20191002Comer Response.pdf

Diane Holt
ldaho Public Utility Commission
Secretary to the Commission
t012l20r9 RE C T IVED
?;i5 t"lil -2 PH 3: 5l
i-llr'!. _l\.,Reference: Case No. IPC-E-I9-28
Response to Idaho Power Company answer toFormal complaint
Aggregation of meters for a net metering project owned by JeffComer and Jack
Goodman.
Dear Ms. Holt.
We have read with interest the response to the formal complaint reference in Case No.
rPC-E-19-28.
In that response Idaho Power admits in the first paragraph on page I that it has
substituted the more restrictive definition for the word "parcel" in the place of the Idaho
Public Utility Commission's chosen general term "property". They justifu this action in
an effort to cease allowing the sharing of credits through the aggregation of meters
process after years of permitting the aggregation in accordance with the Commission's
original order.
Their specific language is:
"ldaho Power believes it has appropriately applied the eligibility criteriafor meter
aggregation by using psLeeuesignation to determine the property boundaries and thot
applying a broader definition of "property" as proposed by Mr. Comer is not consistent
v,ith conditions set forth by the Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") for meter
aggregation in order No 32925".
Mr. Comer did not propose applying the broader definition of "property", The Idaho
Public Utilities Commission chose the general term "property" when it wrote order No.
32925. The IPC answer does not provide a citation of authority by any Commission
Order to change the definition of the PUC chosen word "property" to the more restrictive
definition chosen by IPC for the word "parcel" yet states that it is their belief that it is
consistent with the conditions set forth by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
I would counter by salng that I believe that the Commission knows what it is doing and
that if it had been their intent to use the more restrictive word parcel to deny aggregation
it would have done so and it would have used the term "parcel" in the Order and not the
word "property". Alternatively if the PUC had chosen to use the word property but
intended to use a more narrow definition of the word it would have clarified that in their
order and stated the more narrow definition in the order so that it would be understood by
all parties. The PUC has historically provided verbiage in their orders that leaves little
room for interpretation of generally understood terms like the word property.
Further The Commission is a state wide authority. It flies in the face of logic that the
Commission would use the definition for a parcel when it is aware that each and every
County in the state has its own criteria for defining what a parcel is. If the logic of ldaho
Power were to prevail then the proximity of aggregated meters in one county would be
flar different than the proximity of aggregated meters in another county. There would be
nc) statewide consistency. The use by the PUC of the word property is clear and
consistent throughout the state and provides for aggregation of meters that are in near
proximity. The meters in this case are separated by only 1600 feet.
Idaho Power states in their response on page 7 (Section Ill B. "property" versus "parcel")
that:
" Idaho Potrer views property and parcel as synonyms and believes f&is is reasonable
for administering the evaluation o.f meter aggregation requests".
This statement on its face is disingenuous at best. IPC states that the two words are
s),'nonyms yet apply uniquely different definitions to each in an effort to give themselves
an economic advantage at the expense of the net metering customer. By definition
synonyms are two different words with the same meaning, not two different words with
two different meanings.
IPC later states:
" From a real estate standpoint a 'parcel' is the basic unit of land ownership in ldaho
and other stotes".
We agree with this statement as far as it goes. We would add that the ownership of
multiple parcels, when contiguous! and owned by the same individual. constitute a
property. The Comer and Goodman properties would only become non-contiguous if one
of the parcels between the two owners was sold to a third party. Attachment I provided
by ldaho Power shovvs. that Mr. Comer owns all of the parcels that comprise his property
and that it is contiguous to Mr. Goodman's property.
IPC provides some history about Mr. Comers and Mr. Goodman's accounts. Mr. Comer
is the customer at each of the three meters and has been since July 9, 2014. IPC has raised
no objection to this for the past fir,e years. This account change was completed with the
approval of IPC and meets with all of the requirements of the IPC. The fact that Mr.
Goodman lives in the residence is immaterial to this dispute,
Idaho Power attempts to muddy the waters in their response on page 8 (Section III B.
"property" versus "parcel"). None of the examples provided IPC applies to this
complaint. Mr. Comer owns all of the property North of Mr. Goodman as shown on
idaho Power exhibit 1. One note of interest is that Mr. Comer has (since the time exhibit
I was produced) purchased the two parcels north of Mr. Goodman' s residence. I don't
believe that this changes the argument in any way except to say that Mr. Comer owns all
of the property contiguous to the prop€rty that Mr. Goodman's residence is on and where
Mr. Comers third meter is located,
On page 8 IPC also makes a point about using the word parcel in a recently approved
Rocky Mountain Power case. This may have some bearing on the future tenns chosen for
future Orders but it has no bearing on the Order that determines the conditions for
aggregation in the Order that we are operating under currently. Order No. 32925. I would
add that Idaho Power u,ould prefer the use of the word parcel primarily because it allows
them to fi.u:ther limit the aggregation of meters as they have shown they are attempting to
do here. I think the PUC needs to give serious consideration as to the best term to use in
the future. Idaho Power says that they are synonyms but it doesn't treat them as
synonyms when they see an economic advantage can be attained.
IPC also would like to introduce new arguments relative to the Aggregation of meters
debate which may need to be taken in to consideration for future orders but do not have a
bearing on the Order that we are operating under.
In conclusion:
Mr. Comer is in full compliance with all of the terms of the order 32925. IPC would like
you to believe that they initially allowed aggregation because of an error when in reality
the software they use to determine parcels also just as easily describes properties and can
be accessed by any individual on the County website. This software has been up and
running for many years.
The Commission must determine if it will stand by its choice of the word property when
determining contiguity or IPC's chosen word parcel. The choice is clear and it was
determined years ago when the commission approved Order No.32925 and its use of the
word property in that order. We ask that you order IPC to allow continued aggegation of
these meters as it has done in the past.
Sincerely,