20200117Answer to Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

RECEIVED
.i2C JiH l7 Pl{ lr: l+2
lnn CNJAYME B. SULLIVAN
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY
ABIGAIL R. GERMAINE
Deputy City Attomey
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
150 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701-0500
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (208) 3&4 -445 4
Idaho State Bar No.: 923 1
Email : [e-mail]
Attorney for Boise City
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO STUDY
COSTS, BENEFITS, AND COMPENSATION
OF NET EXCESS ENERGY SUPPLIED BY
CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. IPC-E-f8-15
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR
CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW, the city of Boise City, herein referred to as "Boise City'', by and through
its attomey of record, and pursuant to Rule 331.05 of the Rules of Procedure ofthe Idaho Public
Utility Commission (IDAPA 31.01.01.331.05), hereby submits this Answer to Idaho Power
Company's ("the Company'') Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification ("Answer").
Although numerous petitions for reconsideration have been filed, in the interest ofbrevity, Boise
City's Answer only rebuts the arguments put forward by the Company's Petition.
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAIIO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Page I
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 20, 2019, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") issued
Order No. 34509. This Order was in response to the matters pending before the Commission in
Case No. IPC-E- 18- 15, including a proposed joint Settlement Agreement signed by various parties
to the case, the outstanding issue of treatment for existing net metering customers, and procedural
next steps.
Order No. 34509 essentially did three (3) things: l) it rejected the proposed Settlement
Agreement; 2) ordered the Company to conduct a credible and fair, comprehensive net-metering
cost/benefit study informed by public workshops and public input; and 3) grandfathered existing
net-metering customers into Schedules 6 and8. See generally Order No.34509.
The Company has now filcd a Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification ("Petition")
regarding the Commission's Order. The Company's Petition asks the Commission to approve the
Settlement Agreement and, in the alternative, to reconsider the "extensive procedures it has
ordered" the Company to comply with. Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification at 3.
Included in its Petition to reconsider the procedure ordered by Commission, the Company
specifically requests that net hourly billing be immediately imposed on new Schedule 6 and 8
customers. .Id.
Although Boise City ultimately signed the Settlement Agreement, it did so based on the
nature of the settlement negotiations to date and in an attempt to mitigate potential harmful
unknowns ifthe case did not settle. From the beginning ofthis case, Boise City suggested the need
for a credible, fair, independent, third-party study to be conducted. However, as negotiations
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPAI.IY'S
PETITION T'OR RECONSIDER.ATION
AND/OR CLARTFICATION Page 2
progressed, it was apparent that a comprehensive study was not going to be conducted and that it
was best to negotiate for what could be achieved for the citizens and the industry in the present
case. Boise City disagrees with the Company's assertion that a comprehensive study was
conducted and that based on this, 'larticipants analyzed and ultimately resolved numcrous
longstanding and contention issues." 1d. at 4. In Boise City's opinion, these issues were not
con-rprehensively analyzed and resolved; a compromise was negotiated.
For that reason, Boise City agrees with the Commission's decision to reject the Settlement
Agreement and agrees with its proposal to conduct a fair and crediblc comprehensive study. Boise
City also supports the Commission's decision to grandfather existing net-metering customers into
Schedules 6 and 8 as they currently exist. Boise City asks that the Commission deny the requests
of the Company in its Petition as discussed below.
II. ANSWERTO PETITION
1. The Commission should denv the Company's request to aDDrove the Settlement
Asreement because the Companv Drovides no additional evidence to rebut the
Commission's deeuronlS deny the Settlement Agreement,
The Commission rejected the Settlement stating that "filing the Settlement Agreement in
the absence of a comprehensive study does not comply with our directive to parties in Order No.
34046." Order No. 34509 at 6. Boise City agrees with this statement. Throughout the settlement
negotiations Boise City maintained its concems that negotiating a settlement without conducting
a comprehensive study did not align with the Commission's Order No. 34046 stemming from IPC-
E- 17-13. Boise City supports conducting a comprehensive, credible, and fair study to inform what
if any changes are implemented to the net metering program and future customers. The
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAI{O POWER COMPANY'S
PETTTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Page 3
Commission also based its rejection of the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the public was
not adequately on notice that the Settlement Agleement or this case as a whole, could result in
substantial changes to the net-metering program. Order No. 34509 at 6.
First, The Company argues that the Settlement Agreement should be approved because the
Company did in fact conduct a comprehensive study. The Company argues that it originally
submitted an "Initial Study" which was revised and presented as a final "Export Credit Rate
Study." Petition at I l. Thc Company attempts to support its argument that the Export Credit Rate
constitutes a comprehensive study by pointing to the attachments and workpapers provided in the
Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Comments in Support of the Settlement Agrccment.
Id. at 1'7 . However, as the Commission points out, "[T]hese files appear to be the starting point of
negotiations between the parties and not the comprehensive study ordered by the Commission."
Order No. 34509 at 8. Boise City agrees and would add that the confidentia'l nature of the
settlement agreement makes it impossible to present all information or varying opinions that were
presented. A fact that is not brought up by the Company in discussing what documents and data
officially made it into the record.
Building on this, the Company states that the Commission should reconsider its decision
to reject the Settlement Agteement because the Company failed to provide a narrative presentation
and roadmap describing the "studies" conducted and therefore such description wilI show adequate
support for the Settlement Agreement to be approved. Petition at 12. However, the Company
provides no additional data, evidence, or analysis to support the Commission reversing its decision
to reject the Settlement Agreement. All the data and information the Company points to in order
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAIIO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Page 4
to support its claim that reconsideration should be granted has already been acknowledged and
reviewed by the Commission and found insufficient to demonstrate that a comprehensive study
was conducted. Order No. 34509 at 8. This is evidenced by the Commission's thorough description
of the documents and data it reviewed in making its decision to reject the Settlernent Agreement.
Id. The Company has provided no new evidence to support thc Commission reversing its decision.
Second, the Company argues that the Commission should reconsider its rejection of the
Settlement Agreemcnt on the assertion that the public was not on adequate notice that this docket
would result in substantial ohanges to the net rnetering program. Petition at 22. Again, the
Company has failed to provide any ncw or additional evidence to support the Commission
reconsidering its holding on this issue. As the Commission rightfully points out, the title of this
case itself did not indicate that pro$am changes would be an outcome of this docket. Order No.
34509 at p. 6. The title of the docket, "In the Matter of the Petition of Idaho Power Company to
Study the Costs, Benefits, and Compensation of Net Excess Energy Supp'lied by Customer On-
Site Generation," implies that a study would be conducted. Id. It is reasonable for members of the
public to not expect this case to result in program changes, but instead to result in a publicly
accessible, comprehensive study. The Company claims that members of the public had an
opportunity to intervene and participate in this case, but the very description ofthe case could have
resulted in the public feeling it unnecessary to intervene at this stage. Upon the outcome of this
case and the filing of the Settlement Agreernent, it was apparent from the public testimony at the
two (2) public hearings, that many members of the public were not aware that program changes
would result from this docket.
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDA}IO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLAIUFICATION Page 5
The Company also asserts that whether or not the public was on notice of this docket and
the changes that may result from it, is moot based on the Commission's decision to grandfather
existing customers. This assertion is inaccurate as it does not account for the impacts this docket
will have on future customers who have not been grandfathered into this case. As the Commission
states, the public (not just currcnt customers) was not on notice of the possible changes to the nct
metering program, not just the then current program. Id. at 6. This Settlement Agreernent if
approved did not have the potential to only affect existing customers, it also controlled how the
new program would look to future customers. See generally, Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement, October 10, 2019 Attachment 1 These future customers would have had an interest in
participating in the docket to be involved in how the program should be constructed in the future.
These future customers likely had the same inaccurate expectations of what this docket would
result in that existing customers did. These future customers were not put on notice of how this
docket may affect program structure and potentially would have participated had they known.
Therefore, the Company's assertion that the issue of proper notice is moot because of the
Commission gandfathering existing customers does not account for the potential harm suffered
by future customers to participating based on an ill-informed understanding.
2. The Commissiondrquld deny the Company's request to revise the procedure to be
follorv the arties in the fo rocess.
The Company asks that the Commission reconsider the procedure it has proscribed for
conducting a credible, fair, and comprehensive study. Petition at 26. The Company alleges
following the Commission's directive would result in "largely discarding thousands ofhours" of
work completed in this case to date. Id. However, nowhere in the Commission's Order does the
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Page 6
Commission state that the work done previously in this docket by the parties should be disregarded.
