20210915Comments.pdf

Peter J. Richardson
ISB No. 3195
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83702
Telephone: [phone] I
Fax: [phone]
peter@richardsonadams. com
Attorneys for the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
.\:" !r if--;.4_.'^-\../*iu'.-:-'
:;:; ii? I 5 FH 2: OT
r-i lAi.i.J.Jl\-;tE
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO, IPC-E-21-21
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO INTTIATE A
MULTI-PHASE COLLABORATIVE
PROCESS FOR THE STUDY OF COSTS,
BENEFITS, AND COMPENSATION OF NET
EXCESS ENERGY ASSOCIATED WITH
CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER ON
THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY
COMES NOW, The Industrial Customers of Idaho Power and pursuant to an informal
agreement among the parties to this docket, provides the following comments on the proper
scope of the study that is the subject of this proceeding.
Off-Site Non-Exporting DER
Currently Schedule 68 permits Non-Exporting DER customers to operate in parallel with
the Company upon compliance with interconnection and parallel operating requirements. There
is no size limitation as long as the Non-Exporting DER customer prevents the delivery of
inadvertcnt energy onto ldaho Pow€r's system. Schedule 68 does not allow Non-Exporting
systems to transfer energy across the interconnection point onto ldaho Power's system. In other
words, non-exporting DER's must be located behind the meter at the physical site where the
customer's DER generation is both generated and utilized. Although, the Company's tariffs
restrict DER generators from allowing their generation to cross the interconnection point and
enter Idaho Power's system, the Commission should not be arbitrarily restrictivc by limiting its
definition of net metering generation to just the site where the customer's load happens to be
located.
The Commission established the direction and scope of this proceeding in the following
concluding passage from Order No. 34046:
lV'e can also assure the Company's customers that discriminatory rates will notfollow
from the outcome of this case, as the prevention of discriminatory rales by the utility is
lhe main purpose of this Commission's overstght, Commission Staffs public service, and
the many intervenors and public participant's involvement in these important cases. We
also share with commenters the concern about the future of on-site generation. This
Commission views on-site generation resources as an inevitable part of any utility's
future resource portfolio. The underlying, fundamental nature of a utility's business is
rapidly changing due to evolving regulatory regimes, technologt, and customer
preference.
In addition, the Commission has declared that:
[TheJ opportunity to ... olfset usage is the primary purpose o.f net metertng. The
purpose of net metering is not to encourqge excess generation.t
According to this Commission, the primary purpose of net metering is to allow customers
to generate sufficient electrical power and energy to offset their usage while not encouraging
excess generation. And, of course, according to this Commission, the prevention of
I Ord". No. 29260 at p. 6; Order no. 34753 atp. 3 (Lexis pagination)
ICIP Scope of Study Comments
-tPC-E-2t-21
2
"discriminatory rates" is "the main purpose" of the Commission's oversight responsibilities.
Currently, net metering opportunities are limited to just those customers who are lucky enough to
be able to generate electricity where their electrical load is located. Customers who only have
generating opportunities located at locations apart from their loads are currently arbitrarily
prevented from being able to "offset usage." Assuming logistical impediments are
surmountable, there is no rational basis for the prohibition against off site net metering. Thus, it
appears that the prohibition against offsite net metering is both arbitrary and facially
discriminatory against those customers who do not have the physical ability to participate in on-
site net metering in order to achieve the Commission's stated purpose for net metering, which is
to offset usage. In addition, not allowing customs who can construct and operate generating
facilities 'off-site' in order to offset their usage at designated and possibly disparate locations
clearly frustrates this Commission's stated purpose for allowing net metering - which is to offset
usage without encouraging excess generation.
The restriction requiring customer-owned DER to be located at the physical sitc where
the customer's load is consumed is unnecessarily restrictive and prevents customers with limited
resource availability at their physical plant's location from participating in the DER program.
The Industrial Customers of Idaho Power would therefore include on the issues list for
funher discussion the possibility of off-site Non-Exporting net metering facilities. This
discussion topic would ncccssarily includc an analysis of the feasibility of permitting a Non-
Exporting DER customer to construct generating facility(ies) at a location (or locations) other
than on the physical site where the DER's output (or output equivalent) is ultimately consumed.
Questions to be considered include how the DER energy could be credited to the physical site of
the DER's actual load. For instance, would the credited DER energy be used to offset the
lClP Scope of Study Comments
- IPC-E-2t-2t
3
customer's load in real time or over a predetermined time period (e.9. a month or a year or a
billing period)? Although the DER generation would be injected onto Idaho Power's system - it
would be credited only for the account of the DER customer's load and not credited for export
for use by Idaho Power or [daho Power's other customers. Other questions to be analyzed
include such issues as whether a customer with multiple accounts/meters/locations would be able
to amalgamate its disparate load locations for purposes of consuming the load from a single off-
site DER (or even multiple off-site DERs); and how the utility's transmission/distribution system
will be impacted and how Idaho Power would be compensated for its use? The analysis should
also include an examination of whether there are any physical (e.g. engineering) or legal
limitations on the concept of oflsite DERs.
DATED this l5th day of September 2021
Peter J. R
zuCHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the l5th day of September 202l,atrue and correct copy of the
within and foregoing COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO
POWER ON THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY in Docket No. IPC-E-21-21 was served
electronically to:
r
Lisa Nordstrom
Regulatory Dockets
Idaho Power Company
I nordstrom Ca. i d a hooo we r. co m
dockets@ idahopower.com
Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
i [e-mail]. qov
ICIP Scope of Study Comments
- IPC-E-21-21
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
secretary6Douc. idaho. gov
Connie Aschenbrenner
ldaho Power Company
caschenbrenner(D idahopower.com
4
Eric Shaner
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
Erick. shaner@nuc. idatro. sov
Kevin King
Idaho Clean Energy Association
sta fl@.idahoc leanenerqy.org
Idaho Solar Owners Network
Joshua Hill
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
City of Boise
Ed Jewell
eiewel [e-mail]
boiseci tvattornev@c i tyo fboise.ore
Idaho lrrigation Pumpers Assoc.
Eric Olsen
[e-mail]
ABC Power Company, LLC
Ryan Bushland
R yan. b u sh I and(g) abcpowe r. com
Idaho Home Solar, LLC
Tyler Grange
tyl er(@ idahhomesolar.com
IdaHydro
Tom Arkoosh
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Michael Heckler
Courtney White
m ike@c leanenerqyopportunities. com
courtney@cl eanenerqyopportunities.com
Micron Technology, [nc.
Jim Swier
[e-mail]
darueschhoff@hol landhart.com
tnel son@hol landhart.com
awj ensen@hol landhart. com
aclee@hol landhart.com
sl garganoamari@hol landhart.com
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
[e-mail]
Richard E. Kluckhohn
Wesley A. Kluckhohn
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Comet Energy, LLC
George Stanton
CeorBe.stanton(a)cometenergy. b iz
P"*(,
Peter Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
ICIP Scope of Study Comments
- rPC-E-21-21
5