20191213Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KIELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMNIISSION STAFF
I,EGAL
EDWARD JEIVELI,
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: DECElvlBFlR13.20l9
SUBJECT: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JEf'I'COMFIR AGAIn*ST IDAHO POWER
CONIPANY; CASE NO. IPC-E-19-28.
On August 6, ?019, Jeff Comer, a customer of Idaho Power Conrpany ("ldaho
Power" or "Company") filed a formal complaint against the 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 l, 2019, the Company ftled 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. Conrcr's
formal Complaint. Order No. 34492.
On December l, 2019, Mr. Comer filed a petition for reconsideration.
On December I l, 2019, the Company submitted a letter to the Commission Secretary
stating that the Company was not served with the petition for reconsideration, as required by
Commission Rule 44, and requesting the Company be allowed additional time to respond.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In Order No. 34492, the Commission denied the formal complaint of Mr. Comer. The
Commission found the Company was correct to deny Mr. Comer's application to transfer net
eKcess energy credits liom the generation meter to a meter on Mr. Goodman's property that is in
Mr. Comer's name. The Commission made its determination based on criteria 4 of the
DECISION MEMORANDUM
FRONI:
Company's meter aggregation rules, which requires, "The electricity recorded hy the meter is for
the Customer's requirements[. ]"
Mr. Comer states that he and Mr. Goodman have becn partners in thc Goodco power
project, a 22 kW small hydroclectric facility, sincc the projcct was developed in 2006. In his
pctition for rcconsidcration, Mr. Comer states the FERC permit was issued to Goodco power,
and the project lies on property owned by Mr. Goodman at the intake structure and by Mr.
Comer at the generation site, and that each partner contributed an equal financial invcstment in
the project. Petition for Reconsidcration at l. Mr. Comer statcs that he and Mr. Goodman
worked cooperatively with Idaho Power to devclop the projcct, which was the Company's first
hydro nct-metering project. Id. Mr. Comer asserts it was an error to deny his formal complaint
because he and Mr. Goodman are bona-fide panners in the project, and the project was
developed in coordination with Idaho Power to ensure the project met thc standards for meter
aggregation. See id. at2.
LETTER FROM IDAHO POWE,R
ldaho Power states it was not served with a copy of the petition for reconsideration, as
required by Commission Rule of Procedure 44. The Company requests a "reasonable
opportunity to respond to the Petition's substantive merits in excess of the seven days set forth in
RP 331." Idaho Power ktter at l. In subsequent conversation with counsel for Idaho Power,
the Company clarified that it does not wish to file a cross-petition for reconsideration, but if the
Commission grants reconsideration, the Company would like the opportunity to file an Answer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Commission has the authority to detcrminc whcthcr to grant reconsideration, and
what the procedure on rcconsideration will be, if grantcd. See IDAPA 31.01.01.332. "Petitions
for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the cross-petitioner
contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or
not in conflormity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or
argument that the cross-petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted." IDAPA 33 I .02.
Mr. Comer bases his petition for reconsideration on the fact that he and Mr. Goodman
are bona-fide partners in Goodco, "notjust somc random neighbor who would benefit from free
power." Cross Petition for Reconsideration at 2. The formality of the partnership was not clear
from the underlying complaint. Additionatly, Mr, Comer alleges more facts regarding
DECISION MEMORANDUM '-)
representations from Idaho Power when developing the project. Staff recommends the
Commission grant reconsideration, allow the Company l4 days to file an Answer, and allow an
additional 14 days for parties to respond to the Company's Answer.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to grant the petition for reconsideration'l
If the Commission grants the petition for reconsideration, does the Commission wish
to allow the Company l4 days to filc an Answer to the petition for reconsideration, and allow the
parties an additional 14 days to respond to the Company's Answer?
Ediv J
Deputy Att General
I U.8rl\t-t-EcIRICVP(: L-19.16\ll'( l,l9.lli dtc ft D el
3DECISION MEMORANDUM