20130814order_no_32880.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 14,2013
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR )CASE NO.IPC-E-12-27
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ITS NET )
METERING SERVICE AND TO INCREASE )
THE GENERATION CAPACITY LIMIT )ORDER NO.32880
________________________________________________________________________________________
)
On July 3,2013,the Commission issued final Order No.32846.After the final Order
issued,the Commission received Petitions for Clarification and/or Reconsideration from Gary
Iverson,Sr.;Everett and Eileen Vanderpool;Stan Standal;Keith Woodworth;Scott Moore;the
Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”);and Idaho Power Company.On August 8,2013,the
Commission issued an Order that granted Idaho Power’s Petition by adjusting the effective date
of the Excess Net Energy billing changes from October 2013 to January 2014.The Order also
granted reconsideration to Mr.Iverson on the Excess Net Energy issue,and expressed the
Commission’s intent to issue a final Order on Mr.Iverson’s and the other remaining petitions by
August 14,2013.See Order No.32872.
With this Order,the Commission grants or denies reconsideration and/or clarification
to Petitioners ICL,Iverson,Vanderpool,Sandal,Woodworth,and Moore as discussed below.
The Commission also solicits comments from interested persons on another issue.Specifically,
if a net metering customer takes service through multiple meters at one or more premises,should
the customer be allowed to apply net metering credits to offset usage on the other meters?If so,
what conditions should apply?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A person may petition the Commission to clarify any Order,and may combine the
petition with a petition for reconsideration.Rule 325.Reconsideration allows a party to bring to
the Commission’s attention any question previously determined and thereby affords the
Commission an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission.
Kooienai Enviromnenta!Alliance.99 Idaho 875,879.591 P.2d 122,126 (1979);IDAPA
31.01.01.325.The party seeking reconsideration has 21 days from the date of the final Order in
which to ask for reconsideration.The party’s petition must specify why it “contends that the
order or any issue decided in the Order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in conformity
with the law.”Rule 331.01.Further,the petition “must state whether the petitioner ...requests
ORDER NO.32880 1
reconsideration by evidentiary hearing,written briefs,comments,or interrogatories.”Rule
-,-,3
Once a petition is filed,the Commission has 28 days to issue an Order saying whether
or not it will reconsider the parts of the Order at issue.If reconsideration is granted,the Order
must specify how the matter will be reconsidered.Idaho Code §61-626(2).The Commission
may grant reconsideration by reviewing the existing record,by written briefs,or by evidentiary
hearing.fd..Rule 332.If reconsideration is granted.the Commission must complete its
reconsideration within 13 weeks after the deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration.Idaho
Code §61-626(2).Finally,the Commission must issue its final Order on reconsideration within
28 days after the matter is finally submitted for reconsideration.Id
THE PETITIONS
A.Idaho Conservation League
ICL asks the Commission to reconsider the amount of ICL’s intervenor funding
award.We deny ICL’s request.
ICL had asked for $17,000 in intervenor funding,$9,812.45 of which was
attributable to expert fees and costs charged at a $300/hour billable rate.See ICL’s Application
for Intervenor Funding at 2 and Exh.A.We decided that ICL’s request was unreasonably high
in amount due to the $300/hour rate charged by ICL’s expert.We declined to require the
Company—and ultimately its customers—to pay that high rate,and we approved a reduced
award of $11,634.96 based on discounted but reasonable rates of $125/hour.See Order No.
32846 at 17-18 (citing Idaho Code §61-617A).
ICL argues that we abused our discretion in reducing this award.We disagree.ICL
participated in the public workshop and settlement negotiations,prepared and evaluated
discovery,and testified and examined witnesses at the technical hearing.We thus found that
ICL’s overall participation materially contributed to our decision.That said,ICL only addressed
one issue in the case—the valuation of net metering costs/benefits.And although we do not
believe the expert’s energy valuation analysis was wholly irrelevant,we note that no one cross
examined the expert and his testimony ultimately had little impact on our decision.Further,the
expert’s $300/hour rate appears shockingly high when compared to even the highest rates
charged by experts in other cases in which we have awarded funding.See,e.g.,Case Nos.IPC
E-1I-08 (Yankel,$125/hour)and PAC-E-10-07 (Reading,$175/hour).It certainly exceeded the
ORDER NO.32880 2
approximately $23/hour paid to Staffs expert in this case.In light of this,we affirm our
decision to reduce ICL’s funding award to a reasonable arnount—$II .634.96—on a discounted
but still reasonable rate of $125/hour.
B.Remaining Petitions
The remaining Petitions were filed by Gary Iverson,Sr.;Everett and Eileen
Vanderpool;Stan Standal;Keith Woodworth;and Scott Moore.These Petitions raise a variety
of issues,some intertwined,some duplicative and some separate.We address these issues as
follows.
1.Excess Net Energy Credit.The Petitioners ask the Commission to reconsider its
decision to allow the Company to credit excess net energy on a kWh basis,and to require
customers seeking financial payment to sell excess net energy to the Company under Schedule
86.We deny the Petitioners’request.
As we explained in the Order,we find it reasonable for the Company to compensate
net metering customers for Excess Net Energy using a kWh credit instead of a financial credit or
payment.Order No.32846 at 15.Our Order is consistent with our prior decisions that
emphasize that the primary thrust of net metering is to provide customers the opportunity to
offset their own load and energy requirements.See Order No.28951 at 11 (Case No.IPC-E-O1-
39).We find that allowing a bankable,kWh credit furthers the intent of net metering by
encouraging potential net metering customers to install only the distributed generation that they
need to offset their load.Conversely,we find that allowing a financial payment for excess net
energy would encourage customers to install more distributed generation than they need so they
can sell the excess power at wholesale to the Company without entering into a power purchase
contract under Schedule 86.We find that replacing the cash payment with a bankable kWh
credit encourages net metering by allowing customers to benefit from correctly sized systems.
The Petitioners argue that it is impractical and prohibitively expensive for small
generators to proceed through power purchase agreements and Schedule 86.See Petitions filed
by Iverson,Vanderpool,Standal.Woodworth,and Moore.Assuming this is true,these persons
should not set up or run their systems intending to generate excess energy for which they expect
payment.Again,the purpose of net metering is to allow a customer to offset usage,not to sell
power to the Company.If a customer wishes to become a power seller,then the customer must
proceed with a contract under Schedule 86.
ORDER NO.32880 3
Certain persons have expressed sympathy for customers who sought a faster payback
on their investment by over-sizing their net metering systems in order to sell excess power to the
Company.See July 15,201 3 Steinbach Comment.Another Petitioner suggested that net
metered customers should be grandfathered to the conditions of the current net meter tariff to
allow them to recover their investments in their renewable energy projects.See Standal Petition.
These remarks ignore that tariffs can change while power purchase agreements provide more
certainty,and that persons who oversized their systems to obtain a faster payback ignored or
misunderstood this difference and took the risk of taking service on a changeable tariff instead of
a contract under schedule 86.Consistent with our view in Order No.30227 (IPC-E-06-07).the
Commission reminds customers that net metering is a tariff rate.There is no contract associated
with the service and rates are subject to change depending on future Commission decisions.
Contrary to at least one customer’s comment that the issues addressed in our net
metering Order should remain “stable and not revisited,”we stress that the Order specifies that
certain issues will be re-examined in the Company’s next rate case.For example,the next rate
case likely will examine whether the Company should increase the monthly customer charge or
implement a basic load charge for the residential and small general service customer classes.See
Order at 19.Similarly,the Company currently has Schedule 5,an optional Time-of-Day Pilot
Plan available to its residential customers.The Time-of-Day plan uses peak and off-peak pricing
in the summer and non-summer months,and is designed to send price signals to customers that
more closely reflect the cost of service,If in the future,Time-of-Day rates become mandatory
because it is determined they more accurately assign the costs to serve customers,the
Commission may reconsider the way net metering customers receive credit for excess energy.
The point is that resources and circumstances can change,and the Commission must determine
whether rates are fair,just,and reasonable in light of the circumstances that exist.The
Commission cannot cede its regulatory responsibility under Idaho law for any customer’s
convenience.
2.Previously Accumulated Credits.Certain Petitioners asked the Commission to
clarify what happens to a customer’s previously accumulated credits when the Company’s
Excess Net Generation billing changes take effect.See Woodworth Petition;see also July 21,
2013 Comment by Jolm Weber.We grant this request.As noted above,we have ordered that
the changes to how the Company pays for excess net energy will take effect in January 2014.
ORDER NO.32880 4
Our Order does not change how the Company pays for excess net energy before that date.
Accordingly,if a customer wishes to be paid under the existing system for any excess net energy
generated before January 2014,the Company and the customer should process such payment
requests by December 31,2013.When the January 2014 billing cycle begins,the changes to
how excess net energy is billed will take effect,and customers will thereafter obtain a bankable,
kWh credit as expressed in the Order.
3.Applying Net Metering Credits to Offset Usage at Multiple Sites.Certain
Petitioners asked us to reconsider and/or clarify whether a customer only can apply excess net
energy credits to offset usage at the customer’s net metering site,or whether the customer can
apply the credits to offset usage at all sites.See Standal Petition;see also July 19,2013
Comment by Don Campbell.We grant this request.But before we finally decide the issue,we
would like to receive input from interested persons.Accordingly,interested persons shall have
until September 30,2013,to submit written comments addressing the following issue:If a
net metering customer takes service through multiple meters at one or more premises,should the
customer be allowed to apply net metering credits to offset usage on the other meters?If so,
what conditions should apply?
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitions for Clarification and/or
Reconsideration from Gary Iverson,Sr.;Everett and Eileen Vanderpool;Stan Standal;Keith
Woodworth;Scott Moore;and the ICL are granted and/or denied as set forth above.We deny
reconsideration as to the Excess Net Energy portion of our decision;we grant clarification about
the treatment of accumulated credits as of the time the excess net energy billing changes occur;
and we grant reconsideration and/or clarification on the issue of applying net metering credits to
offset usage at multiple sites.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that persons interested in submitting comments on the
issue discussed in section 3 above,shall do so no later than September 30,2013.
THIS IS AN TNTERLOCUTORY ORDER granting reconsideration as to the issue
raised in section 3 above and a FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION
as to all remaining issues and Petitions.
ORDER NO.32880 5
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of August 2013.
\
1 \Z-
MACK A.REDFORD,COMMISSIONER
7tL6A /[LL
ATTEST:
J D.Jewell $
Cdinmission Secretary
O:IPC-E-12-27 kk7 Reconsideration
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
PAUL PRESIDENT
ORDER NO.32880 6