the public interest.Compliance with
deadlines set forth in our rules and orders is important to ensure the timely and orderly
processing and resolution of matters before the Commission.Accordingly,we do not accept the
Company’s reply as part of the record,but reject it as untimely.We do accept the Company’s
updated copies of Schedule 38,with the clarification regarding its reference to “days,”as this
would have been necessary anyway following issuance of our Order.
Regarding proposed Schedule 38,we find that it appropriately responds to our
directive in Order No.33357 at 28 to file a tariff schedule that outlines the Company’s PURPA
negotiating process and addresses queue management for QFs.We note that much of the
proposed schedule contains provisions similar to Avista’s Schedule 62,and Idaho Power’s
Schedule 73,that we already approved.Rocky Mountain has included additional provisions that
ORDER NO.33474 3
address language from Order No.33357 about queue management and that encourage progress
toward a project’s construction.
We find that the steps in Schedule 38’s QF negotiation timeline are reasonable and
feasible.With respect to provisions regarding queue management,we find they reduce the
potential for conflict and confusion,We also find that the Company’s proposed requirements
that QFs sign a “System Impact Study Agreement,”and that they provide all project
development security within prescribed deadlines,are appropriate and balance the interests of
ratepayers and QFs.Further,we accept the clarification in the updated copy of Schedule 38,
indicating that “days”refers to calendar days.Finally,we note that the Application is
unopposed.In conclusion,we find that the steps and requirements outlined in Schedule 38 are
reasonable and necessary to ensure a clear,standard QF contracting procedure for Rocky
Mountain and therefore approve the Company’s Application.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rocky Mountain’s Application is approved,and
the Company’s revised Schedule 38 is adopted.The Company has authority to implement
Electric Service Schedule No.38 —Qualifying Facility Avoided Cost Procedure.
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 §6 1-626.
ORDER NO.33474 4
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of March 2016.
PAUL KJELLAND’ER,PRESIDENT
1’Jit)fJJ
KRIS E RAPER,COMM SSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
L
J$4n D.Jewel!
Cbmmission Secretary
O:PAC-E-16-Ol djh2
ORDER NO.33474 5