20171031Compliance Filing 2017 Net Metering.pdf

Y ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BP,yy,E^.n"-,
RECE IVED
t0ll OCT 3l ltl l0: 06
t)Ai-'ic F UsLic
UT i LI IIES CO},iMISSION
1407 W. North Temple, Suite 310
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
October 31,2017
VA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, lD 83702
RE: COMPLIANCE FILING IN CASE NO. PAC-E-16-07
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S 2017 AI\NUAL NET METERING REPORT
Attention: Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Pursuant to Order No. 3351 I in the above mentioned case, Rocky Mountain Power hereby submits
it20l7 Annual Net Metering Report.
Informal inquiries may be directed to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Manager, at [phone]
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey K. Larsen
Vice President, Regulation
Rocky Mountain Power's
Annual Net Metering Report
October 31,2017
Rocky Mountain Power ("Company") pursuant to Order No. 3351 l, in Case No. PAC-E-
16-12, hereby provides this annual net metering report to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
The report provides customer participation by generation type, nameplate capacity, total net
metering generation, and contribution to coincident peak. It compares the value of excess net
generation from net metering to alternative sources of power and summarizes the impacts of net
metering on non-net metering customers and potential impacts to power quality and reliability.
Net Metering Customer Participation
As of September 30,2017, Rocky Mountain Power's net metering participation in Idaho
consisted of 294 customers with a cumulative nameplate capacity of approximately 2.0 megawatts
("MW"), representinga46 percent increase in number of customers and 48 percent increase in
installed capacity since the 2016 Net Metering report. The Company has 269 residential customers
with 1,584 kilowatts ("kW") of name plate capacity and 25 non-residential customers with 396
kW of nameplate capacity. The table below summarizes ldaho net metering customer participation
and connected capacity by year ftom20l2 through September 2017.
Date
Total
Customets
Rocky Mountain Power
Idaho Cumulative Totals
Residential Non-Res Residential
Customers Customen Siz€ (kW)
Non-Res
Siz€ (klv)
Total
Siz€ (kW)
Dec2012
Dec2013
Dec2014
Dec 2015
Sep 2016
Sep 2017
98
tt2
138
156
201
294
82
94
106
133
177
269
t6
l8
22
23
24
25
339
409
464
646
9s2
I 584
s7t
672
820
1 003
1339
1 980
232
263
3s6
357
387
396
llPage
Since 2012 net metering participation has increased almost 350 percent, with an
acceleration of the annual growth each successive year. Most of the growth is occurring with
installed solar. The current resource mix connected capacity is: 1,706 kW solar, 255 kW is wind,
and 19 kW mixed wind and solar, as summarized in this graph.
Idaho kW by Resource Type
. },Iixed ' Solar r Wind
Net Meter Customers' Reduction to Coincident Peak
The Company's 2016 coincident peak of 10,139 MW occurred on July 28th at6 p.m. MST;
ldaho's contribution to the system peak was 575 MW, after accounting for irrigation load control
curtailment. Net metering customers' on-site generation reduced that peak by approximately 482
kW, or approximately 0.08 percent. The table below summarizes the offset of net metering
customers' private generation to ldaho's contribution to the Company's monthly system peaks.
2lP age
19
PACIFICORP ELICTRIC OPERATIONS
2016 MERGED COMPANY COTNCTDENT LOADS AT rNpUT(kW)
STATE OF IDAHO
PRIVATE GENERATION
Month :
Peak Date :
Peak Time MST
Jan- 16
4
r900
Feb- l6
2
0900
Mar-16
l5
0900
Aug-16
I
1800
Sepl6
I
1600
Oct-16
t9
0900
Nov-16
30
r900
Dec- l6
t4
1900
Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-1626 31 28 28
0900 1800 l7s0 1800
Private Generation
Sch 001 Solar
Sch 001 Wind
Sch 023 Solar
Sch 023 Wind
Sch 006 Solar
Sch 0S6 Wind
TOTAL
2
J
0
12
0
7
0
0
0
0
4
0
I
0
0
284
J
164
I
3
0
125
26
74
6
I
I
62
70
35
t7
I
I
413
l5
216
J
4
0
312
8
451
t9
1%
4
4
0
341
20
157
4
3
0
157
0
2
0
I
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
3l
9
t2
2
0
0
6 t9 186 233 456 651 482 526 6n 55 I 3
Net Metering Customer 2016 Generation
During 2016 the Company's net metering customers in Idaho generated 1.8 GWh of
energy which is summarized by class by month in the table below
PACIFICORP ELECTRIC OPERATIONS
2()I6 KWH AT INPUT
STATE OF IDAHO
PRIVATE GENERATION
Month Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16
Private Generation
Sch 001 Solar
Sch 001 Wind
Sch 023 Solar
Sch 023 Wind
Sch 006 Solar
Sch 006 Wind
TOTAL
21,765
6,8r4
12,446
1,587
283
162
5s199
12,334
30J87
2,874
701
2n
69534
21,360
39,t65
4,976
868
506
92,104
18,936
54,409
4,412
l,l l8
M8
92,748
20,421
36,361
4,757
747
484
85,094
9,306
32,454
2,168
667
22t
26533
13282
9,740
3,094
201
314
l0l,l90
12,66
58,471
29sl
t2u
300
I 19,038
13,540
625N
3,154
1284
321
l30,l4l
13,651
65273
3,r80
1,341
3,t-)
137,043
1 1,580
62,89{)
2,697
vn
274
I 15,171
13,093
49,420
3,050
1,015
310
43,05't 102,486 136,409 171,427 176,778 199,837 2t3,910 215,777 t82,059 155,517 129,910 53264
Impact on Customers Not Participating in Net Metering
To estimate whether net metering customers were paying their full cost of service or if they
were shifting costs to non-net metering customers, the Company used the class cost of service
study prepared in 2016 ("NEM COS Study") for the 2016 net metering report where customers
3lPage
participating in net metering were broken out into separate classes. The NEM COS Study estimated
that the level of cost shifting related to residential net metering customers was $60.60 per
megawatt-hour or $36,400 for the 2016 reporting period. Using the same cost of service study
extrapolated for the current 1.6 megawatts of residential net metering interconnections as of the
end of September 201 7 results in an annualized level of approximately $ 1 2 I ,000 of costs shifted
from net metering customers to non-net metering customers as summarized in the table below.
These results reflect the ability of net metering customers to offset the full value of their
retail rate for each kWh generated. When residential net metering customers receive credits that
capture the full value of their energy rate, without a corresponding offset to their fixed costs or
peak demand, there is a potential for costs to be shifted to non-participating customers. Currently
4lPage
Estimated 2Ol5 Cost Shifting
Change Required for AllNon-Net Metering Residential Customers
Change Required for ResidentialNet Metering Customers
Net Change Required for ResidentialNet Metering Customers
Cost Sffiing from Residential Net Metering Custorners
MWh Production
Per MWh Cost Shifting from ResidentialNet Metering Customers
-5.67%;0
16.83%;o
22.sOYo
$36,420
601
s60.60
Estimated Present Level of Cost Shifting (As of 9/30/2017)
Residential Private Generation (tWot)
Annual kWh per kWDC
Estinrated Annual Private Generation (MWh)
Estirnated Cost Shifting from ResidentialNet Metering Customers
1,584
1,260
I 995
s120,903
Net metering is a non-cost based policy that was implemented in 1983 when residential
rate designs were limited by meters that could only track inflow and outflow, and customer owned
generation was an expensive technology. The circumstances that existed when net metering
policies and practices were originally established have changed dramatically. The cost of
photovoltaic solar has declined dramatically resulting in increased adoption, as demonstrated by
the tables above. The Company has witnessed rapid growth in its net metering service in recent
years and has identified quantifiable cost shifts occurring between its residential net metering
customers and residential standard service customers. Considering recent growth, the Company
believes that future cost shifting between these customer groups will continue to increase
substantially in the next few years if left unaddressed.
For the current residential net metering customers, the overall average billed energy usage
after being credited for exported energy remains relatively high and participation is low compared
to other states at this time with an average of 223 residential customers participating in net metering
over the twelve-month period. Consequently the cost shifting at this time is relatively modest.
However, as shown earlier in this report, participation levels have grown by approximately 350
percent in five years, the cost shifting has increased from $36,420 to over $121,000 since last
year's report. Also private generation system sizes have become larger on average. In 2010, the
size of the average private generation system installed was 4.22 kW. In 2017,the average private
generation system size had grown to 6.7 kW. With these trends, the Company believes now is the
time to carefully consider both the costs and benefits of net metering generation.
Impact of Net Metering on the System
Rocky Mountain Power currently has294 net metering customers in ldaho with 1,980 kW
connected load and has not experienced power quality or reliability issues as a result of their
6lPage
interconnection to the system. The Company continuously monitors system integrity and industry
trends on this subject and will advise the Commission if any items need to be addressed.
Based on the Company's analysis, residential on-site generation does not reduce the peak
demand experienced by the electric grid to a degree that could warrant a reduction in infrastructure
but may actually increase the requirements for infrastructure at the local level. Furthermore,
residential net metered customers use the electric grid at a level higher than similar, non-
participating residential customers. Their excess energy must be accounted for and managed by
the Company on the customer's behalf. In addition, the Company incurs costs associated with
applications for on-site generation and their interconnection, such as their meters which are more
expensive. Net metering customers rely on the grid 24 hours per day except for two instantaneous
points when the direction of current flow changes from energy delivered to energy received.
REQUEST FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
The Company recently reached agreement and approval of net metering reform in Utah
and is following ldaho Power's CaseNo. IPC-E-17-13. The Company supports Idaho Power's
proposal to open a generic docket to determine the appropriate rate structure or compensation
methodology for customers with on-site generation that reflects both the costs and benefits.
TlPage