20250303Comments_16.pdf

From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 7:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:ZION HALLENBECK
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 7:OOPM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:7310 EAST VALCO DRIVE
IDAHO FALLS, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Rocky Mountain Power's recent proposal to change on-site generator rates is extreme
and betrays the trust of those customers who invested a HUGE amount of money in helping Idaho,
the power company, and purportedly the world. Justification for the change is given as, "[ensuring]
that customers are paid fair rates for their exports and customers without solar or other on-site
generation systems are not subsidizing the rates for self-generating customers:'
1)what is"fair"about cutting credit values from $0.18/kwhr to$0.04/kwhr?? a 78%decrease in
credit value is fair??
2) how is my on-site generation forcing other utility customers to "subsidize" my power bill? The
simple truth is that the power company is making less money because a bunch of people went with
solar, and in order to maintain their bottom line(or increase it),they need to raise rates and cut
losses. How is that ME being subsidized as opposed to the power companies being
subsidized? Subsidized by people like me who are doing the generating for them?
If I had known my$1xxk solar system (high because the rampant fraud of solar companies)only
yields a$0.04 credit, I and people like me would NEVER have invested so much money in saving the
power companies,the state,the nation, and the world from the zealot climate-alarmists (just in
case they are right).
Allowing this change proves that solar has been and will continue to be a fraudulent scheme
perpetrated on the individual families of Idaho-a fraud committed by the power companies along
with whatever state entities (you) are enabling it.
The only reasonable outcome is to publish schedules that inform rate-payers of how their
investment in solar will decline(via changes to the credit offered),or make it abundantly clear(it
was not made clear before now)that the power company can bait-and-switch rate payers on a
whim. The"grandfathering" afforded customers up to 2020 should be the norm...rates an on-site

generator will be given should be locked for the life of their SIGNIFICANT investment. An
investment that helps the power company generate enough power for the communities they serve.
If I installed my solar in 2022, 1 should have a set rate for 25 years (the anticipated life of the
system).
That is "fair.""
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Mitch Forrest
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 7:24PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address: 3879 e pepperwood
rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: rocky mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "This proposal would be a massive power grab for RMP. Not only are they asking to not
pay even close to what the solar generated power is worth to them,they are also wanting to only
pay 57%of what their lowest current payout rate is, or 22%of what their highest current payout is.
Asking to raise customers rates by as much as 80%is ridiculous. Especially since they just received
a base rate increase of 16.8%on all customers.
I am strongly against RMP receiving this compensation as asked.They need to go back to the
drawing board and pay a fair rate for the power they buy from us.
Most studies show that the power they receive from solar customers is worth more than what those
customers pay for it, since it skips all transmission losses.
Thanks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Blaine Robertson
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 7:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:2243 S 4000 W
Rexburg, ID 83440
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mtn Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02

Comment: "I oppose the requested rate adjustment proposed by Rocky Mountain Power(RMP).
First,the fact that RMP did not include in the application the proposed Schedule 136 should
disqualify the application. Schedule 136 is the very heart of what is being changed and is not
included in the application.Why not?The schedule only appears in Mr. MacNeil's testimony,
beginning on page 4(Export Credit Summary) and page 7 and continuing to page 8 with the time of
day and season schedule.This alone should disqualify the application.The proposed rate schedule
should be required to be included in the proposal and should be in a format that is usable for both
the IPUC and customers. Furthermore,the new schedule has not been distributed to RMP
customers via letter or on their website, making the information incomplete and lacking
transparency.
believe that the proposal submitted by RMP boils down to"my watt is worth more than your watt."
The proposal states that customers will pay full price based on time of day and season for all power
consumed from the grid,while providing power to RMP at significantly reduced rates.The verbiage
is to create a"fair and equitable"schedule for all.This is simply not true.The company claims that
non producers are subsidizing those who produce power. Does this mean that if the proposal is
approved that non-producing customers will receive a rate reduction because the subsidy burden is
removed? Not at all. Under the current net metering system, it is a one-to-one credit for power
consumed versus power produced.The company charges producers and non-producers the same
rate for each watt consumed.At present, our system produces more power than we consume,
therefore we have been and will continue to be subsidizing RMP.
The company claims that the proposed changes may incentivize producers to send power to the
grid during peak times.This statement is only true in very specific situations: 1)the producer must
have a storage system, 2)the producer must store all power generated, and 3) send power to the
grid from the solar panels during the peak time and live off the stored power.That is the only way to
take advantage of the incentive. If the customer's solar panel system does not possess a storage
device,then all power produced is pushed immediately to the grid if the sun is shining on the
panels, and they produce electricity. Is RMP suggesting that the system should only be operative
during peak times when RMP has a need for power? I don't think so.
The proposal does not acknowledge that RMP is receiving direct benefit from the many solar,wind
and other alternative power generators as part of the proposal. Reference is made by Mr. MacNeal
to offsets provided by customer generators, but neglects to discuss the growing impact as shown
by the numbers since 2013.These provide power to the grid and reduce the need for the company
to generate that power using coal,which is their primary means of power generation. It reduces the
need for new plants,for purchasing coal, and generally building new infrastructure for power
production.Add to that,the customers who are producing power and sending it into the grid are not
paid for doing so.We receive a credit,which cannot be redeemed or transferred except to another
meter under the same account.
RMP does not address at all the cost of solar power systems to the customers and how this
reduction will impact them.This is a case of"I only care about me and mine".The costs involved in
purchasing and installing these systems is very expensive and proper consideration needs to be
made to allow customers to recoup their capital costs just as RMP is allowed to do the same. I am
very disappointed by the IPUC staff.A key question that was not asked was,"How does this
proposal impact the power generating customer ability to pay for their systems?"This is an

important point for RMP but does not appear to register with the IPUC staff.
do understand that RMP is a business and has operating costs. I think a reasonable compromise
would be as follows:
1- Maintain the current Net Metering system providing a one-to-one value for watts produced by
the non-legacy customer and RMP to an amount equal to the watts produced for the grid and power
consumed from the grid by the customer.
2- If the customer consumes more power than is produced by their system,they pay the RMP
rate as noted in schedule 136 which maintains the current process.
3- If the customer produces more power than consumed,the excess is reimbursed at the rate
described in the proposed Schedule 136.This margin allows RMP a differentiated amount to
provide them a profit,while giving the customer the ability to avoid having to pay for their system
and grid power.As mentioned,the systems that customers purchase cost them tens of thousands
of dollars, and having to pay for the system and an increased cost of power from the grid has a
distinct chilling effect on future systems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 8:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Morgen Reynolds
Submission Time: Feb 28 2025 7:31AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 561 Twisted Willow Road, Rexburg, ID 83440
Rexburg, ID 83440
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I received a letter about the proposed changes that will increase our bill because we
have solar panels.This seems unfair and unclear. How much subsidization is happening right now
for those without solar panels?This feels like a money grab to "punish"those who in water in solar
power. How am I costing anyone more money by using solar power? I will research more in the files
me ruined in the letter. Is there a other way I can voice my complaint and, hopefully, affect the vote
on this change?Thank you,
Morgen Reynolds "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Randy Eggers
Submission Time: Feb 28 2025 12:19PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1423 N 615 E
Shelley, ID 83274
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "A few years ago, Rocky Mountain Power was championing the new green deal. Install
solar,wind,geothermal etc. Now they want to penalize those of us who have spent thousands to
install solar. They are proposing a fee of$37 per month to off set those who have installed solar. I
for one have spent several thousand in an effort to support the green new deal so that Rocky
Mountain Power could fall in line to support the federal government green policy. Why am I being
penalized for those who have not supported or installed solar."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 4:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Margo Thompson
Submission Time: Feb 28 2025 3:27PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:473 N 2400 E
St.Anthony, ID 83445
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "The request for a dramatic decrease in the compensation structure for those of newer

to the on-site generation of power is nothing less than shocking.This feels like a betrayal of our
efforts to help make power more available to us and our neighbors and to RMP. Not being the
earliest adopters appears to be a punishment and RMP is values our participation less than those
legacy systems.
Not only is the rate cut in half(or perhaps even more?)and then it will be adjusted yearly so as very
small power producers we have no control over our own costs.This may seem small to RMP but to
our budget it's a big hit. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 28,2025 5:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Benny Varghese
Submission Time: Feb 28 2025 4:30PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: Idaho Falls
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Rocky Mountain Power(RMP) proposes cutting the export credit rate for non-legacy
solar customers from 7-18 cents per kWh to a time-differentiated rate averaging 4 cents per kWh
under Schedule 136(Case No. PAC-E-25-02). RMP claims this eliminates a cross-subsidy and fairly
compensates solar exports. However,with Idaho's minimal solar penetration,this
disproportionately harms solar adopters who made significant investments,worsening financial
pressures from prior rate hikes like those in Case No. PAC-E-22-15.This jeopardizes the viability of
residential solar energy systems. I urge the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)to reject RMP's
proposal and maintain current rates until solar penetration increases significantly or a transparent
energy valuation method is provided.
-Customer Trust: Retroactive cuts erode confidence in RMP and the IPUC, discouraging future
renewable investments. If the new rates applied before a customer decided to install solar
generation, an informed decision could have been made based on a realistic cost-benefit analysis.
RMP's proposed rate hike, similar to the previous rate modernization unfairlytargets customers
who have made significant infrastructure investments with the arbitrary goal of"monthly bill parity"
with non-solar customers.
- Economic Impact: PAC-E-22-15 previously raised residential service fees (e.g.,from $8 to$29.25
for Schedule 1, a 265%jump over five years),offsetting lower energy rates. Solar customers, reliant

on generation, bear these fixed costs with little relief, despite RMP's"fairness"claim.With the
proposed change in PAC-E-25-02, a typical solar household's annual credits would drop from
approximately$500 to$200, extending solar investment payback periods by 5-10 years.With
exports now valued at 4 cents/kWh instead of 7-18 cents/kWh, solar customers lose revenue
potential while paying more in unavoidable fixed costs, shrinking their savings and extending
payback periods further. Even the chart provided in RMP's Letter to Non-Legacy Customers also
highlights an average 72%increase in monthly electricity bills,with the largest group of customers
seeing a 175% increase in monthly bills. Given Idaho's utility monopoly, I urge IPUC to also consider
customer objections as evidenced by the several comments received on this case opposing the
rate update.
- Disparity with Neighboring States: RMP offers almost 20-45% higher solar export rates in Utah
than Idaho despite similar retail rates, raising concerns.This low rate hampers the competitiveness
of Idaho's solar industry, stifling the growth of affordable energy options for Idaho customers.
- Low Solar Penetration: Idaho's likely minimal penetration means cost shifts are negligible.With
Low rates and limited solar adoption, RMP's urgent need for this rate reduction is overstated and not
sufficiently justified.
- Lack of Transparency:The proposed annual update process lacks stakeholder transparency,
risking arbitrary future reductions to the export rate in addition to the existing annual increases in
service fees.
urge IPUC to reject this proposal, adopt a fair compensation structure valuing solar's grid benefits,
protect existing customers, and support Idaho's energy future."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Saturday, March 1, 2025 9:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Hans Bastian
Submission Time: Mar 1 2025 8:04AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1120 East Lower Rock Creek Road
Inkom, ID 83245
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "This comment is in regard to the changes to the compensation structure for on-site
generation. In the letter from February 7, 2025, it states, "the changes to ensure that customers are
paid fair rates for their exports and customers without or other on-site generation systems are not

