20250227Comments_8.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: RYAN NAYLOR
Submission Time: Feb 26 2025 3:23PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2472 North West Side Hwy
Dayton, ID 83232
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "My system should have been in legacy status, it was completed well before October of 2020.
It took 6 month to approve it after it was completed.This is a pretty big slap in the face,they talk you
into spending a bunch of money say$70,000 to put in a solar system to basically lock in your power bill
for the next 20 years because they want you to use less energy at 18 cents so they can sell it to California
for 32 cents. Now they come back and say just kidding we're going to charge you 18 cents for our power
and pay you 4 cents for yours. So,you spent all this money thinking you would have a net zero power bill
and now your still going to have to pay us$180 a month to buy your own power back from us. So much
for trying to be a good citizen and trying to help the country with sustainable energy.This is a massive
penalization to everyone that has put in a solar system after our government and the utility companies
talked us into it.This should be illegal, to impose this on existing systems. If they want to make this clear
that this will be implemented on any new systems going forward fine, I know I won't be installing
anymore systems like this in the future, as I'm sure no one else will be either if they aren't scammed into
it and are given all the information as far as how this will now have no chance of ever paying itself off. It
seems pretty unfair as much of our resources get handed to Buffett that he can still complain that he's
just not making enough money off of all the rest of us. Pacificorp stock has increased about 50%over the
last 5 years while maintaining a 3.5% dividend.The bottom line is that they got blamed for starting a
bunch of fires and now the rural residents of Idaho are going to have to foot the bill for them to pay for a
bunch of rich people in California houses that should have never been built where they built them to
start with.
Sorry, I've been a little long, but I'm tired of us poor peasants getting penalized continually for trying to
do the right thing.This changing the rules half way through the game just isn't right. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Cole Landon
Submission Time: Feb 26 2025 4:07PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3350 e greenwillow lane
Idaho falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
1

Comment: "As a proud Idahoan, I am deeply concerned about Rocky Mountain Power's proposal in IPUC
Case PAC-E-25-02, which seeks to reduce the per kilowatt-hour credits for residential energy exporters.
This move undermines the pioneering spirit of Idaho residents who have invested in renewable energy
solutions, contributing to our state's energy independence and resilience.
Idaho's strength lies in its self-reliant communities and local enterprises. Allowing an out-of-state entity
like Rocky Mountain Power to diminish incentives for local energy production not only hampers
innovation but also threatens the economic well-being of Idaho families. By reducing these credits, we
risk discouraging future investments in homegrown energy solutions, making us more dependent on
external corporations that may not prioritize Idaho's best interests.
Historically, Idaho has exercised caution regarding external influences over its utilities. For instance, the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission denied the proposed merger between Avista Utilities and Hydro One,
recognizing the potential risks of ceding control to out-of-state entities. This precedent underscores the
importance of maintaining local oversight to protect our state's energy future.
Furthermore,the proposed reduction in credits appears to be a strategy by Rocky Mountain Power to
prioritize its financial interests over those of Idaho residents. Such actions could lead to increased energy
costs for consumers and stifle the growth of local energy initiatives that have long-term benefits for our
communities.
In conclusion, I urge the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to reject Rocky Mountain Power's proposal in
Case PAC-E-25-02. Upholding fair compensation for residential energy exporters is essential to fostering
innovation, ensuring energy independence, and protecting the economic interests of Idahoans against
undue influence from out-of-state corporations."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Stephen Karnes
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 4:34AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6307 S 3100 W
Rexburg, ID 83440
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes in Case No. PAC-E-25-
02,which would drastically reduce the export credit rate for customer-owned solar generation from the
current retail rate to just 4 cents per kWh.
As a homeowner who made a significant financial investment in a solar generation system to offset my
energy costs and contribute clean energy to the grid, I made this decision based on the current
2

compensation structure. If this proposal is approved, it would severely impact my return on investment
and undermine Idaho's commitment to energy fairness and sustainability.
The proposed rate cut is not only financially damaging but also unjust. Utilities will continue to charge
full retail rates to consumers while purchasing excess solar generation at a fraction of its true value.This
effectively forces solar customers to subsidize the utility, rather than receiving fair compensation for the
power we generate.
Additionally, customer-owned solar reduces strain on the grid, improves energy independence, and
lowers overall infrastructure costs by reducing peak demand. Many states have recognized these
benefits and supported solar growth—Idaho should not move backward by adopting policies that
discourage investment in clean, local energy production.
Rather than gutting solar export credits,the IPUC should consider:
A gradual adjustment instead of an immediate slash to 4 cents per kWh.
A grandfather clause protecting existing solar customers from abrupt policy changes.
Time-of-use incentives that properly value solar energy when it's most beneficial to the grid.
This proposal directly harms Idaho residents who have made good-faith investments in clean energy. I
urge the commission to reject this drastic rate cut and instead work toward a fair, sustainable solution
that benefits both individual solar customers and the grid as a whole.
Thank you for your time and consideration."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb Notification<[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 10:00 AM
To: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Subject: Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Blake Jenson
Submission Time: Feb 23 2025 9:07AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 924 N 1000 E
Shelley, ID 83274
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-23-17
Comment: "Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's proposed changes to the net
billing rates for solar customers. Like many Idaho residents, I made a substantial investment in solar
3

energy with the clear expectation of reducing my utility costs.This proposal undermines that investment
and places an unfair financial burden on customers who chose to support renewable energy.
In 2023, 1 installed a solar system at my home, investing over$50,000 with the understanding that it
would help lower my long-term energy expenses. If Rocky Mountain Power's proposal is approved, the
rate at which I am credited for the excess energy I generate will be significantly reduced, forcing me to
buy back my own energy at a much higher rate.This is not only financially harmful to solar customers
but also discourages future investments in clean energy, contradicting Idaho's long-term sustainability
goals.
Net billing policies should be fair and predictable, ensuring that customers who invest in solar are not
penalized for their commitment to energy independence. I urge the Commission to reject Rocky
Mountain Power's proposal and instead support policies that encourage renewable energy adoption
while maintaining a fair cost structure for all customers.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your commitment to ensuring a fair and
equitable energy market in Idaho."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kristy Thomas
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 11:06AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1353 Twin Butte Rd
Menan, ID 83434
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-23-17
Comment: "I received a notice of Rocky Mountain Power's intent to reduce the amount I am
compensated for solar power generation by more than half!! The reasoning Rocky Mountian provides is
"The study provides a basis for implementing changes to ensure 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."
Two points:
1. A'fair' price for me to 'sell' Rocky Mountain power is the same price that they charge anyone else for
power(which is currently what I am compensated for my power production).A fair price is nothing less
than that in my opinion.
2. Please show me where a customer that is not generating power is 'subsidizing' my bill. I do not see any
subsidized credits on my bill(from a house without solar power) except for the BPA Colombia River
Benefit(which my understanding is all customers receive this including Idaho Power customers, not just
customers that sell power).And a credit for having paperless billing, which ANY customer has access to.
The rate I get compensated for generating power has nothing to do with how much a non-power
generating customer pays.A non-power generating customer does not subsidize my bill in any way.
Rocky Mountain is making a false statement to make it sound like a reasoble proposal in my opinion.
4

It is my own investment into solar power that make my bill less. My bill being less has nothing to do with
any other Rocky Mountain Customer. If other customers want a lesser bill,the only way for that to be
FAIR is for them to ALSO invest in solar power or some other power generation and likewise sell their
power to Rocky Mountain. It is completely unfair for me to get less money for the power I produce when
Rocky Mountain claims that giving me less money will benefit someone that has not invested tens of
thousands of dollars into solar power.
This proposed case does nothing fair for ANY customer. It simply puts more money into the pockets of
the owners of Rocky Mountain. The customers that do not produce solar power will NOT have a lower
bill just because my bill gets higher. Rocky Mountain quotes that solar generating customers will have
bills that will have "an average increase of approximately$37 per month or about 72%." How on earth is
this fair?! Raise my bill 72%, while at the same time keeping other customers bills exactly the same, is
not fair for anyone.This case has nothing to do with being 'fair' it simply is just Rocky Mountain
owners/shareholders being greedy.The only way for them to make more money and still be fair is the
raise the rate per kWh for all customers. I assume they are not asking for this because it is a more dificult
proposal to get past the IPUC.This case is a sneaky and underhanded way to make more money for
already rich people.
I request that you deny Rocky Mountain Power's request in this case.
Thank you,
Kristy Thomas"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Jim Conner
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 12:50PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3932 E 132 N
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-23-17
Comment: "Rocky Mountain (RM) is requesting changes to its compensation structure for on-site
generation offering as a step toward ensuring fair prices for all customers.The change requested is a
change in value of credit for exported energy from the retail rate ($0.07-$0.18 kwh)to a time-
differentiated financial bill credit that would be approx$0.04 per kwh.According to this document, such
is a "...fair and accurate valuation of customers' exported energy." Fair to whom?
If I'm reading this correctly,this means that the energy I produce on prem will be valued at $.04/kwh
instead of the differentiated value $0.07-$0.18/kwh. Even at the lowest level of a differentiated value,
$0.07kwh is still better than $.04/kwh. I am failing to see how this is "fair"to those of us who have
invested in architecture to generate power on prem. We already don't get a cash-return for generated
5

power. We also don't get future credit for exported generated energy. We get credit which offsets our bill
for the relevant billing cycle.
There was once incentive for us to invest in on-prem power generation infrastructure which was
provided and promised by RM. That incentive is slowly getting whittled away by RM.Thus, RM continues
to move the goal post and apparently not for the good of its customers but for their own good, I would
argue. I fail to see how lowering the incentive for on-prem generators "equalizes"for all customers. It
simply makes no sense and was not articulated how that works in this legal proposal to us. Rather, it was
just blindly stated.
This proposal implies RM's actual intent is simply for their bottom line at the behest of customers who
have no other option but to use the monopoly that is rocky mountain for power.
I humbly but emphatically ask that IPUC deny this request by RM in case No PAC-E-23-17. Please contact
me directly for any questions or clarifications. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Jeremy Gneiting
Submission Time: Feb 27 2025 12:31PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 92 N 3500 E
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky mountain power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "The proposed change affects families. I already have great debt with solar, and was told that
the 1:1 ratio would not change.Apparently that was a lie.Ten kids, potentially losing my job, debt for
solar and now increased electric bills. I am against this change!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6

Jolene Bossard
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 1:00 PM
To: ConsumerComplaintsWeb
Subject: Notice: A complaint was submitted to PUCWeb
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The following complaint was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Keith John
Submission Time: Feb 26 2025 12:55PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:408 Pack Mule Lane
Malad City, ID 83252
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Contacted Utility: No
Comment: "Dear IPUC,
Recently I received a letter from Rocky Mountain Power(RPC) informing me of their request for rate adjustment,
especially as it related to what they refer to as "non-legacy systems" on houses like my own home who receive credit for
electrical service they generate with their own generation system the feeds the RPC grid.. They claim that the
adjustment will "ensure 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 generation customers."
When we constructed our home in 2022,we paid $24,000 for a solar system that was designed based on the rates RMP
was paying for electricity generated above and beyond the amount we would use. That was one of the factors I
considered before purchasing the system along with the idea of producing my own electrical service to make my house
more sustainable and contribute to reducing the load on our current electrical grid. Now RMC wants to cut that rate in
half and they claim that I am being subsidized by the customers without self generating systems. I pay the same rates as
every customer for electric service I do not generate and it seems to me that I am subsidizing RMP for the service they
provide to other customers, rather than what they are claiming.
Has RMP lost revenue in recent years and months to justify this reduction in credit to those generating electricity? Will
that reduction be better than a simple increase in their rates, across the board?
I am asking you to carefully consider what RPC is requesting and determine if they are trying to punish those who have
chosen to invest in more sustainable living. If that credit decrease is not helping the system overall, for everyone, I urge
you to deny this request by RPC.
Thank you."
https:HPuc.intranet.idaho.gov/apps/intranet/Complaint [Opens the PUC Intranet application]
1