20200109Kluckhohn Request for Reconsideration.pdf

Richad E, Kluckhoha
2564 W. Pa*stone Dr.
Meridian, ID 83646
Telephone QOE9414186
Facsimile Q08)Sn-5756
kluckhohn@gmailcom
IN THE MATTER OF THE PE"TITION OF
IDAHO POITER COMPANY TO STUDY THE
COSTS, BENEFITS, AND COMPENSATION
OF NET L\CESS ENERGY SI.JPPLIED BY
CUSTOMER ON.SITE GENERATION
RECEIVED
,'i?il J,1li -9 Ptl 2; 02
rSSl0N,l-
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RICHARD TLUCEIOHISS
REQUESTFOR
RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDERNO.:'450!'
Case No. IPC-E-I8-15
Pursuant to Idaho Code $ 61-626 and IDAPA 337.01 el tcq,, Richard E. Kluckhohn hereby
petitioos this Commission for teconsidetetion of its determinetion in its Ordcr No. 34509, issucd
December 20, 2019 ('Otde/).
INTRODUCTION
Ideho Powet aod several othet entities enteted into a sctdement egeetnent which rcquired the
Idaho Public Utilitics Commission's ('Commission') epproval which ures rcquested on Octobet 11,
2019. This r€que$t was 6led by both Idaho Powet and the Commission's Staff. On Decernber 2,
2019 and December 3, 2019, thc PUC held public headngs during which mote then 50 customers
ptovided cotnmens, and the heating lasted until 2:75 *m. on Decembet 3, 2019, eftet beginning at
7:00 p.m.
The thrust of Ideho Powe/s and the Commission Saffs sctdemcot agrcement lrres that they
would convcrt curtent customets' ptogmms ftom a 1:1 kilowett hout ('krVh') monthly net metering
cteditr to an hourly net-metering. Under the houdy net-metetiog ptoposal, Idrho Powet would
I The ralrr of thc nct crrrgr orpotts ir cqud to thc ralue of the cocrgy coosumed.
RICHARD E-UCKHOHIVS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDERNO.3450!'
Page I of6
purchase any excess power at the rate of apptoximately 4.4 cents per kVh, while any excess power
the customer used during that hour would be purchased at the then market rate.
The Commission conecdy found that the public was not placcd on adcquate notice that the
culteot docket, would result in fundamenal changes to the net-meteting progan\ under which the
customem had invested in a long-term asset In addition, the Commission cotecdy found that Idaho
Power, hstead of doing as the Commission hed ordeted, entered into a s€tdement egreemeot rrithout
conductiog any sort of study.
Finally, the Commission grandfathered existing customers into the net-meteting ptogram, It
is this 6nding, and the specific otder entered by the Commission rcgarding the gtandfathering of
customers, thet is objectionablc.
ARGTIMENT
L Comrnisgion'sFindinge
In its Endings, the Commission steted it "is not changing the Company's net-metedng
prognm at this time, the Commission finds it prudent and iustiEable to distirguish berween existing
customeff and new customeE based on the customers' reasonable expectations when making
significant personal invcstrnens in on-site generation systems." (Otdet No, 34509, P. 10, emphasis
added.). The Commission futther stated that thet Idaho Power will undettake m effort to comply with
the Otdeq but that the Commission anticipates "programrnatic changes" ele likely to be requested by
Idaho Powet ftom the PUC. (ld. at 12.). The Commission states, "!rfe think a rcasonrble customet
would considet the unccrtainty of the ptogmm design when deciding whethet to invest in on-site
gencration going fonrard. (Id. at 12- emphasis added).
The Commission noted that the Idaho Legislaturq in Idaho Code 48-'l8O{, requires a
disclosurg however this disclosure was not added ot required ptior to July 1, 2019. Finally, the
RICI{ARD KLUCBIIOHISS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 3450!'
Prge 2 of6
speciEcs of gra.ndfathedng existing customer is clearly defined by the Commission, as being (1) an
existing customer who has an on-site generation system, ot who made a binding Enanciel commitrncnt
to instdl an on-site sy6tem, (2) existing cusomets ate grandfetheted into Schedule 6 or Schcdule 8 as
the schedulcs exist on the date of the Order, and (3) the customet et the mctet site at the origindly
installed nameplate capacity of dre system. It is item 3 that is obiectiooable.
2. Tte System aad the Cugtomer ehould be gtandfrthered.
The Commission speciEcally stated: "Ve are not gtaodfathedng the system-" The
Commission goes on to explain that if a customet sells the house, the new owuers will be net-metering
under the then-existing terms. This ptotects my qrfient purch.se of the asset, however it is nothing
mote than e stedth coofiscation of my ass€t in the event I sell my housc, ot if I pass away and my
heirs decide to mov€ in, etc....
As the Commission tecognized, the public was not on edeguate notice that this docket, nor
prerious dockec, might result in fun&mental chenges to the net-metering progranL Many customers
had a teasonable expectation that the net-metering program was, es represeoted by the Commission
end by Idaho Power, as beiry the net-metering ptogmm available fot the life of the solat generation
system. Idaho Power, the PUC, and the insallets all knew that the analysis ptesented to the person
was based on e s)rstem's life expectancy of 25 yeers. Genera\, the equipment is warrantied for 25
ycars and thus the consumet had the expectation the net-metering ptogram would march that
expectatioo.
Like all other componene of the montbly-oet-metering prcgrarr\ there wes no indicatiod that
the ptogram was ditecdy connected only to the customer who purchaeed and installed thc solat
system, as opposed to the residence it was inst"lled on. The public and the customers had a reasonable
expectation that the net-metering program would be ttaosfetted qrith the system and not be tied to
RICHARD KLUCKHOHNS REQUEST POR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDERNO.34509
Page 3 of 6
the customer, The PUC's Otdet gmndfathering in only the existing customcts, and not thc syEtem,
causes a material chenge in the ptogtam which matcrially devalues the customeds ass€t and is a taking'z
of the ecouomic value of the customet's assel
Any progtam which is less th.n 1:1 klD0h monthly ctedit offset is a taking of the customet's
asset without compeosating tle consumet. Since the asset value is based solely on the method of
computing the offset ctedit, any reduction or devaluation in that ctedit is a taking. The PUC end
Idaho Power kneu, or should have known the Public were using thc net metedng program as a
tecovery of t}re Customer's personal invcstments in the solar power generation asset. The PUC, in its
otder and analysis, has admitted that the public invested in solar systems in otdet to convert ftom a
vatiable cost utility to a 6xed known cosL Any chenge to that progrem in which they putchascd
without compensation constinrtes a teking of the valuc of the cost sevings, The PUC's decision of
gta.ndfathering only the customets, as opposed to the systetq is arbirary as it reletes to the conversion
of a home generating solrr system to the then cument program upon change of oame, with no
economic compensation given to the owner of that system. The public was not given reasonable
notice that Idaho Power and the PUC intended to devalue their systems in this manner. The tecotd
of the cese does not support this decision.
It is a givcn economic fect that any rcduction of the value of a cashflow v,ill teduce the value
of the asset. Likewise, the PUC failed to consider the un-intended consequetrces on seniot citizens.
The PUC admic "the public, almost unanimously, opposed the ptoposed setdement." Specifically,
2 Several commcntcs uscd thc word "thcfd' of thcir essct in thcir tcstimony. The PUCs dccirioo is akin to thc
govemment engegiog in eminent domain, end rcfi.uing to ptovidc fair and rcasonabh compcosation. In goothct
cxample, I&ho Power issues dividends on itc IDACORP's commoo stock Customer A purchaes IDACORP and
receivcs a 6.3Yo dividend on Customcr A's stock. A gowmmentrl cotity mekes a tulc t[at sutes if an existing or*ncr of
IDACORP's stock sclls it, dre purcharcr is only entided to rtccive a 3.1% dividcod. Thc govcmmcnal cotity hes
devalued the rgset of Customer A's stock in IDACOR? without compcosrthB Custotrr A. Customet A might be
inceotivized to kccp the stock, howevcr if Customer A dies, or nee& tbe funds fot hcalth care, or rny o&cr reesoq dre
govemmcotd entity hes devalued the assct of Cuatomer.{ with oo cotnpensatioo.
RICHARD K-UCGIOHIgS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDERNO.34509
Page 4 of5
ll
tlrc pul>lic ncarlr unanim()uslr' oplxrscd thc changc in thc nct-mctering pr(Er:tm. 'l'hc l'Ll(l notcs that
"nunrerous coftrmcntcrs who statc tlrcy ittvcstcd thcit rctircmcnt saving in on-sitc gcncratirxr." (ilcatll'
this matcrialll impacts scni()f citizcn morc than ant' othcr class of citizcn. ljurthcr scnior citizcns ,lrc
morc likcly to nccd thc full T'aluc of thcir asscts as thcv dcal rvith mcdical i$sucs, mcntfll issucs, thc
irrabilin'to litc irr tlrcir homc, and dcatlr. 'l'hc (irmmission's action is a taking from scnior citizcns at
thcir most vcncrablc timc of lifc.
lir thc firrcgoing rcasons, I rvould rcqucst thc Commission rcconsidcr its dccision, and amcnd
its ordcr to grandfathcr thc s)'stcm, for thc lifc of thc systcm or a rcasonablc timc framc of not lcss
than thc stanclard rv,rrranq pcriod of thc svstcm, as opposcd to grandfathcring thc customct.
METHODS OF RECONSIDERATION REqUESTED
'l'lrc pctitioncr rcqucsts rLc()nsidcradon l)r' rvrittcn briefs.
I)41'l')l) .f anuan' t), 2O2o.
l(cspcctfullt submittcd,
<--7"{/'
lliclr;rrcl I'.. liltrcklrohn
RICHARD KLUCKHOHN'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO.34509
Pagc 5 of 6
P*#
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ItIIillIill\'(ll.lll'l ll;\' that on.fanuarv 9, 20, ^ tluc and c()rcct c()pl of thc aborc and ft)lcgoing
docur.rrcnt w^s f()nvardcd addrcsscd ls firlLrrvs in thc manrrcr statcd bckrrv:
ldalro I)ublic ['tilitics Comrnissirxr
;\'l'lN: l)ianc I larriarr, Oonrnrissiott Sccrctan'
rli:rrra.Irri4r(g;r-1rc'.itlrtltr,.g,,t
I racsimilc (2t)8) .334-3762
Fland l)elivcrcd
L'.S. Nlail
Iiax
l'l-NIail
i( irurt
Itichard l l. Kluckhohn
RICHARD KLUCKHOHN'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER NO. 34509
Pagc 6 of 6
trT
, .\:,,