20221012Reply Comments.pdf

Marie Callaway Kellner (ISB No. 8470)
710 N 6ft Street
Boise, ID 83701
(208) s37-7993
mkellner@idahoconservation. org
Ioano Puel-rc Urrr-tnes CouvttsstoN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Iif ili:lVtD
:J:: Oi]T I 2 PH L: 32
I _j : l-iJLtv''i r, if.,l cci.il,,ilssl0N
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAIIO
POWER COMPAI\IY'S
APPLICATION TO COMPLETE
THE STIIDY REVIEW PHASE OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE STTIDY
OF CONSTS AI\D BENEFITS OF
ON.SITE GENERATION & FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT
CHAI\GES TO SCHEDULES 6,8,
AI\D 84
CASE NO. IPC.E.22-22
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
REPLY COMMENT
Introduction
The Idaho Conservation League ("ICL") submits to the tdaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission") the following reply comments regarding ldaho Power Company's
("[PC" or "Company") Value of Distributed Energy Resources Study ("VODER study" or
"study"). ICL remains interested in the development of distributed energy resources ("DER") as
components of an evolving energy portfolio in Idaho. ICL appreciates the efforts of the
Company, the Commission Staff, and other parties to maintain this open, informative, and
collaborative process. All have been helpful while advocating for their respective interests. This
reply comment addresses responses to parties' initial comments, proposals on procedure, and
requests for clarity on this, and subsequent, proceedings.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Page I
Discussion
l. Response to Comments
Response to Compan)t
ICL looks forward to reviewing the Company's revised study to be submitted following
final comments on October 26. A revised study should account for comments and critiques
presented by parties. The Company's initial comments state that the study is intended to provide
illustrative pricing based on potential methods for evaluation.l [CL's initial comments and the
attached review study do the same. We believe it is important for a revised study to address
critiques offered by parties to present a comprehensive and representative public record. As
outstanding recommendations on evenfual changes to onsite customer generation service
offerings will likely rely heavily on a study submitted by the Company, it is important that a
revised study account for the interests and inputs of the intervening parties if this review phase is
to be meaningful.
Response to Stqff
ICL seeks clarification on Staff s concerns regarding PURPA and Customer Generation
overlap. If staffis concerned about overlap between distributed generation and PURPA avoided
costs, such issues should be raised in a separate docket.
Staff comments raised concerns about rate manipulation by customer generators
applying as Qualifying Facilities ("QF") to receive favorable rates.2 The concern seems to arise
' Initial Comments of Idaho Power Company, Case No. DC-E-22-22, at 4
2 lnitial Comments of the Commission Staff, Case No. WC-E-22-22, at 16
Ioeso Pust-rc Urrlrnes Couurssrox, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Page2
from the possibility of customer generators with low megawatt scale capacity under Schedule 84
registering as QFs to force electicity sales under PURPA's obligatory sale and interconnect
provisions.3 First, ICL requests clarity on whether this is Staff s concem. Second, any evaluation
of gaming between PURPA and customer-generation conducted in this docket or a revised
VODER Study should account for the legal, administrative, and practical barriers to facilities
initially regulated as customer generators becoming QFs under PURPA.
Registering as a QF is not simple, and the regulatory and administrative burdens of
PURPA likely make small scale generation in line with any raised cap proposed in this docket
uneconomical. At present, facilities with capacity greater than I MW must meet specific
qualifications and file an application to FERC.a Those of capacity less than I MW are exempted
from an application, but must still meet program criteria.s Even for self-certiffing, small
generators, a declaration of certification must meet criteria and is subject to protest and
intervention.6 Current application fees for certification are tens of thousands of dollars before
considering preparation time and costs.T Concerns about gaming must factor in actual
administrative costs and legal burdens of establishing QF status.
Moreover, the Commission is responsible for establishing avoided cost rates under
PURPA, providing more appropriate avenues to address gaming concerns. Although there is
possible risk of regulatory gaming between customer generation rates and PURPA avoided cost
rates, this docket is not the appropriate venue to resolve such tension. The Commission has no
shortage of tools to ensure PURPA avoided cost rates are fair, just and reasonable both to the
3 18 c.F.R. $$ 2e2.303 (b);2e2.303 (c)(l).
4 FERC Order No. 732; 18 C.F.R. $ l3 I .80 (a).
s Id.
6 18 C.F.R. SS 292.207 (a);292.207 (c).
7 18. C.F.R. $ 381.207 (b); Available at https://www.ferc.gov/filing-fees (accessed October 11,2022).
IoaHo Punlrc Unlturs CouutssloN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Page 3
Company and consumers.8 Aggregation and disaggregation of facilities to variously qualiff as
customer generators or QFs is specifically addressed in Order 872's "one-mile rule" and
associated provisions, where affiliated sites of similar generation sources are irrebuttably
presumed to be the same facility.e The purpose of this docket is to study the costs and benefits of
solar generation, not to resolve speculative PURPA pricing issues. While the study may be
informative, ICL urges that the scope of this docket remain focused on the costs and benefits of
revising the customer generation cap. While gaming is conceivably possible, examination of
specific instances is better addressed in PLIRPA specific dockets or protests.
2. Request for Clarity on the Docket
ICL seeks clarity on anticipated proceedings and the scope of the WC-E-22-22 docket.
The VODER study clearly contemplates significant changes to DER policy and rates in the State,
but it is as yet unclear how the study will be used to affect rates and under what procedure. The
study and this docket are of considerable public and economic interest across the Company's
service territory making clear, informative administrative process necessary to address important
equities.
Years of effort preceded IPC's initial application in this docket, over which various
parties attempted to build consensus on an equitable net metering program.lo This docket was
opened to direct parties once again in an equitable process for developing DER policies. [n its
application to open the review phase of the study, IPC requested the Commission issue an order
8 See generally FERC Order 872-A; l8 C.F.R $ 292.310. FERC delegated to State electric and utility commissions
significant flexibility in setting avoided cost rates and capacity requirements under PURPA. Order 872 allows
considerable variability among QF rates in a given state or region while allowing shortened contact time periods.
e Id.
roApplication, Case No. PC-E-22-22, at 5 -9.
Ioauo Puslrc UrrlrlBs CorraurssroN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Page 4
acknowledging the study adheres to requirements outlined in previous orders.ll The application
also requests a Commission order directing modifications to the Company's on-site generation
service offerings be implemented.12 Although an order on the sufficiency of the study can be
anticipated at the close of the review phase, it remains unclear what parties and the public may
expect regarding implementation or subsequent phases of this docket. [n service of intervenors'
and the public's interest in clear administrative process ICL raises the following concerns and
proposals.
a. Request for clarity on the scope of the implementation phase
ICL asks the Commission for clarity on the scope of proceedings under this docket. The
Company's application requests a period of no less than five months to implement any approved
programmatic changes following the close of the review phase and the Commission's final
order.r3 Acknowledging that the Commission has the authority to authorize modifications in this
docket, ICL asks for clarity on the scope of such changes. To the extent that the Company or
other parties should propose changes, or anticipate doing so in this docket, parties and the public
should have ample notice of changes that could affect rates or usage of DERs.
b. Request for a proposal from the Company
ICL asks the Company to issue a proposal on any changes to its net metering program
contemplated in the VODER study. In its present form, the VODER study assesses an aray of
programmatic, pricing, and design choices, each with significant impacts on the overall function
and market for DERs in the Company's service territory. The effect of these choices is to create a
complicated matrix of possible program outcomes for parties and the public to anticipate. Any
tt Id. at 2, 19.
t2 Id.
t3 Id. at l7; Notice of Application, Case No. IPC-E-22-22, at2
Ioeuo PusLrc Urrlrttns CouutssloN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Page 5
single choice may affect other program elements, making individual choices and positions
difficult to assess. While the goal of this approach may be to present flexibility, it has the effect
of obscuring how the VODER study may be used to construct a program likely to change service
offerings.
A proposal from IPC would clarifu the expected later proceedings. Parties' initial
comments show a variety of positions on individual elements of a net metering program, not all
of which are mutually compatible. By allowing the Company to move first on a proposal, parties
would be better able analyze and offer input on individual elements and the proposal as a whole.
