20220601Response to IPC Answer.pdf

i{
5 cleon Enersy opporrunities forlddhb . i-::"::.
: i ._'i:i' ii.r :: ::... :.,,ititi$lOl :
June 1, 2022
Jan Noriyuki, Secreary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise,Idaho 837t4
Re: Case No. IPC-E-22-12 - In The Matter Of Clean Eneryy Oppornrnities For Idaho's Petition ForAn
OrderTo Modify The Schedule 84 100kW Cap & To Esablish A Tbansition Guideline For Changes To
Schedule 84 Export Credit Compensation Values
DearMs. Noriyuki:
Endosed for electronic filing pu$uant to Order No. 35058, is Clean Energy Opportunities for
Idaho's Response to Idaho Power Company's Answer and Motion to Dismiss in the above-entitled
matter. Thank you for your assistance, and please do not hesiate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
rs\e
Kelsey Jae
Attomey for CEO
Enclosure
IPC.E-22.12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORIUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE . 1
Kelsey Jae (ISB No. 7899)
Law for Conscious Leadership
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise,ID 83703
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho
IN THE MATTER OF CLEAN
ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR
IDAHO'S PETITION FOR AN
ORDER TO MODIFY TIIE
SCHEDULE 84 1OOKW CAP & TO
ESTABLISH A TRANSITION
GUIDELINE FOR CHANGES TO
SCIIEDULE 84 EXPORT CREDIT
COMPENSATION VALUES
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC.E-22.12
RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S ANSWER AND
MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho ('CEO"), in accordance with Rules 56 and 256
of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission"), hereby submis is
Response to Idaho Power Company's Answer and Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") in the above-entitled
matter.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On April28,2022, CEO filed a Petition ("Petition") respectfully requesting thatthe Commission
issue an Order that:
1.1. modifies the project eligibility cap for Schedule 84 customers to 1007o of a customer's
maximum demand;
L.2. establishes a Tbansition Guideline that improves predictability and stability of rates by
seuing a limit to the pace at which the compensation for excess energy may change for
Schedule 84 customers if and when an Export Credit Rate ("ECR") is implemented; and
1.3. is issued by October 3L,2022 to allow informed, timely investnent decisions.
IPC-E-22-I2 . CLEAN ENERGY OPPORruNITIES FOR IDAHO. RESPONSE. 2
2 Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Powef'or "the Company") filed is Answer and Motion to
Dismiss CEO's Petition and included allegations that the Petition is a collateral attack, redundang
and hasty. These are mischaracterizations: the CEO Petition is none of these. The Petition is the
singular option before the Commission to resolve agribusiness requests to revise the 100kW cap
and to improve predictability & stability of export compensation in 2022. It is made necessary by
the Company's:
2.1. Lack of initiative over two decades to propose a revision to the cap;
2.2. Year and a half delay in initiating the study ordered in 2019;
2.3. Denial that the 100kW cap does not encourage cost-effective development of
customer-owned generation (Motion, ! ZZ);
2.4. Characterization of the Petition's requests as a distraction (Motion, g 48), which
marginalizes customer concems; and
2.5. Inherent economic bias toward owning infrastucture and explicitly stated position
favoring utility ownership of generation.l
The matters presented in the Petition are urgent and important to customers and should be
considered by the Commission on the timeline requested by CEO. In the words of agribusinesses:
3.1. "The matterc in this petition are important to me and our operation. I would encourage *re
PUC to please give it your full consideration." (IPC-E-22-L2,May 17,2022, Public
Commeng Jordan Funk, Darrell Funk Farms, Double Eagle Darry and Eagle View Dairy).
3.2. "Since agriculnrre is an energy-use intensive AND captive customer (we cannot relocate),
we need ttre ability to mitigate against future electricity cost increases to assure our future
viability." (PC-E-22-1"2 Public comment, 515/2022, Duane Grant, Grant 4-D Farms).
3.
1 IPC-E-zt+L, Application at 34.
IPC.E-22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 3
4.
6.
5.
3.3. 'w'e ask the Commission to ensure that farmers and ranchers receive a fair shot to help
solve the power needs and generation shordalls by consideringlPC-E-22-t2,"
(IPC -E-22- L 2 Public C omment, 5 I t3 12022, Idaho F arm Bureau).
Two decades ago, the Commission acknowledged customer concerns with the 100kW cap and set
expectation that the cap could be "modified as we gain experience"2. The Pedtion's proposal to
implement an altemative to the cap (which was ordered to be studied in IPC-E-ZL-?L) lr:,2022,
instead of at some uncertain future date, is anything but hasty. And the proposed Tbansition
Guideline provides necessary communication to customers and is additive, informative, and builds
- as the Commission instucted - on work done in past dockets.
The Company's Motion to Dismiss does not speak to a fundamenal premise of the Petition: ttre
faimess of allowing Idaho businesses the timely oppornrnity to access technology needed to
manage costs and compete in commodity markets. Furthen because Idaho state policy is to
encourage investnent in customer-owned generation, the oppornrnity to address two specific
mattem discouraging such invesbnent requires that the Petition not be dismissed.
CEO asks the Commision to deny the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Petition. The potential
benefits from granting the relief requested in the Petition are many, the potential harm is minimal,
and the Petition's premise of faimess remains compelling.
II. TIIE, PETITION DOES NOT SEEK TO MODIFY PREVIOUS ORDERS.
ln 2019, the Commission esablished a process which called for both a Study Design Phase and
Study Review Phase. IPC-E-21-2L represents the "Shrdy Design Phase" and resulted in an order
to, among other things, evaluate the pros and cons of tr,vo altematives to the L00kW cap: (a)
analysis atL00o/o of customer's demand, and O) analysis atL25o/o of customer's demand (which is
7
2 In reference to the 100kW cap, including the ldaho Farm Bureau's suggestion of tying the cap to
consumption, the Commission ordered: 'lrVhile the suggested changes to the Company's proposal were
thoughdul, what we want at this time is to implement the program. If needed, it can be modified as we
gain experience." (IPC-E-02-04, Order 29092, L0lt8l20O2, at7).
IPC.E.22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO. RESPONSE - 4
8
consistent with the two caps being studied by Rocky Mountain Power in PAC-E-19-08).3
Regar:ding this Sudy Design Phase, CEO affirms the Commission's decision that a separate
docket is not necessary to study the cap.a The Petition asks for no change to the Commission's
decisions in IPC-E-21-21 and is not a collateral attack on Order 35284.s
The Petition launches a proceeding in parallel with the Snrdy Review Phase such that the
Commission has the option to decide whether to implement a change to the Schedule 84 cap and
to establish a Tlansition Guideline by Fall 2022, pior to completion of the Study Review phase.
The Company has stated that it will submit its study for review by the end of June2O22, but does
not anticipate requesting implementation of either of the two altematives to ttre 100kW cap until
after the Commission acknowledges the study.6 In the absence of the Petition, a decision on
whether to implement any change to the cap would not occur by the October 3t,2022 date which
CEO believes is needed to allow businesses to make informed, timely invesunent decisions in
2022.
The main purpose of the study is to address compensation matters,T while the 100kW cap is a
system design parameter. CEO reasonably andcipates that the study submitted for review will
provide evidence that customer load and demand should determine the system's design parameters
and will support changing the 100kW cap to either LOOolo or t25o/o of customer demand. The
Petition does not seek to interfere with the timeline of the shrdy or modify Order 35284's
9.
3 Note that the analysis ttre Commission specifically asked for with regand to the cap was "an evaluation
of concems previously echoed in Order No. 2895L and Order No. 29094, such as safety, service quality,
and grid reliability." (Orrder 35284 at 25).
the Commission decided "a separate docket is not necessary to study these items. The Company has the
necessary daa and expertise to provide a thorough evaluation of ttre 25 kW and 100 kW predetermined
caps through this study." (Order 35284 at 25).
s Indeed, CEO's interest in avoiding furttrer delays and proceeding as soon as possible with the study
would not have been served by asking for reconsideration of Order 35284 in IPC-E-21-21.
6 Absent the Commission establishing a different process, the Company anticipates making a rcquest to
implement any potential changes to the net metering rate design, compensation stucture, or ECR after the
Commission acknowledges a study. 0PC-E-21-21", Application at 8).
7 "As previously stated, the main purpose of the study is to value the customer-generators' exporB to the
system'" (order 35284 at 13)'
wc-E-2z-tz- .LEAN ENERG, oppoRruNrrrEs FoR rDAHo - RES,.NSE - s
instructions about the study. The Petition is not a collateral attack on any existing order - it is a
new request to implement a change to a system design paramete4 the 100kW cap, after Idaho
Power files the study yet on a faster schedule than ldaho Power would otherwise propose. No
previous order of the Commission prohibits a non-ut'ility party from presenting proposals on how
to implement information that results from the shrdy. CEO is a solutions-focused organizadon, and
ttre Petition presents an option for ttre Commission to issue an order by October 31, 2022 that
approves the more conservative of the tr,vo alternative caps being snrdied, that being 100% of
customer demand. The Petition seeks a targeted solution to a targeted issue that CI&I customerc
have been requesting for far too long.
10. The need for a Study Review phase was established in 2019 in a Residential and Small General
Service customer class ("R&SGS") docket for the puryose of allowing customers the opportunity
to comment on whether the study sufficiently addressed their concems.s If the intent of the Study
Review phase is to give weight to customer concems, a stong record of agribusinesses asking for
a sense of urgency in addressing specific concems in time for fall 2022 investnent decisions
should be given weight. For agribusiness customers, revising the 100kW cap sooner rather than
later is a well-documented concern. Farmers have asked the Commission "to share the sense of
urgency for us to access customer-owned generation"s and to do "everyttring it can to enable
farmers to make informed decisions on solar generation during }OZL."|o Because it is certain that
the study to be released in June will address changing the 100kW cap to either L00o/o or L25o/o of.
customer demand, there is no value in making CI&I customers wait to implement ttris Argeted
change while customers corlment on the other issues affeaing them during the Study Review
phase. The Petition asks the Commission to order a change to ttre cap no later than October 31,
2022.
8 "In the 'study review' phase, the public will be able to comment on whether the study sufficiently
addressed their concems, and their opinions on what the study shows." (Order 34509 at 10).
e IpC-E-2t-21Public Commeng Russell Schiermeier, Bruneau, tdaho, ll2$lz}zl.
'0 IPC-E-20-26 Public Commeng Michael N. Kochert, Roseberry Farms, Gooding, Idaho, t2128t2020.
IPC-E-22-I2 . CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO . RESPONSE - 6
III. ON TIIE MERTTS. THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH ANY ALLEGED HARMS.
A. The two premises related to fair treaunent are valid.
11. As stated in the Petition at $12, "it is a fundamenal issue of faimess and public interest to allow
CI&I customers who wish to avail themselves of Schedule 84 to be a part of that solution to this
imminent capacity shordall, and to allow CI&I customem timely opportunity to invest in
technologies such as solar in orrder to manage their own elecnicity costs and remain competitive in
their respective markets." Both premises remain intact despite the arguments made in the Motion.
B. The public interest is served by allowing CI&I customers a fair oppormnity to add resources.
12. Current conditions increase the urgency to address generation capacity shortfalls. In recent
months, circumstances have continued to change which further augment the need for and potential
benefits of timely incrcases in CI&I self-generation, including:
L2.1.. The North American Elecric Reliability Corporation (NERC) 2022 Summer Reliability
Assessment (at page 33) forecass possible outage conditions within the Norttrwest Power
Pool this srrnmer if weather exremes drive above normal peak loads.
t2.2. As displayed in Power Cost forecasts within docket IPC-E-22-L1, changes in the
intemational market for natural gas ane forecasted to produce dramatically higher market
prices for power in the Northwest than were projected in the Company's recent 2021 IRP.
t2.3. Idaho Power's request for a CPCN for insalling 120MWs of new battery capacity (see
IPC-E-22-L3) augmens the value of incremental CI&I solar generation.
13. CI&I invesrnents in seH-generation nesources provide multiple public benefits including:
1?.1. Reduction in Irrigator demand mitigates future fixed cost additions by the Company.ll
11 *Staff notes that secondary level inigation customerc account for approximately 23o/o of summer peak
demand, so any reduction in lrigator's demand could help defer the need for future generation and
fransmission plant." (IPC-E-18-1-6, PUC Staff Comments, tl2ll2020 at 19).
IPC-E-22-12. CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 7
L3.2. Disnibuted generation, especially when paired with energy storage, creates a reliable
energy source that is less vulnerable to natural disasters and grid failures.l2
13.3. Inigator load reduction reduces overall system demand and thereby limits exposure to
higher gas prices for all customers.l3
13.4. Agribusinesses and Idaho benefit by enabling Idaho CI&I customem to capture
time-sensitive2O2? federal tax and incendve program funds.
14. The Company's concems with supply chain risks, ttre Company's desire for certainty, and the
Company's view that the magnitude of capacity that CI&I customers could add by Summer 2023
would not be "meaningful" (Motion, I SOl do not provide evidence of harm to public interest and
do not justify dismissing the Petition. The Petition presents opportunities to better capture the
benefits and mitigate the risks listed above; these opportunities should be allowed full, substantive
review by the Commission and thus warrant denial of the Motion to Dismiss.
I CI&I customer:s should be afforded a fair opporhrnity to manage their power cos6.
15. The Commission should not dismiss the Petition's plea for faimess to allow CI&I customers
timely opportunity to invest in technologies such as solar to manage their own elecricity costs and
remain competitive in their respeoive markes. Businesses in competitive markets must adapt to
changing technologies and market conditions in order to survive. As one farmer sated in
comments to the Commission in IPC-E-20-26, "It is unfair that I as a farmer bear the cost of the
utility's choice to delay the fulfilling of obligations ondered by the commission."l4 CEO urges the
Commission to consider the Petition as an opportunity to rcmove an impediment to the ability of
Idaho CI&I businesses to manage costs and survive in competitive markets.
12 Colorado law,
SB21-261,https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/defaulVfiles/documens/202LAhills/sV2O2La sl 280.pdf.
a Given the Power Cost Adjustnent allows the Company to pass through 95o/o of. this exposure to
customem, there appears to be little financial incentive for the Company to prioritize opportunities for
mitigating this cost.
1a Taylor Duncan, Circle D Farms/Golden Ridge Farms, IPC-E-20-26 Public Commen! 1212812020.
IPC-E-22.12 . CLEAN ENERGY OPPOFIUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE .8
16.
L7.
18.
19.
20.
ii. The 100kW cap adds unnecessary costs and is harmful and discriminatory.
The Petition addresses a system design parameter: the 100kW cap specific to Schedule 84. That
ttre 100kW cap adds unnecessary costs has been well documented in public comments from the
agricultural community. The public interest is not better served when a farmer installs 5 sites at
100kW to offset load for an irrigation pump rather than 1 site at 500kW. As farmer Duane Grant
describes, the "ill-advised and punitive cap" serves "to embed inefficiency and high relative cost
into construction of systems".rs
The cap is harmful. The Petition properly poses a question to ttre Commission: whether it is fair
and reasonable to add unnecessary costs via outdated capacity cap regulations in order to
discourage CI&I customers from installing customer-owned generation.
Accoding to the study in IPC-E-18-16 (a data driven analysis), ldaho Power's residential class
subsidizes CI&I classes. Assuming that there is a cross-class cost-shifting issue, the Company's
arguments do not justify dismissing an opportunrty for CI&I customers to reduce consumption that
is potentially being subsidized by residents.
In the Motion, Idaho Power prcsents a generalized argument that project eligibility caps are used
to regulate alleged cost-shifting (Motion, g 47). Harming Schedule 84 customers by imposing
unnecessary costs is an improper means of regulating customer invesftnent in self-generation
equipment. CEO believes the appropriate mechanism for regulating any possible cost-shifting is
via rate design, not by discouraging participation in a PUC-approved rate schedule by imposing
system design parameters that "embed inefficiency and high relative cost''.
The cap is discriminatory. Cunently, a farmer is allowed to offset consumption for irrigation
pumping at a much lower percentage of demand than typical residential customers, who can offset
under the 25kW cap. As described in the Petition, Idaho Power has presented data that "nearly
all'CI&I installations of customer-owned generation are constrained by the cap'6, a stark contast
15IPC-E-22-L2, Public Comment, Duane Grant May 5,2022
'6 IPC-E-19-L5, Idaho Power Application at 6.
IPC.E-22.12. CLEAN ENERGY OPPORXUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 9
to the portion of residents consfiained by the 25kW cap where average residential load is a much
lower percentage of the annual generation a 25kW array can produce. The Motion alleges ttrat
addressing the 100kW cap would be inequitable (9 53), yet residents and and other sakeholders
have shown support for this revision, such as the letter signed by 16 organizations in
IPC-E-20-26.17 The opportunity to correct a discriminatory regulation such as the 100kW project
eligibility cap should notbe dismissed.ls
2I. Changing the cap as requested by the Petition is consistent with best practices. As stated in Best
Proctices in State NetMetering Policies and Interconnection Prccedures,
In certain cases, statutory or regulatory limits on the size of eligible technologies prevent
electic customers from conectly sizing a DG system to meet their own demand,
undermining one of ttre primary drivers of DG. There is no policy jusfification for limiting
system size to an arbinary level. Customer load and demand should determine the system's
design parameters.ls
C. The Thansition Guideline is additive, informative, and builds from work done in a prior docket
22. ldaho Power alleges that consideration of a Tlansition Guideline would "bypass the regulatory
process established in prior Commission orders". (Motion $aO). CEO is unaware of a regulatory
prccess esablished in prior Commission orders goveming the determination of a Ttansition
Guideline as proposed by CEO. The Petition does not propose a Eansition plan - it proposes a
reasonable sideboard to the pace of change in export compensation value. The proposed
Transition Guideline was developed by CEO after analyzing past dockets and builds upon
customer requests to define a reasonable outer boundary on implementation of changes to export
compensation rates during a future fransition, whenever that ransition may occur. The Thansition
17 IPC-E-20-26 Public Comment, t0/27,2020: "we urge you to lift the arbinary L00 kilowatt-per-meter
cap on customer-owned solar installations that creates significant financial and logistical baniers for
farmers and business owners who deserve the ability to invest in solar energy systems that are larye
enough to meet their energy needs." Signed by 16 organizations. Many residents also posted conrments in
that docket supporting the ability of farmers to have better access to solar.
18 'We farm 20,000 acres in Southem Idaho"... "Lifting the 100kw system limit and aligning it with the
actual load at the pump sites would eliminate a bunch of confusion in how to offset loads that ile not
exactly L25 hp." (Darek Jentzsch, IPC-E-20-26 Public Comment, 92912020).
1s Best Practices report bv rnterstate penew!ffi1t1%9""^Hf*'1"*y3i?isi*,i,9lialiJi;o-REspoNsE-
10
Guideline proposed in the Petition is additive in that it seeks to provide information to customerc
that will improve predictability of how fast the ECR will change.
23. Unlike a system design paramete4 the process for determining export compensation is broad,
complex, and extemely difficult for customers to predict The likelihood of a forthcoming rate
case further diminishes predictability and resolution of export compensation rates. For example,
IPC-E-18-16 showed that the cost of service analysis from the last rate case is outdated. While *re
multi-phase process for addressing export compensation was ordered in 201-9, on the current
schedule it could be2024 before any changes to net-metering compensation are implemented. The
year and half delay in initiating the study ordered in 2019 and the unknown impacts of a general
rate case, combined with rising electicity cosB, create a crucial need to address agribusiness
concerns with the predictability and stability of export compensation.20 The Transition Guideline
addresses that concem, leaves latitude for a wide range of options regarding the ultimate
implementation of a tansition plan, and allows the process of addressing compensation matters to
continue forward as ordered.
24. Idaho's CI&I customerc ane accustomed to risks and have repeatedly expressed that they need ttre
Commission's help to improve predicability.2l The Transition Guideline is additive and
informative to customerc. Rather than a characterizing it as an attempted "bypass", perhaps it is
helpful to consider another highway analogy: A tansition guideline doesn't change what the
ultimate speed limitwill be and does not bypass around a slow speed zone, but it does assure
drivers the speed limit isn't going to change too abruptly.
20 'We raise -20,000 acres of sugar beets, potatoes, com, barley, whea! and alfalfa. We also are owners
in tr,vo large dairies . . . Our ability to make informed decisions for our family farm is harmed with such
high uncerainty surrounding the new program that has yet to be announced." (Paul Duncan,
IPC-E-20-26, Public Comment t212812020).
21 'Agricultural businesses are inherently and intimately familiar with unceruinty and appreciate the fact
that rates are not conracts and are subject to change. Howeve4 the lack of clarity for the future of net
metering for inigators provides no sideboards for operators to gauge the risk and return of such projects."
(tdaho Grain Producers Association' IPC-Er-ic9;i9 ir'l*i^tfffif}l.t3#9"'ffiio* F.RTDAH. - RES,.NSE - 11
25. The proposed Transition Guideline is built upon analyses in previous dockets and sets a
conservative and reasonable outer boundary on the pace of change in export compensation value.
It does not intoduce "broad and complex issues", nor is it a "has$/" solution. Parties invested time
and money to engage in IPC-E-18-15 for over a year, which resulted in a Settlement Agreement
ttrat included a nansition plan. The progress achieved in IPC-E-19-15 related to Schedule 84 was
unfornrnately never filed and thus cannot be referenced in the Petition. When the Commission
rejected the IPC-E-18-15 Setdement Agreement, the Commission stated in that docket and then
referenced in IPC-E-20-26 in rcsponse to CI&I concems, "The work done in this docket can and
should be built upon in the next docket." (Order 34509 at 7). The Tiansition PIan proposed in the
IPC-E-18-15 Settlement Agreement reflected a decline of l2o/o after the first tr,vo year period and
L4o/o after the second two year period for Residents. This Petition proposes a guideline that the
export credit rate decline by no more than 1-5% per two-year period, which builds from prior
work. This outer boundary allows latitude for the development of a detailed tansition plan at ttre
time changes to net metering compensation are proposed.