subsidizing the rates for self-generating customers:'
The current net billing compensation structure is what I based my ability to afford the expense of
now having a solar payment in addition to any Rocky Mountain power bill. This Rocky Mountain on-
site Generation study appears to not have looked into the added expense the on-site generation
customer took to help produce power. The main reason I chose solar power was it was my simple
way of helping support renewable energy sources Rocky Mountain Power claims to state are
"important to their energy mix".With the proposed time differentiated export credit rate,this
increase to non-legacy systems will create an export credit value to have no reason to have solar
installed. This proposal will have no motivation for anyone to get solar installed from here
forward. The reason why the letter states the increase would increase by 72%to the on-site
generation customer. This does not include the solar bill payment I took on to help support the
renewable energy program.This proposal should not be considered since it does not support
renewable energy programs for those customers interested in trying to support it. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Saturday, March 1, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: George Avery
Submission Time: Mar 1 2025 10:01AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9324 E. Merrick Rd., POBox36
Lava Hot Springs, ID 83246
Name of Utility Company: RMP
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I installed a solar system and signed a contract with RMP to help offset the high winter
bills, now they want me to pay both!.The cost of installing a solar system is significant and was not
intended to be a generation system for the utility so they could sell the power back to me at an
increased rate. I just do not have the resources to pay both"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 7:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Connie Viehweg
Submission Time: Mar 1 2025 9:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:5733 S. Old Hwy. 91
McCammon, ID 83250
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am writing you in regards to a letter I received from Rocky Mountain Power.They
referenced a study(PAC-E-23-17,We were also told to reference PAC-E-25-02 when we called
about this. In this letter they said and I quote,
"A change in the value of credit fro exported energy from the retail rate,valued between 7 to 18
cents per kilowatt-hour for residential customers,to a time-differentiated financial bill credit that
would be approximately 4 cents per kilowatt-hour but that would be updated annually."
"A modification in the eligibility size cap for commercial, industrial and irrigation customers:"
Ifeel like we(people with solar)are getting taken advantage of.We know they can't pay us a lot, but
more that 4x less than what they charge for the regular power? I don't think so.They say that
people producing the solar power'are an important part of the Rocky Mountain Power grid and yet
they dont want to pay us for what we produce.They are making billions of dollars in profits.
However, I can promise you,we arent making that much!We are just trying to keep our head above
water. Let me tell you we are sinking very quickly. It has been nice to not have a power bill.
However,we do have a solar bill every month. My husband and I are living on a fixed income.We
live on $3000 dollars a month. With the way inflation is going sky high, any more and we are under
water. I know we aren't the only ones too.Young families are struggling to make ends meet too. If
we have to tighten our belts,They can do the same thing.
I would like to know why we (people with solar panels) are being penalized for producing power for
the grid..They are always saying they don't have enough power for the grid, so we as Idahoans or
Americans try to pitch in and help.We invest an enormous amount of money to install solar panels
on our homes and for what?They just turn around and decide they don't need to pay for the power
we are sending them, but we have to pay an enormous amount for the power that we use.The utility
companies,whether it is Rocky Mountain Power or Idaho power or any other power company in the
country, make billions and billions of dollars a year off of us, but are not willing to give anything
back.We are trying to help them by producing power for them and for us.
They are constantly asking for rate hikes, at least every year. Every time they ask for rate hikes or for
a change in the rate that they have to pay us(solar people), it is granted. EVERY TIME. No questions
asked,just grant them everything theywant when they want it.
At the rate that they are going, soon they will not pay us anything for the power we produce. As it is,

if they get this rate hike for the power and the rate reduction for the power we produce, our
investment is basically going to be for nothing.
Thank you for reading my concerns and I hope you will please consider those of us that write to you
with our concerns.Just try to imagine how you would feel if you were in our shoes.
Sincerely,
Connie Viehweg"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:Allen Viehweg
Submission Time: Mar 1 2025 10:38PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:5733 S. Old Hwy. 91
McCammon, ID 83250
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "To Whom it May Concern,
am a Rocky Mountain Power Company customer with on site solar generation system (solar
panels). I received a letter from Rocky Mountain Power that informed me of a proposed change to
compensation from owner generated on site that is fed back to Rocky Mountain Power.The
proposed change appears as though we would be charged at a rate of up to$.18 per kwh but only
receive in return $.04 per kwh.As a retired homeowner, on a fixed income we made a very large
investment into solar with the intention of keeping our utility costs at a fixed rate which would be in
line with our fixed income. If utility costs skyrocket at this rate with virtually little to no
compensation for generated power.This would make the Investment into solar virtually for nothing
at all.We would then be paying inflated utility costs in addition to the payment that we make on our
solar.With the incentives and promotions to invest in Solar,there are many people who made this
sacrifice and installed solar as a way to produce "green energy" and keep personal costs to a
minimum. Please do not allow these large utility company to take advantage of their customers
and destroy the personal investment which we have made into our future.The proposed change is
in regard to Case#PAC-E-23-17. I was also told to reference to PAC-E-25-02. Please do not allow
these changes to take place and protect Idaho residents from this injustice.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Allen Viehweg "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Sunday, March 2, 2025 10:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Larsen
Submission Time: Mar 2 2025 9:05AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:902 E Jensen Rd.
McCammon, ID 83250
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountian Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Under Rocky Mountian Powers proposed changes to their net metering program, my
solar package will be depreciated in value to a point that my investment in renewable energy would
not be able to pay for itself over the anticipated usable life span.The proposed export credit as
explained in testimony A(credited on a time-differential schedule),would preclude a currently
installed solar system (fixed roof mounted system)from generating any reasonable export value
without an additional major investment in redesigning/converting a current configured solar
generation system into a tracking system, as described in testimony as a motivating factor for
driving change in how customers generate and utilize its own energy in real time, rather than
exporting it. I also recognize the growing challenge Rocky Mountian Power is facing as additional
customers become generation sites, and that a change to the utility companies net metering
program may be warranted, however,this proposal devalues its current customer's commitment to
renewable energy, Rocky Mountains Power's own commitment to renewable energy through it's
customers, and will drive finacial hardship onto all current"non-legacy" generation customers. My
comment and request to the Public Utility Commission is,too deny Rocky Mountian Power's
current proposal as described in the application and testimony because an average increase of
"about 72W is not a reasonable solution or change to the net metering program the utility company
is currently operating under and offering to customers.As proposed, I would not have invested in
solar generation as it would be financially irresponsible and is not sustainable as an owner."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 1:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Shauna Wahnschaffe
Submission Time: Mar 2 2025 12:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:618 N 3900 E
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am writing to you to formally submit my comments on Rocky Mountain Power's
Proposal PAC-E-25-02.
received a letter from Rocky Mountain Power on February 7, 2025. In this letter the utility company
laid out its reasoning behind the proposed changes.To summarize the letter the utility company
states that it believes that the customers with solar power are being subsidized by the customers
that do not have a solar power generating system. I believe that this is a false claim for several
reasons which I shall present below.
First, I installed the solar power generating system that was being subsidized by Rocky Mountain
Power itself. In the sales pitch I was told that Rocky Mountain Power was willing to subsidize the
installation of solar power generating systems so that Rocky Mountain Power would be able to
access any excess power that said system generated. I was also told that I would be compensated
at 1 and a half times the rate that Rocky Mountain Power was currently charging all its customers. I
went so far as to also install a battery, also at Rocky Mountain Power's uring,that Rocky Mountain
Power can access at will and retrieve power to support power needs within its own grid.
Second, I understand that IPUC made a determination that systems installed after October 2020
would not grandfathered into this system. I feel there was a bait and switch tactic implemented at
this point.Those of us with non-legacy systems would still be compensated at a 1 for 1 rate. I felt
this was acceptable as the ability to reduce my power consumption and have power to sell back to
the grid was entirely under my control.
Third, now Rocky Mountain Power has submitted a plan to IPUC stating that it feels that because
the average user in the State of Idaho has an approximate bill of$105.48 and the average solar
power generating system user has an average bill of$52 per month they feel that a 72%per month
rate increase would be in order. I find this logic to be somewhat backward. It is my understanding
that people with solar power generating systems are subsidizing the Rocky Mountain Power
generating grid by making available to Rocky Mountain Power all of the energy that is generated that
is not used by the residence with the generating system.This in turn should produce a savings that
can be passed along to other energy users on the grid as Rocky Mountain Power is not forced to
invest in energy producing infrastructure.These solar power generating systems are providing a
beneficial and tangible service to all of the customers of Rocky Mountain Power.
Fourth,the tenants for a fair and beneficial business transaction should dictate that a purchase is
made on a 1 for 1 basis.This would mean that for every kWh hour supplied to Rocky Mountain

Power the solar power generating system owner is credited for a single kWh. I fail to understand is if
Rocky Mountain Power can sell a kWh for double the amount that as solar power generated kWh
how does that decrease the value of the solar power generated kWh? Does Rocky Mountain Power
not then turn around and sell it directly to any other customer at the full price?Aren't these people
with these solar power generating systems providing a service to Rocky Mountain Power by saving
them larger amount of the money that would have to be spent to create more infrastructure for
power generation.
In summation, I feel that I have complied with every part of the contract that I made with Rocky
Mountain Power to enable them to access extra energy resources at their convenience.
Thank you for your consideration of these statements. I look forward to hearing that the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission and by extension the great State of Idaho have looked out for the best
interests of all its citizens both the people who took the initiative to generate extra power and those
who will benefit from that extra production.
11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 7:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Nathan Garrett
Submission Time: Mar 2 2025 9:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:284 W 200 N
Weston, ID 83286
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Please do not let this go through. Rocky Mountain has had years to use their profits to
improve their infrastructure. Instead they have kept that money for themselves and not bolstered
their systems in southeastern Idaho.This proposed change to how customers are compensated for
putting back into their struggling system is spit in our faces.They can prove no hardship that they
themselves don't cause by improving their systems over time, and now they have to pay money that
they want to keep in order to strengthen their network. People cannot bear the increasing burdens
put upon them by these companies. It's getting to be too much. Every time we turn around, some
other company is taking more money and offering less in return. It needs to stop here.You can stop
this by not approving the decrease in how much we are compensated for feeding back into the grid.
Please, don't fall prey to the sirens of profit and greed like so many others are. Follow your
conscience and make them pay their own way.

