20200117Response for Reconsideration.pdf

Preston N. Carter (lSB No. 8462)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Dresloncarter@givensp ursley.com
14 %50_3.docx I1523-31
Attorneys for ldaho Clean Energt Association
RECEIVED
Cll J;,ii I 7 PH 3: 35
.' \: rn r.l
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. IPC-E-18-15
IDAHO CLEAN ENERGY ASSoCIATION,
INc.'s RESPoNSE To IDAHo PowER
CoMPANY'S PETIIoN FoR
REcoNSIDERATToN AND/oR
CLARIFICATIoN
O R IGINAL
ICEA's RESPoNSE To IDAIIo PowER CoMPANY's PETTTIoN T.oR R-ECoNSIDERATIoN AND/oR CLARIFICATIoN - I
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
The Idaho Clean Energy Association, Inc. ("ICEA") submits this Response to Idaho
Power Company's Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification ("Petition").
INTRODUCTTON
After considering the materials in the record, extensive public testimony, and
approximately one-thousand public comments, the Commission rejected the settlement
agreement ("Settlement Agreement") proposed by several parties to this case. ICEA signed the
Settlement Agreement. As expressed in ICEA's comments, the Settlement Agreement
"incorporate[d] some positions that ICEA d[id] not agree with," but, on the whole, represented a
"reasonable resolution of the difficult issues presented by this case." ICEA Comments in Support
of Settlement Agreement at 1-2 (filed Nov. 6,2019). While ICEA stands by these comments, it
also recognizes and respects the Commission's understanding and interpretation ofthe public
testimony. In light of the Commission's determination, ICEA submits that the procedure ordered
by the Commission in Order No. 34509 represents a reasonable path forward.l
In its Petition for Reconsideration, Idaho Power asserts that the parlies engaged in a
"comprehensive study" in a number of"workshops," and that despite public testimony to the
contrary, the public had adequate notice that the case would result in fundamental changes to the
net metering program. Petition at 10-22. On this basis, Idaho Power requests that the
Commission approve the Settlement Agreement. Id
In the altemative, Idaho Power requests that the Commission implement one part of the
rejected Settlement Agreement-net hourly billing-while a limited additional study is carried
or;1.. Id. a127.
ICEA respectfully submits that ldaho Power does not provide a valid basis for the
Commission to reconsider Order No. 34509. If the Commission is inclined to reconsider some
portions ofOrder No. 34509, ICEA submits that Idaho Power's specific requests should be
rejected.
REspoNsE To IDAHo PowER's REeuEsrs
1. The Commission cannot, and should not, implement portions of the Settlement
Agreement in piecemeal fashion.
Idaho Power argues that, ifthe Commission does not accept the entire Settlement
Agreement, the Commission should implement net hourly billing while a Iimited "value of
exported energy" study is carried out. Petition at 27-28.
Net hourly billing was one component of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Settlement
I As ICEA noted in its Petition for Rcconsideration, extending the eligibility for grandfathering to the date on which
a replacement program is adopted will provide clarity and prevent customer confusion. ICEA Petition for
Reconsideration at 3-5 (filed Jan. 10,2020). ICEA stands by this recommendation.
ICEA'S RI.]SPONsE To IDAHo PowER COMPANY,S PETITION FOR RECONSII)ERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION . 2
Agreement at flIV.A.2 As ICEA noted in its comments, the Settlemenl Agreement was intended
to reflect a comprehensive agreement among the parties. It reflected tradeofls made by each
party. Implementing one component of the Setllement Agreement, while ignoring others, is
inconsistent with the entire concept of a settlement agreement. The parties' understanding that
the Settlement Agreement would either be adopted or rejected wholesale is embodied in the
Agreement itself:
The obligations of the Parties under this Agreement are subject to
the Commission's approval of this Agreement in accordance with
its terms and conditions and upon such approval being upheld on
appeal by a court ol competent jurisdiction, if challenged. Only
after such approval, without material change or condition, has
been received shall the Settlement Agreement be valid.
