20240614Final_Order_No_36222.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 14,2024
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
LYDIA FERGUISON, ) CASE NO. IPC-E-24-13
COMPLAINANT, ) ORDER NO. 36222
VS. )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY, )
RESPONDENT. )
On March 18, 2024, Lydia Ferguison filed a formal complaint with the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission") against Idaho Power Company ("Company"). Ms.
Ferguison did not expressly state the relief she seeks from the Commission. However, she
apparently seeks reinstatement of the grandfather status of her solar system, which was lost after
Ada County took her home via eminent domain.
At its March 26, 2024, Decision Meeting,the Commission accepted the Complaint, issued
a Summons to the Company, and gave the Company 21 days from April 5, 2024, to answer or
otherwise respond.
On April 26, 2024, the Company filed an answer ("Answer") to the Complaint, asserting
that,while sympathetic to Ms. Ferguison's situation, it lacked authority to unilaterally reinstate the
grandfather status of her solar system. However, the Company indicated that it would defer to the
Commission's determination of whether the facts justify granting Ferguison relief.
Having reviewed the record,we now issue this Final Order conditionally denying the relief
sought in the Complaint.
THE FORMAL COMPLAINT
Ms. Ferguison alleged that, on February 28, 2024, the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD") purchased her residence to facilitate construction of an overpass on Linder Road in
Meridian, Idaho. Relevant to the Commission's jurisdiction,Ms. Ferguison further alleged that by
moving her solar system, she would not be grandfathered into net metering rates established for
ORDER NO. 36222 1

solar systems installed before the relevant cutoff date for grandfathering 1.Ms.Ferguison explained
that she "was told to contact the Public Utilities Commission to see if [she] could be
`grandfathered' due to the fact that"ACHD forced her to move from her home where the system
was grandfathered. Complaint at 1.
THE COMPANY'S ANSWER
The Company filed its answer explaining that, although the key facts of this case are
undisputed, it did not believe that it could unilaterally grant Ms. Ferguison's solar system
continued grandfather status under the current Commission-approved tariff. The Company
sympathized with Ms. Ferguison's circumstances but contended that it complied with Order Nos.
34509 and 34546 in relation to Ms. Ferguison's move. However, despite identifying some public
policy considerations that it believed militate against reinstating the grandfather status of her solar
system, the Company indicated that it would defer to the Commission's determination of whether
she should receive relief in the form of a hardship exception.
The Company noted that the Commission issued rules on grandfathering legacy status to
solar systems in Order No. 34546. One of those rules established that a solar system forfeits its
grandfathered status if it is offline for more than six months or moved to another site.The Company
asserted it has followed Order No. 34546, the Company's Schedule No. 6, and Idaho Code § 61-
313,which prohibits the Company from making a contract or agreement contrary to Commission-
approved tariffs. In addition,the Company noted that Idaho Code § 61-315 prohibits a utility from
giving preferential treatment to any customer or customer class. Accordingly, the Company
contended that treating Ms. Ferguison preferentially by unilaterally reinstating the grandfather
status of her solar system would violate Idaho Code § 61-315.
The Company recognized that it was understandable a person in Ms. Ferguison's
circumstances might seek an exception to the general grandfathering restrictions. However, the
Company was concerned that granting exceptions for specific customers may negatively impact
other customers whose systems lost grandfather status through circumstances beyond their control.
' In Order No. 34509,we determined that,prior to the issuance of the order on December 20,2019,customers could
have decided to invest in a private solar power system based upon the reasonable belief that the fundamentals of the
net-metering process would remain unchanged during the expected recovery period of their investment. However,
after issuance of that order, continuing to maintain that belief would be unreasonable.Accordingly, we determined
that customers who had installed a solar system prior issuance of Order No. 34509 were"grandfathered"into the 1:1
monthly kilowatt-hour retail rate compensation structure in place as of the service date of Order No.34509 and would
continue to receive service at that rate until December 20,2045.
ORDER NO. 36222 2

