20180921final_reconsideration_order_no_34147.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 21,2018
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )CASE NO.IPC-E-17-13
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NEW )SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND )ORDER NO.34147SMALLGENERALSERVICECUSTOMERS)WITH ON-SITE GENERATION )
On May 9,2018,this Commission issued a Final Order in Idaho Power Company's
("Company")request for authorityto establish new schedules for residential and small general
service ("R&SGS")customers with on-site generation.Order No.34046.On May 29,2018,Vote
Solar filed a Petition for Reconsiderationof Order No.34046,in which the Commission approved
new Company Schedules 6 and 8 for R&SGS customers who on-site generate.Vote Solar asked
the Commission to "require the Company to revise the new Schedules 6 and 8 to apply only to
customers who export electricity."Vote Solar Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition")at 1.Vote
Solar believed no new evidence was necessary for the Commission to make this finding.Id.No
other petitions fo:reconsideration were received.
In ressonse to the Petition,Staff's response thereto and the Company's Answer,the
Commission issued Order No.34098.That Order granted reconsideration and asked Vote Solar,
the Company,Staff,and any other party with the desire to do so,to file briefing related to "whether
a customer's ability to export energy should determine if the customer should be included in new
Schedules 6 and 8."Order No.34098 at 3.The Commission further stated that it was interested
in obtaining "information about export limiting devices,effects of battery storage,additional
information on the meaning and repercussions of 'in parallel'connection,and the masking of usage
created by hourly analysis of customer and Company energy exchanges."Id.Order No.34098
also set a briefing schedule,with a deadline of August 10,2018,for opening briefs and August 24,
2018,for responsive briefs.Id.at 3.
Having reviewed the record on reconsideration,including the additional briefing,
which is summarized below,we now modify the directives outlined in our Order No.34046.For
now,all on-site generators should remain in the Company's Schedules 6 and 8 because there is
insufficientevidence in the record for the Commission to make a well-informed determination as
to on-site generatingcustomers who may choose to eliminate energy export and the implications
ORDER NO.34147 1
of such a choice.Further,no harm is caused by,at least temporarily,leaving potential non-
exporters in Schedules 6 and 8 because no changes have yet been implemented to the underlying
rate and compensation structure.We also reiterate that bi-directionality is an important and
defining characteristic of customers now taking service under the Company's Schedules 6 and 8
and,therefore,order that the forthcoming docket be used to further analyze on-site generators
desiring to prevent export to the Company's system.
SUMMARY OF BRIEFING
1.LOAD SERVICEAND PATTERNOF Í/SE.
Vote Solar
Vote Solar argued that the Company did not sufficientlyshow that self-generators who
do not export energy have different costs of service,quantities of electricity used,conditions of
service,or time,nature and pattern of use in order to justify including them in Schedules 6 and 8.
Vote Solar's Brief on Reconsideration at 2.For example,the Company lacked sufficient evidence
that net metering customers who export are subsidizing self-generators who do not export.The
Company also lacked evidence about the non-exporters'loads,usage and impact on the grid.Id.
at 3.Further,the Company admitted it has only hypothetical data on non-exporters because all of
its self-generating customers export;therefore,the Company could not accurately analyze,or
justify its claims about non-exporters'load and usage.Id.at 4.
Vote Solar further argued the Company actuallyhighlighted similarities between non-
exporting self-generating customers and standard service customers.The Company included
hypothetical non-exporters in Schedules 6 and 8 because they still require services from the
Company;however,the Company also noted that non-generatingcustomers have identical loads
and uses.Id.
Vote Solar also argued that the Commission's Order Granting Reconsiderationdid not
ask the Company for additional analysis,and that the Company did not make its additional analysis
available to the parties or the public at hearing or earlier.Vote Solar's Response Brief on
Reconsideration at 3."Notwithstandingthe limited scope of the request for reconsideration and
the Commission's request for briefs,rather than evidence,the Company's August 10,2018
submission goes well beyond a 'brief'and contains load data and analysis not previouslyprovided
in this case."Id.at 3.The Company thus precluded the other parties from conducting discovery
into this new evidence and from testing it at hearing.Vote Solar argued the Commission should
ORDER NO.34147 2
not let the Company "backfill"the record with evidence it could have filed,but did not file,in this
matter before reconsideration.Id.at 3.
Even if the Commission considers the Company's additional evidence and analysis,
Vote Solar believes Order No.34046 is clear:bi-directionality was the Commission's primary
reason for creating Schedules 6 and 8.Id.at 4.Vote Solar also stated the Company disingenuously
continued to argue about cost shiftingwhen the Commission has deferred its conclusions on costs
until after a "thorough,data-driven evaluation"of costs and benefits in a separate docket.Id.at 4
quoting Order No.34046 at 22-23.Vote Solar further argued the Commission ordered a fixed-
cost analysis "to determine the proper methodology and 'spread'of fixed costs as they relate to
the Company's customers."Id.at 3-4 quoting Order No.34046 at 23.The Company's repetitive
arguments about cost shifting are thus misplaced.
Finally,Vote Solar argued the Company's August 10,2018,submission uses the wrong
metric to allegedly distinguish non-exporting customer-generators from the wide range of loads
within the diverse R&SGS classes.Id.at 5.Vote Solar argued customer-generators differ before
and after they install generation,justas their loads differ after many types of customer changes-
such as adding air conditioning,electric vehicle charging,or gas water heating.Id.5-6.Therefore,
bi-directionality,not load service and pattern of use,should define Schedule 6 and 8 customers,
because customer-generators'loads are within the range of standard service customer loads.Id.
at 6.
The Companv
In its Opening Brief,the Company argued that "[t]he ability to export has significant
flaws as a criterion for exclusion from Schedules 6 and 8."Idaho Power Company's Opening
Brief on Reconsiderationat 1.Instead,a different load service and pattern of use should determine
whether customers are included in Schedules 6 and 8.Id.The Company stated it undertook three
additional analyses on the effects of preventing export on excess energy onto its grid,and "that the
results ...demonstrate that the load service requirements and the usage characteristics of R&SGS
customers who install on-site generation are distinctly different for a residential customer before
and after the installation of on-site generation-even without the capability to export excess
energy."Idaho Power Company's Closing Brief on Reconsiderationat 11-13.
The Company reiterated that self-generators are partial requirements customers,
regardless of what technology they may couple with generation.Idaho Power Company's Opening
ORDER NO.34147 3
Brief on Reconsideration at 16.As a result,load service and pattern of use differs greatly from
that of standard service customers,even where export might be limited or prevented.Id.at 1-2.
The Company supported its claim with a Limited Export Simulation to study the elTects of
preventing the export of excess energy.Id.at 4 and Attachment 1.Based on its Simulation,the
Company found that even without "energy exports,the customer with on-site generation still has
the ability to offset their usage on an hourly basis;this reduction in energy consumption,coupled
with a rate design that collects fixed costs through a volumetric rate,creates the opportunity for
shifting costs from customers with on-site generationto standard service customers."Id.
The Company further assumed that:(a)a customer's load factor is lower in all 12
months after the customer installs on-site generation,even without the capability to export excess
energy;(b)the self-generating customer's load profile significantly changes regardless of any
export limits-on-site generation decreases load after the sun rises and increases it as the sun sets;
(c)while self-generatingcustomers who limit export consume less energy from the grid,maximum
demand over a day is not necessarily reduced;and (d)cost shifting would continue to occur
between on-site generation customers if non-exporting customers were allowed a carve-out.Id.
The Simulation further led the Company to conclude that the "installation of on-site
generation without the capability to export excess energy demonstrates that the [system coincident
peak]is lower in nine out of 12 months after the installation of on-site generation-even without
the capability to export excess energy."Id.at 10.The Company argued this results in a different
cost allocation and,therefore,all self-generators should be included in Schedules 6 and 8
regardless of whether they can export.Id.
Similarly,the Company's non-coincident peak ("NCP")demonstrated that installing
on-site generation,regardless of export capability,does not necessarily decrease a customer's
monthlypeak-the customer's load over a month will continue to place the same level of peak
demand on the system and,therefore,carving out on-site generating non-export customers may
shift costs due to volumetric-based rates.Id.at 11.
"TheCompanyalsoprovidedadditional analysis "[tjo verify and validate the results of the Company's Limited
Export Simulation"by using actual data from 18 residential solar customers in its Oregon service area Solar
Photovoltaic Pilot Program.Id.at 12;and Attachment 2 to the Company's Opening Brief.The Company claimed
its supplementary analysis validates the results of its Limited Export Simulation.See id.and Attachment 2,"Pilot
Customer Load Shapes With No Energy Exports."
ORDER NO.34147 4
The Company next reiteratedthat standard service R&SGS customers have a two-part
rate design that collects generation,transmission,distribution and customer-related costs primarily
through volumetric rates.Thus,on-site generators who decrease volume create the potential for
cost shifting and under collection of fixed costs.Id.at 12-13.The Company also argued that
battery storage,under its current rate design,would only further exacerbate cost shifting due to
decreased energy volumes.Id.at 14.2
Similarly,if a customer installs an export-limitingdevice,that customer would still be
a partial requirements customer who offsets their energy use with self-generation.Therefore,
Schedules 6 and 8 should include all customers with parallel-connected on-site generation so the
rate structure reasonably allows the Company to collect costs without cost shifting.Id.at 17.
The Company responded to Vote Solar's claim that the Company excluded evidence
of self-generating customers who export no electricity,countering that its evidence included
customers with significant non-exporting periods because the Company analyzed all Idaho
residential customers with on-site generation.Id.
The Company also objected to Vote Solar's claim that Company witness Faruqui
merely provided a "theoretical proxy"for evidence comparing the loads of bi-directional self-
generators when export is removed from their load shapes.Id.at 10.The Company maintained
that no evidence or data would allow Vote Solar to properly visualize the removal of energy
exports as a proxy for evidence related to the load and usage of non-export customers.Id.
Staff
Staff objected to factors in the Company's Limited Export Simulation because the
Company used traditional customers in its analysis.Staff's analysis showed,contrary to the
Company's claim,that self-generators consume more Company-supplied energy per year than do
traditional customers.Staff's Responsive Brief at 2.Further,the Company inappropriately
excluded customers outside the Boise area from its Simulation,and then tried to validate the
Simulation with actual data from 18 Oregon customers.Id.Staff stated no validation would be
necessary had the Company used actual,rather than simulated,data.Further,Staff maintained that
2 The Company again hired the Brattle Group to perform a simulation of the net load shapes of hypothetical battery
storage customers.Id.at l 5;and Attachment 3,"The Effect of Storage on Customer Load Shapes when Coupled
with Distributed Generation."The study concluded that "coupling battery storage with on-site generation to
eliminate the export of excess energy results in similar reliance on the utility infrastructure to that of a customer with
on-site generation that does export excess energy to the grid."Id.
ORDER NO.34147 5
a sample size of 18 is too small to be meaningful,and that the Company's validation of its
Sirnulation lacks any data related to the important cost driver of total consumption.Id.at 3.
Staff also objected to the Company's continued use of the term "partial requirements,"
since Staff frames the issue as "whether and how a customer exports energy to the Company's
grid,not how [a customer]might offset usage behind the meter."Staff's Responsive Brief to
Commission Order No.34098 at 3.Staff continues to maintain on-site generators who would
prevent export are sufficiently similar to standard service customers who would use energy
efficiency or alternative energy sources.Therefore,customers who are incapable of exporting
should be eligible for Company standard service Schedules 1 and 7.Id.
City of Boise
The City of Boise agreed with Vote Solar's contentions,and argued the Company did
not establish that non-exporting customers with on-site generation should be placed on new
Schedules 6 and 8 because they differ from other customers.The City noted that the Company's
case-in-chief focused on self-generators who both import and export energy to the Company's
system.The City opined that Order No.34046 does not address or find that customers who are
not bi-directional,and who merely import energy from the Company's system,differ enough to
warrant being placed on Schedules 6 and 8.City of Boise's Brief in Response to Order Granting
Reconsiderationat 2.
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
The Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association ("IIPA")disagreed with Vote Solar's
characterization of non-bidirectional self-generating customers.IIPA Brief in Opposition at 2.
IIPA maintains that no load or usage data or other evidence relates to such a hypothetical class.
Id.This speculation,IIPA argued,"twists the legal standard for customer classification and argues
there is no evidence to support including this hypothetical class of customer in Schedules 6 and 8
and claims they should be exempt."Id.