Nothing would prohibit the work, such as Table L Study ltems and Implementation Issues, which
was included in the first Staff Report, from informing the process moving forward . Staff Report,
February 28, 2019, attached.
The Company makes two specific requests of the Commission related to reconsidering its
outlined procedure in Order No. 34509. First, the Company requests the Commission immediately
implement net hourly billing for new Schedule 6 and 8 customers. Petition at 27. Seoond, the
Company requests, essentially, that the Commission rcconsider requiring that the "scoping phase
[and the] study design phase" be removed fiom the required procedure moving forward. Id. a|30.
As to the issue of immediate implementation of net hourly billing for ncw customers, Boise
City believes this is contrary to reasoning provided in the Commission's Order No. 34509. The
Commission makes clear that it does not intend to make changes to the net metering program until
a fair, credible, comprehensive study is complete. Order No. 34509 at 9. The Commission states,
"Before the Company files a case to change its net-metering program structure, the Commission
must approve the study as credible and fair." Id. This statement by the Commission reiterates that
this docket and any new or continuation of this docket, should not be utilized to change the net
metering program, but instead study the costs and benefits. The Company's request to implernent
net hourly billing attempts to circumvent the requirements the Commission has made clear are
important to achieve before any changes to net metering are implemented.
The Company bases its request to immediately implement net hourly billing on the notion
that moving to net hourly billing from net monthly billing will reduce the inequitable cost shifting
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Page 7
that is occurring between net metering customers and other Company customers. Petition at 28. It
should be noted, though, that the Company bases this assertion on the Company's Initial Study,
which the Commission found was insufficient to meet the requirements of a comprehensive study
or to support the approval ofa Settlement Agreement which included nct hourly billing in its terms.
Therefore, it follows that changes from net monthly to net hourly billing should not be
implemented until a proper study of the potential effects can be conducted and analyzed.
Furthermore, the fundamental argurnent by the Company that net metering customers cause a cost
shift because they are not paying their portion offixed costs is an issue that should be studied and
addressed with rate design as a whole (the purpose of IPC-E-I8-16), not by making program
changes to one category of customers.
Regarding the Company's request to "streamline" procedures, the Company has failed to
demonstrate how deviating from the Commission's proposed procedure will not result in the same
outcome as this current docket. The Company suggests the Commission revise its direction to
allow the "Company [to] file a final study and Export Credit Rate recommendation for
Commission review that incorporates feedback from the Commission, the public, and other parties,
and relies on the most recent data then available." Petition at 31. It appears that this proposal is
likely to result in the same t)?e of outcome as this docket, where the public and ultimately the
Commission are not able to direct and control the nature and contents of the study. Boise City
believes the Commission's requirement that "the final scope of the study be determined by the
Commission" is crucial to achieving the outcome of a fair, credible and comprehensive study.
Order No. 34509.
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPAI'IY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION - Pase 8
III. CONCLUSION
Boise City respectfu y asks that this Commission deny the requests contained in the
Company's Petition. The Company has failed to produce any new evidence or facts that would
support the Commission finding it neoessary to reconsider the aspects raised by the Company's
Petition. Boise City believes the Commission's decision to reject the Settlement Agreement and
grandfather existing customers is reasonable and based on the evidence and information in the
record.
DATED this 17 auv or January 2020.
Gennaine
D City Attomey
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POVr'ER COMPAI.IY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ANID/OR CLARIFICATION Page 9
(
CERTIFICATE OF ERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this l| day of January 2020, served the foregoing
documents on all parties ofcounsel as follows:
Edward Jewell
Deputy Attomey General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
I 133 I W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8
Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
cdu artl. icu cllkr puc.idaho.go\.