Settlement Agreement flXIII (emphasis added). The Commission should not implement one term
of the Settlement Agreement in piecemeal fashion.
ldaho Power asserts that implementing net hourly billing will "reduc[e] inequitable cost
shifting." Petition at 27-28.ldaho Power has repeatedly alleged that the curent net metering
program creates a cost shift. However, it has never actually proven as much. See Order No.
34147 aI l3 ("The Company's cost-shifting arguments also are unpersuasive. . . . . Despite the
Company's claims about cost shifting and subsidization, we cannot make specific findings
about cost shifting absent evidence and analysis ofcost ofservice, fixed costs, and other rate
design elements." (emphasis added)). Idaho Power has not proven or quantified such a cost shift
in this case. The continued assertions ofcost-shifting do notjustifu immediate imposition ofnet
hourly bilting.
Changing Idaho Power's net metering program belore conducting a comprehensive study
2'l'he proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the Commission as Attachment I to the Motion to Approve
Settlement Agreement (filed Oct. I l, 2019).
ICEA's RESPoNSE Io IDAHo PowER COMPANY'S PE,I.ITIoN FoR RECoNSIDERATIoN ANI)/oR CI,ARII.ICA'TIoN . 3
is inconsistent with the Commission's directives in Order No. 34046 and Order No. 34509. In
Order No. 34046, the Commission created new customer classes for customers with on-site
generation "for pulposes of analysis and not ratemaking," to allow interested parties
"analytical focus as it relates to future ratemaking and compensation." Order No. 34046 at l8
(emphasis added). Consistent with this direction, in Order No. 34509 the Commission made clear
that it expects a study first, and any changes flowing from the study later: "lt is critical for the
Commission to have a credible and fair study in lront of it before it can make a well-reasoned
decision on the Company's net-metering program design." Order No. 34509 at 9 (emphasis
added). The Commission has also made clear that changes to the net metering program must
occur in a separate case: "Before the Company files a case to change its net-metering program
structure, the Commission must approve the study as credible and fair." Id. (emphasis added).
It should be clear enough that the cart (changes to the net metering program) should not
come before the horse (comprehensive study). Ifthat were no1 obvious enough on its own, here
the Commission has specifically ordered that the horse should pull the cart. Idaho Power's
Petition does not provide a good reason to put the cart back in front ofthe horse.
Finally, as the Commission noted in Order No. 34509, this case was noticed as a
comprehensive study. No specific proposals to change the net metering program u'ere proposed
or noticed. ICEA also notes that ldaho Power has provided no testimony to support its proposal
for net hourly billing. Changing the course of the case on reconsideration cannot make up for the
lack ofnotice at the outset ofthe case. It would not be appropriate for the Commission to
implement net hourly billing as a matter of procedure as well as a matter of substance.
For these reasons, ICEA respectfully submits that the Commission reject ldaho Power's
proposal to implement net hourly billing while a limited initial study is carried out.
ICEA's RLSpoNSI To IDAHo PowriR CoMpANy's PL r rl toN l,on RLCONSTDT]R TroN ,\ND/oR CT.ARI-rc.^TroN - 4
2. ICEA docs not agree with ldaho Power's characterization of the settlcment
conferences as a "comprehensive study" that flowed from "workshops."
In its Petition, Idaho Power asserts that "the Parties comprehensively studied the issues as
the Commission directed and filed the analysis in the evidentiary record." Petition at 11. The
Company also states that the pa(ies engaged in "workshops" that "developed an export credit
rate calculation methodology." Id. at 14.
The contents ofthe settlement discussions are confidential. ICEA intends to respect that
confidentiality. Suffice it to say that ICEA strongly disagrees with Idaho Power's
characterization ofthe seftlement discussions as a "comprehensive study" that flowed from
"workshops" and that ultimately led to the parties "develop[ing] an expo( credit rate calculation
methodology." 1d.
The settlement conferences were just that: conferences to discuss settlement. Before each
meeting, a confidentiality statement was read. Each party was required to sign a confidentiality
agreement. Each member ofthe party that received information regarding the contents of
settlement discussions was required to sign a form agreeing to abide by the confidentiality
agreement. While no non-party member of the public attempted to attend, given the
confidentiality statements, any non-party member ofthe public would have been required to sign
a confidentiality agreement. The settlement conferences were not "workshops" within any
reasonable meaning ofthat word.
