20250224Comments_19.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Clifford Gibbons
Submission Time: Feb 21 2025 2:25PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1719 Castelli Dr
Ammon, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Rocky mountain Power is making a proposal that would reduce the credit given to customers
that have solar panels for the power put on the grid (which happens to be during peak hours when the
sun is shinning)to about 4 cents per kWh and are charged 7 to 18 cents per kWh. Rocky Mountain
Power claims that renewable power is important but this decrease in credit given to customers makes
solar power financially cost prohibitive. Rocky Mountain Power already had a significant increase this
year in cost to the customer per kWh. I am opposed to the net decrease in credit given to renewable
energy customers."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: David King
Submission Time: Feb 212025 3:17PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3848 E Ridgeland Dr
Ammon, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I received a letter from Rocky Mountain Power addressing a proposed change in the value of
credit for exported energy from the retail rate.This new change would significantly reduce my rate of
compensation.
The letter states that Rocky Mountain Power is interested in a "fair and accurate valuation of customers'
exported energy" I'm all for"fair and accurate" but Rocky Mountain Power appears to be dishonest in
holding back any studies and raw data showing that rates are not "fair and accurate".
I am not in favor of Rocky Mountain Power's proposal without transparency in how the valuation process
was determined.This whole business looks like a money grab from a greedy company.
Sincerely,
David King"
1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:Aaron Kibler
Submission Time: Feb 212025 3:43PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2143 Quail Ridge Drive
Ammon, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "To whom it may concern,
I have a $55,400.00 28 panel solar system that was installed 16 months ago. I received a letter on 7 Feb
2025 from Rocky Mtn Power stating a desire by said company to decrease my overage credit from
average 8-10 cents per kH to 4 cents per kH! I am assisting to maintain the electrical grid in SE Idaho with
my system and feel that I am being unjustly penalized with this money grab by Rocky Mtn Power! Please
do NOT allow this proposition to go through. My family isn't extremely well off but we wanted to get a
solar system for its many benefits. After paying a LOT of money to set it up, it is unfair of a rich money-
hungry company to further take what they do not deserve!
Please stop this from happening!
Sincerely,
Aaron Kibler
Idaho citizen and US military veteran"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jeff Pickett
Submission Time: Feb 212025 3:51PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:4037 E 66 N
rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Please do not allow Rocky Mountain Power to go through with the changes to its billing for
those with solar power. We are still getting charged the same amount for power as everyone else. We
also generate power that ends up helping the grid. Don't penalize the people that have taken these steps
to be smart about power consumption just because other people have not taken those steps too. We
have had that agreement for years and it is unfair to change it now. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

From:Aaron <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 4:12 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Case No. PAC-E-25-02
Dear Monica
My name is Aaron Heinig. I live in Ammon Idaho. A couple of years ago I invested a lot of my hard
earned money into a solar system for my house. I received a letter today saying that my export
energy values are going to be significantly decreased if this proposal goes through. I cannot politely
express how upset I am to learn about this. At this rate, I don't believe I will break even on my
investment. Please don't let this go through! Or atleast move the "grandfather" date back to 2021 when
I had my system installed. It's not right that the goal posts are moved again!
I tried to leave a comment on the PUC.idaho.gov website, but it is not working on my end... only error
messages when you try to submit your comment. So frustrating!
I hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Sincerely,
Aaron Heinig
[e-mail]
208-516-7227
4396 High Desert Dr.
Ammon, ID 83406
Power Company: Rocky Mountain Power
meter#346666818
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Joshua Perry
Submission Time: Feb 212025 4:37PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 627 West 1st South
Saint Anthony, ID 83445
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I am writing to formally oppose Rocky Mountain Power's proposal to significantly reduce the export
credit rate for customer-generated solar energy under Schedule 136. As a homeowner who invested in
3

solar power in [year you installed solar, e.g., 2024], 1 made this decision based on the expectation of a
fair and stable return on investment.The proposed changes will drastically reduce the value of solar
energy credits—potentially by more than 50%—and severely impact my ability to offset energy costs
throughout the year.
Key Concerns:
Unfair Devaluation of Solar Investments
Like many Idaho residents, I invested thousands of dollars in solar under the assumption that the existing
net billing structure would remain reasonable. Slashing the credit rate to around 4 cents per kWh—less
than half of the current rate—unfairly penalizes those of us who have committed to renewable energy
and makes it financially unsustainable.
Seasonal Imbalance and Financial Strain
I already generate fewer credits than I need to carry through the winter months. With this proposed
change, my ability to offset my power usage will shrink even further, increasing my energy costs and
making my solar investment far less viable. Based on Rocky Mountain Power's own estimates,the
average solar customer's bill will increase by 72%—a substantial and unjustified financial burden.
Discouraging Renewable Energy Adoption
Idaho should be encouraging homeowners to invest in renewable energy, not penalizing them.This
proposal makes solar far less attractive for future customers, ultimately slowing down progress toward
energy independence and sustainability.
Lack of Long-Term Stability
The proposal to annually adjust the export credit rate adds even more uncertainty for solar customers.
Without a stable and predictable rate, it is impossible for homeowners to plan for the future or
accurately estimate their long-term energy savings.
Request for Action:
I urge the Commission to reject Rocky Mountain Power's proposal and instead require a fair and
sustainable credit structure that maintains reasonable compensation for exported energy. Homeowners
who contribute clean energy to the grid should not be financially disadvantaged for doing so.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the Commission's commitment to protecting
Idaho consumers and ensuring fair energy policies.
Sincerely,
Josh Perry"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Brian Wood
Submission Time: Feb 212025 7:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8895
Montpelier, ID 83254-5014
4

Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Anyone that has invested a significant amount in solar power generation equipment did so
with an expectation of a return on investment of 15-20 years. I am sure Rocky Mountain Power does not
make any investments with that long of an ROL This new rate proposal will effectively double the return
on investment time frame.The notification letter explains that even though my power bill will increase
about 72%, it is still less than non-generating customers pay.This does not make me feel any better, I
made a significant investment, and they did not.
Federal and state tax credits have encouraged people to make the investment in renewal energy for the
sake of the environment, and now Rocky Mountain Power wants to penalize anyone who has done so.
Reading between the lines on the proposal, it looks like Rocky Mountain Power wants to raise rates, but
only on those who have made the investment in power generating equipment.
Quit trying to sugar coat this and raise rates evenly if that is what it takes to keep the lights on."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Clint Dunn
Submission Time: Feb 212025 9:14PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:4359W 1200N
Dayton, ID 83232
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "My bill in Jan. 2023
SERVICE PERIOD From To ELAPSED DAYS METER READINGS Previous Current METER MULTIPLIER
AMOUNT USED THIS MONTH
344549776 Jan 11, 2023 Feb 9, 2023 29 2695 3109 1.0
414 kwh
Basic Charge-Single Phase 8.00
Total New Charges 45.45
Jan 2024 (first winter with solar panels)
METER NUMBER SERVICE PERIOD From To ELAPSED DAYS METER READING Previous Current METER
MULTIPLIER AMOUNT USED THIS MONTH
344549776M Jan 11, 2024 Feb 9, 2024 29 2833 3334 1.0 501
kwh
344549776S J an 11, 2024 Feb 9, 2024 2852 2964 1.0 -112
kwh
Total 389 kwh
5

Basic Charge-Single Phase 12.25
Total New Charges 48.17
Jan 2025
METER NUMBER SERVICE PERIOD From To ELAPSED DAYS METER READINGS Previous Current METER
MULTIPLIER AMOUNT USED THIS MONTH
344549776M Dec 10, 2024 Jan 10, 2025 31 6175 6706 1.0
531 kwh
344549776S Dec 10, 2024 Jan 10, 2025 6700 6810 1.0 -
110 kwh
Total 421 kwh
Basic Charge-Single Phase 16.50
Total New Charges 57.17
In 2023 my electric was costing me 0.09 per kwh plus the base fee of$8.00
In 2024 my electric was costing me .092 per kwh plus the base fee of$12.25
Now in 2025 it is costing me 0.096 plus the base fee of$16.50
It was my understanding the reason for the base fee increases was to offset the cost of maintenance.
I would like to know what Rocky Mountain power pays for the power it buys from other than those of us
you have solar panels. How big of a difference is in what the pay on the open market for power versa
what the pay for the home solar panel generated power?
I have seen a 25% increase in my winter power bill even after adding solar panels in just 2 years. Why
should I see another increase this year or even next year.
I realize the Rocky mountain power is in the business to make money but these increase need to be
more in line with actual inflation and wage of the consumer increase.
Respectfully"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Adam Blakeman
Submission Time: Feb 212025 9:18PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 134 N 3942 E
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am concerned that Rocky Mountain power's proposal of four cents a kilowatt Will unfairly
impact many peoples' solar power investment.This rate will Pushback many peoples' break even point
6

for their investment in solar panels. I believe that Multiple independent on site generation studies
should be done before such a restricting rate is imposed on so many of Rocky Mountains customers. I
think it would be important to recognize how much Discounted energy is given back to the grid.
Additionally, I feel that Rocky Mountain power is going after small residential customers instead of
commercial, industrial, or irrigation customers because they know that small residential customers will
have a hard time fighting against them. It is the Idaho public utilities commission to prevent this type of
inappropriate rate hike from occurring. Regardless of any lobbying from Rocky Mountain power. Lastly,
the extent of the rate reduction is unreasonably excessive.
PacificCorp's revenue was estimated over$5.5 billion in 2023.
This needs to be completely reevaluated and swept off the table for consideration until more
independent studies can be conducted. I do not believe this is just a "help all customers be treated
fairly" idea.This is a money grab because business is threatened by customer generation.This is a
money grab like Utah and other states.
Please keep everyone's interest in mind and not just a company that makes hundreds of millions of
dollars every year and has clever studies and clever lawyers. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Austin Nichols
Submission Time: Feb 22 2025 10:45AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1114 Cornerstone Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "It's incredibly unfair to raise power prices when we're stuck with a single provider. We
invested in solar two years ago based on the promise of lower costs, and now these utility hikes
completely negate that incentive. We're left with the significant debt from the solar installation and no
return on our investment. It feels like we've been misled."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Balderree<[e-mail]>
Sent:Saturday, February 22, 2025 10:41 AM
To: secretary;Wendy Horman <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Rocky Mountain Power Rate Increase
As a customer strongly opposed to Rocky Mountain Power's proposed changes, I want to express my
deep concerns about the utility's plan to alter the value of credit for exported solar energy and the
additional rate increases affecting residential customers, including those with solar installations. Rocky
Mountain Power is proposing to reduce the credit for exported energy from the current retail rate, which
ranges between $0.07 and $0.18 per kilowatt-hour,to a time-differentiated financial bill credit of
approximately$0.04 per kilowatt-hour. This change, combined with the already approved 18.1% rate
7

increase effective this year,will have a significant financial impact on solar customers and non-solar
customers alike.
For someone like me, who uses roughly 800 kWh per month and has a solar system,this proposal is
particularly troubling.The reduction in the export credit for solar energy directly undermines the
financial benefits of investing in solar panels, which many of us adopted to reduce energy costs and
support renewable energy.According to estimates,this change, on top of the rate hike, could increase
my monthly bill by approximately$37 if I rely on solar generation.This is a substantial burden, especially
when solar customers were previously incentivized to contribute clean energy to the grid under a more
favorable credit system.
The 18.1% rate increase, set to take effect in February 2025, will raise the average residential rate from
10.96 cents per kilowatt-hour to 12.94 cents per kWh for someone using 800 kWh per month.This
translates to an additional $15.68 on my monthly bill ($1.98 increase per 100 kWh, multiplied by 8 for
800 kWh). When combined with the proposed reduction in solar export credits and the estimated $37
monthly increase for solar customers, my total bill could rise by over$52 per month—a significant jump
that feels unfair and punitive, especially for those of us who have made the environmentally conscious
choice to go solar.
I strongly oppose this proposal because it discourages renewable energy adoption, places an undue
financial strain on solar customers, and fails to reflect the true value of the clean energy we contribute to
the grid. Rocky Mountain Power claims these changes are necessary to balance costs among customers
and reflect the actual value of exported energy, but the combination of a lower export credit and a steep
rate hike feels like a double penalty for solar users.This approach not only erodes trust in the utility but
also contradicts the need to incentivize clean energy solutions in the face of rising fossil fuel costs and
climate challenges. I urge the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to reconsider this proposal and prioritize
fair policies that support both solar customers and the transition to sustainable energy.
Matthew L. Balderree
208-599-4324
[e-mail]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Joshua Call
Submission Time: Feb 22 2025 1:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2707 Clackamas Creek Dr
Ammon, ID 83406
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
8

Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I disagree with the proposed changes to on-site generation compensation structure. I am
already compensated at about half the retail rate and this proposal will reduce that by almost another
half.This allows the RMP to charge other customers nearly 300-400% more than their cost to acquire the
power I generate with no required investment in grid capacity or resilience.All the required equipment
to support the grid is part of my investment cost (transfer switches,grid-tied battery storage, and shut
offs). I never would have invested in rooftop solar,which initially had a 20 year payback period (on 25-
year rated panels) if I'd know my export credits would be reduced by at least another half within a year
of installing."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Darrell Westover
Submission Time: Feb 22 2025 5:30PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 189 North 2500 East
St. Anthony, ID 83445
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I have invested substantially to generate solar power at my residence. I object to RMP
diminishing the value of the power that I generate while simultaneously increasing the cost of the power
they generate. I will not, in my lifetime see a return on the investment that I have made by installing
Solar power. This all raises a number of questions. For example why would anyone invest their own hard
earned dollars in solar power, knowing that legacy municipal influences might take that power for
themselves?What indeed is the measure of the legislative and the IPUC commitment to alternate
energy sources?
Ultimately this is a political question. Disregarding their lip service to alternate energy sources, legacy
power brokers, at their foundation,want to protect their business. Where do you, at the IPUC see power
generation in the future?Will Idaho continue to rely on out-of-state sources?Will Idaho wake up and
build the nuclear facilities that she is uniquely qualified to operate? Is someone planning for self
sustaining, Idaho communities?
Lastly, without accusation, I am wondering if IPUC functions as a protector of Idaho consumers, a
negotiator or a rubber stamp. I honestly do not know, but it seems to me that as long as Idaho buys what
other states generate, she will not hold a position of power(sorry about the pun) at the bargaining table.
Respectfully Darrell Westover"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Richard Cunningham
Submission Time: Feb 22 2025 5:40PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 126 N 1st E
9

Preston, ID 83263
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "How did our generation rate go from a reasonable range of$.07 to$0.18 per kilowatt-hour,
to a rate of$.04.This rate basically makes my entire system worthless to me. I built this system to
generate enough on credit that the sunless winter months would be covered. If you ask me, this is
robbery. I'm helping Rocky Mountain power by being a generator during the sunny days of the year.This
just feels like a slap in the face for that help. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Samuel Hansen
Submission Time: Feb 23 2025 7:27AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1260 N 590 E
Shelley, ID 83274
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "To whom it may concern,
I am a property owner in Shelley ID, 83274.Just a few years ago we made the decision to purchase a
solar generating system for our home to offset electrical costs, and hedge against future price increases
of power utilities. Our power utility is through Rocky Mountain Power. When we purchased the system,
literature from Rocky Mountain Power was supportive of home power generation, after all it helped
meet power demand during peak hours of the day, and reduced the need for the utility to invest in more
infrastructure since I was footing that bill myself and carrying a loan for the solar panels. I was not trying
to make a profit, I just wanted to offset my use.The "net metering" agreement seemed fair. However,
recent announced changes for the price would apparently raise my monthly bill 73%according to a
recent document that was mailed to my home.This doesn't seem right. I oppose the price change, if the
change takes affect, I will likely take additional steps to remove my home from the grid so that I am
minimally reliant on a Utility that has failed to consider me, as a customer.
Regards,
Sam Hansen"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Reeder
Submission Time: Feb 23 2025 2:26PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9550 N 85 E
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Our solar system went live in November, 2023. We have a 20 panel 8kw system. We are
retired and older so don't have much time to recover the cost of our system, even at the current rates
RMP pays us for our exported power. The cost of our system was$47,500 minus a 30%federal tax
incentive. I feel like this significant cost to us should reduce RMPs power generation costs and more
than justifies our receiving the same rate for our exported power that we pay for our imported power.
Another reason we decided to go solar was that it's good for the planet by reducing Co2 emissions. We
also donate $3.90/mo to RMP's "Blue Sky Energy" program which RMP promotes to increase the the use
of green energy. With the new, much lower RMP proposed buyback rate of 4 cents per kwh resulting in
an average 72% electric bill increase, it will take existing and new solar producers much longer to re-coup
their investments and will greatly discourage people from installing solar, which hurts everybody. RMP
also has a "WattSmart" program to incentivize customers to go solar to allow RMP to use their solar
charged batteries when RMP needs extra grid power which they say helps all customers. Handing solar
producing customers a 72% higher monthly power bill seems to defeat the purpose of both of these
RMP programs. ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Steven Fuller
Submission Time: Feb 23 2025 4:38PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 624 East 145 South
Preston, ID 83263-1622
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am in receipt of a letter from Rocky Mountain Power dated February 7, 2025, but which
was just recently delivered. The proposed changes to the value of credits for export energy are
unwarranted and being disguised as an attempt to make "fair" what are deemed as subsidies provided
by customers without solar generation capacity. Export credits are not subsidies. We are already selling
power to Rocky Mountain at a much cheaper and cleaner rate than it can produce on its own through
power plants. The difference in rate structure will effectively gut the value of exported energy and leave
11

it essentially meaningless to support the program. I expect rates to vary, but it seems as electrical costs
go up the value of exported energy goes down which is neither reasonable nor justifiable. As the
gatekeeper and protector of the public interest, I ask that you deny this rate change."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Samuel Trost
Submission Time: Feb 23 2025 S:OOPM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3816 Rocky Mountain Dr
Ammon, ID 83406
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "It's very sketchy that their internal study conveniently raises the price of their electricity
while lowering the value of mine. How is that at a time when everything is getting more expensive,the
electricity I sell to Rocky Mountain Power is suddenly worth less?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Barton Cook
Submission Time: Feb 24 2025 3:55PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2885 E Pinnacle Dr
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Two comments regarding Rocky Mountain Power's proposed changes to the compensation
structure for customers with on-site generation.
First,the proposed credit of approximately$0.04 per kilowatt/hr represents a 66% reduction from our
current credit. We understand compensation needs to be reduced to prevent customers without on-
site generation from subsidizing the rates of us with on-site generation capabilities. However, a 66%cut
in credits seems excessive. Would IPUC consider a lesser reduction in the credits, such as,40%or$.048
per kilowatt/hr.
Second, grandfathering of legacy systems seems arbitrary at October 2020. This avoids the growth in
self-generation after Covid. It maximizes the benefits to Rocky Mountain Power to the detriment of its
customer who have take the initiative to be more self sufficient. Given the Rocky Mountain Power study
12

(PAC-E-23-17) was completed at the end of 2022,would the IPUC consider changing the grandfather
date to December 2022? This seems like a happy medium between 2025 and 2020.
Thank you for your consideration,
Barton Cook"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13