20211130Final Comments.pdf

Peter J. Richardson
ISB No. 3195
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N.27th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter@richardsonadams. com
Attorneys for the lndustrial Customers of ldaho Power
\r-.,r.rrJi-*t\
. ",;i. * -l i \r' LliJ
ill;Hi-,3il ?f, *22
*FINAL WRITTEN REPLY
COMMENTS' OF THE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLTC UTTLITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-21-21
TN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S APPLTCATTON TO INITIATE A
MULTI-PHASE COLLABORATIVE
PROCESS FOR THE STUDY OF COSTS,
BENEFITS, AND COMPENSATION OF NET
EXCESS ENERGY ASSOCIATED WITH
CUSTOMER ON.SITE GENERATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMES NOW, The Industrial Customers of ldaho Power, hereinafter referred to as the
*ICIP" and pursuant to Order No. 35193 of the tdaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission"), and hereby files its "Final Written Reply Comments" as to "the appropriate
scope of the Study Framework . . . to study the costs, benefits, and compensation of net excess
energy associated wdrft customer on-site generation."l
I
INTRODUCTION - BACKGROUND
In its "Final Comments" filed in this matter the ICIP observed that its recommendation to
study the parameters for non-contiguous customer-owned generating facilities (also referred to
by the Commission as net metering facilitiss or on-site generating facilities) was encompassed in
I See page 2 of Order no. 35196 at p. 2. Italics added
the Commission-established scope of this docket. The ICIP reminded the Parties that Idaho
Power already provides for, and this Commission has approved, net-metering facilities to be
aggregated to a single meter that is not physically located at the same site of the customer's "net-
metered'o generation, (literally, 'off-site' generation). The general rules applicable to meter
aggregations are found in Schedules 6, 8 and 842 of the ldaho Power's currently approved tariffs.
While the concept of off-site meter aggregation is currently artificially restricted to semi-
contiguous properties3 owned by the same entity, the concept of off-site net metering is already
firmly grounded in Commission orders and ldaho Power's tariffs and is already available for
almost all of the Company's ratepayers. Thus, off-site net metering is squarely on the table for
discussion/study in this docket because it is unequivocally "associated" with net-metering.
II.
NET-METERING, OFF-SITE GENERATION, ON-SITE GENERATION
...BY ANY OTHER NAME
Idaho Power in its Final Comments and without adding any substantive support for the
assertion, simply parroted the Staff s prior unsupported statement that off-site generation is
beyond the scope of this proceeding. To the contrary, and as pointed out in the ICIP's Final
Comments, on-site generation as approved by this Commission TNCLUDES OFF-SITE
GENERATTON. While it is unfortunate that the Commission continues to use the partially
descriptive phrase "on-site" generation, there can be no question that, as used by this
2 Inclusivc of Residential, Commercial, Industrial and trrigation customers.
3 The contiguous property requirement is loosely and inexplicably defined to include parcels
separated by generically described "public .. .rights of way" which presumably includes roads,
canals, access easements, highways and etc. Idaho Power No. 29, TariffNo. l0l, Third Revised
Sheet No. 84-5 at Section 2(a)(iii).
ICIP Final Comments
- tPC-E-2r-2r
2
Commission, the phrase "on-site generation" also encompasses off-site customer owned
generation.
Indeed, this docket is no stranger to poorly descriptive terminology. For instance, the
Commission now uses the phrase "net-metering" to mean its exact opposite. According to the
Commission, "net-metering" now includes the actual sale of excess energy and not simply a
netting of customer-usage against customer-generated power. This Commission as recently as
2012 (in Order No. 32880), declared that:
[T]he purpose of net metering is to allow a customer to olfset usage, not to sell power to
the Company. If a customer wishes to become a power seller, then the customer nus,
proceed with a contract under Schedule 86.
[At page 3, emphasis in original.]
This docket, however, now encompasses the concept of customers selling their "excess" "net"
energy. Of course, the concept of "excess net" - of anything - is oxymoronic. This docket is
about, inter alia, how customers can sell their excess "net" energy to the host utility without a
contract under schedule 86 - which is the opposite of the Commission's prior rulings as to the
"purpose of net metering." The Commission's less than precise, and less than consistent, usage
of the phrase net metering cannot be relied on by the Power Company or the Staffto artificially
limit the scope of this docket. Limiting the scope of a "comprehensive" study of the "issues
associated" with net metering to inexplicably exclude commission approved off-site net metering
facilities is contrary to the concept of a "comprehensive" study.
In the linguistically topsyturvy world created by this Commission, net-metering doesn't
mean net metering. It means netting usage against consumption AND it also means the sale of
excess power to the utility. Similarly, the phrase "on-site" generation means more than just on-
site generation. As explained below, "on-site" generation" is currently meant by the
ICIP Final Comments
-1PC-E-21-2t
3
Commission to encompass net metering facilities that are literally "ofGsite" from the customer's
meter.
Idaho Power' tariffs currently allow for off-site net metering by all of its net metering
customers. See, Residential (Schedule 6), commercial (Schedule 7), and all Schedules other than
residential and small commercial (See Schedule 84). All those schedules currently allow for net
metering of generation that is located off site4 from the Designated Meter for exporting power to
the utility. It therefore beyond question that any "comprehensive" study of issues "associated"
with net metering in ldaho encompasses on-site and off-site net metering.
Of course, one need look no further than the Commission's own pronouncements on this
topic to see that the Commission uses the terms "net metering" (which is inclusive of off-site
generation) and "on-site generation" interchangeably. For example, in the Notice of Application
in this docket the Commission went out of its way to provide a working definition of net
metering:
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that when the electricity provided by the
Company to a customer during a billing period is more than the customer's generated
electricity delivered to the Company, the customer receives a bill for the additional
electricity supplied by the Company at applicable rates. When the customer's electrical
generation is more than what is supplicd by the Company during a billing period, the
customer's excess electrical generation is applied as a kilowatt-hour credit to energy the
customer uses in a subsequent billing period. This process is called "net metering".
One paragraph later5 the Commission referred to this docket as a process in which to "study the
costs, benefits and compensation for net excess energy supplied by customer on-site
generation." Idaho Power's Commission approved tariffs define net metering to include off-site
4
Defined in the tariffs as "property that is separated from the Premises of the Designated
Meter. .."
s Footnote 2,page 2 OrderNo.35l2t.
ICIP Final Comments
- IPC-E-2r-2r
4
generation. The Commission's own order in this very docket uses the phrases "net-metering"
and "on-site" generation interchangeably. It is unreasonable to assume, as Staffand Idaho Power
apparently do, that the Commission was unaware that it has already approved off-site net
metering for ldaho Power and has labeled such facilities as Net Metering Facilities.6 The
Commission's us€ the generic descriptors "on-site generation" and "net metering" clearly
encompasis the entire universe of Commission approved net metering/on-site generation facilities
which by definition means it includes off-site generation.. Thus, when the Commission uses the
two phrases interchangeably and without any further distinction, the only logical inference is that
it intended this "comprehensive study" to include all net-metering (a.k.a. on-site generation and
off-site generation) that is currently being offered by tdaho Power in Commission approved
tariffs.
Finally it is important to underscore that the Commission is requiring a "comprehensive"
study of all issues "associated" with net metering and to understand that the word "associated" is
inclusive of issues and not meant !o be restrictive or exclusive of related issues.
DATED this 30th day of November 2021
F
Peter J
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
6 It is the ICIP's understanding that off-site net metering is cunently being utilized primarily for
the benefit of some of the Power Company's irrigation pumping customers.
ICIP FinalComments
- IPC-E-2 r-2 t
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 30th day of November 2OZl,a true and correct copy of the
within and foregoing FINAL COMMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO
POWER in Docket No. IPC-E-21-21 was served electronically to:
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Lisa Nordstrom
Connie Aschenbrenner
COMMISSION STAFF
Erick Shaner
I nordstrom@ idahopower.com
caschenbrenner@ idahopower.com
[e-mail]
Erick.shaner@puc. idaho. gov
COMMISSION SECR.ETARY
Jan Noriyuki jan.nori),uk i@Fuc. idaho. gov
sec retary@puc. idaho. gov
IDAHYDRO
Tom Arkoosh tom.arkoosh@s arkoosh.com
erin.cec i l@arkoosh. com
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
Benjamin J. Otto [e-mail]
IDAHO CLEAI\ ENERGY LEAGUE
Kevin King [e-mail]
CLEAN ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IDAHO
Michael Heckler [e-mail]
Courtney White [e-mail]
Kelsey Jae [e-mail]
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Jim Swier
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen
ICIP Final Comments
- IPC-E-2 r-2 r
iswierfalmicron.com
dru sc h hoff@ ho I I andhart. com
tne I son(@.hollandhart. com
aien sen@hol landhart. com
gl garganoamari@ hol landhart.com
6
CITY OF BOISE
Ed Jewell
KIKI LESLIE A. TIDWELL
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
eiewell@c i tvofboise.org
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION
Eric L. Olsen [e-mail]
RICHARD E. KLUCKHOHN end \ilESLEY A. KLUCKHOIIN
Richard E. Kluckhohn [e-mail]
Wesley A. Kluckhohn [e-mail]
ABC POWER COMPAITTY, LLC
Ryan Bushland [e-mail]
COMET EI\IERGY, LLC
George Stanton esorge. stanton@cometenergy. biz
IDAHOME SOLA& LLC
Tyler Grange [e-mail]
Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
ICIP FinalComments
-1PC-E-21-2I
7