D. Forthcoming changes to export compensation and a general rate case will address ldaho
Power's concerns related to possible cost+hifting.
26. The presumption that Cl&I-owned generation harms others is outdated and inaccurate. Unlike
Investor Owned Utilities in low or no-growth areas, Idaho Power has rapidly growing system
sales. The Motion alleges that capacity additions by customers would not result in a meaningful
amount of incremental generation (9SO), which can be exrapolated to mean ldaho Power does
not foresee a meaningful reduction in required revenues. Reduced sales to self-generatorc does not
change the upward uend in revenue to cover Idaho Power's fixed costs. This assumption implies
that a greater concem for ratepayers is the fixed costs associated wittr ttre Company's proposed
additions and any opportunity to mitigate the costs of those additions.
27. Fuflhermore, changes to export compensation will address tdaho Power's concems related to
potential cost-shifting in Motion 947. Customers adding capacity under a revised cap would be
IPC-8.22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPOBTUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 12
28.
subject to future changes in net metering compensation. There will be a gap in time betr,veen when
projects would be designed and constucted under a revised cap and when the Commission would
implement changes to net metering compensation. Any harm alleged in Motion 947 would be
limited to ttre gap in time between when projects designed under a new cap come online and
when the Commission would implement changes to net metering compensation. The Company's
presumption of cost shifting should be addressed in a compensation and/or a rate case, and in any
event, it does not negate the need to implement a change to the cap for the reasons described in
the Petition and above.
Revising the cap is not tethered to rate-making; the program can be "tweaked" now. As the
Commission noted in Order 35284 atL3-L4,
We recognize, as should the Parties, that tweaks to the on-site generator program now will
likely be further impacted when the Company files its next general rate case, and the
Commission can look at Idaho Power's system and customers as a whole.
Rates are imperfect and it is well understood that cost-shifting acrcss classes happens. The
Motion's allegation that PUC-approved rates are imperfect does not justify delaying the revision
of system design parametem, paticularly if a system design parameter is adding unnecessary costs
and for which no benefit has been demonstated. The Commission can and will look at Idaho
Power's system and customers as a whole in the next general rate case. The Petition's proposal to
implement in2022 a change in a system design parameter is a "tweak" that need not wait for
rate-making decisions. 22
In sum, the potential harm of the Petition alleged by ttre Motion is minimal and is far outrveighed
by the public interest benefits of the removal of the nro stated barriers to CI&I seH-generation by
Fall2022. The primary harm identified in the Motion most dfuectly relates to the gap in time
between when projects designed under a revised cap come online and when the Commission
29
30.
2 Note that the Commission granted a change to net metering in IPC-E-20-26 (another system design
parameter: a single vs. dual meter) before study completion.
IPC.E-22-12. CLEAN ENERGY OPPOFf,UNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 13
would implement changes to net metering compensation. Among many concerns described
above, CEO disagrees with the use of system design parameterc to discourage customer-owned
generation. Furttrer, this presumed harm assumes generation capacity added by CI&I would
unfavorably impact revenue recovery from ratepayers during ttrat gap. Yet the Company does not
address the counteruailing impaa on ratepayers of increased power purchases under high gas
prices or long-term impacts of fixed costs additions to meet capacity deficiencies. Regarding the
Transition Guideline, the Motion does not demonstate ttrat it harms public interest. [t is additive,
informative, and provides the Commission a means of addressing customer requests for urgency
and stability given the delay in launching the study and the extended timeline of a general rate
case.
TV. THE PETMION CALLS FOR PUC ACTION TO COUNTERACT TIIE COMPANY'S
DENIAL OF CUSTOMER CONCERNS.INACTION. AIYD UTILITY.CENTRIC AGENDA.
31. "It is Idaho policy to encourage investnent in customer-owned generation."z3 The public record
of farmers and organizations across multple dockes is more than sufficient to demonsnate that the
100kW cap does not encourage "cost-effective development of customer-owned renewable
generation." Idaho Power has noted that "nearly all" irrigation net metering customers werc
limited by the cap,2o yet denies CEO's statements that the 100kW cap does not encouage the
cost-effective development of a$tomer-owned renewable generation and appears to limit CI&I
customers from developing ttreir desired and appropriate amount of seH-generation (Motion at
$37 denying Petition at 933).
32. Idaho is #1 in U.S. in terms of the perrentage of elecnicity used to move water around2s, yet
imposes one of the lowest caps on Inigator seU-generation. A manual on Best Practices developed
E Idaho Energy Plan at 10. In the Motion at $36, "Idaho Power admis only that the most recent Idaho
Energy Plan was developed lr,20L2 and speaks for itseU".
2o 'Within the last two yeaE, nearly all of the active or pending irrigation net metering customers in 2018
and 20L9 have installed or requested to insall, on average, 99 kW systems to comply with the 100-kW
limit at an individual meter point." ( IPC-E-19-15, Idaho Power Application at 6).
2s vincent Tidwell' Envircn' sci' Techno"?r!.!;-,,*;lt;rlt^?if*91'oppoRruNrrrEs
FoR rDAHo - REspoNSE - 14
a scoring system for grading net metering prograrns, induding points based on the individual
system size limit26 Programs in border sates like Oregon and Utah receive 5 points for a
2000kW cap; Idaho Power's 100kW cap would receive 0 points. Table 1 shows how Idaho
comparcs to a sampling of nearby states and other agriculn[al powerhouse states:
Table 1. Non-Residential System Size Limits, kW
2OO96 of customers annual consumptionColorado hvestor-ow.-EE---------
Utah:Rocky Mountain Power
lllimis
Oregon: PGE & PacifiCorp
lowa law
Nevada lnvestor-owned utilities
lncf, ana lnvestor-owned utilities
ldaho Power
2000
2000
2000
!.000
1000
1000
a 100
33.Idaho can benefit from more Cl&I-owned generation even if the Company does not incur direct
benefits. The Company has is own perspective of customercwned generation, some of which is
reflected in Motion 950, which raises concems regarding tre uncertainty of CI&I capacity
additions, supply chain risl$, and insufficient magnitude of likely CI&I capacity additions.
Serving ldaho's public interests requires a broader and more fonrrard looking pe$pecdve. For
example, note 0re reasoning behind a Colorado law that summarizes the role of customer-owned
generation in meeting energy needs. In 2021, Senate Bill21-261increased system size limis to
200o/o of the reasonably expected average annual toal consumption of elecuicity at all properties
owned or leased by the customerwithin ttre utilityt service tenitory. The legislative declaration in
this Colorado law explains:
26 Best Practices report by Interstate Renewable Energy Council & Vote Solaf, 2014, at 15.
IPC.E-22-12 . CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FORIDAHO - RESPONSE . 15
(c) Although large.scale renewable energy generation nesources will make up most of
Colorado's overall elecuic energy supply in ttre future, disuibuted generation plays a
sienificant and increasinelv imoortant role because:
O Disributed generation reduces the need for invesnnent in expensive, Iong-term projects
to develop tansmission facilities, which are required to bring energy from cennalized
power souces to the end user;
(II) When a producer exports excess elecricity from disributed generation onto the state's
power grid, the elecuicity is quickly consumed by nearby uses, reducing the losses
incurred in long-disance transmission over power lines;
(III) Distibuted generation and storage has ttre potential o be used in advanced
demand-response prograrns to create a morc efficient and resilient grid as well as reduce
the need for investments in expensive. yet rarely used. peaker olants:
(IV) Disuibuted generation. especially when paired with energy storage. qeates a reliable
energy source that is less vulnerable to nanral disasters and grid failures: and
u.
(V) Consumers and local govemments increasingly want to have more local conrol over
their energy decisions for both environmental and economic reasons, making local
disnibuted generation invesunenb an appealing option . . .27
To beuer serve ldaho's public interest, ttre Petition has become necessary due to the Company's
failure to Iisten to, undestand, and address specific CI&I customer concems with regard to net
metering. In Order 34046 and again in Order 34509, the Commission noted:
The Company, Commission Staff, and all other stakeholders to the case would do well to
listen to and understand the public sentiment regarding the importance of disnibuted
on-site generation to Idaho Powet's customem. In Order No. 34046 we said, "The
Company must continue to listen to and understand, and address its customers' concems in
these cases." Orrder No. M046 at 25. Given the quantity and tone of the public comments,
it appears as if this has not yet happened.
35. Regarding CI&I customer concems related to the 1,00kW cap, such understanding has not been
manifested. The Commission has ample evidence that the 100kW cap and the lack of
predicability of export rates do not encourage the cost-effective development of CI&I owned
renewable generation as called for by Idaho Policy. It now has Idaho Power's denial of those
concems. The Motion to Dismiss should be denied on the grounds ttrat ldaho Power has not
27 SB2l-261,https:/fleg.colorado.gov/sites/defaulUfiles/documents/2021Ahills/sU2021a sl 280.pdf
(emphasis added).
IPC.E.22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 16
36.
listened to and has not understood ttre specific concems raised by customers and addressed in ttre
Petition.
There is no value in further delay. For twenty years the 100kW system design parameter has
discouraged customer-owned generation and Idaho Power has not taken initiative to propose a
solution. In conrast to Idaho policy to encourage customer-owned generation, in IPC-E-21-41,
the Company references 1,91,4 case law @loomquist et al., 26 Idaho 222, t4t P.1083) and
requested that the Commission affirm that "customers are best served by a vertically integrated
elecnic utility maintaining ownership of the necessary generation, tansmission and disnibution
utility functions, with limited exceptions."
The Motion characterizes requests in this new docket as a disuaction (9a8). Addressing the
specific requests in the Petitionn2022 may be a disnaction for ldaho Power and inconsistent
with its interest in owning all necessary generation, but the requests are of high concem to many
customers wishing to avail themselves of Schedule M.28 The Company's denial of customer
concems (S37), characterization of the Petition's requests as a disnaction (948), bias for
utility-owned generation, lack of initiative to propose solutions to the matters in the Petition, and
the need to better serve Idaho's policy of encouraging invesunent in customer-owned generation
all justify the need for this Petition and denial of the Motion to Dismiss.
The utility's priorities are not identical to customer priorities, which is a basis of the need for the
Public Utilities Commission. As sated in the Petition (at 9f D and denied in the Motion (at 9Zg):
37
38.
The Company's control over process schedules, combined with the financial disincentive
to enable customer-owned generation, can harm all customers when the regulatory process
does not enable timely development of customer-owned rcsources which mitigate cost
additions by the utility.
39. Quite simply, revising the 100kW cap and improving the predicability of export compensation
rates arc priorities for agribusinesses and not for the Company. The Company's disposition as
'8 For example: "The matterc in this petition are important to me and our operation. I would encourage the
PUC to please give it your full consideration," ([PC-E-22-L2 Public Commeng Jordan Funk, Darrell
Funk Farms' Double Eagle Dairy and Eaglerview-?lgl;.
ENERG' oppoRruNrrrEs FoR rDAHo - RES,.NSE - 17
described above (denials/inaction) created the necessity for CEO to invest in the preparation and
submission of the Petition in order to have a chance at implementing solutions in 2022. The
Commission should not allow the Company's priorities to outweigh the interests of the public.
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
40. In S46, Idaho Power states the "Commission was unequivocal" in reference to the Order in
IPC-E-18-15: "The Company shall submit a comprehensive study of the costs and benefits of net
metering to the Commission before any furttrer proposals to change the Company's net-metering
program." Fi$t, note the Transition Guideline proposed in the Petition is not a change to net
metering. Additionally, note that the Order was specific to the Company, it did not forbid other
parties from making a proposal. Furttrermore, and importantly, the net metering program
contemplated in IPC-E-18-15 addressed Schedules 6 & 8 customers not CI&I - Order 34225
clarified that IPC-E-18-15 did not address the interests of CI&I customers.2e
41. The Commission thoughtfully listened to public corrunens regarding residential net metering late
into the night during IPC-E-18-15. CI&I customers did not have a similar opportunity to weigh in
on the agreements reached but not filed in IPC-E-19-15. When given the oppornrnity to weigh in
on the net metering program in IPC-E-20-26, CI&I customes raised concems different finm those
raised by residents. For example, agribusinesses characterized access to solar as necessary to
compete in commodity markets and called for revision of the 100kW cap. The order in
IPC-E-18-15 regarding Schedules 6 & 8 does not prohibit CEO from proposing a revision to the
pmject eligibility cap for Schedule 84 given the scope of IPC-E-L8-15 did not address CI&I
concems and the matter of revising the project eligibility cap was not addrcssed in that docket.
a'We find that the scope of IPC-E-18-15 should notbe broadened to include the interests of CI&I
customers under Schedule 84. IPC-E-18-15 stems from IPC-E-17-13, which focused on net metering for
residential and small general service custome$. If we were to merge IPC-E-18- 15 and this case, CI&I net
metering customers would be unfairly disadvanaged by not having the benefit of full participation in the
IPC-E-18-15 docket'" (order 34335 ut t)'
,r"-"-22-12 - .LEAN ENERG, oppo*ruNrrrEs FoR rDAHo - RES,.NSE - rB
42
43.
4.
Regarding IPC-E-2L4L, this docket augmented the importance and faimess of enabling CI&I
customem to make investnent decisions lrl,2022 given the context that Idaho Power would
expeditiously add resourlces and the associated fixed costs and given the Company was likely to
need "any generation that can be developed and brought online in time to meet these deficits."30
IPC-E-21-4L did not create a need to change ttre Study Design phase ordered in IPC-E-21-2L, as
alleged in Motion $qS - it upped the urgency of implementing changes to the cap, after it was
studied, and ttre need to address agribusiness requests for better predicability of future export
compensation.
In 95t, the Motion suggests that opportunities that cunently exist for inigation customers to help
address the projected capacity deficit are adequate. Again, that is the Company's perspective and
does not give adequate weight to customer perspectives.3t The suggestion conveys that the
Company is not carrying out the Commission's guidance to listen to, understand, and address
customer concems.
The regulatory process for addressing net metering continues to evolve and parties continue "to
leam as we go." The process is no! and should not be, so rigid that matters of high concem to
customers should be dismissed as suggested by the Motion. The Commission first ordered a study
for R&SGS customer self-generation in IPC-E-17-13 via a collaborative process, then established
a multi-phase process in IPC-E-18-L5 after hearing public reaction to a Setdement Agreement for
R&SGS customerc. Idaho Power points out that the Commission was "unequivocaf' that a study
was needed before the Company should propose changes to net metering, yet the Commission
granted a change to net metering in IPC-E-20-26 (another system design parameter: a single vs.
dual meter) before study completion.
'0 See Company Response to ldahoHydro Motion at 8, IPC-E-21-41.
,,'nVe ask the Commission to ensue that farmers and ranchers receive a fair shot to help solve the power
needs and generation shordalls by consideringlPCE-22-12," (Idaho Farm Bureau, IPC-E-22-12 Public
comments' 51L312022)'
DC-E-22-12- .LEAN ENERG' oppoRruNrrrEs FoR rDAHo - REspoNSE - 19
45 Idaho Power perceives that "CEO's Petition represents an attempt to deviate from the process"
(Motion at 943). CEO disagrees. The Petition resulted in part from CEO's reaction to the
Company's delay for a year and a half to initiate a comprehensive study re-ordered in 34509; such
delay is itself a form of deviation from the process. CEO does not agree with Idaho Power's
suggestion that the Commission should discourage an opporhmity to better serve public interest in
Iight of changing circumstances, or to address concems frcm customers under-represented in the
"regulatory process established in prior Commission orde6" (Motion at S40).
As described above, the Petition prcposes solutions consistent with prior orders that balance the
conflicting timelines: (1) to carry out a process established in an R&SGS docket to allow the
public to comment on whether the study sufficiently addressed their concems (34509 at L0); and
(2) to listen to, understand, and address customers concems regarding net metering (34046 and
34509 also at L0), which for CI&I customem call for a revised cap and better predictability in
2022.\n addition, CEO's proposal wil} (3) address a utility's obligation to provide timely
information to enable customers to make informed decisions regarding customer-owned
generation (34752)32; (4) provide a doable and least-disruptive means of accommodating CI&I
concems which the Commission specified werc not within scope of the docket establishing the
"Study Review" phase (3a335); (5) create a minimal-harm opportunrty to accommodate the
year-and-a-half delay in launching the study ordered in 2019 Ga509); and (6) align with "Idaho
policy to encourage investnent in customer-owned generation" in light of agribusiness comments
on the need for urgency and to address specific matte$ lui,2022.
46
32 'The utility is a tusted entity imbued with a public purpose. It has the opporhrnity and the obligation to
provide its customers with timely, tustworthy, and accurate information regarding the utility's service
offerings to allow its customers to make informed decisions about whether to pursue the potential benefits
or being a customer-senerator while also "$Hg *: si::i'3l,"*H*;"[,?f,fl,',?"?1s13) RESpoNsE - 20
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
47. CEO has presented sufficient arguments to overcome Idaho Power's Motion to Dismiss.
48. The benefis of the Petition far outr,veigh any alleged harm. The nso premises for ttre Petition
related to fair teatnent faimess remain valid. The public interest is served by allowing CI&I
customerc a fair opportunlty to add resources. The potential benefits of CI&I investnents in
self-generation are numerous and augmented by current circumstances. CI&I customers should be
afforrded a fair opportunlty to manage their power costs. An opportunity to revise a regulation that
impedes the ability of Idaho businesses to manage costs and survive in competitive markets should
not be prematurely dismissed. The 100kW cap adds unnecessary costs and is harmfuI and
discriminatory. lmposing unnecessary cosB is an improper means of regulating access to
self-generation prograrns. The appropriate mechanism for regulating cost-shifting is via rates and
rate design, not via discriminatory system design parameters. The proposal to implement in 2022
one of the two caps ordered to be studied in IPC-E-21-21 merits consideradon and is consistent
with Best Practices.
49. The Tfansition Guideline is additive, informative, and builds from work in a prior docket.
Agribusinesses find it extremely difficult to predict the range of export values. A general rate case
furttrer clouds that predictability. The Transition Guideline addresses customer requesB for better
prcdicability and stability of export rates, leaves latitude for a wide range of options regarding the
ultimate implemenation of a transition plan, and allows the process of addressing compensation
matters to continue forward as ordercd.
50. Forthcoming changes to export compensation and a general rate case will address Idaho Power's
rate-related concems. The presumption that Cl&I-owned generation harms others is outdated and
inaccurate. Changes to export compensation will resolve Idaho Power's allegations of
cost-shifting. Revising system design parameters is not tethered to rate-making. Further delay
harms businesses in competitive markets.
IPC-8.22.12. CLEAN ENERGY OPPOKTUNITIES FOR IDAHO . RESPONSE - 21
51. The Petition salls for Commission action to counteract the Company's denial of customer
concems, inaction, and utility-cennic agenda in addressing matters raised in the Petition. It is
Idaho policy to encourage invesfrnent in customer-owned generation. Idaho is #1 in ttre U.S. in
terms of the percentage of elecnicity used to move water around, yet imposes one of lowest caps
on Irrigator self-generation. Idaho can benefit from Cl&I-owned generation even if ttre Company
does not incur benefits. Colorado law exemplifies the perspective ttrat distibuted generation
should be considered a resourre that mitigates costs, reduces reliance on gas, and adds reliability.
Denial of customer concems, marginalizing the Petition requests as a distaction, a bias for
utility-owned generation, and the lack of initiative to propose solutions to the matters in this
petition in alignment with ldaho's policy of encouraging customer-owned all justify the need for
this petition and denial of the Motion to Dismiss.
52. The Petition does not impact Study Design Phase. It carries out the intent of R&SGS Order that a
multi-phase process respects customer concerns. Regarding the Study Design Phase: CEO affirms
the Commission's decision that a separate docket is not necessary to study the cap (IPC-E-2I-21).
The Petition creates the option to implement:ulzOzz one of two altematives which will have been
studied and submitted by the end of June.
53. Regarding the Shrdy Review Phase: an Order in an R&SGS docket to consider customer
concems is poor reason to dismiss a proposal to address CI&I concems not represented in that
docket. This Petition adds an option to the Study Review phase consistent with the purpose of the
multi-phase pnocess - to address customer concerns. CI&I interests should not be marginalized.
54. The regulatory process for addressing net metering continues to evolve as parties leam as we go; it
is not so rigid that matters of high concem to Idaho businesses should be dismissed as suggested
by the Motion.
55. The Motion should be denied.
IPC.E.22.12 . CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO. RESPONSE . 22
DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
Respecffully submitted,
ls\e
Kelsey Jae, Atomey for CEO
IPC.E-22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPOFTTUNITIES FOR IDAHO . RESPONSE . 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certi{y that on t}ris 1st day of June, 2022. I delivered ftre and correct copies of the
foregoing RESPONSE to the following pemons via the method of seryice noted:
Elecuonic Mail Delivery
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secrehry
[e-mail]. eov
Idoho PUC Staff
Riley Newton
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
[e-mail]. gov
Idaho Power Company
Lisa D. Nordsuom
lnordsuom@idahopow er. com
dockes@idahopower. com
Ys\k
Kelsey Jae
Anorney for CEO
IPC-E.22-12 - CLEAN ENERGY OPPOFNUNITIES FOR IDAHO - RESPONSE - 24