20250310Comments_4.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:James Pickett
Submission Time: Mar 9 2025 11:41AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:411 S Ranch Lane
Malad City, ID 83252
Name of Utility Company: Pacificorp dba Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "Does RMP propose changing the On-peak and Off-peak/Seasonal hours just for those who own
solar panels or all their customers?Their website currently list on and off peak hours different to the ones
proposed in the above mentioned case. "
----------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Brian McKellar
Submission Time: Mar 9 2025 1:23PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1342 Trappers Ridge
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I am writing to formally oppose Rocky Mountain Power's proposed changes to the net billing
(Schedule 136) structure that would reduce the compensation for solar energy exported to the grid.These
changes unfairly penalize homeowners who have invested in renewable energy, disincentivize future solar
adoption, and ultimately harm both consumers and the state's long-term energy sustainability. I strongly
urge the Commission to deny this request for the following reasons:
1. Undermining Consumer Investment in Solar
Many Idaho homeowners, myself included, made a significant financial investment in solar panels based on
the understanding that we would receive fair compensation for excess energy produced. Cutting the export
credit rate after-the-fact amounts to a bait-and-switch, reducing the return on investment for solar adopters
and breaking trust with consumers who relied on the original compensation structure when making their
decision.
2.Shifting Costs Unfairly to Homeowners While Protecting Utility Profits
Rocky Mountain Power claims these changes are necessary to prevent cost shifts, but the real burden falls
on homeowners, not the utility.The company is simultaneously increasing retail electricity rates while
reducing what it pays for excess solar energy, ensuring continued profit growth at the expense of Idaho

residents. Instead of penalizing solar owners,the Commission should require utilities to explore cost-
sharing solutions that do not disincentivize renewable energy.
3. Slowing Idaho's Progress Toward Energy Independence
Reducing solar incentives contradicts Idaho's long-term goal of energy independence and sustainability.A
strong distributed solar network reduces strain on the grid, enhances energy security, and reduces
dependence on out-of-state energy imports. Penalizing homeowners for producing clean energy ultimately
benefits utility monopolies while discouraging a resilient, localized energy grid.
4. Failure to Account for the Grid Benefits of Distributed Solar
Solar owners are not just consumers;they are producers contributing power to the grid—often during peak
demand hours.This reduces strain on infrastructure and lowers the need for expensive grid upgrades and
fossil fuel peaker plants.Studies have shown that distributed solar provides grid stability, reduces
transmission losses, and enhances system reliability—yet these benefits are ignored when utilities claim
solar users are being"subsidized."
5. Inconsistency with Idaho's Commitment to Renewable Energy and Consumer Choice
Idaho has historically supported energy policies that promote consumer choice and free-market
competition. Slashing solar compensation contradicts this principle by reinforcing Rocky Mountain Power's
monopoly over energy production and discouraging private investment in renewable technology.A decision
in favor of the utility would signal that Idaho prioritizes corporate profit over the rights of homeowners to
generate and use their own power fairly.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I urge the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to reject Rocky Mountain Power's request to
reduce solar export compensation. Instead of penalizing homeowners who contribute to a cleaner and more
resilient energy grid, Idaho should be fostering policies that encourage local energy production and long-
term sustainability.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the Commission's role in ensuring fair and balanced
energy policy for Idaho residents"
-------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Nathan Ashcraft
Submission Time: Mar 9 2025 7:38PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:2983 E 2000 N
Sugar City, ID 83448
Name of Utility Company: Nathan Ashcraft Farms
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02

Comment: "My name is Nathan Ashcraft and I live in Eastern Idaho and have Rocky Mountain Power as my
power supplier. We installed solar panels 2 summers ago to help offset the constantly rising costs of
power. We had to make a substantial investment of over$60,000 which only produces enough to cover 85%
of our power needs. This proposal will increase the length of payback from 25 years to over 50 years. This is
not fair to me or any other homeowner who has bought solar or wind generation capabilities and now is
finding out that our efforts to save some money in the long run; as this was a major selling point that as
power rates increased we would be insulated from increases, but instead we will not be and therefore be
paying double essentially for whatever power we use and generate.
Instead RMP needs to be finding cheaper sources of power such as hydroelectric or nuclear and stop
expansion of expensive wind projects that clutter up our views and kill wildlife.
Thankyou
Nathan and Jamie Ashcraft"
------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Shelly Miller
Submission Time: Mar 10 2025 1:56PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:2952 E Brooklyn St
Ammon, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I want to express my concern about Rocky Mountain Power's plan to greatly reduce the value of
exported energy.While I don't claim to understand what is a fair amount to be credited (they assert that at
the current credit rate solar users are being subsidized by other customers), I do not think it is fair to change
the rate for people who installed solar systems with the current rate in mind.We likely would not have gone
forward with a solar system knowing our power bill would be 72% higher than what we pay currently. I would
ask that individuals who committed to solar systems with the current buyback rate in mind be grandfathered
in to that rate. I think Rocky Mountain Power should also be required to address where this increase in profits
will go if these changes occur to ensure this adjustment is in fact a way to help customers have a fairer bill
and not an attempt to increase company profits"
-----------------------------------------------