The result ofthe settlement conferences was, unsurprisingly, a Settlement Agreement.
The Agreement reflected compromises made by the signing parties as to various aspects ofthe
net metering program. The Settlement Agreement does not purport to be a comprehensive study.
None ofthe signing parties agreed that the Settlement Agreement was a comprehensive study.
Indeed, neither the existence, nor the scope, nor the outcome ofany comprehensive study was
ICEA,S RESPoNSD To IDAHo POWI.R COMPANY,S PF,I.I I]oN I-oR RE(.oNSII)I.RA I (}N ANI)/0R CI,ARII,ICA] ION - 5
presented to the Commission in this docket. The materials filed by Idaho Power with the
Commission are just that Idaho Power's materials, that Idaho Power decided to file with the
Commission. Those materials are not part of the Settlement Agreement. ICEA has never agreed,
does not now agree, and never would have agreed that the Settlement Agreement constituted or
flowed from a comprehensive study ofthe costs and benefits ofon-site generation.
Due to confidentiality, ICEA cannot fully rebut Idaho Power's characterizations ofthe
settlement discussions.3 But ICEA strongly disagrees with Idaho Power's assertions that the
settlement discussions constituted a comprehensive study that took place in a series of
workshops.
3. The Commission appropriately considered public testimony.
As the Commission noted, public opposition to the Settlement Agreement was nearly
unanimous. Order No. 34509 at 3.
As a signatory to the Settlement Agreement, ICEA believes that the Settlement
Agreement was a reasonable compromise under the circumstances. Ilowever, ICEA cannot
disagree with the Commission's interpretation of that testimony. ICEA respectlully submits that
reversing course at this stage will only heighten the concems expressed by the public and further
undermine any additional proceedings regarding the net metering program. For this reason,
ICEA does not agree with Idaho Power's petition for reconsideration to the extent that it would
have the Commission disregard public testimony.
3 Idaho Power's attempt to proyide a narrative ofthe setllement discussions comes up against, and perhaps even
crosses, the confidentiality of settlement discussions. .See Petition at l0-2 I (purponing to provide a narrative of what
was presented and discussed in the senlement discussions). Again, due to confidentiality, ICEA cannot fully present
its interpretation ofthe course ofthe discussions. Suffice it to say that Idaho Power's description is one-sided,
incomplete, and appears to be tailored to fit the Company's arguments on reconsideration. Other panies would
undoubtedly present different narratives or interpretations ofthe course ofthe settlement conferences.
ICEA,S REsPoNsI.--1o IDAIIo POWER COMPANY'S PIiI'II ION fOR RECONSID[RAIION AND,/OR CI,ARIFI(]A I'I0\ - 6
4. The Commission's guidance on future steps is appropriate in light of the public
testimony.
In response to the public testimony, the Commission ordered a procedure to complete a
bona./ide comprehensive study with sufficient public input. Order No. 34509 at 9-10. ICEA
agrees that, particularly in light ofthe public comments. a well-defined process such as that set
forth by the Commission is a reasonable path forward. ICEA particularly appreciates the fact that
the final scope olthe study will be determined by the Commission. The three-step process of
designing a study; completing the study; and proposing any changes supported by the study is an
understandable and commonsense way to process the case. ICEA respectfully submits that the
Commission clariry that Staff rather than the Company should take a leading role in crafting
details of the process.
Idaho Power takes the position that the Commission should implement net hourly billing
before the comprehensive study occurs, and that the Commission should then require the
Company to conduct a less-than-comprehensive study that focuses only on the value of exported
energy. Petition al27-30.ICEA respectfully submits that this approach would skip over what
was supposed to occur in this docket-a comprehensive study ofthe costs and benefits ofon-
site generation.a In light of the Commission's rejection of the Settlement Agreement, ICEA
submits that the Commission's guidance on the components of a comprehensive study are
reasonable and should be followed. ICEA requests that the Commission not accept Idaho
Power's offer to implement changes first and to then conduct a less-than-comprehensive study.
