20190910Summons Letter.pdf

ldaho Public Utilities Commisslon Brad Govemor
PO Box 837m, Botse,lD 8374"0074 Plul Klcllendcr, Commllsloncr
Kristine Rapcr, Commiasioncr
Eric Andcrson, Commi3laonGr
September t0,20L9
Via Certified Mail
Idaho Power Company
t22Lw. Idaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
Re: Case No. IPC-E-19-ZB
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed please find a Summons and Complaint issued against ldaho Power Company in
Case No. IPC-E-19-28. As directed in the Summons, you are to file a written response in
defense of said Complaint with this Commission within 21 days of the service date of the
Summons.
In the Complaint, Mr. Comer alleges the Company improperly denied his request to transfer
excess net energy credits between meters in his name on contiguous property, in
contravention of the criteria found in Schedule 6 of the Company's Tariff.
Si
Diane M. Hanian
Commission Secretary
Enclosure(s)
lr\Legal\ELECTRIC\lPC-E-19-28\lPCE1928-Cw Ltr.doq
472 West ltlashington Street, Boise lD 83702
Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JEFF COME&
COMPLAINANT SUMMONS
CASE NO. IPC-E.19.28
IDAHO POWER COMPAI\"Y,
RESPONDENT.
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise,Idaho 83707
THE STATE OF IDAHO SENDS GREETINGS TO THE ABOVE.NAMED RESPONDENT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a Complaint has been filed with the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission by the above-named Complainant; and
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED to file a written answer or written motion in
defense of the Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Summons; and
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that unless you do so within the time herein
specified, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission may take such action against you as is prayed
for in the Complaint or as it deems appropriate under Title 6l of the ldaho Code.
WITNESS myhand and the seal of the ldaho Public Utilities Commission this 4C
day of September 2019.
M. Hanian
(sEAL)Commission Secretary
SUMMONS I
DlUsers\dholt\AppData\I-ocal\l\'licrosoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\OYc3OB I Y\IPCE1928 Summons.doc
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I Pc- E- tq-
^8
Beverly Barker
Idaho Public Utility Commission
Compliance division
RECEIVED
l0l9 AUE -6 All ll:50
Reference: Formal complaint l["r,4i-to PUDLI0 - ^
Rate schedule 6 Til.lTlis C0II{MISSION
Aggregation of meters for a net metering project owned by JeffComer and Jack
Goodman.
7t30t2019
Good afternoon Ms. Barker,
We are sending this communication to file a formal complaint asking your assistance to
settle a dispute with Idaho Power Company (lPC). We have had multiple conversations
u'ith (IPC) staff but this matter 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 affErmed by our own
engineer, the Twin Falls County assessor's offrce and the Twin Falls County Planning
and Zoning Department. @lease see attached property descriptions).
At the time of the IPC denial of aggregation (Feb 15,2019) Mr. Comer owned propefiy
as described by the following Twin Falls County assessor's office parcel number
designations: RP09S I 483330 I 0, RP09S I 4E3 336 I 0, RP09S I 4E33 3600,
RP09S14E333621, PP09S148333625. 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
Twin Falls County assessor's office parcel number designations: RP09S148333641,
RP09S I 4E 333629, and RP09S I 4E33 33 5400.
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 3 0 I 0, RP09S I 4E3336 I 0, RP09S I 483 3 3600, Rp09S I 4E33362t,
RP09S I 4E 333 625, RP09S I 4E333641, and RP09S I 4E33 3629. Mr. Goodman owns
parcel number RP09S14E33335400. (Please see attached map with properties outlined in
black.)
Mr. Comer and Mr. Goodman have shared the energy credits for the power generated by
their power plant for the last several years. The meter on Mr. Goodman's properry is in
Mr. Comers name and therefore qualifies for aggregation privileges. They are in
compliance with all of the terrns and conditions that permit them to share the unused
excess net energy credits in accordance with IPUC Schedule 6. They have applied
annually for the transfer of those credits on the schedule required by Idaho Power and
approved by the Idaho Public Utility Commission on May 21,2018 per O.N. 34046.
Idaho Power on February 15, 2019 (please see attached letter from IPC) reversed their
previous practice of allowing ag$egation and denied their request to share the unused
excess net energy credits. IPC employees now state that the properties owned by Mr.
Comer and Mr. Goodman are not contiguous, and yet they are.
The IPC denial was sent to Mr. Comer on February 15,2019. The IPC representative
(Ms. Patti Best) sent an e-mail that states in part," The transfer request from meter
36365734 to meter 10884841 does not meet the contiguous property requirement.
According to our maps, the meters are not on contiguous parcels. There are several
parcels in bet'ween the two meters (see map below). I am checking with our regulatory
department and will circle back with you next week." (Italics added)
Further investigation and communication with IPC revealed, by their own admission, that
the IPC has replaced terminology approved b,v the IPUC and substituted terminology of
their own. We believe that IPC has exceeded their authority in doing so and ask that the
IPUC advise IPC to reverse their current action and allou'aggregation of the meters in
the manner as delineated in schedule 6.
Specifically IPC has replaced the word "property" with the word "parcel." This
substitution of terms would be harmless except for the fact that IPC is now using a more
restrictive definition of the word "parcel" in place of the more general term "property", in
an effort to disallow ag$egation 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:
L The IPUC has consistentll'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 proximitl' and held in the same name as the o'*ner of the net
metering project. then there is rninimal or no added expense to the iPC and should
therefore be alloued. Mr. Conrer has tirree meters on this account and the
disallowed meter is onlv about 1200 feet from the closest altemate meter.
7. The IPUC has consistentll, held the properties rvill be considered to be contignous
even in the event u'here a propert)' is separated in to tlvo separate parcels by a
roadwal,or railu,ay. It u,ould seem inconsistent then for them to hold that a
propert)' separated in to parcels for county taxing or zoning reasons would then
not also be considered a property'.
3. By common definition the u'ord "property" nhen used in description of real estate
includes the acreage and impror/ements on land owned by an individual. The
word "parcel" in this case is a terrn used b1,the Countv assessor's office and the
Planning and Zoning Commission to describe a portion of the property for toi
assessment purposes and for compliance rvith zoning ordinances.
9. Utiliry 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 t'wenty-four hours a day 365 days
a year. The flow of power is very predictable and is not erratic. The project runs at
all times except during Idaho Power outages or scheduled maintenance. On this
part of the distribution system it is a valuable resource to help stabilize the grid.
10. There is an obvious economic advantage that IPC seeks in replacing the IPUC
approved word "property" for the IPC prefened term, "parcel." This new
interpretation of the policy is economically damaging to the net meter owners.
It is safe to 6sume that the IPUC Commission knows the difference between the u,ords
parcel and propertv. If the IPUC Commission had desired to use the more restrictive
word." parcel" in the place of the more general term, "propertl,'" than they would have
done that. Surely the IPUC is aware that a propert)'can be comprised of manl.parcels yet
still remains a propert)'.
We respectfully request that the IPUC conduct a review of this new ldaho Power
Companl procedure or policy. We further request that the IPUC instruct IPC to reverse
their denial of the transfer of unused credits.
Sincerely,
Jeff
4. Order 34046 specifically uses the term "property" 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 definition of the word "property" may be
more narrowly defined by the utility by using the county taxing authority or
Planning and Zoning term "parcel". The two terms in this instance are not
interchangeable as the definitions are not identicd. IPC 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 ldaho. Each county has
specific zoning larvs that determine the size, location and other specific
characteristics that define a parcel u'ithin each of those counties.
6. Utility companies have put forth the argument that there are expenses for the
transport of the minute amount of energl,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 borne 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 outueigh the negligible expense that they ma,v incur.
7. IPC is u,ell au'are that b1' changing the r erbiage in the current IPUC order to one
of their choosing that the o\\'ners 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 conti guration.
8. Utilitl' companies har,e also promoted the argument that net rnetering projects
should be properll' sized so as not to put excess energy on the sy'stem. In this case
the net metering project is a r,en' small h.vdroelectric facilitl. The plant u'as
designed and constructed using scaled dor,ln industrial grade equipment of the
highest qualitl'. This pou,er 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-u'atts is onll,reached during the irrigation
season rvhich is a high energy demand season. This plant was properly sized
based on the resource it was designed to utilize. It was set up from the outset as a
net metering project u'ith the full consent and support of the IPC. It would be
environmentally'irresponsible to build a h1,dp electric plant without fuIl1,
developing the resource available. The size of this plant is considered to be
appropriate by IPC for a ner metering project.
r09sru?sl8 msl{1IBl0
C,eswl.ey'
a f 2T-4
I $0t51*Jtr?&
foixr of
fohdrS u i t.l
stsl€rI]0
\\ [.I cqM&Io THE r\tAPPtllgfiIa.rr S}'STEM. HEI,I'D()C IS LOCATED TOP RIGHT, DID YOT] KNO\A'THA \
3.2.2-for_ldaho XrY -1 782763.7, 5252047,4 USNG 11T PH 7804 1923 Latrlon
rr09ifir{?!i
,MIilI
p09sltBtrt0
[fle3r
Cou
CO vie-J
Tc(
p09sllr]n6J0
a
g
Cevae.t
nnrffin
aOw.'.<{
roSt$rnr
Comc^l
ffirluil
6 o-a rryta\
http ://idahoparcels. us : 8080/gm3/desktop/twinfalls.html 7t3v20t9
m09siluIm
rosmfim
eo w\a4'
r0r9l{t315.
M$H,,TlJ
Tom
From: Jeff Comer [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 2:02 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Fwd: Excess Generation Transfer Request
Sent fiom m1.'iPad
Begin fonvarded message:
From: "Best. Patti" (PBcst rt idahurxrner.com)
Drte: February 15, 2019 at 3:18:12 PM MST
To: "comenrelding & icloud.com" <ct'rmcnveldin& rj icloud.com)
Cc: "Best. Patti" <PBest rr idahofxrner.com>
Subject: Excess Generation Transfer Request
HiJeff,
Per our conversation, ldaho Power received 2 requests for transfer. The transfer request froln
meter 36355734 to meter 10884891 is approved.
The transfer request from meter 35365734 to meter 10884841does not meet the contiguous
property requirement. According to our maps, 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 week.
I will be back in the office Tuesday if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patti Best
ldaho Power
319/201 g
*
a
a
colcR.ITfRfYPfi}*'
t}**at
GtHilE
- sa-
Thlsuansmltsronrta) (ontstnrnformenonthatispnrrlaged.confrdcntpl andorc\cmptlirrmdrsclosureundcrgplicablehu lf !ouarenotlhcrntcnded rcctptcnt. you ang hcrcbl notrficd lhgt in\ disclosutc. cop! tng. dilrnb(ion. or u-rc of thc rnformatrOn contatrrd lrrcin 1 includrng rn1rcltrnct thercon I rs STRICTt. Y PROIIIBITED lf r ou rccerr ed thrs transmrssron ln enor. plcasc immediarh conracl th? scndcr End dcst3or rhcmatcrial in rls cntlrrl1 \hcthct in elactronic or hlrd copr format Thanl rou
_1 9 20lq
a I
I \
.r :..;-i.-+.sl
I
"a
GOODt,{.l'lt,
JALX U