20250304Comments_7.pdf

From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 3:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Heidi Kuns
Submission Time: Mar 3 2025 2:32PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3171 Henrys fork way
Rexburg, ID 83440
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I wanted to speak in opposition to the proposed change to Rocky Mountain Powers net
metering program. Customers currently receive a credit per kWh hour equal to the retail rate they
pay per kWh (9-11 cents). It has been proposed that this be cut to just 4 cents(less than half)and
this would affect all customers who signed up after 2020. 1 realize Idaho Power has done something
similar which was somehow approved by the IPUC, but retroactive changes like this are almost
never approved in any other states because thousands of people signed up with a different
understanding. Many left a bill of say$120 per month and financed a system for$160 a month. Now
with the change those same customers may again have a new electric bill of$30-$50 per month on
average (higher and lower some months) making their new combined solar and electric bill more
Like$150-$210 which they did not anticipate and may not easily be able to pay(in addition their
customers charge is also going up each year).
If Rocky Mountain Power wants to make a change to their program, I believe they have every right to
do that, but they should choose a future date and make the change effective as of that date
forward. I don't currently have Solar so this isn't just me caring about me. I'm not happy with Rocky
Mountain Power making a change like this for those who already installed their systems.
Also,their bar graph in the letter they sent out is highly inaccurate and should be reviewed.They
said there is an average bill increase of 72%which averages$37 on the average bill size of$105..
but then their chart just shows a$37 increase for people spending that amount or more or more or
more.. and that's not true. It's much more than$37 for those spending$200 or$300 with large
systems.Theirs increases much for than $37 and a chart sent out to all Solar customers should
more accurately address that.
Thanks for your time and consideration. I can't believe this was approved for Idaho Power and I
hope the IPUC takes a bit more time consider the impact this change would have pm thousands of
customers before allowing it to happen again. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Stoddard
Submission Time: Mar 3 2025 4:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:2583 E Yellowstone Hwy
St Anthony, ID 83445
Name of Utility Company: Green Canyon Football
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "On Idaho schedule136 proposed rate change.
I feel this is a rip off of everyone who has put in solar and other generation systems.
I put in a solar system with a battery back up in good faith that I would be compensated fairly for the
extra power I was generating and being put back into the grid.
Now you are proposing to take my power, paying me substantially less for it($0.04/kWh). While still
charging me a full price rate of($0.07-$0.18/kWh).
A 72% increase in one year all at once or any time is totally unreasonable.
This feels like stealing from those of us who have invested thousands of dollars to be more"Green"
in our energy consumption and usage.
Why are you punishing those of us who are trying to help out our power companies by giving them
off site storage in our batteries that they can use in case of emergencies.
For the record I am totally against this proposed rate change.
Please act in good faith to your customers that are investing in helping our society, being producers
rather than just takers/users."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 7:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:

Name: Fauneil Schultz
Submission Time: Mar 3 2025 8:59PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:2300 West Highway 33
Rexburg, ID 83440
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I feel it is unfair to have the power that I send in to Rocky Mountain Power credited to
me at less than what other customers are paying for the power. I have a loan to pay off for the solar
panels and batteries that I purchased and now Rocky Mountain Power wants to credit me less than
what other customers pay for power, so I may have to pay them too. That does not seem fair at all
to me. They want my power for less money and I still have a large loan to pay off for the power they
are receiving from me. I should be credited the same price as others are paying Rocky Mountain
Power, not less. Rocky Mountain Power's rates have only increase throughout the years and they
have control of my batteries but want to credit me less, and I will never receive anything extra but a
credit for my power. I say"No" and I hope the IPUC will too!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, March 4,2025 10:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Cody Smith
Submission Time: Mar 4 2025 9:46AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3734 E 331 N
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Hello, I oppose the proposal to change the compensation structure for on-site
electricity generation. I do not see how this proposal takes into consideration the expense
homeowners have incurred to support renewable energy systems by installing solar panels, or'non-
legacy on-site generation systems' If this proposal is passed, it will cut the incentive for eastern

Idahoans to support these renewable forms of energy. Furthermore, I think it important to show
how non-self-generating customers are subsidizing rates for those who own self-generating
systems. By cutting the credit for exported energy to half or less than a fourth of the current rate,
solar energy will have no market value in Idaho because it will just be cheaper to pay the power
company. California only credits exported energy at a fraction of the rate/kwh, but there it makes
sense because energy costs are so expensive. Here is Idaho, it would make no sense to pursue
solar.As someone who values renewable energy and keeping Idaho in that market, please
reconsider this proposal.
Kind regards,
Cody Smith"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Michael Sayer
Submission Time: Mar 4 2025 9:53AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:460 N Westridge Dr
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Currently, I produce more than 100%of what I consume through on-site production
and therefore have no power bill. Under the proposed rules I will only be reimbursed at—40%of the
going rate for what I produce. Doesn't this mean I will end up paying a power bill even though I'm a
net exporter of power?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Christian Anguiano
Submission Time: Mar 4 2025 11:23AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1146 Curlew Dr
Ammon, ID 83406
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "On our last bill,we were charged $0.17/kWh,which is on the higher end of the pricing
for Rocky Mountain Power's energy.With this reduction in the financial bill credit that Rocky
Mountain Power is seeking to implement, my credit would decrease by$0.13/kWh based upon my
Last bill,which is a substantial change.This means that the amount we budgeted for our electricity
bill will need to be adjusted, requiring funds to come from a different source that we cannot afford
to do, especially since my wife and I recently welcomed our first child.When we purchased this
home,the credit we were receiving was a significant factor in our decision to buy, and now that is
essentially being taken away.We do not support these changes, and we hope you will consider not
moving forward with this adjustment. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Brett Farnes
Submission Time: Mar 4 2025 1:33PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3881 Vision dr
Idaho Falls , ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-17 (per Consumers)
Comment: ""Currently, I produce more than 100%of what I consume through on-site production
and therefore have no power bill. I don't understand the need to punish those who have put solar
generation on their home. By reducing the solar credit from .07 to .18 cents per kwh to .04 cents per
kwh then when we use power we pay.11 to .15 per kwh. I could understand a small difference for
maintenance and use but not 3 times difference from what I receive for putting power on the grid vs
what I and being charged for usage. "