20130612Comments (3 Total).pdf

To:Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11 June 2013
P0 Box $3720
Boise,ID 83 720-0074
Case No,IPC-E-12-27
Name:Keith Woodworth
City:Caidwell
State:Idaho
Zip:$3607
Day time phone:(20$)402-4127
Name of Utility:Idaho Power Company
Public disclosure:Acknowledged
Additional Comments (prey.1/14/13)
After reviewing the comments and concerns of the above case’s Interveners,Public,
IPUC Staff,and Idaho Powers (IPCo)Rebuttal Testimony,I have the following concerns
or comments.
1.fERC.Although no one directly addressed the status of FERC and the issue of
payments to Residential Net Metered customers,the “Idaho Conservation
League”(ICL)document titled “State Level Data on Net Metering Capacity
Limits and Rate Credits”—see attachment shows that Utilities in approximately
33 states “reconcile (pay for excess power).A Technician at FERC stated that
generation below 20 mW was or could be exempted.I was then referred to
“Legal Council —S.L.Higgenbottom (sp)at [phone] for additional
information.To date,“Legal Council”has not responded.Are 33 states also
wrong?
2.Purpose of Net Metering.The purpose as defined by G.W.Said of IPCo (Rebuttal
Testimony)is not the same as what I as a customer have used.My goal was to pay
for the power that I used and the additional administrative costs with customer
generated “Green Power”thus reducing IPCo’need for peak demand “Black
Power (carbon based)--and my bill!This has not been easy with an undersized
system,wind turbine mechanical problems and now a slightly oversized PV
system.Inflation proofing my power bill was always a concern but it was
correctly assumed that costs would not decline.With the system as now proposed,
I will no longer meet my objective and will be making a kWh donation to IPCo on
top of monthly fees which cannot be paid for with kWh credits that IPCo has
already billed to my neighbors on the grid-ref:ICL testimony of R.Thomas
Beach pg 12 discussion.
3.Anniversary date:Having a “floating date”identified by each customer may be
administratively workable but in the long run doesn’t make much sense.Better is
a fixed date —or two-for a couple classes of Net Meter customers which
approximates the break even point where average residential use equals daytime
PV generation.Under the IPCo “roll over/grant”proposal,at this point,the least
number of kWh’s would remain on the “average”residents account.
4.Excess credit.During the year when my system produces excess power that is fed
back to the IPCo grid,this excess is sold by IPCo to customers within sight of my
residence.The value of this electricity is monthly paid to IP.To make excess
kWhs a “roll over kWh credit”or “taken kWh number”defeats my reason for
investing or participating in the Net Metered program.
5.IPCo,IPUC 2.,9/5.$MW Cap.Initially I questioned the cap doubling in view of
the negative impact of IPCo’new proposals.My logic was similar to that of Rick
Gilliam’s testimony on behalf of the City of Boise pg7-$.In view of additional
information,there does not appear to be a good reason for any cap or at the most a
percentage of “peak load”cap.If a cap of this sort is approached,IPCo certainly
has the right of appeal to the IPUC for remedy.
6.A Net Metered Customer.At this point,any guess’s as to “what should I do?”are
just that.Reviewing the testimony of Courtney R.White on behalf of the Idaho
Clean Energy Association,I do fall into the exhibit no.705 group.Exhibit 701
further backs this status up with a —X.+Y (northwest quadrant).Perhaps anyone in
the southeast quadrant might have reason to stay with the program depending on
how far they are from the XY axis junction.The “way out”5 or so points on these
scatter graphs are ???
7.IPCo’Energy Efficiency Rider.Based on “radio noise”,I’m guessing that this has
something to do with IPCo’“we’ll pay you $20.for your old refrigerator so you
can save up to $100.per year in future electric costs”.Larkin’Rebuttal
Testimony,pg 2 1-22.Under the present system,because I produce enough “green
energy”to offset my admin cost and IPCo sells my surplus power to “in sight”
neighbors,I don’t “pay a share of the costs....“.Any program that does not
address the efficiency of residential produced Green Energy is a flawed program.
Speaking only for this residence,we know where the electric switches are and we
faithfully use them.Efficiency is more than a high “R”or other energy rating.