IIPA argued that Vote Solar's Petition should be rejected because Vote Solar provided
no evidence in its case-in-chief or at the technical hearing.Id.at 2.Secondarily,IIPA aligns with
the Company,arguing that due to parallel connection "[n]on-exportingself-generating customers
rely on the [Company's]system justthe same to balance and stabilize their self-generationand are
part of the self-generator class which has an indistinguishable set of material characteristics as
demonstrated by [the Company]in this case."Id.at 3.
ORDER NO.34147 6
2.BI-DIRECTIONALITY.
Vote Solar
Vote Solar maintained that parallel connection to the Company's system is unrelated
to the Commission's finding that bi-directional flow is the meaningful distinction in Order No.
34046.Vote Solar also argued the Commission's findings do not support placing non-export
customers on Schedules 6 and 8.Vote Solar's Brief on Reconsiderationat 5.The Commission's
findings about whether to place an on-site generating customer on Schedules 6 and 8 depended on
the customer's ability to both import and export.Id.Vote Solar stated non-export self-generating
customers are part of those larger classes who use the grid for standard energy imports because
their generation-likeconservation and efficiency measures-purely offset their own energy
usage outside of the grid.Id.at 6 citing Order No.34046 at 16-18.
Vote Solar,agreeing with Staff,argued that limitingSchedules 6 and 8 to customers
who export energy would also focus the forthcoming docket when determining the unique costs
and benefits of on-site generators who export.Id.at 6.
The Company
The Company maintained that Vote Solar and Staff's claim that Order No.34046
hinges on bi-directional energy flow "is an overly selective view of Idaho Power's case."Idaho
Power's Closing Brief on Reconsideration at 6.The Company objected to Staff's statement that
Schedules 6 and 8 rates would be predicated on a bi-directional relationship with the grid.Id.The
Company considered bi-directionalityas one of many factors when implementing the proper rate
structure for on-site generators.Id.at 8.The Company reiterated that "[t]he evidence of reduced
load factor and different load service requirements for ...partial requirements customers remains
unchanged-regardless if the customer prevents the export of excess energy."Id.
Staff
With Vote Solar,Staff maintained the Commission found bi-directionalityjustifies
placing on-site generators into Schedules 6 and 8,because the Commission found it was time to
distinguish a customer class that uses the grid for standard energy import and use from a customer
class that uses the grid to both import and export energy.Staff's Response Brief at 2;Order No.
34046 at 16.Staff noted that a customer could not bi-directionallyinteract with the Company if
the customer is incapable of export.Staff Technical Brief at 2-3.Neither can the customer "net"
its consumption without export.Id.at 2-3.Staff recommended,"one outcome of the
ORDER NO.34147 7
[forthcoming]generic docket [would]be to incorporate a definition of parallel which recognizes a
non-export customer option."Id.at 3.
3.PARALLEL CONNECTION.
Vote Solar
Vote Solar argued that a parallel connection to the Company's system is unrelated to
the Commission's findingthat bi-directional flow is the meaningful distinction.Vote Solar's Brief
on Reconsiderationat 7.
The Company
The Company maintainedthat a parallel connection,not bi-directionality,should define
customers on Schedules 6 and 8.Id.It argued that parallel-connectedon-site generation systems
have always had to take service under a different tariff in addition to the standard service tariff.
Id.;and see Schedule 84,"Customer Energy Production Net Metering Service."The Company
stated that "parallel connection"means the customer's on-site generation system is "connected to,
and operating in conjunctionwith,the utility's electric grid"using a grid-tie inverter.3 Id.at 18.
The Company further argued that a synchronized parallel connection should define on-site
generating customers because these customers enjoy the essential services offered by the grid,
including:(a)consumption of energy from the customer's own system and consumption from the
Company's grid;and (b)use of the Company's grid as a backup generation system.Id.
The Company argued a generation system is independent if it does not connect in
parallel to the Company's grid-it is an "off-grid,"or a "standalone"system.An independent
system is incapable of exporting excess energy to,or importing energy from,the grid,and a
customer with an independentsystem should not be eligible for Schedules 6 and 8.Id.at 23.The
Company stated that the "only way to ensure that no electricity is exported back to the utility and
no other services are provided to [R&SGS]generators is ifthe customer's generationsystem is not
connected in parallel to the utility."Id.at 3.
