20190502ICL and Vote Solar Comments.pdf

Benjamin J. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6th Street
Boise,ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attomey for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
:$19 HAY -2 Pil tZ: h3
li)Al-1C pUtsLlC
; ;T ir_iTi [$ cc],{MtsstoH
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO )
POWER COMPANY'S )
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY )
TO STUDY THE MEASUREMENT )
INTERVAL, COMPENSATION )
STRUCTURE, AND VALUE OF NET )
EXCESS ENERGY FOR ON-SrrE )
GENERATION UNDER SCHEDULE )
84 AND TO TEMPORARTLY )
SUSPEND SCHEDULE 84 NET )
METERING SERVICE TO NEW )
IDAHO APPLICANTS. )
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
CASE NO. IPC.E-19-15
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
AND
VOTE SOLAR
COMMENTS
May 2,2019
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) and Vote Solar submit the following comments in
response to Order No. 34315. ICL and Vote Solar recommend the Commission reject this
Application as unnecessary and inefficient, except for the sole issue of whether to suspend
Schedule 84, which the Commission should deny as unwarranted by a meaningful system impact
and unfair to customers trying to meet their own energy needs. This Application by Idaho Power
Company seeks to balkanize discussions of important policy issues when the public interest is
currently being served through the existing dockets addressing the same issues Idaho Power
raises here - the value of and possible compensation structures for excess energy generation in
IPC-E-18-15 and the proper methodology, spread, and recovery of fixed costs in IPC-E-18-16.
We note the Commission directed all stakeholders "to comprehensively study on-site generation,
in terms of rates, rate design, and compensation, prior to any future rate or compensation
proposals or revisions to the Company's on-site generation program." Order No 34046 at I. We
recommend the Commission reject Idaho Power's request to establish new compensation
L
structures for a subset of customers before completing the work already underway in the existing
dockets.
It is troubling that Idaho Power made the decision in Case No. IPC-E-17-13 to request
changes to the rate classification for its Residential and Small Commercial ("R&SGS")
customers with no mention of the Irrigation, Large Commercial, or Industrial classes ("CI&I")
only to return two years later and attempt to add these customers to ongoing discussions. As a
result of IPC-E-17-l3,two follow-on discussions have begun in IPC-E-18-15 and IPC-E-18-16.
Now, after numerous settlement discussions have been held in each of the two cases, Idaho
Power has indicated that they would like to interfere with progress made by seeking to add
additional customer classes to the discussion and attempting to separately consider important
topics that are not practical to separate. Instead ofcreating unnecessary additional proceedings,
the Commission should reject Idaho Power's Application here and reaffirm the importance of the
current dockets.
The only new issue raised by Idaho Power here is to suspend Schedule 84 retroactively.
On that sole issue, ICL and Vote Solar believe, to the extent the proposal is not immediately
dismissed as unwarranted and unfair, a hearing is necessary to fully vet the substantial due
process concerns and the impact that suspending Schedule 84 has on the legitimate interests of
Idahoans investing their own money to meet their own energy needs.
l) Whether and to what extent this Application impacts or is impacted by IPC-E-18- l5 and IPC-
E-18-16.
This Application creates substantial overlap with existing dockets and tries to impose
arbitrary timelines on an orderly and collaborative processes. The existing dockets IPC-E-18-15
and IPC-E-18-16 address the same issues of valuing excess generation and considering
compensation structures that Idaho Power raises here. Confusingly, here Idaho Power requests
that CI&I dual meter measurement interval and compensation structure for Schedule 84 be
considered in this new docket of IPC-E-19-75, but that the value of net excess energy for all on-
site generation classes be considered in IPC-E-18-15. This approach is impractical as the
definition of what will be considered net excess energy is inextricably linked to the measurement
interval. Bifurcating this discussion by creating parallel proceedings for separate rate classes
inhibits a holistic consideration of the issues. IPC-E- 1 8- 15 and IPC-E- 18- l6 can holisticallv
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
Z May 2,2019
consider the issues presented in this case including Idaho Power's specific requests regarding
Schedule 84 - the metering interval, the value of excess generation and whether to recover the
costs for excess generation credits through the PCA. See Tatum Di at 28 -29.ICL and Vote Solar
recommend the Commission reject this attempt to subvert the progress made in IPC-E-18-15 and
IPC-E- 1 8- l6 and order Idaho Power to return to those collaborative processes.
Docket IPC-E-I8-15 began on October 19,2018 with Idaho Power's filing of an
application to study the cost, benefits, and compensation of net excess energy supplied by
customer on-site generation. The Commission issued a Notice of Application and established an
intervention deadline of November 30,2018. Order No 34189. Since then, the parties that
properly intervened in that docket have engaged in three formal settlement workshops that have
progressed in a collaborative, orderly fashion to address the value ofexcess generation and
potential compensation structures. See Staff Report in IPC-E-18-1 5 (February 8,2019).
Now Idaho Power seeks to upend this process by asking the Commission to reopen the
intervention perigd in IPC-E- I 8- 15 and open a new docket to address the same issue, the value
of excess generation, for a subset of customers with an arbitrary deadline of January 1,2020.
Application at 8. The Company provides no evidence that the Notice or intervention deadline
established in IPC-E- I 8- 15 was insufficient. The Company's Application does not explain why it
is necessary to reopen the intervention period in IPC-E-18-15 nearly five months after it closed.
The Company likewise does not explain how addressing the value of excess energy in IPC-E- I 8-
15 and in IPC-19-15 is administratively efficient. ICL and Vote Solar submit that reopening an
existing docket and then opening another docket that covers the same issue is the opposite of
administrative efficiency. Doing so would waste the time spent by parties in IPC-E-18-15 by
having to retread old ground to fairly incorporate new intervenors. Doing so would also waste
everyone's time and resources by duplicating efforts in the new docket, risking inconsistency and
delay. The Commission should reject Idaho Power's attempt to confuse the process and order the
Company to return to the collaborative approach in IPC-E-18-15.
Docket IPC-E-18-16 also began on October 19,2018 when Idaho Power filed an
Application to study the fixed costs of providing electric service to customers. The Commission
issued a Notice setting an intervention deadline of November 30, 2018. Order No. 34190. Since
then, parties have engaged in formal settlement workshops to work through the proper
methodology to analyzethe spread of fixed costs to customers. Idaho Power's Application here
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
May 2,20193
in IPC-E-19-15 mentions this existing process and appears to recommend the Commission and
parties continue with that docket. ICL and Vote Solar are baffled as to why Idaho Power would
file another docket, IPC-E-19-15, asking the Commission to open a collaborative process to
address these issues when such process already exists and is making substantial progress. The
Commission should reject this unnecessary request.
2) Whether and to what extent the issues raised in IPC-E-L8-l 5, IPC-E-I8-l6, and this docket
can and should be examined holistically.
As described above, ICL and Vote Solar submit this Application does not raise any
meaningful issue that is not already being examined in IPC-E-18-15 and IPC-E-18-16. While
those dockets are separate, the parties are largely the same and the process is being organized
with similar schedules and information. It appears that Idaho Power is largely in agreement on
the core issues, indicating a preference that the value of net excess energy for all on-site
generation classes be considered in IPC-E-18-15 and rate design and rate structures for all
classes be considered in IPC-E-18-16. See Application at 8.
Despite this ongoing collaborative process to address the issues, Idaho Power's new
Application requests that CI&I dual meter measurement interval and compensation structure be
evaluated in this new case along with a proposal to treat "Excess Net Energy credits" as a power
supply expense. See Application at 8, Tatum Direct at 29. This approach is impractical and ill-
advised. Valuation of net excess energy will depend on the meter measurement interval by which
net excess energy is defined. It simply does not make sense to bifurcate this discussion for CI&I
customers into a new docket when the existing process in IPC-E-18-15 includes explicit
evaluation of the impact of the metering interval on determining the value of excess energy
generation. In addition, compensation structure for customers, and rate recovery for the
Company, of yet to be defined or established "Excess Net Energy credits" cannot proceed
independently of the ongoing discussion regarding rate design and rate structures that is
occurring in IPC-E-18-16. Opening a parallel proceeding to address the same issues in existing
proceedings inhibits a holistic consideration of the issues.
ICL and Vote Solar note Idaho Power does not request any change to rates for
consumption by net metering customers in this docket, rather points to the existing IPC-E- I 8- l6
docket as the appropriate place to study those options. See Tatum Di at 30. This statement
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
May 2,20194
encourages ICL and Vote Solar because any proposal to adjust rates for consumption must be
addressed holistically in a general rate case. Before proposing new rates, Idaho Power should
complete the Commission ordered study in IPC-E-18-16 in order to provide a meaningful toolkit
for the Commission to consider proposed rate design changes.
The only issue raised by Idaho Power appropriate for separate consideration from IPC-E-
18-15 and IPC-E-18-16 is the proposal to retroactively suspend Schedule 84. That issue can be
addressed and immediately rejected for the reasons provided below in question 5, separately
from the more meaningful issues of valuing excess generation and considering compensation
structure options.
3) Whether this docket should be processed according to ldaho Power's proposal on page 8 of
the Application.
No. Idaho Power's proposed process calls for a confusing mix of new and existing
dockets, which will create an administrative headache for parties and the interested public. For
the reasons stated above, the Commission should reject this application as unnecessary and
unwarranted. Instead, the Commission should order Idaho Power to return to being a
collaborative participant in the existing dockets addressing the issues raised here.
4) Whether the Commission should process this docket by modified procedure or by hearings,
Unless dismissed for the reasons provided below in question 5, the Commission should
conduct a hearing on the issue of whether to suspend Schedule 84 only. Because Idaho Power's
proposed suspension would impact the rights of several classes of customers who make decisions
about investing in customer owned generation for a wide variety of reasons, and because Idaho
Power is seeking extraordinary procedure here, the Commission should conduct a public hearing
to ensure ample opportunity to hear from affected Idahoans.
5) Whether the Commission should suspend Schedule 84 for new applicants while IPC-E- 19- I 5
is being processed, and if the Commission does suspend Schedule 84 in the interim, whether the
suspension should be from the date offiling-April 5, 2019-or some other date.
The Commission should not suspend Schedule 84. Not only does retroactive suspension
of an existing schedule without providing affected parties notice and opportunity to be heard
raise substantial due process concerns, it is unnecessary. In IPC-E-12-17 ldaho Power sought a
IPC-E-19-15
ICLA/S Comments
5 May 2,2019
cap on the net metering program. The Commission properly rejected this proposal because such
a limit "may disrupt and have a chilling effect on investment in and installation of distributed
generation". Order No 32846 at T.Instead, the Commission wisely balanced individual rights
and impacts to utility customers by ordering the Company to return when they could establish a
material effect on system reliability. Id.Idaho Power's Application here does not even attempt to
show that current growth in the net metering program is having a material effect on the system.
Instead, Idaho Power claims to be trying to protect customers from making their own decisions.
This patemalistic abuse of monopoly power should be rejected out of hand. By seeking to upend
existing collaborative processes and establish a parallel proceeding with an arbitrary deadline,
without even attempting to show this would address a meaningful impact to the system, IPC is
causing unnecessary confusion and imposing additional workloads on stakeholders while chilling
investments by Idahoans to meet their own energy needs.
It is notable that, for the duration of parallel conversations surrounding potential
modification of compensation for on-site generation for the R&SGS classes, the Commission
found no need to suspend the net metering program. Indeed, in Order No. 34046 which created
Schedules 6 and 8 for R&SGS customers and led to the current dockets IPC-E-I8-15 and IPC-E-
18-16, the Commission stated "we believe the use of on-site generation will continue to rapidly
grow, and may someday become a critical resource for the Company." Order No. 34046 at 18.
Clearly, the Commission does not see adoption of on-site generation, primafacie as cause for
suspension of Schedule 84. Moreover, in Order No. 34046 the Commission indicated a belief
that "current and prospective on-site generators will be better positioned to analyze the costs and
benefits of buying, installing, and maintaining an on-site generation system as a result of this
Order." Order No. 34046 at l9.Idaho Power has provided no evidence as to why its residential
customers are capable of evaluating the regulatory uncertainty associated with adoption of on-
site generation, but its CI&l customers lack the sophistication to make their own decisions in this
regard.
Because suspending Schedule 84 is not necessary to address a meaningful impact on
system reliability or costs, and doing so drastically impairs customers ability to meet their own
energy needs, ICL and Vote Solar recommend that Idaho Power's proposal to suspend Schedule
84 be rejected outright.
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
May 2,20196
6) Whether the Company's proposed ffictive date of January l, 2020 in IPC-E-19-15 isfeasible
There is no need to establish an effective date now because the parties have not been
identified nor have the issues been fully developed. Further, for the reasons stated above, the
Commission should reject this application as it pertains to the issues of valuing excess generation
and studying compensation options in IPC-E-18-15 and IPC-E-18-16. Idaho Power did not
consult with the parties in those cases before seeking to impose the arbitrary date of January 1,
2020 to address these same issues in a wholly new, and unnecessary, parallel proceeding. ICL
and Vote Solar recommend, in the event that the proposal is not rejected outright, the
Commission hold a hearing to consider Idaho Power's ill-advised request to suspend Schedule
84. The Commission can set an effective date for that narrow decision that best protects the
rights of Idahoans to invest their own money to met their own energy needs.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of May 2019
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
7IPC-E-19-15
ICLA/S Comments
May 2,2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of May 2019,I delivered true and correct copies of
the foregoing COMMENTS to the following persons via the method of service noted:
Hand delivery:
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary (Original and seven copies provided)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise,ID 83702-5983
Electronic Mail:
Idaho Power
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Tim Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
lnordstrom@idahopower. c om
ttatum@idahopower. com
caschenbrenner@idahopower. com
dockets@idahopower. com
Idaho lrrigation Pumper s Association
Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Olsen PLLC
[e-mail]
Anthony Yankel
[e-mail]
Idaho Clean Energt Association
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
[e-mail]
kendrah@givenspursley. com
%-k-
Benjamin J. Otto
IPC-E-19-15
ICL/VS Comments
B May 2,2019