The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20180125Morrison Direct-2nd Revised.pdfRECE IVED ldaho Public Utilities Commiss P.0. Box &l7A.8olso,l0 88720-{n74 &vemor Paul KJellander, Commissioner l(ristine Raper, Comm issioner Eric Andbtsm, Commissioner! .,.'t l\I,, U -,vi l TO MEMORANDUM PARTIES OF RECORD COMMISSION SECRETARY FROM: SEAN COSTELLO DATE: JANUARY 25,2018 SUBJECT: SECOND REVISED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MIKE MORRISON CASE NO.IPC.E-I7.I3 Please find enclosed the Second Revised Direct Testimony of Mike Morrison in IPC-E- 1 7- 1 3 . As a result of Idaho Power's Production Request Nos. I -3, and Vote Solar's Production Request No. 1, certain minor errors were discovered in Dr. Morrison's workpapers underlying his testimony in this matter. Included along with this Memorandum is Dr. Morrison's Second Revised Testimony. Access information to Dr. Morrison's revised workpapers - which include a change log, including tabs detailing the changes made to the workpapers - as well as the effects of those changes, was provided to the Parties by email on January 24,2018. The changes are also summarized directly below: Page Line From To L7 6 2016 rates 2017 rates 77 Table 1 Old Table 1 New Table 1 11 25 $e26.ts/y11 (S10rr.o:/yr1 12 2 (s1,161.34lyr)(s1,265.08/yr) 12 2 s234.se s2s4.0s t2 4 (S133.e6)(Srro.aol t2 5 s100.63 (Srsz.zs1 472 West Washington Street, Boise l0 83702 Telephone: (208) 334-0300 Facsimile: (208) 334-3762 While these errors have an effept on the statistical analysis included in Dr. Morrison's testimony as it relates to hypothetical, illustrative avoided cost calculations, they are immaterial to Staff s underlying conclusions and recommendations in this case. Table 1: Non-NEM Customers Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these changes. ( Sean Costello Deputy Attorney General I:\LegaI\ELECTNCUPC-E- I 7- I 3\LettersUPCEl Tl3ltanies ltr2.doc Annual Average NEM Excluding Schedule 84 Credit NEM with Schedule 84 Credit (Current Rates) NEM Staff Proposal kWh Consumed 11,,776 13,581 13,581 13,581 Excess kWh 0 3,@4 3,@4 3,il4 Billed kWh rL,776 13,581 9,937 13,581 Bill before Excess Generation Credit (; 1,083.40 s 1,265.08 s 1,011.03 s 1,265.08 Excess Generation Credit N/A N/A N/A s 116.80 Final Bill s 1,083.40 S 1,265.08 s 1,011.03 S L,748.28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l_0 11 t2 13 1,4 15 L6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 in my analys j-s. O. P1ease summarize your analysis. A. Because residential customers account for most net metering generation capacity, and virtually all net meterj-ng growth, fry analysis focused on Residential Schedule 1 customers. I used the Company's 201-7 rates for all analyses. In order to estimate an average net meterj-ng customer's bill under Staff rs proposal, I used 2OL5 DSM avoided cost rates; however, as I indicated earlj-er, I believe that the exact methodology for calculatlng net metering avoided cost rates should be determined in a separate docket. I have summarized my analysis in Table 1. Non-N EM Custome rs NEM Excluding Schedule 84 Credit NEM with Schedule 84 Credit NEM Staff Proposal 255.08 116.80 1,148.28 Annual kWh Consumed Excess kWh Billed kwh Bill before Excess Generation Credit Excess Generation Credit Final Bill Rate 581 Table 1 NEM) O S r,os:.qo s t,265.O8 s 1,011.03 s Consumption and billing for average non net metering (Non- and Net Metering (NEM) customers under current rates andStsaff's Proposal.Currently, what is the magnitude of the cost shift under Schedule 84? A. Under Schedule 84, ismonthly excess generation consumption, and so an average net met,ering customer pays substantially less ($1011.03/yr) than she would pay CASE NO. IPC-E-17-13 oL/2s/1-8 a net metering customer's subtracted from her monthly MORRTSON, M STAFF tL,776 13,581 13,581 0 3,@4 3,U4 11,776 13,581 9,937 1,083.40 s 1.255.08 1,011.03s N/A N/A N/A 12na Rev) 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 15 L6 t7 l_8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 without the Schedule 84 excess energy credit ($t,255 . 