20150611Kalich Rebuttal.pdf

Avleta Corp.
141 1 East Mission P.O. Bctx3727
Spokane. Washington 99220-0500
Telephone [phone]
, Toll Free 800-727-9170
June 10,2015
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P O Box 83720
Boise,lD 83720-0074
RE: Case Nos. AVU-E-15-01, IPC-E-15-01 and PAC-E-15-03
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Avista Corporation, doing business as Avista Utilities respectfully submits for filing with the
Commission an original and nine (9) copies of the Rebuttal Testimony of Clint Kalich in the
above referenced cases.
Please direct any questions on this matter to Michael Andrea" Sr. Counsel at [phone].
Patick Ehrbar
Manager, Rates & Tariffs
Enclosures
CC : Service List
GERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that ! have this 10h day of June, 2015, served Avista's Rebuttal
Testimony in Docket No. AVU-E-15-01 upon the following parties, through electronic mail
and/or mailing a copy thereof, properly addressed with postage prepaid to:
Jean D Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission Statehouse
Boise, lD 83720-5983
Jean. iewell@puc. idaho. oov
COMi'IISSION STAFF
Donald Howell
Daphne Huang
Deputy Attorneys General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise, !D 83702-0659
donald. howel l@puc. idaho.oov
daphne. huano@puc. idaho.qov
J. R. Simplot Company and Glearwater Paper
Peter J. Richardson
Greg M. Adams
Richardson Adams
515 N.27th Street
PO Box7218
Boise, lD 83702
peter@richardsonadams. com
[e-mail]
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ldaho 83703
[e-mail]
Carol Haugen
Carol. hauoen@clearwaterpaper. com
lntermountain Energy Partners LLC; AgPower DCD; and AgPower Jerome, LLC
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420W. Bannock St.
PO Box 2564-83701
Boise, lD 83701-2564
ioe@mcdevitt-miller. com
heather@mcdevitt-m il ler. com
lntermountain Energy Partners, LLC
Leif Elgethun, LEED AP
P. O. Box 7354
Boise, ldaho 83707
leif@sitebasedenerov. com
AgPower DCD, LLC and AgPower Jerome, LLC
Andrew Jackura
Camco Clean Energy
9360 Station Street, Suite 375
Lone Tree, CO 80124
Andrew. iackura@camcocleanenerov. com
ldaho Gonservation League and Sierra Club
Benjamin J. Otto
!daho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
Boise, !D 83702
botto@idahoconservation. oro
Sierra Glub
Matt Vespa
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Matt. vespa@sierraclu b. orq
Snake River Alliance
Ken Miller
Clean Energy Program Director
km i i ler@snakeriveral I ian ce. oro
Pacificorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power
Daniel E. Solander
Yvonne R. Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Daniel. [e-mail]
Yvonne. hoq le@pacificorp. com
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Ted.weston@pacificorp. com
Data Request Response Center
Pacificorp
datareq uest@pacif icorp. com
Twin Falls Ganal Company, North Side CanalCompany, and American Falls Reservoir
District No.2
C. Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law ffices
802 West Bannock Street, Suite 900 (83702)
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ldaho 83701
Tom. arkoosh@arkoosh. com
ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Erin Cecil
Arkoosh Law Offices
Erin. cecil@arkoosh. com
Avista Gorporation
Michael G. Andrea
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue, MSC-23
Spokane, Washington 99202
Michael. [e-mail]
Clint Kalich
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Avenue, MSC-7
Spokane, Washingto n 99202
Clint. kalich@avistacorp. com
Li nd a. oerva is@avistacorp. com
ldaho lrrigation Pumpers Association, lnc.
Eric L. Olsen
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE & BAILEY CHARTERED
201 East Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ldaho 83204-1 391
[e-mail]
Anthony Yanke!
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, Ohio 44140
[e-mail]
Renewable Energy Goalition
Ronald L. Williams
WILLIAMS BRADBURY, P.C.
1015 West Hays Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
ron@williamsbradburv. com
lrion Sanger
SANGER LAW, P.C.
1117 SW 53rd Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97215
[e-mail]
The Amalgamated Sugar Company
Scott Dale Blickenstaff
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC
1951 South Saturn Way, Suite 100
Boise, ldaho 83702
sbl ickenstaff@am alsuoar. com
Micron Technology, lnc.
Richard E. Malmgren
Micron Technology, lnc.
800 South FederalWay
Boise, ldaho 83716
remalmqren@micron. com
Frederick J. Schmidt
Pamela S. Howland
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
377 South Nevada Street
Carson City, Nevada 89703
fschmidt@hollandhart. com
[e-mail]
Ecoplexus, lnc.
John R. Hammond, Jr.
FISHER PUSCH LLP
U.S. Bank Plaza, Seventh Floor
101 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 701 (83702)
P.O. Box 1308
Boise, ldaho 83701
[e-mail]
John Gorman
Ecoplexus, !nc.