Thankyou"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 11:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kara Welch
Submission Time: Mar 3 2025 10:40AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 581 N 2700 E
Roberts, ID 83444
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "It has come to our attention via a notice from Rocky Mountain Power(RMP)that RMP is
proposing a change to the compensation structure for on-site power generation (personal power
generation via solar panels).
Currently,we purchase and supply power at retail rates, identified by RMP as$.07 to$.18 per
kilowatt-hour. RMP is proposing that we, and others with solar generation like us, continue to
purchase power from RMP at retail rate, but accept a fixed rate for the power we supply the grid of
just$.04 cents,to be revisited annually.At current pricing,this is less than half of all but the very
Lowest of retail rates, meaning RMP would then sell that power for a 50%+ mark up, most likely
much more than 50%.Additionally, RMP has already made customers aware that retail rates are
going to increase significantly over the next several years.
It is not reasonable that RMP will increase customer rates steeply while cutting the return to
customers who have made efforts to consume less power from the grid.As customers who on-site
generation,we not only supply power but also consume less power, especially during the peaks in
heat of the summer when AC units and other cooling appliances are running frequently, lessening
the burden on the grid and supplying additional power.
RMP proposes that this change is necessary to provide"fair"pricing and states that they need to
avoid requiring non-self-generating customers to subsidize self-generating customers.We have
paid RMP the costs associated with changing over to solar generation and brining that system onto
the grid.We also continue to pay retail price for power we use from the grid.
This appears to be another attempt by RMP to collect revenue they have lost from customers who
have moved towards more self-sufficiency and greener alternatives. Previously, RMP proposed
cutting rates significantly to instead charge all customer a large monthly fee, effectively making it
difficult for on-site generating customers to produce enough power to not only overcome the power

they used form the grid, but also enough to overcome the large monthly fee.
As on-site generators,we have made a significant financial investment in green energy and the
health of the grid by reducing our consumption from the grid,with the understanding that we would
in turn pay less significant power bills as we consume significantly less from the grid, especially as
we also supply power to the grid.We do not believe that the proposed changes in pricing are fair or
ethical.
11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Matt Pebley
Submission Time: Mar 3 2025 11:26AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:4836 Tanglewood Dr.
Idaho Falls, ID 83406
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I received a notice regarding reducing reimbursement rates for solar power generation
from my home unit.The claimed reasoning is to keep equal rates for all consumers, but the obvious
result is simply to maintain higher profits for RMP.
From the letter,the reimbursement rate will go from between$0.07-$0.18 to about$0.04;this
represents a decrease in reimbursement rate ranging from 43%-78%!!There is no data to justify this
change, and this has come in after I have made significant investments in supplementing power
generation with the original reimbursements in mind.
As a public utility, RMP should have public interest at the top of mind, not their own profits.This is
clearly not their goal here, as rates to cover increasing power production costs come through on a
regular basis, and will continue,which will cover the true increased costs to generate power(Idaho
will pay an increased 17.9% in 2025 and another increase of 5.3%in 2026).
How is my power production considered less valuable than that generated by RMP?
I understand that there is infrastructure built and established, but my power production has no
impact on this infrastructure. If anything,with enough customers participating in their own solar

generation, RMP would not be required to purchase additional power generation capabilities.
With that said,there could be a reasonable offset for cost associated with using the RMP power
grid, however the current planned reduction in reimbursement has no correlation to this.
I'm confident RMP would be required significantly higher than$0.04 to purchase power from a third
party outside of Idaho residents. So,why would Idaho allow RMP to significantly reduce the benefits
to existing renewable energy homeowner producers?The only reason I see is for RMP to continually
increase their own profits.
Idaho should not allow RMP to harm homeowners that have helped increase the state's usage of
renewable energy.This is the exact behavior that points citizens to viewing utilities and those
closest to the government as being prone to corruption and overreach of their rights:'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------