20200121Comments.pdf

Attomey for the ldaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAI]O PUBLIC U'|ILITIES COMMISSION
RECEIVED
i$2r] JAH 2l Pll tr: lr9
IL,
ISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY TO STUDY FIXED
COSTS OF PROVIDING ELECTRIC
SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS
IPC-E-18-15
ICL, NWEC, VS Comments
CASE NO. IPC-E-I8-I6
COMMENTS OF THE IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
NORTHWEST ENERGY
COALITION AND VOTE SOLAR
January 21 . 2020
)
)
)
)
)
)
The Idaho Conservation League ("lCL"), NW Energy Coalition ("NWEC") and Vote
Solar respectfully submit these comments on Idaho Power's Fixed Cost Report ("Report") and
accompanying Motion to Accept Fixed Cost Report ("Motion") filed on September 30, 2019. We
have two primary concems: (l) Idaho Power's materials fail to meaningfully reflect the
perspectives and input provided by the PUC Staff and other parties, and (2) Idaho Power fails to
address how the Fixed Cost Adjustrnent mechanism works with rate design to balance the
interests ofthe utility and customers. The Commission, therefore, lacks tle necessary
information to assess the full suite of rate-making options available to "determine the just,
reasonable or suffrcient rates" as required by Idaho Code 61-502. Because ofthose omissions,
the Report is not "a comprehensive customer fixed-cost analysis to determine the proper
methodology and 'spread' of fixed costs as they relate to the Company's customer" as the
Commission requested in Order No 34190 and thus the Commission should deny Idaho Power's
1
Benjamin J. Otto (lSB No. 8292)
710 N 61h Street
Boise, ID 83701
Ph: [phone] x 12
Fax: [phone]
botto@idahoconservati on.org
Motion.r If the Commission desires a truly comprehensive and fair report on rate design options,
we request that the Commission make clear to all parties that the PUC Staff will lead an effort to
produce any future studies through a public and collaborative process with a diverse set of
stakeholders.
Fortunately, Idaho Power's Motion states the Company "makes no recommendations
concerning the implementation of the rate designs discussed" now, and does not intend to do so
until "it files its next general rate case".2 While ldaho Power "stands ready to make incremental
changes in the interim", it appears to correctly recognize that doing so outside ofa general rate
case would directly contradict this Commission's repeated statements that "expect proposals for
changes to consumption rates and rate structures to be made only in a general rate case in which
rates and rate structure for all customer classes are under review.3 ICL, NWEC and Vote Solar
agree that proposals to change rates and rate designs must be considered in a general rate case.
As stated above, our first objection is that Idaho Power mischaracterizes the Report as
incorporating feedback from stakeholders when it does not. Idaho Power writes in its Motion that
it participated in "one prehearing conference and five settlement workshops to scope and discuss
fixed cost issues pertaining to the Commission's fixed cost study directive. With the feedback
received, the Company prepared numerous analyses and inoorporated resulting feedback into its
Fixed Cost Report."a While ICL, NWEC, and Vote Solar participated in each of these meetings,
reviewed the Company's materials, and provided our own analysis, none ofthat feedback was
I See also )rder No. 31046 a123.
2 ldaho Potver Motion lo Accept Fixed Cost Report at3.
3 Order 31509 at I 5 (citing Order 32846 at 12-13.
4 IPC Motion at 2-3
IPC-E-1 8-15
ICL, NWECI, VS Comments
.lanuary 21.20202
appropriately incorporated into the Report. Rather, Idaho Power's "Report" lacks significant and
critical context and primarily reflects a one-sided position statement by the utility.
For example, Idaho Power's Report omits evaluation under the five rate attributes that all
parties identified as important to include in StaIf s April 30,2019 Report ("Stalf s Report') to
the Commission.s Specihcally, Idaho Power's Report does not meaningfully evaluate: (1) Impact
on Fixed Cost Recovery; (2) Billing Impacts to Customers; (3) Price Signaling and Behavior; (4)
Fair, Just and Reasonable; and (5) Other Considerations.6 Instead, Idaho Power's Report covers
rate design at the highest level and from only the utility perspective. While it does include some
scenario analysis advocated by other stakeholders, it does not reflect the content or purpose
envisioned by the stakeholders who diligently worked tl:rough one prehearing conference and
five confidential, closed-door settlement discussions in an effbrt to assist in the development ofa
study that could help inform the discussion offixed cost recovery and rate design. Rather than a
comprehensive study, Idaho Power's report is a thinly veiled avenue lor Idaho Power to advocate
for specific rate designs that benefit the Company with no commensurate benefit to customers.
Furthermore, the limited content provided in the Report rests on disputed elements, which
renders its discussion and conclusions unreliable. Among the issues noted by ICL, NWEC and
Vote Solar are: (1) the definition of a hxed cost; (2) definition ofenergy, demand and customer-
related cost categories; and (3) the appropriate treatment of customers with on-site generation
within the analysis.
Because Idaho Porer has not requested any rate changes as a result of its flawed analyses
in the present docket, lCL, NWEC, and Vote Solar will refrain from detailing the specifications
s Sru.ff Report Attachment B in IPC-E- l8- 16, filed on April 30. 2019.
6 Stc{J'Report Attachment B
IPC-E-r8-t5
ICL, NWEC. VS Comments
3 January 21. 2020
oftheir objections to these elements. Doing so would require us to recreate all of the analysis
Idaho Power failed to do; a futile exercise at this time. Rather, we note our objections here and
encourage the Commission to fully evaluate these elements in Idaho Power's next General Rate
Case where rates - in addition to the fair, just, and reasonable level of revenues - can be fully
evaluated through an evidentiary process.
Our second major objection is the Company's failure to address how the Fixed Cost
Adjustment C'FCA') mechanism works with rate design to balance the interests of the utility and
customers. Throughout the Report, ldaho Power notes that the current rate design collects some
fixed costs through the volumetric portion of rates, consistent with the Commission's
longstanding and wise direction. Idaho Power states that a continued reliance on "variable rate
components . . . would warrant continued consideration ofdecoupling mechanisms like the
FCA,"7 but fails to fully acknowledge that Idaho Power already has a decoupling mechanism in
the FCA for Residential and Small Commercial classes since 2007.E Idaho Power's reference on
page 27 lo the FCA as "correct[ing] for the majority ofover, or under, collection offixed costs
that results from the use of volumetric charges to collect the majority offixed costs for these
classes" undermines the thrust of its arguments to the contrary.e Idaho Power fails to explain why
the current rate design, coupled with the FCA, does not adequately provide the utility an
opportunity to collect its authorized revenue requirement. The utility is not entitled to its
preferred rate design, nor to any level ofcompensation. Instead, all the Commission and
customers owe the Company is this an overall opportunity to earn its authorized revenues. The
7 IPC Report at2.
8 Order No. 30267,1PC-E-04-15.
e IPC Rep\rt at27.
IPC-E-18-15
ICL, NWEC, VS Comments
lanuary 21.20204
specific rate design is to be determined by the Commission after considering all available tools
and the commonly used rate design attributes we describe above.
In closing, Idaho Power's self-serving report from another closed-door, publicly
inaccessible process undermines the process this Commission envisioned. We participated in this
docket in a good-faith attempt to provide the Commission with a useful tool to assess rate design
options. We remain committed to continuing to provide our organizational expertise to assist in
the appropriate evaluation of these issues. The Commission should continue its commitment to
public participation and public process, as recently evidenced in Case No. IPC-E-18-15, and
insist on similar levels oftransparency and public participation in its evaluation of potential rate
design changes. If the Commission desires a truly comprehensive and fair report on rate design
options, u,e request the Commission make clear the PUC Staff will lead the effort and produce
any future studies through a public and collaborative process with a diverse set ofinterested
parties. And we recommend the Commission continue to require that proposals to adjust rate
design be evaluated only in the context ofa full General Rate Case.
Respectfully submitted this 21't day ofJanuary 2020
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
Northw'est Energy Coalition
Local Council - Vote Solar
tPC-E-18-15
IC'L, NWEC, VS Conrments
lanuary 21. 20205
a<-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiry that on this 2l st day ofJanuary,2020, I delivered true and conect copies
of the foregoing COMMENTS to the lbllowing persons via the method of ce noted o:
Benjamin J. Otto
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary (Original and 7 copies provided)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 WChindenBlvd
Building 8, Suite 201-A.
Boise, ID 83714
Electronic Mail:
Idaho Power
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Tim Tatr:m
Connie Aschenbrenner
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
caschenbrenner@idahopower. com
[e-mail]
Idaho PUC Sraff
Edward Jewell
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Edward j [e-mail]. gov
Idahohydro
C Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Offices
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Idaho lrrigalion Pumpers Association
Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Olsen PLLC
[e-mail]
Anthony Yankel
[e-mail]
IPC-E-18-15
ICL, NWEC, VS Certificate of Service
Idaho Clean Energt Association
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley, LLC
[e-mail]
Sierra Club
Kelsey Jae Nunez, LLC
kelsey@kelseyj aenunez.com
Zack Waterman
Idaho Siena Club
zack.waterman@sierracl ub.org
michael.p.heckler@gmai l.com
City of Boise
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy City Attomey
[e-mail]
Vote Solar
David Bender
Earthjustice
dbender@earthj ustice.com
al una@earthj ustice.org
nthorpe@earthjustice. org
Briana Kober
Vote Solar
[e-mail]
lanuary 21.20206
Hand delivery:
NW Energ/ Coolition
Diego Rivas
Policy Associate, NW Energy Coalition
[e-mail]
Avistu
David J. Meyer, Esq.
Patrick D. Ehrbar
[e-mail]
patrick.ehrbar@avistacorp. com
[e-mail]
Roclq' Mountain Power
Yvonne R. Hogle
Ted Weston
[e-mail]
yvonne.hoglc@pacifi corp.com
Induslrial Customers of ldaho Pou,er
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson, Adams, PLLC
[e-mail]
IPC-E-t 8-l s
ICL, NWEC, VS Certificate of Service
7 January 21.2020