A proposal should serve as a starting point for the Company and parties to move toward mutual
agreement in the interest of transparency and collaboration.
c. Request for a collaborative review of any proposal
All party conferences on a net metering proposal following the study review phase of this
docket would best serve the interests of cooperation and transparency. ICL is concemed that
concurrent written comments on the numerous complicated issues presented in the VODER
study is insuffrcient to meaningfully resolve differences among parties as this docket moves
towards the implementation phase. Previous workshops and technical sessions in this docket
were well attended by parties and helped explain and resolve key issues. A similar set of
meetings may be useful to na:row the range of choices presented in the VODER study for an
effective net metering program. ICL proposes that, should IPC offer a proposed program, parties
be allowed reasonable time to comment and organize meetings to review the Company's
proposal. Sufficient review and collaboration between parties should precede submission of a
proposal to the Commission.
Ineso PusI-rc Urrlrrrns Couurssrorl, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
Page 6
Conclusion
ICL encourages the Commission, the Company, and parties to consider the whole record
of this study review phase to best inform funre decisions on a net metering program. A
comprehensive revised VODER study that incorporates feedback and critiques from comments is
needed to meaningfully benefit future phases of this docket. The revised study should address
parties' critiques and comments. Effective collaboration between parties requires clarity on the
proceedings and continued clear communication. Given the procedural history of net-metering
before the Commission, and the considerable interests among parties and the public, ICL
encourages ful1 consideration of the whole record before the close of the review phase of this
docket and clarity on forthcoming proceedings.
DATED: October 12,2022 s/ Marie Callawav Kellner
Marie Callaway Kellner
Attomey for the Idatro Conservation League
IpeHo PusI,rc Uur.tnns CotrrrratssloN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idalro Conservation L,eague, Reply Comment, October 12,2022
PageT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on this 12th day of October,2022,I delivered true and correct copies
of the foregoing REPLY COMMENT to the following persons via the method of service noted:
/s/ Marie Callaway Kellner
Marie Callaway Kellner (ISB No. 8470)
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
Electronic Mail Only (See Order No. 35058):
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
JanNoriyuki
RileyNewton
j an.noriyuki@puc. idaho. gov
riley.newton@puc. idaho. gov
secr etary @puc. idaho. gov
Commission Staff
RileyNewton
Chris Burdin
riley. newton@puc. idaho. gov
chris.burdin@puc. idaho. gov
Idaho Power Company i
Lisa Nordstrom
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Timothy E. Tatum
Connie G. Aschenbrenner
Grant Anderson
lnordstrom@idahopower. com
mgoiciecheaallen@idahopower. com
ttatum@idahopower. com
caschenbrenner@idahopower. com
ganderson@idahopower. com
[e-mail]
Clean Energt Opportunities
Michael Heckler
Courtney White
Kelsey Jae
mike@cleanenergyopprotunites. com
courtney@cleanenergyopprotunites. com
[e-mail]
IdaHydro
Tom Arkoosh
Amber Dresslar
tom. arkoosh@arkoosh. com
amber.dressler@arkoosh. com
erin. cecil@arkoosh. com
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Inc.
Lance Kaufinan
Eric L. Olsen
lance@bardwellconsulting. com
[e-mail]
IOegO PUBLIC UTILITIES CouulssIoN, Case No. IPC-E-22-22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment Certificate of Service
Page I
Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
Don Reading
peter@richardsonadrm s. com
dreading@mindspring. com
City of Boise
MaryGrant
Wil Gehl
mr gr ant@cityofboi se. org
[e-mail]
boi secityattorney@cityofboise. org
Richard E. Kluckhohn & Wesley A.
Kl u c kh o h n ( Kl u clih o h n)
Richard E. Kluckhohn
WesleyA. Kluckhohn
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Micron Technologt Inc.
Jim Swier
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
Austin W. Jensen
[e-mail]
darueschhoff@hollandhart. com
tnelson@hollandhart. com
aclee@hollandhart. com
Idaho Solar Owners Network
Joshua Hill
solarownersnewtwork@ gmail. com
[e-mail]
ABC power Company, LLC
Ryan Bushland
Ryan.bushland@ abcpower. co
[e-mail]
IDAHo PUBLIC UTILITMS COMMISSION, Case No. DC.8.22.22
Idaho Conservation League, Reply Comment Certificate of Service
Page2