In its closing brief,the Company repeated the above arguments,urging the Commission
to "deny requests by Vote Solar and others to carve out non-exporting self-generators from
Schedules 6 and 8 for continued preferential treatment ...."Idaho Power Company's Closing
Brief on Reconsideration at 1.The Company argued that the current rate design from 1983 does
3 The Company explains grid-tie inverters,parallel connection,and grid-forminginverters,and notes,at base,that"configuringand managing a system to operate in the off-grid mode can be difñeult and costly."See id.at 18-22.
ORDER NO.34147 8
not allow the Company to properly recover its costs to serve customers with on-site generation.
Id.at 1.To do so,"in parallel connection"should define whether a customer with on-site
generationis placed on Schedules 6 and 8.The Company stated that "this criterion recognizes the
mechanical coupling of devices to the electrical grid that enable all self-generators to take energy
and grid services-and allows the Commission to determine a non-preferential rate design for
them."Id.at 2.
4.THE NON-EXPORT ÛPTION.
Staff
Staff reiterated that Schedules 6 and 8 should exclude customers who cannot export
energy to the grid.Staff's Technical Brief in Response to Commission Order No.34098 at 1-2.
Staff recommended that a non-export category be carved out of Schedules 1 and 7 to "allow a
customer with on-site generation to properly apply for and certify a non-exporting on-site
generationsystem,sized and designed such that the generator's output is used for the generator's
own load,and designed to prevent the transfer of electrical energy without compensation."Id.at
2.For the time being,Staff's recommendation would leave an on-site generators on Schedules 6
and 8 until the customer could show the customer no longer belongs on those schedules because
the customer has removed its ability to export.Staff's Responsive Brief to Commission Order No.
34098 at 4.
An export-limiting device would be the key system component and would prevent the
customer from exporting energy to the Company's grid.Id.at 1.Staff recommended the parties
study the non-export option,which exists in some form in Hawaii and California,in the new docket
required by Order No.34046.Id.at 2.Staff further recommended that if inadvertentexport occurs,
no compensation or credit structure would exist,which would dissuade customers from trying to
bypass their export-limitingdevice for financial benefit.Id.at 4.Staff believes the opportunity to
study a non-export option should not be foreclosed as a result of this docket.Id.at l.
Vote Solar
Vote Solar generally agreed with Staff's recommendation.Vote Solar reiterated that,
because no export credit or compensation will exist for customer-generators who prevent export,
any actual exports would be de minimis and would actuallybenefit the Company.Vote Solar's
Brief on Reconsideration at 7.Further,the Company would not necessarily have to serve every
interconnected parallel generator under the same tariff because customers who opt out of
ORDER NO.34147 9
Schedules 6 and 8 would not be compensated for export,and safety concerns could be handled
through interconnection standards.Id.at 8.
Idaho Conservation League
Because the Commission found bi-directionalitydistinguishes on-site generators from
standard service customers,the Idaho Conservation League ("ICL"),and associated parties,4 made
two recommendations:(1)Set the period for measuring exports as the smallest time interval over
which a customer is billed,since the Company controls the meter and should continuallyimprove
metering ability;and (2)Use Hawaii Electric Company Rule 22 Appendix II to define non-
exporting customers and then exclude non-exporting customers from Schedules 6 and 8.ICL
ReconsiderationBrief at 3-4.
The Company
The Company argued the Commission should not analyze a non-export classification
in the forthcoming generic docket,because doing so would fail "to recognize that the definition of
a parallel connection is based on the physical electrical configuration of the customer generation,"
and excluding non-export parallel configurations "does not change the physical configuration."
Idaho Power Company's Closing Brief on Reconsideration at 4.Rather,it would only confuse the
industry,and Company,and the standard meaning of "parallel connection."Id.at 4.Further,
changing the definition of "parallel"would not consider that self-generatingnon-export customers
who operate in parallel take the same grid services as other self-generating customers who export
in Schedules 6 and 8.Id.at 6.
The Company again argued that Staff's recommendationwould perpetuate cost shifting
because an export-limiting device cannot limit the customer's ability to receive energy or other
grid services and will not fix the underlyingrate design issues.Id.at 13.
Where Staff and ICL saw the Hawaiian model as a potential reference point in the
forthcoming docket,the Company disagreed and argued that while "Hawaiian Electric has adopted
a net metering policy that allows customers to elect a non-export option,the non-export option
was in response to a reliability issue (maximum penetration of distributed generation based on
distribution circuit voltage deviation)and not a rate design issue."Id.at 20-21.The Company
4 Sierra Club,the Idaho Clean Energy Association,and the Northwest Energy Coalition all joined with the Idaho
Conservation League in filing its Reconsideration Brief.For purposes of simplicity,this Order collectively refers to
these parties as ICL.
ORDER NO.34147 10
further asserted that even though a non-export option exists for Hawaii's program,that option
includes a minimum billingrequirement that solves the rate design issue.Id.at 21.
The Company next objected to ICL's metering recommendation because Commission
precedent,the history of net metering in Idaho,and Rule D,require the Company to install
metering infrastructure (single meters)that bill rate schedules in the most economical manner for
customers.Id.at 23.
Further,while the Company acknowledged ICL's criticism that "measuring
consumption in smaller increments is a better measurement of consumption,"the Company states
it cannot shorten the consumption interval because it measures net consumption and "does not
capture energy exports separate from energy consumption."Id.at 24.Further,it argued,
measurement increment does not address the potential inherentcost shifting and rate design issues.
Id.
5.EXPORT-LIMITING DEVICES.
Staff
Staff argued that devices such as grid-tie limiters or grid inverters with export control-
generally referred to by Staff as "export-limitingdevices"-are a relativelyaffordable and simple
way to offset customer consumption without exporting energy to the grid.Staff's Technical Brief
in Response to Commission Order No.34098 at 4.While the Company argued these devices
would be difficult to monitor or verify,Staff maintained that with the Company's advanced
metering infrastructure ("AMI"),and a process to certify the device (and without compensation
for inadvertent export),export limiting devices may be beneficial to customers who want to
generate on-site but not export.Nevertheless,Staff maintained that the pending reconsideration
process should not foreclose additional analysis in the forthcoming generic docket.Id.at 4-5.
The Company
The Company argued that Vote Solar and Staff ignored the administrative challenges
of allowinga select non-exporting group of self-generators to remain in Schedules 1 and 7.Idaho
Power's Closing Brief on Reconsideration at 15.The Company specifically argued that Staff s
recommendation to certify export-limiting devices could not prevent a customer from changing
the settings at will.Id.at 16.Nor does the Company see Vote Solar's (and Staff s)
recommendationnot to compensate those who opt not to export as a viable solution,because these
ORDER NO.34147 11
customers could benefit from the "continued access to the cross-subsidy that exists in volumetric
standard service rates."Id.at 16.
6.ATASKIIVG
The Company
The Company maintained that,because intra-hour usage is undetectable "there is no
way to know if any energy has been exported to the grid within the hour if the customer always
consumes more energy from the utility on an hourly basis."Id.at 25.To illustrate,the Company
studied one customer with a power quality meter temporarily installed to record data every 30
seconds.Id.at 26.The Company concluded,"Vote Solar's request to use energy exports as the
criteria for inclusion in new Schedules 6 and 8 is not enforceable."Id.at 27.
The Company disagreed with ICL's claim that the Company is instantlynotified when
a customer evades export limits.Id.at 25.The Company countered that when the customer
consumes more energy from the utility than the excess energy the customer exports to the grid,the
power flow in the opposite direction would be undetectable.Id.
Staff
Staff characterized the Company's description of intra-hour masking as "the problem
of exported energy being hidden by consumption."Staff's Technical Brief in Response to
Commission Order No.34098 at 5.Staff claimed the Company gives too great weight to this
problem,since a customer would have to carefully configure the on-site generation system to
consume more energy than it produced every hour in every day,which would be very difficult for
customers to do.Id.at 5-6.Further,Staff reiterated that no masking would occur with an export-
limitingdevice in place.Id.at 6.Staff further maintained that the "Company's arguments related
to masking are an issue of rate design and meter programming"which,again,Staff believes should
be analyzed and reformed in the forthcoming docket.Staff's Responsive Brief at 3.
Vote Solar
Finally,along with Staff,Vote Solar noted an export-limiting device would assuage
any Company concerns about intra-hour masking of import energy flow.Vote Solar's Brief on
Reconsideration at 7.Vote Solar argued it is almost impossible for customers to size their
generationand manage their loads to have undetectable exports that would mask consumption.Id.
