20240924Answer.pdf

0IQAW POWER@
RECEIVED
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Corporate Counsel IDAHO PUBLIC
mgoicoecheaallen(cDidahopower.com UTILITIES COMMISSION
September 24, 2024
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg 8,
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-24-33
Young Family Farms vs. Idaho Power Company
Dear Commission Secretary:
Attached for electronic filing is Idaho Power Company's Answer in the above-
entitled matter.
If you have any questions about the attached document, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Awrl?i I l
Megan Goicoechea Allen
MGA:sg
Enclosures
P.O.Box 70(83707)
1221 W.Idaho St.
Boise,ID 83702

MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN (ISB No. 7623)
LISA D. NORDSTROM (ISB No. 5733)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
mgoicoecheaallen(a-).idahopower.com
Inordstrom(aMdahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Young Family Farms )
Case No. IPC-E-24-33
Complainant, )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
vs. ) ANSWER
Idaho Power Company, )
Respondent. )
COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company ("Respondent", "Idaho Power" or
"Company"), now answers the Summons of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") dated September 3, 2024, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Commission's Rules
of Procedure,' concerning the formal Complaint ("Complaint") of Adam Young,
representing Young Family Farms ("Complainant").
' Hereinafter referred to as RP.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 1

I. INTRODUCTION
1. As more fully set forth herein, this Complaint stems from an incorrect
interpretation of the tariff language in Electric Service Schedule 84, Large General, Large
Power, and Irrigation On-Site Generation ("Schedule 84"), related to the recently modified
project eligibility cap for commercial, industrial, and irrigation on-site generation
customers: the greater of 100 kilowatts ("kW") or 100 percent of demand. Though the
language in question had been drafted in consultation with Staff and reviewed pursuant
to RP 133, it came to the Company's attention that, in practice, the tariff language
addressing how a Schedule 84 irrigation customer's demand is determined for purposes
of conforming to the 100 percent eligibility cap was susceptible to two interpretations, one
of which was inconsistent with the governing Commission order. The resulting confusion
in administering the demand-based cap unfortunately resulted in a Company
representative providing inaccurate information to the Complainant's installer and
ultimately, one of the Complainant's four customer generator applications being approved
in error. While the Company ultimately honored the approval of that application, the
Company has processed all other applications consistent with the regulatory history and
relevant Commission order, as is now more clearly reflected in revised Schedule 84.2
2. Because it provides context for understanding the circumstances of the
Complaint, in the section that follows the Company provides a brief overview of the
regulatory history of the modified project eligibility cap in Schedule 84 and the background
on the tariff language at issue as well as discussing the facts specific to Young Family
Farms. As reflected herein, the Company does not believe that there is a dispute as to
2 See Tariff Advice No. IPC-TAE-24-02, Revisions to Schedule 84, effective Aug. 8, 2024.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 2

the material facts; rather, the issue is whether the Commission believes the facts justify
the Company deviating from normal practices and the filed rate doctrine that otherwise
constrains Idaho Power in its administration of the demand-based cap to accommodate
this customer.
II. FACTUAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Updated On-Site Generation Offering and Modified Project Eligibility Cap
3. Through a series of successive offerings over the last forty years, Idaho
Power has provided retail customers the ability to generate their own electricity to offset
all or a portion of their energy usage and has allowed for the export of excess generation
to Idaho Power's grid.3 Currently, customers who install on-site generation can
interconnect an exporting system under the terms of Schedule 6, Residential Service On-
Site Generation ("Schedule 6"), Schedule 8, Small General Service On-Site Generation
("Schedule 8"), or Schedule 84, which is the tariff schedule for the Company's
commercial, industrial, and irrigation ("CI&I") customers to take net metering service.
4. The Company's efforts to have the Commission review and modify outdated
net metering offerings to better align with actual circumstances resulted in a series of on-
site generation related dockets through which incremental steps were taken toward the
goal of establishing a more sustainable offering by implementing a more equitable pricing
3 See, e.g., In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of Revised Rates to be
Paid for Power and Energy Sold to Idaho Power Pursuant to Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, Case No. U-1006-200; In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for
An Order Revising the Rates, Terms and Conditions Under Which Idaho Power Purchases Non-Firm
Energy from Qualifying Facilities, Case No. IPC-E-95-15; In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power
Company for Approval of a New Schedule 84—Net Metering Tariff, Case No. IPC-E-01-39; In the Matter
Idaho Power Company's Application for Authority to Modify Its Net Metering Service and to Increase the
Generation Capacity Limit, Case No. IPC-E-12-27 (Jul. 3, 2013); In the Matter of Idaho Power Company's
Application for Authority to Establish New Schedules for Residential and Small General Service
Customers with On-Site Generation, Case No. IPC-E-17-13 (May 9, 2018).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 3

