20190823Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
LEGAL
WORKING FILE
FROM: CURTIS THADEN
DATE: AUGUST 23,2019
SUBJECT: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JEFF COMER AGAINST IDAHO POWER
COMPANY: CASE NO. IPC-E-19-28.
On August 6,2019, Jeff Comer, a customer of Idaho Power Company ("ldaho Power" or
"Company") filed a formal complaint against the Company alleging it improperly denied the
transfer of excess net energy credits between meters in Mr. Comer's name. See Attachment A.
Mr. Comer filed his complaint after becoming unsatisfied with the outcome of informal
proceedings.
BACKGROTIND
Mr. Comer and .Tack Goodman are partners irr a net-nretered srnall hydroelectric facility
in Trvin Falls County that has been in operation since 2006. Mr. Comer and Mr. Goodman own
contiguous properties. The meter on Mr. Goodman's property is in Mr. Comer's name, and Mr.
Comer and Mr. Goodman had previously been allor.l'ed to aggregate the demand on the meters to
offset the production of the hydroelectric I-acility. On Februarl, 15, 2019, the Company denied
Mr. Comer's request to transfer excess net energy credits to the meter on Mr. Goodman's
property. which is about 1,200 feet from the next closest meter on Mr. Comer's property. Mr.
Comer alleges the Company replaced the word "property" with a more restrictive word "parcel"
when determining rvhether meter aggregation was appropriate. Mr. Comer assens that the
Company's use of the term "parcel" instead of "property'' violates the aggregation criteria found
in the applicable Company Tariff.
DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 23,2019I
STAFF RECOMMEDATIONS
Staff recommends the Commission issue a Summons to Idaho Power, and direct the
Company to respond to the complaint within twenty-one days.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to:
(1) Issue a Summons to Idaho Power giving the Company twenty-one days to
respond after the service date of the Summons?
(2) Allow replies within fourteen days of the response deadline?
Curtis Thaden
I :\udmemos/IPCE I 928_dec merno
2DECISION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 23,2019
Beverly Barker RECEIVED 7BOr20l9
Id*ro Public Utiliqv Commission
Compliance division l0lg AUE -6 []l ll: S0
Reference: Formal complaint li r' ; ., I 'Jrii-lQ^.Rate schedule 6 ii iii:l! c0l,{l'llssloN
Aggregation of meters for a net metering project owned by JeffComer and Jack
Goodman.
Good aff,ernoon Ms. Barker,
We are sending this communication to file a formal complaint asking your assistance to
settle a dispute u'ith Idaho Power Company flPC). We have had multiple conversations
with (IPC) staff but this maner has not been settled to our satisfaction.
JeffComer and Jack Goodman, are partners in a net metering project in Twin Falls
County. This project has been on-line since 2006. Mr. Comer and Mr. Goodman own
contiguous properties in Twin Falls County. This fact has been aftirmed by our own
engineer, the Twin Falls County assessor's oftice and the Twin Falls County Planning
and Zoning Deparfirent. (Please see attached property descriptions).
At the time of the IPC denial of aggregation (Feb 15,2019) Mr. Comer owned property
as described by the following Twin Falls County assessor's office parcel number
designations: RP09S I 4E3 3 30 I 0, RP09S I 4833 36 I 0, RP09S I 4E333600,
RP09S148333621. RP09S14E333625. This property abuts Mr. Goodman's property. At
the time of the IPC denial the property was made up of land described by the following
Trvin Falls County assessor's office parcel number designations: RP09S14E333641.
RP09S I 4E3 33629, and RP09S I 4833335400.
Since that time Mr. Comer has purchased two of Mr. Goodman's parcels. At this present
time Mr. Comer's property includes Twin falls County parcel numbers
RP09S I 4E3 3 30 r 0, RP09S r 4E3 336 r 0. RP09S l 4E3 33600, Rp09S I 4833362t,
RP09S I 4E3 33625, FJ09S I 4E3 33641, and RP09S I 48333629. Mr. Goodman owns
parcel number RP09S14E33335400. (Please see attached map with prop€rties outlined in
black,)
lrrlr. Comer and Mr. Goodman have shared the energy credits for the power generated by
their pouer plant for the last several years. The meter on Mr. Goodman's property is in
Mr. Comers name and therefore qualifies for aggregation privileges. They are in
compliance with all of the terms and conditions that permit them to share the unused
excess net energ)'credits in accordance u{th IPUC Schedule 6. They have applied
annually for the transfer of those credits on the schedule required by Idatro Pou'er and
approved by the ldaho Public Utility Commission on May 21, 2018 per O.N. 34046.
I Pr E- tq-?3
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page I of 7
Idaho Power on February 15, 2019 (please see attached letter from IPC) reversed their
previous practice of allowing aggregation and denied their request to share the unused
excess net energy credits. tPC employees now state that the properties owned by Mr.
Comer and Mr. Coodman are not contiguous, and yet they are.
The IPC denial was sent to Mr. Comer on February 15,2A19. The IPC representative
(Ms. Patti Best) sent an e-mail that states in part," The transfer request from meter
36365734 to meter 10884841 does not meet the contiguous property requirement.
According to our maps, the meters are not on contiguovs parcels. There are several
parcels in benreen &e nvo meters (see map below). I am checking with our regulatory
department and will circle back with you next week." (Italics added)
Further investigation and communication with IPC revealed, by their own admission, that
the IPC has replaced terminology approved by the IPUC and substituted terminology of
their own. We believe that IPC has exceeded their authority in doing so and ask that the
IPUC advise IPC to reverse their current action and allow aggregation of the meters in
the manner as delineated in schedule 6.
Specifically IPC has replaced the word "property" with the word "parcel." This
substirution of terms would be harmless except for the fact that IPC is now using a more
restrictive definition of the word "parcel" in place of the more general term "property", in
an effort to disallow aggregation of meter credits. We do not believe this was the IPUC
intent when they approved the order on February 15, 2019.
Our position is supported by the following:
The IPUC has consistently held, over IPC objections, that aggregation of meters is
appropriate. Primary factors in all past deliberations appears to be that if the
meters are in near proximity and held in the same name as the owner of the net
metering project, then there is minimal or no added expense to the IPC and should
therefore be allowed. Mr. Comer has three meters on this account and the
disallowed meter is onlv about 1200 feet from the closest altemate meter.
2. The IPUC has consistently held the properties *ill be considered to be contiguous
even in the event where a properry is separated in to two separate parcels by a
roadu'ay or railway. It would seem inconsistent then for them to hold that a
properb' separated in to parcels for county taxing or zoning reasons would then
not also be considered a property.
3. By common definition the word "property" when used in description of real estate
includes the acreage and improvements on land owned by an individual. The
word "parcel" in this case is a term used by the County assessor's offrce and the
Planning and Zoning Commission to describe a portion of the property for ux
assessment purposes and for compliance u'ith zoning ordinances.
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E- l9-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 2 of 7
4. Order 34046 specifically uses the term "properfy" and nowhere does it use the
word "parcel". Nowhere in the order or the transcripts of the hearings leading up
to the order is it mentioned that the defrnition of the word "property" may be
more nanowly defined by the utility by using the county taxing authority or
Planning and Zoning term "parcel". The two terms in this instance are not
interchaageable as the definitions are not identical. tPC has co-opted the more
restrictive definition of the word parcel and as such rationalizes its decision to
refuse aggregation of this previously aggregated meter.
5. If it was the intent of the PUC to use the more restrictive county designated term
"parcel" and not the general term "property" then it would seem appropriate that
somewhere in the record we could find a discussion about the varied zoning laws
that pertain to each of the 44 counties within the state of Idaho. Each county has
specific zoning laws that determine the size, location and other specific
characteristics that define a parcel within each of those counties.
6. Utility companies have put forth the argument that there are expenses for the
tftmsport of the minute amount of energy produced by net generators. The same
companies fail to add that the capital costs of the installation of the IPC
transformers and the power line improvements were bome by the owners of the
net metering project and not the utility company. Additionally the utility
companies fail to add that the excess energy on the line (when present) adds to
stability on these remote sections of the distribution system. As such the benefits
may out\4,eigh the negligible expense that they may incw.
7. IPC is well aware that by changing the verbiage in the current IPUC order to one
of their choosing that the owners of the net metering project will continue to build
credits, put saleable power on the line and never be able to use those credits under
their current confi guration.
8. Utilitl,companies have also promoted the argument that net metering projects
should be properly sized so as not to put excess energy on the system. In this case
the net metering project is a very small hydroelectric facility. The plant was
designed and constructed using scaled doun industrial grade equipment of the
highest quality. This power plant's automation control and protection scheme
meets or exceeds the design used at even the most modern IPC hydroelectric
plants. The peak capacity of 22 kilo-watts is only reached during the irrigation
season which is a high energy demand season. This plant u'as properly sized
based on the resource it was designed to utilize. It was set up from the outset as a
net metering project with the full consent and support of the IPC. Ir would be
environmentally irresponsible to build a hydro electric plant withoul fully
developing the resource available. The size of this plant is considered to be
appropriate by tPC for a net metering project.
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
A8/23/19 Page 3 of 7
I
9. Utility companies also argue that in the case of solar or wind power that the
cycling of flows of power both coming and going is erratic and thus a burden on
their grid. This hydro-electric power plant runs twenty-four hours a day 365 days
ayear. The flow of power is very predictable and is not erratic. The project runs at
all times except during ldaho Pouer outages or scheduled maintenance. On this
part of the distribution system it is a valuable resource to help stabilize the gdd.
10. There is an obvious economic advantage that IPC seels in replacing the IPUC
approved word "property" for the IPC preferred temr, "parcel." This new
interpretation of the policy is economically damaging to the net meter owners.
It is safe to assume that the IPUC Commission knows the difference between the words
parcel and property. If the IPUC Commission had desired to use the more restrictive
word," parcel" in the place of the more general term, "property" than they would have
done that. Surely the IPUC is aware that a property can be comprised of many parcels yet
still remains a proper['.
We respectfully request that the IPUC conduct a review of this new ldaho Power
Company procedure or policy. We further request that the IPUC instruct IPC to reverse
their denial of the transfer of unused credits.
Sincerely
ieff
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23/19 Page 4 of 7
ffitil{8i}ii(*,t>rey'
r..\ll;':.:. ; ,ri, l:]., .
. N\CT.4
t
foln{ oC
fo\{\S ui t.l ->r
\\ r' lEguIJQJ}r r \t .r rPl ; sYsTI'\t Hrl.r' D()c ls l,o( ATFt)T T()P R|GUT. DtD YOlr KNO\\ TItA
3 2.2'for ldaho XrY 1 7622o3 .7 5752041 4 USNG rrr prH 7804 1923 Lat,Lon
':: - q t..
7t1l12019
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
O8l23l19 Page 5 of 7
!n$itusR
e@ w\e(Ii - tr'r;.'
A <: tr<'/
Covr
CO /$e-l
Couret
s3?oq\.1€ 1
:_ rll,(ii:,i
p$rsll$Jtrr;
Comc-l
eTc {
6o.a rrl a\
a
htp://idahoparcel s.us:8080/grn3/desktop/twinfalls.html
I
Tom
From: Jeff Comer [[e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday. March 06. 2019 2 02 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd Excess Generation Transfer Request
Sent t'ronr nrf iPad
Begin tirrrrarded message
From: "Best. Palti" ',rr r. )
Date: I-ehruari l-i.3(i19 o, -l:18:ll P\t \lST
To: ".
Subject: Exccss Generation Transfcr Request
HiJeff,
Per our conversation , ldaho Power received 2 requests for transfer. The transfer request frorn
meter 36355734 to meter 10884891 is approved
The transfer request from meter 35365734 to meter 1088484 I does not me€t the contiguous
property requirement. According to our nlaps, the meters are note on adjacent parcels. There are
several parcels in between the two meters (see map below). I am double checking with our
regulatory department and will circle back with you next weel..
I will be back in the office Tuesday if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patti Best
ldaho Power
Attachment No. A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
08/23119 Page 6 of 7
.1 I20!9
\.
COlYtR.
JE FFR,EY P COIJER.IFWARI O
T TI Rf Y P
[\
:GOO0MAll,
JACI( G
GOODMAII.
JACX G
r03
fiHilh
3 9 20te Attachment No' A
Case No. IPC-E-19-28
Decision Memorandum
O}tl3llg PageT of 1