20191113Brief.pdf

Preston N. Carter (lSB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
14882435 4.docx [ 1523-3]
Attorneys Jbr ldaho Clean Energt Association
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
l\!UEIVEU
l0l! ll0v I 3 Pl{ 2: 06
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO
S'|UDY COSTS, BENEFITS, AND
COMPENSATION OF NET EXCESS
ENERGY SUPPLIED BY CUSTOMER
ON.SITE GENERATION
Case No. IPC-E-I8-15
IDAHo CLEAN ENsncy AssocrettoN,
INC.,S BRIEF RECARDING TREATMENT oF
ExrsrrNc CusroMERS
ICEA'S COMMEN'I'S RECARDING TREAl MEN]' OI- EXISTING CT'STOMERS O R IGINAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FAcruAL BAcKcRouND...............
1. The components ofthe Net Metering Program dictated customer decisions
regarding system design, system configuration, and other aspects ofonsite
I
generation systems.........
2. The Net Hourly Billing Program will dictate dift'erent decisions regarding
system design, system configuration, and other aspects ofonsite generationsystems............. ............3
3. The options available to customers under the Net Hourly Billing Program are
not reasonably available to customers that participated in the Net Metering
5
ARGUMENT..........6
l.
2.
J.
The Commission is free to distinguish between customer groups that are
di flerently situated. ............
The Commission is free to apply policy changes on a prospective basis........
Customers that participated in the Net Metering Program are distinct lrom
6
7
customers that will participate in the Net Hourly Billing Program.....................................9
4. The Net Hourly Billing Program constitutes a change in policy that can (and
should) appll prospecti\ el) . .......... 1 1
5. It is fair, just, and reasonable to apply the Net Hourly Billing Program on a
prospective basis.................. ................13
6. Specilic proposal regarding customers that participated in the Net Metering
Program,............14
CoNCLUSToN .14
TABLE oF CoNTINTS - i
Pursuant to Order No. 34460, the Idaho Clean Energy Association, Inc. C'ICEA)
submits the following brief rcgarding treatment of existing customers under the Settlement
Agreement filed with the Commission on October 11,2019. This brief is supported by the
accompanying Affidavit of Kevin King in Support of ICEA's Brief Regarding 'Ireatment of
Existing Customers ("King Aff."), which provides factual information to support this brief. If the
Commission would find it helpful, ICEA is prepared to present testimony, whether written or
oral, to provide additional factual information.
FACTUAL BACKGRoUND
1. The components of the Net Metering Program dictated customer decisions
regarding system design, system configuration, and other aspects of onsite
generation systems.
The Net Metering Program for Idaho Power customers, initially established by the
Commission in 1983, has two key components.l First, generation from a customers' onsite
generation system is netted on a monthly basis. That is to say, at the end ofeach month, the
energy exported to the gdd from the customer's generation system is subtracted from the energy
imported to the customer's house or business, and the customer's monthly power bill is the
difference between the energy consumed and the energy exported over the course ofthe month.
Second, a customer receives a kilowatt-hour credit for each kilowatt-hour exported to the
grid. (What counts as an "export" is, as noted above, determined on a net monthly basis.) In this
manner, the customer is neutral as to whether generation is consumed on-site or whether, instead,
the energy is exported to the grid.
r As ICEA understands it, the Net Metering Program was established in 1983. For all thirty-six
years of its existence, ICEA understands that customer consumption and generation has been
netted monthly. As ICEA understands it, except for a 7-year period between 1995 and 2002,
customer exports (measured on a net monthly basis) have been valued at retail, either through a
monetary credit or kilowatt-hour credit.
ICEA's CoMMFrN ls REGARDtNG TRt A TMENT oF ExlsrlNC CtJSToMERS - I
In ICEA's experience, these two components dictate how customers and solar installers
make decisions regarding onsite generation under the Net Melering Program. For example, when
a customer and an installer look at the customer's consumption data. they often-if not a/way.s
looked a1 the customer's arutual consumption data on a monthly basis. King Aff. fl 14. The
customer and installer then considered how different onsite generation systems would generate
energy, again on a monthly basis. /d On this basis of this monthly data, customers considered
how to configure their syslem. Decisions included what size of system to install; how to orient
those systems; what technologies, such as battery storage, to incorporate into the system; and
others. Id fltl 14, 16.
Because exports were measured on a net monthly basis, and because exports were valued
using a kilowatt-hour credit, customers reasonably and justifiably configured their systems
typically-to reflect the customers' peak monthly consumption. Id. n 16. The comparison of
exports and consumption on an intra-monthly basis-not to mention on an hourly basis was at
most a secondary concern. Id. Jl 14. Indeed, Mr. King does not recall a single instance in which a
customer or installer considered or discussed hourly production and consumption data in the
course ol making decisions regarding an onsite generation system. 1d In addition, the timing of
consumption and exports on a month-to-month basis was largely a secondary concem as well;
because net monthly exports were valued on a kilowatlhour per kilowatt-hour basis, customers
were neutral as to whether the energy produced by the onsite generation system was consumed
or exported. Id. n b.
As noted, as dictated by the components of the Net Metering Program, customers
typicatly sized their system based on peak monthly consumption. Id. 1) 16. This was true whetler
peak monthly consumption matched up with the peak monthly generation of the system. Id. n 17.
ICEA's CoMMENTS RECARDINC TRIATMENT oF ExISI.INO CUSToMERS . 2
Customers that (for example) use electric heating experience monthly peak consumption during
the winter months. 1d The monthly peak generation of systems that these consumers often
installed, however, occurred during the summer. 1d. 'l-hese customers, which tend to be more
rural and less affluent than those with natural gas heating, often made decisions on what types of
onsite generation to install (such as solar) and what size ofsystem to obtain (to match peak
monthly consumption) based on the components of the Net Metering Program. ld.
2. The Net Hourly Billing Program will dictate different decisions regarding system
design, system configuration, and other aspects of onsite generation systems.
The Settlement Agreement proposed by the parties, if adopted by the Commission, would
establish a new program, a Net Hourly Billing Program. The Net Ilourly Billing Program has
three key components that are different from the Net Metering Program. First, under the Ne1
Hourly Billing Program, customers' exports are measured on an hourly basis. That is to say,
Idaho Power will measure energy exported to the grid every hour ofevery day. and all this
energy will be considered exports.
Second, customers will no longer be provided a kilowatt-hour credit for exported energy.
Instead, exports will be compensated at a separately established rate. This export credit rate is
completely decoupled from the customers' electrical rates; it differs in value; it will be updated
every two years; and there is no historical data to determine whether the rate will trend upward
or downward.
Third, the Net Hourly Billing Program contains a non-export option. Once the parties
agree on the specific process, customers will have access to a streamlined application process to
install systems that do not export to the grid. This formal progmm was not available under the
Net Metering Program.
ICEA's CoMMENTS R-EGARDING TRIATMENT oF Exrs'r ING CusroM[Rs - 3
1'he key components of the Net Hourly Billing Program dictates that customers and
installers use different data and make different decisions regarding system configuration. First
and foremost, customers and installers will now have to use hourly consumption and hourly
generation data to determine system size, configuration, and to make the other decisions
regarding onsite generation systems. 1d u l8. The need to obtain. interpret, and use net hourly
data is a very large change from the decision-making that has occurred under the Net Metering
Program during the thirty-six years it has been in place. The net hourly exports of customers
differs across customers more than net monthly exports, requiring more customer-specific
system design, configuration, and other considerations. Id. n 19.
Second, the Net Billing Program increases the importance of the timing of a customer's
consumption and of a system's generation. Id. n20. The importance of more closely matching a
customer's consumption and the system's generation will lead to different choices in system size
and configuration. Id While it is difficult to predict precisely how customers will react, Mr. King
anticipates greater diversity in system choices and an increase in systems that are configured to
incorporate technologies such as battery storage that help match system generation with
customers' consumption. /d.