and compensation structure. Most recently, the Commission authorized changes to the
compensation structure applicable to the on-site generation offering, which included
modifying the project eligibility cap for CI&I customers taking service under Schedule 84,
finding: "the eligibility cap for Schedule 84 customers shall be the greater of 100 kW or
100% of demand.114
5. In reviewing the Company's proposal to modify the project eligibility cap in
Case No. IPC-E-23-14, Staff's Comments discussed several items related to
administering a demand-based project eligibility cap for Schedule 84 customers including
how to determine the cap for customers without 12 months of billing data and how to
handle demand changes after installation.5 For purposes of conforming to the 100 percent
eligibility cap, Staff agreed with the Company's proposal to use different methods for
determining demand depending on the circumstances including, in pertinent part, the
following:
• For customers with at least 12 months of historical billing data, the
maximum billing demand from the last 12 months is used.
• For irrigation customers without a full in-season billing history, a conversion
factor related to the horsepower ("HP") of their pumps at the service point
will be used to determine the maximum demand.6
4 In the Matter of Idaho Power Company's Application for Authority to Implement Changes to the
Compensation Structure Applicable to Customer On-Site Generation Under Schedules 6, 8, and 84 and
to Establish an Export Credit Rate, Case No. IPC-E-23-14, Order No. 36048 at 7 (Dec. 29, 2023).
e Case No. IPC-E-23-14, Staff Comments at 33-35 (Oct. 12, 2023).
s All references in this Answer to determining system size or demand by pump or HP are referring to this
method.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER-4

6. The Company's application in Case No. IPC-E-23-14 (as modified by the
Company's revised proposal filed on November 16, 2023) was approved by the
Commission on December 29, 2023, through Order No. 36048, including the modified
eligibility cap for Schedule 84 customers as the greater of 100 kW or 100 percent of
demand at the service point for CI&I customers.
7. The Company made an initial Compliance Filing on December 29, 2023,
with tariff sheets that would become effective January 1, 2024, implementing Commission
directives from multiple dockets,' including Case No. IPC-E-23-14. At the time, however,
the Company indicated it was still evaluating what additional tariff modifications would be
necessary to effectuate Order No. 36048 in Case No. IPC-E-23-14 and intended to follow-
up with a second compliance filing to that end.
8. Thereafter, on Tuesday, January 2, 2024, the Company submitted a
Supplemental Compliance Filing with revised versions of Schedules 6, 8, 68, and 84,
which were intended to reflect the directives in Order No. 36048. In subsequent
discussions with Staff, the Company became aware that there were further changes that
needed to be incorporated into the referenced schedules to ensure compliance with
Commission orders. Accordingly, the Company requested that the Supplemental
Compliance Filing submitted on January 2, 2024, be withdrawn so that the Company
could continue to work with Staff to identify all revisions necessary to fully comply with the
Commission's orders.
9. Among the concerns raised by Staff with the Company's revised Schedule
84 was that it failed to include additional language regarding the demand-based project
Order Nos. 36042 (IPC-E-23-11), 36048 (IPC-E-23-14), and 36036 (IPC-E-23-28).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 5