During this comprehensive study, parties do not need to entirely reject any work that was
previously accomplished. That work must, however, be presented to and vetted by the public,
a As noted above, ICEA submits that I ) it is not appropriate to implement net hourly billing, one component ofthe
Settlement Agreement, in a piecemeal fashion; and 2) it is inaccurate to characterize the settlement meetings as a
comprehensive study.
ICEA's RESpoNSE To IDAHo Powr-.R CoMpANy's Pr- r'r'rroN l-olr RLCONSTD[RATIoN ,^ND/oR CLARrl.rcATroN - 7
stakeholders, and by the Commission before any changes to the net metering program are
implemented. This is appropriate in light of the public testimony.
5. Comments on the process for reconsideration.
Idaho Power proposes that the Commission grant reconsideration to allow Idaho Power to
l) present additional evidence to support net hourly billing; and 2) present evidence on how to
complete a study that, in Idaho Power's words, "builds on the parties' substantial work to date."
Petition at 35. Again, ICEA rejects the characterization that the materials Idaho Power submitted
in support of the Settlement Agreement reflects the work of the parties. It was a settlement
nothing more, nothing less.
Further evidence cannot address the issues raised by public testimony in this case. Nor is
further evidence on reconsideration a substitute for the fult-blown docket that would be
necessary to implement changes to the net metering program. Finally, here again Idaho Power
proposes to put the cart before the horse and implement changes 10 the net melering progrnm
before engaging in a bona Jide comprehensive study. ICEA respectfully requests that the
Commission decline to accept Idaho Power's olfer to present additional evidence at this time. lf
the Commission does decide to reconsider any portion ofOrder No. 34509, ICEA requests that
the order granting reconsideration make clear that the reconsideration process will not implement
piecemeal portions of the Settlement Agreement and that it will not result in changes to the net
metering program without a comprehensive study.
6. Other issues.
Idaho Power requests clarification on the definition of "customer," as that term is used
for grandfathering purposes. ICEA recognizes the potential confusion over this term, and submits
that the simplest way to resolve tlis confusion would be to apply grandfathering to systems
rather than customers as proposed in the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Richard
ICEA,S RESPoNSE To IDAHo POWER COMPANY,S PH,I.II IoN IoR R-ECoNSIDFjRA,I.IoN ANI/oR CI-ARIFICATIoN - 8
Kluckhohn.
Idaho Power devotes several pages ofbriefing, and numerous pages ofexhibits, on
customer complaints regarding a small number ofsolar installers. Petition at 33-34. It is not clear
how this relates to the request for reconsideration-the Company does not make any specific
requests in this section of its brief. ICEA nonetheless l'eels the need to respond.
In all candor. the statements made by the small number ofinstallers as identified in Idaho
Power's Petition are not the types of statements that should be made by solar installers. The vast
majority of statements, made by the vast majority of installers, do not fhll in line with the sorts of
statements contained in Idaho Power's materials. ICEA submits that it is not appropriate to judge
an industry based off a small number of statements made by a small number olparticipants in the
industry. Part of ICEA's mission is to move the industry forward and to avoid such behavior.
That is why ICEA, for example, supported passage ofthe Residential Solar Energy System
Disclosure Act.
In addition, in response to the statements made by one installer, Idaho Power approached
the appropriate agency, the Attomey General's office, which investigated and concluded that the
actions at issue had been addressed. That is the appropriate method for proceeding-the State's
consumer protection mechanism worked. ICEA fully appreciates that a goal of ratemaking, and
therefore a goal of the Commission, is to implement rates and rate structures tllat are
understandable to the public.s However, the Commission is not primarily an agency devoted to
consumer protection. ICEA respectfully submits that this section of Idaho Power's Petition is not
relevant to the issues currently in front ofthe Commission and should not weigh into any
5 Indeed, as ICEA has repeatedly emphasized, providing rates and rate structues that are consist€nt and
understandable is extremely important to customer satisfaction. The more uncertainty there is, the more likely it is
that customers make investments based not on the merits ofthe investment but, instead, on the assumptions or
presentations made by the solar installer. The more predictable and understandable the rates and rate structures are,
the easier it is for solar installer to provide, and customers to receive, uniform, verifiable, and accurate information.