Respectfully,
Keith Woodworth
tclaho Conservation League
TVA medittot siec ,t,uidard offer between 51)kw and 20 MW
t .5%average retail detitand 25kw
No Cap 125%olcuslomcr load
No Cap 25kwres;300 km non
5%ofaggregatecustonter peak demand I MW
2091,ofctistontcr’s average
No Cap annualconsuntptinn
Noap 2MW
5%ofElectric Suppliersaggrcgaled custonlcr 25kw rest 1101kw farm;500kw
nionltity pe.,k demand 1o2 mm non rca.
NoCap 2MW
t12Th ofutility’s peak demand duringprior year Itt km ret;tOO km tutu-rca
15%percircuit distribution threshold Ott lathdistributedgeneration0’
01%of peak demand in 2000 (about 29MW);25kwrca;100 km non-rex5.BMtv ts about .17%olload
5%01ttlility’s peak demand in previous year 40 k,v-lntw
151,ofutility’s most recent peak summer load I MW
No Cap 500km
1%ofutility’s retail peak demand during
previousyear 25km res;2tXllcse nun-tea
1%ofutility’s single-hour peak load during
previous year 30km
115%ofretail peak load 25kw ret;300 kmnon-rca
No Cap 6t,Okse
1,501)MW (--ItS!,c.fpeak denrand)2MWor 200%nibaseline
attlomer toad
3%of utility’s peak load by class:60km.I mire 2 mm.to
nov gov.
0.75%of ulilily’s peak load during previous 1511year
No Cal)40 km
WA mediumsizestand.ted offer between 5))kmand20 MW
3%ofutility’ssingle-boor peak tctad during
5.00%previous year lannuat limit of t%ofpeak hour)
lOOksv
Nn Cap NoCap SO kin
1.00%1%of utility’s average monthlypeakdeotand 25 ksv
‘o Statewide capof 295 oftotal peak capacityofall 1MW or 10051,of customer
=C utilities in tttestate annual requirements
55 MW 50 MW t MW
No limit peciflcd (BPU may limit to 25%of “sized not to exceed ousite
peak dcn,andl annual priidiictino”
No Cat,9))MW
I 00°h Generally lOS of utility’s 2005 demand 10.3’;,25kw rex;2 MW nun-ms (I M%•‘forsviod)tarot biogassl
No Cap NoCa1,t viw
NCap NoCap 100kw
-coot NoCap “sized primarily to nObet”load
NoCal)No Cap IOU kinor 25(100 kwh/year
NoCap No Cap 25kmrex;2 MW nots-res
Ca 50 km res;3MW non-rex;5 MWNoPNitCapspecial
t°’(east)351,ofpr-ak load (2 MW reserved for systems 5 MW ‘reasonalsty designed to
under 50 kWl meet 00%ofannual luaU”
0.295 of utility’s SCjurisdictional retail peaklt.2ty,0 20 km rca.tOO kin unit-rexdeooandO,r tirevious c,itroslar year
,ola tVA n,ediuo,tier stanslard titter lsetasrvn 30 ksv and 20 MW
n/a Green Mountain Energy programs 25 ksv
20%of21017 peak demand for Rocky Moont,titt
l’osver 25 kintea;2 MW non-rcs
4%ofutility’s 1996 peakdentatud or peak
4%dcotatid during most recruit calettilar year 5011 kit
(svhichcveris greater),
t%1%ofutilitiesjuritdictional load in prioryear 20 km ret;550 kin nsn.rts
1)5110’Cureently 0,25%ittutilities 1996 linkdentand,••“iocrntscs 100,5%on 11/2014 100kw
No Cap No Cap I MW
3 00”25 civ ret;500 km coma);2 1,1W-“3%of peakdcntattd in prior year indttst
NoCap No Cap 20km It,tOO km
Can ax t,w
3.40%
Seasonal and thur ofday rate atcontract execsttinn,20 yr c,,ntract with 5%annual raite.
