20200205Reconsideration_Order_No_34546.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
February 5,2020
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF )CASE NO.IPC-E-18-15
IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO STUDY THE )
COSTS,BENEFITS,AND COMPENSATION )OF NET EXCESS ENERGY SUPPLIED BY )ORDER NO.34546
CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION )
On December 20,2019,the Commission issued final Order No.34509.Eight petitions
for reconsideration and/or clarification were timely filed and six cross-petitions or answers were
timely filed.After careful consideration of the arguments presented,the Commission grants
Richard Kluckhohn's request for reconsideration and Thomas Baskin's petition for clarification,
Idaho Power's answer/cross-petition to Richard Kluckhohn's request for reconsideration,Idaho
Power's answer/cross-petition to petitions for reconsideration,Staff's answer to petitions for
reconsideration,Idaho Conservation League and Vote Solar's answer/cross-petition for
reconsideration,Boise City's answer to Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification,and Idaho Clean Energy Association's petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification.The Commission has ample information in the record to make its determinations on
reconsideration without additional briefing or testimony.See Idaho Code §61-626(2);
Commission Rule 332.The Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration and/or
clarification from Idaho Power,Idaho Conservation League and Vote Solar,Idaho Clean Energy
Association,multiple students,Micah Hornback,and Kenneth White.
In summary,and as more fully explained in the body of this Order,after reviewing the
record,the Commission will apply grandfathered status to the system site as opposed to the
customer.The Commission also clarifies that a customer who owns a grandfathered system can
add another system on their property,with the new system qualifyingfor the net-meteringprogram
in place at that time,without jeopardizing the original system's grandfathered status.
The Commission grants intervenor funding to the Idaho ConservationLeague,Idaho
Clean Energy Association,Idaho IrrigationPumpers Association,and Sierra Club of Idaho.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 9,2018,in Docket No.IPC-E-17-13,the Commission ordered Idaho Power
Company ("Idaho Power"or "Company")to "initiate a docket to comprehensivelystudy the costs
ORDER NO.34546 1
and benefits of on-site generationon 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."Order No.34046 at 31.The Commission encouraged the parties to work
through these issues together in compromise.Id.at 22.
On October 19,2018,Idaho Power petitioned the Commission to open this docket to
effectuate the Commission's directive in Order No.34046.
On November 9,2018,the Commission issued a Notice of Petition and Notice of
Intervention Deadline.Order No.34189.
On October 11,2019,after eight settlement meetings and thorough discussion among
the parties,Idaho Power and Commission Staff jointly submitted a Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement.The Settlement Agreement was signed by nine parties.
On December 2,2019,the Commission held a telephonic public hearing and heard
from dozens of concerned customers over six hours.
On December 3,2019,the Commission held a live public hearing and heard from
dozens more concerned customers for over seven hours.In addition,the Commission received
over 1,000 public comments in this docket.
On December 20,2019,the Commission rejected the proposed Settlement Agreement.
Order No.34509.
On January 8,2020,a group of students filed a petition for reconsideration.
On January 9,2020,Richard Kluckhohn filed a petition for reconsideration.
On January 10,2020,Micah Hornback filed a petition for reconsideration.
On January 10,2020,Thomas Baskin filed a petition for clarification and/or
reconsideration.
On January 10,2020,Kenneth White filed a petition for reconsideration.
On January 10,2020,Idaho Power filed a petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification.
On January 10,2020,Idaho Clean Energy Association ("ICEA")filed a petition for
reconsideration.
On January 10,2020,Idaho Conservation League and Vote Solar ("ICL/VS")filed a
petition for reconsideration.
ORDER NO.34546 2
On January 16,2020,Idaho Power filed an answer/cross-petition to Richard
Kluckhohn's request for reconsideration.
On January 17,2020,Idaho Power filed an answer/cross-petition to petitions for
reconsideration.
On January 17,2020,Commission Staff filed an answer to petitions for reconsideration.
On January 17,2020,the City of Boise filed an answer to Idaho Power's petition for
reconsideration and/or clarification.
On January 17,2020,ICEA filed a response to Idaho Power's petition for
reconsiderationand/or clarification.
On January 17,2020,ICL/VS filed an answer/cross-petitionfor reconsideration.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§61-501,61-
502,and 61-503.The Commission is vested with the power to "supervise and regulate every
public utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the
[Public Utilities Law]."Idaho Code §61-501.The Commission is empowered to investigate
rates,charges,rules,regulations,practices,and contracts of public utilities and to determine
whether they are just,reasonable,preferential,discriminatory,or in violation of any provision of
law,and to fix the same by order.Idaho Code §§61-502 and 61-503.Idaho statute provides,"If
reconsideration be granted,said order shall specify how the matter will be reconsidered and
whether any cross-petitions for reconsideration will be granted."Idaho Code §61-626(2)."If
after reconsideration,includingconsideration of matters arising since the making of the order,the
commission shall be of the opinion that the original order or any part thereof is in any respect
unjustor unwarranted or should be changed,the commission may abrogate or change the same."
Idaho Code §61-626(3).An order made after reconsiderationabrogating or changing the original
order has the same force and effect as an original order.Id.
L The Commission Denies the Company's Request to Reconsider the Rejection of the
SettlementAgreement.
The Commission denied the proposed Settlement Agreementbecause the Commission
found (1)the public was not on adequate notice that this docket might result in fundamental
changes to the net-metering program rather than a comprehensive study of the issues;(2)there was
ORDER NO.34546 3
not substantial and competent evidence in the record to substantiate the parties'positions in
support of the Settlement Agreement,and;(3)submitting a Settlement Agreement before
submitting a comprehensive study did not comply with the Commission's directive in Order No.
34046.Order No.34509 at 6-9.
The Company's petition for reconsideration asserts there is substantial and competent
evidence in the record,the parties did conduct and file a comprehensive study on the costs and
benefits of net metering,and that the public was on adequate notice that this docket would result
in proposed changes to the net metering program.Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration
and/or clarification at 10.Based on these assertions,the Company requests the Commission
reconsider its rejection of the Settlement Agreement.Alternatively,the Company requests the
Commission reconsider the process we prescribed in Order No.34509 for a credible and fair
comprehensive study.See Id.at 26.
a)The Commission Addressedthe Evidence in the Record in Order No.34509.
In Order No.34509,we found the Settlement Agreement's proponents did not show
that the proposed Settlement Agreement was reasonable and in the public interest as required by
Commission Rule 275.Order No.34509 at 7-8.We also found that the record did not contain
substantial and competent evidence upon which the Commission could base its decision.Id.at 8.
In response,the Company attached to its petition for reconsideration the 563 pages of mostly raw
data that had previously been submitted with its comments in support of the Settlement Agreement.
See Idaho Power petition for reconsideration and/or clarification at 17.We acknowledge the data
provided both with the Settlement Agreement and on reconsideration.What we found lacking was
a comprehensive analysis of that data upon which we could have scrutinized the reasonableness of
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.The Company's resubmission of that information along
with an executive summary does not change our conclusion.
b)The Company's Efforts to Recharacterize its Earlier Submissions as a
Comprehensive Final Study is Unpersuasive.
In its petition,the Company recharacterizes its previouslysubmitted information and
now argues that the parties conducted and submitted a final comprehensive study,as ordered in
Order No.34046 and clarified in Order No.34509.See Idaho Power petition for reconsideration
and/or clarification at 11-22.
ORDER NO.34546 4
The other parties strongly object to Idaho Power's recharacterization of these
previouslyfiled documents as a comprehensive final study."This is the first Staff has heard of
there being a final study conducted in this docket,and disagrees with the Company's
characterizationof these documents as a study."Staff answer at 3-4."The Settlement Agreement
does not purport to be a comprehensive study.None of the signing parties agreed that the
Settlement Agreement was a comprehensive study."ICEA's response to Idaho Power's petition
for reconsideration and/or clarification at 5-6."Idaho Power's Petition attempts to avoid the
simple truth that nothing in the record constitutes the comprehensive study ordered by the
Commission."ICL/VS cross petition for reconsiderationat 7."Boise City agrees [that there was
no comprehensive study in the record]and would add that the confidential nature of the settlement
agreement makes it impossible to present all information or varying opinions that were presented."
Boise City's answer to Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration and/or clarification at 4.
There are elements of a study,which should be invaluable going forward as a basis for
further study,but we are presented with data and conclusions without analysis or explanation of
what other methods of computing the data were studied,what results those methods produced,or
analysis of the relative merits of one method over another.Additionally,the Company is
conflating analysis of specific components of net-metering program design,specifically the energy
value and the capacity value of exported energy,with a comprehensive study.
We understand that the confidential nature of settlement negotiationsmakes it difficult
to bring to light the information exchanged,the views taken,and the compromises made to reach
a settlement.But if this Settlement Agreement was supported by a comprehensive study,as we
originally envisioned,then surely the parties to the Settlement Agreement would have asserted as
much on reconsideration.Instead,the parties rejected the characterization of the data as a
comprehensive study.Despite the Company's arguments to the contrary,we continue to conclude
that there is no final comprehensive study in the record.
c)The Commission Denies the Company's Request to Limit the Scope of
Further Study and to Immediately Implement One Component of the
SettlementAgreement Without Further Study.
The Company states,"If the Commission declines to reconsider its decision not to
approve the Settlement Agreement,Idaho Power respectfullyrequests that in the alternative,the
Commission reconsider the extensive procedures it has prescribed for conducting an entirelynew
ORDER NO.34546 5
comprehensive study from scratch."Idaho Power petition for reconsideration and/or clarification
at 26.The Company alternatively proposes to immediately implement net hourlybilling with no
immediate change to the compensation value,and to continue to study the value of excess net
energy.The Company states "it is well established that moving from net monthlybilling to net
hourlybilling is an important step toward reducing inequitable cost shifting."Id.at 28.
The other parties strongly disagree that implementing net hourly billing would be
appropriatewithout further study.ICEA states Idaho Power has never proven the cost shift it has
continually alleged:"Idaho Power has repeatedly alleged that the current net metering program
creates a cost shift.However,it has never actually proven as much."ICEA's Response at 3
(emphasis in original).ICLIVS also notes that the Commission has never found a cost shift and
states it would be inappropriate to apply one piece of the Settlement Agreement in a piecemeal
fashion:"Not only is severing a compromise settlement improper,but Idaho Power's basis for
arguing for it relies on its old saw of making unsupported assertions of 'cost shifts.'The
Commission has repeatedly declined to accept those allegations due to lack of evidence."ICL-
VS Cross Petition for Reconsideration at 9.Staff states that the Company's proposal would
implement "perhaps the single most significant program change affecting the economic value of
distributed generation systems to net-metering customers[.]"Staff Answer at 6-7.Additionally,
the Company proposes to do so without the public process the Commission ordered in Order No.
34509."Staff believes the Company's recommendation to implement net hourly billing
improperly presupposes the outcome of the study."Staff Answer at 6."Changing Idaho Power's
net metering program before conducting a comprehensive study is inconsistent with the
Commission's directives in Order No.34046 and Order No.34509."ICEA's Response to Idaho
Power's petition for reconsiderationand/or clarification at 3-4.
We find that the Company's proposal discounts the ability of public input to shape the
scope,method,and results of a comprehensive study.Net hourlybillingis a central aspect of the
Settlement Agreement.Implementing piecemeal portions of a Settlement Agreement,which we
held was not supported by sufficient evidence as a whole,would be improper.
The Commission also rejects the Company's suggestion that the procedures prescribed
in Order No.34509 send "all the parties back to the drawing board"and "discard[s]thousands of
hours of careful and collaborative analysis and deliberation,"and that a new study must be
designed "from scratch."See Idaho Power's petition for reconsiderationand/orclarification at 26.
ORDER NO.34546 6
The work done in this docket can and should be built upon in the next docket.The issues for study,
as presented in Table 1 to the first Staff Report,could serve as the basis for a scoping
recommendation in the next case.Knowledge and experience gained by the parties during
negotiations will not be lost.Progress was made toward a modified net-metering program design.
This docket was one effort in an iterative process,and we encourage the parties to continue to
earnestly engage in discussion of these difficult issues.Ultimately,the terms of the Settlement
Agreement may well embody just,fair,and reasonable changes to the Company's net-metering
program,but we are unable to adequately determine whether this is the case based on the record
before us.The process laid out in Order No.34509 is meant to ensure that notice issues raised in
this case are addressed,any potential confusion about whether that case should result in a study or
a settlement agreement is removed,and provide opportunityfor the parties to construct a robust
record upon which we can make a well-informed decision on an important matter.Our rejection
of the Settlement Agreement is not meant to discredit or disparage the work done to date.
d)The Company's Public NottþcationProcess.
As referenced in Order No.34509,Idaho Power captioned this case "In the Matter of
the Application of Idaho Power Company to Study the Costs,Benefits,and Compensation of Net
Excess Energy Supplied by Customer On-Site Generation."Emphasis added.All later pleadings
and orders included that caption.Notwithstanding the case caption and the hundreds of public
comments on the record stating that members of the public thought this case would result in a
study,not a settlement agreement,the Company now asserts that the public was adequately notified
this case would move beyond merely studying net-metering issues to proposing a settlement
agreement that would fundamentallychange the Company's net-metering program.
The Company claims,"The record also demonstrates that Idaho Power engaged in a
robust public notification process,providing ample notice to the public that this docket could result
in alterations to the net metering service."Id.at 23.To support this claim,Idaho Power states,
"Attachment 2 to this Petition contains a long list of such communications to the public by the
Company,Staff,the Commission,and others."Attachment 2 contains one set of two documents
prepared by the Company,several Commission orders that reference a study,a Commission press
release that references a study,and an intervenor's opinion piece that has little to no bearing on
Idaho Power's claim.The Company's arguments are unpersuasive.
ORDER NO.34546 7
The documents prepared by the Company were sent to then-current and pending on-
site generation customers and on-site generation installers in October 2018.Those documents
state,"Our Oct.19 filing begins the next phase of collaboratively studying the benefits,costs,rate
design and proper compensation structure for on-site generation customers,as directed by the
[Commission]."Later,these documents state,"By collaborating with all interested parties,we
look forward to working toward a solution that both acknowledges the benefits of on-site
generation and keeps prices low for all customers."Idaho Power petition for
reconsideration/clarification at Att.2,p.4,5.In our reading,the plain import of these letters is that
a study was being conducted,which when complete,would be a step toward a "solution."We also
note that the Company did not send these documents to potential on-site generation customers,i.e.
Schedule 1 and Schedule 7 customers,who are the very customers the Company asserts it is
protecting from a cost shift.These customers-both as non-participants who the Company states
are bearing a cost shift,and as potential participants who might be thinkingabout making a large
investment in an on-site generation system-shouldhave received more notification,and more
clearly written notification about the potential consequences of the docket from the Company.
Additionally,there is an array of communications that the Company did not use to
communicate with its customers such as bill stuffers,its newsletter,opinion pieces,radio spots,
social media,and several other conceivable and reasonable actions.As a result,we find the
Company did not provide adequate notice as to the extent of the possible changes.
IL The Commission Grants Mr.Kluckhohn's Request to Grandfather the System as
Opposed to the Customer.
Richard Kluckhohn and Kenneth White request the Commission reconsider its
decision to grandfather customers,as opposed to grandfathering systems.The Commission did
not receive confirmation from Mr.White that he served his petition for reconsideration on other
parties,as required by Commission Rule,and therefore denies Mr.White's petition for
reconsideration.However,the same issues were raised by Mr.Kluckhohn,and are addressed here.
Mr.Kluckhohn states that net-metering customers reasonably expected that the value of their on-
site generation system would be transferred when they sell the real property to which the system
is attached.And by not allowing existing customers to transfer the grandfatheredstatus of their
on-site generationsystem,the Commission's order materially devalues the value of the asset.See
Richard Kluckhohn's petition for reconsiderationat 3-4.Mr.Kluckhohn also states that Order No.
ORDER NO.34546 8
34509 would have unintended consequences on the elderly who may be more likely to sell or
otherwise divest their real property before realizing the full economic payback of their investment
in on-site generation.See Id.at 4-5.
The Company is not opposed to Mr.Kluckhohn's request,and states that
grandfathering by system will be administratively more efficient for the utility and would give
existing customers with on-site generation "more opportunity to recoup their investment by
retaining the economic value of the system at the location for which it was initially assessed and
built."Idaho Power answer/cross-petitionto Richard Kluckhohn at 4.The Company also notes
that grandfathering by system is the predominant practice in other jurisdictions that have faced a
similar situation.In its petition for reconsiderationand/or clarification,the Company posed several
dilemmas that the Company and the Commission would likely face if the Commission were to
grandfatherby customer.Idaho Power petition for reconsiderationand/or clarification at 36.Staff
raised similar concerns.Staff Answer at 10.Upon reconsideration,the Commission agrees that
grandfathering by customer could be unnecessarily difficult.
The Company lists four criteria for grandfathering by system:(1)A customer who
moves into a property with a grandfatherednet-metering system gets to "inherit"the grandfathered
status of the system.Likewise,when a customer moves from a property with a grandfathered
system,that customer does not get to take the grandfatheredstatus of the system with them to their
next property;(2)If a system is offline for more than six months,or is moved to another site,the
grandfathered status of the system is forfeited;(3)To allow for the replacement of degraded or
broken panels,the customer may increase the capacity of the grandfathered system by no more
than 10%of the originally installed nameplate capacity or 1 kW,whichever is greater;and (4)
Grandfathered status terminates December 20,2045.See Id.at 5.ICL/VS state that the
Company's proposed criteria are consistent with ICL/VS recommendations in this docket.ICL/VS
cross-petition for reconsideration at 13.Staff and ICEA both agree that grandfathering the system
as opposed to the customer would remove many future uncertainties about grandfathering status.
Staff answer at 9-10,ICEA's response to Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification at 8-9.Consequently,the Commission finds it reasonable and justto grandfatherthe
system,consistent with the four criteria expressed above.
ORDER NO.34546 9
IIL The Commission Denies Requests to Reconsider the EligibilityDate for Grandfathered
Status.
ICL/VS,ICEA,the students,and Micah Hornback request the Commission reconsider
the eligibilitydate for grandfatheredstatus.The Commission declines to grant reconsideration on
this issue.In Order No.34509,we decided to grandfather customers based on our
acknowledgement that,until that point,customers reasonably could have believed that the
fundamentals of the net-metering program would not change.If investments had been made in
reliance on those reasonable beliefs,those customers were grandfathered.We made it abundantly
clear in Order No.34509 that the program fundamentals are subject to change.It would contravene
our rationale to extend the date at which customers are eligible for grandfatheredstatus,and we
therefore decline to do so.
The parties petitioning for reconsideration on this issue allege that Order No.34509
will create untenable uncertainty for solar installers and that no economically rational customer
would invest in on-site generation until program changes are announced.We find this argument
unpersuasive because there is no more uncertainty than there was after Order No.34046,which
established Schedules 6 and 8 and began the collaborative process at the heart of this docket,and
there has been continued growth in the on-site generation market.Additionally,even after we
issue an order approving net metering program changes,if that is indeed what happens after the
next phase of the collaborative process,that program would still be subject to change.We caution:
The Company's tariffs-like those of utilities throughout the country-are subject to change under
appropriate circumstances.This means the fundamentals of the Company's net-metering
program-andthe very existence of the program itself-could change in the future.Investors,
installers,and customers who assume otherwise do so at their peril.To the extent there is any
certainty for potential investors in on-site generation,it comes not from a guarantee that the
program will stay the same,but from the Commission's statutory oversight role and ability to
ensure that only fair,just,and reasonable tariff changes are implemented.
IV.A Customer Can Expand Their System Without Losing Grandfathered Status for the
Entire System if the Output can be Recorded Separately.
Thomas Baskin asks for clarification on whether a customer can add panels to their
system without losing grandfathered status for the grandfathered portion of their system.Mr.
Baskin states he would like to expand his system,which was in place before December 20,2019,
ORDER NO.34546 10
to accommodate the purchase of an electric vehicle.Mr.Baskin acknowledges that he made no
binding financial commitment for the additional panels before December 20,2019,and therefore
the additional portion of his system would not qualify for grandfatheredstatus under Order No.
34509.Mr.Baskin specifically asks for clarification about the language in Order No.34509 that
reads,"[W]e are grandfathering the customer at the meter site at the originally installed nameplate
capacity of the system."Mr.Baskin states,"I see nothing in the Order that supports [Idaho
Power's]stated position that my right to grandfatherthat pre-existing capacity evaporates if I add
to it."Baskin petition for reconsideration at 1.In response,Idaho Power states,"Idaho Power
requests the Commission deny Mr.Baskin's request to grandfather material expansions of the
originally installed system nameplate capacity.Mr.Baskin's suggestion that the Company could
define a percentage of the generation to be grandfatheredis not practical,or even possible with a
single metered point of delivery."Idaho Power's answer/cross-petition to petitions for
reconsiderationat 11.
The Commission finds that if a customer with grandfathered status adds generating
capacity to their on-site generation system,the customer can do so without losing the original
system's grandfathered status if the Company can separately measure the energy flows from the
different systems.As of now,the Company can separately measure the energy flows from the
different systems through separate meters.In the future,the Company's meters might be able to
measure different energy flows through separate channels,and therefore a separate meter would
not be required to keep track of the output of two systems with separate compensation structures.
The Company's meter aggregation rules accommodate the measurement of energy output from
one meter and its application to the load at a separate meter.
V.Matters Regarding the IPC-E-19-15 Docket.
Many parties in this case have also been studying net-metering program design for
commercial,industrial,and irrigation customers in Case No.IPC-E-19-15.The Company states
"if it is not the Commission's intent for its decisions in this case to hinder progress toward
settlement in Case No.IPC-E-19-15 ...for customers taking net metering service under Schedule
84,the Company respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order explicitlystating such
and direct parties to continue negotiations toward settlement in that case."Idaho Power petition
for reconsideration and/or clarification at 5.We decline the Company's invitation.
ORDER NO.34546 11
The facts of Case No.IPC-E-19-15 are not before us here,and it would be inappropriate
and a violation of due process for us to decide in this docket the outcome of another docket.In
the Notice of Intervention Deadline issued in IPC-E-19-15 we stated,"While we will process this
case as a stand-alone case,we expect consistent application of principles across the dockets.
Findings in IPC-E-18-15 will be presumptively reasonable in [IPC-E-19-15],although not
binding."Order No.34335 at 1.To the extent the procedures in IPC-E-19-15 are like the
procedures found deficient here,a consistent application of principles would suggest a similar
outcome in Case No.IPC-E-19-15.But we cannot make that determination now.It is for the
parties to decide in the first instance,and we will evaluate the parties'proposal when brought to
us in the correct docket.
Similarly,the Company requests clarification on whether Order No.34509 put all
customer classes on notice that the fundamentals of net metering program design are subject to
change.See Idaho Power petition for reconsideration and/or clarification at 37.The Company
initiated IPC-E-17-13 to separate residential and small general service customers with on-site
generation from commercial,industrial,and irrigation customers under Schedule 84,and to place
residential and small general service customers with on-site generation in Schedules 6 and 8,
respectively.The Company filed IPC-E-19-15 separately from-and well after-filing this case.
In Order No.34335,as referenced above,we decided to process this case as a stand-alone case
instead of merging the cases as the Company requested.The decision to grandfather Schedule 6
and Schedule 8 customers as of the service date of Order No.34509 only applies to Schedule 6
and Schedule 8 customers.The decision to grandfather existing customers was based on the facts
of the case.If customers in Schedule 84 are to be grandfatheredas of a certain date,that decision
must be made in IPC-E-19-15 based on the facts presented there.
VI.Intervenor Funding.
Commission decisions benefit from robust public input."It is hereby declared the
policyof this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the commission
so that all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings."Idaho
Code §61-617A(1).Recoverable costs include legal fees,witness fees,transportation and other
expenses so long as the total funding for all intervening parties does not exceed $40,000 in any
ORDER NO.34546 12
proceeding.Idaho Code §61-617A(2).The Commission must consider the followingfactors
when deciding whether to award intervenor funding:
(1)That the participation of the intervenor materially contributed to the
Commission's decision;
(2)That the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and would be a significant
financial hardship for the intervenor;
(3)The recommendation made by the intervenor differs materially from the
testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff;and
(4)The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of concern to
the general body of customers.
Id.
To obtain an award of intervenor funding,an intervenor must further comply with
Commission Rules of Procedure 161-165.IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165.The petition must contain
an itemized list of expenses broken down into categories,a statement explaining why the costs
constitute a significant financial hardship if not recovered,and a statement showing the class of
customer on whose behalf the intervenor participated.Commission Rule 162;IDAPA
31.01.01.162.The payment of awards is to be made by the utility and is an allowable expense to
be recovered from ratepayers in the next general rate case.Commission Rule 165.02,.03;IDAPA
31.01.165.02,.03.
The Commission received timely petitions for intervenor funding from ICEA,Idaho
ConservationLeague ("ICL"),Idaho IrrigationPumpers Association ("IIPA"),and Sierra Club of
Idaho.Because we lack insight into the confidential settlement negotiations,we award intervenor
funding based on our assessment of the submitted written materials.We note that all petitioners,
except for the IIPA,acknowledge that they wrote off significant time,or reduced their rates in
recognition that the Commission has limited money to divide between intervenors and that all
intervenors invested substantial time and energy in the docket.Based on the foregoing standards
and the materials in front of the Commission,we find it appropriate to award $5,000 to IIPA,
$18,000 to ICEA,$11,000 to ICL,and $6,000 to Sierra Club of Idaho.We acknowledge the
considerable time and effort the parties put into this docket and recognize there is still more work
ahead on this subject.
ORDER NO.34546 13
O RD ER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Richard Kluckhohn's request for reconsideration,
Thomas Baskin's petition for clarification,Idaho Power's answer/cross-petition to Richard
Kluckhohn's request for reconsideration,Idaho Power's answer/cross-petition to petitions for
reconsideration,Staff's answer to petitions for reconsideration,ICL/VS's answer/cross-petition
for reconsideration,Boise City's answer to Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification,and ICEA's petition for reconsideration and/or clarification are granted to the extent
discussed herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that grandfatheredstatus applies to the on-site generating
system site,as opposed to the customer as ordered in Order No.34509,as described more fully
herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that customers can install an additional on-site generation
system and have the production from the additional system be compensated according to the rules
in place for the additional system without losing grandfathered status for the original system,as
described more fully herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company's petition for reconsideration and/or
clarification is denied.The petitions for reconsideration from ICL/VS,ICEA,multiplestudents,
Micah Hornback,and Kenneth White are also denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that intervenor funding is awarded as follows:$5,000 to
IIPA,$18,000 to ICEA,$11,000 to ICL,and $6,000 to Sierra Club of Idaho.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrievedby this
Order or other fmal or interlocutoryOrders previously issued in this Case No.IPC-E-18-15 may
appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate
Rules.See Idaho Code §61-627.
ORDER NO.34546 14
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of February 2020.
PAUL K L ,PRESIDENT
KRISTINE RAPER,COMMISSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-18-15\IPCEl815 finalorderrecon_ej
ORDER NO.34546 15