Third, certain segments of customers are unlikely to invest in onsite generation, or at least
in solar onsite generation. In particular, customers whose peak consumption differs widely from
the onsite generation systems' peak generation are not likely to invest in onsite generalion. This
includes, for example, rural customers who use electric heating that would have benefrtted from
the Net Metering Program, but who will not benefit under the Net Hourly Billing Program. /d fl
17. Accordingly. this segment of new customers is unlikely to invest in onsite generation. If
ICEA's CoMMFTN Is REGART)rNC TRFtAl MEN I or ExtsnNG CusroMERs - 4
those customers that invested under the Ne1 Metering Program are forced onto the Net Hourly
Billing Program, those customers' investments will be severely undermined. 1l
Fourth, the Net Hourly Billing Program formalizes a non-export option. This provides
customers with a streamlined process to install systems that do not export to the grid. Id. n22.
ICEA expects more customers to select this option, particularly as technologies such as storage
and electric vehicles continue to develop.
3. The options available to customers under the Net Hourly Billing Program are not
reasonably available to customers that participated in the Net Metering Program.
Customers that made decisions to configure their systems under the Net Metering
Program cannot economically take advantage of systems that comport with the components of
the Net Hour Billing system. H. n23. Customers making decisions under the Net Hourly Billing
Program can take advantage ofbattery storage and other technologies to better time their
generation and consumption; it is not economically feasible to retrofit systems configured under
the Net Metering Program to do so. Id. n24. Customers making decisions under the Net Hourly
Billing Program can size their system based on hourly data; customers that sized their system
based on the thirty-six year history of monthly netting cannot. Id. flf]24,26. And so on.
Customers whose consumption peaks in the wintertime are particularly tied into the
choices made based on the key components of the Net Metering Program. As noted, in Mr.
King's experience, these customers tend to be more rural and less affluent than others. Id. q 17.
These customers relied on annual consumption and generation data, compiled from monthly
data, and tended to size their system such that exports during times of peak generation (typically
summer) offset peak consumption (qpically winter). /r,/. The change to hourly billing. and to an
export credit rate rather than kilowatt-hour credit" will hit these customers particularly hard-the
onsite generation systems that made economic sense under the Net Metering Program do not
ICEA's CoMMENTS RECARDTNG TRIATMEN'r o] Exts NG CusroMuRs - 5
make economic sense under the Net Hourly Billing Program. 1d. These customers' systems
cannot be retrofit with suffrcient storage or other technology to come into alignment with the
components of the new Net Hourly Billing Program. ld.1fl23,26.
Finally, customers under the Net Hourly Billing Program have the option of selecting a
streamlined and formalized non-export option. This streamlined. formalized option was not
available to customers under the Net Metering Program.
ARGUMENT
1. The Commission is free to distinguish between customer groups that are differently
situated.
Under Idaho law, the public utilities must charge rates that are'lust and reasonable."
Idaho Code $ 6l -301. Utilities (and, by extension, the Commission) cannot "establish or
maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other
respect." Idaho Code $ 6l -3 I 5 (emphasis added).
While the Commission cannot maintain unreasonable differences. the Commission is free
to draw reasonable inter- and intra-class distinctions between customer segments. Ulah-ldaho
Sugar Co. v Intermountain Gas Co.,100 Idaho 368,377 (,l979) C'A discrimination as to rates is
not unlawful where based on a reasonable classification corresponding to actual dilference in the
situation of the consumers for the furnishing ofthe service; and a public utility or a municipal
corporation . . . may make reasonable classification as to rates for public service." (intemal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); Grindslone Bulte Mutual Canal Co. v. Idaho Pub.
Utilities Comm'n, 102 Idaho 175, 180 (1981) (noting that the Commission can engage in "rate
differentiation as between classes ofservice, whether those classes be as between schedules or as
between customers within a schedule").
ICEA's CoMMENTS RECARDTNG TRFjATMENt oF ExtsnNC CusloMERS - 6
The Commission has broad discretion to determine whether cuslomers are differently
situated. Factors that may be considered include cost ofservice; quantity of utility used;
differences in conditions ofservice;1he time, nature and pattem ofuse; the actual differences in
the situation ofthe consumers for the fumishing ofthe service; costs of storage; and economic
incentives. Grindstone Butle, 102 Idaho at I 80. This is a non-exclusive list of criteria; the
Commission is free to distinguish between customer groups on other bases as well. 1d
Each case involves a fact-specific exercise ofthe Commission's judgmenl:
Each case must depend very largely upon its own special facts and
every element and every circumstance which increases or
depreciates the value of the property, or of the service rendered,
should be given due consideration, and allowed that weight to which
it is entitled. It is, after all, very much a question of sound and well-
instructed iudgmenl.