Further,there are ways to make exports mechanically impossible,which would make a Company
prohibition on exports enforceable.Id.at 7.
ORDER NO.34147 12
Staff believes customers who generate and store energy on-site are less likely to use
the Company's grid as a battery,which likely would limit export.Staff's Technical Brief in
Response to Commission Order No.34098 at 5.But currentlybattery systems are very expensive,
and wait times to buy and install them are "more than a year";therefore,no Company-specific
data exists for analysis.Id.
The Company
The Company objected to Staff's conclusion that on-site generators who store energy
on-site are less likely to use the Company's grid as a battery,meaning they would likely attempt
to limit export.Idaho Power Company's Closing Brief on Reconsideration at 16-17.To the
contrary,the Company believes customers would "use the Company's grid as a virtual battery
unless physicallyor legallyprohibited from doing so."Id.at 17.6
8.OPERATIONALAND SAFETY CONCERNS
Staff
Staff also recommended that the generic docket explore the clandestine installation of
solar panels as costs decrease to understand and avoid safety problems related to,among other
things,de-energizing the Company's power lines.Staff's Responsive Brief to Commission Order
No.34098.
The Companv
The Company argued that safety is a concern because "[t]he utility must be aware of
any system connected in parallel to its electric grid to ensure that all systems have passed the
proper electrical inspections and include the proper safety equipment to disconnect the system
from the grid."Idaho Power's Opening Brief on Reconsiderationat 28.The Company maintained
that allowing non-exporting on-site generators to take standard service would preclude the
Company from verifying those systems are safely interconnected.Id.at 29.
*Idaho Power hired the Brattle Group to analyze if or when a self-generator with a battery would use the grid as abattery.Id.;andsee Attachment l to the Company's Closing Brief,"The Effect of Storage on Customer Load
Shapes when Coupled with Distributed Generation SUPPLEMENTALANALYSIS."According to the Company,
the analysis concluded,"savvy customers will continue to depend on the utility for energy when their systems arenotgeneratingorwhentheirbatteriesaredepletedandtheywillexportexcessenergytothegridinexchangefor
credits against future consumption when their batteries are fully charged."Id.at 19.
ORDER NO.34147 13
The Company also agreed with Staff related to the problem of clandestine installations
but is concerned that a subcategory of non-exporting self-generators on Schedules 1 and 7 would
impair interconnection because the Company may not know where interconnection is occurring or
be able to approve it.kl.at 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A person may petition the Commission to reconsider its orders.See Idaho Code §61-
626;Rules 331-333 (IDAPA 31.01.01.331-.333).Reconsideration allows the petitioner to bring
to the Commission's attention any question previously determined and thereby affords the
Commission an opportunityto rectify any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,879,591 P.2d 122,126 (1979);Rule 325.The
petitioner has 21 days from the date of the final Order in which to ask for reconsideration.Idaho
Code §61-626(l).The petition must specify why it "contends that the order or any issue decided
in the Order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in conformitywith the law."Rule 331.01.
Further,the petition "must state whether the petitioner ...requests reconsiderationby evidentiary
hearing,written briefs,comments,or interrogatories."Rule 331.03.Any answers or cross-
petitions must be filed within seven days after the petition was filed.Rule 331.02 and .05.
Once a petition is filed,the Commission must issue an Order saying whether it will
reconsider the parts of the Order at issue and,if reconsideration is granted,how the matter will be
reconsidered.Idaho Code §61-626(2).If reconsideration is granted,the Commission must
complete its reconsideration within 13 weeks after the date for filing petitions for reconsideration.
Idaho Code §61-626(2).The Commission must issue its final Order on reconsideration within 28
days after the matter is finally submitted for reconsideration.Id
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission issued Final Order No.34046 on May 9,2018.Vote Solar timely
petitioned the Commission to reconsider parts of that Order.The Company and Staff then filed a
timely answer and response.No other petitions or cross-petitions were received.Thus,the
Commission has only been asked to reconsider the matter raised in Vote Solar's Petition,namely
whether the Commission should require the Company to revise new Schedules 6 and 8 to apply
only to customers who export electricity.
