20150526Response to Opposition.pdf

John R. Hammond, Jr. - ISB No. 5470
FrsHnRPuscuttp
U.S. BANK PLAZA- 7th Floor
101 s. capitol Blvd., Suite 701
P.O. Box 1308
Boise,ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208.331.2400E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys .for Ecoplexus, Inc.
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION TO MODIFY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
PROSPECTIVE PURPA ENERGY
SALES AGREEMENTS
':l: 'i'- \.,j
?nlr l,r,Y f i, iii Il'lS
,,1 l
illii-l I r :; lt-,ti,ri,,r;,ji, -,
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
) Case No. IPC-E-I5-01
)) RESPONSE TO OPPOSTTTON TO
) PETITION TO INTERVENE AND
) MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
) PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
) ERIK A. STUBBE
COMES NOW Ecoplexus, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Ecoplexus") and files this
Response to: 1) Idaho Power Company's Objection and Motion in Opposition to Ecoplexus,
Inc.'s Petition to Intervene; 2) Rocky Mountain Power's Objection and Motion in Opposition to
Ecoplexus's Petition to Intervene; and 3) Staff s Answer and Objection to Ecoplexus's Motion to
Late File Direct Testimony.
RESPONSE
1. Petition to Intervene
In good faith, Ecoplexus believed that the utilities in this case had not informed it
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
ORIGINAL
about these proceedings until recently. Later, Ecoplexus rcalized that it had received written
communication from Idaho Power Company that stated the utility had filed a petition in regard to
PURPA contracts. This was an innocent oversight by Ecoplexus that it has acknowledged.
Regardless of Idaho Power Company's notification, Ecoplexus did not receive word that
Rocky Mountain Power would also be participating in this docket until May of 2015. It is Rocky
Mountain Power's participation in this docket that primarily led to Ecoplexus's interest in
intervention in this case, due to Ecoplexus's proposed qualifying facility ("QF") projects in
Rocky Mountain Power's service territory.
Notwithstanding issues of timeliness, Ecoplexus undeniably has substantial interest in the
outcome of this case due to the proposed solar QF projects that it has in Rocky Mountain
Power's service territory. Denial of the ability to participate in this case would be extremely
prejudicial to Ecoplexus's interests.
2. Motion to Late File Testimony and Content of Testimony of Erik A. Stuebe.
In seeking to participate in this case, Ecoplexus is not trying to unduly broaden the issues
in this proceeding. Rather, in attempting to discuss legally enforceable obligations and
grandfathering, Ecoplexus believes it is positing questions that are common to proceedings of
this subject matter. However, to the extent the Commission finds that these matters unduly
broaden this proceeding, it has the discretion pursuant to Idaho Commission Rule of Procedure
74 to limit the consideration of these matters in this case. More specifically, rather than denying
Ecoplexus's Motion and striking Mr. Stuebe's entire prefiled direct testimony, the Commission
could simply strike any specific testimony that it believes is beyond the scope of these
proceedings, leaving the remainder to become a part of the record in this case.
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
Second, pursuant to Idaho Commission Rule of Procedurc 74, the Commission could also
grant Ecoplexus's Petition to Intervene and Motion subject to "reasonable conditions." In order
to address concerns raised by Idaho Power Company, Rocky Mountain Power and the
Commission Staff, the Commission could condition the granting of the relief sought in
Ecoplexus's Petition and Motion upon: 1) Ecoplexus being required to answer any discovery
requests propounded upon it by a party within shortened period of time; and2) the right of any
party, including the Commission Stafl to have the opportunity to file rebuttal testimony in
response to the Prefiled Direct Testimony of Erik A. Stuebe.
3. Limited Record Concerning Proposed Projects in Rocky Mountain Power's
Service Territory.
One significant reason for the Commission to grant Ecoplexus's Petition and Motion is
that currently this consolidated docket has very limited initial or rebuttal testimony concerning
proposed QF projects within Rocky Mountain Power's service territory. Ecoplexus asserts that
each utility's situation in relation to proposed QF projects and their effect upon each utility's
operations and ratepayers is different. Ecoplexus believes that it would be the only party, if
allowed to intervene, to have proposed solar QF projects in Rocky Mountain Power's service
territory. Accordingly, Ecoplexus is uniquely positioned to address whether Rocky Mountain
Power should be entitled to the same relief which Idaho Power Company has requested in its
petition in this case.
In addition, Ecoplexus is a party in ongoing litigation before the Public Service
Commission of the State of Utah in Docket No. 14-035-140 and part of the stakeholder group
who had informal discussions on capacity payments and the Utah pricing queue. Through
participation in the Utah case and review of this proceeding, it is clear that there remain major
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
flaws in Rocky Mountain Power's pricing queue structure and management: flaws that greatly
distort avoided cost calculations and overstate potential QF capacity. These same flaws exist in
the state of Idaho. Further, in Idaho, Iike in Utah, to enter Rocky Mountain Power's queue there
is no requirement to show site control, apply for the physical interconnection queue and pay fees,
or apply for transmission service rights. As such, there are many projects that are completely
unrealistic but remain a part of Rocky Mountain Power's pricing queue. As a result, Rocky
Mountain Power benefits from this as every extra 100 MWs of "virtual QF projects" further push
out future resource displacement value and capacity needs in the avoided cost calculations. The
end result is an extremely inaccurate and misrepresented picture of the actual conditions existing
in Rocky Mountain Power's service territory in Utah and Idaho.
Ecoplexus asserts that its participation in this case would be beneficial to this proceeding
as it has direct experience with Rocky Mountain Power, its QF application process and program
in Idaho. Allowing Ecoplexus to fully participate as a party in this case will assist the
Commission in reaching a more fully informed decision in this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Ecoplexus strongly believes energy and capacity pricing structures are best to deal with
capacity concerns for each utility rather than arbitrarily reducing the contract length for QF
projects. Ecoplexus appreciates Idaho Power Company's concerns as raised in its petition and
welcomes constructive solutions that allow viable projects to be built and others to be removed
from the queue. A measured and balanced solution employing a variety of tools will benefit all
parties in this proceeding. Adopting the utilities' contract length reduction proposal would end
all QF development in Idaho as many have testified and eliminate the benefit that good solar QF
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
projects can bring to the state of ldaho. Ecoplexus's participation in this docket as a party can
assist the Commission in determining which factors, tools and processes can be employed to
address the concerns of all the parties in this proceeding. Further, Ecoplexus's participation in
this case can also assist the Commission in determining whether the relief requested by Idaho
Power Company should be applied to Rocky Mountain Power or whether the Commission
should tailor its decision to the particular facts and circumstances existing in each utility's
service territory.
Based on the foregoing, Ecoplexus respectfully requests that it be allowed to intervene in
this case and to prefile the direct testimony of Erik A. Stuebe subject to reasonable terms and
conditions as imposed by the Commission.
DATED this "2 ( day of May 2015
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
John
for Ecoplexus, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thealLffyof May, 2015,I served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing by delivering the same to each of the following individuals by electronic
mail, addressed as follows:
Donovan E. Walker
Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Power Company
1221W. Idaho St. (83702)
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
E-mail:
dockets@idahopower. com
Donald L. Howell, II
Daphne Huang
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W . Washington (837 02)
POBox 83720
Boise, lD 83720-0074
E-mail: [e-mail]
daphne.huan g@puc. idaho. gov
Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83703
E-mail : [e-mail]
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street (83702)
PO Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail : [e-mail]
Matt Vespa
Sierra Club
85 Second St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
E-mail : [e-mail]
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
Leif Elgethun, PE, LEED AP
Intermountain Energy Partners, LLC
PO Box 7354
Boise,ID 83707
E-mail: [e-mail]
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller LLP
420W. Bannock St.
Boise,ID 83702
E-mail : j [e-mail]
Kelsey Jae Nunez
Snake River Alliance PO Box 1731
Boise,ID 83701
E-mail: [e-mail]
Electronic Copies Only:
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
E-mail: [e-mail]
Ted Weston
PacifiCorp/ dba Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake city, uT 84l l l
E-mail: ted.weston@pacifi corp.com
Daniel E. Solander
Yvonne R. Hogle
PacifiCorp/ dba Rocky Mountain Power
201 S. Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 841I I
E-mail : daniel.solander@nacifi corp. com
wonne.ho gle@fracifi corp. com
Electronic Copies Only:
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
E-mail : datarequest@pacifi corp.com
C. Torn Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offices
802 W. Bannock St., Ste. 900 (83702)
PO Box 2900
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE
Boise, ID 83701
E-mail : [e-mail]
Electronic Copies Only:
Erin Cecil
Arkoosh Law Offices
E-mail : [e-mail]
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge
& Bailey, Chartered
20I E. Center
PO Box l39l
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
E-mail : [e-mail]
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, OH 44140
E-mail : [e-mail]
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, lD 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
gre g@ri chardso nadam s. c om
Ronald L. Williams
Williams Bradbury, PC
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise,ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
Irion Sanger
Sanger Law, PC
I I 17 SW 53rd Avenue
Portland, OR 97215
E-mail : [e-mail]
Michael G. Andrea
Senior Counsel Avista Corporation
l4l I E. Mission Ave., MSC-23
Spokane, WA 99202
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STTJEBE
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Clint Kalich, Manager
Resource Planning & Analysis
Avista Corporation
1411 E. Mission Ave., MSC- 7
Spokane, WA99202
E-mail : [e-mail]
Frederick J. Schmidt
Pamela S. Howland
Holland & Hart, LLP
377 S Nevada Street
Carson City, NV 89703
E-mail: [e-mail]
Richard E. Malmgren
Micron Technology, Inc.
800 South Federal Way
Boise,ID 83716
E-mail: [e-mail]
Scott Dale Blickenstaff
The Amalgamated Sugar Co LLC
l95l S. Saturn Way, Suite 100
Boise, lD 83702
E-mail : [e-mail]
Andrew Jackura
Sr. Vice President North America Development
Camco Clean Energy
9360 Station Street, Suite 37
Lone Tree, CO 80124
E-mail:
andrew j ackura@camcocleanenergv. com
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO LATE FILE THE
PREFILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ERIK A STUEBE