Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGTNIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, AUGUST 7, 2015 _ . ^
APPLICATION OF
'' ^ ~^ P '2 39
FINAL ORDER
On January 20, 2015, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia
1
necessity that the Company received in Case No. PUE-2011-00117 to construct and operate up
3
Section 56-234 B of the Code ofVirginia provides in part that "...no provision oflaw shall be deemed to preclude
voluntary rate or rate design tests or experiments, or other experiments involving the use of special rates, where such
experiments have been approved by order of the Commission after notice and hearing and a finding that such
experiments are necessary in order to acquire information which is or may be in furtherance of the public interest."
~ Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company, For approval of a Community Solar Power Program andfor
certification ofproposed distributed solar generation facilities pursuant to Chapter 771 of the 2011 Virginia Ads of
Assembly and 56-46.1 and 56-580 D ofthe Code of Virginia, Case No. PUE-2011 -00117, 2012 S.C.C. Ann.
Rept. 328, Order (Nov. 28, 2012).
3
a
W
The Application states that the proposed DCS Pilot would allow the Company to assess
a
co
P
a
the level of interest of customers who want to support the development of Solar DG in the
Commonwealth, but may not be able or willing to install solar generation facilities on their
4
homes or businesses. Dominion Virgmia Power states that the proposed DCS Pilot would
further the Company's ability to study the impacts and assess the benefits to its customers of
Solar DG on the Company's distribution system and would complement the following currently
approved voluntary renewable energy programs: the Solar Partnership Program, the Dominion
5
Green Power program, the Solar Purchase Program, and the Renewable Generation Pilot
7
Program. Further, the Company believes that the DCS Pilot would advance the policy goals of
Chapter 771 of the 2011 Virginia Acts of Assembly to promote solar energy through distributed
8
generation.
On February 9, 2015, the Commission entered an Order for Notice and Hearing, which,
in part, docketed the Application, provided an opportunity for interested persons to file notices of
participation or to comment on the Application, established a procedural schedule, scheduled a
public evidentiary hearing, and appointed a Hearing Examiner to conduct all further proceedings
in this matter on behalf of the Comniission. Notices of participation were filed by Appalachian
* Id. at 2.
5
Apptication of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power, For approval of its
Renewable Energy Tariff, Case No. PUE-2008-00044, 2008 S.C.C. Ami. Rept. 539, Order Approving Tariff,
(Dec. 3, 2008).
Petition of Virginia Electric and Power Company, For approval of a special tariff to faciiilate customer-owned
distributed solar generation pursuant to Chapter 771 of the 2011 Virginia Acts of Assembly, Case No.
PUE-2012-00064, 2013 S.C.C. Ann. Rept. 269, Order (Mar. 22, 2013).
7
Ex. I (Application) at 3-5, 6-10; Application ofVirginia Electric and Power Company, For approval to establish a
renewable generation pilot program pursuant to 56-234 of the Code of Virginia, Case No. PUE-2012-00142, 2013
S.C.C. Ann Rept. 346, Final Order (Dec. 16, 2013).
8
Ex. 1 (Application) at 3.
p
Power Coinpany ("APCo"), the Office of the Attorney General's Division of Consumer Counsel
("Consumer Counsel"), and the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric
Cooperatives ("Association").
On April 2, 2015, Dominion Virginia Power filed the direct testimony of Brett A. Crable,
Nathan J. Frost, and Bonnie P. Horton. On May 19, 2015, the Commission Staff ("Staff') filed
the direct testimony of Britton P. Ellis and Allison F. Samuel. On June 3, 2015, the Company
filed the rebuttal testimony of Brett A. Crable, Nathan J. Frost, and Mark C. Stevens.
On June 15, 2015, Staff filed a Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction. Dominion Virginia
Power and Consumer Counsel filed responses to the Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction on
June 19, 2015.
On June 23, 2015, Dominion Virginia Power and Staff filed a Stipulation and
Recommendation ("Stipulation"), which resolved ail issues between Staff and the Company and
9
addressed Staffs Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction. Specifically, the Stipulation states in part
that: (i) Staff and the Company agree to modifications to the Rider DCS tariff language to add
further clarity to the Rider DCS offering; (ii) the Rider DCS revenues will be collected during
the two-year term of the DCS Pilot and the Company will fully amortize such amounts collected
under Rider DCS over the two-year term of the DCS Pilot and include the associated
accumulated amortization balance as a reduction to rate base; (iii) Staff withdraws its Motion for
Ruling on Jurisdiction; (iv) the Company will provide Staff with copies of all marketing and
promotional material prior to its publication for Staffs review; and (v) the Company will provide
updates to the Commission in September of each year of the DCS Pilot.
10
The Stipulation was first filed on June 22, 2015, but due to an administrative oversight, two attachments to the
Stipulation were inadvertently not included with the June 22, 2015 filing.
10
a
m
The public hearing was convened on June 23, 2015. Counsel for Dominion Virginia
Power, the Association, Consumer Counsel, and Staff attended the hearing." At the conclusion
tfi
On July 9, 2015, the Report of Alexander F. Skirpan, Jr., Senior Hearing Examiner
("Hearing Examiner's Report" or "Report") was fded. In his Report, the Hearing Examiner
stated that, "[bjased on the record developed in this proceeding and the unopposed Stipulation, I
find that the Stipulation should be adopted and that the proposed [DCS] Pilot and Rider DCS, as
12
On July 16, 2015, Dominion Virginia Power and Consumer Counsel filed comments on
the Hearing Examiner's Report. Dominion Virginia Power filed comments supporting the
findings and recommendations made in the Hearing Examiner's Report and requesting that the
Commission approve the proposed DCS Pilot and Rider DCS.
13
Counsel stated that it "does not oppose the Company's Application or object to the Stipulation";
however, it "remains concemed that the DCS Pilot, if approved, may not be marketed clearly by
14
the Company." More specifically, Consumer Counsel "wishes to ensure that the DCS Pilot will
not be marketed as a solar energy tariff or as an option for customers to purchase electric energy
output from a renewable energy facility."
15
NOW THE COMMISSION, upon consideration of this matter, is of the opinion and finds
that the proposed Stipulation is reasonable and should be accepted.
" Prior to the hearing, APCo indicated that it would not be attending the hearing.
12
Report at 13.
13
15
Id
In addition, the Commission finds that Dominion Virginia Power's marketing of the
a
DCS Pilot must accurately reflect the DCS tariff provisions approved herein. Specifically, the
p
US
tariff language proposed in the Stipulation, and ordered herein, allows a customer "to purchase a
portion ofthe Customer's energy requirements at a premium price ... to support the development
of additional Company-owned solar distribution generation facilities within Virginia."
16
Accordingly, Rider DCS does not, under the express terms thereof, state that the retail customer
17
is making a direct purchase of any specific renewable energy output. In order for the DCS
Pilot reasonably to serve the experimental purpose for which it is approved herein, it must be
marketed in accordance with the specific terms of that approval. Further in this regard, we note
that the Stipulation, as ordered herein, directs "that the Cornpany shall provide the Staff with
copies ofall marketing and promotional material prior to its publication for the Staffs review."
18
16
17
As noted by Consumer Counsel, the Commission has also previously distinguished between (i) the direct purchase
of renewable energy, and (ii) the purchase of attributes associated with renewable energy. See Application of
Appalachian Power Company, For approval ofits Renewable Power Rider, Case No. PUE-2008-00057,
2008 S.C.C. Ann. Rept. 557, Order Approving Tariff (Dec. 3, 2008) (distinguishing between a retail customer's
(i) direct purchase of electric energy from a renewable facility, and (ii) purchase of renewable energy credits
procured from a renewable facility).
18
a
eo
Final Order. The Clerk of the Commission shall retain such filings for public inspection in
H
C3
p
US