20180529Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

gEARTHJUSTTcE ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MIO.PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROC(IES
NORTHWEST ROCKYMOUNTAIN WASHINGTON,D.C. INTERNATIONAI.
May 29,2018
By Federal Express and Electronic Mail
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W est Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
Boise, ldaho
Re: Case No. IPC-E-17-13, Vote Solar's Petition for Reconsideration
Dear Ms. Hanian:
Enclosed, please find for filing in the above-referenced case the original and seven copies
of Vote Solar's Petition for Reconsideration.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter
Sincerely,
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
Olfice of the Secrelary
RECEIVED
MAY 2 9 2018
h H
Al Luna,
Litigation Assistant, Clean Energy
Earthjustice
1625 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Suite 702
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 7e7-s2se
aluna@e arthj u sti c e. or g
Enclosures
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, SUITE 702 WASHINGTON, DC 20036
T: 202.667.4500 F: 202.667.2356 [e-mail] WwW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG
David Bender, WI Bar # 1046102 (Pro Hac Vice)
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 53711
[phone], ext 5228
dbender@earthj ustice. or g
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OFIDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH NEW
SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
SMALL GENERAL SERVICE CUSTOMERS
WITH ON-SITE GENERATION
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E.17-13
VOTE SOLAR'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Idaho Code $ 6l-626 and IDAPA 31.01.331, Vote Solar respectfully lodges
this Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's
("Commission") Order No. 34046 ("Final Order"), dated May 9,2018. Although Vote Solar
opposed the creation of a new customer class for customers with distributed generation and
respectfully disagrees with the Commission's decision to approve a new class in this docket, this
Petition does not address the merits of the Commission's decision to create a new class. This
Petition only seeks relief as to the scope of that new class. Specifically, Vote Solar requests that
the Commission reconsider its approval of Idaho Power Company's ("ldaho Power" or
"Company") Schedules 6 and 8, which apply to all customer-generators in the residential and
small general service ("R&SGS") classes. Consistent with the Commission's findings and
evidence at hearing, Vote Solar requests that the Commission instead require the Company to
revise the new Schedules 6 and 8 to apply only to customers who export electricity.l
' Rule 331 (IDAPA 31.01.331) requires Vote Solarto state the nature and extent of evidence or argument it will
present or offer if reconsideration is granted. Vote Solar does not believe additional evidence is necessary. The
Commission can revise its Final Order to require revisions to the text of Schedules 6 and 8 without additional
proceedings.
I
I. The Company's Application.
The Company's Application to separate on-site generation customers from standard
service R&SGS customers was "based on two underlying rationales: (1) traditional R&SGS
customers are subsidizing on-site generators because they are billed on a net-monthly basis; and
(2) their load service requirements and usage characteristics are fundamentally distinct." Final
Order at 5. However, as the case progressed, the Company focused only on the difference in
load shapes (time, nature, and pattern of use), rather than an alleged subsidy based on cost-of-
service. See Surrebuttal Testimony of Timothy E. Tatum at 4:4-15 (The Company's evidence is
based on load service requirements and usage characteristics and not the cost to serve); Hr'g Tr.
at257:19-258:9,261:5-9,275:9-16, 530:10-16. All of the Company's evidence related to
different load shapes-or time, nature, and pattem of use-was limited to net metering
customers. See e.g., Hr'g Tr. at758:2-12. There was no evidence at hearing showing the loads,
usage, or impacts on the grid from customers who self-generate but who do not net meter and do
not export any electricity to the Company's distribution system. For example, there was no
evidence regarding customer load shapes for customers who self-generate and store excess
generation in a battery rather than exporting it to the grid. In fact, Company witness Mr. Tatum
confirmed that the Company does not possess any such evidence.
a And you don't have any load data for what a load shape for that type of
customer with battery storage and no exports looks like; is that right?
A I do not, no, and I'm not aware of the Company having any such customer
to evaluate.
a Right, and so the Commission has no data to compare a load shape of a
storage with a solar customer to an average or other non-generating customer's
load shape?
A I don't know if they do or not, but the Company doesn't possess that and
we haven't presented it in this case, because we don't possess it.
2
Hr' g Tr. at 349 :16-350:2.
II. The Commission's Final Order.
The Commission approved the Company's request to separate customer-generators into a
separate class. However, in doing so, the Commission's findings, conclusions, and reasoning
were specific to customer-generators who export electricity. The hndings and reasoning do not
support a decision to separate customer-generators who do not export electricity to the grid.
As a result, and based on the evidence before us, we find it is time to
distinguish a class of customers that uses the grid for standard energy import
and use [sic], from a class of customers that uses the grid to both import and
exoort energy.
To reiterate, we recognize the fundamental difference between, as an
example, a residential customer with no on-site generation and one that can
both import energy from. and export it to, the Company's grid using the
same infrastructure. This bi-directionality is distinct from a customer
purely offsetting its own energy usage outside of the grid. The bi-
directional customer can push energy back to the erid whenever its
generation source and timing allows it to, with the Company having limited
control over the use and distribution of this somewhat unpredictable
resource. Because of this bi-directionality, we conclude that net-metering
customers with on-site generation present unique load and usage
characteristics that lend toward class distinction. These characteristics
include increased volatility in demand and load factors, excess net-energy
exportation in the spring and summer, and more volatility in contributions
to the Company's peak(s).
