20191226Order_No_34520.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 26,2019
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JEFF COMER )CASE NO.IPC-E-19-28
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY )
)ORDER NO.34520
On August 6,2019,Jeff Comer,a customer of Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power"
or "Company"),formally complained that the Company denied his request to transfer excess net
energy credits between meters.
On September 10,2019,the Commission issued a Summons to the Company to respond
to Mr.Comer's Complaint.
On October 1,2019,the Company filed its Answer to Mr.Comer's Complaint.
On October 2,2019,Mr.Comer filed a Response.
On October 15,2019,Commission Staff filed Comments.
On November 19,2019,the Commission issued a Final Order denying Mr.Comer's
Complaint.Order No.34492.
On December 2,2019,Mr.Comer timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration.
On December 11,2019,the Company filed a letter with the Commission stating it had
not been served with the Petition for Reconsideration and requested a reasonable opportunity to
respond to the substantive merits of the petition.
Having reviewed the record,the Commission grants Mr.Comer's Petition for
Reconsideration and provides deadlines for the Company to file an Answer and for the parties to
file any Responses.
BACKGROUND
Mr.Comer,with his neighbor Mr.Goodman,interconnected a 22 kW hydroelectric
facility to the Company's grid in 2006.Mr.Comer and Mr.Goodman shared the excess net energy
credits produced by the system for several years.The Company denied Mr.Comer's 2019 request
to transfer excess net energy credits between meters.One meter is on Mr.Comer's property and
is in Mr.Comer's name.Another meter is on Mr.Goodman's property,but is in Mr.Comer's
name.
ORDER NO.34520 1
There are five criteria in the Company's Schedule 6 and Schedule 8 to determine
whether meters are eligible to be aggregated,and thus credits are eligible to be transferred between
meters.One criteria is,"The meter is located on,or contiguous to,the property on which the
Designated Meter is located.For the purposes of this tariff,contiguous property includes property
that is separated from the Premises of the Designated Meter by public or railroad rights of way[.]"
The "Designated Meter"is defined as "the retail meter physicallyconnected to the Small On-Site
Generation System."The Company applied a definition of "property"that limited that definition
to a "parcel."See Idaho Power Company's Answer at 1.The Company argued it was correct to
interpret the term "property"in this manner because it views "property"and "parcel"as synonyms,
the more restrictive interpretation complies with the Commission's intent in establishing net
metering,and applying the broader term "property"poses administrative challenges.Id.at 7-10.
Mr.Comer argued that limiting the definition of "property"to "parcel"is not supported by the
language of the tariff.See Formal Complaint of Jeff Comer at 2.
Another criteria for meter aggregation is,"The electricity recorded by the meter is for
the Customer's requirements[.]"The Commission based its determination in Order No.34492 on
the fact that Mr.Comer did not meet the requirements of this criteria because the meter on Mr.
Goodman's property was not for Mr.Comer's requirements.Because the Commission decided
the case on this issue,the Commission did not reach the question of whether the Company correctly
interpreted "property"to mean "parcel."
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In his Petition for Reconsideration,Mr.Comer states that the Commission's decision
was based on a detail that was not at issue in the underlying complaint,and was not addressed by
either Mr.Comer or the Company.Mr.Comer also alleges more facts detailing the nature of his
partnership with Mr.Goodman stating,
From its very inception Mr.Comer and Mr.Goodman have been
equal partners in the Goodco [P]ower project which did then,and
does still today,qualify for net metering status.Acting as Goodco
Power Company Mr.Goodman and Mr.Comer developed this net
metering project in 2006.There are many facts that demonstrate the
existence of this partnership.The [Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission]permit was issued to Goodco [P]ower.The Idaho
Department of Water Resources issued the Water Right License to
the partnership in the name of Jack Goodman.Idaho Power sends a
power usage statement to Goodco Power once a month at the address
ORDER NO.34520 2
where Mr.Goodman lives.The project lies on property owned by
Mr.Goodman at the intake structure and by Mr.Comer at the
generationsite.Each of the partners contributed an equal financial
investment in the project.
Petition for Reconsideration at 1.Mr.Comer also alleges that he and Mr.Goodman worked
cooperatively with Idaho Power in developing the project and the Company helped ensure that it
complied with Commission Rules.Id.Mr.Comer also alleges that Mr.Goodman's account was
placed in Mr.Comer's name at the Company's direction in order to comply with the Company's
meter aggregationrules.Id.at 2.
LETTER FROM IDAHO POWER
Idaho Power states it was not served with the Petition for Reconsideration,as required
by Commission Rule of Procedure 44,and requests a reasonable opportunity to respond to the
substantive merits of the claim.The Company also asks for the identity of the petitioner to be
established.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has the authorityto grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§61-626(2).Reconsideration provides an opportunityfor any interested person to bring to the
Commission's attention any question previously determined,and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunityto rectify any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.Kootenai
Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,879,591 P.2d 122,126 (1979);see also Eagle Water
Company v.Idaho PUC,130 Idaho 314,317,940 P.2d I133,l 136 (1997)."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).Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration,Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to "set forth
specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided
in the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in conformity with the law."IDAPA
31.01.01.331.01.We find that Mr.Comer's Petition for Reconsiderationmore specifically alleges
facts that were not fully considered in the underlying order,which justifies granting
reconsideration.
We will allow the Company 21 days from the service date of this Order to submit an
Answer to Mr.Comer's Petition for Reconsideration.We will allow parties to the case 28 days
from the date the Company's Answer is due (i.e.,49 days from the service date of this Order)to
ORDER NO.34520 3
respond to the Company's Answer.This amount of time should remedy any concerns related to
Mr.Comer's failure to serve the Company with the Petition for Reconsideration,and will allow
the parties to further develop the factual record and provide supporting evidence for or against
claims alleged.We find the petitioner's identity is sufficiently established on page three of the
Petition for Reconsideration.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr.Comer's Petition for Reconsideration is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company file an Answer to Mr.Comer's Petition
for Reconsiderationwithin 21 days of the service date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties to the case file any Responses within 49
days of the service date of this Order.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this &
day of December 2019.
PAUL KJELL R,PRESIDENT
KRÈTINERAPER CO MISSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-19-28\IPCEl928_reconsider_ej
ORDER NO.34520 4