eligibility cap to clarify how determination of the project cap would be administered and
how a system expansion would be handled. While the Company had agreed in its Final
Comments with Staff's recommendation to incorporate the necessary conditions and
language into Schedule 84 as part of its compliance filing, it had inadvertently overlooked
doing so initially.$
10. Following discussions with Staff, the Company shared proposed revisions
to Schedule 84 with Staff on January 8, 2024, which included a new section to address
the applicability and demand-based cap determination and requested that Staff advise of
any additional suggested edits. In response, Staff made some minor clarifying edits,
which were incorporated by Idaho Power.
11. After working with Staff to identify and incorporate changes necessary to
implement the directives mandated by the Commission in Order No. 36048 relative to
Schedules 6, 8, 68, and 84, the Company made its Supplemental Compliance Filing on
January 10, 2024, which included the added tariff language to Schedule 84 regarding
applicability of the demand-based project eligibility cap.
12. On January 16, 2024, Staff issued a Decision Memorandum stating it
believed the tariffs and service provisions in the Company's supplemental compliance
filings9 complied with the relevant Commission orders and recommending approval of the
same, which was provided by the Commission in Order No. 36067 issued on January 23,
2024.
$ Case No. IPC-E-23-14, Idaho Power Company's Final Comments at 63-65 (Nov. 16, 2023).
9 Including the Company's tariff sheets filed on December 29, 2023, and the replacement tariff sheets
filed on January 10 and 12, 2024. The Second Supplemental Compliance Filing made on January 12,
2024, corrected a scrivener's error in Schedule 6.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 6

Young Family Farm's Applications
13. During March of 2024, the installer working with Young Family Farms (as
well as multiple other pending Schedule 84 customers) reached out to the Idaho Power
Customer Generation ("CG") Team about possibilities for sizing systems in excess of
historical maximum demand. In its initial response the CG Team advised: "No, there is no
mechanism to apply for a slightly oversized system. . . the maximum system size is the
same as the peak demand." In follow-up, however, the CG Team noted that for irrigation
service there was a potential option for further review, pointing to the new section of
Schedule 84 describing how pump size could be used to determine demand.
Subsequently, in response to the installer's inquiry as to whether that point could stand
on its own or whether peak demand would still be a consideration for an existing system,
a member of the CG Team advised, erroneously, that it could stand on its own. While
Idaho Power strives to ensure it provides accurate and helpful advice to its customers, it
unfortunately fell short in this instance. In the process of implementing the wholesale
changes to the Company's on-site generation offering during the preceding months,
including multiple and significant programmatic changes and associated tariff revisions,
this customer facing representative misunderstood this point and the customer was
regrettably provided incorrect information as a result.
14. Subsequently, in April of 2024, the same installer submitted four (4)
Customer Generator Applications for irrigation customer Young Family Farms as reflected
on the table below. Though only the first application, Application ID 21027, is at issue in
the instant case, the Company believes the context is helpful to understand the underlying
circumstances:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 7

Pump/ Max Requested
Application ID Historical System Size Notes Status
kW kW
The maximum system size
allowed under the tariff is
174kW. The existing
0403 transformer is 150 kW, so the
(ID 21027) 174 200 maximum allowable size for an Not Approved
on-site generation system
without requiring upgrades is
165 kW.
Idaho Power CG issued
"approval to proceed"email,
0302 which was later determined to
(ID 21036) 168 200 be in error. System was Approved/Closed
allowed to proceed as a one-
time exception based on the
circumstances.
0902 System approved for
�(ID 21029) N/A interconnection as submitted Approved/Closed
1601 136 120 System approved for Approved/Closed
(ID 21028) interconnection as submitted
15. One of the applications (Application ID 21029) fell within the 100 kW cap,
while the other three were for systems exceeding 100 kW, implicating the recently
approved demand-based eligibility cap, which required consideration of historical billing
demand. Of these three projects, one was under the maximum billing demand for the
most recent 12-month billing period (Application ID 21028) and approved as submitted as
a result. The other two (Application IDs 21027 and 21036) exceeded the demand for the
most recent 12-month billing period. When the installer was notified of this fact by the CG
Team, he responded stating that he would like to use the pump HP as a proxy.
16. As noted above, because it had only recently been implemented, the CG
Team was new to administering the demand-based cap and to determining Schedule 84
customer demand for purposes of conforming to the 100 percent eligibility cap under the
various circumstances. Notably, the CG Team had not previously confronted a request to
use pump size to determine maximum project sizing under Schedule 84. While the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 8

underlying context from Case No. IPC-E-23-14 makes clear that relying on pump size to
determine demand should be limited to those situations involving irrigation customers
without a full in-season billing history, there was some initial confusion as to how the
methods for determining demand were listed in Schedule 84 and the interplay between
the various provisions. As a result of this misunderstanding, on May 10, 2024, the CG
Team approved Application ID 21036 for a 200 kW system based on pump HP despite
the fact that historical demand was available for that location.
17. Subsequent to Application ID 21036 being approved, and while Application
ID 21027 remained pending, the CG Team internally escalated the situation to
management to ensure they applied the tariff provisions correctly. Through that review, it
was determined that Application ID 21036 was approved in error; because historical
billing demand was available for that location, it was not appropriate to determine demand
based on pump size. Rather, the maximum system size allowed for the location should
have been 168 kW based on historical demand.
18. After an ongoing internal review of this matter including the history of
communications with the installer, consideration of other recent customer generator
applications, and consultation with Staff, the Company authorized Application ID 21036
to proceed even though it did not conform to the Company's requirements as a one-time
exception based on the specific circumstances associated with that application. In
communicating this decision with the installer and customer on June 28, 2024, the
Company noted that for all other applications for which historical billing demand is
available, that would be used to determine the maximum system size for purposes of the
eligibility cap, not HP, consistent with Commission Order No. 36048.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 9

Tariff Advice No. IPC-TAE-24-02
19. As a result of the uncertainty experienced by the CG Team in administering
the modified project eligibility cap for irrigation customers, the Company discovered that,
despite the best efforts of the Staff and Idaho Power to clearly draft it, the tariff language
addressing how a Schedule 84 customer's demand is determined for purposes of
conforming to the 100 percent eligibility cap could have been more precise. Specifically,
after describing in paragraph 5(b)(ii)the cap as the greater of"the greatest monthly Billing
Demand established during the most recent 12-month period at the time of applying for
interconnection, which includes and ends with the most recent Billing Period," or 100 kW,
paragraph 6 lists methods for determining demand in instances where a customer seeks
to interconnect a system that either (1) has a nameplate capacity rating that exceeds
actual billing demand or (2) billing demand data is unavailable.
20. The language in paragraph 6 was drafted by the Company at the behest of
and in consultation with Staff and was intended to clarify how the project eligibility cap
would be administered in instances where historical demand was not reflective of
expected future demand and/or where there was no historical demand (e.g., a customer's
manufacturing plant expansion or a new service point). As drafted, however, the provision
could be interpreted to mean that a Schedule 24 customer could apply to interconnect a
system that is the "greater of" either the historical demand or a conversion factor applied
to the nameplate HP of their irrigation system's motor—even in instances where historical
billing demand existed. That interpretation is not consistent with the record established in
IPC-E-23-14, nor did the Company believe it reflected the intent of Commission Order
No. 36048.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 10

21. Accordingly, on June 17, 2024, the Company submitted a tariff advice, IPC-
TAE-24-02, to ensure the tariff language is reflective of the Commission's decision in
Order No. 36048. The revision to Schedule 84 was ultimately approved by the
Commission, effective August 8, 2024.
Young Family Farms Application ID 21027
22. In the meantime, Application ID 21027 for Young Family Farms remained
pending. As noted previously, that application was submitted on April 4, 2024, requesting
a 200 kW system. The maximum billing demand from the most recent 12-month period
at that location was 174 kW. Though not an exhaustive timeline, the Company sets forth
the following synopsis, specific to Application ID 21027, of the events preceding the
formal Complaint.
23. On May 23, 2024, an Idaho Power Renewable Energy Specialist on the CG
Team spoke with the customer and installer regarding the pending Young Family Farms
applications and advised that the approval of Application ID 21036 on May 10, 2024, had
been in error because there was historical billing demand available at that location based
on which the project cap should have been set at 168 kW. Likewise, historical demand
would be the basis for determining the allowable system size for purposes of conforming
with the project eligibility cap for Application ID 21027, which remained pending and had
not been approved. In addition, specifically with respect to Application ID 21027, it was
noted that the application was tied to a 150 kilovolt-amperes ("kVA") transformer and that
the maximum allowable system size without requiring an upgrade would be 165 kW. That
is to say, regardless of whether the project cap at that location was based on historical
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 11

billing demand or pump size, upgrades were necessary in order to safely interconnect a
larger system exceeding 165 kW.
24. Communications between the customer/installer10 and the CG Team
regarding Application IDs 21036 and 21027 continued over the ensuing weeks with the
Company clarifying how the project eligibility cap for irrigation customers under Schedule
84 should properly be administered for purposes of conforming to the 100 percent of
demand eligibility cap and explaining that basing eligibility for Schedule 24 customers on
the "greater of" either the historical demand or a conversion factor applied to the
nameplate HP of their irrigation system's motor — even in instances of where historical
billing demand exists — is not consistent with the record established in IPC-E-23-14 nor
does it reflect the intent of Order No. 36048. The customer/installer, in turn, disagreed
with the Company's interpretation of Schedule 84 and was understandably frustrated over
the initial misunderstanding and conflicting guidance provided by the Company.
25. On June 14, 2024, Idaho Power was contacted by a Utilities Compliance
Investigator with the Commission ("Commission Investigator") regarding an inquiry made
by the customer pertaining to the pending on-site generation applications (Application IDs
21036 and 21027). Idaho Power responded to Staff's questions on June 25, 2024, noting
that the Company is required to follow the Commission's prior orders as well as the utility
tariff on file with the Commission pursuant to which the project eligibility cap is applied.
26. As noted above, based on the ongoing internal review of this matter
including the history of communications with the installer, consideration of other recent
10 There were several phone calls and/or emails between the Company's CG Team, Customer Relations
and Program Manager, and Regional Customer Relations Manager and the customer and/or installer
over the course of working through this issue.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 12

customer generator applications, and consultation with Staff, the Company advised the
customer/installer via email on June 28, 2024, that it would honor the prior approval of
Application ID 21036, stating:
Idaho Power has decided to allow for the approval of application 21036 for
the installation of a 200kw solar array system. The original application was
approved in error as the intent of the program is to use past peak/billing
demand when available for sizing a system. Going forward when
peak/billing demand is available it will be used for sizing.
With respect to Application ID 21027 (Pump 0403), the Company reiterated in that same
email that the application was tied to a 150 kVa transformer and if the customer wanted
to proceed with upsizing the transformer based on the peak billing demand, the costs
associated would be the responsibility of the customer.
27. On July 9, 2024, the customer advised the Company via email that
Application ID 21027 should have been for a 220 kW system and that the 200 kW had
been a typo." Idaho Power responded as follows:
The application ID 21027 we received was for a 200kW AC system size.
This application has not been approved and the options were provided to
you in the June 4t" email . . . As indicated in previous communications, all
applications, with the exception of application ID 21036, will utilize the
available historical billing demand at the time of application.
In regard to this application, it will be necessary to provide an updated one
indicating the max allowed system size of 174kW assuming you are still
pursuing an upgrade to the transformer.
" The Company is aware that the Complainant claims that an updated application for the 220 kW system
size was sent to CG(u)idahopower.com on May 31, 2024. The CG Team did receive an email from Adam
Young on May 31, 2024, with the subject line "customer cg form," though the email itself did not have any
content, only links which when clicked displayed an error message. However, a copy of an application
dated May 31, 2024, was attached to the July 9, 2024, email from Mr. Young.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 13

****Once we receive the updated application, we will process accordingly
pending the completion of the upgrade to the transformer.
28. On July 16, 2024, Idaho Power's Customer Relations and Programs
Manager and Regional Customer Relations Manager reached out to the customer via
telephone to discuss Application ID 21027 further, advising that it would approve that
application with the maximum system size of 174 kW based on historic billing demand at
that service point (assuming an upgrade to the transformer). Subsequently, Idaho Power
followed up in writing via email emphasizing that the Company's treatment of Application
ID 21036 was a one-time exception based on the specific circumstances associated with
that application, namely that it had been officially approved by the Company, but that all
other applications for which billing demand is available, including Application ID 21027,
would utilize billing demand, not HP, to determine the maximum system size consistent
with Order No. 36048.
29. The Company acknowledges that prior to IPC-TAE-24-02, the tariff
language addressing how a Schedule 84 customer's demand is determined for purposes
of conforming to the project eligibility cap left room for multiple interpretations. While the
Complainant's perspective was not unreasonable, the outcome being sought was not
consistent with the regulatory history, nor did the Company believe it reflected the intent
of Commission Order No. 36048, and the Company was sensitive to the potential broader
impact considering other recent customer generator applications and the need for
consistent treatment and application amongst similarly situated customers.
30. Presented with these challenging circumstances, the Company determined
that the official approval of Application ID 21036 issued by the Company on May 10, 2024,
was a distinguishing feature that would justify honoring that as a onetime exception while
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 14