Final Order at 16-78 (emphasis added).
While the Commission focused on bi-directional customers, the approved new classes are
not limited to customers who export. The Final Order closes Schedule 84 (Net Metering) and
creates new Schedules 6 and 8. Final Order at 30-31 . Schedules 6 and 8, as proposed by Idaho
J
Power,2 apply to all R&SGS customers who own or operate a "Generation Facility fueled by
solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower or represents fuel cell technology, with a total
nameplate capacity rating of 25 kilowatts (kW) or less, that is connected in parallel with the
Idaho Power System." See Application Attachments 2 and 3. Those new classes apply broadly
to any customer who generates with the specified technologies, not just those who export power
to the Company's distribution system.
III.Grounds For Reconsideration: The Hearing Record and Commission Findings
Do Not Support Inclusion of Non-Exporting Customer-Generators in Schedules
6 and 8.
The Commission's Final Order is "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law," IDAPA 31.01.331.01, to the extent that it approves new schedules that
apply to more customers than the Commission's findings and the evidence presented at hearing
justify.
Creating a new customer class must be based on "factors such as cost of service, quantity
of electricity used, differences in conditions of service, or the time, nature and pattem of use."
Idaho State Homebuilders v. Washington Water Power,l0T Idaho 415,420,690P.2d 350, 355
(198a); see also Building Contractors Assoc. of Sw. Idaho, Inc. v. Idoho Pub. Util. Comm'n,128
Idaho 534, 539,916 P.2d 1259, 1264 (1996). Creating a new customer class-based on one or
more of those factors-must be done by making adequate findings of fact supported by
competent and substantial evidence in the record. Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Pub.
Util. Comm'n, 107 Idaho 567 , 57 5 , 617 P .2d 1242, 1250 ( 1 980) ("[I]n regularly pursuing its
authority the Commission must enter adequate findings of fact based upon competent and
2 The Commission's Final Order appears to approve Schedules 6 and 8 as proposed by the Company. See e.g.,Firral
Order at l5 ("Based on our review of the record, we find it fair, just, and reasonable for the Company to separate on-
site generation . . . customers into the newly proposed Schedules 6 and 8.") (emphasis added).
4
substantial evidence.") (citing Boise Water Corp, v, Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n,97 ldaho 832,555
P.2d 163 (197 6); Hartwig v. Pugh, 97 ldaho 236, 542 P.2d 70 (1975)). Thus, the Commission
must make proper findings justifying a new customer class based on factors such as differences
in conditions of service or time, nature, and pattern of use, and those findings must be supported
by evidence. Washington Water Power Co.,70l Idaho at 575 (citing Oregon Shortline R. Co. v.
Pub. Util. Comm'n of ldaho,4T ldaho 482,484,276P.970,971 (1929); Baltimore & Ohio R.
Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co.,393 U.S. 87,92 (1968)).
The Commission's findings focused on the differences between customers who export
electricity and those who do not, Final Order at 17-19, whereas the approved Schedules 6 and 8
apply to customers who self-generate but do not export. The Commission's findings about
customers who export electricity-that such customers "can push energy back to the grid," have
"excess net-energy exportation in the spring and summer," and can have o'effect on circuits,
voltage management, islanding, and load cycle adjustments"-do not apply to customers who do
not export. Final Order at 18. The Commission's distinctions between non-exporting customers
and those whose load variations are "tied to a load that includes an export component" also do
not apply to non-exporting customer generators. Final Order at 19. Further, without exports
there is no "netting" of electricity flows across the meter during the billing period, so the
Commission's findings "that customers with on-site generation are differentiating themselves by
exporting" and that customers can avoid paying "their fair share of fixed costs" by "[t]he present
netting" do not apply. Final Order at 17. In other words, to the extent that the Commission's
f,rndings support segregation of customer-generators who export electricity to the grid, those
findings do not also support segregating customers who do not export. Rather, a non-exporting
5
customer does not "mask"3 consumption with net-use through exports, but is "purely offsetting
its own energy usage outside of the grid," which the Commission distinguished from bi-
directional, exporting customers. Final Order at 17-18.4
The "fundamental difference" the Commission identified as the basis to separate
customers into new Schedules 6 and 8 was the ability of customers with generation to "both
import energy from, and export it to, the Company's grid using the same infrastructure." Final
Order at 17. The Final Order does not address non-exporting customer-generators, and there was
no evidence presented by ary party about the load characteristics of customers with behind-the-
meter generation but who do not export. For example, there was no evidence of residential or
small general service customers who limit self-generating capacity to less than the customer's
minimum daytime load, install a minimum import relay, reverse power relay or dynamically
controlled inverter, or install a battery or other energy storage device.s In short, the Final Order
makes no findings and provides no reasoning for including customers who are not "bi-
directional" in the new customer classes that the Commission specifically approved "[b]ecause
of . . . bi-directionality." Final Order at 18.
Therefore, because the Final Order approves Schedules 6 and 8, which apply to
customers who do not export and are not "bi-directional," it is not supported by record evidence
3 The term "mask" was used by Company witness Tafum, who also used it to refer to monthly netting exports and
imports through bi-directional flow. Hr'g Tr. at278:24-279:5,283:20-284:20,345:7-16.
4 The evidence in the hearing also confirmed that there is "some good overlap" in the distribution of loads of
customers with and customers without self-generation when export flows are removed. Hr'g Tr. at770:l-771:15;
see also id. at775:23-776:9.
s See e.g., Mike Coddington et a/., Photovoltaic Systems Interconnected onto Secondary Network Distribution
Systems *Success Stories, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-550-45061 at iii-iv
(April 2009) (identifuing methods to prevent solar PV energy from being fed back to the utility's distribution
system), https://www.enerey.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/11/f19/45061.pdf.
6
or findings, which were limited to bi-directional customer-generators. The Final Order is "unjust
or unwarranted" and should be changed. Idaho Code $ 6l-626(3).
IV. Requested Relief.
For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the Commission's authority and duty to
correct errors in its final orders, Vote Solar respectfully requests the Commission issue an order
on reconsideration reversing its approval of Schedules 6 and 8 as proposed by the Company and,
instead, require that Schedules 6 and 8 apply only to customer-generators who export electricity
to the Company's distribution system. No further evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments,
or interrogatories are required for this change.
DATED this 29th day of May,2018
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David Bender
David Bender (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 53711
[phone], ext. 5228
dbender@earthj ustice. org
Counsel for Vote Solar
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 29th day of May,2Ol8, served the foregoing VOTE
SOLAR'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon all parties of record in this proceeding,
via the manner indicated:
FedEx and Electronic Mail
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
D iane.holt(@puc. idaho. gov
(Original and seven 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, ID 83707
lnordstrom@ idahopower. com
dockets@ idahopower. com
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
ttatum@idahopower. com
caschenbrenner@ idahopower. com
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
MatthewA. Nykiel
Idaho Conservation League
P.O. Box 2308
102F. Euclid, #207
Sandpoint, ID 83864
mnykiel @ idahoconservation. org
Sean Costello
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
47 2 West Washington (837 02)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Sean.costello@puc. idaho. sov
IDAHYDRO
Idahydro clo C. Tom Arkoosh, and
Idaho Clean Energy Association c/o C. Tom
Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offrces
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ID 83701
Tom. arkoo sh@ arkoo sh. com
Erin. cecil@arkoosh. com
8
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Eric L. Olsen
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC
505 PershingAve., Ste. 100
P.O. Box 6l l9
Pocatello, Idaho 83205
[e-mail]
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc
Anthony Yankel
12700 Lake Ave., Unit 2505
Lakewood, OH 44107
tony@),ankel.net
AURIC LLC
Elias Bishop
Auric Solar, LLC
2310 S. 1300 W.
West Valley City, UT 84119
Elias.bishop@auricsolar. com
Preston N. Carter
Deborah E. Nelson
Givens Pursley LLC
601 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
prestoncarter@ givenspursley.com
den@ givenspursley. com
VOTE SOLAR
David Bender
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 5371I
dbender@ earthj ustice. org
Briana Kobor
Vote Solar
360 22"d Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA94612
[e-mail]
SIERRA CLUB
Kelsey Jae Nunez
KELSEY JAE NUNEZLLC
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise, ID 83703
kelsey@kelseyj aenunez. som
Tom Beach
Crossborder Energy
2560 grh Street, Suite 2l34
Berkeley, CA947l0
tomb@crossborderenergy. com
Zack Waterman
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
503 W. Franklin St.
Boise, ID 83702
Zach.waterman@ sierraclub. ors
Michael Heckler
3606 N. Prospect Way
Garden City, ID 83714
[e-mail]
CITY OF BOISE CITY
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy City Attorney
Boise City Attorney's Office
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, Idaho 83701-0500
asermaine@cityofboise. org
IDAHO CLEAN ENERGY
ASSOCIATION
Preston N. Carter
Deborah E. Nelson
Givens Pursley LLC
601 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
prestoncarter@ givenspursley. com
[e-mail]
9
SNAKE RIVER ALLIANCE AND NW
ENERGY COALITION
INTERMOUNTAIN WIND AND SOLAR,
LLC
John R. Hammond Jr.
Fisher Pusch LLP
l0l South Capitol Blvd., Suite 701
PO Box 1308
Boise, Idaho 83702
jrh@f,rsherpusch.com
Ryan B. Frazier
Brian W. Burnett
KIRTON McCONKIE
50 East South Temple, Suite 400
P.O. Box 45120
Salt Lake city, UT 84111
[e-mail]
[e-mail] River Alliance
[e-mail]
NW Energy Coalition
[e-mail]
Intermountain Wind and Solar, LLC
1952 West 2425 South
Woods Cross, UT 84087
dou g@ imwindandsolar. com
/s/ Al Luna
Al Luna, Litigation Assistant
Earthjustice
10