650 Townsend Street, Suite 310
San Francisco, California 94103
[e-mail]
ldaho Power Gompany
Donovan E. Walker
ldaho Power Company
P. O. Box 70
Boise, !D 83707-0070
dwa lker@idahopower. com
dockets@idahopower. com
Patrick Ehrbar
Manager, Rates & Tariffs
MICHAEL ANDREA (ISB NO. 8308)
SENIOR COUNSEL
AVISTA CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 3127
1.41-1, EAST MISS]ON AVENUE
SPoKANE, WASHTNGTON 99220-3127
TELEPHONE: [phone]
EMAIL : michael- . andreaGavistacorp . com
ATTORNEY EOR AVISTA CORPORAT]ON
BEFORE trIIE IDAIIO PI'BI.IC T''ITIIJITTES COMMISSION
]N THE MATTER OE AVISTA
CORPORATION' S PETITION TO MOD]FY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURPA
AGREEMENTS
CASE NO. AVU-E-15-01
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY' S PETITION TO MODIEY TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OE PURPA
AGREEMENTS
CASE NO. IPC-E-15-01
IN THE MATTER OE ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER COMPANY' S PETITION TO MODIFY
TERMS AND CONDIT]ONS OF PURPA
AGREEMENTS
CASE NO. PAC-E-15-03
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CLINT KALICH
EOR AVISTA CORPORAT]ON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A. P1ease state your name, the name of your eq>Ioyer,
and your business address.
A. My name is Cl-int Kalich. T am employed by Avista
Corporatj-on ("Avista") at 1,41,1 East Mission Avenue, Spokane,
Washington.
A. Did you
proceeding?
provide direct testimony in this
A. Yes. T filed direct testimony in this proceeding
on beha.l-f of Avista Corporation on February 27, 201-5.
A. Please sumarize Avista's position in ttris case.
A. As stated in my direct testimony beginning on page
2 at line 222
Avista requests the Commission provide the Company the
same relief granted Idaho Power in Order No. 33222,
namely to limit the maximum required contract terms for
"IRP Methodology" wind and sol-ar PURPA contracts to
five (5) years. A term beyond five (5) years should be
an option for the utility in the event a favorabl-e
PURPA opportunity arises. Avista also requests that
the Commission provide the Company with any other
interim or final- rel-ief granted to any other utility
subject to PURPA in the State of Idaho.
A. Parties to this docket have introduced evidence
addressing many issues in addition to the issue of the
appropriate contract tem for Qualifying EaciJ.ities ("QFs").
Does Avista be].ieve the Comission should broaden ttre docket
beyond ttre issue of the appropriate contract term for QFs?
Kalich, Di-Reb 1
Avista Corporatlon
B
9
10
11
L2
13
1,4
15
t6
1,7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
2B
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
1,2
13
1-4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
A. No, Avista believes
exclusively on the issue of
for QFs , for reasons explai-ned
the Commission should focus
the appropriate contract term
a. Some parties to t}is
opening ttre IRP mathodology?
so?
bel-ow.
case appear to advocate re-
Does Avista see a need to do
A. No. fn Avista's view, the existing avoided cost
methodology works wel-I. The IRP methodology allows Avista to
account for its needs whi1e providing QEs an avoided cost
rate that reflects Avista's actual avoided cost. Further,
there is insufficient information in the record for the
Commission to make an informed determination on any changes
to the IRP Methodology. In the event that the Commission
decides to revisit the IRP Methodology, a new generic docket
should be inltiated for that purpose to ensure that aI1
parties have an opportunity to develop a complete record.
However, I emphasize that Avista does not believe any
changes to the IRP methodology are warranted, so a generic
docket is not necessary.
A. Does Avista take any position on the non-variable
IRP ldethodologry contract ter:m or Staff 's position that SAR-
based contracts retain the fJ.exibility to extend out 20
years at ttre option of the QF?
Kalich, Di-Reb 2
Avista Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1_1
!2
13
1,4
15
L6
L1
1B
19
20
21,
22
23
24
A. No. Avista's interest, as explained in its
petitlon and my testimony, is to ensure a l-eve1 playing
field across the Commission-regulated util-ities. To the
extent the Commission makes changes affecting any QF
resource type, Avista should be afforded similar treatment
to ensure that a level playing field is maintained.
A. Do you support ttre five-year maxinum ter:n for QF
contracts?
A. Yes, but with a caveat. Avista believes that the
five-year term should be a maximum required term. In other
words, utilities shoul-d be allowed to contract for longer
terms where such terms are found by Avista and the IPUC to
be in the interest of utility customers. It is not possible
to know every circumstance where a longer term agreement may
be warranted.
A. Idaho Conservation Leagrue and Sierra CIub ritness
Mr. Itenner states in his zlirect testinony ttrat an IPUC order
estalclishing a maximurn required term of two-years for Idatro
QF PURPA contracts rouJ.d not be consistent wittr PITRPA or
E'ERC's regrulations tlrereunder. Do you agree?
A. No. As Mr. Sterling notes in his direct testimony
beginning on page 10, FERC regulations implementing PURPA
are silent on contract length and 2O-year contract terms may
be inconsistent with PURPA. The Fifth Circuit recently
Kalich, Di-Reb 3
Avista Corporatj-on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
1,2
13
T4
15
16
1,7
18
stated in Exelon Wind 1, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 766 F.3d 380, 400
(5th Cir. 2014) ("Nelson") that:
mandatory long-term contracts between generators andutil-ities can burden customers by imposing pri-ces well-
above the actual market prices. The [Texas Public
Utility Commissionl made a reasonable decision that
only those Qualifying Facilities capable of providing
reliable and predictable power may enter into such
[]ong-terml arrangements.
Mr. Vilenner himself acknowledges, dt line 7 on page 5 of
his testimony, that there is no FERC regulation specifying
the number of years r or other time period, for the term over
which the QF, which accepts a legalJ-y enforceable
obligation, is entitled to receive avoided cost rates
calculated at the time the obligation is incurred.
A. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes.
Kalich, Di-Reb 4
Avista Corporatj-on