1d (emphasis added).
2. The Commission is free to apply policy changes on a prospective basis.
The Idaho Supreme Court has recognized that the Commission is free to make legislative.
policy-based decisions that apply prospectively. For example. in Building Contractors Ass'n of
SW ltlaho v. ldaho Public Utilities Commission,l5l Idaho 10 (2011), the Commission approved
a new line-extension tariff that applied an increased hookup fee to new customers. The increased
hookup fee reflected a change in policy the old hookup fee reflected a policy of imposing upon
new customers a level of investment equal to that ofexisting customers; the new policy reflected
a policy of imposing upon new customers all new costs imposed upon the system. 1d at 15.
The Building Contractors Association ol Southwest Idaho ("Building Contractors")
appealed, arguing that the hookup fee discriminated against new customers. Id. at 13-14. The
Court rejected this argument. Even though the increased hookup fee did indeed distinguish
between old and new customers based on the date the customers were added to the system, the
ICEA's CoMMFiN IS REGARDTNC TREATMENT oF ExlsI tNG CusroMERS - 7
Court held that the fee was not discriminatory because the Commission "made a policy change,"
moving from a level cost of investment to an increased cost for new customers. 1d at 15. In the
exercise of its legislative authority the Commission was free to make such a policy determination
on a prospective bases. 1d
In so holding, the Court distinguished cases in which the Commission attempted to draw
a distinction between customers solelv on the basis ofchronology. 1d. (distinguishing Building
Contractors Ass'n of Sl{ ldaho, lnc. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm'n, 128 Idaho 534 (1996) and
Idaho Stare Homebuilders v. I ash. lVater Power,107 ldaho 415 (1984). Stated another way,
the Cou( in Building Contractors Ass'n distinguished between changes in policy, which could
prospectively be applied to new customers only, and changes in rates, which cannot be applied
solely on the basis of when a customer joins the system.
Synthesizing these cases, the Commission is free to reasonably distinguish between inter-
and intra-class customer segments based on a variety of factors, in the exercise of its sound
judgment. In addition, the Commission can implement policy changes on a prospective basis. It
cannot, however, impose different rates on like-situated customers solely on the basis ofwhen
those customers joined the system.2 As discussed in more detail below, customers that
participated in the Net Metering Program are distinct from customers that will participate in the
2 The caselaw encompasses only decisions that were appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. The
Commission has drawn distinctions that r*ere not appealed and. therefore, that are not embodied
in controlling caselaw. ln perhaps an extreme instance, Idaho Power's tariff refers to
"grandfathered" customers, such as grandfathered mobile home parks. Idaho Power Company
Tariff No. 101, Schedule 3, Master-Metered Mobile Home Park Residential Service at Sheet No.
3-l ("Service under this schedule is available to master-metered mobile home parks included on
the Company's list of 'grandfathered' mobile home parks on file with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission receiving electric service under Schedule 1 as of March 20,2009."). ICEA does not
believe that its proposal constitutes "grandfathering," but regardless that concept does not appear
to be per se unlawful in at least some circumstances.
ICEA,S CoMMENTS REGARDING TREATMENT OF EXIS-I ING CUSTOMERS. 8
Net Hourly Billing Program. In addition, the Net Hourly Billing Program reflects a policy
change that can be applied prospectively. Accordingly, the Commission is free to let participants
in the Net Metering Program continue on that Program, while prospectively implementing the
Net Hourly Billing Program.
3. Customers that participated in the Net Metering Program are distinct from
customers that will participate in the Net Hourly Billing Program.
A customer considering investing in onsite generation must make numerous important
decisions. These decisions include, among other things. what size ofsystem to install; how to
configure the system, including details such as which direcl.ion to orient the system, which
impacts the timing of generation; whether to install battery storage or other technologies to
control the amount and timing ofexports; and others. King Aff. fl 13. Customers that participated
in the Net Metering Program made these decisions based on the key components ofthe Net
Metering Program. In making their decisions, they typically relied upon monthly data, and
annual data compiled from monthly data. regarding their energy consumption. Id.qi14.
Customers and installers typically relied upon monthly data, and annual data compiled from
monthly data, regarding the anticipated generation ofonsite generation systems, both with
respect to size and to configuration ofthe systems. 1d. Decisions regarding storage were made on
the basis ofthis data as well. 1d. flfl 14, 16. These choices were reasonable, given that monthly
netting had remained unchanged for thirty-six years, and that historical hourly data has not been
reasonably accessible to customers and installers. Accordingly, the majority-if not all. or a vast
majority----of onsite generation systems installed by customers under the Net Metering Program
are tailored to monthly measurement of a customer's consumption and a system's generation.
ln addition, customers made decisions that were effectively neutral as to whether the
actual energy produced by the onsite system was consumed, or whether it was exported, because
ICEA.S CoMMENTS REGARDING TREATMENT oI ExISTING CUS.I.oMERS . 9
exports received a kilowatt-hour crcdit Id. fl 15. l'he kilowatt-hour credit component ofthe Net
Metering Progmm was particularly impo(ant for customers whose consumption pattems do not
closely match the system's generation, This system can be seen, for example, in customers that
use electric heating, which tend to be more rural and less aflluent than a typical customer under
the Net Metering Program. ld. n 17 .
Accordingly, the majority-iflnot all, or a vast majority----of onsite generation systems
installed by customers under the Net Metering Program are tailored to monthly measurement of a
customer's consumption and a system's generation. In addition, systems installed under the Net
Metering Program do not typically include storage or other technologies that would more closely
align consumption with generation. /d fl 16.
By contrast, customers that will choose to install onsite generation under the Net Hourly
Billing Program are likely to make decisions based on hourly data. ICEA anticipates that this
will influence the choice that customers make, particularly regarding the size of systems, the
orientation of systems, and whether customers configure their systems to incorporate battery
storage or other technologies. Id. fln 19-21 . In addition, customers are likely to more closely
consider the timing of the customer's consumption as compared to the system's generation. Id f
20. Certain segments of customers, such as customers that use electric heating, are therefore
unlikely to install onsite generation systems, or at least solar systems, at all. And customers are
free to choose a formalized non-export option. Id.1122. As a result, customers that install onsite
generation systems will do so using different sets ofdata, and are likely to install systems of
different size, of different orientation. and that incorporate different technologies. This segment
is likely to not include more rural and less affluent customers that, for example, use electric heat.
ICEA's CoMMENTS R[cARDINC TRIATMENT or ExrsrrNG CTJSToMFRS - l0
Customers that invested in onsite generation under the Net Metering Program cannot
economically convert their systems to meet the components of the Net Hourly Billing Program.
1d. fl 23. For example. system size cannot effectively be changed. Incorporating storage or othsr
technologies does not involve simply buying new equipment; typically the entire system must be
reconfigured, which is prohibitively expensive. ld.n24. Customers, such as those with electric
heating, that u'ould not have invested in onsite generation at all are stuck with their investments.
And the formalized non-export option was not available under the Net Metering Program.
Customers that participated in the Net Metering Program, therefore, cannot readily flow to the
Net Hourly Billing System.
These distinctions between customer subsets provides a sound, factual, and reasonable
basis to distinguish between customers that participated in the Net Metering Program and
customers that will participate in the Net Hourly Billing Program. The Commission need not
draw a distinction based solely on chronology, which may be legally suspect. The Commission
can draw the distinction, based in this unique, discrete, and lactually supported record, based on
the choices customers have made and are likely to make under the respective programs. ICEA
respectfully submits that this will be a caref'ul, supportable, and legal exercise of the
Commission's "sound and well-instructed judgment." Grindstone Bulle, T02Idaho at 180
(intemal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4. The Net Hourly Billing Program constitutes a change in policy that can (and should)
apply prospectively.
As noted, customers that participated in the Net Metering Program are distinct from those
that will participate under the Net Hourly Billing Program. As such, the Commission is free to
distinguish between them. The change from a Net Metering Program to a Net Hourly Billing
ICEA's CoMMENTS REcARDtl.-c TREATMITN'| oF ExrsrlNc Ct;sroMLRs - I I
Program also reflects a legislative change in policy that can be prospectively applied under
Building Conlraclors, I 5'l Idaho at 15.