communicating that all other pending or future applications, for Young Family Farms as
well as other customers, would utilize the historical billing demand when available to
establish maximum system size.
31. While the Company had a number of other pending customer generator
applications for irrigation customers around this time, including several open applications
from the installer for Young Family Farms, Application ID 21036 was the only application
that had been approved based on pump size despite the fact that historical billing demand
existed at that service point. Unlike Application ID 21036, the Company did not issue a
formal "approval" of Application ID 21027, and absent that objective threshold, the
Company has maintained its position is to administer the tariff consistent with the
regulatory history and Commission Order No. 36048 utilizing the historical billing demand
in determining the maximum system size for Application ID 21027. This is consistent with
how it had and would treat any other pending applications that were similarly situated.
Young Family Farm's Complaint
32. Subsequently, Young Family Farms submitted a complaint letter to the
Commission on August 5, 2024, and the Commission issued a Summons and Formal
Complaint against Idaho Power on September 3, 2024. In the Complaint, Young Family
Farms states that "...violating the Schedule 84 tariff by refusing to approve our farm's
customer generation project consistent with the plain language of Section 6.iv." The
Complainant is seeking relief stating "...request that the conflict be resolved by ordering
Idaho Power to approve our 220kW customer generation application for pump 0403."
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 15

III. ANSWER AND DEFENSES
33. The Commission has been granted the authority to determine the merits of
any complaint "setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public
utility including any rule, regulation or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any
public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or of any
order or rule of the commission[.]" Idaho Code § 61-612.
A. The Complaint is Procedurally Insufficient.
34. Commission Rule of Procedure 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.054.03, sets forth the
process for bringing formal complaints against a public utility, and specifies that
complaints must be in writing and include certain information including, in pertinent part,
reference "to the specific provision of statute, rule, order, notice, tariff, or other controlling
law" that the utility allegedly violated. See IDAPA 31.01.01.054.03. Rule 65, IDAPA
31.01.01.065, provides that insufficient or defective filings may be dismissed.
35. The Complainant did not make specifically numbered allegations in the formal
Complaint, but instead made general allegations in a narrative format, and the failure to refer
to specific provisions of statute, rule, order, notice, tariff, or other controlling law that the
Company allegedly violated is contrary to the requirements of RP 54.12 Further, Idaho Power
denies any allegation not specifically admitted and reserves the right to supplement and/or
amend its Answer if the Complainant amends its Complaint, responds to discovery requests,
or if additional defenses are ascertained during the course of discovery or otherwise.
12 1DAPA 31.01.01.054.03.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 16

B. The Company Acted in Conformity with Regulatory History and Precedent
and Undertook Reasonable Efforts to Ease the Impact to the Complainant
While Mitigating the Potential for Claims of Preferential Treatment.
36. Because the Complaint fails to satisfy Commission rules the Company
believes the Complaint fails on procedural grounds. Moreover, even if one accepts
Complainant's factual allegations as true, they do not indicate any unlawful conduct by Idaho
Power. Having only recently transitioned to a demand-based cap, the CG Team was unclear
as to when pump size could be relied on to determine demand and, as a result, provided
inaccurate information in some of its initial communications with the Complainant. Upon
becoming aware of the miscommunication, the Company immediately undertook efforts to
properly advise the customer/installer and to ensure conformity with the tariff, regulatory
history, and Commission Order No. 36048.
37. While the Complainant's incorrect interpretation of how a Schedule 84
customer's demand was determined for purposes of conforming to the eligibility cap was
understandable, it was not consistent with the record established in Case No. IPC-E-23-
14, nor did the Company believe it reflected the intent of Commission Order No. 36048.
Accordingly, after considering the benefits of additional clarity in the tariff language, the
Company initiated a tariff advice to remove any uncertainty moving forward. The revised
language was intended to ensure the guidelines for determining the project eligibility cap
for irrigation customers where historical billing demand is available reflect Staff's
recommendations and the Commission's directive.
38. Regardless of the initial misunderstanding, the Company's ultimate position
and response to the informal complaint is controlled by the "filed rate doctrine." Idaho
Code § 61-313 provides, in pertinent part, that no contract or agreement or any rule or
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 17