Additionally, the Company lacked data on how many solar systems have lost grandfather status.
As such, it asserted that it could not administer a process for retroactively granting exceptions to
such customers, undermining the notion of non-discriminatory service. The Company
acknowledged that the Commission has previously granted hardship exceptions on a case-by-case
basis. However, considering the grandfather period extends to 2045, the Company suggested that
creating a formal process for evaluating whether to grant exceptions to the established
grandfathering requirements may be appropriate.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable.Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations,practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503. In determining just and reasonable
rates, "[e]ach case must depend very largely upon its own special facts, and every element and
every circumstance which increases or depreciates the value of the property . . . should be given
due consideration . . . ."Kiefer a City ofldaho Falls, 49 Idaho 458, 289 P. 81, 84 (1930) (citation
omitted).
In Order No. 34509,we determined that existing net metering customers should be allowed
grandfathered status and continue to receive service under Schedule 6. We further clarified the
parameters of grandfathering in Order No. 34546. Because strict adherence to these prior orders
may not invariably lead to fair, just, and reasonable results, we have also considered customer
requests for an exception on a case-by-case basis. However, we have not granted an exception to
the general grandfathering requirements outside of cases involving unique, compelling
circumstances. For example,we granted customers an exception to the grandfathering rules when
they could not rebuild their residence and reinstall a grandfathered solar system that had been
destroyed in a fire within six months as Order No. 34546 required. See Order No. 35651.
Based on the current record,we cannot find that this is one of those unique and compelling
cases. As the complainant in this matter, Ms. Ferguison has the burden of establishing facts that
would entitle her to the relief she seeks. Although some undisputed facts suggest Ms. Ferguison
may be entitled to an exception, several significant factual issues remain uncertain. We are
ORDER NO. 36222 3

particularly concerned about the lack of evidence showing that Ms. Ferguison has not already
recovered some of the value of her solar system in the purchase price paid for her residence by
ACHD or Ada County. For example, the record does not contain evidence (e.g., a real estate
purchase agreement) establishing precisely who purchased Ms. Ferguison's house, for how much,
and on what terms. In the same vein, there is no evidence in the record (e.g., an affidavit or other
written statement) indicating whether Ms. Ferguison raised the issue of the grandfather status of
her solar system when selling her residence and to what extent, if any, the value of her
grandfathered solar system was incorporated into the purchase price for her residence.
Unfortunately, without such information, we cannot determine that granting Ms. Ferguison an
exception to the general grandfathering requirements will not result in a financial windfall for her.
Accordingly, we find it fair, just, and reasonable to conditionally deny Ms. Ferguison's
complaint. In doing so, we provide Ms. Ferguison with 60 days from the date this order is issued
to submit additional evidence to support her request for an exception to the grandfathering rules
applicable to private solar systems. Following the deadline for Ms. Ferguison to submit additional
evidence,the Company shall have 14 days to respond to any evidence submitted.Afte considering
any supplementary evidence Ms. Ferguison submits and the Company's response,we will issue an
order resolving the Complaint. If no additional evidence is submitted, we will issue a final order
denying the Complaint.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the formal complaint filed by Lydia Ferguison against
Idaho Power Company is conditionally denied for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Ferguison may submit additional evidence to
support her request for an exception to the grandfathering rules that would allow her solar system
to retain its grandfather status for a period of 60 days following the service date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company may file a response to any evidence Ms.
Ferguison submits for a period of 14 days following the deadline for Ms. Ferguison to submit
additional evidence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if no additional evidence is received, the Commission
will issue a final order denying the formal complaint.
ORDER NO. 36222 4

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 14th day of
June 2024.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
kL �0
J R2HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COtrA4ISSIONER
ATTEST:
I I a Q -
VoVcdBa#mg4akjz
Commission Secretary
IALegal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-24-13_Fergaison Complaint\IPCE2413_final_at.docx
ORDER NO. 36222 5