Rocky Mountain Power applies for rules change amid dispute

2014-02-02T18:00:00Z Rocky Mountain Power applies for rules change amid disputeBy BENJAMIN STORROW Star-Tribune staff writer Casper Star-Tribune Online

A contract dispute with a wind energy developer has Rocky Mountain Power seeking a change in the rules governing small-scale renewable power projects.

The utility, a division of Portland, Ore.-based PacifiCorp, recently submitted a proposal to the Wyoming Public Service Commission to amend a Schedule 38, which governs how much the utility pays renewable power producers.

The proposed amendment was prompted by contentious contract negotiations between Rocky Mountain Power and Wasatch Wind. The Park City, Utah, wind developer is seeking to strike a deal with the utility to buy the electricity produced by Pioneer Wind Park, a proposed 46-turbine development near Glenrock. 

Wasatch took Rocky Mountain Power to the Federal Regulatory Commission last year, saying the utility offered the wind farm a contract that violated federal law.

The commission ruled that the utility could not turn off power from the wind farm, a provision initially sought by Rocky Mountain Power in negotiations.

Still, utility officials found something to like in the federal ruling. In their filing with the Public Service Commission, Rocky Mountain Power officials argued that in its ruling, FERC offered a blueprint for a different type of contract.

Under the different contract, the company would offer producers like Wasatch two prices, a higher price where new transmission lines are built and a lower one where new lines are not constructed.

The proposal comes down to two factors: federal law and transmission capacity.

Utilities are required by a law from 1978 to accept electricity generated by renewable-power projects of less than 100 megawatts. Pioneer would generate 80 megawatts.

But the law comes with a hitch. Utilities are required to purchase the power only if doing so doesn’t lead to a rate increase for consumers.

Current limitations in transmission capacity mean Rocky Mountain Power cannot offer Wasatch a higher price without triggering a rate increase, utility officials wrote in their filing with the Public Service Commission. However, they could offer a better price if a new line is built and the current constraints are eased, they argued.

Rocky Mountain Power is in the process of permitting Gateway West, a 488-mile transmission line running from near Glenrock to Downey, Idaho. The company expects the line to become operational sometime between 2019 and 2024.

“Right now there are constraints because that additional (transmission) capacity is not yet built,” said Rocky Mountain Power spokesman David Eskelsen. “We think we can construct an agreement with Wasatch and any other qualifying facility in similar circumstances that satisfies the federal law… and the federal requirement that it be neutral to customers.”

The proposed amendment was sparked by the company’s negotiations with Wasatch but would also apply to other small-scale renewable power projects, Eskelsen said.

Wasatch agrees Rocky Mountain Power faces transmission constraints, Christine Mikell, the company's president, wrote in an email to the Star-Tribune.

“That aside, based on public filings, PacifiCorp has the ability to allow for wind energy to access available transmission from Eastern Wyoming,” Mikell wrote. “Furthermore, PacifiCorp recently installed scrubbers on its Dave Johnston coal plant to meet certain environmental requirements. These scrubbers use more energy in a year than Pioneer could ever produce. From our perspective, yes, the current line has space for power from Pioneer.”

Neither side gave any indication of what impacts the proposed amendment has on its negotiations.

Rocky Mountain Power first applied to amend its Schedule 38 in October, prior to FERC's ruling. It submitted an amended application in January after the federal board ruled that the utility could not curtail the wind farm's power.

The Public Service Commission will hold a public hearing on the amendment in April. Chris Petrie, a spokesman for the commission, said the application will hinge on whether the proposed changes meet the 1978 law’s requirement that ratepayers not be affected by the deal.

Pioneer Wind Park has been the subject of considerable controversy in Converse County. Some residents favor its construction on the grounds that it would create jobs and provide a clean source of electricity.

Opponents, led by the Northern Laramie Range Alliance, a citizens' group, argue it will increase rates and industrialize a pristine landscape.

The wind farm has survived several lawsuits seeking to derail it, but Wasatch now faces a May deadline with state regulators to prove the project is financially viable.

Reach energy reporter Benjamin Storrow at 307-266-0535 or Follow him on Twitter @bstorrow

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. Gunnysack
    Report Abuse
    Gunnysack - February 03, 2014 8:47 pm
    So let's see: Transmission constraint is eased by new construction (Gateway West) and Wyoming electricity rates go up! Suggestion: Cancel Gateway West.

    And, in its 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, PacifiCorp/Rocky Mountain Power says it needs no additional electricity generation on the system before 2024. But hey, federal law says it has to buy power from Wasatch Wind anyway?

    Bottom line: The "Pioneer Wind Park" south of Glenrock would provide power that no one needs and, if Wasatch has its way, at a higher price. Such a deal!
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick