20210907Comments.pdf

COMMENTS ON CASE- 1
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S APPLICATION 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
Case No. IPC-E-21-21
COMMENTS ON CASE
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell, Intervenor, hereby files comments on Case IPC-E-21-21 pursuant
to Rules of Procedure 71 through 75 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, ID APA
31.01.01.071-.075 as follows:
1.The name and address of this Intervenor is:
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell704 N. River St. #1Hailey, ID 83333
[phone]
[e-mail]
2.The “Study Design” Primary Objective for this case is only to study on-site
generation customers who export energy to the grid. This objective fails to include studying
those customers in multi-family buildings who could benefit from receiving solar-generated
power from a centralized system on a building. In Idaho currently, there is no possibility for
those customers, often low-income, to receive electrons from a central solar system, nor to
RECEIVED
2021 SEP 7 AM 9:29
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMMENTS ON CASE- 2
receive any net metering credits from such a system if they have a separate meter in their name.
The Study Design should also include as an additional Primary Objective how solar generated
power and credits can be equitably shared with low income or workforce customers. This should
include community solar farms and multi-family buildings.
The study design should include as additional Primary Objective what level of onsite
generation total dollar value actually materially impacts rates for all customers; are small net-
metering customers bearing undue financial burdens and filings in contrast to their overall
percentage of Idaho Power’s last rate application’s reported $2,355,906,412 Idaho retail rate
base?1 Should not the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s time on behalf of Idaho ratepayers
also be spent on a new base rate case since the last one was settled in 2011, during the years,
post-economic recession, that Idaho Power had a lower credit rating? Would not the savings to
ratepayers with lower adjusted authorized rates of return on equity to Idaho Power eclipse any of
the regulatory adjustments to minute streams of income from homeowners with solar on their
roofs?
3. The Case, as submitted by Idaho Power, focuses on the Export Credit Rate for on-
site generation customers. Idaho Power has the obligation to provide information in this case as
to when a level of such on-site generation actually substantively impacts its operations to become
a material factor to all ratepayers’ costs. In IdaCorp Inc.’s annual report, IDACORP, Inc. -
Investor Relations - Financial Info - Performance Metrics (idacorpinc.com)2 annual gross
revenue for fiscal year 2020 is reported as $1,350,729,000 (Idaho Power’s June 1 2011
application however reported a $2,355,906,412 Idaho retail rate base.) Facts and data about
total on-site generation revenues should be provided by the company. At what point do on-site

1 https://puc.idaho.gov/Fileroom/PublicFiles/ELEC/IPC/IPCE1108/CaseFiles/20110601Application pg 5 2 https://www.idahocorpinc.com/investor-relations/financial-info/performance-metrics
COMMENTS ON CASE- 3
generation customers’ small streams of revenue from net-metering credits materially impact the
rates of all customers when the company annually achieves $1.4 billion in revenue or a
$2,355,906,412 rate base? (The discrepancy between these two numbers should be resolved)
Idaho Power should also provide the costs to ratepayers of other activities that could
materially impact company costs of operations like cloudseeding. The annual costs of
cloudseeding could eclipse the costs to rates from any integration of on-site generation, yet they
are never reported.
4. Idaho Power ratepayers need a current base rate case which is updated to 2021
realities. Currently, Idaho Power is allowed to charge rates of return which are far higher than the
current low interest environment which constrains all other investors; a 10 year treasury bond
yields 1.56% today. The last rate case settlement was in 2011, almost 11 years ago, after the
Great Economic Recession, and during a period of time in which Idaho Power’s credit rating had
been downgraded3. The company’s credit rating was subsequently changed to A3 in 2014 and
remains at that level to date. The minimal streams of net metering income to on-site generation
customers should be compared to the 10.5% rates of return on equity allowed to be charged by
Idaho Power. Are these minimal payments made to homeowners producing solar on their roofs
really substantive when a small reduction in interest rates could bring down costs to ratepayers
by millions of dollars?
In June 2011, Darrel Anderson, who was Chief Financial Officer for IdaCorp, Inc., at the
time, and who later received significant compensation for many years as CEO (up to $8,271,701
million in total compensation as CEO in 2019), testified in the Case IPC-E-11-08 about the
difficult economic times, that “housing permit issuances are low and house prices are still

3 Idaho Power Company Credit Rating - Moody's (moodys.com)
COMMENTS ON CASE- 4
heading down”4. He also testified, “how the stipulation that was approved by the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission (“Commission”) on January 13, 2010, in Order No. 30978
(“Stipulation”)…has made it possible” that “the Company has had the opportunity to earn a
level of return that might not have been otherwise attainable.”5 It appears that this stipulation
allowed for Idaho Power to pay the extraordinary out-sized salaries of senior management since
the stipulation was approved. In IdaCorp Inc’s 2012 annual report to shareholders6, management
crowed, “The difference is our financial strength” “Operating Income in 2012 was positively
impacted by $65 million due to rate and other regulatory changes, including power cost and fixed
cost adjustment mechanisms.” In IdaCorp., Inc.’s 2021 Proxy Statement7, the Company noted
that the Quarterly Dividend has increased 137% since 2011. It seems that the Idaho PUC’s
Stipulation No. 30978 and rate case settlement of 2011 have enriched Idaho Power and IdaCorp.,
Inc. coffers, and in particular, the compensation of senior management, board directors, and most
egregiously, Darrel Anderson, in the years since.
For 2011, CEO LaMont Keen’s base salary was $634,423 and “Mr. Anderson’s
November 2011 promotion”…”resulting in a significant increase in the market median base
salary from $383,000 in 2011 (for his prior position) to $505,000 in 2012.” According to
IdaCorp. Inc’s Proxy Statements 2011-2020, Darrel Anderson earned the following amounts of
total compensation once he became CEO in 2014 through in June 2020, when he stepped down
from the CEO position, but remained on the Board of Directors:

4 20110601Anderson Di.pdf (idaho.gov) pg 8
5 20110601Anderson Di.pdf (idaho.gov) pg 3
6 2012 Annual Report (q4cdn.com) pg 8
7 https://s26.q4cdn.com/720254477/files/doc_financials/annual/2020/prxy2021.pdf
COMMENTS ON CASE- 5
Without change in Pension Value Total
2020, half year $3,704,448 $6,318,342
2019, $4,733,097 $8,271,701
2018, $4,474,464 $5,376,529
2017, $3,933,876 $6,695,596
2016, $3,548,020 $5,594,126
2015, $2,476,533 $3,617,649
2014, $2,115,872 $4,044,729
Darrel Anderson’s total annual compensation without change in Pension Value doubled
in the 6 years from 2014 to 2020. His total annual compensation with Pension Value was noted
in the 2012 proxy as $1,836,644 and in 2019 had grown to $8,271,701. The nine directors of
IdaCorp, Inc, each earned from $183,655 to $269,363 total compensation in 2019. In the Study
Design of this case, the streams of compensation to on-site generation customers should be
compared to other costs to ratepayers, including compensation of senior management and the
Board of Directors. All Idaho ratepayers will benefit from an updated base rate case in 2021.
Due to the federal Covid economic relief legislation, federal funds have been distributed
to the states, and Idaho’s Governor has since provided tax relief to many Idaho ratepayers. Is
this a windfall to Idaho Power? Anderson’s 2011 testimony discussed a prior repairs allowance
tax benefit which occurred in 2010 and its positive effect on their ROE. Could not a similar
situation be ongoing now with tax relief in the state of Idaho? The Company should disclose
how such beneficial tax relief may be increasing their ROE higher than the authorized ROE of
10.5%. A new base rate case with this information should be conducted in parallel with any case
COMMENTS ON CASE- 6
on the supposed “windfall” benefits to onsite generation customers who may receive a couple
pennies more for the kWhs they produce.
5. Idaho Power has stated that it does not possess any studies on the benefits of on-site
generation. There are numerous studies on the benefits to the grid and to all ratepayers when on-
site generation and micro-grids can reduce load at peak power demands. As Idaho Power
conducts its 2021 Integrated Resource Planning process, additional generation resources are
being explored to be built to cover increased peak loads. 900 MWs of generation has been
identified to be built. All Idaho ratepayers benefit when Idaho Power is knowledgeable up to
2021 levels of information about the benefits of microgrids and battery storage which reduce the
need to build additional peaker plants. The company should be required to research and provide
such studies.
I was the developer of an all-electric multifamily workforce housing rental apartment
building, Silver River Place, in Hailey, Idaho which was completed in June 2021 and which also
has a solar generation system on its roof, as well as a backup Generac battery. The solar and
battery system at Silver River Place apartments cost $112,219 for a 24.75 kW system. This
distributed generation which provides power right at load demand during the peak hours in late
June and July is a valuable resource which Idaho ratepayers did not have to pay for the capital
investment in. I did. I paid the $112,219 up front. The system is anticipated to generate 36,758
kWhs per year, which at $.09 per kWh adds up to $3308 per year. Idaho Power is arguing that
the $.09 retail rate should not be used for my on-site generation. Let’s use a $.07 retail rate. The
savings to all ratepayers then is $734.94. Annually. $735. Contrast that savings with the
amount paid to CEO Darrel Anderson from 2014 through 2020. $33,600,330. The Idaho PUC
COMMENTS ON CASE- 7
could achieve greater savings for ratepayers by adjusting senior management compensation by a
rounding error.
It takes many, many years at $3308 per year without tax credits to pay back that $112,219
investment. With tax credits, breakeven was in forecasted for year 11. Yet many of us have read
the IPCC “Code Red For Humanity” report and make these investments because it is what we
individually can do to reduce climate change. Idaho Power has applied to the PUC to extend the
use of coal fired power plants for longer (current docket) and we as small ratepayers have no
way to change their minds. But we can put our own money where our mouths are and generate
solar electricity on our own roofs. Our willingness to invest our own capital with long payback
profiles should be looked as an asset for the entire Idaho grid. It could be argued that distributed
generation net metering customers should receive an incentive rate to compensate them for their
capital invested.
Furthermore, my goal was to share the $3308 of generated credits against the power bills
of tenant units, to reduce their overall housing/utilities costs. Current net metering rules do not
allow a centralized solar system on a multi-family building to apply generation credits to tenants
nor share solar power generation when the meters are in the tenants’ individual names. This
social justice issue must be rectified going forward. Low-income customers should be allowed
to receive the benefits of centralized solar production. Many low-income customers cannot
afford to have their own roofs in single family homes; they should not be left out of the benefit
of solar generation to reduce their utility bills. As well, they should be allowed to receive
backup power from centralized batteries in multi-family buildings.
I attempted to work with Idaho Power to share solar generation directly with tenants by
installing a microgrid at this building but Idaho Power’s current requirements for a microgrid
COMMENTS ON CASE- 8
interconnection do not allow for a liveable solution (seconds of power interruption continuously
because of a requirement to island from the grid), nor one that is affordable for a workforce
housing apartment building. A building is not allowed to run in parallel with the grid. Idaho
Power wrote,
“4. Individually meter the apartments, interconnect solar + battery behind a meter for an EV charging station that is co-located with the common usage. a. Tariff schedule applicability: Same requirements as the 2nd option above. b. Electrical configuration: Single meter if it is a Schedule 6 or 8, dual meter if it is
a Schedule 9/84. Regarding the battery back-up, if you would like to create a
microgrid, all loads (16-units and the house) would need to be disconnected from Idaho Power prior to energizing the microgrid. Regarding exploration of a microgrid configuration, it would be helpful to know your specific questions so we can better respond. As we have explained, as long as you are not operating the
generator/battery in parallel with Idaho Power’s system (i.e., all loads (16-units and the house)
would need to be disconnected from Idaho Power prior to energizing the microgrid), that type of configuration is permitted.” John Ahrens, Program Director, US West Microgrid Competency Center, Schneider Electric,
attempted to work with Idaho Power to resolve this situation as well, so Idaho Power is aware of
how their requirements for microgrids do not work in practice. We had to abandon the
installation of a microgrid to directly share solar electrons with tenant units. The City of Hailey
had a power outage in June of 2021 and the backup battery at Silver River Place provided
backup power during the outage as designed, but only to the common areas, as it was not
allowed to be designed to provide backup power to the tenants. This is a vital health safety issue
during low temperatures or wildfire smoke situations.
6. The current rules also do not enable sharing of solar net metering credits with
tenants. Idaho Power requires each rental unit to have its own meter; if solar is generated on a
master meter, it cannot be shared with a meter under a different name. Therefore, as owner of
the building, I had to enter into gross leases with tenants, which included utilities as part of their
rent in order to share the value of solar production credits to reduce their overall rent/utilities
COMMENTS ON CASE- 9
package. This puts a burden on a Landlord to project reasonable electrical use for a tenant to be
included as part of their rent. Landlord must reconcile all onsite generation credits against actual
rental units’ electrical use at year end in a written request to Idaho Power during a one week
period in January. I entered into a net metering agreement through my subsidiary management
company, Patient Capital LLC, and Idaho Power for the solar production for this building, Silver
River Place. All tenant unit meters were also retained under Patient Capital LLC and tenant
leases were gross leases including utilities.
7.Idaho Power’s current rules do not allow for any credits to be applied against
meters except for at year end in a small period of time in January. When I sold the Silver River
Place building in July 2021, Idaho Power informed me that all net metering credits were lost as it
was before year end. This basic flaw in existing rules needs to be brought to light and changed.
An automatic application of credits to production should occur monthly without an on-site
generator being tasked to manually request such application. Idaho Power has the billing
software capabilities to apply these credits in an automated way.
8.The base starting point for this study must be for Idaho Power to provide
information about the actual numbers in kWhs and dollars as to existing onsite generation and to
provide an clear case as to when a level of such on-site generation actually substantively
negatively impacts its operations to become a material factor to all ratepayers’ costs in contrast
to other costs of its operations. This study should be designed to focus on how to encourage
more distributed generation, more sharing of electrons and credits with workforce or low-income
customers, and more benefit to all Idaho ratepayers through microgrids which would alleviate the
need for expensive and under-utilized peaker plants. Idaho ratepayers would benefit greatly by
the Idaho PUC also undertaking a new base rate case in parallel at this time as it is long overdue
COMMENTS ON CASE- 10
and small ratepayers are subsidizing outsized salaries and profits at Idaho Power and IdaCorp.,
Inc.
DATED this 7th day of September, 2021.
_____________________
Leslie A. Tidwell Pro Se
COMMENTS ON CASE- 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 7th day of September, 2021, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of August 2021 I served a true and correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S APPLICATION TO
INITIATE A MULTI-PHASE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS FOR THE STUDY OF COSTS,
BENEFITS, AND COMPENATION OF NET EXCESS ENERGY ASSOCIATED WTH CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
ldaHydro C. Tom Arkoosh ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES 802 West Bannock Street, Suite LP 103
P.O. Box 2900 Boise, ldaho 83701
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax
__X___ Email [e-mail]
League 710 North 6th Street Boise, ldaho 83702 _____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax
___X__ Email [e-mail]
_____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
ldaho lrrigation Pumpers Association, lnc. Eric L. Olsen ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 61 19 Pocatello, ldaho 83205
COMMENTS ON CASE- 12
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail
_____ Hand Delivery
_____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
Anthony Yankel 12700 Lake Avenue, Unit 2505 Lakewood, Ohio 44107
_____ U.S. Mail
_____ Overnight Mail
_____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
11 Vote Solar Briana Kobor Vote Solar 358 South 700 East, Suite 8206 Salt Lake City,
Utah 84102
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax
___X__ Email [e-mail]
David Bender Earthjustice 3916 Nakoma Road Madison, lMsconsin 537 11 Al Luna Nick Thorpe 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail
_____ Hand Delivery
_____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
City of Boise Mary R. Grant Deputy City Attorney Boise City Attorney's Office 150 North Capitol Boulevard P.O. Box 500 Boise, ldaho 83701-0500
_____ U.S. Mail
_____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
ldaho Clean Energy Association Preston N. Garter GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 601 West Bannock
Street Boise, ldaho 83702
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery
_____ Fax
COMMENTS ON CASE- 13
___X__ Email [e-mail]
ldaho Sierra Club Kelsey Jae Nunez KELSEY JAE NUNEZ LLC 920 North Clover Drive Boise,
ldaho 83703
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax
___X__ Email [e-mail]
Lisa Young, Lindsay Beebe, ldaho Sierra Club 503 West Franklin Street Boise, ldaho 83702
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery
_____ Fax
___X__ Email [e-mail]
PacifiCorp d/bla Rocky Mountain Power Yvonne R. Hogle Rocky Mountain Power 1407 West North Temple, Suite 320 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
_____ U.S. Mail
_____ Overnight Mail
_____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
Ted Weston Rocky Mountain Power '1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake Gity, Utah
84116
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail _____ Hand Delivery _____ Fax
___X__ Email [e-mail]
lndustrial Customers of ldaho Power Peter J. Richardson RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC 515 North 27th Street (83702) P.O. Box 7218 Boise, ldaho 83707
_____ U.S. Mail _____ Overnight Mail
_____ Hand Delivery
_____ Fax ___X__ Email [e-mail]
Dr. Don Reading 6070 Hill Road Boise, ldaho 83703 I5icron Technology, lnc. Austin Rueschhoff
George Stanton, Comet Energy LLC, 13601 W. McMillan Rd. Ste 102 0MB 166 Boise, ID 83713
U.S. Mail __ Overnight Mail __ Hand Delivery
Fax _X_ Email [e-mail]
Tyler Grange, Idahome Solar LLC, 2484 N. Stokesberry Pl., #100, Meridian, ID 83646
U.S. Mail __ Overnight Mail __ Hand Delivery Fax _X_ Email [e-mail]
COMMENTS ON CASE-15