20220518Answer and Motion to Dismiss.pdf

SEHM.
t[c :iv[,D
?::?'*tY I8 PH tr: 2l
,,,',i1 - 'r .l;t,ig='o*
ln IoACORPColrpilrv
May 18,2022
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., BIdg 8,
Suite 201-A (83714\
PO Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-0074
Re Case No. !PC-E-22-'12
Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho's Petition for an Order to Modify the
Schedule 84 100kW Cap & fo Esfab/ish a Transition Guideline for Changes
to Schedule 84 Export Credit Compensation Values
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Enclosed for electronic filing please find ldaho Power Company's Answer and
Motion to Dismiss in the above matter.
lf you have any questions about the attached documents, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Very truly yours,
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Lead Counsel
![e-mail]
LDN:sg
Enclosures
X* !-ff^"ut,.*,
Lisa D. Nordstrom
LISA D. NORDSTROM (lSB No. 5733)
MEGAN GOICOECHEA ALLEN (lSB No. 7623)
1221 West ldaho Stredt (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
I n ordstrom@ida hooower. com
mqoicoecheaa !len@idahopower. com
Attorneys for ldaho Power Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CLEAN ENERGY
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO'S
PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO MODIFY
THE SCHEDULE 84 lOOKW CAP & TO
ESTABLISH A TRANSITION GUIDELINE
FOR CHANGES TO SCHEDULE 84
EXPORT CREDIT COMPENSATION
VALUES
Case No. IPC-E-22-12
ANSWER AND MOTION TO
DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent, ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/'or'Company"), and pursuant
to Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the ldaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission"), hereby submitsl its Answer to Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho's
("CEO") Petition ("Petition") in the above-entitled case. ln addition to its Answer, ldaho
Power seeks dismissal of CEO's Petition in accordance with Rules of Procedure 56 and
256. The Commission has previously considered the project eligibility cap issue brought
forth in CEO's Petition and has issued not one, but two recent orders declining to address
1 Because CEO's Petition was docketed as an ldaho Power case and ldaho Power is the counterparty,
the Company has not filed a Petition to lntervene under RP 53. However, the Company will do so if that
is the Commission's preference.
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS.l
it outside of the process already established by the Commission.2 The previously issued
orders are unequivocal and allowing commercial, industrial, and irrigation ("Cl&l')
customers to avail themselves of an expedited process would be premature, inequitable,
and undermine the process as a whole. As such, the Company respectfully requests the
Commission dismiss CEO's Petition.
Attempts to modernize ldaho Power's pricing structure to reflect the value of bi-
directional energy flow have resulted in a long series of customer-self generation related
dockets, with the Company, the Commission, the public, and other stakeholders all
seeking a workable solution. The process has demonstrated the complexity of the issues
and the deep convictions engendered by the topic, and against this backdrop, the
Commission determined that the ultimate approach should be informed by a
comprehensive study of the costs and benefits of on-site generation on ldaho Power's
system with opportunity for public comment and participation. With the scope and design
of the study having already been approved by the Commission in Case No. IPC-E-21-
213, ldaho Power is in the finalstages of completing the study and anticipates submitting
it for Commission review by June 2022.
2 See In the Mafter of ldaho Power Company's Application for Authoity to ModW Schedule 84's Meteing
Requirement and to Grandfather Existing Customerc with Two Meterc, Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No.
34854 at 12 (Dec. 1 , 2020) ('Finally, we acknowledge the comments submitted regarding the 1 00 kW 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.") and ln the Matter of ldaho
Power Company's Application to lnitiate a Multi-Phase Collaborative Process for the Sfudy of Cosfs,
Benefits, and Compensation of Net Excess Energy Associated with Customer On-Sife Generation, Case
No. IPC-E-21-21, Order No. 352&4 at 25 (Dec. 30,2021) ('We find that a separate docket is not
necessary to study these items.').
3 Case No. IPC-E-21-21, Order No. 35284 at 32-33.
ANS\A'ER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
I. BACKGROUND
1. Idaho Power supports customer choice and interest in clean energy. Under
ldaho Power's on-site generation service offerings, retail customers can choose to install
their own electricity-generating equipment (most commonly solar panels) at their home or
business to offset some or all of their electric needs. These customers remain connected
to ldaho Power's grid and are able to consume energy as needed from ldaho Power's
system, and the vast majority also export energy to the grid. Customers that generate
their own electricity and who wish to interconnect Exporting Systems are billed under
different rate schedules as follows: Schedule 6, Residentia! Service On-Site Generation
("Schedule 6"), Schedule 8, Small General Service On-Site Generation ("Schedule 8"),
and Schedule 84, Customer Energy Production/Net Metering Service ("Schedule 84"),
which ls the schedule the Company's Cl&! customers take net metering service under.
2. ln addition, customers that do not want their generation systems to export
power to the electrica! grid may interconnect their Non-Exporting System so that they
consume all the energy generated on-site. These customers continue to take service
under the retail rate schedule they qualify for based on the applicability of the Company's
retailtariff schedules. Both Exporting and Non-Exporting Systems are subjectto Schedule
68, lnterconnections to Customer Distributed Energy Resources ("Schedule 68"), which
applies to all systems connected in parallel and outlines the requirements and process
for interconnection.
3. As of March 31, 2022, ldaho Power had 11,406 active and pending
Exporting Systems under Schedules 6, 8, and 84. Collectively, these customer systems
represent approximately 109 MWof total nameplate capacity.
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
4. When customers billed under Schedules 6, 8, and 84 generate more energy
than they need and export it to the grid, they earn an energy credit for the excess energy
produced. !n addition to a fixed monthly service charge, the customer is billed fortheir net
energy use, which is the amount they use minus the amount they generate over the
monthly billing period. However, the circumstances that existed at the time the Company's
net metering policies and practices were originally established have changed dramatically
over the last two decades. As more customers began to avai! themselves of on-site
generation in recent years, it became clear that the compensation and pricing structure
being applied does not account for the nuances of the current environment. lt does not,
for example, reflect the value of the bi-directional service being provided to on-site
generation customers by the grid nor does it accurately reflect the value of the energy
being produced. These issues impact allcustomers and, of paramount concern, result in
cost-shifting between customers who choose to install on-site generation and those who
do not.
5. !n its Petition, GEO requests the Commission issue an order by October 31,
2022that: "(1) modifies the project eligibility cap for Schedule 84 customers to 100% of a
custome/s maximum demand; and (2) establishes a Transition Guideline that improves
predictability and stability of rates by setting 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.'a This request essentially seeks to bypass the process
directed by the Commission, which is now in the final stages, with respect to Cl&l
a ln the Mafter of Clean Energy Opportunities for ldaho's Petition for an Oderto Modify the Schedule 84
100kW Cap & To Establish a Tmnsition Guideline for Changes to Schedule 84 Export Crcdit
Compensation Values, Case No. IPC-E-22-12, CEO Petition at 1 (Apr. 27,20221.
ANSVVER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
customers. While ldaho Power understands that CEO may be frustrated with the current
regulatory timeline, the process is driven by the complexity of the issues and is necessary
to ensure that the Commission can make a well-reasoned decision on the Company's
net-metering design after receiving public input. Allowing Cl&l customers to avail
themselves of an expedited process would be premature, inequitable, and undermine the
process as a whole. For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition should be dismissed.
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Case No. IPC-E-17-13
6. ln Case No. !PC-E-17-13,ldaho Power explained that the rates charged to
net metering customers were not designed to reflect the value of the service being
provided to them and that the inaccuracies in pricing could result in cost shifting between
customers who choose to install on-site generation and those who do not.s ldaho Power
asked, inter alia, to first establish new customer classes for residential and smallgeneral
service ('R&SGS") customers with on-site generation and then to subsequently establish
a compensation structure for customer-owned distributed energy resources ("DER") that
reflects both the benefits and costs that DER interconnection brings to the electric
system.6 ldaho Powe/s ultimate goal is to ensure a service offering for customers with
on-site generation that is fair-priced, scalable, and sustainable into the future.
7. ln Order No. 34046, the Commission removed residential and small general
service customers with Exporting Systems from Schedule 84 and created two new tariff
5 ln the Mafter of ldaho Power Company's Application for Authoity to Establish New Schedule for
Residential and Small GeneralService Customers with On-Site Genention, Case No. IPC-E-17-13,
Application at 1 (Jul. 27,2017).
6 ld. al l5-16.
ANS\A/ER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 5
schedules: Schedule 6 and Schedule 8.7 Schedule 84 continues to define the terms for
Cl&l customers with Exporting Systems. ln order to more accurately assign the
appropriate share of fixed costs and unquantified benefits of on-site generation, the
Commission also directed the Company to "initiate a docket to comprehensively study
the costs and benefits of on-site generation on ldaho Power's system, as well as proper
rates and rate design, transitional rates, and related issues of compensation for net
excess energy provided as a resource to the Company.'8 The Commission encouraged
the parties to work through these issues together in compromise.e
Case No. IPC-E-18-15
8. Pursuant to the Commission's request, ldaho Power initiated Case No. IPC-
E-18-15 to study the costs, benefits, and compensation of net excess energy supplied by
customer on-site generation.l0 Subsequently, the Company, Commission Staff (.Staff'),
and various stakeholders undertook a thorough, data-driven evaluation of the Company's
on-site generation offering and through this collaborative process the parties were able
to reach a compromise on a significant number of critical elements to the Company's on-
site generation offerin g ("Settlement Ag reemenf').
9. The proposed Settlement Agreementll would have changed several
fundamentalaspects of the Company's net-metering program. Of note, on-site generation
7 Case No. IPC-E-17-13, Order No. 34046 at 30-31 (May 9, 2018).
8 /d at 31.
s ld. a|22.
10 ln the Mafter of the Application of ldaho Power Company to Study fhe Cosfs, Benefits, and
Compensation of Net Excess Energy Supplied by Customer On-Sde Generation, Case No. IPC-E-18-15,
Petition to lnitiate Docket (Oct. 19,2018).
11 Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Motion toApprove SettlementAgreement (Oct. 11,2019).
ANSVVERAND MOTION TO DISMISS.6
customers'energy production and consumption would have been netted hourly instead
of monthly and customers would be paid for an export credit rate for hourly net energy
exported to the grid as opposed to net excess energy being compensated at a 'l:1
kilowatt-hour ("k\Nh") credit. The Settlement Agreement envisioned R&SGS customers
would transition from retail rate monthly net metering to net hourly billing at an export
credit rate methodology over eight (8) years, at which time net exports would have been
compensated at roughly half of the rate to consume energy.
10. ln Order No. 34509, the Commission rejected the proposed Seftlement
Agreement. While the Commission found that the parties had acted in good faith and
pursuant to Commission Rules of Procedure, the Commission found the process did not
satisff the requirements it established in Case No. IPC-E-17-13.12 As a result, the
Commission reiterated that no changes to the Company's net-metering program would
be considered until ldaho Power has prepared and filed a 'credible and fair study' of the
costs and benefits of distributed on-site generation meeting the following criteria: (1) the
study must use the most current data possible and must be readily available to the public,
and in the Commission's decision-making record; (2) the Company must design the study
in coordination with the parties and the public, and the Commission will determine the
final scope of the study; and (3) the study must be written, so it is understandable to an
average customer, but its analysis must be able to withstand expert scrutiny.l3
11. ln its Order, the Commission outlined a "study design' phase and a "study
review" phase. During the "study design" phase, Staff and the Company will both "host
12 Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Order No. 34509 at 6 (Dec. 20,20'19)
13 /d. at 9.
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS - 7
public workshops to share information and perspectives on net-metering program design
with the public and to listen to customer concerns and inpu1."l+ ln the "study review"
phase, the public will have the opportunity to comment on whether the study sufficiently
addressed their concems and their opinions on what the study shows.ls
12. While the study is intended to inform implementation of changes to on-site
generation compensation and billing structures, the Commission's order established
criterialo to define legacy treatment for existing systems under Schedule 6 and Schedule
8. The legacy systems would be subject to the rules in place as of the service date of
Order No. 34509, December 20,2019. A Iegacy system is defined as either an on-site
generation system interconnected with ldaho Power's system as of the service date of
Order No. 34509, or a customer with a binding financial commitment to install an on-site
generation system that proceeds to interconnect their system on or before December 20,
2020.17 While legacy systems operate under the terms of Schedule 6 or Schedule 8 as
those Schedules existed on December 20, 2019, rates and rate structure are subject to
change for legacy systems until and after legacy status terminates on December 20,
2045.18 As of March 31, 2022, there are approximately 5,300 legacy R&SGS systems
interconnected to ldaho Power's system.
la /d at 9-10.
15 ld.
16 See Case No. !PC-E-1 8-1 5, Order No. 34509 al '14-15 and Order No. 34546 at 8-1 1 (Feb. 5, 2020)
17 Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Order No. 34509 at 14.
18 Case No. !PC-E-l8-15, Order No. 34545 at 9.
ANSVVER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 8
Case No. IPC-E-20-26
13. The Company initiated Case No. !PC-E-20-26 for authorization to change
Schedule 84's two-meter requirement to a single-meter requirement for new customer-
generators and to establish legacy treatment for existing customer-generators under the
current rules as of December 1,2020. The Commission ultimately established criteria
similar to Case No. !PC-E-18-15, to provide legacy treatment to existing Schedule 84
systems under the rules in place as of the service date of Order No. 34854, December 1 ,
2020.1s
14. The Commission's Order Nos. 34854 and 3489220 delineated between
legacy systems and new systems subject to future changes informed by a comprehensive
study. A legacy system is defined as either an on-site generation system interconnected
with ldaho Power's system as of the service date of Order No. 34854, or a customer with
a binding financial commitment to install an on-site generation system that proceeds to
interconnect their system on or before December 1,2021.21
15. Similar to Case No. IPC-E-18-15, the Commission determined that
Schedule 84 systems that qualiff for legacy treatment continue to be subject to changes
in consumption rates but not to changes in the 1:1 monthly kWh retail rate compensation
structure until legacy status terminates on December 1, 2045.22 As of March 31, 2022,
there are approximately 390 legacy Schedule 84 systems interconnected to ldaho
Power's system.
le Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34854 at 11.
20 Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34892 (Jan. 14, 2021).
21 ld. al9.
22 Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34854 at 11.
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 9
Case No. IPC-E-21-21
16. On June 28,2021, Idaho Power applied for the Commission to initiate the
multi-phase process for a comprehensive study of the costs and benefits of on-site
generation as directed in Order No. 34046.23 After considering more than 250 written
public comments, oral testimony at a public hearing, and written comments filed by eleven
parties to the proceeding, the Commission issued Final Order No. 35284 approving a
Study Framework detailed therein. The Commission found that the Study Framework
"meets our directive for a credible and fair study" and reminded ldaho Power to "use the
most current data possible" that is readily available to the public and submitted to the
Commission's decision-making record.2a The Commission ordered that the Company
"complete the study in2022 as soon as feasible" and indicated that "persons and parties
wil! have another opportunity to participate during the study review phase."2s Finally, the
Commission reminded stakeholders in the on-site generation industry to act with
transparency when engaging with potential investors and emphasized yet again that "[a]
utility's rate schedules, including net metering program fundamentals, are subject to
change . . . [and][a]s such, there is no guaranteed return on investment."26
III. ANSWER
17. ldaho Power hereby answers CEO's Petition as follows: ldaho Power
denies any allegation not specifically admitted and reserves the right to supplement
23 Case No. IPC-E-21-21, Application (Jun. 25,2021).
2a Case No. IPC-E-21-21, Order No. 352&4 at 9. See a/so Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Order No. 34509 at 9-
10.
25 Case No. IPC-E-21-21, Order No. 35284 at 32 and 10.
26 ld. at 10.
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS - 1O
and/or amend this Answer if CEO amends its Petition, or if additional defenses are
ascertained during the course of discovery or otherwise.
18. Paragraph 1 provides information relating to CEO's legal status and place
of business and no response is required.
19. ldaho Power has insufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Petition relating to CEO's founding and mission.
20. With respect to paragraph 3, ldaho Power admits only that it filed an
Application forAuthority to Proceed with Resource Procurements in Case No. IPC-E-21-
41 on December 3,2021, and that the document speaks for itself.
21. ldaho Power lacks sufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Petition and therefore denies the same.
22. With respect to paragraph 5, the Company admits only that the Commission
entered Order No. 35284 in Case No. IPC-E-21-21 instructing ldaho Power to complete
the study on the costs and benefits of on-site generation pursuantto the Study Framework
set forth therein and that the document speaks for itself. ldaho Power denies the
allegations to the extent they conflict with a plain reading of Order No. 35284.
23. With respect to paragraph 6, ldaho Power denies that an expedited process
with sufficient opportunity for stakeholder review and involvement is achievable by the
Falf of 2022, and further denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in
paragraph 6.
24. ldaho Power denies paragraphs 7-10 of the Petition.
25. With respect to paragraph 11, the Company admits only that Commission
entered Order No. 35284 in Case No. IPC-E-21-2'I regarding the Study Framework and
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS - 11
that the document speaks for itself. ldaho Power denies the allegations to the extent they
conflict with a plain reading of Order No. 35284.
26. ldaho Power denies paragraph 12, including its implication that Cl&l
customers do not currently have opportunities to help manage their own electricity costs
and/or address the projected capacity deficit.
27. ldaho Power lacks sufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Petition and therefore denies the same.
28. ldaho Power denies the allegations in paragraphs 14-17 of the Petition.
ldaho's system of public utility regulation requires financially sound and stable utility
service providers to reliably serve all customers in the utility's service territory on a least
cost basis. As evidenced by CEO's Petition, other parties can and do file applications and
petitions for consideration by the Commission. ldaho Power does not control 'the
sequence and schedule in which issues are reviewed" by the Commission and the
Company does not work "against the fairness to customers and the public interest."27
29. With respect to paragraph 18, ldaho Power admits only that its lntegrated
Resource Plan ("lRP') describes the Company's projected need for additional electricity
and the resources necessary to meet that need while balancing reliability, environmental
responsibility, efficiency, risk and cost; that document speaks for itself. ldaho Power
denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in paragraph 18.
30. The allegations of paragraph 19 appear to summarize and quote comments
of Staff made in Case No. IPC-E-18-16; Staffs comments speak for themselves. The
Company denies the allegations to the extent they conflict with a plain reading of the
27 Case No. IPC-E-22-12, CEO Petition at 7
ANS\A'ER AND MOTION TO DISMISS . 12
comments.
31. ldaho Power denies paragraph 20 to the extent it suggests that Cl&l
customers do not currently have opportunities to help address the projected capacity
deficit.
32. With respect to paragraphs 21-25,ldaho Power lacks sufficient knowledge
or information regarding the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same.
33. ldaho Power denies paragraphs 26-29 of the Petition.
34. With respect to paragraph 30, ldaho Power admits only that it initiated Case
No. IPC-E-18-15 to study the costs, benefits, and compensation of net excess energy
supplied by customer on-site generation and that the Company, Staff, and various
stakeholders reached a Settlement Agreement in that case, which was ultimately rejected
by the Commission. The proposed Settlement Agreement speaks for itself. ldaho Power
denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in paragraph 30.
35. With respect to paragraph 31, ldaho Power lacks sufficient knowledge or
information regarding the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same.
36. With respect to paragraph 32, ldaho Power admits only that the most recent
ldaho Energy Plan was developed in 2012 and speaks for itself. ldaho Power denies the
allegations to the extent they conflict with a plain reading of the Plan and further denies
that the Plan has the force of law.
37. ldaho Power denies paragraph 33.
38. ldaho Power lacks sufficient knowledge or information regarding the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Petition and therefore denies the same.
39. The allegations in paragraphs 35-36 are legal conclusions and require no
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS - 13
response. To the extent the allegations in paragraphs 35-36 purport to quote Orders of
the Commission, such Orders speak for themselves, and the Commission can determine
the proper weight, authority, and application of precedent to its own decisions.
40. With respect to paragraph 37, ldaho Power denies that Cl&l customers
should be allowed to bypass the regulatory process established in prior Commission
orders.
41. The allegations in paragraphs 38-39 contain lega! conclusions to which no
response is required.
42. Paragraph 40 identifies contact information for CEO and requires no
response by ldaho Power.
IV. MOTON TO DISMISS
A. CEO's Petition is an lmpermissible Gollateral Attack on a Final Order.
43. CEO's Petition represents an attempt to deviate from the process directed
by the Commission and constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on Order No. 35284
in violation of ldaho law. ldaho Code S 61-625 provides: "All orders and decisions of the
commission which have become final and conclusive shall not be attacked collaterally."
Finalorders of the Commission should be challenged either by petition to the Commission
or appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court as provided by ldaho Code SS 61-626 and 61-
627.28
M. The Commission entered Final Order No. 35284 directing ldaho Power to
28 Utah-ldaho SugarCo. v. lntermountain Gas Co., 100 ldaho 368, 373-374,595 P.2d 1058 (1979) (A
different rule would lead to endless consideration of matters previously presented to the Commission and
confusion about the effectiveness of Commission orders.').
ANS\A'ER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 14
proceed with the comprehensive study as outlined therein on December 30, 2021.2e The
Commission rejected CEO's.proposal to evaluate the C!&! project eligibility cap as soon
as possible in a separate docket, "find[ing] that a separate docket is not necessary to
study these [eligibility cap] items."3o Pursuant to ldaho Code S 61-626, any party or
interested person or entity wishing to challenge any matter decided in the order could do
so by filing a petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days. No one did so, and
as a result, the Order became final and conclusive as of January 21,2022.
45. Notably, even if one assumes arguendo that the information disclosed in
Case No. !PC-E-2141fi|ed by ldaho Power on December 3, 202131,justifies deviation
from the process ordered by the Commission, as CEO indicates in its Petition, CEO could
have raised that issue via a petition for reconsideration. Though CEO had ample notice
of this issue before the time for challenging the order had expired, it did not seek to have
the Commission reconsider the process or timeframe in light of Case No. IPC-E-2141.
Its attempt to do so through a new docket with a requested order by October 31,2022 -
likely before the study review case has been fully processed - is improper and should be
dismissed.
B. CEO's Petition is Redundant and Premature.
46. This docket is redundant and improperly seeks to bypass a process that the
Commission has repeatedly determined is necessary. As demonstrated by the
2e Case No. IPC-E-2'l-21, Order No. 35284 at 32-33
3o ld. at25.
31 ln the Matter of ldaho Power Company's Application for Authoity to Proceed with Resource
Prccurements to Meet ldentified Capacity Deficiencies in 2023, 2024, and 2025 to Ensure Adequate,
Reliable, and Fair-Prices Servrbe fo /fs Cusfomers, Case No. IPC-E-21.41, Application forAuthority to
Proceed with Resource Procurements (Dec. 3,2021).
ANSWERAND MOTION TO DISMISS - 15
Commission's rejection of the proposed SettlementAgreement in Case No. IPC-E-18-15,
a truncated, expedited process is insufficient: "This Order sets clear expectations the
Company must meet before we will evaluate future proposed changes to the Company's
net-metering program."32 The Commission was unequivocal - the comprehensive study
is a condition precedent to any consideration of programmatic changes:
lTlhe Company shall submit a comprehensive study of the costs and
benefits of net metering to the Commission before any further proposals to
change the Company's net-metering program. This study shall incorporate
public feedback and concerns in the design and review of the study,
including public workshops and public comments on the record.33
47. The Commission's requirement is a testament to the importance and
complexity of the matters at issue. Changes such as those sought by CEO cannot be
made in a vacuum and ultimately must be carefully evaluated in the context of the other
programmatic changes being considered. Project eligibility caps, for example, Iimit cost-
shifting and subsides, and therefore, any changes should be data driven and with full
understanding of the impact that removal could have on customer rates and rate design.
48. Rather than see the process through to its conclusion, CEO has asked the
Commission to open a new docket deviating from the process directed by the
Commission, the redundancy of which distracts from these issues' ultimate resolution. !n
Case No. IPC-E-21-21, CEO proposed a separate docket to address changes to the Cl&l
project eligibility cap and the Commission declined to do so in Order No. 35284.s ldaho
Power is moving forward expeditiouslywith its data analysis and anticipates filing its study
32 Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Order No. 34509 at'12
33 ld. aL17.
il Case No. IPC-E-21-21, Order No. 35284 at 25
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 16
in late June2022.
49. The Commission should dismiss CEO's attempt to bypass the multi-phase
study process it has directed. The relief sought in CEO's Petition wil! be more properly
addressed in the forthcoming study review and implementation phases.
C. CEO's Request is Based on an Uncertain and Faulty Premise.
50. CEO's justification of the need to escalate on-site generation program
changes for Cl&! customers is that there is an urgent need to add generation resources
by Summer of 2023. Relying on comments from ldaho Power irrigation customers, CEO
concludes that if certain impediments to on-site generation were removed, more irrigation
customers could install solar generation "and thereby assist in reducing the anticipated
capacity shortfall. . ."35 Whether irrigation customers would ultimately availthemselves of
Schedule 84 and could secure photovoltaic panels is an uncertain prediction. Current
supply chain constraints for renewable energy equipment and components, combined
with extended tarifft and the current federal investigation related to non-domestic solar
panel components, could impact construction timelines and the commercial operation
date for new renewable projects. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that CEO's
prediction came true, it would not address the capacity shortfal! in a meaningful way.
ldaho Power conducted an extensive investigation to identiff the least-cost, least-risk
method of meeting the capacity deficit, including evaluation of several alternative options,
and ultimately determined that dispatchable battery storage was the best solution to meet
peak summer demand and is currently seeking Commission approva! to acquire this
35 Case No. IPC-E-22-12, CEO Petition at 6
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 17
resource.36 Consequently, the possible addition of non-firm, non-dispatchable energy
sources, as proposed by CEO, does not represent a "solution to this imminent capacity
shortfall"3T that ldaho Power can rely on to address the anticipated capacity deficit.
51. Certainly, ldaho Power appreciates that there may be irrigation customers
that wish to help address the projected capacity deficit, and fortunately, opportunities
currently exist for them to do so. C!&l customers can continue to ofbet their own
consumption and export net energy to the grid pursuant to Schedule 84, but they may
also consider selling their renewable energy as a Qualified Facility to ldaho Power under
Schedule 86, Cogeneration and Small Power Production Non-Firm Energy. Additionally,
the !rrigation Peak Rewards program is currently open and accepting applications in
advance of summer 2022 for those customers interested in a financiat incentive for
allowing ldaho Power to remotely turn off specific irrigation pumps a minimum of three
times during the program season.
v.@
52. ldaho Power appreciates the public comments that have been submitted to
date in relation to CEO's Petition. The Company understands the concerns raised in some
of the comments over the uncertainty implicit in the status quo. History has demonstrated
that an expedited approach to such a broad and complex issue is insufficient; the problem
is simply not susceptible to a hasty solution. ln Order No. 34854, the Commission clarified
to potential Cl&l customer-generators that the program fundamentals are undergoing a
w ln the Matter of ldaho Power Company's Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessify to Acquirc Resources to be Online by 2023 fo Secure Adequate and Reliable Servrbe fo [s
Customers, Case No. IPC-E-22-13, Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(Apr.29, 2022).
37 Case No. IPC-E-22-'\2,CEO Petition at 6.
ANSVVER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 18
comprehensive review and are likely to change. The Commission acknowledged that
whib it may be difficult for potential customer-generators to determine their likely return
on investment without knowing the details of the successor program, it reinforced that
tariffs are not contracts and as such, there is no guaranteed return on investment.3s
53. The piecemeal approach proposed in the Petition will inevitably Iead to
inequities. Essentially, the Petition is seeking to expand subsidies to a limited number of
customer classes by (1) providing an immediate ongoing application of 1:1 k\'Vh crediting
that the Commission has already signaled should be changed, and (2) lifting a cap that,
in part, mitigates potential cost-shifting to other customers. To make these changes
without addressing the broader program structure would be inequitable and will negatively
impact the process as a whole.
il. ldaho Power recognizes the desire for certainty and, to that end, willfile the
study by June 30,2022, so that the Commission can proceed with processing the study
review phase and have an opportunity to make decisions for implementation as soon as
December 2022. ldaho Power contends that the study review phase and an
implementation phase adopting a solution that is equitable, applicable to all customers
classes, and relies on stakeholder and public input to inform the outcomes will provide
the desired certainty for all non-legacy customer-generators through the comprehensive
study and implementation process previously directed by the Commission.
s Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34854 at 10.
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS . 19
55
VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Service of pleadings and communications with reference to this case should
be sent to the following:
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Megan Goicoechea Allen
IPC Dockets
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
[e-mail]
mqoicoecheaa lle [e-mail]
dockets@idahopower. com
Connie Aschenbrenner
Grant Anderson
1221 West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
caschenbren ner@ ida hopower.com
qa nderson @idahooower.com
VII. CONCLUSION
56. \ffhen parties to Case No. IPC-E-20-26 recommended changes to Schedule
84's 100 kW project eligibility cap, the Commission declined to address them in that
docket stating, "There will be opportunities to address these issues during or after the
forthcoming comprehensive study."3s Additionally, in responding to Sierra Club's request
to clariff whether the project size limits would be subject to change, the Commission
reiterated: "The work done in this docket can and should be built upon in the next
docket."ao Therefore, ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission dismiss
CEO's Petition and allow the study and implementation process to continue as directed
before implementing partial changes for or offering transitional guidance to Schedule 84
participants.
3e Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34854 at 12.
a0 Case No. IPC-E-20-26, Order No. 34892 at 9 (citing Case No. IPC-E-18-15, Order No. 34509 at 7)
ANS\A'ER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 20
Dated at Boise, ldaho, this 18h day of May 2022.
&;!.ff^*+,,,*-,
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Attomey for ldaho Power Company
ANSI/T'ERAND MOTION TO DISMISS -21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of May 2022 ! served a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Glean Energy Opportunities for ldaho
-Hand
Delivered
Kelsey Jae
-U.S.
Mail
Law for Conscious Leadership
-Overnight
Mail
920 N. Clover Dr.
-FAXBoise, !D 83703
-FTP
SiteX EMAIL [e-mail]
5bcrrt &^st.
Commission Staff
Riley Newton
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg No. 8,
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-0074
_ Hand Delivered
_U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
_FAXX Email: [e-mail]
Stacy Gust, Regulatory Administrative
Assistant
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS - 22