20110126Zentz Affidavit.pdf

Ronald L. Wiliams, ISB No. 3034
Willams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ron~wiliamsbradbury.com
t:
281 l JAM 26 Art If: 27
Attorneys for Cedar Creek Wind, LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WID LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
STATE OF Washington )
: ss.County of Spokane )
Dana Zentz, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:
1. I am Vice President, Sumit Power Group, Inc. ("Sumit" or "the
Company"). My primar responsibilities include the marketing of power projects and
power output from power projects that Sumit develops. In this role I direct and
paricipate in the Company's efforts related to structurng and negotiations of commercial
transactions related to Summit's portfolio of power generation projects. This includes the
approval of pricing and terms for the Company's various proposals for Power Purchase
Agreements and Asset Purchase and Sale Agreements. My prior work experience
Affdavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 1
includes over 25 years pricing, strcturing and negotiating large and small purchase and
sale transactions in the Pacific NW and Western US wholesale natual gas and power
markets. I have also had significant involvement in power project development activity
and purchase and sale transactions for power generation assets. My experience includes
working for utilities and for energy merchant firms as well as power project developers. I
have held positions at Avista Corporation, Avista Energy, Inc., EES Consulting
(consulting for utilties), Wiliams Energy Marketing and Trading, Inland Energy
Consulting (consulting for energy merchants), and National Fuel Marketing Company.
2. Cedar Creek Wind, LLC ("Cedar Creek" or "CCW") is a wind power
project development company. Cedar Creek has executed wind project leases for over
5000 acres of land in Bingham County Idaho. Cedar Creek Wind LLC was formed in
2008. The majority owner of Cedar Creek is Western Energy Group, LLC (a Uta LLC)
of Salt Lake City, Uta. The minority owner of Cedar Creek is Summit Cedar Creek
Holdings, LLC (a Delaware LLC) which is a wholly owned affiliate of the Sumit
Power Group, Inc, of Bainbridge Island, W A. Since 2008 Cedar Creek has crafted a
number of different wind project proposals utilizing the lands controlled by Cedar Creek.
Proposals have been made since this time to a number of Pacific NW and California
utilities, including PacifiCorp.
3. In 2008 Cedar Creek proposed in the PacifiCorp 2008R-l RFP a single
151.8 MW wind project. This CCW proposal was initially short-listed in that RFP,
contrar to statements made by PacifiCorp in the five Applications for Approval ofPPAs
between RMP and CCW i filed by PacifiCorp on Januar 10, 2011. The original bid in
i IPUC Cases: (i) PAC-E-II-Ol, (ii) PAC-E-II-02, (ii) PAC-E-II-03, (iv) PAC-E-II-04, and (v) PAC-E-
11-5..
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 2
that RFP process was submitted by CCW to PacifiCorp in December 2008. In May of
2009 CCW was asked by PacifiCorp to prepare "best and final" pricing in conjunction
with that bid. Recognzing the inherent bias PacifiCorp had exhibited in the past - and
which continues today - against power purchase agreements and in favor or utility asset
ownership, CCW proposed as its final offer an asset purchase and sale agreement wherein
PacifiCorp would pay CCW $325.6 milion or $2145/installed kW of nameplate wind
capacity. The net capacity factor of the project proposed was 31.6%, based on approx.
419,800 MWhyear of energy production. The proposed commercial operation date was
September 2010. The 2008 bid by CCW was ultimately not selected by PacifiCorp in
that RFP. The 2008 project configuation included 66 unts of Siemens WTG 2.3-93.
Each 2.3 MW unit had 93 meter rotors and 80 meter hub height towers in this case.
4. Cedar Creek Wind also paricipated in PacifiCorp's 2009R-l renewable
RFP, submitting a bid for the same Bingham County site but with a different project
confguation and terms from its 2008 proposal. For the 2009 RFP, CCW's proposal was
for a two phase wind project with phase I at 98.9 MW and phase II at 52.9 MW; for a
total of 151.8 MW. In this proposal CCW offered Siemens 2.3MW - 101 meter swept
diameter wind turbines on 100 meter towers, which is another distinct difference between
the 2008 and 2009 RFP responses. This second proposal included both an asset purchase
and sale agreement which included PacifiCorp paying $222 milion for the 98.9 MW
phase I or $2245/installed kW of nameplate wind capacity, and a long term PPA with a
staring price of $72.50/MWh escalating at 1.25%. The proposed commercial operation
date was September, 2010. The PPA price in that second bid proposal in 2009 was below
the then existing first year non-levelized avoided cost rate of PacifiCorp in Idaho of
Affdavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 3
$75.83/MWh for a project staing in 2010. The net capacity factor of the project
proposed was 31.8%. Neither of these two proposals was short-listed by PacifiCorp in
the 2009 RFP.
5. In early Januay, 2010, CCW informed Bruce Griswold of its desire to
negotiate two PURPA contracts for wind projects of approximately 78.5 MW. On
Januar 20, 2010 CCW provided Bruce Griswold of PacifiCorp with hourly generation
profies, by month, for the two 78 MW projects and asked Mr. Griswold to perform the
required integrated resource (IR) model analysis that calculated the avoided cost rates
applicable to these two 78 MW wind projects. See Attachment No 1. That email to Bruce
also noted that, in conjunction with this wind data being provided and the relatively
matue state of the CCW interconnection request, that CCW was in compliance with
PacifiCorp's Utah PSC checklist of requirements for PURPA projects (UPSC Schedule
38), with the exception of (i) site location, and (ii) PURP A self certification evidence.
PacifiCorp had previously informed CCW that CCW needed to comply with the
"Procedures" portion of this schedule, in order to perfect its rights to a PP A with pricing
provisions. A copy ofP.S.C.U No 47, RMP Electric Service Schedule No. 38 is attched
as Attachment NO.2.
Bruce estimated it would take between two and four weeks to produce a modeled
avoided cost rate for the two projects.
6. At this point in time, unelated to any PURP A activity and as a matter of
due course in the development process, CCW was also substantially complete in
compliance with interconnection and transmission system upgrade requirements.
PacifiCorp had provided interconnection study results to CCW and there were no
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 4
anticipated fatal flaws or reliabilty concerns pertining to the interconnection of the
Project identified in the study results provided. By the time CCW and PAC were in
discussion about the PURP A agreements in question, CCW had taken the following
actions related to transmission interconnection and also relating to establishing a firm
transmission path from the Goshen Substation point of interconnection to the PAC load
center at Salt Lake City:
a. CCW paid PacifiCorp significant fuds for interconnection studies and to
facilitate generator interconnection pursuat to PacifiCorp's OATT:
1. The Project's Transmission Interconnection request was submitted
on December 19, 2008, for interconnection of 151.8 MW at the
Goshen Substation at 115/138 kV; a $10,000 payment
accompanied the request. On January 27, 2009, CCW signed the
sis agreement and fuded PacifiCorp $50,000 (total
interconnection costs spent to date $60,000). On April 21, 2009,
Cedar Creek Wind submitted a request to change the requested
interconnect voltage to 345kV.
11. The Large Generator System Impact Study Report was issued by
PacifiCorp on July 22, 2009. On August 21, 2009, Cedar Creek
executed the Facilities Study Agreement and fuded the study with
a deposit of $100,000 (total interconnection costs spent to date =
$160,000). PacifiCorp issued the Final Facilties Study Report on
March 18, 2010, for interconnection of 151.8 MW at the Goshen
Substation at 345kV. No serious reliabilty or network upgrade
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 5
issues were identified for mitigation as a result of the studies
performed.
iii. Cedar Creek executed an interconnect Engineering and
Procurement (E&P) Agreement on September 15, 2009 and
provided a $100,000 deposit with the RMP E&P Agreement (tota
interconnection costs spent to date = $260,000). PacifiCorp
provided Cedar Creek with a draft LGIA on April 15,2010.
iv. PacifiCorp advised CCW late in 2010 that a QF version of the
LGIA would be required for the QF generation project
interconnection, rather than PAC's standard LGIA. Cedar Creek
and PacifiCorp are currently negotiating a Qualifying Facilty
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (QFLGIA).
PacifiCorp delivered a draft QFLGIA documents to Cedar Creek
on Januar 13, 2011. Again there are no major reliability or
network upgrade issues identified for mitigation as a result of the
QFLGIA.
b. Relating to firm transmission from Goshen to Mona (Salt Lake City)
CCW paid PacifiCorp over $215,000 to establish long term firm point to
point transmission service.
1. Cedar Creek submitted an OASIS request on Janua 11,2010, for
99 MW of long term firm point-to-point transmission from Goshen
to PacifiCorp's Mona substation. A one month's securty deposit
in the amount of $200,475 for the transmission service request was
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 6
provided to PacifiCorp on Januar 19,2010. In order to grant this
service to CCW, PacifiCorp collected an additional $15,000 PTP
SIS study deposit. (Total PTP costs spent to date $215,475)
ii. The Long Term Point to Point Transmission Service agreement
was granted by PAC and signed by Cedar Creek on May 12,2010
and by PacifiCorp on May 24,2010.
c. In total, Cedar Creek has been engaged with PacifiCorp on transmission
and interconnection issues since 2008 and has paid PacifiCorp in excess of
$475,000 for interconnection and transmission studies. As a result, CCW
has been advised by PAC that the generator interconnection service as
well as the requested firm PTP service will be provided by PAC without
major reliabilty problems or signficant network upgrades to the
PacifiCorp system.
7. In early Februar, 2010, CCW inquired of Bruce Griswold as to when he
could expect to provide model-based avoided cost pricing. Several weeks later, on
Februar 23, 2010, another request was made as to when modeled avoided cost pricing
would be available. In a phone conversation with CCW Bruce Griswold informed CCW
that modeled pricing results would be available the first week in March. That
conversation was confirmed by emaiL. See Attachment No. 3
8. During the first quaer of 2010 CCW was hearing ruors of a pending
price change in SAR based avoided cost rates on fie at the Commission for projects
smaller than 10 aMW in size. In spite of hearing such ruors, CCW elected to stay-the-
course in good faith negotiations relating to the two 78 MW project configurations, rather
Affdavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page?
than switching and rushing to attempt to qualify for the standard avoided cost rate for
smaller 10 aMW PURP A projects. CCW made this decision in the mistaen belief that
the calculated avoided cost rates would reasonably reflect market rates for wind power
development that CCW was observing throughout the west, would be in relative
correlation to the published SAR avoided cost, and would be sufficient to justify project
development. Meanwhile, on March 16, 2010, the Commission established new, lower
avoided cost rates for all utilities, including PacifiCorp, which were significantly below
rates the rates in effect prior to that date.
9. By late March CCW stil did not have IR calculated rates for its two 78
MW wind projects. On March 24, 2010, my attorney and I met with Bruce Grswold and
his attorney, Ken Kaufman in Portland. First and foremost on our list was to discover
why it was eight weeks without calculated rates and why PacifiCorp was taing so long
to make the calculation. The only answer given for the delay was the workload of the
PacifiCorp employees. In that meeting Bruce Griswold informed us that modeled pricing
results would not be available until the first week of ApriL.
10. On AprilS, 2010 PacifiCorp finally provided CCW a term sheet that
included avoided cost pricing for our two wind projects; almost three months after
requesting it. See Attachment NO.4. The commercial operation date proposed was
January 2012. Pricing proposed by PAC was as follows:
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 8
Year HLH LLH Flar
2012 $47.78 $22.74 $37.05
2013 $50.91 $25.26 $39.92
2014 $55.42 $26.56 $43.05
2015 $59.22 $27.06 $45.44
2016 $66.07 $33.69 $52.19
For the first year of operation, the "flat" price is the direct comparison to the
published SAR calculated price of $63.97/MWh non-levelized rate, before the wind
integration discount. In effect, the price proposal by PacifiCorp for the two CCW wind
projects was 35% below the published standard rate effective after March 16,2010, and
50 % below the same rate applicable before March 16, 2010.
11. In the judgment of CCW, and based on CCW's bidding experience with
PacifiCorp in earlier wind or renewable RFPs, the rates proposed by PacifiCorp were far
below "market" prices for wind generated electricity being built by PacifiCorp, bid to
PacifiCorp and/or sold to PacifiCorp. I would also note that rates proposed by PacifiCorp
to CCW were also significantly below the IR calculated avoided cost rate contained in the
contract between Idaho Power and Ridgeline Energy for the 78 MW Rockland Wind
Project.
It was also apparent to me that the reason PacifiCorp had waited so long to
provide these rate calculations to CCW was that they did not want to do so before the
Commission reduced the standard SAR based rates on March 16, 2010. Consequently,
Cedar Creek came to the conclusion the IR calculated avoided cost rate was not desirable
and a more reasonable method by which it could successfully build a wind generation
facility in Idaho was to configue yet again in a new maner that comprised five 10 aMW
2 flat pricing derived by CCW based on PacifiCorp provided LLH and HLH pricing.
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 9
PURPA projects with non-levelized avoided cost rates of $67. 97/MWh in 2012, less wind
integration charges.
12. In May of2010 I notified Bruce Griswold ofPacifiCorp that CCW wished
to negotiate five separate PURP A contracts for wind projects which did not exceed 10
aMW in montWy generation. See Attachment NO.5. Bruce Griswold responded to
CCW's five requests on May 21,2010, noting that: "Overall the information (submitted)
is sufficient to begin drafts of each (of the 5) PP As" and stating that he expected to have a
prototye PP A drafted and "ready for circulation late next week after internal review
here." See Attachment NO.6.
13. In June, July and August Bruce Griswold and I continued a stream of
communication, with him asking for additional information and me providing it to him.
The information requested involved a high degree of project scrutiny on PacifiCorp's par
and at a level of due diligence inquiry that I would describe as more common when a
utility is looking to purchase and own a generating asset. Some of the information
requested was not relevant to a smaller PURP A project delivering power pursuat to a
PPA and the contract "compliance" required by PacifiCorp appeared to me, in part,
designed to slow down CCW's progress achieving a signed PP A. The information
requested or provided over the course of these months included: (i) interconnection
requests, responses, and studies, (ii) site control documentation, (iii) site location and
maps, (iv) turbine generator equipment specifications, (v) Bingham County special use
permits, (vi) electrical drawings, (iv) wind studies, (vii) montWy power deliveries and
(viii) milestone development schedules.
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 10
14. On September 30,2010 I received an email from Bruce Griswold stating:
"I have done the preliminar review of the project documents and they look complete."
Bruce continued by saying he would like to schedule a short call later the following week
to conduct a final review on interconnection and transmission capacity "and to ensure
everything is lined up so that we can finalize the PP A and merchant can request network
resource designation for the projects." See Attachment NO.7. PacifiCorp submitted a first
draft PPA to CCW with IPUC approved standard pricing provisions on July 21, 2010,
approximately two months after it was requested.
15. Staing in August 2010 I and others from the CCW team continued to
trade information with Bruce Griswold and his attorney, and to request some changes to
contract languge. A few changes were acceptable but for the most par, revisions to the
agreement were rejected by PacifiCorp. The one issue of contention that remained
however was the refusal by PacifiCorp to insert a contract provision, similar to the Idaho
Power PURP A contracts, that the renewable energy credits (RECs) would be owned by
CCW. Ultimately, we stalemated on this point, agreed that the contract would remain
silent as to REC ownership and notified PacifiCorp of this concession. On November 29,
2009 I received an email from Ken Kaufman, legal counsel to PacifiCorp, transmitting a
"proposed final redline" PPA for the Coyote Hil wind project, with the additional
notation that when the Coyote Hil PPA is finalized, PacifiCorp will commence preparing
the other four PP As using the same contract prototype. My response the next day made a
couple of anotations in the body of this PP A and otherwse noted that "we have nothing
fuer" to add or request. See Attachment NO.8.
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 11
16. Even though CCW had reached complete agreement with PacifiCorp as of
November 29, 2010 as to the terms and conditions of a PPA, multiple reasons for last
minute delays in contract execution began to arise. For example, a week later, on Friday
December 3, 2010 Bruce Griswold informed me by email that the PacifiCorp PPA
"approval process has slowed a bit specific to Coyote Hil" related to PacifiCorp's "credit
approval process." In response, I proposed that Scott Montgomery, President of CCW
come to Portland the following week, work with Bruce to resolve any outstading issues
and stad by ready to execute the PPAs as soon as they were ready, in an effort to "avoid
any delay due to execution in counterpars." PacifiCorp did not accept this offer. See
Attachment NO.9.
17. Another week had gone by. On Monday December 6, 2010 I placed a call
to Bruce Griswold to determine the latest status of PP A approval by PacifiCorp. Bruce
did respond to my phone call by email the next day, on Tuesday, December 7, giving me
the following encouraging news: "We are pushing through approvals. Credit should have
theirs finalized for all projects tomorrow. We expect to have all PPAs and documents
ready for your final review and check of volumes, etc, by Wednesday (December 8)."
See Attachment No. 10. This good news did not last for very long, however.
18. The following day, Thursday December 9,2010 Bruce Griswold informed
me by phone that while the legal and credit reviews of the PP As were now complete,
PacifiCorp management review of the agreements was not finished, and he would not be
authorized to sign the PP As until such review was done. Bruce told me however he
expected to have management authorization to sign and would be ready to execute the
Affidavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 12
PPAs on Monday, December 13. Following this conversation Bruce emailed to me the
final, pdf versions of all five contracts. See Attachment No. 11.
19. On Monday December 13,2010, the day before the anounced "effective
date" by which the Commission determines which PURP A projects, if any, are no longer
entitled to published rates for 10 aMW contracts, PacifiCorp refused to sign the five
CCW PP As. Bruce Griswold informed me that the reason for delay was that management
had not completed its review of the contracts.
In response, CCW, on December 13,2010, signed the five PPAs prepared in final
form by PacifiCorp for execution and delivered those signed agreement to Bruce
Griswold at PacifiCorp. Bruce Grswold instructed me not fill in the "date of execution"
on the first page of the PPA as being December 13, 2010, and said PacifiCorp would
instead fill in that date when they signed.
20. PacifiCorp management did not authorize Bruce Grswold to counter
execute the five Cedar Creek PP As until December 21. Bruce Griswold signed them the
next day, December 22, 2010. In his email to CCW notifying us of the signature he
indicated that although the recital page shows a December 22, 2010 date, that "the filing
to the Idaho PUC wil establish your LOL date as 12/13/2010 prior to the 12/14/2010
deadline." See Attachment No. 12.
21. The five applications filed by PacifiCorp with the Commission regarding
the CCW PPAs 3 fail to request the Commission's approval of the five contracts, fail to
make any showing or justification as to CCW's entitlement to Commission ordered
standard avoided costs available on or before December 14, 2010, and implies that the
contracts should be rejected by the Commission because they were executed after
3 See footnote 1.
Affdavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 13
December 14,2010. The five applications on page 8 state that "(O)n December 22,2010
RMP and Cedar Creek entered into a PP A pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
various Commission Orders applicable to this PURP A agreement for wind resources."
This statement appears to be a direct contradiction of Bruce Griswold's previous
statement that the "filing to the Idaho PUC will establish your LOL date as 12/13/2010
prior to the 12/14/2010 deadline."
22. In sumar, CCW has been attempting to negotiate a wind contract for
approximately 150 MW of Idaho based wind power with PacifiCorp since 2008. We,
like almost all others in Idaho, failed in that endeavor. Cedar Creek Wind only tured to
the 10 aMW standard rates and contract terms, after exhausting all other avenues of
attempted mutual, good faith negotiations. Even then, it took the better part of 2010 to
"negotiate" what was essentially a stadard form contract with a pre-determined stadard
tariff rate.
23. CCW worked diligently to comply with and did timely comply with all
known rules and requirements necessar to complete the PURP A agreements that were
ultimately executed. While PacifiCorp worked with CCW to complete the PURPA
agreements, CCW felt compelled to continually monitor PAC's timeliness in the
negotiations as there was a consistent pattern of slow responses. Even so, all material
outstading contract issues between CCW and PacifiCorp were resolved by November
29,2010 and the paries had, by that date, arived at a meeting of the minds. CCW was
simply forced to wait for three weeks for PacifiCorp credit, legal and management
reviews of the contracts, before contract execution by PacifiCorp.
Affdavit of Dana Zentz Cedar Creek Wind Page 14
DATED: This ~day of Janua 2011.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~
-".......~~ LY/V...," ~ ".... ...1\ :~~
,. ~ ...o\AM. E~. u;o..~.. ti ".0.. ~
I 0:.. _~OTA~ J~ ..~\.--." r .,#.::E: . ."1=. -- :CI== .,,~.. AU C :"~..:,~ eLI ~~..i!
~....;.~..~~y 1&.~..~O
"*.,.o';WÅS~\~f;.....a...."
Affdavit of Dana Zentz
ii-
Cedar Creek Wind Page 15
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 1
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Ronald Williams
sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:43 PM
To: 'Griswold, Bruce -(Mkt Function)'
Cc: 'Steven Montgomery'; SCtt Montgomery; Tom cameron; Robrt Gavahan¡ Wad Riser; Dana
Zentz
Subjec: FW: PAC QF compliance
Bruce,
Attched are the hourly generation profiles, by month, for the two Cedar Creek Wind Farms in
Eastern Idaho. Each wind farm (CC1 and CC2) will be approximately 78.2 MW and have the
same generation profiles as shown on the attachment.
With this information, could you please start the avoided cost mOdeling runs for these two
proects? Also, wil you have to run the model twice, or wil one run suffce for both projects of
nearly identical size and wind profiles?
You also referenced that we should be following RMP electric service schedule No. 38; a Utah
Public Service Commission Schedule. Is this schedule also applicable for PURPA contrcts in
Idaho?
The attached information is that requested by item B.2.c.of UPSC Schedule 38.
With this attached information and in conjunction with the Cedar Creek Interconnection request to
PAC and accompanying materials, it appears that the applicable information requested by section
B.2 of Schedule 38 has been provided, with the following exceptions:
. Subsection 2.d): while you have general site location information and point of
interconnection for CC1 and CC2, we will give you a more detailed map of the two wind
projects and confirm that permitting has been completed.
. Subsection 2.f): demonstration of ability to obtain OF status, and
. Subsection 2.j): proposed contract term and pncing.
You will be working on this last point (2.j). Would you please send to me a working draft of a
contract you would start with, for Idaho wind power.
We will provide you the OF status information referenced in 2.f.
Regards,
'RO'W~
Wiliams Brabur, p.e
1015 W. Hays St, Boise ID 83702
208.344.6633
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-ll-Ol
Case No. PAC-E-ll-02
Case No. P AC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 2
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
~ROCKY MOUNTAINPOER
A DiISION Of PAIFCO
P.S.C.v. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38
STATE OF UTAH
Qualifying Facilty Procedures
AVAILABILITY: To owners of Qualifying Facilities (QFs) in all territory served by the
Company in the state of Utah.
APPLICATION: To owners of existing or proposed QFs with a design capacity greater
than 1,000 kW for a Cogeneration Facilty or greater than 3,000 kW for a Small Power Production
facility who desire to make sales to the Company. Such owners will be required to enter into
written power purchase and interconnection agreements with the Company pursuant to the
procedures set forth below. Additional or different requirements may apply to Utah QFs seeking to
make sales to third-parties, or out-of-system QFs seeking to wheel power to Utah for sale to the
Company.
i. Process For Negotiating Power Purchase Agreements
A. Communications
Unless otherwise directed by the Company, all communications to
the Company regarding QF power purchase agreements should be
directed in writing as follows:
Rocky Mountain Power
Manager - QF Contracts
825 NE Multnomah St, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97232
The Company will respond to all such communications in a timely manner.
If the Company is unable to respond on the basis of incomplete or missing
information from the QF owner, the Company shall indicate what additional
information is required. Thereafter, the Company will respond in a timely
manner following receipt of all reuired information.
( continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06-035-21
FILED: December 7, 2006 EFFECTIVE: December i 1, 2006
~~l. MONTAIN
P.S.C.U. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.2
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
B. Procedures
I. The Company's proposed generic power purchase agreement may be
obtained from the Company's website at ww.pacifcorp.com. or if
the owner is unable to obtain it from the website, the Company will
send a copy within seven days of a written request."
2. To obtain an indicative pricing proposal with respect to a proposed
project. the owner must provide in writing to the Company, general
project information reasonably required for the development of
indicative pricing, including, but not limited to:
a) generation technology and other related technology applicable
to the site
b) design capacity (MW), station service requirements, and net
amount of power to be delivered to the Company's electric
system
c) quantity and timing of monthly power deliveries (including
project abilty to respond to dispatch orders from the
Company)
d) proposed site location and electrical interconnection point
e) proposed on-line date and outstanding permitting
requirements
t) demonstration of abilty to obtain QF status
g) fuel type (s) and source (s)
h) plans for fuel and transporttion agreements
i) proposed contract term and pricing provisions (i.e., fixed,
escalating, indexed)
j) status of interconnection arrangements
3. The Company shall not be obligated to provide an indicative pricing
proposal until all information described in Paragraph 2 has been
received in writing from the QF owner. Within 30 days following
receipt of all information required in Paragraph 2, the Company wil
provide the owner with an indicative pricing proposal, which may
(continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06-035-21
FILED: December 7, 200 EFFECTIVE: December I i, 2006
~~~OUTAIN
P.S.C.U. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.3
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
B. Procedures (continued)
include other indicative terms and conditions, tailored to the
individual characteristics of the proposed project. Such proposal may
be used by the owner to make determinations regarding project
planning, financing and feasibilty. However, such prices are merely
indicative and are not final and binding. Prices and other terms and
conditions are only final and binding to the extent contained in a
power purchase agreement executed by both parties and approved by
the Commission. The Company wil provide with the indicative
prices a description of the methodology used to develop the prices.
4. If the owner desires to proceed forward with the project after
reviewing the Company's indicative proposal, it may request in
writing that the Company prepare a draft power purchase agreement
to serve as the basis for negotiations between the parties. In
connection with such request, the owner must provide the Company
with any additional project information that the Company reasonably
determines
to be necessary for the preparation of a draft power purchase
agreement, which may include, but shall not be limited to:
a) updated information of the categories described in Paragraph
B.2,
b) evidence of adequate control of proposed site
c) identification of, and time lines for obtaining any necessary
governmental permits, approvals or authorizations
(continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06-035-2 i
FILED: December 7, 2006 EFFECTIVE: December i 1,2006
...ROCKY MOUNTAINPOER
A oiVIS OF PAIFtCOP
P.S.C.u. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.4
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
B. Procedures (continued)
d) assurance of fuel supply or motive force
e) anticipated timeJines for completion of key project milestones
f) evidence that any necessar interconnection studies have been
completed and assurance that the necessary interconnection
arrangements are being made in accordance with Part II.
