20250321Comments_3.pdf

From: Josh Taylor
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 8:54AM
To: secretary
Subject: Case PAC-E-25-02
To Whom It May Concern,
am writing to formally express my opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's proposal to significantly
reduce the export credit rate for customer-generated solar energy under Schedule 136.
In 2023, 1 invested over$78,000 in solar panels as a homeowner, based on the understanding that I
would receive a fair and stable return on my investment.The proposed changes,which could slash
the value of solar energy credits by more than 50%,would severely limit my ability to offset energy
costs throughout the year.
Like many Idaho residents, I made a considerable investment in solar with the reasonable
expectation that the existing net billing structure would remain in place. Reducing the credit rate to
approximately 4 cents per kWh—less than half of the current rate—unfairly penalizes those of us
committed to renewable energy and undermines its financial viability.
I already generate fewer credits than I need to cover my energy needs through the winter.This
proposed change would further diminish my abilityto offset power usage, increase my energy
costs, and make my solar investment far less sustainable. Rocky Mountain Power's estimates
suggest that the average solar customer's bill will be increased, which is an unacceptable financial
burden.
Rather than discouraging homeowners from investing in renewable energy, Idaho should be
incentivizing it.This proposal diminishes the appeal of solar for future customers, hindering
progress toward energy independence and sustainability.
The proposal to adjust the export credit rate annually introduces additional uncertainty for solar
customers.Without a stable and predictable rate, homeowners cannot plan for the future or
accurately estimate their long-term energy savings.
Therefore, I urge the Commission to reject Rocky Mountain Power's proposal and instead
implement a fair and sustainable credit structure that ensures reasonable compensation for
exported energy. Homeowners who contribute clean energy to the grid should not be financially
penalized for their efforts.
Sincerely,
Harry Taylor
Josh Taylor
Treasure Valley Vending Service
[phone]
[e-mail]
1

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Harry Taylor
Submission Time: Mar 21 2025 8:53AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:229 S Wheatfield Ln
Ammon, ID 83406
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: CASE PAC-E-
Comment: "To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's proposal to significantly
reduce the export credit rate for customer-generated solar energy under Schedule 136.
In 2023, 1 invested over$78,000 in solar panels as a homeowner, based on the understanding that I
would receive a fair and stable return on my investment.The proposed changes,which could slash
the value of solar energy credits by more than 50%,would severely limit my ability to offset energy
costs throughout the year.
Like many Idaho residents, I made a considerable investment in solar with the reasonable
expectation that the existing net billing structure would remain in place. Reducing the credit rate to
approximately 4 cents per kWh—less than half of the current rate—unfairly penalizes those of us
committed to renewable energy and undermines its financial viability.
I already generate fewer credits than I need to cover my energy needs through the winter.This
proposed change would further diminish my ability to offset power usage, increase my energy
costs, and make my solar investment far less sustainable. Rocky Mountain Power's estimates
suggest that the average solar customer's bill will be increased, which is an unacceptable financial
burden.
Rather than discouraging homeowners from investing in renewable energy, Idaho should be
incentivizing it.This proposal diminishes the appeal of solar for future customers, hindering
progress toward energy independence and sustainability.
The proposal to adjust the export credit rate annually introduces additional uncertainty for solar
customers.Without a stable and predictable rate, homeowners cannot plan for the future or
accurately estimate their long-term energy savings.
Therefore, I urge the Commission to reject Rocky Mountain Power's proposal and instead
implement a fair and sustainable credit structure that ensures reasonable compensation for
2

exported energy. Homeowners who contribute clean energy to the grid should not be financially
penalized for their efforts.
Sincerely,
Harry Taylor"
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Cody Patterson
Submission Time: Mar 21 2025 11:41AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3008 N Oscar Ave.
Idaho Falls , ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky MTN Power
Case ID: PAC-E-25-02
Comment: "I made an investment a couple years ago to put in Solar Panels to try to become more
self reliant. I Viewed the net metering as a positive to both me and to Rocky MTN power with the
extra power sent back to the grid. Even though Rocky MTN was getting the better end of the deal by
selling power to me and me basically selling it back at a reduced cost. Got a letter saying power
prices are going up which is what I expected that's why I invested in Solar. But instead of just raising
prices now they are going to come down to almost nothing for extra power that we produce. This is
very frustrating on all levels specifically where does this end. Just take all you can and there is no
options for us other than stopping service all together which people aren't going to do. Now they
are hitting solar customers on both ends(retail price and grid production). "
3