ICEA,S RTsPoNsI.:To IDAHo PowER CoMPANY,S PETIT]oN FoR RECoNSIDERATIoN AND/oR CLARIFICA,I IoN - 9
decision on reconsideration.
Dated: January 17 ,2020.
GIVENS PURSLt,Y LLP
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
Attorneys for ldaho Clean Energt Association
ICEA,S RESPONSE I.o II)AHo POWER CoMPANY,S PETITION FOR RECONSII)F,RA I ION AND/OR CLARIIICATION - I O
CERTIFICATE OF SE,RVICE
I certify that on January 17, 2020, a lrue and correct copy ofthe foregoing comments
were served upon all parties ofrecord in this proceeding via the manner indicated below:
Commission Staff
Diane l{anian, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Diane.holt(tr)puc idaho.qov
Edward Jewell, Deputy Attomey General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 w. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Edward. [e-mail]
Hand Delivery & Electronic Mail
(Original and 7 Copies)
Electronic Mail
Via Electronic Mail
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrermer
Idaho Power Company
1221 West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
c/o Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Olsen, PLLC
505 Pershing Avenue, Suite 100
P.O. Box 6119
Pocatello, Idaho 8305
[e-mail]
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
c/o Anthony Yankel
12700 Lake Avenue, Unit 2505
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
[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
Tom.arkoosh@arkoosh. com
[e-mail]
ICEA'S RF:SrcNSE To IDAHo PowER COMPA}iY'S PETITIoN FoR RECoNSIDER TIoN AND/oR CI-ARII'ICATIoN . I I
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Power Company
l22l West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise. ID 83707
[e-mail]
dockets@.idahopower.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conversation League
710 North 6th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
[e-mail]
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salr Lake City, UT 841 I 6
ted.weston@p acificom.com
Briana Kober
Vote Solar
358 S. 700 E., Suite 8206
Salt Lake City, UT 84,l02
[e-mail]
Al Luna
Aluna@earthi ustice.ore
Abigail R. Germaine
Boise City Attomey's Office
105 N. Capitol Blvd.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701-0500
asermaine@cityofboise. ors
Zack Waterman
Mike Heckler
Idaho Sierra Club
503 W. Franklin Street
Boise, ID 83702
zack.waterman@sierraclub. org
[e-mail]
NW Energy Coalition
c/o Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 66 Street
Boise, ID 83702
botto@.idahoconservation.o rg
Micron Technology, Inc.
c/o Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Holland & Hart, LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
[e-mail]
tnelson@hol Iandhart.com
ICEA,S RESPoNSE To IDAIIO POWER COMPANY.S PT.;'I,I,I,ION I.oR RECoNSID[RATION AND/oR CI,ARII..I(AI.IoN . I2
Yvonne R. Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
yvonne.ho gle@pacifi corp.com
David Bender
Earthjustice
3916 Nakoma Road
Madison, WI 5371 1
[e-mail]
Nick Thorpe
nthorpe@earthj ustice.org
Idaho Siena Club
c/o Kelsey Jae Nunez
Kelsey Jae Nunez LLC
920 N. Clover Drive
Boise, ID 83703
[e-mail]
F. Diego fuvas
NW Energy Coalition
I 101 8fi Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
[e-mail]
Jim Swier
Micron Technology, Inc.
8000 S. Federal Way
Boise, ID 83707
[e-mail]
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
c/o Peter J. Richardson
Richardson, Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
peter@richardsonadams. com
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, Idaho 83703
[e-mail]
Russell Schiermeier
29393 Davis Road
Bruneau. ldaho 83604
buyhay(Osmail.com
Preston N. Carter
ICEA's REspoNsE To IDAHo PowF.R CoMpANy's PETITioN FoR RF.coNSTDERATION AND/oR Cr-ARIFtcA' oN - l3