20011116_sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
LYNN ANDERSON
DAVE SCHUNKE
RICK STERLING
RANDY LOBB
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 16, 2001 RE: CASE NO. IPC-E-01-39 (Idaho Power)
SCHEDULE 84—NET METERING

On November 9, 2001, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting approval of a new tariff Schedule 84—Customer Energy Production—Net Metering. Concurrent with this filing the Company has requested the deletion of net metering option language in Schedule 86. Reference Case No. IPC-E-01-40.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 1997, the Commission issued Order No. 26750 authorizing Idaho Power to implement net metering as an option in the purchase price section of the Company’s Schedule 86—Cogeneration and Small Power Production—Non-Firm Energy. Net metering was identified as Option B in the purchase price section of Schedule 86 and described as “offset to retail sales.” In recent months, the Company states, that it has received input from potential net metering customers indicating that the current net metering provision of Schedule 86—Option B—is difficult to understand and cumbersome to implement. In response to those comments and in an effort to reduce the administrative requirements of computing individual monthly charges for different generating facilities and multiple customers, the Company is requesting authorization to revise its net metering provisions.
Description of Proposal
The Company is requesting approval of a net metering option that:
allows the Company to use its existing billing system;
allows the customer to use a single meter to register the energy supplied by the Company and the energy delivered by the customer;
charges the customer the rate consistent with its class of service while the meter is running forward;
pays the customer the retail rate consistent with its class of service while the meter is running backward; and
does not impose any monthly charges other than those provided for on the customer’s standard service schedule.

Idaho Power is proposing that its net metering option, the proposed Schedule 84, be available to customers taking service under Schedule 1 or Schedule 7 who own and/or operate a generation facility that is fueled by solar, wind, biomass, or hydro power, or represents fuel cell technology, is rated at 25 kW of nameplate capacity or less, and is interconnected to the customer’s individual electric system on the customer’s side of the meter. A single meter will be utilized for the net metering service. All energy supplied by the Company to the customer will cause the meter to run forward; all energy delivered by the customer to the Company will cause the meter to run backward. If the energy supplied by the Company exceeds the energy generated by the customer during the billing period, the customer will be billed for the net amount of energy recorded on the meter at the standard Schedule 1 or Schedule 7 tariff rate, as applicable. If the energy generated by the customer exceeds the energy supplied by the Company during the billing period, period, the customer will be credited for the net amount of energy delivered to the Company at the standard Schedule 1 or Schedule 7 tariff rate, as applicable.
The Company is proposing to make the net metering service under Schedule 84 available on a first come, first serve basis until the cumulative generation nameplate capacity of net metering systems connected to the Company’s system equals 2.9 MW. The 2.9 MW limit represents 1/10th of 1% of the Company’s retail peak demand for year 2000. The 1/10th of 1% limit, the Company contends, is considered to be an industry standard and is identical to the limit on net metering capacity the Commission previously approved for Avista Utilities.
Commission Decision
The Company and Staff recommend that the Application be processed under Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submission rather than by hearing. Reference Commission Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.201-204. Does the Commission agree with the proposed procedure? If not, what is the Commission’s preference?

vld/M:IPC-E-01-39_sw

DECISION MEMORANDUM 2