To do so,we ordered limited additional briefing.See Order No.34098.Specifically,
we asked for briefs on whether a customer's ability to export should determine whether the
ORDER NO.34147 14
Company places the customer on new Schedules 6 and 8.We also asked the parties to discuss
export limitingdevices,effects of battery storage,the meaning and repercussions of "in parallel"
connection,and the masking of usage created by hourlyanalysis of customer and Company energy
exchanges.
We appreciate the parties'thorough and thoughtfulfilings and briefing.As we stated
in Order No.34046,bi-directionalityis an important and defining characteristic of our decision on
whether a customer should be included in Schedules 6 and 8.The Company's evidence on load
and usage characteristics does not persuade us otherwise,because there is a large range of load
and service characteristics for both on-site generation customers and customers on the existing
standard service schedules.The Company's cost-shifting arguments also are unpersuasive.
Instead,we reiterate:
[W]e need not quantify a cost shift in either direction to make our decision.The
underlying on-site generation rate design should take into account that customers
with on-site generation are differentiating themselves by exporting energy to the
Company's grid.The present netting of energy not only allows these customers to
avoid paying their fair share of fixed costs,but also prevents them from realizing
presently unquantified benefits to the grid.Separating these on-site generation
customers from standard customers will help the Commission and stakeholders
analyze subsidization,fixed costs,cost to serve,rates,rate design,and benefits and
compensation for exports.
Order No.34046 at 17.Despite the Company's claims about cost shifting and subsidization,we
cannot make specific findings about cost shifting absent evidence and analysis of cost of service,
fixed costs,and other rate design elements.Indeed,this Commission recognized that "it is time
for the Company to address fixed-cost apportionment across its system."Order No.34046 at 17
(emphasis added).
We also reiterate our clear finding that bi-directionality is an important and defining
characteristic of a customer's placement in Schedules 6 and 8:
[W]e recognize the fundamental difference between,as an example,a residential
customer with no on-site generation and one that can both import energy from,and
export it to,the Company's grid using the same infrastructure.This bi-directionality
is distinct from a customer purely offsetting its own energy usage outside of the
grid.The bi-directional customer can push energy back to the grid whenever its
generationsource and timing allows it to,with the Company having limited control
over the use and distribution of this somewhat unpredictable resource.Because of
this bi-directionality,we conclude that net-metering customers with on-site
ORDER NO.34147 15
generation present unique load and usage characteristics that lend toward class
distinction.
Order No.34046 at 17-18.Therefore,if a customer can reasonably and safely eliminate the export
of energy to the Company's grid,we are open to the possibility of allowing the customer
opportunity to remove himself from the Company's net metering schedules.
One who does not export to the Company's grid cannot net meter,cannot mask
consumption,and,if inadvertent export is uncompensated for,cannot game the Company's current
net metering compensation scheme.While the load service and patterns of use may differ for on-
site generators,includingthose who do not export,we again acknowledge the breadth of diversity
of load service and patterns of use within utilitycustomer scheduling generally.This is an inherent
outcome of imperfect utility classification methodologies.Customers are different and use various
means to change how they take service from the Company.This trend will only increase.It is
reasonable and fair to distinguish a customer's freedom to offset usage behind the meter from a
customer's choice to export energy to the grid.
In terms of the decision before us,we maintain our findings and order that all on-site
generationcustomers classified in Schedules 6 and 8 remain there for now.However,we also find
it is reasonable to provide an opportunity for a customer to be an on-site generator and not export
its energy,thereby distinguishing himself from a customer who imports and exports energy.
Consequently,alongside the parameters set forth in Order No.34046,a non-export
option should be studied for feasibility and vetted for safety and operational concerns by the
Company and interested stakeholders in the forthcoming docket.The Company's concerns about
safety and customer tampering with export limitingdevices are operational concerns that relate to
all aspects of providing electricity to the public.We foresee that they can be reasonably addressed
by the Company,Staff,and interested stakeholders.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commission's Final Order No.34046 be modified,
as described herein.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by this
Order or other final or interlocutoryOrders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules of
Procedure.See Idaho Code §61-627.
ORDER NO.34147
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of September 2018.
PAUI KJELLANT)ER,PRESIDENT
KR'ÍSTINERAPER,COMMISSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
IPCE1713 se FINALon Reconsideration
ORDER NO.34147 17