regulation of any facility or privilege may be extended except such as are specified in
such schedules and as are regularly and uniformly extended to all corporations and
persons. Similarly, Idaho Code § 61-315 codifies the concept of non-discriminatory
service and prohibits a utility from giving preferential treatment to any customer or
customer class over another. Together, Idaho Code § 61-313 and Idaho Code § 61-315
codify the concepts that make up the filed rate doctrine for the State of Idaho.
39. Strict application of the filed rate doctrine is necessary to prevent unjust
discrimination even though the rule "may work hardship in some cases.1113 Thus, the filed
rate doctrine would be implicated even in a situation where a utility intentionally
misrepresents14 rates and the customer relies on the misrepresentation.15 In addressing
a customer complaint of being billed for installation charges after having allegedly been
advised by a Company representative that it would be free, the Commission found the
customer was obligated to pay the charges noting:
Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging
either less or more than the rate filed.
Regardless of the utility's motive or intent in quoting or charging a rate that
is greater or lesser than the filed rate, the policy of non-discriminatory rates
is violated when similarly situated customers are allowed to pay different
rates for the same services.16
40. Similarly, in the instant case, while the Company is sensitive to the potential
impact to this customer based on the initial mistaken guidance provided by the CG Team,
13 Brian Emerick v. Idaho Power Company, Case No. IPC-E-00-03, Order No. 28329 (Mar. 2000).
14 In the instant case, however, there is no indication that the miscommunication with the customer was
anything other than a good faith mistake, though the filed-rate doctrine is implicated regardless.
15 Id. citing AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, 524 U.S. 214, 118 S.Ct. 1956, 1963 (1998).
16 Case No. IPC-E-00-03, Order No. 28329 (emphasis in original).
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 18

the Company's response was dictated by the filed rate doctrine. After identifying and
clarifying the misunderstanding with the customer/installer, the Company established
objective criteria to mitigate the impact on the Complainant while also minimizing claims
of preference/discrimination and ensuring conformity with Commission Order No. 36048
moving forward.
41. In authorizing the Complainant to proceed with Application ID 21036, the
Company was mindful of the other pending Schedule 84 customer generator applications,
including Application ID 21027, and the potential impact of basing eligibility for Schedule
24 customers on the "greater of" either the available historical demand or pump HP (even
in instances of where historical billing demand exists), if employed on a broader scale, to
the Company's ability to offer Customer Generation in an efficient, safe, and reliable
manner. Acknowledging the miscommunication between the Company and the
customer/installer, the Company was able to ease the impact on the Complainant by
authorizing Application ID 21036 as a one-time exception without subjectivity in
recognition of the fact that that application alone had been officially approved by the
Company with demand based on HP rather than the available historical billing demand.
42. Considering that Application ID 21036 was authorized to proceed using
pump HP to calculate maximum system size, the Company understands that the
Complainant believes that the Company could easily afford the same treatment to
Application ID 21027. While the Complainant's perspective is understandable, the
circumstances raise larger public policy issues that could have implications broader than
this single customer. These considerations include prejudice to similarly situated
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 19

customers and/or the potential cumulative impact of improperly oversized on site
generation facilities on the Company's system.
43. Following the Company's official approval of Application ID 21036 on May
10, 2024, the CG Team clarified how the project eligibility cap for irrigation customers
under Schedule 84 should be administered for purposes of conforming to Order No.
36048 and consistently applied that to other pending applications moving forward.
44. Consider, for the sake of argument, if Idaho Power had also provided an
exception for Application ID 21027 despite the fact that it had not been previously
approved in error. While such an approach would have likely satisfied the Complainant's
grievance and avoided the instant Complaint, it would have undermined the concept of
non-discriminatory service and left the Company vulnerable to claims from other
Schedule 84 irrigators that the deviation from normal practices to accommodate that
single customer implies preferential treatment that runs afoul of Idaho Code § 61-315.
45. The Company understands that there may be circumstances, in this case
or others, under which the Commission would find deviation from the Company's
authorized method for determining the project eligibility cap for irrigation customers for
which billing demand historical data is available to be fair, just, and reasonable. Such a
decision, however, would require significant subjectivity which is more appropriately
within the purview of the Commission not the Company.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
46. Service of pleadings and communications with reference to this case should
be sent to the following:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 20

Megan Goicoechea Allen Connie Aschenbrenner
Lisa D. Nordstrom Ashley Herrera
Idaho Power Company Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702) 1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70 P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707 Boise, Idaho 83707
mgoicoecheaallen�idahopower.com caschenbrenner(a),idahopower.com
Inordstrom(c)idahopower.com aherrera(cDidahopower.com
dockets idahopower.com
V. CONCLUSION
47. Idaho Power does not believe that there is a dispute as to the material facts;
rather, the issue is whether the facts of this case justify an exception to the Commission's
Schedule 84 eligibility cap criteria. Idaho Power regrets the circumstances surrounding
the Young Family Farms submitted applications, including the misunderstanding and
miscommunication by an employee relating to administering the demand-based cap.
However, absent an objective basis justifying different treatment, the Company is obliged
to treat Application ID 21027 in a manner consistent with how the Company handled
similar applications.
48. The Company appreciates the engagement of the customer/installer and
Staff on these issues as the Company continues to gain experience administering the
modified project eligibility cap for Schedule 84 and in working through the concerns of
Complainant. The Company understands the Complainant is frustrated with the course
of events and disagrees with the Company's position, but as a regulated utility Idaho
Power must approach individual customer grievances holistically and transparently,
considering the potential broader impact and the need for consistent treatment and
application with all customers. Though it promptly initiated a tariff advice to improve the
clarity of the language contained in Schedule 84 as a result of these circumstances,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 21

because the prior version of the tariff had been in effect for many months, it was important
that the Company establish objective criteria for administering pending applications that
may have been impacted to avoid claims of preference/discrimination under Idaho Code
§ 61-315.
49. Idaho Power acted reasonably, in good faith, and in compliance with
Commission precedent in relation to Young Family Farm's situation. While the Company
understands that there could be extenuating circumstances under which it may be
appropriate to grant an exception to the Company's authorized method for determining
the project eligibility cap, such a decision would require significant subjectivity that is not
appropriately exercised by Idaho Power. As such, the Company defers to the Commission
to determine whether it believes the facts presented in this case justify granting the relief
sought by Young Family Farms.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 24t" day of September 2024.
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER- 22

-0 o
co
> E o >
O O U '-
a) 0 C6 cn
L
C�
C
Q � U, L m
a) > > > O Q
cnE Q .M 0 O Q .CU 0) a) Q .CU � a) m L
c 'c Cl) — 2 'c (n — O 2 'c (n — c
� am w cam a) Xa- � � : a) Xw m ca
L
C14
m — 2p = ' �
m
0U- LLw Z) 0U- U w
o EOmow
W E X cB X X ca
p m C�
W 0 3 '�
� aO
cU
LL U)�, � o Q
m
O -0
w cn
Q N Q O
V 0 _� aa)i
LL C co
cn N
Co i
0 0- m o0 E 0�
W E 70 c 0 L E uJ
U __ U � o Z Ui m .-.
o_ a `u aEm cn� o m E 5--
0 � � LL zoZw o �
Q
U co -0 m U) m � o D r-� �
W O (�6 >+ N It
70 Co N } � CYO 0 0 0 M U
U a) D � CO O I L pp O O
W Q� co
a a) L 0 -E —N co C O p L i i W
= 0 0 C -0 o — UQca � L — O a) a)
U •� coM r (0 w70 CM — O
>, N o Q Q O O
} o
0 0 O c4 a) 2M � m con E � M U O 9 2m � Q
o L) a0 :2 coam UQ - 00 Q0p0- r