20191015Comments.pdf

EDWARD J. JEWELL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-00]4
(208) 334-03t4
IDAHO BAR NO. 10446
F.[CEIVED
iili 0ti lS p,y l:02
r l-.i ,n, :,.ir':'lii:.tc;l
Street Address for Express Mail:
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Ste. 201-A
BOISE, IDAHO 83714
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JEFF COMER
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY CASE NO. IPC.E.19.28
COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF
The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission comments as follows on Idaho Power
Company' s Application.
BACKGROUND
On August 6,2019, Jeff Comer submitted a formal Complaint against Idaho Power
Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company") because the Company denied Mr. Comer's 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.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISTAFF COMMENTS ocToBER 75,2019
I.
STAFF REVIEW
Mr. Comer states that he is a partner in a small on-site generation system in Twin Falls
County along with his neighbor Jack Goodman. Formal Complaint at l. Mr. Comer states that
he and Mr. Goodman have shared the excess net energy credits ("Generation Credits") produced
by the on-site generation system they are partners in for the last several years. Id. On February
15,2019, Mr. Comer received correspondence from the Company notifying him that the
Company was denying his application to transfer 2018 Generation Credits from the on-site
generation meter ("Designated Meter") to a meter on Mr. Goodman's property that is in
Mr. Comer's name. Id. Mr. Comer states that the Company replaced the term "property" used
in their Tariff to determine whether meters can be aggregated with the term "parcel." Id. at2.
The Company was correct to not aggregate meters for 2018 because the electricity
recorded at the meter on Mr. Goodman's property was not for Mr. Comer's
requirements.
The Company was correct to not aggregate meters for 2018 because there is no
information in the record to show that the electricity recorded at the meter on Mr. Goodman's
property was for Mr. Comer's requirements. The Designated Meter, which is the meter at the
generation site, is in Mr. Comer's name only. The meter on Mr. Goodman's property is likewise
in Mr. Comer's name only. However, this is not sufficient to establish that the electricity
recorded at the meter on Mr. Goodman's property was for Mr. Comer's requirements.
Schedule 6 and Schedule 8l list five elements that must be met in order for a customer
with on-site generation to aggregate meters (thereby allowing the transfer of excess net energy
credits from the designated meter to other meters). Those criteria are: l) The account subject to
offset is held by the Customer; and 2) 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; and 3) The meter is served by the same primary feeder as the Designated
Meter at the time the Customer files the application for the Small On-Site Generation System;
and 4) The electricity recorded by the meter is for the Customer's requirements; and 5) Credits
I Mr. Comer references Schedule 6, the Company references Schedule 8. The on-site generation system is on Schedule
8. However, the meter aggregation criteria are the same for Schedule 6 and Schedule 8.
2STAFF COMMENTS ocToBER 15,2019
may only be transferred to meters taking service under Schedule l, Schedule 6, Schedule 7, or
Schedule 8.
A customer putting a meter in their name on somebody else's property does not
conclusively establish that the electricity consumed at that meter is for the requirements of the
customer whose name the meter is in. If simply putting the meter in their name were enough to
establish that the electricity consumed at the meter was for their purposes, then criteria 4 would
be redundant to criteria 1 and therefore superfluous. It is fair for the Company to reject a
customer's application for aggregation if the Company has justifiable reason to believe that the
electricity consumed at the meter is not for the customer's purposes. If the customer can prove
to reasonable certainty that the electricity recorded at the meter is in fact for their purposes, then
the Company would have to approve the customer's aggregation request. In this case,
Mr. Comer simply states, "The meter on Mr. Goodman's property is in Mr. Comers name and
therefore qualifies for aggregation privileges." Formal Complaint at l. This is not a sufficient
showing to meet this criteria. The Company states in its Answer that administering criteria 4 is
challenging. However, the Company must administer its Tariffs as they are written, not as the
Company wishes they were written.
II.If the Company would like to apply the more restrictive term "parcel" to
applications for meter aggregation, the Company needs to file an application to
amend the language in its Tariff.
In its Answer, the Company states that, in its view, the terms "property" and "parcel" are
synonyms, yet the Company goes on to explain the distinction in terms. See Answer at7-9. The
Company's argument that the terms are synonyms but that one term should be swapped for
another term because it achieves a different result that the Company prefers is not logically
sound. Idaho Power's claim that the term "property" is unworkable is not believable. The term
"property" appears 47 times in the Company's Tariff. Meanwhile, the term "parcel" appears
once.
The Commission applies concepts evenly to similarly situated electric utilities that it
regulates. The Company attempts to stretch this maxim to mean that because the Commission
approved a change to the Tariffs of Rocky Mountain Power to include the term "parcel" that
Idaho Power is free to reinterpret the term "property" as "parcel" in its own Tariff. The more
consistent application of principles is that if a utility would like the language in its Tadff
3STAFF COMMENTS ocToBER 15,2019
changed, the utility should file an application to change the language in their Tariff instead of
unilaterally reinterpreting the term. An application to change its Tariff language would be a
more appropriate process to evaluate the impact of changing the Tariff language from "property"
to "parcel" because it would provide greater notice to the public that the Company is requesting a
change to its meter aggregation rules.
Meter aggregation rules are an important component of the Company's on-site generation
service. The Company, Commission Staff, and numerous interested parties have spent months
trying to achieve settlement on many aspects of the Company's on-site generation service. To
make a change to the on-site generation service based on the unique facts of a customer
complaint, with little public input, and while numerous other aspects of the on-site generation
service are being worked out in parallel dockets, is not conducive to well thought-out public
policy.
III. Conclusion.
The Company was correct to deny Mr. Comer's application to transfer Generation
Credits because Mr. Comer does not comply with criteria 4 of the meter aggregation rules. If the
Company wishes to change the language of its Tariff to read "parcel" instead of "property" it
should file an application to do so, which the Commission can review in the broader context of
the Company's on-site generation service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Commission deny Mr. Comer's formal complaint because the
Company was correct to deny the transfer of Generation Credits from the Designated Meter to
the meter on Mr. Goodman's property. However, the rationale for denying the transfer of credits
should have been because the transfer would have violated criteria 4 of the Company's meter
aggregation rules, and not because of the Company's interpretation of the term "property." Staff
further recommends the Commission direct the Company to apply the language of its Tariff as
written.
4STAFF COMMENTS ocToBER 15,2019
Respectfully submitted this lSt.- day of octo ber 2019.
J
Deputy General
Technical Staff: Curtis Thaden
Mike Louis
Mike Morrison
i:umisc/comments/ipce I 9.28ejctmlmm comments
5STAFF COMMENTS ocToBER 15,2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019,
SERVED THE FOREGOING COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF,IN
CASE NO. IPC-E.19-28, BY MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO
THE FOLLOWING:
LISA D NORDSTROM
REGULATORY DOCKETS
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE rD 83707-0070
E-mail : lnordstrom@idahopower. com
[e-mail]
JEFF COMER
4186N1100E
BUHL ID 83316
KRISTY PATTESON
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
E-mail: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE