Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Lawrence lee meco
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Lawrence lee meco

167

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
167
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. NEIL ABERCROMBIE KEALIl S. LOPEZ GOVERNOR DIRECTOR BRIAN SCI-IATZ LT. GOVERNOR JEFFREY T. ONO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STATE OF HAWAII DIVISION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS 335 MERCHANT STREET, ROOM 326 P.O. Box 541 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 Phone Number: 586-2800 Fax Number: 586-2780 www.hawaii.gov/dcca/dca January 31, 2012 The Honorable Chair and Members of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission Kekuanaoa Building 465 South King Street, 1st Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Commissioners: RE: Docket No. 2010-0015 — Consumer Advocate’s Second Request for Enlargement of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification. The Division of Consumer Advocacy (“Consumer Advocate”) respecifully requests a second enlargement of time for the Consumer Advocate to file a motion for reconsideration or clarification of the Decision and Order (“Decision”) filed December 20, 2011 in Docket No. 2010-0015. The Consumer Advocate makes this request pursuant to Section 6-61-23(a) of the Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 6, Chapter 61. The Consumer Advocate seeks this second enlargement of time to file a motion for reconsideration or clarification to allow additional time to further evaluate whether a motion for reconsideration or clarification is necessary. As proffered as good cause for the Consumer Advocate’s initial request for enlargement of time noted that the Decision raises numerous regulatory issues, specifically as it relates to the Public Utilities Commission’s findings associated with the Hawaiian Electric Companies’ Tariff Rule 14H, Appendix I, Section 2g. Recently, an inquiry from a Maui Electric Company, Limited (“MECO”) customer instigated further evaluation of issues associated with the approved tariff language, clarity of the Hawaiian Electric Companies’ procedures,
  • 2. The Honorable Chair and Members of the Hawaii Public Utilities CommissionJanuary31, 2012Page 2and broad-reaching impacts on the provision of reliable electric service, cost toratepayers and the potential curtailment of existing renewable energy generators. On or around January 15, 2012, the Consumer Advocate received an inquiryfrom a MECO customer, Lawrence Lee.1 The Consumer Advocate informally inquiredwith MECO to seek clarification of the facts and assertions provided by Mr. Lee.2 TheConsumer Advocate seeks additional time to further evaluate the interpretation andpossible related tariff and consumer impacts of the Decision considering the commentspresented by Mr. Lee and relative MECO responses. To date, the Consumer Advocateis continuing to seek further clarifications from MECO. Accordingly, the Consumer Advocate requests a second enlargement of timefrom January 31, 2012 through February 21, 2012 to allow additional time to conduct itsinvestigation and further analyze the Decision in order to determine whether there maybe a need to file a motion for reconsideration or clarification.3 The Consumer Advocatehas not surveyed the parties in this docket to determine whether there will be anyopposition to this request.4 See attached, letter from Lawrence Lee, dated January 15, 2012 via electronic mail.2 See attached, MECO letter, dated January 12, 2012. The timing for the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration (or clarification) and an accompanying Memorandum is governed by Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) § 6-61-22 (computation of time), § 6-61-21(e) (service of process), and § 6-61-1 37 (motion for reconsideration or rehearing). The prescribed period for filing a motion for reconsideration is ten (10) days after being served the decision or order. If the decision or order is served by mail, a party is entitled to two additional days to respond. In the instant case, the Decision and Order was filed on December 20, 2011 and served upon the parties by mail received by the Consumer Advocate — on December 21, 2011. Thus, the prescribed period to file a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification ends on Saturday, December 31, 2011 with an additional two days extending the deadline to the next business day, Tuesday, January 3, 2012. The Parties in this proceeding include the Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., Maui Electric Company, Limited (collectively referred to as the “Hawaiian Electric Companies”), the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Blue Planet Foundation, Hawaii Inspection Group, Inc., Hawaii PV Coalition, Hawaii Renewable Energy Alliance, Hawaii Solar Energy Association, South Maui Renewable Resources, LLC, The Solar Alliance, Zero Emissions Leasing LLC, Participant Interstate Renewable Energy Council, and the Consumer Advocate.
  • 3. The Honorable Chair and Members of the Hawaii Public Utilities CommissionJanuary 31, 2012Page3 Thank you for your consideration of this request. rrey T. Ono Executive DirectorJTO :dlEnclosurecc: Service List
  • 4. ATTACHMENT Page lof3January 15, 2012Jamie and Justin,As you know, I have received a copy ofthe letter you sent to Shelby at American Electric regarding myapplication for net metering / grid interconnection of my 3kW residential PV system at 297 Maka HouLoop in Wailuku.This letter is to notify you that I intend to proceed with this project.Unfortunately, the letter you sent leaves me with more questions than answers. The letter is obviouslya rubber-stamped form letter. (You forgot to remove “Incorporated” from the re: line, and to take the“s” off of installations and project~from the last time you used the letter.) It speaks only in excessivelygeneral terms, does not address my proposed system specifically on its own merits, and fails to provideme with any substantive information or data.Jamie, you told both Jan Lattimer and myself that since my application was the very first in line to beevaluated based upon the new 14H revisions, and because it is such a small system, approval “shouldnot be a problem”. Now it appears my application is being lumped together with all of the installation,~and project~ coming in for evaluation. Justin, during your conversation with Jan Lattimer on Friday lastweek, Jan asked you why such a small system is a problem. Your reply was “If we approve all ofthesmall systems it will be a problem”. Jamie, you told me that every individual system would be judgedon it’s own merits and on a first-come, first-considered basis. It appears that this is not happening.I should have been told the results of the Initial Technical Review screenings. Which screenings didmy proposed system fail?It would appear that you are saying an IRS is required, although you never actually say it. You useterms like “more detailed study” and “minor study” but you never actually say IRS or InterconnectionRequirements Study.If I am being required to perform an IRS, I should have been provided with details about the specificanalysis and/or reviews that will be performed as part of the IRS. Also, what specific findings duringthe supplemental review process triggered the need for the IRS? Instead ofbeing specific, you list“several potential issues” that are unreasonably general and broad in scope and could be applied to thegrid interconnection of any DG system. Additionally you provide no supporting data or details.Are you going to require everyone who wants to install a system and fails screen 4 to perform the samestudy you are requiring me to do? Will they receive the same form letter you sent me? If I pay for theIRS and get approval, will my next-door neighbor have to pay for a study as well if he wants to installthe same exact system? And will his next-door neighbor have to do the same?Would you please tell me, at the time of my supplemental review, what was the aggregate DG capacityon my line section. Also, what are my line section’s peak load and “solar noon” minimum load? Thedata you post on your Web site indicates that my street had not yet reached 10% penetration as ofSeptember 2011.I have the right to know exactly what was done during the supplemental review process. What
  • 5. ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 3spec~fically your review find that makes this IRS necessary? What measurements were taken? What diddata was reviewed? What calculations were done? I would like to get a copy of the final supplementalreview report so that I can see what prompted the need for the IRS.Jamie, you told me that my application was the very first on Maui to go across your desks be evaluatedbased on the new PUC revisions to tariff rule 14R. It seems to me that what I am going thru now isexactly what the PUC’s revisions to 14H were supposed to prevent. How are things different from theway they were before the Commission’s ruling? All the hype about the revisions facilitating increasedpenetration, yet not even one additional tiny 3kW PV system is being allowed to interconnect on myline section without performing an IRS. You know that most people will not be willing to roll the dicewith $3,000.00 on the line knowing that you (MECO) control the outcome ofthe roll and can make thedice land on any number you want. You are asking me to pay $3000.00 for a consultant’s study withouttelling who the consultant is, without telling me specifically what will be studied, without giving meany specific supporting data to show why you deemed it necessary to perform an IRS and without ,telling me what results will be required from the study for my application to be approved. To makematters worse you tell me to “Keep in mind that this study could determine that a full study is ,required, and could cost approximately $30,000.” It would appear that you are doing your best to makeme walk away from this project.Apparently, the 15% “virtual ceiling” has not really been removed, despite all the PUC press releases,Governor’s speeches, and news reports that say it has. It would appear that HECO has successfullyduped everyone.In my opinion, every concern you listed in your letter about the interconnection ofmy system to yourgrid is unreasonably broad in scope or should have been specifically addressed in the supplementalreview process using the drawings, data sheets and other information you specifically required at thetime of application. It appears that my system is not being judged on its own merits or on a first-comefirst-considered basis. I do not believe any additional study should be required for approval of my small3kW PV system if it is judged on its own merits and you use currently available data. I am asking youto reconsider your decision to require an IRS, to do the right thing, and approve the interconnection ofmy system based on the the merits of this one installation alone, just as the PUC intended you to dowhen they revised 14H.I look forward to hearing back from you, having my questions answered and receiving the informationI have requested.Sincerely,Lawrence Lee808-268-2949
  • 6. ATTACHMENT Page 3 of 3 Maui Electric Company, Ltd. • P0 Box 398 • KahulUl, HI 96733-6898 January 12, 2012Lawrence LeeAttn: Shelby AhwahRe: NEM project Lawrence Lee IncorporatedDear Shelby:Regarding the 2.94 kW PV installations proposed at 297 Maka Hou Lp. in Wailuku, Maui Electric Company(MECO) has completed the supplemental review and determined that a more detailed study is required.There are several potential issues with the interconnection of the proposed project on the MECO system. Thereliability and safety issues identified include ground fault, overvoltage concerns, transformer sizing,harmonic current levels, harmonic voltage distortion, and circuit PV penetration. Further review will benecessary to determine the outcome and/or mitigation options. We have contacted a consulting firm to obtaincosts for completing this study. The minor study of the system (including consulting and MECO internalcosts) is estimated to be completed at $3,000. Keep in mind that this study could determine that a full study isrequired, and could cost approximately $30,000.Please contact me at (808) 872-3293 to discuss the details of this determination. If you would like tocontinue with these projects, please notify MECO within 15 business days of your intent to proceed. Forthe FIT project this may be done by posting correspondence to your “My FIT Docs” folder atwww.hecofitio.com.Thank you,Justin GozaMaui Electric Company, Ltd.
  • 7. SERVICE LIST (Docket No. 201 0-001 5) I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was duly served upon the followingparties, by personal service, hand delivery, and/or U.S. mail, postage prepaid, andproperly addressed pursuant to HAR § 6-61-21(d). DEAN MATSUURA 2 Copies MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS by hand delivery HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. P.O. Box 2750 Honolulu, Hawaii 96840 DAVID M. LOUIE, ESQ. I copy DEBORAH DAY EMERSON, ESQ. by hand delivery GREGG J. KINKLEY, ESQ. DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF HAWAII 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Counsel for Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism ESTRELLA A. SEESE I copy ENERGY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR by U.S. mail Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism P.O. Box 2359 Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 DOUGLAS A. CODIGA, ESQ. I copy SCHLACK ITO LLLC by hand delivery Topa Financial Center 745 Fort Street, Suite 1500 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Counsel for Blue Planet Foundation
  • 8. THOMAS J. DOUMA I copyPRESIDENT by U.S. mailHAWAII INSPECTION GROUP, INC.P.O. Box 60Kihei, Hawaii 96753BRAD ALBERT I copyPRESIDENT by U.S. mailHAWAII PV COALITIONP.O. Box 81501Haiku, Hawaii 96708WARREN S. BOLLMEIER II I copyPRESIDENT by U.S. mailHAWAII RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE46-040 Konane Place, #3816Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744ISAAC H. MORIWAKE, ESQ. I copyEARTHJUSTICE by hand delivery223 South King Street, Suite 400Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-4501Counsel for Hawaii Solar Energy AssociationJACK R. NAIDITCH I copyCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER by U.S. mailSOUTH MAUI RENEWABLE RESOURCES, LLC8 Kiopaa Street, Suite 103Pukalani, Hawaii 96768SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONG, ESQ. I copyATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION by U.S. mail1050 Bishop Street, #514Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Counsel for The Solar Allllance
  • 9. CARRIE CULLIN HITT I copyPRESIDENT by U.S. mailTHE SOLAR ALLIANCEP.O. Box 534North Scituate, Massachusetts 02060ERIKW.KVAM lcopyCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER by U.S. mailZERO EMISSIONS LEASING LLC2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 131Honolulu, Hawaii 96822KEVIN 1. FOX I copyKEYES & FOX LLP by U.S. mail436 14th Street, Suite 1305Oakland, California 94612Counsel for Interstate Renewable Energy CouncilDATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 31, 2012.

×