20220120Reconsideration_Order_No_35291.pdf

ORDER NO. 35291 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 20, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF RANDY VALLEY’S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST IDAHO
POWER COMPANY CONCERNING
GRANDFATHERING OF TEN SOLAR
PANELS
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-21-34

ORDER NO. 35291

On May 28, 2021, Randy Valley (“Mr. Valley”), a residential Idaho Power Company
(“Company”) customer lodged a formal complaint (“Complaint”) with the Commission. Mr.
Valley had connected an on-site generation system to the Company’s system but was seeking to
expand his system by installing additional solar panels. The crux of Mr. Valley’s Complaint was
his disagreement with the Company’s position that his new solar panels would not be
“grandfathered in” under net metering rules.1
On December 9, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 35253 denying Mr. Valley’s
request for grandfather status for his new solar panels.
On December 28, 2021, Mr. Valley filed a Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”).
The Company responded to Mr. Valley’s Petition on January 4, 2022. With this Order, the
Commission denies Mr. Valley’s Petition.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr. Valley made three claims in his Petition: (1) that the Company sent him a very
misleading email indicating it had received everything it needed from him for him to attain legacy
status; (2) that since he received only two emails from the Company, no prudent person would
agree that the Company made repeated attempts to assist him with compliance; and (3) that the
effect that Covid 19 had on “lockdowns and staffing shortages should be taken into account.”
Petition at 1.
COMPANY REPLY
The Company replied that Mr. Valley’s petition should be denied because he failed to
demonstrate that Order No. 35253 was unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity
with the law. The Company stated that it communicated the requirements for legacy status to both

1 Mr. Valley clarified, however, in his Petition for Reconsideration that he “never stated that he met the requirements
for legacy status or that [the Company] didn’t inform [him] of the requirements.” Petition for Reconsideration at 1.
ORDER NO. 35291 2

Mr. Valley and his agent RevoluSun and that Mr. Valley did not provide any reasonable basis in
his Petition to deviate from the requirements for attaining legacy status as set forth in Order Nos.
34509 and 34546. The Company represented that, contrary to Mr. Valley’s assertions otherwise,
the facts and evidence presented in this case established that the Company did communicate with
Mr. Valley more than twice between January 7 and November 6, 2020. Because Mr. Valley failed
to meet the pleading requirements under Commission Rule 331.01, IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01, and
because the Commission’s determination in Order No. 35253 was reasonable, lawful, correct, and
in conformity with the law, the Company requested that the Commission issue an order denying
Mr. Valley’s Petition.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-502, 61-
503, and 61-612. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates, charges, rules, regulations,
practices, and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just, reasonable,
preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and to fix the same by order.
Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-503. The Commission has the authority to determine the merits of
any complaint “setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility
including any rule, regulation or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility,
in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the
commission[.]” Idaho Code § 61-612.
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration allows any interested person to bring to the Commission’s attention
any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission an opportunity to rectify
any mistake or omission. See Washington Water Power Co., v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance,
99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). The Commission’s Rules of Procedure require a
petition for reconsideration to “set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner
contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or
not in conformity with the law.” See Commission Rule 331.01, IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01.
Commission Rule 331.01 further requires the petitioner provide a “statement of the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A
petition must state whether reconsideration should be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written
briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” See IDAPA 331.03.
ORDER NO. 35291 3

Mr. Valley’s Petition alleges that the Company failed to effectively communicate and
assist him with complying with his timely solar panel installation. Mr. Valley also suggests that
Covid 19 made things difficult for him, his installer—RevoluSun—and the Company. After a
thorough review of the facts alleged in the Petition, we find that the general allegations set forth
in the Petition do not provide an adequate basis to grant the Petition to reconsider Order No. 35253.
Mr. Valley has presented no argument or evidence why these facts make Order No. 35253
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law. See Rule 331.01.
In sum, the Petition does not state why Order No. 35253 is deficient under Commission
Rule 331.01 nor does it state how Mr. Valley believes Order No. 35253 may be reconsidered and
what evidence or argument he plans to offer if the Petition is granted. See Rule 331.03.
Accordingly, the Commission denies the Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Valley’s Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this
Order or other final orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-21-34 may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See
Idaho Code § 61-627.
///

ORDER NO. 35291 4

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 20th day
of January 2022.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

KRISTINE RAPER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-21-34 Randy Valley\orders\IPCE2134_final_recon_rn.docx