5. The company shall not be obligated to provide the owner with a draft power
purchase agreement until all information required pursuant to Paragraph 4
has been received by the Company in writing. Within 30 days following
receipt of all information required pursuant to paragraph 4, the Company
shall provide the owner with a draft power purchase agreement containing a
comprehensive set of proposed terms and conditions, including a specific
pricing proposal for purchases from the project. Such draft shall serve as the
basis for subsequent negotiations between the parties and, unless clearly
indicated, shall not be construed as a binding proposal by the Company
6. After reviewing the draft power purchase agreement, the owner may prepare
an initial set of written comments and proposals regarding the draft power
purchase agreement and forward such comments and proposals to the
Company. The Company shall not be obligated to commence negotiations
with a QF owner until The Company has received an initial set of written
comments and proposals from the QF owner. Following the Company's
receipt of such comments and proposals, the owner may contact the
Company to schedule contract negotiations at such times and places as are
mutually agreeable to the parties. In connection with such negotiations, the
Company:
a) will not unreasonably delay negotiations and wil respond in
good faith to any additions, deletions or modifications to the
draft power purchase agreement that are proposed by the
owner
(continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Uta in Docket No. 06-035-21
FILED: December 7,2006 EFFECTIVE: December 1 i, 2006
~~~OUNTAIN
P.S.C.U. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.5
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
B. Procedures (continued)
b) may request to visit the site of the proposed project if such a
visit has not previously occurred
c) wil update its pricing proposals at appropriate intervals to
accommodate any changes to the Company's avoided-cost
calculations, the proposed project or proposed terms of the
draft power purchase agreement
d) may request any additional information from the owner
necessary to finalize the terms of the power purchase
agreement and satisfy the Company's due dilgence with
respect to the Project.
7. When both parties are in full agreement as to all terms and conditions
of the draft power purchase agreement, the Company wil prepare and
forward to the owner a final, executable version of the agreement. The
Company reserves the right to condition execution of the power purchase
agreement upon simultaneous execution of an interconnection agrement
between the owner and the Company's power delivery function, as discussed
in Part II. Prices and other terms and conditions in the power purchase
agreement will not be final and binding until the power purchase agreement
has been executed by both parties and approved by the Commission.
II. Process for Negotiating Interconnection Agreements
In addition to negotiating a power purchase agreement, QFs intending to make sales to the
Company are also required to enter into an interconnection agreement that governs the
physical interconnection of the project to the Company's transmission or distribution
system. The Company's obligation to make purchases from a QF is conditioned upon all
necessary interconnection arrangements being consummated.
It is recommended that the owner initiate its request for interconnection as early in the
planning process as possible, to ensure that necessary intercnnection arrangements proceed
in a timely manner on a parallel track with negotiation of the power purchase agreement.
(continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06035-21
FILED: December 7, 2006 EFFECTIVE: December i i, 2006
~~~NTAIN
P.S.C.U. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.6
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
II. Pr~ess for Negotiating Interconnection Agrements (continued)
Because of functional separation requirements mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, interconnection and power purchase agreements are handled by different
functions within the Company. Interconnection agreements (both transmission and
distribution level voltages) are handled by the Company's power delivery function.
A. Communications
Initial communications regarding interconnection agreements should be directed to
the Company in writing as follows:
Rocky Mountain Power
Manager-QF Contracts
825 NE Multnomah St, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97232
Based on the project size and other characteristics, the Company wil direct the QF owner to
the appropriate individual within the Company's power delivery function that will be
responsible for negotiating the interconnection agreement with the QF owner. Thereafter,
the QF owner should direct all communications regarding interconnection agreements to the
designated individual, with a copy of any written communications to the address set forth
above.
B. Procedures
Generally, the interconnection process involves (l) initiating a request for
interconnection, (2) completion of studies to determine the system impacts
assoiated with the interconnection and the design, cost, and schedules for
constructing any necessary interconnection facilities, (3) execution of an
rnterconnection Facilties Agreement to address facilty construction, testing and
acceptance and (4) execution of an Interconnection Operation and Maintenance
Agreement to address ownership and operation and maintenance issues.
Consistent with PURPA, the owner is responsible for all interconnection costs
assessed by the Company on a nondiscriminatory basis.
(continued)
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06-035-21
FILED: December 7, 2006 EFFECTIVE: December i I, 2006
~!~!!~:;~OUNTAIN
P.S.C.U. No. 47 Original Sheet No. 38.7
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 38 - Continued
II.B.Procedures (continued)
For interconnections impacting the Company's Transmission System, the Company
wil process the interconnection application through PacifiCorp Transmission
Services following the procedures for studying the generation intercnnection
described in the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff, PacifiCorp FERC
Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume NO.1 i Pro Forma Open Access Transmission
Tariff (OA TT) on fie with the Federal Regulatory Commission. A copy of the
OA TT is available on-line at httpllww.oasis.pacificorp.com.
For interconnections impacting the Company's Distribution System only, the
Company wil process the interconnection application through the Manager of QF
Contracts at the address shown in Section ILA.
Issued by authority of Report and Order of the Public Service Commission of Utah in Docket No. 06035-21
FILED: December 7,2006 EFFECTIVE: December 11, 2006
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPRO V AL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIN LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-01
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 3
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Ronald Willams
Sent: Tuesday, Fetary23,2Ø10 11:53 PM
To: 'Bruce Griswold (bruce.griswold~pacificorp.com)'
Cc: 'Steven Montgomery'; 'Scott Montgomery'; 'Tom Cameron'; 'Robe Gavahan'; 'Dana Zentz'
Subject: Cedar Creek Wind
Contacts: Bruce Griswold
Bruce.As we discussed. Paclrp "lnth fi~.eUini81h avØ0~_tw15
MW (apro) Ced Crek wind pro ÍI ea Id. You ex to ha th.1n ca
availabl the first of next we The results wil go through an internal reie (which could take a couple
of days), but there is a good possibility we wil have this pricing results the middle of newe: polbas _Fl. We Ma $;
Thank you for this information. As I explained. we are very anxious for these results and committed to
moving forward with development as soon as we can.
RO'W~
WilHams Bradbury, p.e
1015 W. Hays St, Boise ID 83702
208.344.6633
Page loft
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIN LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-01
Case No. PAC-E-I1-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 4
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Griswold, Bruce -(Mkt Functon) (mailto:Bruce.Griswold(§PacifiCorp.com)
Sent: Monday, April OS, 2010 1 :35 PM
To: Ronald Williams; Dana Zentz
Subjec: Cedar Creek Wind QF Termsheet 040S2010.doc
Ron/Dana
Please find the attached term sheet with indicative pricing for the two Cedar Creek Wind
QF projects proposed. I have only included a single term sheet since you have proposed
the projects as identical projects with identical wind shapes, etc. Pricing wil be the same
for both projects. Because of Path C constraints in the area, there is a possibilty of
generation curtilment and I have included curtilment language in the terms and
conditions.
Cedar Creek Wind LLC is developing two proposed wind projects located 3.2 miles
northeast of and delivering to the Goshen Substation, east of Shelly in Bingham County,
Idaho. Each project wil have a net nameplate output of 78.2 MW and will have a 28.0%
net capacity factor. In summar, the proposed price is $56.06/MWH on a 20-year
nominal levelized payment basis staing January I, 2012 though December 31, 2031.
The pricing has been adjusted for the $6.50 per MWh wind integrtion. The price does
not include RECs and assumes that Cedar Creek retains ownership of the RECs.
Cedar Creek Wind pricing was done in accordance with non-stadard (project grater
than 10 MW A) QF pricing as the Idaho Commission ordered the methodology in Docket
IPC-E-95-9, a 1996 docket. In Idaho, avoided costs for non-standard QFs are baed on
an IRP basd differential revenue requirement method. The Compay has prepaed
avoided costs using the parial displacement differential revenue requirement method
("PDDRR") using an IRP gas proxy as the deferred resource and a 15% capacity
contribution in accordance with the IRP for implementing the Commission ordered
methodology.
The CCCT used for calculation is an East Side 607 MW Wet 2xl CCCT as listed in
Table A.4 of the 2008 IRP Update fied with the Commission on March 31, 2010. The
parial displacement is 11.7 MW (78.2 MW x 15% wind capacity contribution). Capital
cost and O&M costs are paid based on 11.7 MW of the CCCT.
Major Assumptions
The following are assumptions used in our evaluation:
'" PDDRR avoided cost methodology
'" Load Forecast - 20- Year load forecast dated October 2010
'" Price Forecast - December 2009 Offcial Forward Price Cure (1209)
'" IRP Resources - 2008 IRP Update preferred portfolio (Table A.4)
'" Wind integration costs consistent with Idaho Commission order ($6.50 / MWH
$2009)
Once you have reviewed, let me know if you have any questions. I can be available to
discuss at your convenience.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-813-5218 Offce
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
This email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
else, unless expressly approved by the sender or an authorized
addressee, is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient. any disclosure. copying,
distribution or any action omitted or taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received
this email in error. please contact the sender. delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies.
= = = ===== = = = = = = == = = == = == = = == = = === = = = == = = = = = = ======= = == === ===== = = = = = == = = =
=======
Cedar Creek Wind
QF Power Purchase Agreement Termsheet
April 5,2010
Seller Cedar Creek Wind ("Cedar Creek")
Buyer PacifiCorp ("PPW")
Facilty "Facilty" is a new wind far. Cedar Creek Wind LLC is developing two proposed wind
projects located 3.2 miles northeast of the Goshen Substation, east of Shelly in Bingham
County, Idaho. Eah project wil have a net nameplate output of 78.2 MW and wil have a
28.0% net capacity factor, consisting of thirty-four (34) Siemens SWT -2.3- I 01 turbines
and delivering electricity to the PacifiCorp's system at the Point of Interconnection,
expected to be on-line Januar 1,2012.
