20250306Comments_3.pdf

From: R M <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:16 PM
To: secretary; R M (Blanco)<[e-mail]>; Carol Mumford <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-25-02
Dear Commissioners:
don't know if it's intentional or just ill-conceived, but the RMP proposal, as currently written will be
disastrous for solar producing customers and for the solar industry in RMP's area of service.
My wife and I spent$24,000 last summer to have a solar energy system installed at our home.
According to our calculations and those provided by our installer,we expected to recover this
investment over a period of 12 to 15 years. (Not a lot of return, but at least break-even).Also, by
partnering with RMP we could do our small part to help convert Idaho from fossil fuel to renewable
energy.
The new proposal would change all that.
Under the new proposal the credit ratio is 7 to 4.That is: solar customers are required to pay 7 cents
per KWh they need; but will only be credited 4 cents per KWh for energy we produce. Instead of
being compensated 1 to 1, our compensation ratio will be reduced by a 43% reduction.This is a
substantially higher increase than other customers!
Why would RMP want to place a higher burden on solar producers who are helping to meet
electricity demands during peak hours?
Secondly,while other RMP customers are permitted to change their contract terms to"off-peak"
pricing, SOLAR CUSTOMERS are"forced"to receive credits at the 43%reduced credit ratio. I'll
explain:True-solar customers may initially select an on-peak or off-peak pricing arrangement, but
these cannot be mixed.
Therefore, if we choose on-peak,then both excess and usage must be on-peak. If we choose off-
peak,then both excess and usage must be so.When the credit pricing was 1 to 1 this was fair.
RMP knew that no solar producing customer would select off-peak BECAUSE VIRTUALLY NO
POWER CAN BE PRODUCED OFF-PEAK-THE SUN IS DOWN. If off-peak were selected, solar
produces should have no power to send in.
dare say that all RMP solar producing customers have selected non-peak pricing. Not one would
choose to produce no power but pay the higher rate.
And because we who produce solar power have selected on-peak credit pricing we are now forced
to receive on-peak credit pricing(at the 43% reduction),WITHOUT ANY CHANCE TO SHIFT ANY
PART OF OUR USAGE TO OFF PEAK!
What's more-the initial agreement with RMP requires that solar producing customers will never be
paid MONETARY COMPENSATION for excess electricity production-ONLY CREDITS.We are entirely
dependent upon energy credits as compensation for our energy sent to RMP.

It seems like RMP is targeting solar producers in every detail of this proposal.And in the future,the
more the credit pricing ratio increases-the less reason anyone would have to invest in solar within
the RMP area of service.And if this proposal is adopted -we also will regret having undertaken our
solar investment and will wish we could get out of it and remain a regular customer.
It seems clear to me that under this RMP proposal-the entire solar industry in the RMP area of
service will be in jeopardy.
It looks like the owners of RMP is positioning itself to highjack the tax benefits from solar producing
customers to the owner's shareholders.Was this intentional or just ill-conceived?
Needed corrections:
1. Don't charge solar customers a higher percentage than other customers. Pricing must be such as
to attract solar customers.Tree-hugging alone is not enough.
2. Permit solar customers access to off-peak usage AT A PRICING OPTION THAT CONTINUES TO
ATTRACT SOLAR.Allow solar producing customers to shift as much consumption as they can to off-
peak hours, and incentivize them accordingly.
3. If it is found that RMP intentionally tried to benefit themselves at the expense of solar production
in Idaho, it is the owners of RMP who should be penalized -not Idaho solar producers.
If this plan were simply an ill-conceived oversight-then we thank IPUC for making sure the
interests of solar customers and the State of Idaho's energy are protected.
If there is anything more we can do to help in this decision, or if our attending the hearing might help
- please let us know.
Thank you.
Ron and Carol Mumford
125 N 1 st W, Clifton, Idaho 83228
208-766-3064
PS—By the way, I contacted a representative of RMP and made these same recommendations. She
told me that she could not do anything to help us and she was too low in the food chain (my words),
for her to send my recommendations on to RMP's decision makers. Disappointedly, maybe that's
how monopolies work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kenneth Climer
Submission Time: Mar 5 2025 6:33PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 202 Creighton Way

Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "The proposed rate increase on solar generation customers (aka a decrease in the
compensation rate for solar power put back into the grid by solar power owners to make it more fair
to the non-solar customers) IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN UNFIAR BUSINESS PRACTICE by
discrimination against solar power producing customers and not having a commensurate increase
for non-solar generating customers. In effect penalizing solar generating customers.
According to Rocky Mountain Power and the letter from them,they want to increase the average bill
of a non-legacy solar panel customer by 72%simply because we took the initiative to acquire solar
power generation, and we do not pay them as much money as a regular customer. They are saying
this is for"a more accurate billing, and for fairness to non-solar customers". It is no such thing.
What it amounts to is cutting the rate at which we are compensated for the extra electricity we send
back to the grid. We as solar owners acquired the systems at expense to help with electricity bills
and use a renewable energy source to be responsible and productive citizens. This proposal by
RMP is actually a penalty for having solar. RMP is upset that they do not receive the same money
that a non-solar power customer pays. In the example in their letter,they are saying an average non
solar customer pays$105.48 per month, and an average solar customer pays$52 per month. They
want to raise the rates on solar customers by 72%to a level of 89$per month in their example. They
are trying to say that somehow this will equate to a fairer payment by the solar customers as
compared to the non-solar customers. Essentially,they are saying we are not playing by the rules
and have an unfair advantage over non solar customers and claiming that the non-solar customers
are subsidizing solar customers.This on its face is a declaration that solar customers electricity is
somehow less valuable that that provided by RMP. Currently solar customers are paid a fair rate.
RMP gets the extra electricity. This on its own defeats the claim by RMP that non-solar customers
are subsidizing solar customers. That could hold true if solar customers did not contribute to the
grid. But we do contribute, and RMP pays a fair price for that contribution.The reality is that Rocky
Mountain Power thinks it's unfair that they get less money from solar customers. Thus,they want to
increase rates (by decreasing compensation rates)for solar customers to collect more money. This
is also tantamount to an unfair business practice. Is there a commensurate rate increase for non-
solar customers? The answer would be no. I ask the PUC to deny Rocky Mountain Power their
request to raise rates on a specific group of customers,while not increasing rates on another
group. This fails equal treatment and is a discriminatory business practice:'
-------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:William Drury
Submission Time: Mar 6 2025 12:33PM
Email: [e-mail]

Telephone: [phone]
Address:5575 W 2000 N
Malad City, ID 83252
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am altering the deal, pray that I don't alter it any further.
doubt I would have spent the time and money if I knew the deal agreed to would be so drastically
altered. This needs to be put into every contract future solar power customers to let them know
that after they spend the money to purchase a system, Rocky Mountain Power will alter the deal.
This proposal amounts to solar power generators now having to pay for the power they
generate. What a windfall for a government protected monopoly. Too bad we can't sell the excess
power to another company.
This proposal should not be approved and the PUC should codify the current rates so they cannot
be changed. "