20180824Response Brief.pdf

{?[CEIVED
?tifi i'UG 2l+ PH 2' l6SEAN COSTELLO
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Tele: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ISB NO. 8743
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NEW
SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
SMALL GENERAL SERVICE CUSTOMERS
WITH ON.SITE GENERATION
L,eetn,.lJJI\JI!
Street Address for Express Mail
472W Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BBFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF
TO COMMISSION ORDER NO.
34098
BACKGROUND
In Order No. 34098, the Commission granted Vote Solar's Petition for Reconsideration in
this matter. The Commission set an August 10,2018, briefing deadline for parties to discuss
generally "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. In that order the Commission
also allowed a period for the filing of responsive briefs, with a deadline of August 24, 2018.
Staff now files this responsive brief.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff first notes that its proposal in its Technical Brief in Response to Order No. 34098
would alleviate many of the Company's concerns as outlined in its Opening Brief. Staff
proposes that the issue of a non-export option for on-site generators should be studied in tandem
with the forthcoming docket through which a comprehensive study of "the costs and benefits of
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDERNO. 34098
1
CASE NO. IPC-E.I7.13
on-site generation on Idaho Power's system, as well as proper rates and rate design, transitional
rates, and related issues of compensation for net excess energy provided as a resource to the
Company" will be studied. Order No. 34046 at 31.
Staff merely disagrees with the Company that the opportunity to study a non-export
option should be foreclosed through this docket. The Commission found that the distinguishing
characteristic justifying separation of on-site generators into Schedules 6 and 8 was bi-
directionality: "based on the evidence before us, we find it is time to distinguish a class of
customers that uses the grid for standard energy import and use, from a class of customers that
uses the grid to both import and export energy." Order No. 34046 at 16. Regardless of whether
the Company disregards the Commission's findings related to bi-directionality, allowing a non-
export option for on-site generators appears to be in line with the Commission's Order and its
potential should not be prematurely limited.
More specifically, Staff takes issue with Idaho Power's use of the Limited Export
Simulation load profile analysis. See Idaho Power's Opening Brief on Reconsideration at 3 et
seq. First, Staff believes the Company's "simulation" using non-on-site generators as a basis for
its analysis is inappropriate. The Company used consumption data from only 272 Boise-area,
non-on-site generating customers, offset by the generation from a hypothetical 5 kW system on
each rooftop, and then zeroed-out any hour in which exports occurred. See Company's Opening
Brief on Reconsideration, Attachment I at 2. Instead, Staff believes the Company should have
used actual on-site generators as a basis for its limited export analysis. Staff used consumption
data from all 565 on-site generators in the service territory and zeroed out any hour in which
exports occurred. Under that analysis, contrary to the results of the Company's "simulation"
which showed that its hypothetical customers would consume less power than average non-on-
site generating customers, Staff found that self-generators actually consume 1,805 kWh more
Company-supplied energy annually than non-on-site generating customers. I
Second, Staff believes that the Company's exclusion of customers outside the Boise-area
in its simulation is inappropriate. Staff notes that rooftop solar systems are very sensitive to
local climatological conditions, and that the Company's simulation omits 52o/o of the Company's
I Based on Stafls analysis, this means that customers who might use export limiting devices would actually
provide, rather than receive, a subsidy.
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDER NO. 34098
2
self-generating customers, many of whom live in climatological conditons very different from
Boise.
Third, Staff objects to the Company's use of 18 Oregon customers as a proper validation
of its Limited Export Simulation. No validation would be necessary if the Company had used
actual data from the 565 Idaho on-site generating customers, rather than simulated consumption
data. Futher, a sample size of 18 is too small to be meaningful. Lastly, the validation
methodology excludes important load characteristics that would verify whether or not it aligns
with the simulation. For example, absent from the Company's validation is any mention of total
consumption. Staff notes that total consumption is an important cost driver.
Regardless of these points of contention related to analy.tical methods, simply put, the
Commission has ordered the Company to conduct a fixed-cost analysis which, ostensibly, would
include a cost shifting analysis, so foreclosing analysis of a non-export option based on
hypothetical cost-shifting scenarios is premature until all relevant data is included in a record for
reasonable analysis. See Order No. 34046 at 31.
Staff also continues to take issue with the Company's continued use of the term "partial
requirements." The issue is whether and how a customer exports energy to the Company's grid,
not how they might offset usage behind the meter. Staff argues that an export limiting device
option for on-site generators would allow the on-site generation system to be sufficiently similar
to a standard service customer utilizing energy efficiency measures or alternative energy sources.
Next, Staff would reiterate that the Company's continued argument related to "masking"
is irrelevant if export limiting devices were allowed for customers desiring to not export. In
other words, whether intra-hour usage is detectable in net hourly consumption is irrelevant to
those customers who cannot export. The Company did not refute that an export limiting device
would prevent masking. The Company's arguments related to masking are an issue of rate
design and meter programming, again, best analyzed and reformed in the forthcoming docket.
