20230119Reconsideration_Order_No_35667.pdf

ORDER NO. 35667 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 19, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO
COMPLETE THE STUDY REVIEW PHASE
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ON-SITE
CUSTOMER GENERATION & FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES
TO SCHEDULES 6, 8, AND 84
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-22-22

ORDER NO. 35667

On June 30, 2022, Idaho Power Company (“Company” or “Idaho Power”) applied to the
Commission requesting the Commission complete the study review phase of the comprehensive
study of the costs, and benefits, of on-site customer generation and for authority to implement
changes to Schedules 6, 8, and 84 (“Application”). In conjunction with the filing of its Application,
the Company also filed the Value of Distributed Energy Resources study (“VODER Study or
“Study”) along with 31 appendices, a customer notice and bill insert, and the Direct Testimony of
Grant T. Anderson, Regulatory Consultant.
On December 19, 2022, the Commission issued a final order acknowledging the
Company’s Study and directing it to make implementation recommendations to its on-site
generation program offerings in a subsequent case. Order No. 35631 at 31.
On December 28, 2022, Lyle Zufelt (“Mr. Zufelt” or “Petitioner”) sent an email (“Email”)
to the Commission Secretary stating that if it was correct that he “could submit a request for
reconsideration in Case No. IPC-E-22-22 by email . . . then . . . [he] . . . would definitely ask for
reconsideration.” Email at 1.
No other requests, petitions, or motions have been received. The deadline for
reconsideration of Order No. 35631 has passed. With this Order, as articulated below, we dismiss
the Petition for Reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr. Zufelt’s Email provides:
There are many things that are troubling about this ruling. For one, why would the
IPUC feel that it was reasonable to change the Export Credit Rate [(“ECR”)] for
solar power retroactively? I would like to suggest that if the IPUC feels that Idaho
Power has cause to reduce the ECR then it should be done effective now, not several
years in the past. Anyone considering solar panels should know today that they will
be getting a reduced credit for the electricity they generate.
ORDER NO. 35667 2
Email at 1. In a post-script to the body of his email, Petitioner explained that he was
“interested in finding out how a ‘new’ ECR will be determined.” Id. Petitioner went on to wonder
“[w]ho will determine what the ECR will be . . . [w]ill it “vary from month to month based on the
cost of electricity . . . [and] [w]ill it increase or decrease based on Idaho Power’s decision?” Id.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-501, -502, and
-503. Idaho Code § 61-501 authorizes the Commission to “supervise and regulate every public
utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the [Public
Utilities Law].” Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and -503 empower the Commission to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and
to fix the same by order. Pursuant to its statutory duties, the Commission has the authority to
determine reasonable rates and review and investigate contracts. Empire Lumber Co. v.
Washington Water Power Co., 114 Idaho 191, 192, 755 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1987).
Reconsideration affords parties an opportunity to bring to the Commission’s attention any
matter previously determined and provides the Commission opportunity to rectify any mistake
before the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court. Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public
Utilities Comm’n, 1980, 101 Idaho 567, 617 P.2d 1242. Any person or public utility has the right
to petition for reconsideration in respect to any matter determined in a Commission order. Idaho
Code § 61-626(1). “Within twenty-eight (28) days after the filing of a petition for reconsideration
the commission shall determine whether or not it will grant such reconsideration, and make and
enter its order accordingly.” Idaho Code § 61-626(2).
Commission Rule of Procedure 332 provides that the “Commission may grant
reconsideration upon petition of any interested person or upon its own motion.” IDAPA
31.01.01.332. “Petitions for reconsideration must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided
in it is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.01. “Grounds for, or issues on reconsideration not supported by specific explanation
may be dismissed.” Id.
ORDER NO. 35667 3
Petitioner recommends that the Commission modify the (“ECR”) “effective now”—rather
than retroactively—and states that customers “should know today that they will be getting a
reduced credit for the electricity they generate.” Petitioner then poses a series of questions.
The Commission stated in Order No. 35631 that:
It should come as no surprise to anyone who invested in an on-site generation solar
system after December 20, 2019, that the Company may be authorized by the
Commission to change fundamental aspects of its NEM program—including the
imposition of an ECR—which can affect the payback period for customers. Idaho
Code § 48-1805 states that every solar installer must provide notice to a potential
customer, in capital letters, with substantially the following form and content:
LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY ACTION MAY AFFECT OR ELIMINATE
YOUR ABILITY TO SELL OR GET CREDIT FOR ANY EXCESS POWER
GENERATED BY THE SYSTEM AND MAY AFFECT THE PRICE OR VALUE
OF THAT POWER. We reiterate that a reputable seller of onsite generation
systems would not and will not represent that the program will never change.

Order No. 35631 at 30 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Contrary to Petitioner’s implication otherwise, the Order provides that customers “should
know today that they will be getting a reduced credit for the electricity they generate.” Email at 1.
In addition, the Commission made no determination in Order No. 35631 on modifications to the
ECR so the Commission did not, contrary to Petitioner’s implication otherwise, retroactively
modify the ECR. Although Petitioner notes there are many “troubling” things about “this ruling,”
Petitioner does not explain why Order No. 35631, or any issue decided therein, is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Petitioner’s statement and recommendation
do not explain why or how Order No. 35631 should be reconsidered nor does Petitioner specify
the nature and quantity of evidence or argument he will offer if reconsideration is granted. Based
on the forgoing reasons, Mr. Zufelt’s Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order
may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
///

ORDER NO. 35667 4

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 19th day of
January 2023.

__________________________________________
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

__________________________________________
JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

//ABSTAINED//
__________________________________________
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-22-22 On-Site Generation\orders\IPCE2222_Final_recon_rn.docx