O U.S. MailE Personal Deliverytr FacsimileO Electronic Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal DeliveryO FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. MailO Personal Deliverytr FacsimileEI Electronic MeansO Other:
D U.S. Mailtr Personal DeliveryD FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
B U.S. MailO Personal DeliveryO Facsimile
tr Electronic MeansO Other:
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th Street
Boise, ID 83702
botto(r,idahoconscrvation.or
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION Page l0
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Publio Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chiuden Blvd., Building 8
Suite 201-A
Boisc, ID 83 714
di ane.holt(iitnuc.idaho. qov
Lisa Nordstrom
Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
lnordstrorn(0 idahopo wer.com
do c kets(Zl i d ahopower. co m
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
ttatum(dri dahonower.com
caschenbren ner(atid ahopower. com
Idahydro
c/o C. Tom Arkoosh
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
802 W. Bannock St., Suite LP 103
PO Box 2900
Boise, ID 83701
tom.arkoosl.r arkoosh.corr
erin.cecil(@arkoosh.com
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Assn.
c/o Eric L. Olsen
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN PLLC
PO Box 6l l9
Pocatello, ID 83205
clo(aieclroharvk.conr
Ted Weston
Yvonne R. Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Tanple, Suite 330
Salt Lake city, uT 84116
tcd.rveston(i,paci ticom.com
l von ne. ho gl paciticom.com
Briana Kober
Vote Solar
358 S. 700 E., Suite 8206
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
hriana(zrrvotesolar.org
O U.S. MailO Personal DeliveryO FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. Mail0 Personal DeliveryO FacsimileE] Electronic Meanstr Other:
O U.S. Mailtr Personal DeliveryO FacsimileB Electronic MeansO Other:
tr U.S. MailO Personal Deliverytr FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
O U.S. Mailtr Personal Deliverytr FacsimileE Electronic MeansO Other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal Deliverytr FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
David Bender
Al Luna
Nick Thorpe
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 53711
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONS IDERATION
AND/OR CLARIFICATION Page ll
Idaho lrrigation Pumpers Assn.
c/o Anthony Yankel
12700 Lake Ave., Unit 2505
Lakewood, OH 44107
leuy(lyrurkcLqcl
dbondcr(d;carth iustice.org
al rth ustice-o
nthome@'tearthi ustice.orq
Idaho Sierra Club
c/o Kelsey Jae Nunez
KELSEY JAE NLINEZ LLC
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise, ID 83703
kelsev(@kclscyi aenuuez.conl
Zack Watennan
Mike Heckler
ldaho Sierra Club
503 W. Franklin St
Boise, ID 83702
z.ack.watcrm ierraclub.org
[e-mail]
Preston N. Carter
CIVENS PURSLEY LLP
Attorneys for Idaho Clean Energy Assn.
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
prestonczuler(u.)!d venspurslcv.com
Northwest Energy Coalition
c/o F. Diego Rivas
I 101 8th Ave.
Helena, MT 59601
cl i e go (0nrv en ere]". o r g
Northwest Energy Coalition
c/o Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th Street
Boise, ID 83702
botto6did ahoconsery4l!a!t.ols
tr U.S. Mail
D Personal Delivery
tr Facsimile
E Electronio Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal Deliverytr Facsimile
E Electronic Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal Deliverytr Facsimiletr Electronic MeansO other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal Delir.erytr FacsimileEl Electronic Meanstr Other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal DeliveryO FacsimileE Electronic Meanstr Other:
O U.S. MailD Personal Deliverytr Facsimile
Jim Swier
Micron Technology, Inc.
8000 South Federal Way
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAI]O POWER COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AN'D/OR CLARIFICATION Page 12
Boise, ID 83707
iswier(,;)rnicron.corn
E Electronic Meanstr Other:
Austin Rueschloff
Thorvald A. Nelson
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
clarucschho tlloholl andhart. corn
O U.S. Mailtr Personal Deliverytr FacsimileEl Electronic MeansO Other:
tnel son6rLho lland hart. com
Peter J. Richardson
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 N.27th Street
PO BOX 7218
Boise, ID 83702
petcr(.irri chard sonad arns. com
O U.S. MailO Personal Deliverytr FacsimilcE Electronic Mearstr other:
tr U.S. Mailtr Personal Delivcrytr FacsimilcE Electronic MeansD other:
Russell Schiermeier
29393 Davis Road
Bruneau, ID 83604
buyhav(nrqrnail.con.t
O U.S. Mailtr Personal DeliveryD Facsimilem Electronic Meanstr other:
A
D
e
City Attomey
BOISE CITY'S ANSWER TO IDAHO POWER COMPA}TY'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND,/OR CLARIFICATION Page 13
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, ID 83703
dreadin g(rl nrindsprin g.com