20190827_ct1jo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM:CURTIS THADEN
DATE:AUGUST 23,2019
SUBJECT:FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JEFF COMER AGAINST IDAHO POWER
COMPANY:CASE NO.IPC-E-19-28.
On August 6,2019,Jeff Comer,a customer of Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power"or
"Company")filed a formal complaint against the Company alleging it improperly denied the
transfer of excess net energy credits between meters in Mr.Comer's name.See Attachment A.
Mr.Comer filed his complaint after becoming unsatisfied with the outcome of informal
proceedings.
BACKGROUND
Mr.Comer and Jack Goodman are partners in a net-metered small hydroelectric facility
in Twin Falls County that has been in operation since 2006.Mr.Comer and Mr.Goodman own
contiguous properties.The meter on Mr.Goodman's property is in Mr.Comer's name,and Mr.
Comer and Mr.Goodman had previouslybeen allowed to aggregate the demand on the meters to
offset the production of the hydroelectric facility.On February 15,2019,the Company denied
Mr.Comer's request to transfer excess net energy credits to the meter on Mr.Goodman's
property,which is about 1,200 feet from the next closest meter on Mr.Comer's property.Mr.
Comer alleges the Company replaced the word "property"with a more restrictive word "parcel"
when determining whether meter aggregation was appropriate.Mr.Comer asserts that the
Company's use of the term "parcel"instead of "property"violates the aggregation criteria found
in the applicable Company Tariff.
DECISION MEMORANDUM l AUGUST 23,2019
STAFF RECOMMEDATIONS
Staff recommends the Commission issue a Summons to Idaho Power,and direct the
Company to respond to the complaint within twenty-one days.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to:
(1)Issue a Summons to Idaho Power giving the Company twenty-one days to
respond after the service date of the Summons?
(2)Allow replies within fourteen days of the response deadline?
Curtis Thaden
I:\udmemos/IPCEl928 dec memo
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 AUGUST 23,2019
Beverly Barker RECE I VED 7/30/2019
Idaho Public Utility Commission
Compliance division |:gg
Reference:Formal complaint GPU L I C
Rate schedule 6 8 COMMlŠŠlON
Aggregationof meters for a net metering project owned by Jeff Comer and Jack
Goodman.
Good aftemoon Ms.Barker,
We are sending this communication to file a formal complaint asking your assistance to
settle a dispute with IdahoPower Company (IPC).We have had multiple conversationswith(IPC)staff but this matter has not been settled to our satisfaction.
Jeff Comer and Jack Goodman,are partners in a net metering project in Twin Falls
County.This project has been on-line since 2006.Mr.Comer and Mr.Goodman own
contiguous properties in Twin Falls County.This fact has been affirmed by our own
engineer,the Twin Falls County assessor's office and the Twin Falls County Planning
and Zoning Department.(Please see attached property descriptions).
At the time of the IPC denial of aggregation (Feb 15,2019)Mr.Comer owned property
as described by the followingTwin Falls County assessor's office parcel number
designations:RPO9Sl4E333010,RPO9S14E333610,RPO9S14E333600,
RPO9S14E333621,RPO9Sl4E333625.This property abuts Mr.Goodman's property.At
the time of the IPC denial the property was made up of land described by the followingTwinFallsCountyassessor's office parcel number designations:RPO9Sl4E333641,
RPO9S14E333629,and RPO9S14E33335400.
Since that time Mr.Comer has purchased two of Mr.Goodman's parcels.At this present
time Mr.Comer's property includes Twin falls County parcel numbers
RPO9S14E333010,RPO9S14E333610,RPO9Sl4E333600,RPO9Sl4E333621,
RPO9Sl4E333625,RPO9S14E333641,and RPO9Sl4E333629.Mr.Goodman owns
parcel number RPO9Sl4E33335400.(Please see attached map with properties outlinedin
black.)
Mr.Comer and Mr.Goodman have shared the energy credits for the power generated bytheirpowerplantforthelastseveralyears.The meter on Mr.Goodman's property is inMr.Comers name and therefore qualifies for aggregation privileges.They are in
compliance with all of the terms and conditions that permit them to share the unused
excess net energy credits in accordance with IPUC Schedule 6.They have appliedannuallyforthetransferofthosecreditsontheschedulerequiredbyIdahoPowerandapprovedbytheIdahoPublicUtilityCommissiononMay21,2018 per O.N.34046.
Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 1 of 7
Idaho Power on February 15,2019 (please see attached letter from IPC)reversed their
previous practice of allowing aggregation and denied their request to share the unused
excess net energy credits.IPC employees now state that the properties owned by Mr.
Comer and Mr.Goodman are not contiguous,and yet they are.
The IPC denial was sent to Mr.Comer on February 15,2019.The IPC representative
(Ms.Patti Best)sent an e-mail that states in part,"The transfer request from meter
36365734 to meter 10884841 does not meet the contiguous property requirement.
According to our maps,the meters are not on contiguous parcels.There are several
parcels in between the two meters (see map below).I am checking with our regulatory
department and will circle back with you next week."(Italics added)
Further investigationand communication with IPC revealed,by their own admission,that
the IPC has replaced terminology approved by the IPUC and substituted terminology of
their own.We believe that IPC has exceeded their authority in doing so and ask that the
IPUC advise IPC to reverse their current action and allow aggregation of the meters in
the manner as delineated in schedule 6.
Specifically IPC has replaced the word "property"with the word "parcel."This
substitution of terms would be harmless except for the fact that IPC is now using a more
restrictive definition of the word "parcel"in place of the more general term "property",in
an effort to disallow aggregation of meter credits.We do not believe this was the IPUC
intent when they approved the order on February 15,2019.
Our position is supported by the following:
1.The IPUC has consistently held,over IPC objections,that aggregation of meters is
appropriate.Primary factors in all past deliberations appears to be that if the
meters are in near proximity and held in the same name as the owner of the net
metering project,then there is minimal or no added expense to the IPC and shouldthereforebeallowed.Mr.Comer has three meters on this account and the
disallowed meter is onlyabout 1200 feet from the closest alternate meter.
2.The IPUC has consistently held the properties will be considered to be contiguous
even in the event where a property is separated in to two separateparcels by aroadwayorrailway.It would seem inconsistent then for them to hold that a
property separated in to parcels for county taxing or zoning reasons would then
not also be considered a property.
3.By common definition the word "property"when used in description of real estate
includes the acreageand improvements on land owned by an individual.Theword"parcel"in this case is a term used by the County assessor's office and thePlanningandZoningCommissiontodescribeaportionofthepropertyfortax
assessment purposes and for compliance with zoning ordinances.
Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 2 of 7
4.Order 34046 specifically uses the term "property"and nowhere does it use theword"parcel".Nowhere in the order or the transcripts of the hearings leadinguptotheorderisitmentionedthatthedefinitionoftheword"property"may be
more narrowly defined by the utilityby using the county taxing authority orPlanningandZoningterm"parcel".The two terms in this instance are not
interchangeable as the definitions are not identical.IPC has co-opted the more
restrictive definition of the word parcel and as such rationalizes its decision torefuseaggregationofthispreviouslyaggregatedmeter.
5.If it was the intent of the PUC to use the more restrictive county designated term"parcel"and not the general term "property"then it would seem appropriate that
somewhere in the record we could find a discussion about the varied zoning lawsthatpertaintoeachofthe44countieswithinthestateofIdaho.Each county has
specific zoning laws that determine the size,location and other specific
characteristics that define a parcel within each of those counties.
6.Utilitycompanies have put forth the argument that there are expenses for the
transport of the minute amount of energy produced by net generators.The same
companies fail to add that the capital costs of the installation of the IPCtransformersandthepowerlineimprovementswerebornebytheowners of thenetmeteringprojectandnottheutilitycompany.Additionally the utilitycompaniesfailtoaddthattheexcessenergyontheline(when present)adds tostabilityontheseremotesectionsofthedistributionsystem.As such the benefitsmayoutweighthenegligibleexpensethattheymayincur.
7.IPC is well aware that by changing the verbiage in the current IPUC order to oneoftheirchoosingthattheownersofthenetmeteringprojectwillcontinuetobuildcredits,put saleable power on the line and never be able to use those credits undertheircurrentconfiguration.
8.Utilitycompanies have also promoted the argument that net metering projectsshouldbeproperlysizedsoasnottoputexcessenergyonthesystem.In this casethenetmeteringprojectisaverysmallhydroelectricfacility.The plant wasdesignedandconstructedusingscaleddownindustrialgradeequipmentofthehighestquality.This power plant's automation control and protection scheme
meets or exceeds the design used at even the most modern IPC hydroelectricplants.The peak capacity of 22 kilo-watts is only reached during the irrigation
season which is a high energy demand season.This plant was properly sized
based on the resource it was designed to utilize.It was set up from the outset as anetmeteringprojectwiththefullconsentandsupportoftheIPC.It would beenvironmentallyirresponsibletobuildahydroelectricplantwithoutfullydevelopingtheresourceavailable.The size of this plant is considered to beappropriatebyIPCforanetmeteringproject.
Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 3 of7
9.Utilitycompanies also argue that in the case of solar or wind power that the
cycling of flows of power both coming and going is erratic and thus a burden ontheirgrid.This hydro-electric power plant runs twenty-fourhours a day 365 days
a year.The flow of power is very predictable and is not erratic.The project runs at
all times except during Idaho Power outages or scheduled maintenance.On this
part of the distribution system it is a valuable resource to help stabilize the grid.
10.There is an obvious economic advantage that IPC seeks in replacing the IPUC
approved word "property"for the IPC preferred term,"parcel."This newinterpretationofthepolicyiseconomicallydamagingtothenetmeterowners.
It is safe to assume that the IPUC Commission knows the difference between the words
parcel and property.If the IPUC Commission had desired to use the more restrictive
word,"parcel"in the place of the more general term,"property"than they would have
done that.Surely the IPUC is aware that a property can be comprised of many parcels yetstillremainsaproperty.
We respectfully request that the IPUC conduct a review of this new Idaho Power
Company procedure or policy.We further request that the IPUC instruct IPC to reversetheirdenialofthetransferofunusedcredits.
Sincerely,
Jeff r
Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 4 of 7
e tvteTR /
e hierer
niggggHE MAPPINg SYSTER HELP DOC IS LOCATED T TOP RIGHT,DID YOI ANOu fl 3 I 3r
3.2.2-for Idaho X,Y 2782763.7,5252041A USNG 11T PH 7804 1923 Lat,Lon
http://idahoparcels.us:8080/gm3/desktop/twinfalls.html 7/31/2019
Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 5 of 7
Tom
From:Jeff Comer [[e-mail])
Sent:Wednesday.March 06,2019 2 02 PM
To:[e-mail]
Subject:Fwd:Excess Generation TransferRequest
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From:"Best.Patti"
Date:February 15.2019 at 3:18:12 PM MST
Cc:"Best.Patti"<i >
Subject:Excess Generation Transfer Request
Hi Jeff,
Per our conversation,idaho Power received2 requests for transfer.The transfer request from
meter 36365734to meter 10884891 is approved.
The transfer request from meter 36365734 to meter 10884841 does not meet the contiguous
property requirement.According to our maps,the meters are note on adjacent parcels.There areseveralparcelsinbetweenthetwometers(see map below).I am double checking with our
regulatory department and will circle back with you next week.
I will be back in the office Tuesday if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patti Best
idaho Power
9 2019 Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 6 of 7
MABE Y,COMER'COMER.STEWARTDEFFREYPFFREYP
000 N.MABE
ACK G STEWAR
M4BESTEWARTD
G MAN,M48E
ACK G STEWAR
Hm.
The transtmssion may contam mformanon that is pradeged confidennat and or exempt from d sdosure under appheaNe law lf tou are not them:ended reapient you are herebt nonfred that any disclosure.copymg.distribution or use of the míormanen contained herein unduding an3rettancethereoniisSTRICTLYPROHIBiTEDIfyourecenedthistraresmissionmerrotpleaseimmediatelycomactthesenderanddestrosthemalenalmitsennrettwhetherinelectronicorhardcomformatThanbou
3 9720 19 Attachment No.A
Case No.IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 7 of7