Wyoming Commission Declines to Modify PURPA Contracts

On June 23, 2016, the Wyoming Public Service Commission (Wyoming Commission) denied a request from PacifiCorp, dba Rocky Mountain Power, for authority to modify its Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) contracts with qualifying facilities (QF). PacifiCorp attempted to reduce the maximum contract term of prospective power purchase agreements (PPA) from 20 to three years and to modify its avoided cost calculation method to include all active QF projects in its pricing queue. The Wyoming Commission determined that PacifiCorp failed to meet its burden to show its proposed modifications were reasonable, would solve the alleged problems, and were in the public interest of Wyoming customers.  

Oregon Commission Maintains 20 Year PURPA Contracts

On March 29, 2016, the Oregon Public Utility Commission (Oregon Commission) issued two orders resolving issues in PacifiCorp’s and Idaho Power’s separate proposals to lower the contract term and size thresholds for qualifying facilities (QF). The Oregon Commission retained the twenty-year contract term, with fifteen years of fixed prices. The Oregon Commission lowered the size threshold for published rates for solar QFs only to 3 megawatts (MW), but also allowed solar QFs to use standard contracts up to 10 MW in size. The Commission did not alter the size threshold for any other QFs.  

PacifiCorp’s Oregon Avoided Cost Rate Reduction Rejected

On March 22, 2016, the Oregon Public Utility Commission (Oregon Commission) issued an order rejecting PacifiCorp’s avoided cost rate reduction. PacifiCorp claimed not to need new renewable resources, which the Oregon Commission did not believe because the recent amendments to the Oregon renewable portfolio standard will double the utility’s need to acquire new renewable resources. The Commission directed PacifiCorp to work with staff, and other interested parties to establish a process to review PacifiCorp’s avoided cost rates.  

PGE’s Avoided Cost Rate Reduction Rejected

On January 26, 2016, the Oregon Public Utility Commission (the Oregon Commission) rejected Portland General Electric Company’s (PGE) proposed avoided cost rate reduction. PGE had proposed to significantly lower avoided cost rates outside of the established rules and processes. The Oregon Commission chastised PGE for makings its procedurally incorrect filing, but urged the utility to re-file and have its avoided cost rates properly evaluated.  

Washington Commission Rejects PacifiCorp PURPA Change

On November 12, 2015, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (the Washington Commission) issued its final order in PacifiCorp’s Washington avoided cost case. The Washington Commission rejected the company’s proposal to eliminate capacity payments. The Washington Commission concluded that some sort of capacity payment was warranted because PacifiCorp’s projected market prices did not reasonably account for the company’s full avoided costs.  

Idaho Commission Limits PURPA Contract Terms

On August 20, 2015, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Idaho Commission) issued an order shortening the contract term for certain new and renewing qualifying facilities (QF) to two years. The decision is a major loss for wind and solar QFs, and all projects sized 10 megawatts (MW) and above. Non-wind and solar QFs under 10 MWs will remain eligible for long term contracts at published avoided cost rates. It is likely that the Idaho Commission’s order will significantly reduce the development of new wind and solar in Idaho, which was experiencing record growth.  

FERC Sides with Oregon Wind Farm Against PGE

On January 22, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order that granted in part and dismissed in part a complaint filed by PáTu Wind Farm (PáTu) against Portland General Electric Company (PGE).  FERC agreed with PaTu’s essential complaint that PGE may not refuse to accept PáTu’s net electric energy output that is delivered to PGE’s system.  FERC also: 1) dismissed PáTu’s arguments that PGE violated FERC’s standards of conduct; and 2) concluded that PáTu should seek monetary reparations in court or before the Oregon Public Utility Commission (Oregon Commission) rather than FERC itself.