20191113Brief.pdf

Benjamin J. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6d Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
R:C E I\D
i:! iic'/ I 3 Fl1 2: I C
.t^
Attomey for the Idaho Consen'ation League
BEF'ORE TIIE IDAHO PUBLIC UI'II,ITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER )
CoMPANY TO STUDY THE COSTS, )
BENEFITS,ANDCOMPENSATION )OFNETEXCESSENERGY )SUPPLIEDBYCUSTOMERON. )
SITE GENERATION )
BRIEF OF THE IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGTIE AND VOTE SOI,AR ON
TREATMENT OF EXISTING CIIS'I'OMERS
NO\TEMLILR 13.2019
CASE NO. IPC.E-I8-15
I I. Introduction and Background
2 Idaho Conservation League ("ICL") and Vote Solar respectfully submit this brief
3 addressing the treatment ofcustomers with existing on-site generation pursuant to the
4 Commission's October 17,2019, Notice of Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement, Notice of
5 Briefing and Notice of Schedule ('Notice"). In Order 34046 the Commission asked for
6 "arguments relating to protecting investments already made" by existing customer-generators
7 prior to implementing the new program parties devised for the future. ICL and Vote Solar
8 respectfully urge the Commission to allow existing customers with on-site generation to continue
9 to receive compensation lbr the electricity they send to the utility through the existing Net
10 Energy Metering C'NEM) Program. Allowing legacy customers to access to the NEM Program
I I allows those customers a reasonable opportunity to protect investments predicated on a monthly
12 netting arrangement instead ofthe very detailed nuances ofthe proposed luture Net Hourly
l3 Billing Program that rvill cause important changes in system design and investment.
14 A. Background on ICL and Vote Solar.
l5 ICL is ldaho's leading voice for conservation with approximately 11,000 members, most
16 ofwhom are Idaho Power Company ("Company") customers. Our energy program seeks to
17 implement policies, regulations, and practices that support energy conservation, customer-o\,med
I 8 generation, and transitioning utility-scale generation from fossil fuels to clean energy. Vote
l9 Solar is an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit working to repower the U.S. with clean energy by
20 making solar po\\'er more accessible and affordable through eff-ective policy advocacy. Vote
2l Solar seeks to promote the development ofsolar at every scale, liom distributed rooftop solar to
22 large utility--scale plants. Vote Solar has over 80,000 members nationally, including members in
IPC-E- l8- l5
ICL and VS Brief on Existing Customcrs
I
1 Idaho Porver Company's service territory. Vote Solar is not a trade group and it does not have
2 corporate members.
3 ICL and Vote Solar participated in the seftlement discussions in this proceeding that
4 resulted in the Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement filed on October I1,2019 ("Settlement
5 Agreement"). ICL and Vote Solar did not join the Settlement Agreement. However, because
6 other parties to the negotiations wished to settle under the proposed terms, IC[, and Vote Solar
7 agreed not to oppose the Settlement Agreement, as currently \lritten.
I B. The Proposed Settlement Agreement.
9 The Settlement Agreement w'ould establish "Net Hourly Billing," which provides a
10 financial credit to customer-generators for electricity that those customers export to the utility on
I I a net hourly basis.r That represents a significant change from the current NEM Program, which
12 tracks flows of electricity to and from the customer-generator as kilo*'att-hours ("kWh") and
13 nets the bidirectional flow over the monthly billing period. Net Ilourly Billing not only values
14 exported electricity differently, but significantly alters the overall economics ofa customer's
15 investment in on-site generation. In simple terms. electricity used within the same hour it is
l6 produced is valued at the retail rate, while exports are valued significantly less. Net Hourly
l7 Billing discourages exports and encourages near-simultaneous consumption ofelectricity
l8 produced on-site. Thus. while traditional NEM encouraged customers to design generation to
l9 match annual energy usage without regard to temporal matching to load, Net Hourly Billing *'ill
20 encourage customers to design generating systems and change consumption pattems to align
2l generation and consumption to a greater degree. That change is more than a change in prices. It
22 is a fundamental program change that will alter the economics, the lvpe ofcustomcrs
I Scttlement IV(A)
[PC-E- l8- l5
ICL and VS Bricfon F)xisting Customers
2
1 participating, and the design of generating systems and usage pattems ofparticipating customers.
2 It would also impact existing solar owners differently. Those customers already made
3 investments based on the NEM Program and are severely restricted in the types ofchanges they
4 can make 1o respond to the Net l{ourly Bitling Program. Unlike new customers who can respond
5 to the Net Hourly Billing Program by choosing whether to participate and, if so, how to design
6 their generating equipment, customers who already installed on-site generation in response to the
7 NEM Program would be stuck with the avl'kward fit of generation designed for one program
8 being forced into a very different one. Many ofthose systems have significant existing life left
9 and will not provide the expected retum on the investment for many years.
l0 The Commission can avoid the inequities of forcing customers with high sunk costs for
1l existing generation designed for one program into the contours ofa very different program that
12 they cannot reasonably adapt their systems to match. The Settlement does not resolve treatment
l3 ofcustomers with existing on-site generation currently taking service under the NEM Program.
14 The Commission must determine how to treat those customers.
t5 ll. It is l.-air And Reasonable To Continue To Provide The Program Relied Upon
t6 By Customers Who Previously Invested In On-Site Generation.
t7 When the Commission implemented the NEM Program in 2002 in Case No. IPC-E-01-39
it established a clear, and easy-to-understand program for customers installing on-site generation.
ln the Company's own u,ords the NEM Program "was intcnded to facilitate the development of
small resources and w-as spccifically designed to providc a simple, standardized interconnection
arrangement utilizing a single, inexpensive watt-hour meter."2 At the time, there was a single
2 Aschenbrenner Direct Testimony filed in IPC-E-17-13 at p. 7. ln.l l -15
IPC-F:- t8- 15
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
l8
19
20
2l
1 customer with on-site generation and two pending applications.3 Since then, roughly 4,200
2 residential and small commercial customers responded to the signal sent by the Commission in
3 2002 and interconnected under the NEM Program.a Idaho families and small businesses invested
4 their private funds, at times linked to personal plans for retirement savings, or college savings, in
5 local clean energy resources because the Commission's NEM Program encouraged them to do
6 so. Those Idahoans invested large amounts oftheir personal finances based on anticipated
7 payback over the decades olelectricity production expected fiom that investment.
8 The Commission should recognize that approving the NEM Program in 2002 inlluenced
9 which customers participated and how they designed generating systems, resulting in significant
I 0 personal investments, in response to that program. The Commission may choose to change
11 program design going forrvard, as it does *'ith other programs like line extension programs, but
12 prior investments cannot be unwound and reallocated to respond to new terms. Without
13 accommodation, those prior investments are at risk, sending an economic signal that responding
l4 to Idaho energy policies comes *'ith high investor risk. That, in tum, signals caution to all
15 customers and investors considering any future program offerings by utilities, undermining the
l6 ability to attract investments and participation in beneficial luture programs. The Commission
17 should avoid changing the rules on the families and small businesses after they responded, as
I 8 intended and designed, to a program set by the Commission. 'Ihose customers should be allowed
l9 to see the benefits ofthe investments they made.
20 Of the handful ofstates that changed from traditional net metering to alternate
2l compensation programs, all have protected customers u'ith existing generation. In some cases,
I Aschenbrenner Direct Testin.rony fited in IPC-E-17-13 at p. 5, tn. 14-17.
a See Attochntenl 1, Idaho Power Response to Votc Solar Production Request l8
tPC-E- l8- 15
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
l
I that protection was applied at the same time as the program change.5 In other cases, legacy
2 treatment was retroactively applied after political blowback. For example, in late 2015 and early
3 2016, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission changed from traditional NEM and applied that
4 change to both new and existing customers.6 That resulted in significant public outcry as u,ell as
5 litigation, ultimately leading to a court order reversing the application to existing customers, the
6 Commission separately reversing course less than a year later, and, ultimately, to landmark
7 legislation reinstating NEM for existing participants and creation ofa "tiered" crediting program
8 going forrard that guarantees a level of credit for twenty years.T As another example, the
9 Kansas Corporation Commission changed that state's traditional NEM program eft'ective
l0 September 27,2018, but made the changes applicable to customers r.vho had interconnected
11 generation since October 28,201s-three years prior to the effective date ofthe change.8 Less
12 than a year later, after public outcry, the utility and commission reversed course and extended thc
rrsc.lorce.com/sfc/servlet.shepherd,/versioddownload/068t0000004SM3yAAG.
6 Public Utilities Clommission of Nevada. Docket Nos. I 5-07041 and I 5-07042.
7 NRS 704.773(8 ).704.7732; Nevada Public l-ftilities Commission, "Nct Mctcring in Nevada".
available at htt uc,nv oviRcncr'vable F.ner-,Net Meterin : Duanc Johnson , A B 105 uim.t
to reviNe state soler power inclustrr-, (June 12, 2017),https ://wwrv.nnbw.com/news/ab-405 -aims-
to-revive-state-solar -nower-induslrv/.
8 Order Approving Non-Unanimous Stipulation and Agreement, In re .ktinl Application of
ll'estar Energt, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric Compuny for Appro'-al to Make Certain
Changes in their (lharges for Electric Service.s, Docket No. l8-WSEE-328-RTS (Kan. Corp.
Comm'n Sept. 27, 2018).
:ll
,stPC-E-18-15
ICL and VS Brief on Existing Customers
s See e.g., Order at p. 167-68, In re DTE Electrit' Co. Jbr Authority to Increase its Rates, Amend
its Rate Scheclules ond Rules Governing the Distribution and Supply of Electric Energt andJbr
Miscelluneous Accounling Aulhorir,, Case No. U-20162 (Mich.Pub.Serv.Comm'n, Ma;- 2, 2019)
(explaining that a change from traditional net metering to an inflorv/outflow rate for customers
with generation does not appll' to customers participating in traditional net metering prior to the
date of the commission order adopting the rcplacement program), available at https://mi-
e See Ordcr Approving Joint Application. ln re Joint Application of'Westar Energ;, Inc. and
Kansas Gas and Electric co.for Ameru.letl tt the Grandfathering Dates in lhair RS-DG ontl RS
Tnrffi, DocketNo. l9-WSE,E-474-TAR (Kan.Corp.Comm'n Aug. 6,2019) available at
http ://cstar. kcc.ks. gov/estar/Vier.r'File.aspV20 I 90806 I I 2956.odlf Id:3034b675-fddO-49ef'-b25 7-
cc6bc63bc720
10 Decision No. 75697. ACC DocketNo. E-04204A-15-0142,119 5-17 (Aug,. 18,2016).
rr Decision No. 75859, ACC Docket No. E-00000J- 14-0023, 156:10-13 (Jan. 3. 2017), as
amended by Decision No. 75932 in the same proceeding.
t2 Id. Atp. 156, ln.t4-17.
rPC-E- l8- l5
ICL and VS Briefon Existing CustomeB
I legacy rate date from October 28, 2015 to October 1, 2018-after the el'fective date of the
2 change.e
3 Presumably, to avoid the problems of Nevada, regulators in Arizona and Utah
4 implemented changes to traditional NEM while simultaneously including clear proteclions for
5 existing customers. The Arizona Corporation Commission rejected IINS Electric's attempt to
6 change NEM for customers who installed generation prior to the Commission's order adopting
7 the changes.l0 Instead, the Arizona Commission ruled that the change would only apply to
8 customers who installed generation after a date follou'ing the commission's final order.
9 Customers with existing generation r.l'ere allowed to "continue to utilize currently implemented
10 DG-related rate design and net metering for a period of20 years from the date a DG system
I I requests intcrconnection. Existing customers u,ith DG systems u,ill be subject to currently-
12 existing rules and regulations impacting DG."rr As the Arizona Commission explained, it views
l3 typical rate changes that all customers see liom time to time differently than a significant change
14 to net metering policy that customers relied upon to make long-term investments:
15 We also take this opportunity to clarify that this default policy is not intended to shield16 clstomers with DG systems from generally applicable rate design changes, such as17 changes for the basic service charge. It is. instead, intended to oreserve the expectations
I 8 that customers with DG systems may have relied upon when they chose to adopt DG19 technology.l2
20 Similarly, when the Public Service Commission of lJtah ('UPSC") changed from
2l traditional NEM. it protected existing customers from those changes. Existing customers were
6
1 defined as those who applied for net metering as ofa future date to take place months after the
2 UPSC's order.13 Unlike the legacy rate treatment programs in Nevada and Arizona, which run
3 for 20 years from the date that a customer installs generation, the Utah program provisions a
4 transition period until a set date of December 3 1, 203 5.14 That provides a minimum of 18 years
5 of legacy NEM Program access for the last customers, but longer than 20 years for systems
6 installed prior to 2015.
7 The UPSC stated:
8
9
10ll
t2
13
t7
t4
l5
16
We find the Grandfathering and Transition Periods constitute ajust and reasonable
mcchanism to address concerns about the long-term viability and rate fairness ofthe NM
Program while providing adcquate price signaling to DG Customers and insulating them
and other stakeholders fiom signilicant, abrupt changes in ratc stmcture.ls
Tellingly, Rocky Mountain Power abandoned its initial proposal to sub.iect existing
customers to the change. recognizing through the course of the proceeding "that abrupt changes
u'ould have negative repercussions to [their] customers, the solar industry, and the state"l6 and
ultimately supporting a traditional NEM program for customers who installed generation prior to
the change. In fact, Rocky Mountain Power takes a similar position in its application here in
Idaho.rT
The policies set lbrth in the tbregoing states provide critical protections to existing
customers and ensure that customers making new'investments in distributed generation are au'are
ofthe program design so that they can reliably ueigh whether or not an investment in local clean
rr Order Approving Settlement Stipulation, In re Investigation of the ('osts and Benefits of
PaciJiCorp's Net Metering Progrdn, Docket No. 14-035-114, p. l5 (LJtah P.S.C., Sept. 29,
201 7), https://pscdocs.utah.sov/electric/ 14docs/ 1403 5 1 14/2970361 403 5 I I 4oass9-29-201 7.pdf.
t4 ltl. p. 5.
rs,lrl. p. 15.
t6 ld. at p. 14.
r7 Rocky Mountain Porver Application in Idaho PUC Docket No. PAC-E-19-08.
IPC-E-18-15
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
18
19
70
2l
1
1 energy makes sensc for their families and small businesses. To ICL and Vote Solar's
2 knorvledge, no state regulatory commission that changed from traditional NEM policies
3 ultimately imposed those changes on customers who invested in generation prior to the effective
4 date olthe change. Typically. those changes applied only to customers adopting generation at
5 some time after the order approving the new program. In this proceeding, the Commission
6 should lollow that best practice and avoid the public controversies when changes to NEM were
7 initially imposed on existing customers. The Commission should provide continued access to the
8 NEM Program for existing customers to allow them the abitity to receive the benefit oftheir
9 inveslment made in response to the program that this Commission previously set.
l0 IIt. Thc NEM Program Should Remain Open to Existing Customers flnder Reasonable
ll Tcrms.
12 lf the Commission approves the neu'Net Billing Program, as outlined in the Settlement
Agreement, it should allow residential and small commercial customers with existing on-site
generation legacy access to the NEM Program. Doing so provides customers w'ho already
invested in response to a prior program design the chance to receive the benefit intendcd by that
program and investment. Existing customers should continue to receive credit lor their excess
energy netted against consumption monthly on a kWh basis. the ability to carry forward any
kWh balance 1o luture months.
To accomplish these goals, ICL and Vote Solar rccommend adopting the lollowing
provisions:
o Set NEM Program Enrollment Deadline 60 days following the Commission's order.
Customers who install generation make significant investments of time and resources
towards installing generation, often months in advance ofthe actual interconnection date
tPC-E-lE- l5
ICL and VS tlriefon Existing Customers
l3
14
l5
t6
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
.:J
8
The Commission should use a date 60 days follon'ing the effective date ofan order
approving a ne\4,Net Hourly Billing Program so that customers who already devoted time
and resources and are in the process ofdesigning and installing generation are included.
Define eligibility based on application. Installing generation involves many steps from
initial discussion vvith a professional to completion. Many of those steps are outside the
customcr's control. To allow customers to have control over their eligibility for the
NEM Program, the Commission should base qualification on r.vhat the customer can
control: submitting a completed Net Metering Application. including payment of the
$100 application fee. To the extent the Commission has concerns about customers
applying onl)'to reserve NEM Program Access, without an actual intent to install
generation, under the current process, applications expire if generation is not
interconnected within one year. The Commission can provide that expired applications do
not qualify for legacy NEM Program access.
Keep the NEM Program open to existing customers indefinitely or for a minimum
of20 years. It is appropriate for the Commission to allorv existing customers indefinite
access to the NEM Program, however, to the extent that the Commission is concemed
about such an open-ended approach, legacy NEM Program access should be granted for a
minimum of 20 years from the NEM Program Enrollment Deadline, consistent with the
best practices from other states and similar to the warrantied liletime of a typical solar PV
investment.
Allorv existing customers the option to transition to the Net Billing Program. Legacy
enrollment on the NEM Program should be optional. Existing customers should be
allor.ved, at their sole discretion, to opt into the Net Billing Program. However, once a
a
l8
1q
20
]l
22
9
;-r
IPC-E- l8- t5
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
l1
t2
l3
14
l5
t6
l7
2
customer transitions to the Net Billing Program, that customer should not be eligible to
re-qualifu for legacy NEM Program access.
Apply NEM Program status to the system, not the customer, Eligibility for legacy
access to the NEM Program for existing customers should be connected to the physical
installation. not to the customer. That allows customers to sell their homes and receive
the fair value for the generating equipment based on the investment expectation at the
time the equipment was installed. The new buyer would continue to receive service
under the NEM Program. Conversely, an ou.ner of a system enrolled in the NEM
Program does not quali$, for NEM Program enrollment for a second system or a neu'
system at another residence.
Prohibit material increases to system size. Ifa customer modifies their generation
system to include a material increase in capacity, they will no longer be eligible for
continued effollment in the NEM Program and rvould be transferred to the Net Billing
Program. A material increase in capacity should be defined as I 0% of existing capacity
or 1 kW, w'hichever is greater.r8
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
l3
14
l5
l6
t7
I8
l9
20
a
IV. Forcing Customers With Existing On-site Generation Onto the Nerv Net Billing
Program Would Have Severe and Detrimental Impacts to Those Customers While Having
Nominal Impacts on Other Customers.
ICL and Vote Solar analyzed customer information provided fiom the Companl- through
discovery 1o determine the impact to existing customers of cnrollment on the Settlement
18 A reasonable threshold for maleriality is important due to technolog"v changes and market
availabiliry" ofccrtain products over time. For example, ifa tree falls on an individual pancl, the
custorner seeking replacement may find that the exact model of the existing panel is no longer
available and small modilications to capacity may be required.
IPC-E-18-15
ICL and VS Brie f on Existing Customers
l0
I Agreement's Net Billing Program.re That analysis included: (1) a simple payback analysis to
2 determine the impact of the Net Billing Program on each customer's ability to recoup their
3 investment costs; and (2) a bill impact analysis to determine the increase in customer bills if
4 customers were forced onto the Net Billing Program.
5 For the simple payback analysis, ICL and Vote Solar identified 1.375 residential
6 customers and 29 small general service customers that had both complete 2018 load data, and a
7 single solar DG system that was installed in or after 2009. ICL and Vote Solar then conducted a
8 20-year simple payback analysis lbr each customer beginning the year that the customer installed
9 generation, taking into account how IPC's rates and prices for rooliop solar have changed over
l0 the last ten years.2o
l1 Results of the simple payback analysis demonstrate that enrollment on the Net Billing
12 Program would have significant and adverse impacts on individual customers' ability to recoup
l3 their investments. ln fact, more than 30 percent of customers analyzed would have their
14 investments rendered uneconomic as a result of the transition to Net Bilting.2l That ratio applied
l5 to currenl customer levels means that roughly 1,300 families and small businesses would have
16 their investments put underwater if forced onto the Settlement Agreement's Net Bilting Program.
l7 The bill impact analysis was conducted using similar information. but for a broader
18 portion ol'the sample. The broader sample was employed because the bill impact analysis is less
l9 complex and does not require assumptions as to historic rates and investment costs. In total. the
te See Attachmenl 1, Idaho Power Response to Vote Solar Production Requcst 15.
20 Historic rates were obtained in discovery from IPC and included here in Attachment l,ldaho
Porver Response to Vote Solar Production Request 16. Historic solar install prices rvere based on
LBNL's Tracking the Sun report and scaled to Idaho-specific cost data.
https:i/qmp.lbl.eov/sites/default/files/track reoort.pdf
2l For purposes ofthis analysis. "uneconomic" systems were dellned as those thal did not
achieve simple pa"vback rvithin a 20-year timeframc.
IPC-E- r 8- l5
ICt, and VS Briefon Existing Customers
ll
I bill impact analysis looked at 1,524 residential and 34 small commercial customers.22 Individual
2 customer bills were calculated under the terms of the current NEM Program and the Settlement
3 Agreement's Net Billing Program to analyze the impact of that change for each customer. ICL
4 and Vote Solar quantilied the increase in customer bills between the NEM Program and the Net
5 Billing Program in 2028 once the Export Credit Rate is expected to be fully implemented.23 The
6 results show that the average existing residential customer-generator's monthly bill u,ould
7 increase roughly $17.00, or 25o%, on the Net Billing Program when compared to the NEM
8 Program and the average monthly bill paid to Idaho Power by an existing small commercial
9 customer-generator would increase roughly $14.00, or 28%. Figure I and Figure 2 below
l0 provide the distribution ofimpacts in dollar and percentage increase, respectively for residential
I I and small commercial customers combined.
22 The bilt impact analysis looks at all customers with a complete -vear of data in 2018 and
includes customers with multiple on-site generation systems as w'ell as customers rvith non-solar
distributed gcneralion systcms.
23 While bill impacts will phase in over time as the Export Crcdit Rate is phased in, the full
impacts ol'movemenl to the Net Billing Program w'ould bc bome in 2028. As outlined in the
Settlement Agreement. the Net Billing Program would open in 2020 u'ith an Blended IJase
Energy Rate of $0.0860,4<Wh tbr residential customers and S0.l0222ikWh for small commercial
customers and rvould transition over a period of 8 years to the Export Credit Rate. initially set at
$0.04406,&Wh for residential customers and $0.04956 lor small commercial customers. While
ICL and Vote Solar expect that retail ratcs as well as the Exporl Credit Ratc would change over
time, the analysis assumcs that rates ofincrease would track inflationary increases, results are
therefore presented in 2020 dollars.
IPC-E-18-15
ICL and VS Brielon Existing Customers
ll
t
E
U
e
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Figure l: Bill Impact of Transition to Net Billing Program, $2020/month
Ss-Jlo Sl0-Sl5 S15-S20 S2Gt25 525-130 $3G$35 t35'$40 S40-t45 $45-350 Ovcr S50
Morlhly lill lDcrci!.
s- s0-15
2
)Figure 2: Pcrccnt Bill Impact of Transition to Net Billing Program
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0yo 0-10% l0-209'D 20-309/0 30-4096 40-50% 50-60% 60"7()r/0 70-8Oo/.8(190% 90.lgi% Ov€r
10(P6
, Ilonrhty Bill Imprcl
5 As shorvn in [igure 1 and Figure 2. impacts to individual customers will vary. Customers
6 that export a small portion of the energy that they generate on-site will have lower impacts
7 associated w'ith migration to the Net Billing Program when compared to customers that expo( a
8 larger amount olthe energy they produce. However, if the Commission orders existing solar
9 customers onto the Net Billing Program, the average residential customer-generator rvould see a
l0 25%o increase in their monthly bill and the average small commercial customer-generator rvould
IPC-E- t 8- l5
ICL and VS Brief on Existing Customers
tl
t ln.-.,r_r[l
[_]
1 see a 27Yo increase. ln addition, roughly 31% ofresidential customers and 24Vo of small
2 commercial customers, over 1,300 families and small businesses, will see bills increase more
3 than 100%, an average bill increase of $24lmonth.