Quantity The expected anual energy production of 213,729 MWh per year associated with the
Facilty is equal to the Net Output of the Facilty delivered for all hours at 28.0% net
, capacity factor. "Net Output" shall be the amount of energy flowing thrugh the Point of
Interconnection, less any sttion use, transformation and losses not provided by the
Facilty. PacifiCorp is purchasing all wind-generated Net Output from the Facilty.
Term Twenty years.
Commercial On-line Date is Januar i, 2012 and Agreement terminates December 31,
2031.
Qualifying Seller shall warant that the Facilty is and shall for the term of this Agreement continue to
Facilty be a qualifying facilty ("QF") as that term is defined in the version of section 201 and 210
Certification of the Public Utilty Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 796 and 824a-3
in effect on the date of Seller's fiing of self-certificaion of QF status with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC'').
Product All of the Facilty's unit contingent energy delivered to PacifiCorp's system at the Point of
Interconnection.Seller agrees to deliver energy for all Delivery Hours with a minimum
85% Mechanical Availabilty Guarantee ("MAG"). Any positive difference between the
volume of energy expected at the 85% MAG and the Actul Delivered Energy is "Shortfall
Energy".
Delivery Hours The hours of delivery shall be from hour 01 though hour 24 (Pacific Prevailng Time) all
days during the Term, with the exception of Maintenance Schedules agreed upon by both
paries.On-peak Hours are defined as hour ending 0600 to hour ending 2200 Pacific
Prevailng Time Monday through Satuay, excluding NERC holidays.All hours other
than On-peak Hours are defined as Off-peak Hours. When a holiday falls on a Saturday or
Sunday, the Friday before the holiday (if the holiday falls on a Saturday) or the Monday
following the holiday (if the holiday falls on a Sunday) wil be the holiday and wil be Off-
peak.
Point of Point of Interconnection shall be the Goshen Substation on 345-kV line.
Interconnection
Interconnection PacifiCorp shall have no obligation to install or maintain any interconnection facilties on
Requirements Seller's side of the Point of Interconnection.PacifiCorp shall not pay any costs arising
Confidential PacifiCorp proposal to Cedar Creek Wind
Cedar Creek Wind
QF Power Purchase Agreement Termsbeet
April 5, 2010
from Seller interconnecting its Facilty at the Point of Interconnection.
Network Seller shall cause PacifiCorp to receive writtn acceptance frm PacifiCorp's trsmission
Resource fuction that the transaction wil be accepted, without contingencies, as firm network
Designation resource pursuant to PacifiCorp's FERC pro-forma network transmission ageement.
Delivery Rate Seller shall sell and deliver and PacifiCorp shall purchase and receive all Net Output at the
Point of Interconnection during all Delivery Hours.Table 1 contains Seller's estimate
monthly energy deliveries.Seller shall not sell any Net Output from the Facilty to any
third pary during the Term.
Table 1 - Estimated Energy Deliveries in MWh
Month Estimated Energy Deliveries, MWh
Januar 16,998
Februar 16,934
March 19,374
April 16,829
May 16,581
June 17,026
July 16,293
August 18,138
September 17,323
October 18,219
November 20,027
December i 9,986
Delivered Delivered Output (MW/h) shall be the measured energy at the Generation Meter but not to
Output exceed Nameplate Capacity Rating.
Operation,Seller shall operate and maintain the Facilty in a safe maner in accordance with thisControl and
Curtailment Agreement, the Interconnection Agreement, Prudent Electrical Practices and in acordance
with the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local laws and the National
Electric Safety Code as such laws and code may be amended from time to time.
PacifiCorp shall not be obligated to purchase, receive, pay for, or pay any damages
associated with, Net Output (or associated Production Tax Credits or Environmental
Attributes) if such Net Output (or associated Production Tax Credits or Environmental
Attributes) is not delivered to the System or Point of Delivery due to any of the following:
(a) the interconnection between the Facilty and the System is disconnected, suspended or
interrpted, in whole or in par, consistent with the ters of the Generation Interconnection
Agreement, (b) the Transmission Provider directs a genera curlment, reduction, or
.redispatch of generation in the area (which would include the Net Output) for any reason,
even if such curilment or redispatch directive is cared out bv PacifiCorp, which may
Confidential PacifiCorp proposal to Cear Crek Wind
Net Monthly
Delivery Hours
Cedar Creek Wind
QF Power Purchase Agreement Termsheet
April 5, 2010 .
fulfill such directive by acting in its sole discretion; or if PacifiCorp curtails or otherwse
reduces the Net Output in order to meet its obligations to the Transmission Provider to
schedule within system limits, (c) the Facilty's Output is not received because the Facilty
is not fully integrated or synchronized with the System, or (d) an event of Force Majeure
prevents either Party from delivering or receiving Net Output.
Seller shall promptly provide PacifiCorp with access to such information and data as
PacifiCorp may reaonably require to confirm to its reasnable satisfaction the amount of
energy that was not generated or delivered because of a curtailment.
Net Monthly Delivery Hours (Hrs) are defined, for a given contract month, as all the
Delivery Hours in the month less any Delivery Hours that occur during agreed upon
Maintenance Schedules.
Mechanical
Availabilty
Contract
Contract Price
Confidential
"Mechanical Availabilty" means, for any Biling Period, the ratio, expressed as a
percentage, of (x) the aggregate sum of the turbine-minutes in which each of the Wind
Turbines at the Facility was available to generate at the Maximum Facilty Delivery Rate
during the Biling Period over (y) the product of the number of Wind Turbines that
comprise the Facilty Capacity Rating as of Commercial Operation multiplied by the
number of minutes in such Biling Period. A Wind Turbine shall be deemed not available
to operate during minutes in which it is (a) in an emergency, stop, service mode or pause
state; (b) in "ru" status and faulted; or (c) otherwse not operational or capable of
delivering at the Maximum Facility Delivery Rate to the Point of Interconnection; unless if
unavailable due solely to (i) a default by PacifiCorp; (ii) a curilment to the extent not
caused by Seller's actions; or (iii) insuffcient wind (including the normal amount of time
required by the generating equipment to resume operations following a period when wind
speed is below the Cut-In Wind Speed).
The transaction shall be documented pursuant to a Quifying Facilty Power Purchase
Agreement, and all amounts due pursuant thereto shall be netted against all other
transactions between PacifiCorp and Seller pursuant to the Power Purchae Agreement.
Obligations of PacifiCorp and PacifiCorp's transmission fuction shall be contractually
segregated.
PacifiCorp agrees pay to the Seller the On-peak Price during On-peak Hours and the Off-
peak Price during Off-peak Hours for all delivered energy during the Term, determined by
the hourly validation of Generation metering as defined in Metering Requirements.
Delivered energy prior to the Commercial On-line Date wil be paid the Off-Peak Hour
Contract Price.
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
HLH
$47.78
$50.91
$55.42
$59.22
$66.07
LLH
$22.74
$25.26
$26.56
$27.06
$33.69
PacifiCorp proposal to Cedar Creek Wind
Cedar Creek Wind
QF Power Purchase Agreement Termsheet
April 5,2010
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
$69.61
$72.18
$72.31
$73.50
$79.11
$84.91
$80.81
$79.24
$82.88
$84.58
$83.42
$85.61
$88.29
$90.79
$92.80
$36.84
$35.79
$36.35
$36.83
$42.40
$46.06
$45.01
$45.01
$51.40
$55.20
$57.27
$59.91
$66.39
$70.39
$74.05
Replacement
Price
Replacement Price means the price to replace Net Output when Seller incurs Shortfall
Damages or when Seller defaults. Replacement Price shall be the Mid-Columbia market
price plus the cost of firm transmission, if required, from the trading hub associated with
the index price to the Point of Interconnection.
Curtailment
Delay Damages In the event the Commercial Operation Date occurs one (1) or more days after Scheduled
Commercial Operation Date, Seller shall pay PacifiCorp Delay Damages, equal to the
positive difference, if any, obtaned by subtracting the Contract Price from the
Replacement Price, plus PacifiCorp's administrative expenses, for any Shortfall Energy
until the Commercial Operation Date is achieved.
Shortfall
Damages
Access Rights
In the event the Seller fails to achieve a MAG of 85%, Seller shall pay PacifiCorp Shortfall
Damages equal to the positive difference, if any, obtained by subtracting the Contract Price
from the Replacement Price, plus PacifiCorp's administrative expenses, for any Shortfall
Energy.
Seller shall grant to PacifiCorp for the term of this Agreement all necessar access to
instal, operate, maintain, replace, and remove PacifiCorp's metering equipment,
interconnection facilties, and other equipment necessary or useful to this Agreement,
including adequate and continuing access rights on property of Seller. Seller shall warant
that it has procured suffcient access rights from third paies so as to provide PacifiCorp
with the access described above. All documents granting such access rights shall be
subject to PacifiCorp's approval and in recordable form.
