20240806Formal Complaint.pdf

RECEIVED
Tuesday, August 6, 2024
IDAHO PUBLIC
Adam Young UTILITIES COMMISSION
Young Family Farms NEW CASE: IPC-E-24-33
1543 W Taber Rd
Blackfoot, ID 83221
[phone]
[e-mail]
August 5, 2024
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Attn: Commission Secretary
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
monica.barriossanchez(@puc.idaho.gov
Dear PUC Commission:
I am writing to file a formal complaint against Idaho Power Company(IPCO)for violating the
Schedule 84 tariff by refusing to approve our farm's customer generation project consistent
with the plain language of Section 6.iv. Since our application conforms to the requirements
of the approved tariff, we request that the conflict be resolved by ordering Idaho Power to
approve our 220kW customer generation application for pump 0403. As the matter is time
sensitive, I respectfully request that the issue be resolved as expeditiously as the law
allows. I have provided details of the conflict below and am able to provide copies of
emails to corroborate my complaint.
My family irrigates farmland in Bingham County. In 2023, we began the process of applying
for the USDA's Rural Energy for America (REAP) grants to help fund a customer generation
project we were planning under Schedule 84. In November of 2023, our REAP grant was
awarded, which will help fund the purchase and installation of 15 dual-axis solar trackers
installed at four separate meter locations.
In the spring of 2024, the company we hired to deliver and install the solar components
(AgriPower Solar) contacted Idaho Power to coordinate details and submit applications for
the power company's approval. On March 8, 2024, at 2:30 p.m., Aaron Pace (with
AgriPower Solar) contacted IPCO's Customer Generation team with a question about
whether a project's maximum size was strictly limited to max billing demand over the last
12 months, or whether there was any wiggle room for projects that were marginally larger.
At 3:18 p.m., Customer Generation responded by pointing to Sections 6.iii and 6.iv of the
approved tariff. Section 6.iv states:
6. For a customer applying to interconnect a Generation Facility(1)with
a total nameplate capacity rating that exceeds actual billing demand data
from the most recent 12 months, or(2) Billing Demand is not available, must
1 1 P a g e

provide evidence that the proposed Generation Facility meets the
applicability of this schedule in accordance with the following:
iv. For a Customer taking retail service under Schedule 24 which
only services motor load, the Customer may submit documentation
of the horsepower("HP") of the motor/pump to the Company and a
conversion factor of 1 HP to 0.8kW will be used to define the demand
for the Point of Delivery.
At 3:28 p.m., Aaron responded by writing, "Point iv is exceedingly interesting. A big pump
might help us with this issue. Does iv stand on its own or will peak demand still be a
consideration if the system has been there a long time?"
On March 15, 2024, at 2:58 p.m., Customer Generation responded to Aaron, "Hey Aaron,
apologies on the delay here, we wanted to get confirmation from our regulatory
department. These points stand on their own— Depending on what kind of service it is—
commercial or irrigation—it would require proof by way of either iii. or iv. Have a good
weekend!"
Based on the above communications, we submitted four applications, two of which used
the pump HP factor to determine max system size, pursuant to Section 6.iv of the approved
Schedule 84 tariff. On April 17, 2024, Customer Generation sent an email to our farm and
to Aaron Pace and Laura Goodman (both from AgriPower Solar), stating: "We have
evaluated these projects (the two highlighted below)and the sizingis allowed" (emphasis
added). They then requested the following information for those two applications, which
was sent the next day:
1. Photos of
a. The pump number and meter
b. The overall site with the pump and meter in the photo
c. The motor
d. The motor tag
2. A single-line diagram of the system
Relying on Idaho Power's approval, we paid our initial down payment of$436,450 to
AgriPower Solar on April 30, 2024. On May 10, 2024, project 02s33e0302 (one of the
projects whose sizing was based on the pump HP factor)was fully processed and we
received an official approval letter from Customer Generation.
Based on both Idaho Power's initial email approval and their subsequent formal approval
Letter for project 02s33e0302, AgriPower Solar scheduled delivery for our solar
components on May 20, 2024. However, on May 24, 2024, Michael Herding, from Idaho
Power, notified AgriPower Solar that our previous project approval was being rescinded.
2 1 P a g e

Idaho Power suddenly reversed their position and insisted that Section 6.iv applied only to
customers without billing history for the previous 12 months.
In an email on May 28, 2024, Michael justified rescinding our approval and disallowing us
from using the pump HP factor for our projects by pointing to PUC staff comments and
recommendations made prior to the drafting and approval of the Schedule 84 tariff.
Some of these comments suggested that pump HP factors be made available"for irrigation
customers without a full in-season billing history." I responded that same day with the
following:
Michael,
Neither the PUC nor Idaho Power are bound by staff comments and
recommendations.The tariff that was submitted and approved by the PUC
following the Commission's order is the controlling document. Rule 133 of
IDAPA 131.01.01 states, "When a utility files tariffs with the Commission
pursuant to an order of the Commission in a proceeding in which other
persons are party, the responsibility for reviewing the tariff submission to
determine whether it complies with the Commission's order is upon the
Commission Staff, which shall promptly report to the Commission whether
the tariffs do comply."The approved tariff clearly states that a customer may
use the HP conversion factor if either(1)the total nameplate capacity rating
exceeds actual billing demand from the most recent 12 months, or(2) billing
demand is not available. Your assertion that a larger system is allowed under
6.iii but not 6.iv is arbitrary and contrary to the clear language in the tariff.
On top of that, we have committed over a million dollars (of which several
hundred thousand dollars have already been expended) and equipment has
been ordered and is scheduled to be delivered based on two separate emails
from the Customer Generation team approving our projects. We can't move
forward based on approval from Idaho Powerjustto have the rug pulled out
from under us after the fact.
On June 6, 2024, Michael Herding sent me and Aaron another email, restating that our
previous approvals were rescinded along with his"apologies for the application that was
approved in error on 5/10/24 for pump 0302 (ID 21036)."
At this point, it was clear that Idaho Power was determined not to move forward with our
applications for pump 0302 or 0403, contrary to the plain language of the approved tariff,
notwithstanding the fact that it was their own Customer Generation team who introduced
that language to us and suggested we use it to begin with. At this point, I contacted the PUC
and initiated an informal complaint. The PUC investigator assigned to our case was very
helpful and supportive. Thanks to his intervention, Idaho Power backed away from their
stance on the application for pump 0302 (the one for which a formal approval letter was
3 1 P a g e

sent), but doubled down on their position that the pump HP factor could not be used for
pump 0403.
On July 25, 2024, the PUC investigator assigned to my case contacted me by phone and
email to inform me that he was unable to come to an informal resolution to our conflict,
but that we could file a formal complaint with the Commission.
In rehearsing the facts of this complaint, the following points are worth noting:
• We did not come up with the idea to submit applications based on our pumps'
horsepower. Idaho Power's Customer Generation team, of their own volition,
pointed us to the language in Section 6.iv of the approved tariff and suggested how
we should understand and apply it.
• After first consulting with their regulatory department, Idaho Power confirmed that
the language in Section 6.iv applied to long-existing pumps like ours.
• More than a month after these interactions, Idaho Power approved both of our
projects by email. After a second month, we received a formal approval letter for the
first of the two projects.
• Two-and-a-half months after Customer Generation introduced us to Section 6.iv of
the approved tariff, Idaho Power abruptly changed their position and retroactively
rescinded our project approvals.
• We relied on Idaho Power's approvals and paid $436,450 to AgriPower Solar, signed
contracts for several hundred thousand dollars more, and had equipment delivered
to our farm. That equipment has been sitting idle for over two months as we struggle
to resolve this conflict.
• Resolution of this conflict is time sensitive, as we have a limited time to complete
project construction and installation in order to keep our REAP grant from being
forfeited, not to mention the lost revenue as our project is further delayed.
I want to thank you for your attention to this matter. As the matter is time sensitive, I
respectfully request that the Commission expedite their ruling so as to quickly resolve this
issue. Please reach out to me if you have any questions or require any additional
information.
Respectfully,
Adam Young
4 1 P a g e

Appendix-Summary Timeline of Events and Communications
March 8-Idaho Power's Customer Generation team sent Aaron Pace (AgriPower Solar) an
email suggesting larger systems can be accepted under Section 6.iii and 6.iv of the
approved tariff.
March 15-Customer Generation, after consulting IPCO's regulatory department, confirms
in an email that Sections 6.iii and 6.iv stand on their own. They apply to projects whether or
not the irrigation system has existed and been in place for a long time.
April 17-Customer Generation emailed our farm and Aaron with the first of two
authorizations: "We have evaluated these projects (the two highlighted below) and the
sizing is allowed."
April 30- Relying on Idaho Power's approval, we paid our initial down payment, $436,450,
to AgriPower Solar.
May 10-Project 02s33e0302 was fully processed. We received an official approval letter
from Customer Generation.
May 20-Based on the above approvals, AgriPower Solar scheduled delivery for our solar
components.
May 24-Michael Hertlingfrom Idaho Power notified us that our previous project approval
was being rescinded.We had several email exchanges back and forth. Idaho Power
justified their position by pointing to PUC staff comments and recommendations.We
responded that neither the Power Company nor the PUC were bound by staff comments.
Rather, they were bound by the tariff that was approved pursuant to the Commission Order.
That point was never contested.
May 30-Equipment for the solar projects was delivered to our farm.
June 4-We received another email from Michael Hertling stating that our previous
approval was rescinded along with his"apologies for the application that was approved in
error on 5/10/24 for pump 0302 (ID 21036)."
July 16-Quentin Nesbitt and Matt Stucki (Idaho Power) sent an email stating that
application ID 21027 (pump 0302)was approved as a"one-time exception," but that our
application for pump 0403 would not be approved.
July 25-Received an email from the PUC investigator which stated that he was unable to
come to an informal resolution of our conflict and provided instructions on how to submit a
formal complaint.
5 1 P a g e