Finally, Staff does agree with the Company's safety concerns. However, Staff believes
that the more opportunity the Company provides to allow its customers to generate power
reasonably and in cooperation with the utility, the safer customers, Idaho Power employees, and
the grid will be. The more limitations the utility attempts to impose, the more the utility may
inadvertently promote clandestine generation and connection.
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDER NO. 34098
aJ
Idaho Power states that "[i]f the Commission were to grant Vote Solar's request to allow
customers who do not export to continue to take service under their standard service schedule,
the Company would not have an opportunity to verify those systems are interconnected in a
manner that would not jeopardize reliability of Idaho Power's system or the safety of
employees." Idaho Power's Opening Brief on Reconsideration at 29. This misunderstanding
between the parties is exactly why these issues are best left to another docket. Idaho Power
makes the assumption that customers with export limiting devices may simply interconnect to
the Company. However, while clandestine connection is and may always remain an issue among
many customers classes, Staff foresees that all on-site generators would remain in, or start out
subject to, Schedules 6 and 8 (as is the case today), unless and until they can sufficiently show
that they no longer belong in those schedules because they have removed their capability to
export to the Company's grid. This is similar to what occurs in Hawaii, though Staff does not, as
do other parties, promote the idea of the Commission ordering the adoption of Hawaii's model at
this stage.
While Idaho Power argues that "[e]ligibility for Schedules 6 and 8 should be based upon
the existence of on-site generation that is connected in parallel with Idaho Power's system," it
appears to ignore the definitive distinction provided in plain language within Commission Order
No. 34046: "To reiterate, we 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 ffietting its own energy usage outside of the grid." Order No. 34046 at
I 7-1 8 (emphasis added).
In conclusion, the issue of a non-export option for those customers who desire to offset
their own usage with on-site generation deserves to be analyzed in the forthcoming docket and
should not be prematurely foreclosed without a full record alongside sufficient analysis.
RESPECTFULLY submitted tnis 2?^aay of August,2018
0
Sean Costello
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDER NO. 34098
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICB
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE ON THIS NDAY OF AUGUST,2OI8,
SERVED THE FOREGOING STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION
ORDERNO.34098, IN CASE NO. IPC-E-17-13, BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF,
POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWNG:
LISA D NORDSTROM
REGULATORY DOCKETS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOrSE rD 83707-0070
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
dockets com
C TOM ARKOOSH
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
802 W BANNOCK ST STE 9OO
PO BOX 2900
BOISE ID 8370I
E-MAIL : [e-mail]
erin.ceci [e-mail]
ELIAS BISHOP
AURIC SOLAR LLC
2310 s 1300 w
W VALLEY CITY UT 84119
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ANTHONY YANKEL
I27OO LAKE AVENUE
UNIT 2505
LAKEWOOD OH 44107
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
TOM BEACH
CROSSBORDER ENERGY
2560 gTH STREET, SUITE 2I3A
BERKELEY CA 94710
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
TIMOTHY E TATUM
CONNIE ASCHENBRENNER
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOrSE rD 83707-0070
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
caschenbrenner@ idahopower.com
ERIC L OLSEN
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN PLLC
PO BOX 6l 19
POCATELLO ID 83205
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
KELSEY JAE NUNEZLLC
920 N CLOVER DR
BOISE ID 83703
E-MAIL: kelsey@kelseyj aenunez.com
ELECTRONIC ONLY
MICHAEL HECKLER
michael.p.heckler@ gmail.com
ZACK WATERMAN
zack.waterman @sierraclub. org
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDER NO. 34098
5
MATTHEW A NYKIEL
ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE
I02 S EUCLTD #207
PO BOX 2308
SANDPOINT ID 83864
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ABIGAIL R GERMAINE
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY'S
PO BOX 500
BOISE ID 83701-0500
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
DAVID BENDER
EARTHJUSTICE
3916 NAKOMA ROAD
MADISON WI 537I I
E-MAIL: dbender@,earthj ustice.org
JOHN R HAMMOND JR
FISHER PUSCH LLP
PO BOX 1308
BOISE ID 8370I
E-MAI L : j rh@fi shergusch. com
RYAN B FRAZIER
BRIAN W BURNETT
KIRTON McCONKIE
PO BOX 45120
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84I I I
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
PRESTON N CARTER
DEBORAH E NELSON
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W BANNOCK ST
PO BOX2720
BOISE ID 83701
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
den@,eivenspursley. com
BRIANA KOBOR
VOTE SOLAR
986 PRINCETON AVENUE S
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ELECTRONIC ONLY
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE
wwi lson@,snakeriverall iance.orq
NW ENERGY COALITION
[e-mail]
DOUG SHIPLEY
INTERMOUNTAIN WIND AND
SOLAR LLC
1953 WEST 2425 SOUTH
WOODS CROSS UT 84087
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
l(tw wkt\/
KERI J. HAWKER
Legal Assistant To Sean Costello
STAFF'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO COMMISSION ORDER NO. 34098
6