Monttsly credit at ntin—firm powerrates inttclinite carryover
Annual reconcile at avoided costs
Granted to utiliryat 12 month ttillingcycle
Option for indefittite roll over or rgeoncitc at averagedaytime spot prices
Option forlndetinitc toll overor credit at averagebottrly increoteotal costs
,Onnual reconcile at mciii
Annttal oplion to roll overor credit ,tt energy sopply rare
Annutal recot,cileatamtided cost
Monthly credit at l’UCset Tat rate
Grant to utitityaflee 12 ntonths
Option
Grant to utilityat 12 ntonths.TOU Rates
tntleliniteroll over
Indefinitecull met
titdefinite roll over
tnde0nite rtill over
Indefinite roll over
Grant to utitiryafter 12 mouth Isilling cycle
Annual rec,,ttcileat ‘ctttttntodityenergy sopply rate’
Varies bysystem and customer
!rdcluitc :c!l uvce;fur >2Csv -retad.far !ar;er a!yno-er aapy!y
Option for tnonthlyreconcile at retail rate
Seasonal and titlteofday rate at contract execution.2(1 yrcontract s’th 5 anrual ruan.
C;ranr Credils atavoided critts;Expireat l2 nosotlts
Grant Granted to utility at l2 ntanth hilling iteriod
tteconcile Credit at avoided costs;annual reconcile
Roll Indefinite roll ,tvcr
Option option foe tndefioite rollover or a,,nual credit it avoided cost
Reconcile Annual reconcileat avoided costs
ttcconcile Creditedat anoidesl cost rate;Option for nuoothly rrcn,teile
Rrct,ncitc Annual at avoided costs tot pv,hydrm indefinite carry over for wirtd
Gramst G,a,,ird to utility at lune I;toot rates
Rucotsci!e Monthlyreconcile at av,,idedcosts
Rets,i,cile Credit at‘unhundled gen rate”.option for annual reconcile
t(cconcilcl
Grant Mnnthly credits itt grants to utility
ttec,sncile Monthlyrecoticileat relail rate
Reconcile Annual reconcile at “price to cotttpare’
Reconcile Avoided costs,nsonthly roll over orpurchase
Gratst Grant to vttility on lune I:too rates
it/a nk Srasiinal and time orday rate at einmtract execution.20 yrcontract with 3%annual rant.
Avoided Reconcile Itt 300 kwh export at“rewards”rate,excess at 50%retail
Recottcilel Rca:Grant to utility alIce 12 mtsttths;large comm and industrial -option for avoided costs
ttet,uil Grant itt PUC rate
Slate Level Dtslss on Net Meterin acitiititits and Rate Credits --
Idahit’s curreit!cait is the losvrst in the nation -0.191,ofpeakloath.tdalsn Poster proposes to revert front tite m;tinstre-ant lsracticeofaplilyiug thr ret;ul rate,tojutin just lOstaten.Twenty five statesapptyaggrcgatecaps rangittg
froiti ld:ulio’s Dl’?!,lit Ulal,’t 2rt%of ttrak hod,with ii nseait cap of3.voi;;ofpetS ln.tdt.
Stairs are spIt tin svliethcr to impute an aggregatecapon net ttteterittgprogrami.Eighteen states do ito?tip set octet in0.Tsventy One st,itrs applycaps bisect otu tmtitity peak toasts,raitghtg froni lst,iho’s 0.155 ii,Utah’s 2055,svith
a itirancap oI3.665h_Eight slims .ipply an iitdividu,ml xystciti cap from 100%to 2101%of nt-site anitu,tl l,sails.
z’dt st,itcS exccpt Sottth Dakota,allow ttel ntetcring to balance ntottthlycustomcrloads and credits to accumulatc;tnnually.Fttrly staId,apply the rcgul;tt tctjtl rites.Only 10 applysonte vecsints ofavoided costs.
Only t3 states apptyan avoidr,l cost rate to energy credits,svith 32 applyitig the retail rate.States split ott treatmentofanmial eorrgy credits ots eu,tnntrrbills.Thiriy tourstates allow ai,nual reconcili,,tinr,,mostly-.,!avoided
ensis.In thisgroup,crcdits severexpire in seventeen States,and seven allow customersto elect rollover orreconciliation.Only ten states ge.uutt annual excessenergy credits l,.ick lottie utility.
Capacity Limit Net Excess Generation
State Rrtail or Grout,roll Excess Generation CreditsCapStaleorProgramCapas91,of tttility load Project Size Cap Avoided ,Reeniteile
1.50%
cost
it,cap
53Itt%
cost
no cap
5.00%
nil cap
0.20%
13%
0.10%
5%
1,191%
no c;tp
t.0O’ti,
L0005
113591
no nip
0%(Cost)
No Cap
ut/a
nla
hull
Reconcile
Grant
Optioit
01)110)5
Reconcile
Optiott
l(eccincile
Reconcile
Grant
Oplion
Grant
Itolt
Roll
Roll
Roll
ttoll
Grant
t{ecitttcile
Varic5
Option
n/a
Alabama
Alaska
Arirona
Arksusos
Calitorttia
Cntorado
Cnnneclicul
Detnseare
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
ttidinua
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
L,iuisia,ta
Maitto
Murylund
,xtos,achu,srtts
Siwhigze
5-linnetota
Mississippi
h-Iis,o,,ri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Nesu Huinps)uir
Neie lersey
Ne,e Mexico
New York
Nurlh Corolino
North Dakota
Ohm
Oldattonta
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Sm?!),Carolittn
SnLitlt Dakota
tennrwee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wusltington
Wash DC
West Virgi,tia
Wisctinsin
Lmittn
aserage
ala
Avoided
Retail
Retail
Rel;til
Relail
Relail
Retail
Retail
Avoided
Retail
Retail
Relail
Retail
Retail
Retail
ttetail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Varies
Rel.i,l
Retail
n/a
Avoided
Retail
Avoided
Itetail
Itetail
ttetail
Avoided
Retail
Retail
Avoided
Avoided
Avoided
Retail
Retail
Av,,ided
tietail
Retail Gramtt
Retail Optioit
Retail Grant
Relail Roll
Retail Roll
Relail Reconcile
trt,,il Reconcile
Grant to utility 12 tt,,itsttts after generation
Option tttr ittdefituite roll overorannaal reconcileat avoided costs
Grant to utililyafter 12 months
todefinite roll over:retail rate including G,T&D for <tOOk’w<,gen only fur I51W
todcflnitc roll over
Xcel;nttttttl,ly carryover-annual credit atavutidcd costs.
Amtual reconcile at avoided costs
Jean Jewell
From:nospam2l @outlok.com
Sent:Tuesday,June 11,20138:30 PM
To:Erik Jorgensen;Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fadness
Cc:nospam2l @outlok.com
Subject:Case Comment Form:IPC Customer
Name:IPC Customer
Case Number:IPC-E-12-27
Email:nospam21outlok.corn
Telephone:
Address:Pocatello
Pocatello ID,83201
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:The potential for a $0 power bill is very attractive.I understand that Idaho Power
does not want net meter customers to use net metered service as an avenue for revenue
generation.I support the proposal of one of the petitioners to still apply financial
credits to excess generation and to simply not ever pay out for excess generation.This
discourages large amounts of excess production,but still keeps the possibility of a zero
dollar power bill (which most will only achieve occasionally,if ever anyway).
Ultimately I hope that given the feedback from the public combined with the expert testimony
the IPUC will reject the entire application and leave the program as is.I almost wonder if
IPC didn’t propose such outlandish changes to the program,that any subsequent proposals or
compromises would seem all the more reasonable and acceptable.
I am also curious as to how many net metering applications have been processed since this
proposal was made public.I heard from one installer that while interest is still high,new
applications have dropped off to nothing.
Unique Identifier:66.160.252.209
1
Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Tuesday,June 11,2013 5:16 PM
To:Erik Jorgensen;Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fad ness
Cc:czamora©capai.org
Subject:Case Comment Form:Christina Zamora
Name:Christina Zamora
Case Number:IPC-E-12-27
Email:czamora(capai.org
Telephone:
Address:5400 W.Franklin Rd.,Suite G
Boise Idaho,83705
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:Dear Commissioners:
I respectfully urge you to consider the impact on small,sustainable businesses and customer
choice that Idaho Power’s Application to Modify Net Metering Service will have,both in the
short and long term.
In Mr.Larkin’s testimony,Exhibit 1,it is clearly illustrated how much interest customers
have in controlling their own energy bills while supporting small businesses in their area.
These customers are investing their money to support Idaho Power’s system;this investment
will reduce the need for investments by Idaho Power that affect all ratepayers.
This is an opportunity for the Commission to protect the interests of all customers and small
businesses throughout Idaho Power’s service area.
Unique Identifier:65.126.121.194
1