Confidential PacifiCorp proposal to Cedar Crek Wind
Credit
Cedar Creek Wind
QF Power Purchase Agreement Termsheet
April 5,2010
Subject to adequate credit provisions as allowed by the Idaho Public Utilty Commission
and approved by PacifiCorp Credit Deparment. PacifiCorp shall have, to the maximum
extent permitted under applicable law, the right to set off any amounts it owes Seller under
this transaction against any amounts owed by Seller to PacifiCorp.
Seller shall provide a Motive Force Plan demonstrating the availabilty of its wind for the
term of this Agrement.
Seller shall provide evidence of insurance conforming to the requirements of PacifiCorp's
QF Power Puchase Agrement.
Subject to the approval by both Parties senior management.
Motive Force
Plan
Insurance
Approval
This Confdential Non-Binding Summary of Principal Commercial Terms ("Term Sheet ") is preliminar and is intended to set forth
certain basic terms and to serve as a basis for discussion and negotiation between the Parties with respect to the potential transaction
described herein (the "Transaction "). This Term Sheet does not contain all matters upon which agreement must be reached in order
for the Transaction to be completed The matters set forth in this Term Sheet are not intended to and do not constitute a binding
agreement of the parties or establish any obligation of the Parties with respect to the Transaction, and the Term Sheet may not be
relied upon by a Party as the basis for a contract by estoppel or otherwise. A binding agreement wil arise only upon the negotiation,
execution and delivery of mutually satisfactory definitve agreements and the satisfaction of the conditons set forth therein, including
completion of due dilgence and the approval of such agreements and the Transaction by the respective governing body(ies) and
management of each Party, which approval shall be in the sole subjective discretion of the respective governing body(ies) and
management.
Confidential PacifiCorp proposal to Cedar Creek Wind
-,-
"
-
,
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ho
u
r
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
e
Se
p
Oe
t
No
v
De
c
(M
P
T
)
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
MW
/
h
0
73
8
80
3

_
_
__

7
9
2
76
0
69
8
37
4
77
5
69
4
83
0
1,
1
2
0
82
8
90
4
I
83
2
79
1
_
75
5
89
1
63
6
42
6
68
7
67
9
78
2
1,
0
0
4
84
7
89
7
2
87
8
80
2
70
9
80
7
65
8
47
7
64
7
72
6
82
8
1,
0
3
3
88
9
88
4
"'-
-
-
'
"
,
.
3
85
3
82
1
71
4
82
1
65
3
54
0
61
8
70
9
80
1
1,
0
1
8
90
7
88
2
_
_
4
80
9
78
4
82
1
79
2
73
9
61
5
53

I
68
7
82
7
99
6
89
8
96
7
--
--
,
-
-,
.
_
-
-
_
.
_
-
'
.
.
_
_
.
"
.
_
.
,
"
.
--
-
5
80
5
77
5
89
2
75
7
72
7
63
6
52
8
64
6
80
0
80
9
91
0
95
1
~-
-
,
-
6
76
1
74
0
80
0
78
5
72
7
63
1
56
6
66
8
80
1
86
0
96
0
96
5
--
-
-
-
-
7
77
2
70
1
74
0
79
8
54
6
44
5
39
5
62
7
87
0
75
7
96
6
92
0
,."
_
.
-
8
85
3
76
8
80
9
70
3
38
3
47
7
28
6
47
5
75
8
83
6
95
4
88
2
9
92
2
74
8
84
1
68
3
34
8
42
3
21
3
37
6
57
8
64
4
86
8
81
2
f-
-
-
-
-
-
~-
~
"
-
---
-
"
"
.
~
.
_
-
,
-
_
.

~
"
'
~
10
73
9
70
4
84
8
63
5
38
5
49
2
25
3
40
7
36
6
48
0
76
5
76
9
--

-
-'~
-
'
-
-
-
'
.
_
-
---
ii
62
1
63
6
80
7
64
5
52
2
58
1
28
4
59
9
49
5
43
7
74
4
79
1
--
-
-
-
-
1-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
--
-
-
'

.
12
65
3
55
8
74
6
61
7
64
9
86
5
53
4
71
0
54
3
43
9
74
4
80
4
--
-
-
-
13
73
4
52
8
79
2
71
9
71
2
1,
0
4
0
73
3
79
4
69
4
43
5
73
0
76
5
14
62
6
53

I
87
0
71
0
78
8
1,
0
7
1
78
7
95
3
80
3
42
7
72
1
75
5
-
-
-
-
15
61
2
54
9
86
2
64
3
84
5
1,
1
0
2
87
8
93
7
84
9
50
0
70
3
73
2
--
-
16
64
1
55
1

_
_

_
_
85
0
56
6
79
7
1,
0
3
6
1,
0
5
8
94
6
82
6
60
7
74
3
73
0
-
17
50
1
70
6
87
0
53
9
75
0
1,
0
1
8
1,
1
0
6
1,
0
8
6
67
9
52
1
84
9
72
0
-
18
51
9
70
5
86
9
55
5
81
7
1,
0
5
3
I,
i
~
_
_
_
_
-
1,
1
0
5
64
8
62
6
81
8
72
2
19
53
9
67
7
86
8
67
6
92
0
1,
0
5
2
1,
0
1
5

_
91
3
65
7
83
2
81
0
79
6
20
65
9
72
7
73
8
69
5
90
5
94
2
89
3
80
3
66
3
84
9
75
3
75
8
21
68
6
81
1
72
8
71
9
77
2
73
1
81
9
85
5
70
6
88
5
81
9
82
5
22
60
4
77
2
80
6
68
8
85
5
56
3
80
8
90
5
69
4
1,
0
2
4
90
6
88
0
23
64
0
74
5
84
6
62
5
74
9
43
3
75
3
83
8
82
4
1,
0
8
0
89
7
87
4
TO
T
A
L
16
,
9
9
8
16
.
9
3
4
19
,
3
7
4
16
.
8
2
9
16
,
S
S
I
17
,
0
2
6
16
.
2
9
3
18
,
1
3
8
17
,
3
2
3
18
.
2
1
9
20
,
0
2
7
19
,
9
8
6
21
3
,
7
2
9
1
Ce
d
a
r

C
r
e
e
k

W
i
n
d
QF

P
o
w
e
r

P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

T
e
r
m
s
h
e
e
t
AD
r
i
l

5.

20
1
0
Co
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pa
c
i
f
i
C
o
r
p

p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

t
o

C
e
d
a
r

C
r
e
e
k

W
i
n
d
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-11-01
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-I1-03
Case No. PAC-E-11-04
Case No. PAC-E-I1-05
ATTACHMENT 5
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
~ENERGY .~~MIT~OWER
ÇJote Hill Wind. LLC
May 12,2010
VL4 EMAIL: bruce.grswQld~paificoQ?com
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp, Inc.
825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 600
Portland OR 97232
RE: Coyote Hil Wind, LLC
Dear Bruce:
Coyote Hil Wind, LLC (CHW), an affliate of Cedar Creek Wind, LLC (Cedar Creek),
would like to enter into an Idaho PUC compliant Qualifying Facilty (QF) Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) with PacifiCorp. We are hereby requesting that PacifiCorp consider this as a
formal request for an offer to purchase power from CHW by PacifiCorp pursuant to a small
PURPA resource agreement that is compliant with Idaho state regulatory requirements and
PacifiCorp's approved PURPA rates in Idaho for non-fueled (renewable) resources of size 10
aMW or less. As we discussed in general at our meeting of March 24, 2010, CHW is one of the
. five wind projects being developed by Cedar Creek Wind, LLC, in the Goshen area near Idaho
Falls, Idaho. Each of the five projects is separated by a mile or more from each other, and each
wil be filing a similar request with you.
In July, 2009, Cedar Creek received from PacifiCorp a System Impact Study Report
(SIS) for the aggregated interconnection of the five Cedar Creek QF generation projects,
including CHW. Cedar Creek and the five affliated QF projects, including CHW, wil be
entering into a transmission and interconnection participation agreement which wiJ include a
proportional assignment of the SIS, the resultant LGIA, and its benefits from Cedar Creek to
CHW.
You have advised me that PacifiCorp Merchant services (the buyer of the PURPA
resource output) wil require that PacifiCorp Transmission services grant a "Network Resource"
(NR) designation to this CHW generator as part of the PURPA resource contracting process. As
we discussed earlier this week, PacifiCorp Transmission has increased capacity to accept
transmission load from the Goshen Substation due to the addition of the Three Mile Knoll
Substation to the PacifiCorp system. As such, a NR designation for CHW by PacifiCorp
Transmission may be possible without the need for any system upgrades.
Additionally, as we discussed earlier this week, please be aware that Cedar Creek Wind
has executed a firm PTP TSR (AREF#599599) with PacifiCorp Transmission. This PTP path
extends from Goshen (POI) to Mona (PACE). Our understanding is that with the project LGIA
and the foregoing PTP services, a NR designation by PacifiCorp Transmission should be
possible. Cedar Creek would like to preserve this PTP for additional development. Please be
advised and please also advise PacifiCorp Transmission Services i that if a NR designation for
CHW cannot be achieved without the withdrawal of this PTP, then Cedar Crek wil withdraw
and terminate its request for PTP service to Mona (A REF #599599) if such path is required to
achieve the NR designation for CHW or other affliated PURPA projects being developed by
Cedar Creek.
