20201027Comments.pdf

Benjamin J. Otto (ISB No. 8292)
710 N 6ft Street
Boise,ID 83701
Ph: [phone]x112
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
i'*TIl:'rai3
ri:j j t,;j ?T PH lr s3
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO )
POWER COMPANY'S )
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY )
TO MODIF"T SCHEDULE 84'S )
METERING REQUIREMENT AI\D )
TO GRANDFATHER EXISTING )cusroMERs wrTH Two )METERS )
CASE NO. IPC-8.20.26
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
COMMENTS
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) submits the following comments regarding Idaho
Power's request to modiff Schedule 84. We appreciate Idaho Power's attempt to reduce the cost
and complexity of future customer-owned solar installations for larger customers by proposing a
single meter option. However, we are concerned the details of the Company's proposal could
harm both current and future solar-owners without providing any meaningful benefit to other
customers. As the Commission heard during the October l3th hearing and as reflected in the
public comments filed in this case, large customers, and particularly irrigation customers, use
customer-owned solar systems to mitigate volatile energy bills, which is often the largest
expense a southern Idaho farmer must address. And, while customer-owned solar continues to
grow, it remains a de minimis part of the overall system in terms of both resource capacity and
Company revenues. The Commission's decision here will have an outsized impact on customer-
owned solar and an exceedingly small impact on all other Idaho Power customers. Our
recommendations below will improve ldaho Power's proposal so that the Commission can
approve a fair,just, and reasonable modification to Schedule 84.
tPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT I
October 21,2020
Customers should be able to choose between a single or dual meter option.
Idaho Power's proposal appears to require that all future customer-owned solar systems
use a single meter to measure consumption and production. ICL appreciates Idaho Power's
willingness to adopt a single meter option. We are concemed, though, that mandating a single
meter system design removes the dual meter option that some solar-owners may elect to pursue
because it would better serve their needs. Further, if Schedule 84 mandates that all customer-
owned systems use a single meter, current solar-owners with dual meters will be out of
compliance when the grandfathering period expires since their system will not conform to the
tariff. To preserve customer options that have no impact on non-solar owners and to avoid
confusion when the legacy rate period ends for current solar owners, ICL recommends the
Commission order Idaho Power to modify Schedule 84 to allow solar-owners to elect either a
single meter or dual meter option.
The Commission should apply the same legacy rate treatment structure currently
applicable to ldaho Power's Residential and Small Commercial customers, as well as all
Rocky Mountain Power customers.
How to fairly treat existing solar-owners by allowing them to remain on the legacyl
Schedule 84 is the most important issue in this case. This Commission has adopted a fair, just,
and reasonable legacy rate treatment structure for Idaho Power's Residential and Small
Commercial customers, in Order 34509 as modified by Order 34546, as well as for all Rocky
Mountain Power solar-owners in Orders 34752 and34798. This structure has two key
components: (A) the effective date to distinguish between current and new solar-owners, and (B)
the criteria by which a current solar-owner can remain in the legacy net metering program.
Idaho Power's proposal deviates in critical ways from the structure described in prior
Commission orders. Because ldaho Power's reasons for the deviations are not persuasive as a
policy matter, nor based on competent evidence, the Commission should reject these deviations.
1 The term "grandfathering" has a troublesome history tied to preventing voting access for non-white Americans.
ICL uses the term "legacy" instead to distinguish between the existing Schedule 84 and any successor program.
tPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT 2
October 27,2020
ICL recommends the Commission adopt an ffictive date that coincides with the approval of a
successor net metering program.
Idaho Power recommends an effective date of December 1,2020, or another date the
Commission chooses. IPC Application at l.ICL recommends the Commission reject Idaho
Power's arbitrary December I date and accept the Company's commitment to abide by the date
chosen by the Commission. ICL recognizes the Commission in prior orders established an
effective date for legacy rate treatment for Residential and Small Commercial customers that
coincides with the service date of those orders. However, the Commission also specifically
declined to address the appropriate effective date for Idaho Power's modifications to Schedule
84 that apply to Large Commercial, Industrial, and lrrigation customerc. Order 34546 at 12. For
the reasons stated below, ICL recommends the Commission adopt an effective date that
coincides with the approval of a successor net metering program with clearly established
interconnection requirements, system design parameters, and rate structures.
As Idaho Power states in regards to all net metering issues, a primary goal for the utility
is to slow the growth of customer-owned solar. Closing the current net metering program before
approving a successor program creates instability in the market for customer-owned solar, to the
detriment of ldahoans and benefit of Idaho Power. This outcome is not fair, just, or reasonable.
Creating market instability discourages customers who are considering investing their own
money to offset their own energy consumption, leaving customers with no option but to purchase
from the monopoly, Idaho Power. ICL recommends the Commission not further chill private
investment in Idaho's clean energy and commercial, industrial, and inigation electricity user
sectors.
Slowing growth in customer-owned solar will have no meaningful impact to Idaho
Power's existing customers or to the electric system. The Company's most recent IRP states that
current net metering customers account for just one half of one percent of all retail customers.2
Figure I below shows that in terms of capacity, customer-owned solar is a small fraction of total
load attributable to the Commercial, Industrial and Irrigation classes. In terms of impact to
2 IPC Second Amended 2019 IRP Appendix A at33
rPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT
October 27,2020
J
overall system capacity, Figure 2 below shows that, as of May 31,2020, Schedule 84 generation
accounts for less than0.6Yoof Idaho Power's total nameplate generation.3
Relative Size of Schedule 84 to Class
1200
989
=.1000I aoogH 600]$ +ooo. 2oo
224
21.82 16.39
0
Commercial + lndustria! +
Irrigation
lrrigation Only
r Entire Class aSchedule 84
Figure l. Comparing the load of the Commercial, lndustrial, and Irrigation classes as a whole
and the Irrigation class alone with the Schedule 84 total and irrigation only capacity (MW) for
2020.
Comparing Schedule 84 to Overall Nameplate
==tro
EoEo(9
o
.Eeo
E6z
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3594
Generation
3594 3594 3659 3659 3659
1.25 1.63 2.4 3.96 6.11 21
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
tSchedule 84 aldaho PowerTotal
Figure 2. Comparing the reported capacity of Schedule 84 customers to the overall Idaho Power
nameplate capacity in MW.
3 PC Second Amended 2019IRP page 38, Table 3.1 states the 2018 total nameplate generation is 3659 MW.
Aschenbrenner testimony, page 11, states there is a total of 21.82 MW of Schedule 84 nameplate generation as of
May 31,2020.
IPC-E-20-26 October 27,2020
ICL COMMENT 4
While these facts show that customer-owned solar is exceedingly small, both in relation
to the total number of customers and capacity of Idaho Power's electric system, ldaho Power
continues to allege an unfair cost shift to other customers. Aschenbrenner at l6-17. Despite
Idaho Power's repeated allegations, this Commission has never concluded that customer-owned
solar under the current net metering program causes an unfair cost shift to other customers. [n
2013, when Idaho Power alleged cost shifting and sought changes to net metering compensation,
the Commission rejected this claim and found this issue "should not be examined in isolation but
should be fully vetted in a general rate proceeding." Order 32846 at 13. When Idaho Power
ignored this order and again sought changes to the net metering program outside of a general rate
case in 2017, the Commission again found the analysis of cost shifting incomplete. Order 34046
at 17. ln ordering a full, transparent study of the issues, the Commission also found that while
solar-owners may pay less fixed costs than other customers, the net metering construct "also
prevents them from realizingpresently unquantified benefits to the gid." Id.
Now, more than six years later, Idaho Power has yet to conduct a full study of customer-
owned solar costs and benefits before making program changes. Instead, Idaho Power, in case
IPC-E-19-15, claimed near-emergency conditions related to net metering growth in Schedule 84
and requested the Commission should retroactively suspend the program as of April 5,2019.4
The Commission denied that request because Idaho Power did not provide a factual basis to
support such an extreme request. Order 34315. Almost a year later, Idaho Power withdrew from
that docket on March 17 ,2020, instead of continuing to pursue the issue. That withdrawal came
on the heels of the Commission rejecting a settlement regarding the value of customer-owned
solar because of a lack of supporting evidence. Order 34509. Then, Idaho Power waited several
more months to file the present case, did not claim any emergency status, and deferred to the
Commission's determination of the appropriate effective date. IPC Application. Most tellingly,
Idaho Power now claims that moving to a single meter requirement is necessary to facilitate the
customer-owned solar cost and benefit study. Aschenbrenner ot 15. But ldaho Power does not
explain why the current dual meter data that measures both consumption and generation inhibits
their ability to follow the Commission's prior orders. This years-long pattern of delay and
unsubstantiated claims establishes that Idaho Power is primarily interested in chilling the market
a See Idaho Power Application in IPC-E-19-15
rPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT
October 27,2020
5
for customer-owned solar instead of conducting a full analysis of customer-owned solar costs
and benefits.
The only reason Idaho Power provides for the Commission to make a decision now on
the effective date of any legacy rate treatment is to provide notice to current and potential solar-
owners about who would be subject to program changes. Aschenbrenner at l9.Thatreasoning
does not dictate any specific date. The Commission can clearly notify Idahoans about who is
subject to program changes now by stating that current solar-owners will remain on the legacy
Schedule 84, that future solar-owners will be subject to a revised Schedule 84, and most
importantly, providing a specific timeline for stakeholders to collaborate on a successor net
metering program. Of course, Idaho Power will allege this will create a rush of applications in
the interim, but this will only be an assertion of a possibility, not a fact. As the Commission has
repeatedly ruled, a complete and transparent study of the value of customer-owned solar could
show that exports are more valuable than the retail rates and thus make the successor program
more attractive than the current program.
These facts show the total size of customer-owned solar, both in relation to the number of
customers and Idaho Power's electric system, is exceedingly small. At the same time,
establishing a legacy rate effective date before approving a successor program chills the market
for private investment in self-generation systems. Meanwhile, the Company has not completed
the fair and transparent analysis that is the foundation of establishing afair,just, and reasonable
customer owned solar program for the future. Establishing an effective date for legacy rate
treatment that coincides with the approval of a new program will provide a direct incentive for
Idaho Power to follow this Commission's prior orders to complete this study. And the
Commission can still clearly distinguish between current and future solar-owners by adopting an
effective date that coincides with approving a successor net metering program. Therefore, the
Commission has ample basis to find that it is fair, just, and reasonable to maintain the current
Schedule 84 while the Company and stakeholders conduct the full, transparent analysis of
customer-owned solar that this Commission has ordered since 2013.
For the reasons stated above, ICL recommends the Commission adopt the following
definition of an existing customer for purposes of remaining on the legacy Schedule 84:
rPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT 6
October 27,2020
l. Any person or business with an interconnected, on-site generation system as of
the service date of an order approving a successor net metering program; or
2. Any person or business who has applied to the Company for interconnection of an
on-site generation system as ofthe service date ofan order adopting a successor
net metering program and who successfully interconnects their system within one
year ofthe date oftheir application. See Orders 34509, 34546, 34752 and 34798.
ICL Recommends the Commission Adopt the Same Legacy Rate Treatment Criteria Outlined in
Orders 34509, 34546, 34752 and 34798.
The Idaho Commission has previously adopted a fair, just, and reasonable set of criteria
for customers to remain on the legacy net metering programs at Idaho Power and Rocky
Mountain Power. See Orders 34509, 34546, 34752 and i4798. Previously, when Idaho Power
requested to modify Schedule 84 in IPC-E-19-15, the Commission rejected Idaho Power's efforts
and stated they "expect consistent application of principles across the dockets." Order 34335 ot
1. The other docket the Commission referred to was IPC-E-I8-15, where the Commission found
the following criteria to be a fair, just, and reasonable balancing of the interest to protect solar-
owner's reasonable expectations for program stability with the interests of other customers:
l. a customer who moves into a property with a legacy on-site generation system
will "inherit" the legacy status of the system,
2. if a system is offline for longer than six months, or is moved to another site, the
legacy system is forfeited,
3. to allow for the replacement of degraded or broken panels, the customer may
increase the capacity of the legacy system by no more than l0 percent of the
originally installed nameplate capacity or I kW, whichever is greater, and
4. legacy status terminates 25 years following the Commission Order resolving this
matter. See Order 34546 at 9.
Idaho Power's proposal here diverges from these prior orders in three key ways without
providing any evidence or legitimate policy reasons to support this divergence. Most
importantly, Idaho Power seeks to limit the legacy rate access to only ten years, rather than the
tPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT
October 27,2020
7
25 years the Commission has repeatedly found to be fair. The Commission should reject Idaho
Power's unfounded request and extend equal treatment to all solar-owners.
Following the Commission's adoption of the legacy rate treatment criteria outlined above
for Idaho Power's residential and small commercial customers, Rocky Mountain Power proposed
to provide legacy rate treatment for just ten years. The Commission correctly rejected this
proposal and found,
"it is fair, just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and in the public interest to grandfather
existing Rocky Mountain Power customer generators on the same terms the Commission
granted existing Idaho Power customer-generators in IPC-E-I8-15. There has been no
showing of how Rocky Mountain Power customer-generators are differently situated than
Idaho Power customers in their reasonable expectations of fundamental program stability.
The Commission has consistently tried to align the net metering programs between Idaho
utilities to the extent reasonable. See Order No. 29260 at 6." Order 34752 at 7; Order
34798 (adopting 34752 asJinal).
Similarly, ldaho Power has not provided any evidence that Commercial, Industrial, and
Irrigation customers are differently situated from Residential and Small Commercial customers
in their reasonable expectations of program stability. The only reason Idaho Power provides is
"the Company believes it is reasonable to expect CI&I customers, to a greater extent than
R&SGS customers, understood that fundamentals associated with the net metering service
offering would be subject to change." Aschenbrenner at 22. Amerc "belief in the ability of
some customers to have a better understanding than other customers is not sufficient to carry
Idaho Power's burden of proof. This statement shows a lack of respect for Residential and Small
Commercial customers to understand issues and ignores the range of engagement in utility issues
across the remaining customer classes. Further, adopting a different legacy rate period for a
subset of Idaho Power customers would create confusion for everyone with no meaningful
benefit. Idaho Power customers with a solar system on their home and another on their business
or farm would face different rules because of Idaho Power's "beliefs." And in areas where ldaho
Power's service territory intersects with Rocky Mountain Power's, customers would face
different rules for no apparent reason. Because tdaho Power has not provided any legitimate
tPC-E-20-26
TCL COMMENT
October 27,2020
8
reason to apply a different policy, ICL recommends the Commission allow existing solar-owners
to remain on the legacy net metering program for 25 years.
Idaho Power also proposes a new criterion - that solar-owners who elect to transition
from a dual meter to single meter forfeit their access to the legacy program. Aschenbrenner at
21. Idaho Power provides no reasoning and no evidence for this criterion. Because Idaho Power
has not carried their burden of proof and cannot cure this defect on reply by providing wholly
new evidence, the Commission should reject this unsupported request. A solar-owner who elects
to transition to a single meter is responsible for all costs on their side of these meters, so allowing
a customer to make this decision does not impact others and does not change their reasonable
expectations of stability.
Finally, Idaho Power proposes to insert an unnecessary date that would limit a customer's
ability to maintain their system during the legacy rate period. Idaho Power refers to a May l,
2020 change to the measurement of system size to be based on inverters instead of panels.
Aschenbrenner at 21. Whether system size is measured in reference to inverters or panels does
not change the issue that sometimes system components fail and solar-owners should be allowed
to maintain their current system without losing access to the legacy program. lnstead of adding
unnecessary confusion, ICL recommends the Commission adopt the same criteria as applicable
for all other customers.
To summarize and reiterate, ICL recommends the Commission adopt the legacy rate
access criteria adopted for all other solar-owners:
l. a customer who moves into a property with a legacy on-site generation system
will "inherit" the legacy status of the system,
2. if a system is offline for longer than six months, or is moved to another site, the
legacy system is forfeited,
3. to allow for the replacement of degraded or broken panels, the customer may
increase the capacity of the legacy system by no more than l0 percent of the
originally installed nameplate capacity or I kw, whichever is greater, and
4. legacy status terminates 25 years following the Commission Order resolving this
matter. See Order 34546 at 9.
rPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT
October 27,2020
9
Conclusion
Due to the monopoly construct, Idaho Power customers have a single option to exercise
the o'freedom to offset usage behind the meter" this Commission recognized in Order 34147. As
the Commission heard in the public hearing in the case and as stated in the public comments thus
far, the customer-owned generation program detailed in Schedule 84 is an important option for
customers to control their own energy bills. Idaho Power already limits this freedom by
continuing to impose a 100 kw cap on individual systems, rather than setting an individual limit
that reflects the customer's energy consumption. For more than six years, ldaho Power has
delayed in conducting the full, transparent analysis ofthe costs and benefits, system design
limitations, and interconnection standards of this program that is foundational to developing a
fair, just, and reasonable successor program. Instead, Idaho Power continues to propose
piecemeal changes based on assertions and beliefs instead of analysis. ICL recommends the
Commission provide some stability for customers and ldaho's clean energy industry by:
A. Allowing both current and future solar-owners to select either a single meter or dual meter
configuration so as to best meet the customer's needs.
B. Defining an existing solar customer for purposes of distinguishing between the legacy
Schedule 84 and any successor program as:
l. Any person or business with an interconnected, on-site generation system as of
the service date of an order approving a successor net metering program; or
2. Any person or business who has applied to the Company for interconnection of an
on-site generation system as ofthe service date of an order adopting a successor
net metering program and who successfully interconnects their system within one
year ofthe date oftheir application. See Orders i4509, 34546, i4752 and i4798.
C. Adopting these criteria for an existing solar-owner to remain on the legacy Schedule 84:
1. a customer who moves into a property with a legacy on-site generation system
will "inherit" the legacy status of the system,
2. if a system is offline for longer than six months, or is moved to another site, the
legacy system is forfeited,
rPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT
October 27,2020
10
3. to allow for the replacement of degraded or broken panels, the customer may
increase the capacity of the legacy system by no more than 10 percent of the
originally installed nameplate capacity or 1 kW, whichever is greater, and
4. legacy status terminates 25 years following the Commission Order resolving this
matter. See Order 34546 at 9.
D. Reiterate, again, that Idaho Power must collaborate with stakeholders to conduct a full,
transparent analysis of the cost and benefit of customer-owned solar, as well as a comprehensive
review of interconnection, metering, and system size limits, as the foundation for an assessment
in a general rate case of a fair, just, and reasonable successor net metering program.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of October 2020,
E^tr
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
IPC-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT ll October 27,2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this2Tthday of October,2020,I delivered true and correct copies
of the foregoing COMMENTS to the following persons via the method of service noted:
/s/Otto
Benjamin J. Otto
Electronic mail only (See Order 34602)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
secretary@puc. idaho. gov
Individual
Russel Shiermeier
[e-mail]
Edward Jewell
Deputy Attorney General
Edward j [e-mail]. gov
City of Boise
Abigail R. Germaine
Deputy City Attorney
agermaine @c ityo fbo i se. org
Idaho Power
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Tim Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
lnordstrom@idahopower. com
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
dockets@idahopower. com
Micron Technologt
Jim Swier
[e-mail]
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association
Eric L. Olsen
Echo Hawk & Olsen PLLC
[e-mail]
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Holland & Hart, LLP
darueschhoff@ho llandhart. com
tnelson@ho llandhart.com
aclee@ho llandhart.com
gl garganoamari @hol landhart.com
Anthony Yankel
[e-mail]
Idaho Sierra Club
Lisa Young
Mike Heckler
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Kelsey Jae
Law for Conscious Leadership
kel sey@kelseyj aenunez. com
wc-E-20-26
ICL COMMENT t2
October 27,2020