20180307Notice of Motion for Leave.pdf

gEARTHTUSTIcE ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID-PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES
NORTHWEST ROCKYMOUNTAI
R iC E IVED
t0 !$fi .hR.*?, {f[n ga,{'6
" ^,
{-)''-ial f LlSLlC
i '"r'i l i,j-t,'--l',,hllSSl0NMarch 6,2018
By Federal Express and Electronic Mail
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W est Washington Street
Boise, lD 83702
Notice to Idaho Public Utilities Commission and All Parties of Motion for
Leave to Present Reply Testimony of Rick Gilliam Responding to the Rebuttal
Testimony of Idaho Power Company, Case No. IPC-E-17-13
Dear Ms. Hanian:
Enclosed, please find for filing in the above-referenced case the nine (9) copies of the
Notice to Idaho Public Utilities Commission and All Parties of Motion for Leave to Present
Reply Testimony of Rick Gilliam Responding to the Rebuttal Testimony of Idaho Power
Company, dated March 6,2078, and the Reply Testimony of Rick Gilliam, dated March 6,2018
(one (1) copy designated as reporter's copy).
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely
Al Luna, Earthjustice
Enclosures
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, SUITE 702 WASHINGTON, DC 20036
f :2O2.667.4500 F:202.667.2356 [e-mail] WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG
Re
David Bendcr, WI Bar # 1046102 (Pro Hac Vice)
Earthjusticc
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI5371l
[phone], ext 5228
dbender@earthj ustice.org
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OFIDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NEW
SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
SMALL GENE,RAL SERVICE CUSTOMERS
WITH ON-SITE GENERATION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-17-13
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PRESENT REPLY TESTIMONY
OF RICK GILLIAM RESPONDING
TO THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Vote Solar provides this Notice that at a time and place convenient to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("the Commission"). prior to or durinq the technical hearins scheduled in
this matter on March 8. 2018, it will respectfully move the Commission pursuant to the
Commission's Rules of Procedure (IDAPA 31.01.01), specifically Rules 36,38,56,214,231,
and256, to admit additional substantive testimony of Rick Gilliam in this case. Proposed
prefiled reply testimony is provided with this Notice to provide parties the substance of the
proposed testimony in advance. Additionally, workpapers in support will be made available to
the parties.
In support of its anticipated motion, Vote Solar will show:
l. On July 27 ,2017, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "the Company") applied for
authority to establish new schedules for residential and small gencral scrvice ("R&SGS")
customers with on-site generation ("Application").
Notice of Motion lbr Lcave to Present Reply Testinrony
I
2. On October 4,2017 , the Commission issued Order No. 33901, in which it provided a
Notice of Schedule and Notice of Technical Hearing ("Schedule") and suspended Idaho Power's
filing for 30 days plus five (5) months pursuant to ldaho Code $ 6l-622(4).
3. The Commission's October 4,2017 , Schedule set forth dates for intervenors (including
Vote Solar) to file direct testimony, for all parties to file rebuttal testimony, and for the Company
to file reply testimony. Schedule at 2. There was no date set in the Schedule for parties other
than the Company to file reply testimony.
4. Although the Company's Application and direct testimony contains significant discussion
of the cost to serve and the revenues received from net energy metered customers under current
rate structures, see, e.g., Application at 5-6; Tatum Di at 4-7,12-14 Aschenbrenner Di at25-26,
the Company's rebuttal testimony filed on January 26,2018, narows the focus of its request to
"one relatively limited, but important, policy issue . . . : 'Do the different load service
requirements and usage characteristics of R&SGS customers who install on-site generation"'
justify a separate rate class and rate structure? Tatum Reb at 19:8-15. That is, the Company
contends that load service and usage characteristics-and not cost of service or revenlte
recovery-of customers with on-site generation are the bases for creating separate classes for
those customers.
5. The Company's January 26,2018, rebuttal testimony contained new evidence regarding
load factors and load diversity, that was not included in prior testimony. See. e.g., Angell Reb at
3-7 and Figure 1; Faruqui Reb at 13-15 and Figure 4.
6. Vote Solar sought the underlying data and basis for the new tcstimony and figures related
to load factors and load diversity through discovery served on January 30,2018. See Seventh Set
of Data Requests by Vote Solar to Idaho Power Company. Responses were due and mailed on
Notice of Motion for Leave to Present Reply Testimony
2
February 20,20L8. Vote Solar received the attachments to the Company's rcsponses sent by
U.S. Mail on February 24,2018.
7. On February 28,2018, via email, Counsel for Vote Solar requested clarification and
additional underlying data for workpapers and calculations provided by the Company in the
attachments received on February 24,2018. Counsel for the Company responded on March l,
2018, that additional underlying data is not available and would not be produced.
8. Vote Solar undertook efforts to check the Company's calculations, recreate the load
factor and load shape calculations, and recreate figures provided by the Company based on the
data and workpapers provided and, where the underlying data were not provided, by substituting
load data previously provided by the Company.
9. Vote Solar contends that the Commission's consideration and understanding of the
Company's evidence regarding load factor and load diversity will benefit from additional
information not currently included in the prefiled testimony. Specifically, the Company's use of
exported electricity rather than consumption of utility-supplied electricity obscures the fact that
the actual load factor and hourly loads of customers with on-site generation served by the
Company are within the range of all R&SGS customer loads served by the Company.
10. Vote Solar therefore intends to seek leave to either file the attached prefiled reply
testimony, or to solicit substantially similar testimony through live examination of Mr. Gilliam,
in order to respond to the Company's rebuttal tcstimony.
J
Notice of Motion for Leave to Present Reply Testimony
DATED this 6th day of March,2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David Bender
David Bender
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 5371I
[phone], ext. 5228
dbender@ earthjustice. org
Counsel for Vote Solar
4
Notice of Motion for Leavc to Prcse nt Reply Tcstimony
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 6th day of March,20l8, servcd the forcgoing
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT REPLY TESTIMONY OF RICK
GILLIAM RE,SPONDING TO THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY upon all parties of record in this proceeding, via the manner indicated:
FedEx and Electronic Mail
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
Diane.holt@puc. idaho. sov
Q.{ine copies provided)
Electronic Mail
IDAHO POWER COMPANY COMMISSION STAFF
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
lnordstrom@,idahopower. com
dockets@,idahopower. com
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
Idaho Power Company
l22l West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
ttatum@ idahopower. com
caschenbrenner@ idahopower. com
Sean Costello
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 W est Washington (837 02)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
S ean. [e-mail]
IDAHYDRO
Idahydro clo C. Tom Arkoosh, and
Idaho Clean Energy Association c/o C. Tom
Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offices
802 W. Bannock Strect, Suite 900
P.O. Box 2900
Boisc, ID 83701
To m. arko o sh(@,arko osh. c o m
Erin. cecil@,arkoosh.com
5
Notice of Motion for Leave to Present Reply Testimony
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Idaho Irrigation Pumpcrs Association, Inc.
Eric L. Olsen
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC
505 PershingAve., Ste. 100
P.O. Box 6119
Pocatello,Idaho 83205
[e-mail]
ldaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc
Anthony Yankel
12700 Lake Ave., Unit 2505
Lakewood, OH 44107
[e-mail]
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
MatthewA. Nykiel
Idaho Conservation League
P.O. Box 2308
102 E . Euclid, #207
Sandpoint, ID 83864
mnykiel@ idahoconservation.ore
AURIC LLC
Elias Bishop
Auric Solar, LLC
2310 s. 1300 w.
West Valley City, UT 841l9
Elias.bishop@auupsalal. catx
Preston N. Carter
Deborah E. Nelson
Givens Pursley LLC
601 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
prestoncarter@ givenspursl ey. com
den@. givenspursley. com
SIERRA CLUB
Kelsey Jae Nunez
KELSEY JAE NL]NEZLLC
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise, ID 83703
ke I se)r@ke lse)rj aenunez. com
Tom Beach
Crossbordcr Energy
2560 gth Street, Suite 2l34
Berkeley, CA947l0
tomb@ cros sborderenergy. com
Zack Waterman
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
503 W. Franklin St.
Boise, ID 83702
Zach. waterman@ sierrac lub. org
Michael Heckler
3606 N. Prospect Way
Garden City, ID 83714
Michael.p.heckler@.smail.com
CITY OF BOISE CITY
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy CityAttorney
Boise City Attorney's Office
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boisc, Idaho 83701 -0500
a germaine @ cityo fboi s e. org
IDAHO CLEAN ENERGY
ASSOCIATION
Preston N. Carter
Deborah E. Nelson
Givens Pursley LLC
601 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
prestoncarter@ qivenspurs lev. com
den@-givenspurlgygom
6
Notice of Motion lor Leave to Prcscnt Reply Tcstimony
VOTE SOLAR
David Bender
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 5371I
dbender@carthjustice. ors
Briana Kobor
Vote Solar
360 22"d Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA94612
[e-mail]
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCB AND NW
ENERGY COALITION
John R. Hammond Jr.
Fisher Pusch LLP
101 South Capitol Blvd., Suite 701
PO Box 1308
Boise, Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
Snake River Alliancc
wwilson@,snakerivcralliance. orq
NW Energy Coalition
[e-mail]
INTERMOUNTAIN WIND AND SOLAR,
LLC
Ryan B. Frazier
Brian W. Burnett
KIRTON McCONKIE
50 East South Temple, Suite 400
P.O. Box 45120
Salt Lake city, uT 8411I
[e-mail]
bburn cttCa),km c I a w. co m
Intermountain Wind and Solar, LLC
1952 West 2425 South
Woods Cross, UT 84087
doue@ imwindandsolar. com
/s/ Al Luna
Al Luna, Litig"ti", A*itt""t
Earthjusticc
7
Notice of Motion for Lcavc to Prescnt Reply Testimony
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO
ESTABLISH NEW SCHEDULES FOR
RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL
GENERAL SERVICE CUSTOMERS
WITH ON-SITE GENERATION.
Case No. IPC-E-17-13
REPLY TESTIMONY OF RICK GILLIAM
ON BEHALF OF VOTE SOLAR
March 6,2018
Reporter's Copy
a.
A.
I Please state your name and business address.
My namc is Rick Gilliam. My business address is 590 Redstone Drive,
Broomfield, CO 80020.
Are you the same Rick Gilliam who has adopted the prefiled direct and
rebuttal testimony of Briana Kobor?
Yes, I am.
On whose behalf are you submitting this reply testimony?
I am submitting this reply testimony on behalf of Vote Solar.
What is the purpose of your additional reply testimony?
This reply testimony addresses ( I ) an analysis of load factors for residential non-
solar and residential net-metered customers found in the rebuttal testimony of
Company witness David M. Angellr and (2) an analysis of load diversity found in
the rebuttal testimony of Company witness Dr. Ahmad Faruqui.2 I find these
analyses to be improper and misleading.
Please describe your concerns with Mr. Angell's comparison of load factors.
Mr. Angell's analysis, summarized in Figure I of his rebuttal testimony, purports
to represent a comparison of load factors between residential customers and
residential customers with on-site generation. Mr. Angell concludes that
residential customers with on-site generation "have notably lower load factors"
than those without on-site generation."3 However, based on a review of his
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
a.
A.
a.
A.
a.
A.
a.
A.
I Angell Reb at 3-7; Angell Reb at 6, Figure I
2 Faruqui Reb at 14, Figure 4.
3 Angcll Reb at 6:14-16.
I
R. Gilliam, Rcply-Rcb
Votc Solar
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
t7
workpaper provided in response to discoverya it appears that Mr. Angell
calculates the average load for customers with on-site generation on the basis of
net monthly deliveries less exports, rather than the Company's deliveries to the
customer. If a customer exports the same number of kilowatt-hours, the net load
shows up as zero, and if she exports more than they import in a month, it shows
up as a negative average load.
a. Why is this approach improper?
A. As Mr. Angell notes, load factor is "a measure of variability of consumption."s
However, rather than using the utility-supplied electricity consumed by those
customers, he reduces that consumption by the separately tariffed export of
electricity from the customer to the utility. Net metering is a billing convention
that sums two separate transactions. Customers do not reduce "consumption"
billed under Schedule 1 by exporting excess generation credited under Schedule
84, as Mr. Angell's calculation implicitly assumes. For load factor comparisons
to be useful to determine if the service provided by the utility to net-metered
customers is similar to that provided to non-net-metered customers, it has to
reflect only the service provided by the utility: the delivered loads.
4 CONf'IOENTIALAttachment 2 - Response to Vote Solar's Request No. 100 - Angell
REB Fig l.xlsx.
s Angell Reb 5:2-3.
2
R. Gilliam, Reply-Reb
Vote Solar
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
o.
A
l1
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
le a.
20 A.
Do you have other concerns with the Company's analysis presented in Figure
t?
Yes. The analysis underlying Mr. Angell's Figure I is based on 843 net-metered
customers, which is nearly 50Yo larger than previous datasets provided through
discovery.6 In reviewing the data, several concerns arose. First, 268 of the 843
customers have less than a full year of data and l4 of the 843 customers have
more than l2 months of data (i.e., multiple load factors are provided for a single
month, and counted in the average). Next, for those NEM unique identifiers that
align with the previous datasets obtained through Staff Request No. 8 and Vote
Solar Request No. 59, the peak usage value for the majority of months did not
match. I am not including specific examples in this public testimony due to the
Company's assertion that the customer identification data is confidential.
I also note that it was impossible to trace Mr. Angell's calculations in his
workpaper as the average monthly usage values are "hard-pasted" in the
spreadsheet, meaning it is simply a number with no formula for how it was
derived. The lack of formulae, combined with the mismatches and incomplete
data, makes it impossible to replicate the analysis underlying Figure 1 and raises a
general concern about the validity of the results.
Did Vote Solar perform an analysis similar to the Company's Figure 1?
Yes. Using the data set of 565 residential net-metercd customers provided to the
3
R. Gilliam, Reply-Reb
Vote Solar
l0
6 StaffRequest No. 8;Vote Solar Requcst No. 59
I
2
3
4
Staff ald Vote Solar in discovery. I calculated the k:ad factors both withT and
without exporls. Figitue A belorv shows these resrilts and cornpares them to the
residential (non-solar) load factors fi'om Mr. Algell's Figure l.
Figure A: Average Loatl Factors for Residential Customerss
Vote Solar Analysis: Aver;rge l-*ad Factor
30%
MavAprMar
'{tffi
lil
Ian Feb ,ul Aug Oct
-5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
: Residenfjal I Net metered - incl. exports I Net metered - deliveries only
Courparing ody the delivered loads-the cr$torner's consumption of utility-
supplied electricity-shows that the load factor for residential net-rnetered and
non-net-utetered custorners is similar'. Put another way. excluding Schedule 84
exports fi'om the load factors calculation for ret-metered custoruers, and retlecting
only Schedule I deliveries. yields load factors much more aligneet rvith those of
custorDers rvit]rout ou-site generation.
7 Differetces betrveen lr.{r: Angell's load factors ancl my re-calculated load factors for net-
uretering custourer"s iucluding exporls are most likely due to the discrepancies in }vfi'.
Augell's data explained atrove, arrd potentially tlie use of billing period data rather than
calerdar uronth.
8 Based upon tlie clata provided in response to StaffRequest No. 8. Exhibit t0+.
4
R. Gillianr. Reply-Reb
Vote Solar
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
In conclusion, when comparing apples to apples, thcrc is far less difference
betwcen non-net-metered residential customers and residential net-metered
customers than the Company's chart implies.
a. Please describe Dr. Faruqui's Figure 4.
A. Dr. Faruqui's Figure 4 shows the l0th and 90th percentiles of residential non-DG
customers overlaid with the average load shape of the residential DG customers.
The chart purports to show that at certain times of the day, the DG customers load
shape falls outside the l0o/o to 90o/o range of the non-DG group.
a. Do you have concerns with the data and calculations underlying Dr.
Faruqui's Figure 4?
A. Yes. As with Mr. Angell's Figure 1, Dr. Faruqui improperly includes exports in his
DG customer data (Dr. Faruqui calls net-metered customers DG customers, and
non-net-metered customers non-DG customers)e, resulting in a comparison of
Schedule 1 deliveries to non-DG customers, and the sum of deliveries from
Company to customer (Schedule 1) and from customer to Company (Schedule 84)
for DG customers. It is inappropriate to include two separate electricity
transactions into a single load shape.
Dr. Faruqui also notes the basis for his analysis is a non-net-metered customer
dataset consisting of 521customers.r0. However, the data sets provided to Vote
Solar in rcsponse to discovcryl I retlectcd between 468-516 customers, dcpending
e Faruqui Reb at 8:l-2.
ro Faruqui Reb at 8:3-6.rl Response to Vote Solar Request No. 27
5
R. Gilliam, Reply-Rcb
Vote Solar
10
t2
ll
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
a.
A.
on thc month. The Company acknowledged certain customers were excluded in
thc months of June and July.l2 By comparison, Staff witness Dr. Morrison used a
load research sample with 487 customers.ri
Here, as in the case of Company witness Angell above, the source of Dr.
Faruqui's data is unclear, as is the period of time over which he is averaging both
DG and non-DG customer data.
Did you attempt to replicate Dr. Faruqui's charts?
Yes. Figure B below shows a scatterplot of the delivered energy values of DG
customers for the summer period and the winter period. Each gray dot illustrates
an individual customer's average load in the given hour for the specified time
period.
l0
ll
l2 Responsc to Votc Solar Rcqucst No. 71Il Morrison Di at 10:25.
6
R. Gilliam, Reply-Reb
Vote Solar
2
Figure B: Diversity in Residential Delivered Load Profiles
Summer
d'*
10-,
6
J
E:
I
t
I
l
I
.3
i-r
10
Hour
Winter
15 2t)2i
J
4
3o
J(
lt. ,.,
23 :5
7
R. Gilliam, Reply-Rcb
Vote Solar
5
1t
Hour
1;
0-
50
0
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
a.
A.
The black lines on the plots illustrate the hourly load at the 90th and lOth percentile
usage in each hour across the residential non-DG customer sample, based on the
2016load research sample provided by the Company in response to Vote Solar
Request No. 27.14
For DG customers, I used the2016 net metering hourly loads provided in
response to Staff Request No. 8. The data set contains net hourly usage for 565
residential net-metered DG customers from which export values were removed.
The conclusion to be drawn from these two plots is that the vast majority of
deliveries to DG customers in both the summer and winter timeframes fall well
within the l0o/o to 90Yo bracket of Dr. Faruqui.
Does this complete your reply testimony?
Yes.
ta The dataset contained a stratified sample of 5 l6 residential customers. However, data
for 30 customers was incomplete and removed. The plot utilizes the hourly profiles only
for the remaining 486 customers.
8
R. Gilliam, Reply-Reb
Votc Solar