You have also advised me that PacifiCorp generally follows the procedures outlined in
Utah PSCU Schedule No. 38(1)(B)(2) for contracting QF power purhases; even though such
schedule is not applicable to Idaho QF purchases by PacifiCorp. In that regard, Attachment J
hereto is that (B)(2) checklist. It is my belief that CHW is now in full compliance with that
checklist.
At your earliest convenience could you please modify your standard Idaho PURPA
contract template to be CHW project specific, using the information contained on the Attchment
and the new avoided cost rates, as recently established by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
As we have advised you, time is of the essence in moving forward with contracts for the
CHW project; due to the Stimulus Act incentives requiring a certin level of construction activity
in 2010. In order to commence construction, we need a completed contract with PAC as soon as
possible. lor a member or our team wil be in contact with you soon to discuss next steps related
to finalizing a small PURPA resource contract for CHW.
We hope we have demonstrated our good faith in meeting with you and advising you of
the issues we are facing in order to bring on line this wind project and the collective group of
Cedar Creek Wind projects. In return for the time we have spent over the course of the last four
months in attempting to work through some complex structural and transmission issues with you,
we now feel compelled to ask for your expedited response to our request for a "first" contract
draft for the CHW project.
Thank you for your attention to the matters requested above.
Sincerely,~C~
Dana C. Zentz, P.E.
Vice President
Cedar Creek Wind, LLC
Summit Power Group, Inc.
i Cedar Creek Wind has prior executed a waiver of confidentiality relating to discussion of
transmission details between PAC Merchant and PAC Transmission services for this PTP TSR
and the associated PURP A projects being developed by Cedar Creek.
Coyote Hil Wind. LlC Page 2
Attachment 1
General Project information required by PacifiCorp for Qualifying Facilties
in Idaho
Project Name:Coyote Hil Wind, LLC
a. Generation Technology
- Wind Turbines
- Siemens 2300 kW
-60 Hz
b. Design Capacity
- I I Turbines
- Nameplate Capacity: 25,300 kW
Net Power Capacity
- 31 % Net Capacity Factor (Annual - Site)
- 68,704 MWHRs/year (Annual- Site)
-7.84 aMW (Annual- Site)
- Less than 10 aMW
Station Service Requirements
- Wil request electrical service from PacifiCorp
- -: 500 kW
c. Monthly Power Deliverables
Month MWHRs aMW
Total
Jan 6807 9. I I
Feb 5217 7.73
Mar 6658 8.90
Aor 7224 9.98
Mav 4940 6.61
Jun 5438 7.51
Jul 4053 5.42
Aug 5463 7.30
Seot 4541 6.27
Oct 5637 7.54
Nov 6618 9.14
Dec 6107 8.17
Coyote Hil Wind, LLC Page 3
Dispatch Capability
- Wind QF, generally non-dispatchable as Subject to intermittency of wind
resource
- Partial dispatchabilty available through system redispateh and generation
curtilment
d. Proposed Site Location
- Goshen, Idaho
- 43° 19' Latitude, 112° 02' Longitude
Electrical Interconnection Point
- PacifiCorp Goshen Substation
- 345 kV
-Project has received firm PTP pursuant to AREF#599599 with PacifiCorp
-If aN R designation for CHW cannot be achieved without the withdrawal of the
PTP mentioned above, the PTP wil be withdrawn in favor ofNR designation.
-Project LGIA at Goshen is under final negotiation between QF Owner and Pac
Transmission services.
e. Proposed On-Line Date
- On or before October 1,2012
Outstanding Permitting Requirements
- Bingham County, Idaho - Building Permits
- FAA Permits
f. Demonstration of Abilty of Obtain QF Status
- QF has consulted FERC and is in the process of submitting QF SelfCertification
- Project meets all PURP A - QF Requirements
g. Fuel Types and Sources
- Renewable, wind is source of generation
h. Plans for Fuel and Transportation Agreements
- N/ A; no transportble fuel-
i. Proposed Contract Term
- 20 years, non-Ievelized
Pricing Provisions
- Idaho Public Utilties Commission - Surrogate Avoided Resource Rates
- Contract Year: 2012
j. Status of Interconnection Agreements
- QF wil interconnect with PacifiCorp
- Developer has fractional interest in Large Generation Interconnection Request
and System Impact Study Report of Project No. Q0255, dated July 22, 2009.
- See above at "Electrical Interconnection Point" for further pertinent detaiL.
Coyote Hil Wind. LLC Page 4
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIN LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-01
Case No. P AC-E-I1-02
Case No. PAC-E-I1-03
Case No. PAC-E-11-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 6
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
.Cedar Creek Small PURP A Documents for PacifiCorp Page i of2
Griswold, Bruce (Mkt Function) (Bruce.Griswold~PacifiCorp.comi
Friday, May 21,20103:45 PM
Dana Zentz
Tom Cameron; Ronald Willams; Scott Montgomery; Steve Montgomery - private e-mail; Younie,
John; Ken Kaufmann
Subject: RE: Cedar Creek Small PURPA Documents for PacifiCorp
Attachments: Steep Ridge Wind PPA requirements. doc; Coyote Hil Wind PPA requirements.doc; Five Pine
Wind PPA requirements. doc; North Point Wind PPA requirements.doc; Rattlesnake Canyon Wind
PPA requirements. doc
Dana
We have reviewed the five PURPA contract reuest and atthed ar our review with comments
and additional information requests.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Øv th irn is suftent to ben dnofea PPA, however there ar a couple of
items to note:
i. We would like a generation production for each project not th jus relicating the sae
one for each project. I am assuming you wat the most accurte prfile and output to be
reflective of performance at the site under the MAG performance criteria.
2. We will nee to ensur we document the intercnnection, point of delivery, meteng
points for each project correctly in order to captu line losse frm metenn point to th
POD.
W.e have 0\1 attornys working on a dr PPA for one project. i ex it woki bo rey for
circulation late ne week afr inte re he. I would prpose we review and redlie on
one PPA. Once we have agred language, we would populate for the othe PPAs and do a fmal
review.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-8 i 3-52 i 8 Offce
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
From: Dana Zentz (mailto:dzentz(gsummitpwer.com)
sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Griswold, Bruce rMkt Function)
Cc: Tom cameron; Ronald Willams; Scott Montgomery; Stee Montgomery - private e-mail
Subjec: cear Crek Small PURPA Documents for PacifiCorp
Hi Bruce,
Attached please find applications and certifications relating to 5 small PURPA wind projects which are
under development by Cedar Creek Wind, LLC. these five projects represent a reconfiguration of the
Cedar Creek Small PURP A Documents for PacifiCorp.Page 2 of2
wind turbines on what was previously known as the Cedar Creek Wind project. We now have this site broken
into 5 unique small PURPA projects and wish to immediately begin discussions with PacifiCorp regarding a power
purchase agreement for each.
I wil look forward to speaking with you next week about this.
Best
Dana Zentz,
Vice President
Summit Power Group, Inc.
Cedar Creek Wind, LLC
2006 E. Westminster
Spokane, WA 99223
www.summitpower.com
509-448-7589
1/11/2011
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIN LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. P AC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-I1-04
Case No. P AC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 7
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
Meeting - Cedar Creek Page 1 of i
From: Griswold, Bruce tMkt FunctionJ (Bruce.Griswold~PacifiCorp.com)
Sent: Thursday, Ser SO. 2010 10:12 AM
To: Dana Zentz
Cc: Ronald Wiliams; Scott Montgomery; Wade Riser; Tom Cameron; 'Ken Kaufmann'
Subject: RE: Meeting - Cedar Creek
Dan
My schedule looks best for Tuesday / Wednesdy 10/12-13. l .....,,.I__".¥i.
the-p ~ .. they lok ooJete. I should be sending you a matx by project of
anyting missing. I woul also lik to schedule a shrt cal lat ne we 10 do a "h~¥iew
on intercoan an trison e&ity toeDur every is lùi up"' so th as we
finalize thPP As, merchant can request network resoure designation for the projects. I will
arange a call-in number including our merchat transmission prourment persn as well as Pac
Trans. Your waiver will cover the caL.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-813-5218 Offce
503-702- 1445 Cell
503.8 J 3-6260 Fax
From: Dana Zentz (mailt:dzentz(Qsummitpower.com)
sent: Wednesay, september 29,20108:10 PM
To: Griswold, Bruce tMkt Functon)
Cc: Ronald Wiliams; Sctt Montgomery; Wade Riser; Tom cameron
Subjec: Meeting - cedar Creek
Hi Bruce....could you please nominate times in the next two weeks when we might get together
and begin the discussion of the PPA terms? I'm out of pocket on Monday & Tuesday next
week, but otherwise can try to make a meeting if you are available...please advise.
Either Salt Lake or Portland location is fine with our side.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. PAC-E-11-04
Case No. P AC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 8
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Dana Zentz (mai!t:dzummitr,CQl
sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:25 AM
To: Ken Kaufmann
Cc: Griswold, Bruce ~Mkt Funcionl; SCott Montgomery; Heather Redman; Robert Gavahan; Tom
Cameron; Jeff Brown
Subjec: Re: Confirming logistics
Hi Ken....the draft agreement is attached, with our final comments. We have nothing
further, other than what is annotated herein.
From: Ken Kaufmann c:kaufmann(llKlaw.com~
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:42:59 -0800
To: Dana Zentz c:dzentz(lsummitpower.com~
Cc: Bruce Griswold c:bruce.griswold(gpaclficorp.com~, Scott Montgomery
C:scott(gwesternener8Y.us~, Heather Redman c:hredmanl!summÎtgwr.com)., Bob
Gavahan c:rgavahan(§summitpower.com~, Tom Cameron
c:tcameron(9summitpower.com~, Jeff Brown c:ibrownl!summltoower,com).
Subject: Re: Confirming logistics
Hello Dana,
Attached please find a proposed final redline for Coyote Hill, Will you
please review my red lines and return a draft with all agreed-to redlines
accepted, and any new changes shown in redline? In particular, will you
please confirm that my calculation of average kW, in Section 4.3,1, is
correct. Will you please confirm that the data in the exhibits are correct?
I will substitute full size copies of the data tables in the Exhibits of the
executed PPA,
When we agree that the Coyote HIll PPA is final, we will commence preparing
the other four PPAs using Coyote Hill as a template. Your schedule of turning
by the end of today would work well from our perspective.
Sincerely,
Ken
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION)
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-11-01
Case No. P AC-E-II-02
Case No. P AC-E-II-03
Case No. P AC-E-II-04
Case No. P AC-E-11-05
ATTACHMENT 9
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Dana Zentz .:dzentzl!summltDower.com;:
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:46:14 -0800
To: Bruce Griswold .:bruce.griswoldl!paçificom.com::, Scott Montgomery
o(scottl!westernenergy.us;:
Cc:Ken Kaufmann .:kaufmanndlLKLaw.com::, Carl Barton .:cbartnl!hollandhart.com;:
Subject: Re: Checking in - Cedar Creek PPA execution
Thank you Bruce...
We are very keen to keep our PPA execution on the schedule we have discussed and
agreed with you prior.....which would get the PPA's executed before the end of next
week. I take it from your message below that you stil see this as possible and likely.
wil look forward to speaking with you Monday...or even late today if possible?
We are prepared to come to Portland next week so that Scott Montgomery can execute
the agreements in person on behalf of Cedar Creek and we can avoid any delay due to
execution in "counterparts". Please let me know ifthat is workable and we wil make
Scott's travel plans for the appropriate day.
Best,
Dana Zentz,
Vice President
Summit Power Group, Inc.
200 E. Westminster
Spokane, WA 99223
ww.summitpower.com
509-448-7589
From: Bruce Griswold -(bruce.grlswoldt!Dacificorp.com;:
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:48:09 -0800
To: Dana Zentz -(dzentzt!summitpower.com;:, Scott Montgomery
-(scottCewesternenerBV.UV
Cc: Ken Kaufman -(kaufmannt!LKLaw.çOm;:
Subject: RE: Checking in
DanaI Scott
Our approval process has slowed a bit specific to Coyote Hil. Ou credit folks ar going
to process all five PPAs for creit approval Monday versus doing them one at a time.
That will push the execution back a couple of days on Coyote Hil but accelerate the
others so we should be now moving towad execution of all 5 PPAs within th sae tiefre.
I will call you Monday on staus as well as discussing how to make the trfer on th
PTP trmission.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-8 i 3-52 i 8 Offce
503-702- i 445 Cell
503-8 i 3-6260 Fax
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-I1-01
Case No. P AC-E-II-02
Case No. P AC-E-I1-03
Case No. P AC-E-11-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 10
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
Re: Follow up to my voice mail earlier today Page 1 of2
From: Dana Zentz (dzentz~ummitpower.com)
Sent: Tuesday, D867, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Bruce Griswold; Ken Kaufmann
Cc: Scott Montgomery; Carl Barton
Subject: Re: Follow up to my voice mail earlier today
Thank you Bruce. I'll try to call you later today.
From: Bruce Griswold oebruce.grlswldClpaciflcorp.com::
Date: Tuei 7 Dec 2010 08:40:37 -0800
To: Dana Zentz (;dzentzl§summitpower.com::i Ken Kaufmann oekauannl!LKLaw.com::
Cc: Scott Montgomery oescottt§westernenergy.us::1 Carl Barton c:cbartonClhollandhart.com::
Subject: RE: Follow up to my voice mail earlier today
Dana, sorry I missed your call yesterday. I can talk after 330PM Pacfic time.
we'arf*l"tl~. Credit should have theirs finalized for all projec
tomorrow. Weei to ha all ppAsaAd dømetsFe fe yo fi,ev8l ch 01
voles, etc. by Wednesday. We wil send out for review as they are finalized.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C& T
503-813-5218 Office
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
From: Dana Zentz (mallt:dzntz~summit.coml
sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:00 PM
To: Griswold, Bruce -(Mkt Funetion~; Ken Kaufmann
Cc: Scott Montgomery; Carl Bartn
Subject: Follow up to my voice mail earlier today
Hi Bruce,
Wanted to follow up to my voice mail to you earlier today. Would like to discuss, as we had
planned late last weeki the logistics of finalizing the PPA's for the Cedar Creek PURPA
projects.....and also the REC ownership letter draft that we provided you last week.
Re: Follow up to my voice mail earlier today
~
Do you have a time available on Tuesday afternoon (later is better) for such a call?
Please let me know.
Dana Zentz,
Vice President
Summit Power Group, Inc.
2006 E. Westminster
Spokane, WA 99223
www.summitpower.com
509-448-7589
1111/2011
Page 2 of2
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RMP AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. PAC-E-II-02
Case No. PAC-E-II-03
Case No. P AC-E-II-04
Case No. PAC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 11
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Griswold, Bruæ tMkt Function)
sent: Th, De., 2010 4:35 PM
To: 'Dana Zentz'; 'Scott Montgomery'; 'carl Bartn'
Subjec: RE: cear Creek PPAs 2nd email
Secnd of tw emails.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C& T
503-81 3-5218 Office
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
From: Griswold, Bruæ tMkt Function)
sent: Thursay, Dember 09, 2010 4:30 PM
To: 'Dana Zentz'; Scott Montgomery; 'carl Barton'
Subjec: FW: Cear Crek PPAs
First of tw emails.
Please find the attched finals on each PPA. Note that we have no incud Exhibi a-
L.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C& T
503-813-5218 Office
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICA nON )
OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR )
APPROVAL OF POWER PURCHASE )
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RM AND )
CEDAR CREEK WIND LLC )
)
)
)
Case No. PAC-E-II-0l
Case No. PAC-E-11-02
Case No. PAC-E-I1-03
Case No. P AC-E-11-04
Case No. P AC-E-II-05
ATTACHMENT 12
TO
AFFIDAVIT OF DANA ZENTZ
From: Griswold, Bruce ~Mkt Function! (mailto:Bruæ.Griswold(§PacifiCorp.com)
sent: Tuesay, Dember 21, 2010 5:02 PM
To: Dana Zentz; Scott Montgomery
Cc: tarl Barton; Kelly Fennert Goodman; Ken Kaufmann; Ron Williams; Jeff Brown; carol
Loughlin
Subjec: RE: cear Creek PPAs - Execute
Would Kelley be available to come by and sign? that would save a few days of
transport. I am in remainder of week.
We will send the PDF of my signtue pages tody.
We ar using the recital page with a Deembe 22, 2010 date wh we wer able to
execute but the filing to the Idao PUC will establish your LEO date as 12/131201 0 pnor
to the 12/14/2010 deadline.
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-813-5218 Offce
503-702-1445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax
From: Dana Zentz (mailto:dzentz(Qsummitpower.com)
sent: Tuesy, Deember 21,20103:14 PM
To: Griswold, Bruce ~Mkt Function!; Scott Montgomery
Cc: carl Barton; Kelly Fennert Godman; Ken Kaufmnn; Ronald Wiliams; Jef Brown; carol
Loughlin
SUbjec: Re: Cedar Crek PPAs - Executed
Thanks Bruce...good news!
Please send the original signature pages to:
Kelly Goodman, VP,
General Counsel
Summit Power Group, Inc.
2026 NE Mason St.
Portland, OR 97211
i would appreciate an electronic copy of the PDF's signature pages as well.
Best,
Dana C. Zentz, P.E.
Vice President
Summit Power Group
509-448-7589
509-954-4103 mobile
From: Bruce Griswold ~bruce.Brlswoldt!pacifcorp.com"
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:29:56 -0800
To: Dana Zentz ~dzentztlsumm!tower.com~, Scott Montgomery ~sçottl!westemenerø.up
Cc: Carl Barton ~cbarton(lhollandhart.com;i, Kelly Goodman ~kgod,nt!summitwer.com~,
Ken Kaufmann ~kaufmann(llKlaw.com;i
Subject: Cedar Creek PPAs
I have received executive approval for execution of the PPAs. I wil be signing today and
provide a PDF of the signature page. I would like to provide two originals for signature
so that we each have one signed originaL. Where should I send the originals?
Bruce Griswold
PacifiCorp C&T
503-8 i 3-5218 Offce
503-702- i 445 Cell
503-813-6260 Fax