20220726Reply Comments.pdf

) Cleqn Energy Opportunilies for tdoho ii:il:I:i-/[il
Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
11331W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ldaho 837L4
Re: Case No. IPC-E-2}-LZ - ln the Matter of Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho's Petition for an
Order To Modify The Schedule 84 100kW Cap & To Establish A Transition Guideline For Changes
To Schedule 84 Export Credit Compensation Values
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Enclosed for electronic filing purzuant to order No. 35453 b Chan Enrgy Opportunities
for ldaho's Reply Comments in the above-entitled matter. Thank you for your assistance, and
please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely
rs\e
Kelsey Jae
Attorney for CEO
Enclosures
Kelsey Jae (lSB No. 7899)
Law for Conscious Leadership
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise, lD 83703
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Cleon Energy Opportunities for ldoho
1
# Cleon Energy opportunities for ldoho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBTIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CTEAN ENERGY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO'S PETITION
FOR AN ORDER TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULE 84 1OOKW CAP & TO
ESTABLISH A TRANSITION GUIDELINE
FOR CHANGES TO SCHEDULE 84 EXPORT
CREDIT COMPENSATION VALU ES
cAsE NO. aPC-E-22-L2
REPLY COMMENTS OF CLEAN ENERGY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO
SUMMARY & REVISED REQUEST
The Petition CEO filed presents the Commission with the question of how best to serve customer,
Company, and public interests with regard to revising the Schedule 84 system size limit. The
fundamental dichotomy in commenters' views is that people on the receiving end of the 100kW
cap convey the harm and unfairness of delay, while Staff speaks to benefits of addressing all
matters in IPC-E-22-22. CEO's mission is to craft solutions informed by stakeholder interests. A
narrowed CEO request is presented further below to serve customer, Staff, Company, and public
interest by performing needed technical workshops promptly under the IPC-E-22-12 docket.
Strong Public Support for the Petition, especiallv from Ag interests. The Commission noted, when
issuing its Order No. 35453 in this docket, that "written comments have proven to be an effective
means for obtaining public input and participation"., Comments have validated that the relief
proposed in this petition matters to farmers (including ldaho Farm Bureau Federation & ldaho
Grain Producer Association), dairies, resource councils, the City of Boise, and other organizations.
For example, supportive comments were filed by:
ldaho Farm Bureau Federation ldaho Grain Producer Association ldaho Organization of
Resource Councils
Magic Water Company, lnc.
Hooley Farms
Double Eagle Dairy &
Eagle View Dairy
Grant 4-D Farms
Pickett Ranch
Farmers plea for relief. "Farmers in ldaho live or die with our power costs, and we deserve the fair
opportunity to manage our costs.", Commenters make clear that they are financially harmed by a
Order No. 35453, page 3.
, Russell Schiermeier, July 19, 2022 Public Comment, IPC-E-22-L2. Further, "lt seems unfair that the utility can keep
making cost additions and earning a return on those additions by collecting revenue from us customers, while
irrigators do not have the same opportunity to invest in solar in2022."
Magic lrrigators, lnc
BCF Farms, lnc
North Cinder Cone Butte Farm
R M Robertson Farms
Young Family Farms
Hidden Valley Organic
M&RFarms, lnc
DarrellFunk Farms
Standlee Premium Western Forage
Pioneer Road Farm
Schiermeier Farms
Chris Unruh, Inc.
3
fr Cleon Energy Opportunities for tdoho
100kW cap that forces installations "scattered willy-ni!!y across the landscape"r rather than right-
sized and cost effective. The VODER study validates the 100kW cap is inequitable. Without the
actions requested in the petition, the regulatory process will continue to unnecessarily delay fair
access to a technology which businesses say is essential to manage their costs and remain
competitive in their respective markets.
CEO believes no customers should be denied the right to produce some or al! of their power
requirements and that the 100kW cap harms irrigators' ability to exercise that right.
A new challenge: Deficiencies in the VODER evaluation. CEO acknowledges the massive effort
reflected in the VODER analysis of compensation matters. But with respect to its review of the
100kW cap, the VODER study was deficient. For example:o The Evaluation of Existing Cap was deficient in reflecting harm to customers of the 100kW cap.o The Company proposed in IPC-E-21-21to evaluate setting the cap according to a custome/s
demand, then in the study it raises issues and delays further evaluation.o The study presents no lessons from model procedures,, other states, or Rocky Mountain
Power (which has been studying the same cap for two years, Order 34753, Attachment A, p2).o The study was ordered to evaluate safety, service quality, and grid reliability, yet in IPC-E-?}-L?
comments Staff calls for more 'Time needed to evaluate how the eligibility cap can be
increased without unnecessary risk to system safety and reliability."s
The time has come for facllitated discusslon. Deficiencies in the VODER study prevent the study
review phase from serving its purpose of enabling customers to provide "their opinions on what
the study shows".. The record of customer concerns with the 100kW cap is substantia! yet under-
utilized. Staff raises the need to further address highly technical issues,T which could be better
resolved with interactive dialogue than one-way communications.
Other than the cap, all other matters in the study relate to rates or compensation policies. No one
is arguing that the 100kW cap is more important than compensation policies; in fact, supportive
commenters note that customers should have opportunity to focus on those highly impactful
compensation policies. The Company's choice to exclude the systems size cap from its VODER
3 "The only thing negative about the sites is the fact that ldaho Power's rules, blessed by the PUC, illogically limit the
size of the sites to 100 KW, thus requiring the sites to be scattered willy-nilly across the landscape wherever one can
make the sizing and combination rules work. We would have much preferred to construct 3 logical, efficient 1,000 KW
central sites on a main feeder as opposed to the 26 scattered sites we currently have." Duane Grant, Grant 4-D Farms,
p u bl ic conrrrn t, lP C-E-22-L2.
4 For example, Model lnterconnection Procedures, IREC, 2019, p11 offers a tiered approach which vary according to
the voltage of the line at the proposed Point of lnterconnection.
Staff ConrrEnts, IPC-E-22-L2, luly L9, 2022, p3.
6 Order 34509 at 10; The Commission established the study review phase in IPC-E-18-15 so "the public will be able to
comment on whether the study sufficiently addressed their concerns, and their opinions on what the study shows."
? Staff Comments, IPC-E-22-L2, July L9,2022, p3. Examples of risk areas Staff notes include: distribution voltage and
line equipment impacts, voltage flicker from generation output variability, deadline reclosing, ground fault current
contribution linits, and distribution systrn operations in low load conditions
4
} Cleon Energy Opportunilies for ldoho
study workshop supports the logic that a meaningful discussion of a technical system design
matter is difficult to add onto deliberations of compensation policies.
Technical workhops need to proceed prior to the establishment of a revision to the 100kw cap.
Staff also recognizes that there exist dependencies between the actions needed to implement the
changes to eligibility caps which affect the sequence in which the actions are performed. Staff
notes the role of "technical workshops to discuss proposed interconnection requirements prior to
submitting Schedule 58 tariff changes for Commission approval.". Resolving what levels of self-
generation can be safely interconnected and operated, and the appropriate policies for each level,
should clearly be reviewed and are advantageous to review sooner rather than later.
The Company proposes that in 2023 it would "likely endeavor to hold technical workshops with
Commission Staff, installers, and other interested stakeholders to discuss proposed
interconnection requirements".g Multiple IPC-E-22-L2 commentersro suggest holding technical
workshops in 2022 via IPC-E-22-12 in order to resolve technical matters related to the 100kW cap.
Commenters noted that if the CEO petition were not limited to the cap alternative ordered in IPC-
E-2L-2L, that an absolute level of 2000kW or a table of eligibility levels with protocols for each
level should be considered.
The urgency of revising a harmfu! and inequitable 10OkW cap is clear, the need to further review
technical matters and alternatives beyond the evaluation in the VODER study is evident.
Both interests are served by proceeding with technical workshops ln2O22.
Use the IPC-E-22-12 docket for facilitated discussion of technical matterc. After reviewing both
the comments submitted in this docket and the VODER study submitted under IPC-E-22-22, CEO
respectfully requests the following:
1)Order Commission Staff to facilitate technicalworkshops within IPC-E-22-L2 open to interested
parties in order to (a) interactively discuss issues and options for modifying the Schedule 84
system size cap, and (b) draft associated revisions to Schedules 84 and 68. The workshops should
specifically consider, but not be limited to:o a system size cap set according to a custome/s demand, as was ordered to be evaluated in
the VODER study and was proposed in the filing of this petition
o a tiered approach of absolute levels, with rules specific to each level, starting at 0 to
1000kW and comparable to Mode! lnterconnection Procedures
Regarding schedule constraints, the Company proposes an October 12,t'deadline in IPC-E-22-22tor
stakeholders to propose implementation recommendations. CEO requests that the technical
workshops ordered in !PC-E-22-12 should complete in time to inform parties submitting
recommendations in IPC-E-22-22 (October L2,2022 or as set in\PC-E-22-221.
' Staff Com m ents, I PC-E-22- 12, luly L9, 2022, p6.
VODERStudy, pqe112.
10 Fwe public conrmnts in IPC-E-22-12: Vote Solar, ldaho Consenation Lque R. Schienrnief K. King and M. Dunay.
5
1| Cleon Energy Opporlunities for ldoho
2) CEO further asks that the revisions to Schedules 84 and 68 resulting from these technical
workshops either be:
a. lmplemented via a Commission order issuing under IPC-E-22-L2 or
b. lmplemented via an order in IPC-E-22-22,for which the Company proposes a December 30,
2022Target Date for an IPUC Order
Regardless of whether the Commission grants either of the alternatives in proposal #2 above, CEO
requests that #1 can be granted independently and is necessary to effectively reconcile concerns
raised by customers, Staff, and the Company. The VODER study and process proposed in IPC-E-22-
22 are insufficient. Customers have conveyed concerns with the 10OkW cap for twenty years and
the agribusiness community has made a strong appeal for urgency in this docke| the time has
come for facilitated discussion.
The Transition Guideline. The call for predictability of the range of potential future export rates
was requested by agribusinesses in 2020 and again in this docket. The Company has proposed in
IPC-E-22-22 the opportunity to establish a reasonable transition period over "a given number of
years" or to "cap the average customer impacl"tt. This does not provide relief in 2022lo improve
the predictability of future ECR rates yet offers some assurance that the Company recognizes a
need for rate stability. ln the spirit of compromise, CEO withdraws its request for a Transition
Guideline and supports establishing a reasonable transition policy via IPC-E-22-22.
To the customers whose interests we have attempted to serve, who have sought to build the
Commission's understanding of the urgent need for fair access to technologies necessary for
managing costs in the face of rising electricity costs: We hope that your voices have been heard
and that your interests wil! be fairly and adequately addressed.
A narrowed request
CEO requests that the Commission dismiss in part and grant in part our previously submitted
Petition. Specifically, CEO requests that the Commission grant the request for technica!
workshops to be performed as expeditiously as possible as described above (1), grant the request
for implementation of a modified Schedule 84 cap as described above (2), and thirdly to dismiss
the previous request for a Transition Guideline.
Additionol informotion related to CEO's replies to comments is provided below.
6
rr VODE R study, IPC-622-22, ptLl.
1} Cleon Energy Opporlunities for ldoho
REPLY TO COMMENTS - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In order to respond to matters raised in comments, CEO's additional reply comments are
organized around questions which may be on the minds of the Commission:
1. ls this petition a nuisance and a distraction, or is it of substantial public interest?
2. How does ldaho policy inform this petition?
3. Would granting this petition open the door to additional proposals to implement other items
within the VODER study outside of IPC-E-22-22?
4. What about the 25kW cap, how is it affected by the CEO request?
5. ls it inequitable to grant the petition, or inequitable to dismiss?
5. Do supply chain issues, or the Company's ability to add capacity faster than the 100kW cap be
revised, present reasons to dismiss or to grant the petition?
7. Do PURPA or Non-export options offer "viable alternatives" to the 100kW cap?
8. ls the petition in conflict with prior orders? Does a prior order require the system size cap to
be part of the study review phase?
9. What is the harm of delay?
10. Other than the harm of delay, why is the revised request in IPC-E-22-12 necessary when IPC-E-
22-22 proposes a process for modifying the system size cap?
1. ls this petition a nuisance and a distraction,
or is it of substantial public interest?
After hearing public response to the first comprehensive review (lPC-E-18-15), the Commission
instructs (Order No. 34046 at 25):
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 distributed on-
site generation to ldaho Power's customers. ln Order No. 34046 we said, "The Company
must continue to listen to and understand, and address its customers' concerns in these
cases.t'
CEO has listened to public sentiment. The supportive comments filed in IPC-E-22-12 demonstrate
strong public interest, including:
. ldaho Farm Bureau Federationo ldaho Grain Producers Association (IGPA)
o Grant 4-D Farms, headquartered in Rupert, lD, Duane Granto Magic lrrigators, lnc. Armand M. Eckert, Buhl, lDo Maurice H. Eckert & Son's, lnc., Granville Eckert, Buhl, lD. M & R Farms, lnc. Mike B. Eckert, Buhl, lDo Magic Water Company, lnc. Ron P. Elkin, Buhl, lD
o BCF Farms, lnc. Brent Funk, Hansen, lD
7
dr, Cleqn Energy Opportunilies for ldoho
o Standlee Premium Western Forage, Dusty Standlee, Eden, lD
o Hooley Farms, Dale & Diana Hooley, Hammett, lD
o Young Family Farms, Adam Young, Blackfoot, lD
o North Cinder Cone Butte Farm LLC., David L. Palfreyman,
o Pickett Ranch, David Pickett, Oakley, lD. R M Robertson Farms, Ryan Robertson, Paul, lD
o Chris Unruh, lnc., Grandview, lD. Darrell Funk Farms, Double Eagle Dairy & Eagle View Dairy; Jordan Funk, Murtaugh, lD
o Pioneer Road Farm, Mark Clark, Ontario, Oregon. Schiermeier Farms, Russell Schiermeier, Bruneau, lD
o Hidden Valley Organic, Perry Van Tassell, Paul, !D. Kevin King, expert witness in past dockets for ICEA, Meridian, lDo ldaho Conservation League, Emma Sperryo Matthew Dunay, CTO Tiger Solar, Garden City, lDo Climate Action Coalition of the Wood River Valleyo Vote Solaro Conservation Voters for ldahoo ldaho Organization of Resource Councils
o Portneuf Resource Council
o Snake River Alliance
o ldaho Chapter Sierra Club
. ldaho Sustainability and Energy Coalition
ln addition, the ldaho lrrigation Pumpers Association (llPA) filed comments July 19 asking to
consolidate CEO's Petition and IPC-E-22-22. Two days later, a farmer filed comments to urge the
PUC to recognize that llPA comments represented the opinions of individuals and not a consensus
among farmers. The commenter was previously an llPA member but "opted to not renew our
membershipin2O2L due to the fact that the leadership of the organization would not justify or
even engage with me in response to their opposition to solar power."r,
ln sum: Public comments validate that timely access to the technologies necessary for controlling
electricity costs is of substantial importance to businesses impacted by this petition, and
customers familiar with the 100kW cap convey the unnecessary costs it imposes.
2. How does ldaho cy inform this petition?
As noted in the petition, the most recent ldaho Energy Plan states "lt is ldaho policy to encourage
investment in customer-owned generation.",, The ldaho Energy Plan further states (p10):
', "ldaho lrrigation Pumpers Association does not represent me, and has made no effort to build informed consensus
regarding solar amongst the irrigating community. I urge the PUC to recognize the opinions of the ldaho lrrigation
Pumpers Association for what they are, the isolated and biased opinions of individuals who have co-opted the name
and brand of a formerly viable association." (lPC-E-22-12 public comment, 7l2L/2O221.
,3 ldaho Energy Plan, 2012, at 10
8
fS Cleon Energy Opportunilies for ldoho
ln accordance with federal law, the ldaho PUC should continue to administer its
responsibilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act in a way that encourages the
cost-effective development of customer-owned renewable generation and combined heat
and power facilities.
ln its Motion to Dismiss at paragraph 36, "ldaho Power admits only that the most recent ldaho
Energy Plan was developed in 2OLZ and speaks for itself". Commenters have validated that the
100kW is not cost-effective. As such, ldaho state policy supports proceeding expeditiously to
modify the 100kW cap.
3. Would granting this petition open the door to proposals to implement
other items within the VODER study outside of IPC-E-22-22?
The subject matter within the VODER study falls into three buckets:
1) Rate Matters: cost of service, rate design, and transitional rates. The Commission instructs
these to be implemented via a generalcase.l4
2) Compensation Matters: netting period, export credit rate, frequency of updates, recovery of
export credit expenditures, and a transition period to a modified export credit rate. The Company
proposes to deliberate these in IPC-E-22-22 and implement no earlier than June 2023.ts
3) The system size cap, which is the singular design parameter in the study and is not a
compensation matter, as noted by commenters:
City of Boise: "Additionally, as with smart inverters, the 100kW cap on Cl&l on-site generation
is independent from the compensation structure for the resource, so the City believes it would
be consistent with prior practice for the Commission to consider modifications to the Cl&l
project eligibility cap outside of IPC-E-22-22." (\PC-E-22-L2 comments, July 13, 2022l
ldaho Conservation League: 'The system size cap for Schedule 84 customers is a design issue,
not a cost or compensation issue." (lCL comments, IPC-E-22-L2, July 11, 2O22, p6l
Kevin King: "The cap is the only matter in the study that is unrelated to rates / compensation.
It is a design parameter that the Commission added to the study after it came up in
deliberations on ldaho Power's applications to change other Schedule 84 configuration
specifications."'u
a
a
a
ra Order 35284, at 24. "The Commission also finds it fair and reasonable for updates to current cost of service, new
rate designs, and transitional rates to be implemented in a general rate case."
,3IPC-E-22-22 Application at 15.
'6 Kevin King, public comments, IPC-E-22-L2,6/30/2022. "After the study had been re-ordered (2019) and before
Idaho Power launched the second study (2021), [ldaho Power] filed 20-25 as well as 20-30 to propose other net
metering configuration changes; a boatload of commenters asked to also address the 100kW cap. The Commission
acknowledged customer concerns with the 100kW cap but said the matter had not been noticed. When I read the
CEO petition, it sounds like an effort to do what the rate payers have expressed concerns over and exactly what the
9
t Cleon Energy Opportunilies for ldoho
The Company has historically treated the system size cap and other interconnection matters as
separate from Compensation matters. ldaho Power excluded the system size cap from its first
applications to study the cost and benefits of net excess generation (lPC-E-18-15 or IPC-E-19-15),
and excluded the cap from its workshop during the study design phase of IPC-E-21-21. CEO
respects the Company's choice to use the limited time in that workshop to focus on compensation
matters; those compensation matters are of high interest to a broad audience. CEO supports that
the public should be able to adequately focus on important compensation matters during IPC-E-
22-22.
ln sum: Rate matters will be implemented via a rate case, compensation matters will be the focus
of IPC-E-22-22, and the system size cap is the only technical design parameter. CEO cannot
envision a motive, practical benefit, or feasibility for another petition to address any other matter
outside of lP C-E-22-22.
4. What about the 25kW cap? How is it impacted by this Petition?
The issues and interests associated with project caps for R&SGS, Clean Energy Your Way, and Cl&l
customers are different and each have previously been addressed in different dockets. The 25kW
and 100kW caps were established in different dockets. For participants in Clean Energy Your Way,
the Company proposed a cap of tLO% of annual consumption for its construction option in IPC-E-
2t-40.17 lf there is a goal for fairness and consistency (values raised by Staff comments in IPC-E-22-
12) the 100kW cap is more closely related to the cap in IPC-E-21-40 (Clean Energy Your Way) than
to the R&SGS 25kW cap.
The VODER study demonstrates that the 100kW cap is very limiting to Cl&l customers, while "lt
does not appear that the 25-kW cap limits these customer Segments."rs The study suggests
"retaining the 25-kW cap for residential and smallgeneral customers could be reasonable.",, The
study raises issues with larger systems, particularly for systems over 2000kW.
It is fair and reasonable to allow parties harmed by the 100kW cap to discuss technical issues
associated with larger system sizes and solutions for modifying the Schedule 84 cap in technical
workshops. Such workshops would be open to all interested parties.
5. ls it inequitable to grant the petition, or inequitable to dismiss?
Commission ordered - to revise the cap after the Company has thoroughly studied it and to meet the regulatory
req u i rement of g!y!!gjCgg!4!jg,."
,, "Customer(s) pursuing the Construction option cannot request to size the REF greater than 110 percent ofthe
participating service point(s) annual energy amounts." IPC-E-ZL4O, Attachment 1, Schedule 62
" VODER Study, IPC-E-22-22, pLOL
,, ld.
10
a
a
e Cleon Energy Opportunilies for ldoho
ln May 2022,ldaho Power alleged in its Motion to Dismiss that allowing Cl&l customers to avail
themselves of an expedited process to implement a modified system size cap would be
inequitable.ro Since then:
The VODER study has concluded that the 100kW cap is inequitable in that it appears to harm
Schedule 84 customers in a way that the 25kW cap does not for Residential and Small General
Service (R&SGS) customers.2l
Commenters validate that the system size cap is inequitable in that it imposes upon them
constraints which do not burden competitors served by other utilities. For example, as one
farmer describes:
I am hoping to insta!! solar to offset the electricity we need for irrigation. I am surprised
to see that the system cap for net metering seems to be 100kW for ldaho Power
customers like me when it is 2000kW for non-residential Pacific Power Schedule 135
customers in Oregon.r,
Thirdly, the process has been shaped in an inequitable manner. Residential and Small General
Service (R&SGS) customers "had their day in court," while "Cl&l customers have not been
afforded the same opportunity".B As described by commenters, the need for a study review
phase was established after hearing extensive testimony and over 1000 comments in a R&SGS
docket. Cl&! customers have not had a similar opportunity.
a
ln sum: Fairness supports a callfor prompt action to revise an inequitable 100kW cap for
customers impacted by a process which they did not have equal opportunity to influence
6. Do supply chain issues, or the Company's ability to expedite its capacity
additions, present reasons to dismiss or to grant the petition?
The Company and Staff argue that the petition should be dismissed because, due to supply chain
issues, it is unlikely to result in incremental capacity in time to meet the 2023 summer capacity
deficiency. ln response -
,0 Ansrver and Motion to Disniss at 5.
21 98%o of R&SGS installations are below 80% of their 25kW cap. The ovemrhelming majority (>85%) of lrrigation
custorners hrye been constrained by the 100kW cap. VODER study, p97 and 98.,, IPC-E-22-L2 Public Comment, July L8, 2022, Mark Clark, Pioneer Road Farm.
23 Kevin King, public comments, IPC-E-22-L2,6/30/2022: "One could say, residential and small commercial rate payers
'had their day in court'. I appreciated that the Commission stuck around until 2:15am in 2019 to hear public reaction
to the 18-15 cost/benefit study. ln response to that testimony and the 1000 public comments in that residential/small
commercial docket, the Commission ordered a new process. However, Cl&l customers have not been afforded the
same opportunity. As a participant in both 18-15 and 19-15, I believe the Commission would have heard different
testimony if agribusinesses had been given a similar opportuniry to react to the terms agreed to but not filed in 19-
15."
11
1} Cleon Energy Opportunities for ldoho
Fairness. The petition does not rely on solving the Company's capacity deficiency, the petition is
about the fair and equitable access to technology, opportunity to manage one's electricity costs,
and opportunity to mitigate cost additions by the utility.
The customer lens vs. Company lens. lf one thinks from a customer perspective, longer lead times
for solar equipment is an argument for enabling customers to have relief from the 10OkW cap
sooner rather than later. tn addition to supply chain challenges, Staff comments 17lL9l2O22, p5l
point out other delays as an argument for dismissing the petition, that "solar projects can often
experience delays with inspections, permitting and the interconnection process before a system
can be operational." lf viewed from a customer perspective, the existence of delays does not
warrant additional delay.
Somethingis not working. Staff and the Company suggest that, while more time is needed to
evaluate the cap (which farmers began raising issues with 20 years ago), the Company has
sufficient time to add substantial capacity and the associated costs to meet the summer 2023
deficiency. Who will ultimately pay for those costs? From a farmer perspective,
"!t seems unfair that the utility can keep making cost additions and earning a return on
those additions by collecting revenue from us customers, while irrigators do not have the
same opportunity to invest in solar in2O22."zo
The opportunity to mitigate future costs should not be dismissed. Per Staff -
Staff notes that secondary !eve! irrigation customers account for approximately 23% of
summer peak demand, so any reduction in lrrigator's demand could help defer the need
for future generation and transmission plant.2s
A "fair shot'' is merited to mitigate impacts of future capacity deficiencies. As ldaho Farm
Bureau Federation describes, "We ask the Commission to ensure that farmers and ranchers
receive a fair shot to help solve the power needs and generation shortfalls by considering !PCE-22-
12."25 While Staff questions whether self-generating irrigation customers can add solar in time to
address the Company's projected 2O23 capacity shortfalls, the Company projects even larger
capacity shortfalls in2O24 and 2025. The sooner unnecessary impediments like the 100kW cap are
removed, the sooner such customers can provide some relief from those capacity constraints even
if, as Staff contends, those benefits arrive later than the summer of 2023.
It would be unfair to dismiss an opportunity to mitigate cost additions by the utility and then later
treat those costs as "fixed" and allocate such costs to customers choosing to self-generate.
7. What is the harm of delaying the revision of the Schedule 84 cap?
'?a RusC I Sch ienrrier, J u ly t9, 2022 Pu bl i c ConnBn t, lP C-E-22-t2.
,5 PUC Staff, IPC-E-18-16 comments L12U2020 atL9.
,s ldaho Farm Bureau Federation, IPC-E-22-L2 public conrmnt15lt3l2022.
t2
} Cleqn Energy Opporlunilies for ldoho
Electricity costs keep rising, the Company keeps adding fixed costs, and the revision of the 100kW
cap keeps getting delayed. Delaying the time when agribusinesses can install solar based on their
needs rather than an arbitrary 100kW cap reduces the opportunity for the public to benefit from:
o Mitigation of future cost additions by the utility, as described above.o Federal funds. Agribusinesses and ldaho benefit by enabling ldaho Cl&l customers to capture
time-sensitive 2022 federal tax and incentive program funds.o !mproved Reliability. Distributed generation, especially when paired with energy storage,
creates a reliable energy source that is less vulnerable to natural disasters and grid failures.o Gas price exposure. lrrigator load reduction reduces overallsystem demand and thereby limits
exposure to higher gas prices for all customers.o Reduced imposition of inequitable and unnecessary costs. The "ill-advised and punitive cap"
serves "to embed inefficiency and high relative cost into constructioo of system5":zo Fair opportunity for ldaho agribusinesses to control costs and remain competitive.
6. Does PURPA or Non-export options offer
"viable alternatives" to the 100kW cap?
The Company suggests that customers wishing to install greater than 100kW can apply through
PURPA or install non-export options, and Staff reiterates those arguments in comments. ln sum,
these do not provide adequate relief to the 1@kW cap, and the suggestion presents evidence of
the need to consider and understand customer perspectives. ln response -
Non-export options do not provide relief from the 100kW cap for all customers. For irrigators,
electricity loads are during the growing season. lrrigator-owned generation provides some
reduction in the amount of power purchased from the utility and inherently results in exports
outside the growing season.
PURPA does not provide relief to the 100kW cap. Exports are a seasonal by-product, not a design
goa!. PURPA projects are designed to sell power and capacity to a utility. Self-generation is
designed to reduce customer exposure to future price increases in the power purchased from a
utility. PURPA is in no way a substitute for self-generation.
Consider the farmer who points out the unnecessary expense of installing two 100kW sites rather
than one 200kW site,8; the suggestion that a cost-prohibitive PURPA application would have been
27 Duane Grant President Grant 4-D Farms, LLC, Public Comment May 5,2022, IPC-E-22-L2.
'8 Adam Young, Public Comment May L2,2022, IPC-E-22-L2. "Our farm has constructed two 100kW sites. One of the
sites is located on land which would have been ideal to house a much larger projecf had we not been arbitrarily
constrained by the 100kW limit. lronically, our second site (which was constructed on adjacent land less than a mile
away and on the same feeder line) required additional infrastructure on ldaho Powe/s part. This additional expense
and hassle was entirely unnecessary; were it not for the 100kW limit we could have constructed a single, more
efficient site in one location."
13
# Cleon Energy Opportunities for ldoho
a viable alternative to that farmer is evidence that the customer perspective is not getting heard
or understood. As explained by the ldaho Grain Producers Association (tPC-E-22-L2 comments):
'The current 100kW cap on irrigator projects imposes unnecessary costs on farmers who
want to invest in solar. Rather than being able to design, build, and connect a single site to
match their consumption, farmers are instead required to build multiple, smaller sites in
multiple locations - which is more expensive and less efficient for all parties involved."
9. ls the petition in conflict with prior orders? Does a prior order require the
system size cap to be of the study review phase?
The orders in !PC-E-18-15, !PC-E-20-25, and IPC-E-?L-?L do not require that the system size cap be
part of the study review phase. This Petition has no impact on the Study Framework or study
design phase, which are now complete. The Petition impacts the study review phase.
!PC-E-18-15: The Commission established the study review phase in Order No. 34045 at 25. As
commenters to this petition note, 1)the system size cap was not addressed in IPC-E-18-15, and 2)
IPC-E-18-15 was an R&SGS docket. As one farmer asks -
Why is there an assumption that a Study Review phase ordered in a residential docket
applies to the Cl&l cap, particularly when that docket did not address the residential
system size cap? My understanding of the regulatory process is that customerc are
supposed to be able to weigh in on the matters that impact them.2e
IPC-E-20-26: ln response to a substantial number of requests in 2020 for the 100kW cap to be
modified, Order 34854 acknowledged the concerns and stated it would be addressed "during or
after the forthcoming comprehensive study",.o which the Company completed June 30,2022.
From a farmer perspective:
As many farmers testified to the PUC in 2020, we are harmed by the delay in addressing
the 100kW cap and a lack of predictability or stability of the future export credit rate. I had
thought that the record built in that docket would be referenced in the VODER study of the
cap, but the study of the pros and cons of the cap did not reference that input from
farmers.3l
IPC-E-21-21: The Company excluded the system size cap from requiring acknowledgement of the
study in the process it proposed in IPC-E-21-21: "Unless the Commission establishes a different
process, the Company anticipates requesting to implement any potential changes to the net
" Russdl Schienreier, IPC-E-22-L2 Public Conristt,July 19,2022. (Etrphaisadded).
.o Order 34854, page 12: "Finally, we acknowledge the comments submitted regarding the 100kW cap and meter
aggregation rules but decline to address them in this docket. There will be opportunities to address these issues
during or after the forthcoming comprehensive study. We thank the parties and public commenters for their
participation in this docket and for helping to build a substantial record on the issues before us."
31 RusCl Schienmier, IPC-E-22-L2 Public Conrrrent,July L9,2022.
t4
ft Cleon Energy Opportunities for ldoho
metering rate design, compensation structure, or ECR after the Commission acknowledges a
study."az
By its comments in IPC-E-IL-IL, the Commission was clear that a separate study was not
necessary to study the cap, that it should be included in the Study Framework. Again, that study
has been "completed" r, and filed June 30,2022. As described by ldaho Conservation League (lCL),
Contrary to ldaho Power's implication in its Motion to Dismiss, the CEO petition does not
request a separate study. As such, a new docket that creates an opportunity to address the
implementation of a Schedule 84 system cap based on the VODER study findings is well
within the "plain reading" of Orders 35284 and 34854 and is not a "collateral attack" on
Commission orders. (lCL Public Comment, IPC-E-22-L2, p2)
10. Other than the harm of delay, why is the revised request in IPC-E-22-12
necessary when lPc-E-22-22 proposes a process for modifying the system size cap?
The Commission established the study review phase in !PC-E-18-15 so "the public will be able to
comment on whether the study sufficiently addressed their concerns, and their opinions on what
the study shows.", With regard to the 100kW cap, the VODER study does not reflect customer
concerns, and "what the study shows" is insufficient for the public to make informed comments
and recommendations. Deficiencies in the VODER study prevent the Study Review phase from
serving it purpose with regard to the 100kW cap:
The Company has been repeatedly instructed to listen to and understand customer concerns
regarding net metering. The VODER study was deficient in reflecting the harm to customers of
the 100kW cap.
The Company was ordered to study the alternatives of setting the cap at LOOo/o or L25Yo of
demand; the study presents no comparison.
The study was ordered to evaluate "safety, service quality, and grid reliability."rs Staff suggests
in IPC-E-22-12 comments that more time is needed to do so...
The Company proposed in IPC-E-2L-2Lto evaluate setting the cap according to a custome/s
demand, then in the study the Company raises issues and delays further evaluation.
The study reflects no lessons from states which offer much higher caps, model interconnection
procedures which offer solutions to the issues raised, or from Rocky Mountain Power (which
has been studying the same cap for two years, Order 34753, Attachment A, p2).
n IPC-E-21-21 Application at pqe8.
s IPGE-22-22 Agplication, AttachnBnt 2 - Custonnr Noticg'Theconpleted study''.
a Ordr34509 at p10.
,'The analysis of the project eligibility cap should also include an evaluation of concerns previously echoed in Order
No. 28951 and Order No. 29094, such as safety, service quality, and grid reliability.
36 After reviewing the VODER study, staff comments in IPC-E-22-12 'Time needed to evaluate how the eligibility cap
can be increased without unnecessary risk to system safety and reliability."
a
a
a
a
15
} Cleqn Energy Opportunities for ldoho
The Evaluation of Modified Cap in the VODER study consists of 5 pages covering three matters:
interconnection requirements, distribution system operations, and implementation & operational
considerations. CEO received inquiries from people asking for help finding the evaluation of the
cap within the VODER study because they assumed there had to be more to it.
Customers have made clear their concern for urgency in addressing the 100kW cap. The public
record is already substantia! yet under-utilized. The need for technical workshops is evident.
Both interests are served by proceeding with technica! workshops tn 2022. The narrowed requests
in CEO's reply comments call for technical workshops and offer the Commission the option that
implementation be ordered via either aPC-E-22-L2 or IPC-E-22-22. ln the event the Commission
does not wish to order implementation of a modified cap outside of IPC-E-22-22, granting IPC-E-
22-L2 in part for the purpose of technical workshops enables parties in IPC-E-22-22 to make better
recommendations informed by the interests and issues of stakeholders.
The process presented in IPC-E-22-22 delays the time for needed technical workshops into some
undefined future. IPC-E-22-L2 has provided public notice of matters related to modifying the
Schedule 84 cap. lt is the appropriate vehicle for promptly providing the needed discussion of the
technical matters related to any modification of the Schedule 84 cap. The time has come for
facilitated discussion to interactively resolve a matter ldaho is far behind in addressing.
Respectfully submitted,
/",gL&
Courtney White
Managing Director
Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho
16
T Cleon Energy Opportunities for ldoho
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 26th day of July, 2022.1delivered true and correct copies of
the foregoing REPLY COMMENTS to the following persons via the method of service noted:
Electronic Mail Deliverv
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
secretary@ puc.idaho.gov
ldaho PUC Stoff
Dayn Hardie
Deputy Attorney General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
[e-mail]
ldoho Power Company
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Connie Aschenbrenner
Grant Anderson
t22lWest ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
I nordstrom @ ida hopower.com
mgoicoecheaallen @idahopower.com
dockets@ ida hopower.com
[e-mail]
ganderson @idahopower.com
ls\e
2
Kelsey Jae, Attorney for CEO