The policy embedded in the Net Metering Policy involves the Commission's legislative
determination that exports are appropriately valued on a monthly. rather than hourly, basis, even
though monthly netting was less accurate than hourly netting. The Net Metering Policy reflects
the Commission's legislative policy determination that customer exports should be valued by
using a kwh-credit, despite the Commission's prior recognition that valuing exports at effectively
retail rate may overvalue exports. The Net Metering Program also reflects the Commission's
legislative policy determination, consistent with the intent of PURPA, to incent customer
investments in distributed onsite generation. The Commission considered the various
components of the Net Metering Program over the years. While it recognized that, from the
perspective ofcertain attributes of ratemaking, the Net Metering Program may have
imperfections, it consistently made the legislative policy decision to maintain the Program.
The Net Hourly Billing Program reflects a change in policy. In moving to net hourly
billing, it reflects a legislative policy that exports should be considered more accurately, even if
hourly billing is more difficult to understand and to predict than monthly exports. Moving to an
export credit rate that is uncoupled from the retail rate, and that will be updated every two years,
reflects a legislative policyjudgment to move towards an avoided-cost value ofexport, at the
expense ofreducing incentives to invest in on-site generation and an increase in complexity. The
availability of a formalized non-export option also reflects the legislative policy judgment that
customers should be entitled to offset their own consumption without having to export to the
grid.
This shift in legislative policy judgments is analogous to the shift in calculating hookup
ICEA,S CoMMENTS R-EGARDING TRIATMENT OF ExISI,INc CUSToMERS . I2
3 The Cou( also noted that "[tlhere need not be facts in the record supporting the Commission's
policy determinations made in exercising its legislative funclion." Building Contraclors, 151
Idaho at 14 (citation omitted). ICEA submits that a decision grounded in the thcts presented here
would be prudent, but the Commission is not required to base a prospective policy decision on
facts in the record if it chooses that route.
ICEA,S CoMMIINI.S RfCARDING TREATMENT OF EXISTING CUSToMERS - I3
fees in Building Contractors. There, the Commission moved from a hookup fee that was
intended to reflect the approximate average value ofhistorically connecting customers to a
hookup fee that approximated the lull cost ofconnecting new customers. Building Contraars.
141 Idaho at | 5. The Idaho Supreme Court did not require that the Commission go back and
impose increased fees to customers that had hooked up under the old system; it held that thc
Commission was free 1o apply this legislative policy change prospectively to new customers
only . Id.3
5. It is fair, just, and reasonable to apply the Net Hourly Billing Program on a
prospective basis.
As discussed throughout this brief, the Commission implemented the Nct Metering
Program to achieve particular policy goals. Customers and installers responded to the
components ofthat Program and made rational decisions based on those components. lt is not
economically feasible for Net Metering Program customers to convert their systems to meet the
new components of the Net Hourly Billing Program. Allowing customers to continue under the
Net Metering Program will avoid rate shock; will respect the decisions of customers that were
responding to the incentives provided by the Commission; and will facilitate orderly
implementation of the Net Hourly Billing System. ICEA joins the other intervenors in submitting
that it is fair, just, and reasonable to apply the Net Hourly Billing Program on a prospective
basis, and to allow existing customers to continue under the Net Metering Program either
indefinitely or, at the very least, for a reasonable period of time such as twenty years.
6. Specific proposal regarding customers that participated in the Net Metering
Program.
Based on the facts and arguments in this Brief, ICEA requests the following treatment fbr
customers that participated in the Net Metering Program. This request is substantially similar to,
or identical to, the proposals made by ICL, Vote Solar, and potentially other intervcnors.
Close participation in the Net Metering Program 60 days follow'ing the Commission's
Order. and open participation in the Net Hourly Billing Program as ofthat date.
Dcfine participation in the Net Metering Program based on thc date customers submit
their applications.
Allow participants to retain on the Net Metering Program indefinitely, or for at least 20
years.
Define pa(icipants in the Net Metering Program by the system, not by the identity of the
customer.
