20201222Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

Kelsey Jae, ISB No. 7899
LAW FOR CONSCIOUS LEADERSHIP
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise,ID 83703
Telephone : (208) 39 l -29 6l
kelsev@kelseviaenune z.com
Attorneyfor Sierua Club
Lisa Young
Michael Heckler
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
503 W Franklin St
Boise,lD 83702
Telephone : [phone]
I isa.young@ sierrac lub.org
michael.p.heckler@ gmail.com
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S )
APPLTCATTON FOR AUTHORTTY TO MODrF"r )
SCHEDULE 84,S METERING REQUIREMENT )
AND TO GRANDFATHER EXTSTTNG CUSTOMERS )
WITH T\ilO METERS. )
fi ili.li f, iVg*
!ii?* *[il ?e PH ?: I 0
, : 3- 'l:;i': !._-.t.W:.''.,,;i.'..il,iiit$l0li
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
[PC-E-20-26
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB's
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW the Idaho Chapter of the Sierra Club ("Sierra Club"), pursuant to Idaho
Code g 6l-626 with the following petition for reconsideration and clarification of Order No.
348s4.
In this docket, the Commission has ruled that harm to customers is outrveighed by the
public interest in clariffing that the existing Schedule 84 tariffwill likely change.
"While it may be difficult for potential customer-generators to determine their likely
return on investment without knowing the details of the successor program, we find this
consideration is outweighed by the public interest in clarity that the tariff is likely to
change."1
Sierra Club does not contest the Commission's assessment of the value of clari$ing to C,I & I
I Order No 34854, page l0-11
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - |
customers that tariffs can, and likely will, change. Rather, we respectfully ask that the
Commission consider favorably our requests as a way to reduce unnecessary harm to customers
without reducing the benefits provided by the clarification that the tariff can change.
1. For Reconsideration: Extend the Cut-Off Date for Legacy Treatment by 90 Days to
Februaru 28.2021.
1.1 The obligation to provide timely information is unfulfilled.
The Commission has previously established the obligation of a utility to enable customers
to make informed decisions regarding customer-generation. For example, in PAC-E-19-08, the
Commission noted:
The utility is a trusted entity imbued with a public purpose. It has the opportunity and the
obligation to provide its customers with timely, trustworthy, and accurate information
regarding the utility's service offerings to allow its customers to make informed decisions
about whether to pursue the potential benefits of being a customer-generator while also
incurring the associated risks.2
In reply comments within this docket, Idaho Power Company (the "Company") has
acknowledged that the Commission consistently tries to align net metering programs across
utilities. But with respect to the alignment of related obligations, such as a duty to inform
customers, the Company has been less than diligent. Specifically, by delaying the launch of a
docket to study the costs and benefits of customer self-generation, the Company has been far less
than diligent in providing its customers with timely and necessary information to make informed
decisions about the risks and benefits of being a customer-generator.
1.2. If there were urgent harm caused by the current program, the Company has
had ample time to address it in the manner ordered by the Commission to study on-site
generation.
The Commission ordered the Company to perform a study of on-site generation in 2018.
In2019, the Commission further clarified the process for conducting that study and the
subsequent steps needed prior to defining a successor program. The Company could have chosen
to expeditiously develop the on-site generation study that will be necessary to defining a
successor to the existing net-metering programs. Instead the Company proposes delaying the
start of that needed study until after resolution of this and the IPC-E-20-30 dockets are
concluded.
Having participated in multiple dockets addressing matters related to customer
self-generation and net-metering3, Sierra Club acknowledges that the Company faces
2 Order No 34752, page 9.3Including IPC-E-17-l3,IPC-E-18-l5,IPC-E-18-l6,IPC-E-19-l5,IPC-E-20-30, RMP-E-19-08,
as well as this docket.
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - 2
complexities associated with moving on from the current net-metering program.
However, customers bear the harm of the delay. As a result of the Company's failure to timely
launch a docket to study cost and benefits, the Commission was stuck with a choice between
pushing out the cut-off date for eligibility for grandfathering to some unknown date when a
successor to the current net-metering program is established (as requested by customers, PUC
Staff, Siena Club / ICEA and others), or establish an immediate cut-off date of December l,
2020 (as requested by the Company). An opportunity to lessen the harm uniquely born by the
Company' s CI&I customers merits consideration.
1.3 Farmers testified that they are harmed when access to on-site generation is
impeded, and that approval of the proposed cut-offdate impeded that access.
A representative comment is from Randy Bauscher of B&H Farming (posted 1011612020,
leffer dated l0 I 1212020):
I believe we should continue to have the opportunity to make our irrigation systems
more efficient through any way possible; pivots, high efficiency pumps, vFD's, solar
panels, or whatever is available. Commodity prices often do not check with input
costs and in order to survive and keep Idaho's agricultural community thriving, we
should be able to use tools such as the Net Metering Program to compete on a
national and global scale.
The Commission has acknowledged that this ruling makes it more difficult for customers to
evaluate on-site generation investments. Five farmers specifically testified that they were
interested in investing in new or additional solar systems but they or their landlords would not do
so primarily due to the current ambiguities.
For example, Adam Young demonstrates that his farm was able to make an informed
decision prior to IPC-E-20-26, but as a result of IPC-E-20-26he is not able to make an informed
decision: (Adam Young, testimony provided October 13,2020):
Our farm invested a significant amount of capital to construct two solar sites
featuring 12 solar panels on dual-axis trackers. A significant amount of time was
spent analyzing the proposed system, its cost, its expected return, and its payback
period. We did not move forward with the project until we were very comfortable
with the numbers behind our analysis. Idaho Power's proposal would render such
financial analysis impossible for projects starting on or after December l.
Testimony in this docket provided evidence that farmers are unable to make a decision regarding
on-site generation in the midst of a process that would result in changes to which they have zero
visibility.
Without an extension of the cut-off date, the impact of the Commission's ruling is to
remove from many Idaho farmers the ability to take advantage of on-site generation during 2021
Some farmers can access REAP grants or take advantage of Investment Tax Credits in2020,
some in 2021, while others simply have been caught at the end of the harvest discovering the
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - 3
information available in202I is insufficient to make an informed decision. It is unfair,
unnecessary, and to no significant benefit on record in this docket that farmers bear the cost of
the utility's choice to delay fulfilling obligations ordered by the Commission.
1.4
cut-off date.
a
Differences between IPC-E-18-15 and IPC-E.-20-26 justiff an extended
The Company acknowledges (Aschenbrenner Direct) that in Order No. 34546
(IPC-E-18-15), the Commission's decision to grandfather existing customers was based on the
facts of that case, and that if CI&I customers are to be grandfathered as of a specific date, such a
decision must be made based on the facts presented in a separate case. Extending the cut-off date
in IPC-E-20-26whenit was not extended in IPC-E-I8-15 can be justified by the following
distinctions between the two situations:
The evaluation process for an investment in on-site generation is different for a
residential customer relative to a CI & I customer. Many commenters in IPC-E-20'26
described this complexity, and we note the description provided in Gietzen Petition
for Reconsideration (l2l 17 12020):
Six months may be enough time to submit applications for small projects, but for
customers planning multi-million dollar projects that span dozens of individual
meters and dozens of individual site locations, potentially MW sized projects, six
months is not ample time.
o Farmers typically finalize major investment decisions after the harvest season, thus
choosing Dec I as a cut-off date is unnecessarily harmful to customers unable to
complete their evaluation process by that date.
. The time and expertise CI&I customers invest into the evaluating on-site generation is
a business expense which goes to waste if the customer is unable to complete the
process.
o This docket reflects a different form of reliance on solar that farmers face compared
to that presented by residents. In order to compete, CI&I businesses rely on the ability
to make informed decisions regarding investment choices in solar relative to other
efficiency improving technologies.
o It's been a year since IPC-E-18-15. If the Company needs more time than anticipated
to launch their study of on-site generation, it is reasonable to allow Customers more
time to complete their applications.
1.5 Farmers are leaning on the PUC to protect their interests.
The record reflects numerous comments noting that the timing of this docket, during
harvest, limited the ability of farmers to engage. No remedy was granted. Farmers with on-site
generation had a huge financial incentive to engage given exposure to the grandfather period;
farmers who would otherwise invest in on-site generation in 2021 were
under-represented. Russell Schiermeier, a farmer intervening in the docket, noted (Comments),
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20'26 - 4
"Unfortunately, there has not been an agricultural group that has represented my interest, or other
farmers interested in a solar component to farming."
Testimony and comments provided by farmers have demonstrated that having an
assessable option for on-site generation is important to their economic resilience, farmers in the
midst of evaluating solar or unable to take advantage of federal funds in 2020butcould in202l
are particularly harmed, and the utility has demonstrated no urgency in starting the steps
necessary to determine a successor program. Reconsideration of the cut-off date provides some
small remedy to customers harmed by the Company's unfulfilled obligation to provide timely
information that would allow customers to make informed decisions regarding on-site
generation.
The study of the costs and benefits of customer self-generation, and the potential for a
general rate case to be required to put any such costs/benefits into effect within a tariff structure,
is likely to be multi-year process, not yet even begun. Clarity that the tariffis likely to change is
still accomplished if the cut-off date is extended 90 days.
We are asking only for 90 days to remedy harm to customers by extending the cut-off
date for eligibility for Schedule 84 customers to receive legacy treatment until Feb 28,2021.
2. Request for Clarification
With the delay before a study (and rate case) can be completed, there is now and will be
for some time, a period of uncertainty that customers face when considering investing in
self-generation. As noted above, that uncertainty harms customers. Sierra Club requests that the
Commission provide certain clarifications that we believe can nalrow the scope of that
uncertainty.
We provide below examples of opportunities to lessen the harm that uncertainty imposes
upon customers. These clarifications can be provided without conflicting with the public interest
of informing customers that tariffs are not contuacts and that the terms under which customers
self-generate are likely to change during the useful life of their generation assets.
2.1 Clarifications regarding the extent of program review
In conjunction with its application under this docket, the Company noted that a keyjustification for IPC-E-20-26 was to enable CI&I customers to make more informed decisions.
Based on this growth, the Company believes it is in the best interest of customers,
both existing and future, to know to what extent they may be impacted by the
outcome of a future docket that results in a change to the measurement interval or
compensation structure applied to Schedule 84.a
The Commission has informed customers that "program fundamentals are undergoing a
comprehensive review and are likely to change."s
a Aschenbrenner Direct, page l3
5 Order No 34854, page l0
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - 5
Sierra Club sees a substantial difference in scope between the Commission's reference to
"fundamentals" and a'ocomprehensive review" and the more-narrow concern of the Company
associated with changes to "measurement interval and compensation structure".
Customers value any visibility of what to expect from the study of on-site generation
which still stands between them and the ability to make informed decisions. The ruling on
IPC-E-20-26 puts them in the position of relying on advocacy groups, installers, and the utility
for predictioni, ury of which may have different views. Because CI&I customers are bearing the
harm caused by the lack of progress in defining the successor program, we encourage the
Commission to help customers by clariffing some of the parameters of possible program
changes.
We ask that the Commission clariff that certain aspects will or will not be subject to
change including:
1. Self-generation. While customers are precluded from competing with the monopoly
rights of the Company by attempting to sell power to other customers, they are not
required to purchase all of their energy requirements from the monopoly supplier. As has
been policy at least since 2002, a customer taking service from the Company may offset
all or-some of their load and energy requirements by self-generating and the upcoming
study must not serve to curtail the customer's right to offset some of their consumption
by self-generating.
2. fxport. Customers harnessing solar energy have through custom and under federal
legislation a right to export net excess energy to the utility and receive fair value for that
energy.
3. Consumption rates. We ask that the Commission affirm that consumption rates for
CI&I customers (Energy, Demand, and Service) will not change outside of a general rate
case.
4. Size and aggregation rules. As multiple commenters noted, the economics associated
with solar installations cannot be accurately estimated without considering the size of
individual installations. We ask that the Commission reconsider its suggestion that size
limits can be considered "during or after the forthcoming comprehensive study"6 and
direct the Company to include a review of size and aggregation rules within the scope of
any comprehensive study.
5. Value categories. Though the Company has not yet studied the value of net excess
generation ordered by the Commission in 2018, the Commission has previously ruled on
ihe value categories to be studied by Rocky Mountain Power. We note that "The
Commission has consistently tried to align the net metering programs between Idaho
utilities to the extent reasonable."T In that spirit, we ask for affirmation that the scope of
the Idaho Power study will include, but not be limited to, the following value categories
which the Commission ordered to be included in the "Scope of Rocky Mountain Power's
On-Site Generation Study":
6 Order No 34854, page 12
7 Order No 34752, page 7.
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC'B 20-26'6
o Avoided Energy valueo Avoided Capacity value. Avoided Risk. Avoided Transmission & Distribution costs. Avoided Line losses. Avoided Environmental Costs and Other Benefits
Dated this 22nd day of December,20}O
Respectfully submitted,
rs\k
Kelsey Jae, Attorney for Siena Club
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on this 22nd day of December, 2020,I delivered true and correct copies of
the foregoing Request for Production to the following persons via electronic mail delivery:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
fan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
secretary(Opuc.idaho.gov
Idaho Public Iltilities Commission Staff
Edward fewell
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
edward.j [e-mail]. gov
Idaho Power Companlt
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Tim Tatum
Connie Aschenbrenner
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
caschenbrenner@ idahopower.com
[e-mail]
Russell Schiermeier
[e-mail]
Citv of Boise CiW
Abigail R. Germaine
[e-mail]
Idaho Conservation League
Benjamin I. Otto
[e-mail]
Micron Technologlr
fim Swier
[e-mail]
Idaho lrrigation Pumpers Assn
Eric L. Olsen
[e-mail]
AnthonyYankel
[e-mail]
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
darues [e-mail] m
tnelson(Ohollandhart.com
[e-mail]
gl [e-mail]
r$\k
Kelsey Jae
Attorneyfor Sierua Club
Idaho Sierra Club - Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification - IPC-E-20-26 - 8