The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150225Joint Petition and Cross Petition for Clarification.pdfPeter J. Richardson (ISB No. 3195) Gregory M. Adams (ISB No. 7454) Richardson Adams, PLLC 515 N.27th Street P.O. Box 7218 Boise,Idaho 83702 Telephone: (208) 938-7901 Fax: (208) 938-7904 peter@richardsonadams. com gre g@richardsonadams. com Attorneys for Clearwater Paper Corporation and J.R. Simplot Company tlrrll:t. I i' l1i t/!. I ', ?ffl$ FIB 25 Phl 3: 33 tl'r-'" ' .. r ;r tttt'j ;-ir'c(;,"1 i,i ;;;:l i "' ; BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION rN THE MATTER OF rDAHO POWER )coMPANY',S PETITION TO MODIFY ) cesp No. Ipc-E-15-01 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ) PROSPECTIVE PURPA ENERGY SALES ) CIEERWATER PAPERAGREEMENTS ) CONPORATION AND THE J. R.) STIT,TPLOT COMPANY'S JOTNT) psrruoN FoR cLARrFrcATroN) aNo cRoss-PETrrroN FoR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER NO. 33222 COMES NOW, the CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as "Clearwater" and the J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY hereinafter referred to as "Simplot" pursuant to this Commission's Rules of Procedure, Rule 325 IDAPA 31.01.01.325 hereby lodges their Joint Petition for Clarification and Cross-Petition for Clarification in the above captioned matter. lntermountain Energy Partners ("IEP") Petitioned to Clarifu Order No. 33222 on February 8, 2015. [EP's Petition to Clarifr correctly pointed out that Idaho Power's Petition in this matter did not ask to reduce PURPA contracts to two years for any project other than a project that has its rates set by the IRP methodology. The IEP Petition quoted directly from Idaho Power's Application in support of its position: Idaho Power's request to modifu terms and conditions for prospective PURPA energy sales agreements is limited to transactions with proposed QF projects that exceed the published rate eligibility cap. (The published rate eligibility cap is 100 kilowatts for wind and solar QF's and 10 average megawatts for all other QF generation types.)l However, in its Prayer for Relief, Idaho Power's Petition did not limit its two-year contract request to just proposed QF projects that exceed the published eligibility cap. Rather tdaho Power's Prayer for Relief went much further by asking the Commission to: [I]ssue an order directing that the maximum required term for any Idaho Power PURPA energy sales agreement be reduced from 20 years to 2.2 Idaho Power's Petition is intemally inconsistent. At times it asks to limit all QF projects to two year contract terms. At other times it asks that the limitation apply only to QFs that exceed the published eligibility cap. At other times it focuses only on solar projects; and at other times it focuses only on wind projects. Despite the broad sweep of Idaho Power's prayer for relief, it is clear that its Petition is actually narrowly targeted at just wind and solar intermittent resources that exceed the published rate eligibility cap of 100 kW. In particular, it is aimed at solar projects that exceed the rate eligibility cap. For instance on page four of its Application ldaho Power complains that: Idaho Power should not be obligated to enter into prospective long-term contracts for the large amount of proposed QF solar generation, nor should ldaho Power customers be obligated to pay for such long-term purchases when there is no need for such power production. Again on page 18, Idaho Power points to the object of its ire as wind and solar: Since about 2002, and after the Commission increased the maximum contract term from five years back to 20 years (Case No. GNR-E-02-01), Idaho Power has experienced a ' IEP Petition atp.2, quoting ldaho Power's Petition atp.2. 2 ldaho Power Petition at pp. 36 - 37. CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 2 dramatic increase in the number and size of PURPA projects, predominately wind, and now solar, QF projects coming on-line and under contract. And on page2}: The Continued Acouisition of Large Amounts of Unneeded Intermittent PURPA Generation Inflates Power Supplv Costs and Deerades the Reliabilitv of Idaho ar*"t=-*ra-. Indeed, Idaho Power's Petition is only about its alleged difficulty in accepting and paying for long-term wind and solar PURPA QF projects. The Commission should not cast a net any wider than necessary and should therefore limit this docket to only address the appropriate contract length for new intermittent solar and wind projects. Clearwater Paper currently owns generation facilities that are certified to sell electric energy and capacity as PURPA qualiffing facilities at its facility near Lewiston, Idaho that are cumulatively capable of generating approximately 109 megawatts of energy from use of biomass material in a cogeneration process. The J. R. Simplot Company operates a 15.9 megawatt qualifuing facility that uses waste heat from industrial processes in a cogeneration application at its fertilizer plant in Pocatello, Idaho. None of Idaho Power's arguments apply to base-load facilities utilizing waste heat, biomass, or industrial cogeneration such as Clearwater's base-load capacity non-intermittent QF project or Simplot's existing base-load industrial cogeneration facility. These plants provide reliable energy and capacity at the respective load centers of Avista and tdaho Power. They are also more efficient in producing power than even utility- owned based load plants such as Bridger or Langley Gulch. Yet Order No.33222 casts such a wide net that it will materially affect the rights of base- load facilities even on an interim basis. For example, Simplot recently signed a one-year contract for its Pocatello qualifying facility utilizing the published avoided cost rates available to 3 ldaho Power Petition at p.20, emphasis in original. CLEARWATER PAPERCORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION . 3 that project if it generates no more than l0 average monthly MW. See IPUC Case No. IPC-E- 15-02. That one-year contract will expire on March 1,2016, and Simplot had intended to begin negotiations and proceedings to resolve issues for a replacement contract as soon as the Commission approves the contract before it in IPUC Case No. IPC-E-I5-02. However, because this proceeding (IPC-E-15-01) will likely continue for several months or a year, Simplot will now be limited to a five-year contract term for that contract regardless of whether it elects to sell under the published avoided cost rates or the IRP methodology rates. Neither Simplot nor Clearwater take a position on the appropriate contract length for intermittent solar and wind QF projects. However, Clearwater and Simplot strongly urge the Commission not to fall for tdaho Power's attempt to poison the well by painting all PURPA projects with the same brush. The Commission should limit this docket to addressing only the alleged problems with new wind and solar PURPA QF projects. Simplot and Clearwater appreciate the intent of the IEP's Cross-Petition, but believe that it also casts too wide a net by including non-wind and non-solar QF projects that happen to exceed the published rate eligibility cap. Thus, Clearwater and Simplot recommend the Commission's ordering paragraph in Order No.33222 be amended to read as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that effective February 5,2015, and pending further order of the Commission, the maximum contractual term for tdaho Power's new intermittent (solar and wind powered) PURPA contracts shall be five years, This proposed change puts the focus of this docket where it is intended to be and avoids the unintended consequences wrought by the inconsistencies in intended scope in Idaho Power's Petition. CLEARWATER PAPERCORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLAzuFICATION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 4 There is ample Commission precedent to single out wind and solar resources for special consideration. [n the recently concluded generic avoided cost docket,a the Commission made the following findings relative to affording special regulatory treatment for wind and solar PURPA projects: Based on the record, the Commission finds that a convincing case has been made to temporarily reduce the eligibility cap for published avoided cost rates from 10 aMW to 100 kW for wind and solar only while the Commission further investigates the implications of disaggregated QF projects. We maintain the eligibility cap at 10 aMW for QF projects other than wind and solar (including but not limited to biomass, small hydro, cogeneration, geothermal, and waste-to-energy). The Petitioners have not convinced us that lowering the eligibility cap for these other QF technologies is necessary or in the public interest.s As in the generic avoided cost docket, there is no record suggesting a need to reduce the maximum contract length for any type of resource other than wind and solar. Indeed, there may not be sufficient evidence to support such a change for wind and solar, however Idaho Power's Petition has not alleged any problems with the other types of QF technologies that would warrant what amounts to a suspension of PURPA for them as well. WHEREFORE, Clearwater Paper Corporation and the J. R. Simplot Company respectfully request that Order No 33222 be clarified as discussed above. DATED this 25th day of February, 2015. zuCHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC Peter J. Richardson Attorneys for Clearwater Paper Corporation, and the J. R. Simplot Company a In the Matter of the Joint Petition of ldaho Power Company, Avista Corporation, and PacifiCorp DBA Roclry Mountain Power to Address Avoided Cost Issues and to Adjust the Published Avoided Cost Rate Eligibility Cap, Docket No. GRN-E-10-04. s Order No. 321 76 p.9. Emphasis in orginal. CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 26th day of February, 2015, a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION was served as shown to: Jean D. Jewell, Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472West Washington Boise, tdaho 83702 iean j ewell@puc.idaho. gov C. Tom Arkoosh Twin Falls Canal Company North Side Canal Company American Falls Reservoir District #2 Arkoosh Law Offices 802 W Bannock Ste 900 Boise ID 83702 tom. arkoo sh@arkoosh. com Ben Otto Idaho Conservation League 710 N 6th Boise ID 83702 botto@ idahoconservation.org Leif Elgethun PE LEED AP lntermountain Energy Partners LLC PO Box 7354 Boise ID 83707 leif@ sitebasedenergy. com Dean J Miller McDevitt & Miller LLP PO Box 2564 Boise ID 83702 i oe@mcdevitt-miller. com Daniel E Solander Rocky Mountain Power 201 South Main Street Ste 2400 Salt Lake city UT 84111 danie l. so lander@pac i fi corp. com datareq uest@pacifi corp.com X Hand Delivery _U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile _ Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery _lt U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery _XU.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile Electronic Mailx CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS.PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 6 Ted Weston Rocky Mountain Power 201 South Main Ste 2300 salt Lake city UT 84111 ted.weston@pacificom.com Kelsey Jae Nunez Snake River Alliance PO Box 1731 Boise ID 83701 knunez@snakeriveralliance.org Donovan E. Walker Lisa A. Grow RandyAllphin Idaho Power Company l22l West Idaho Street Boise,ID 83702 dwalker@idahopower. com lgrow@idahopower.com rallphin@ idahopower. com dockets@ idahopower.com Clint Kalich Avista Corporation 1411 E Mission Ave MSC-7 Spokane WA99202 clint. kalich@avistacom. com Michael Andrea Avista Corporation 141I E Mission Ave MSC-23 Spokane WA99202 michael. andrea@avistacorp. com Scott Dale Blickenstaff The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC l95l S SatumWay Ste 100 Boise ID 83702 sblickenstaff@amalsusar. com _ Hand Delivery X_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail X Hand Delivery _U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery X U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile Electronic MailX CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS.PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 7 Richard E. Malmgren Micron Technology Inc 800 South Federal Way Boise ID 83716 remalm gren@micron.com Frederick J. Schmidt Pamela S. Howland Holland & Hart LLP 377 South Nevada Street Carson City NV 89701 fschmidt@hollandhart. com Matt Vespa Sierra Club 85 Second St 2nd Floot San Francisco CA 94105 matt.vespa@sierraclub.org _ Hand Delivery _X_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery _X_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid _ Facsimile X Electronic Mail _ Hand Delivery _X_U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid Facsimile Electronic Mailx ,,*ofu,hu Nina M. Curtis CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION AND J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CROSS.PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION - 8