Prohibit participants in the Net Metering Program from materially increasing system size,
defined as an increase ofup 1o the greater of 100% ofsystem size or lkW.
Coxclusron
ICEA respectfully submits that customers who participated in the Commission's Net
Metering Program are distinct from those that will participate in the Net Hourly Billing Program.
The Net Hourly Billing Program also reflects new legislative policy decisions, which the
Commission can implement on a prospective basis. Further, and perhaps more importantly, it is
fair, just and reasonable for the Commission to honor the choices and commitments made by
participants in the Net Metering Program. Those customers complied with the rules in place at
the time, and were indeed responding to the incentives created by the Net Metering Program.
ICEA therefore respectfully requests that the Commission allow customers to continue under the
Net Metering Program, and to prospectively open the Net Hourly Bilting Program, as set forth in
more detail above.
ICEA's CoMMENI S REGARDING TRLAI MENT oF ExlsrlNc CtisroMERs - l4
a
Dated: November 13, 2019.
CIVENS PURSLEY I,I,P
o -'-I ^-
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
Attorneys for ldaho Clean Energt Association
ICEA,S CoMMENTS R.ECARDING TREATMENT OF EXISTING CUSToMERS - I5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 13, 2019, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing comments
were served upon all parties ofrecord in this proceeding via the manner indicatcd below:
Hand Delivery & Electronic Mail
Edward Jewell, Deputy Attomey General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
I l33l W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Edward.Jewell@Duc. idaho.sov
Elcctronic Mail
Via Elcctronic Mail
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Benjamin J. Otto
ldaho Conversation League
710 North 6th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
c/o Anthony Yankel
12700 Laks Avenue, Unit 2505
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
[e-mail]
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
Idaho Power Company
l22l West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
ttatum@idahopower. com
[e-mail]
Idaho lrrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
c/o Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Olsen, PLLC
505 Pershing Avenue, Suite 100
P.O. Box 61 l9
Pocatello, Idaho 8305
[e-mail]
Idahydro
c/o C. Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offices
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite LP 103
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Commission Staff
Diane Hanian, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
I 1331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201 -A
Boise, ID 83714
[e-mail]
ICEA'S CoMMENTS RECARDING TREATMENT oF ExISTINC Ct]sloMERS - I6
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, UT 841l6
ted.weston@Dacifi com.com
Briana Kober
Vote Solar
358 S. 700 E., Suite 8206
Salr Lake City, uT 84102
otesolar.or
Al Luna
[e-mail]
Abigail R. Germaine
Boise City Attorney's Office
105 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701-0500
asermaine@ci tyolboise.org
Zack Waterman
Mike Heckler
Idaho Sierra Club
503 W. Franklin Street
Boise. ID 83702
zack.w ierraclub.org
[e-mail]
NW Energy Coalition
c/o Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th Street
Boise, ID 83702
dahoconserva n.
Micron Technology, Inc.
c/o Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Holland & Hart, LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
[e-mail]
Jim Swier
Micron Technology, Inc
8000 S. Federal Way
Boise, ID 83707
iswier@mi cron.com
tnelson@.hollandhart.com
ICEA,S CoMMENTS RECARDING TREATMI.NT oF ExIs'TING CUSToMERS. t7
Yvonne R. Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salr Lake city, UT 84116
yvonne.ho gle@pacifi corp.com
David Bender
Earthj ustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 5371 I
dbender(@.earthi ustice.org
Nick Thorpe
nthorpe@earthj ustice.ore
Idaho Sierra Club
c/o Kelsey Jae Nunez
Kelsey Jae Nunez LLC
920 N. Clover Drive
Boise, ID 83703
[e-mail]
F. Diego Rivas
NW Energy Coalition
I l0l 8s Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
dieeo@nwenergy,org
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
c/o Peter J. Richardson
Richardson, Adams, PLLC
5i5 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
lndustrial Customers of Idaho Power
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, Idaho 83703
[e-mail]
Russell Schiermeier
29393 Davis Road
Bruneau, Idaho 83604
[e-mail]
/-"<-.-
Preston N. Carter
ICEA's CoMMENTS I{EC RDING TREATMENT oF ExIS'TING CUSToMERS - I E