4 Increases of 25%o-28Yo on average, and causing 1,300 customers to see bills rise by more
5 than 100%, is dramatic and would be shocking to those customers. That is especially true since
6 the bill increase would not be caused by a change in the customer's usage, behavior, or costs.
7 Rather the Commission would impose this impact on people merely by changing policy after
8 these Idahoans made investments in their homes and businesses.
9 This large impact to customer-generators in not offset by providing any meaningful
10 protection or benefit to other Idaho Power customers. ICL and Vote Solar's analysis shows the
11 impact ofproviding continued NEM Program access for existing customer-generators has r1e
12 minimus impact on other customers. As of August 2019,4,164 residential customers and 48
13 small commercial customers had interconnected on-site generation systems24 and an additional
14 733 residential and 4 small commercial customers had submitted applications for
15 interconnection.25 This constitutes roughly 1% ofthe residential class and 0.2% ofthe small
l6 commercial class. [f all of these customers were allowed to remain on the NEM Program rather
l7 than be placed on the Net Billing Program, the impact to a typical residential customer would
l8 only be $0.18 per month.2{'F'or context, this amount is roughly hallofthe amount the typical
19 residential customer pays for the S4.2 million in annual base salaries that are given to Idaho
20 Poxer Company's CEO and executive officers.27 In short, forcing customers w'ho made
2a See Attuc,hmenl 1, Idaho Po*'er Rcsponse to Vote Solar Production Request 17.
2s See Atluchment 1, Idaho Power Response to Vote Solar Production Request 18.
26 Mcasured in current-year dollars lbr the 1.'ear 2028 when thc Export Credit Rate would be fully
implemented.
2i 2018 FERC Form 1, page 108.
IPC-E- l8- l5
ICL and VS Brief on lixisting Customers
l.l
I investments in generation based on the Commission-approved NEM Program onto the
2 Settlement Agreement's Net Billing Program would lead to drastic bill increases lor those
3 customers with no meaningl'ul benefit for others.
4 V. Conclusions and Recommendations
5 ICL and Vote Solar respectfully urge the Commission to protect the Idaho families and
6 small businesses who spent large amounts oltheir own money to install local clean energy and
7 cnroll in the NEM Program. Forcing those customers immediately onto the Net Billing Program
8 that they had no reasonablc means to anticipate rvhen they made their investment undermines not
9 only their finances but the ability of this Commission to implement programs that customers can
l0 trust and rely on. In its comments in support of the Settlement Agreement Commission Stalf
11 characterized the Settlement Agreement as addressing a "long list of complicated and sometimes
12 contentious issues."28 A failure to protect existing customers u'ho u'ould have no reasonable
l3 means of foreseeing the outcome ofthese complicated and contentious issues rvould have severc
14 and detrimental impacts on a small number of customers but de minimus impact on non-
l5 participants.
16 As a result, ICL and Vote Solar recommend the following:
17 r Set NEM Program Enrollment Deadline 60 days following the Commission's order.
l8 The Commission should use a date 60 days follor.ving the effective date of an order
19 approving a new Net Hourly Billing Program so that customers in the process of
20 designing and installing generation are included.
2l . Define eligibility based on application. 'l o allou'customers to have control over their
22 eligibility for legacy NEM Program access, the Commission should base qualification on
28 Staff Comments on the Settlement Agreemcnt at page 3.
IPC-E- t 8- l5
ICL and VS Brief on Existing Customers
l5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ll
t7
l2
IJ
l4
l5
t6
a
what the customer can control: submitting a completed Net Metering Application.
including payment ofthe $ 100 apptication fee. Expired applications should not qualifu
for legacy NEM Program access.
Keep the NEM Program open to existing customers indefinitely or for a minimum
of20 years. It is appropriate for the Commission to allow cxisting customers indefinite
access to the NEM Program, however, to the extent that the Commission is concemed
about such an open-ended approach, legacy NEM Program access should be granted for a
minimum of 20 years from the NEM Program Enrollment Deadline.
Allow existing customers the option to transition to the Net Billing Program.
Existing customers should be allowed, at their sole discretion, to opt into the Net Bitling
Program. However, once a customer transitions to the Net Billing Program, that customer
should not bc eligible to re-qualily for legacy NEM Program access.
Define NEM Program status by the system, not the customer. Eligibility lor the
legacy access to the NEM Program for existing customers should be connected to the
physical installation, not to the customer. That allo*'s customers to sell their homes and
receive the fair value lor the generating equipment based on the investment expectation at
the time the equipment rvas installed. The new buyer u'ould continue to receive sen ice
under the NEM Program. Clonversely, an owner ofa system enrolled in the NEM
Program does not qualily fbr NEM Program enrollment for a second system or a ne\\'
system at another residence.
Prohibit material increases to system size. If a customer modifies their generation
system to include a material increase in capacity they rvill no longer be eligible for
continued enrollment in the NEM Program and would be transferred to the Net Billing
10
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
tPC-E- t8- l5
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
l(r
I
)
Program. A material increase in capacity should be defined as l0% ofexisting capacity
or 1 kW, whichever is greater.
Respectfully submitted this 13s day ofNovember 201
njamin J.
Idaho Conservation League
Local Council Vote Solar
IPC-E-18-r5
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
l7
Benjamin J. Otto (lSB No. 8292)
710 N 66 Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attomey for the Idaho Consen'ation Leaguc
tsL,tORh lHt'. II)AHO PLIBLIC tl llLITIES CO\IMISSION
IN THE N{ATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY TO STTIDY THE COSTS,
BENEFITS, AND COMPENSATION
OF NET EXCESS ENERGY
SUPPLIED BY CUSTOMER ON-
SITE GE,NERATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E,.I8-I5
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEA(;UE AND VO'I'E SOLAR BRItrF ON EXISTING
CTISTOMf,RS
ATTACHMENT I
(COMPACT DISC WITH DISC()VERY RESPONSES)
IPC-E-18-15
ICL and VS Briefon Existing Customers
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certity that on this 13th day ofNovember 2019 I delivered true and correct
es of the foregoing BRIEF ON EXISTING CUSTOMERS to the following via the method
ted
J. Ort
Hand Delive
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary (Original and seven copies provided)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise, lD 83702-5983
Electror.ric Mail Onlv:
D.{l0
IPUC
Ed Jewell
Deputy Attomey General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Edw-ard j ewell @puc. idaho. gov
Idaho Power
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
dockets@idaho po\4,er.com
Idaho lrrigation Pumpers Associalion
Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Otsen PLLC
[e-mail]
Anthony Yankle
[e-mail]
IDAHYDRO
C. Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh [,au, Offices
T'om. arkoosh@arkoosh. com
[e-mail]
IPC-E-18-15
ICL and Vote Solar
Certificate of Service
Roclry Mountdin Power
Yvonne R. Hogle
Ted Weston
Yvonne.hogle@paci fi corp.com
Ted.weston@pacifi corp.com
Vote Solar
Briana Kobor, Vote Solar
[e-mail]
David Bender, Earthj ustice
dbender@earthj ustice.org
Al Luna, Earthjustice
al una@earthj usticc.org
Nick Thorpe. Earthjustice
nthorpef@earthj ustice. org
City of Boise
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy City Attorney
Boise City's Attorney's Olfice
[e-mail]
ldaho Sierra Club
Kelsey Jae Nunez
Kelsey Jae Nunez LLC
Kelsey@kelseyj arnuncz.com
Zack Waterman, Sierra Club
I November I 3, 2019
Mike Hcckler, Siena Club
Zack.w'aterman@sienaclub. org
[e-mail]
Idaho (lleun Energy Associailon
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
prestoncarter@gi venspursely. com
Industrial ()ustomers of ldaho Power
Pcter J. Richardson
Richardson Adams, Pl-LC
[e-mail]
Dr. Don Reading
dreading(@mi ndspri ng. com
Micron Technologt, Inc.
Austin Rueschhoff
Thon'ald A. Nelson
Holland & Ha( LLP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
aclee@ho I landhart.com
[e-mail]
Jim Su'ier, Micron
[e-mail]
lndividual
Russell Schiermeier
[e-mail]
tPC-E-18-15
ICI. and Vote Solar
Certificatc of Service )Novernbcr I i. 201 9