0 I /yr) . A portion of the $254 . 05 difference represents the avoided cost due to excess energy provided by the net metering customer ($115.80) , and j-s therefore not a subsidy. The remainj-ng ($137.25) represents the cosL shift from an average residential net metering customer to the general body of residential ratepayers. A summary of consumption, excess generation, and billing information can be found in Table 1. O. Does Staff 's proposal eliminate all j-ntraclass subsidies? A. Staff's proposal eliminates all intraclass subsj-dies that are due to the Schedule 84 Net Metering program; however, j-ntraclass subsidies that, are not related to net metering remain j-n pIace. By virtue of their slightly greater average consumptj-on (Tab1e L), there would be a small subsidy from average net metering customers to non-net meterj-ng customers; however, as discussed earlj-er, this type of cost shift, is noL uni-que to net metering customers. THE COMPAITY I S NET ZERO CUSTOMER AI{ALYSIS O. What are net zero customers, and why are they important? A. As we have already dj-scussed, Schedule 84 aIlows net metering customers to trbankrr energy credits CASE NO. IPC-E-1-7-13 0t/ 25 /1-B MORRISON, M STAFF 12na Rev) 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018, SERVED THE FOREGOING SECOND REVISED PAGES FOR THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MORRTSON, IN CASE NO. IPC-E-17-13, By MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING: LISA D NORDSTROM REGULATORY DOCKETS IDAHO POWER COMPANY PO BOX 70 BOrSE rD 83707-0070 E-MAIL: lnordstrom@idahopower.com dockets@ idahopower.com C TOM ARKOOSH ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES 802 W BANNOCK ST STE 9OO PO BOX 2900 BOISE ID 83701 E-MAIL: tom.arkoosh@arkoosh.com erin.cecil@arkoosh.com ELIAS BISHOP AURIC SOLAR LLC 2310 s 1300 w W VALLEY CITY UT 84I 19 E-MAIL: elias.bishop@auricsolar.com ANTHONY YANKEL I27OO LAKE AVENUE UNIT 2505 LAKEWOOD OH 44107 E-MAIL: tony@,yankel.net TOM BEACH CROSSBORDER ENERGY 2560 9TH STREET, SUITE 2I3A BERKELEY CA 947T0 E-MAIL: tomb@crossborderenerev.com TIMOTHY E TATUM CONNIE ASCHENBRENNER IDAHO POWER COMPANY PO BOX 70 BOISE rD 83707-0070 E-MAIL: ttatum@idahopower.com caschenbrenner@idahopower.com MATTHEW A NYKIEL ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE 102 S EUCLID #207 PO BOX 2308 SANDPOINT ID 83864 E-MAIL: mnykiel@idahoconservation.org ERIC L OLSEN ECHO HAWK & OLSEN PLLC PO BOX 6119 POCATELLO ID 83205 E-MAIL: elo@echokryk qan] KELSEY JAE NUNEZLLC 920 N CLOVER DR BOISE ID 83703 E-MAIL: kelsey@kelseyj aenunez.com ELECTRONIC ONLY MICHAEL HECKLER michael.p.heckler@ email.com ZACK WATERMAN zack.watennan@ sierraclub. org CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ABIGAIL R GERMAINE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY BOISE CITY ATTORNEY'S PO BOX 500 BOrSE ID 83701-0500 E-MAIL: agermaine@cityofboise.org DAVID BENDER EARTHJUSTICE 3916 NAKOMA ROAD MADISON WI 537I I E-MAIL: dbender@,earthiustice.org JOHN R HAMMOND JR FISHER PUSCH LLP PO BOX 1308 BOISE ID 83701 E-MAIL : irh@fi sherpusch.com RYAN B FRAZIER BRIAN W BURNETT KIRTON MoCONKIE PO BOX 45120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84I I I E-MAIL: rfrazier@kmclaw.com bburnett@kmclaw.com PRESTON N CARTER DEBORAH E NELSON GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 60I W BANNOCK ST PO BOX2720 BOISE ID 83701 E-MAIL: prestoncarter@givenspurlsey.com den@ eivenspursley. com BRIANA KOBOR VOTE SOLAR 986 PRINCETON AVENUE S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 E-MAIL: briana@votesolar.org ELECTRONIC ONLY SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE wwi I son@ snakeriverall iance. ors NW ENERGY COALITION diego@nwenergy.ore DOUG SHIPLEY INTERMOUNTAIN WIND AND SOLAR LLC 1953 WEST 2425 SOUTH WOODS CROSS UT 84087 E-MAIL: doug@imwindandsolar.com i lr-t l"Z,-,-,uSecnsfAAV:- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE