20221230Final_Order_No_35651.pdf

ORDER NO. 35651 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 30, 2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF SARA STATZ
HARTZHEIM’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-22-25

ORDER NO. 35651

On September 20, 2022, Sara Statz Hartzheim and Matthew Hartzheim (“Complainants”),
a customer of Idaho Power Company (“Company”), filed a formal complaint (“Complaint”) with
the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”).
On October 12, 2022, the Commission issued a Summons to the Company giving it 21
days to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
On November 2, 2022, the Company filed an answer (“Answer”) to the Complaint.
With this Order, we grant the Complainants’ request, as set forth more fully below.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
Complainants had a residential solar generation system (“System”) grandfathered to legacy
status under Commission Order No. 34509 (reconsidered by Order No. 34546). Complaint at 1;
Answer at 6. Complainants stated that an electrical fire destroyed Complainants’ house at 356
West Hidden Meadow Way, Middleton, Idaho, 83644—including the System—on May 17, 2022.
Complaint at 1 and attached photos. Complainants stated that they notified the Company of the
destruction of the System “in the immediate aftermath of the fire . . . .” Id. At the time the
Complaint was lodged, Complainants stated that they were in the process of rebuilding their house
and System at the same location where it previously stood.
Complainants stated that Company informed them, on June 9, 2022, that, if the System was
offline for more than six months, legacy status for the System would be lost. Id. Complainants
stated that “getting our [S]ystem back up within six months seemed impossible.” Id. Complainants
noted that the Company denied their request “for an extension of time to get our . . . [System] . . .
back online” because it could not make an exception to the Commission rule, put forth in Order
No. 34546, that a legacy on-site generation system loses grandfather status if it is offline for more
than six months. See id.
Complainants outlined the four criteria for grandfathering set forth in Order No. 34546:
(1) A customer who moves into a property with a grandfathered net-metering
system gets to “inherit” the grandfathered status of the system. Likewise, when a
ORDER NO. 35651 2

customer moves from a property with a grandfathered system, that customer does
not get to take the grandfathered status of the system with them to their next
property; (2) If a system is offline for more than six months, or is moved to another
site, the grandfathered status of the system is forfeited; (3) To allow for the
replacement of degraded or broken panels, the customer may increase the capacity
of the grandfathered system by no more than 10% of the originally installed
nameplate capacity or 1 [kilowatt] kW, whichever is greater; and (4) Grandfathered
status terminates December 20, 2045.

Id. at 1-2 (citing Order No. 34546 at 9). Complainants noted that they were contesting the second
criterion of Order No. 34546. Id. at 2. Complainants understood the intention of Order 34546 but
to lose legacy through no fault of their own because of the fire which destroyed their home and
panels would be harsh. Id. Complainants stated that they filed an online complaint on the
Commission’s website on September 14, 2022. Complainants stated that it was “likely we will be
unable to generate power from 5/17/22 to approximately 8/1/23 while we have been displaced by
the fire and our home is being rebuilt.” Id. Complainants stated they disagreed with the application
of Order No. 34546 to their case and asked the Commission and the Company “to fully consider
each of these arguments in our case as it does not appear anyone considered catastrophic damages
and losses such as these when developing the grandfathering order.” Id.
COMPANY’S ANSWER
The Company corroborated the factual representations in the Complaint. Answer at 5-7, 17
(noting that the “key facts” are not in dispute). The Company noted the second criterion in Order
No. 34546 did not allow for an extension of grandfather status if a system was offline for more
than six months. Id. at 9. The Company stated that its electric service Schedule 6 did not provide
any hardship exceptions to Order No. 34546’s criteria. Id. at 11. The Company cited Idaho Code
§§ 61-313 and -315 for the proposition that it cannot contravene the Commission’s prior orders
and the Company’s filed utility tariffs and that granting the Complainants an exception in this case
could discriminatorily result in “similarly situated customers” being allowed “to pay different rates
for the same services.” Id.
The Company noted that granting an exception to the Complainants implicated public
policy considerations. The Company explained that the Commission previously declined to make
exceptions to its grandfathering rules outlined in Order No. 34546, and that customers interested
in on-site generation must consider that they are not guaranteed an outcome when making the
investment in a solar system. Id. at 14-15. The Company stated that “[n]one of the other 5,147
ORDER NO. 35651 3

existing on-site generation customers without legacy status taking Schedule 6 service had a similar
guarantee or certainty available when making their investment decisions.” Id. at 15. The Company
explained that, since it did not know how many previous Schedule 6 customers had lost their legacy
status, it would have no way to retroactively administer an exception to the Commission rules
which would further undermine “the concept of non-discriminatory service.” Id.
The Company requested that the Commission deny Complainants’ requested extension of
the six-month grandfathering period or, in the alternative, if the Commission adopted a rule change
for these unexpected circumstances, that the Commission establish objective criteria to minimize
claims of preference and discrimination under Idaho Code § 61-315 and administer the process of
evaluating the hardship requests that might come from this rule change. Id. at 17.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-501, -502, and
-503. The Commission is vested with the power to “supervise and regulate every public utility in
the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the [Public Utilities
Law].” Idaho Code § 61-501. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates, charges, rules,
regulations, practices, and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just,
reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and to fix the same
by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and -503.1 In determining just and reasonable rates, “[e]ach case
must depend very largely upon its own special facts, and every element and every circumstance
which increases or depreciates the value of the property . . . should be given due consideration . .
. .” Kiefer v. City of Idaho Falls, 49 Idaho 458, 289 P. 81, 84 (1930) (citation omitted). “[T]he
Commission operates in the public interest to insure that every public utility operates as shall
promote the safety, health, comfort of the public and as shall be in all respects adequate, efficient,
just and reasonable.” Grindstone Butte Mut. Canal Co. v. Idaho Pub. Utilities Comm'n, 102 Idaho
175, 181, 627 P.2d 804, 810 (1981).
The unique and catastrophic circumstances in this case justify granting the relief the
Complainants request. In Order No. 34509 we determined that existing net metering customers

1 Idaho Code § 61-507 states “[t]he commission shall prescribe rules and regulations for the performance of any
service or the furnishings of any commodity of the character furnished or supplied by any public utility, and, on proper
demand and tender of rates, such public utility shall furnish such commodity or render such service within the time
and upon the conditions provided in such rules.” In Order No. 34546 we described the criteria for grandfathering a
system.
ORDER NO. 35651 4

should be allowed grandfathered status and continue to receive service under Schedule 6. We
further clarified the parameters of grandfathering in Order No. 34546. We now find that granting
an exception to Order No. 34546’s rule that forbids a system from maintaining grandfather status
if it is offline for more than six months, for these Complainants, is fair, just, and reasonable. Based
on the unique and undisputed facts in this case which we could not anticipate when we issued
Order No. 34546, Complainants’ residence and the System were destroyed by fire due to no fault
of Complainants. Complainants state they were unable to rebuild the house—a condition precedent
to supporting and interconnecting the System—within six months from the time the System was
destroyed by fire. Complainants informed the Company immediately after the destruction of their
System, requested an exception to the grandfathering rules from the Company within one month
from the fire, and filed a formal complaint requesting an exception within five months from the
date of the fire.2 Based on the forgoing, we direct the Company to allow electric service to resume
under Schedule 6 at 356 West Hidden Meadow Way, Middleton, Idaho, 83644, and maintain
legacy status as outlined in Order No. 34546, when the new System is interconnected. The relief
requested and granted in this case is limited solely to the facts in this case. The decision to grant
the Complainants relief shall not be construed as precedential in any future cases before this
Commission.
Criteria one, three, and four of Order No. 34546 remain in effect and will continue to
govern the administration of Complainants’ System under Schedule 6. Once the new System is
operational criteria two of Order No. 34546 will also apply to Complainants’ rebuilt System. We
note that Complainants are not seeking to merely replace “degraded or broken panels.” Rather,
Complainants plan to replace the entire System, including every solar panel. Accordingly, we note
it would be inconsistent with Order No. 34546 to allow Complainants to increase the capacity of
the System by the greater of 10% or 1 kW. Thus, should Complainants rebuild the System, the
System shall not qualify for grandfathered status under Schedule 6 if its new capacity is greater
than the capacity of the System as it was on May 16, 2022, before the fire.

2 The Company’s Schedule 6 requires that at customer must “notify the Company immediately if an Exporting System
is permanently removed or disabled.” Schedule 6 at Sheet No. 6-6, § 9 (Conditions of Purchase). A customer’s failure
to comply with this provision would weigh strongly against the Commission granting any exception to the
grandfathering requirements set forth in Order No 34546 even where a catastrophic loss occurs like that suffered by
the Complainants.
ORDER NO. 35651 5

O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief requested by the Complaint is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the System at 356 West Hidden Meadow Way,
Middleton, Idaho, 83644, shall maintain legacy status pursuant to Order Nos. 34509 and 34546,
and continue to take service under Schedule 6 when it is interconnected if the new System does
not exceed 10% or 1 kW of the capacity of the destroyed System’s capacity.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 30th day of
December 2022.

__________________________________________
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

__________________________________________
JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER

__________________________________________
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

_________________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-22-25 Hartzheim\IPCE2225_Final_rn.docx