20250409Comments_35.pdf

From: Dan Bennett
Sent:Wednesday, April 9, 2025 9:47 AM
To: secretary
Cc: Dan Bennett
Subject: Comment per case#IPC-E-25-15
Good morning,
I attempted to comment on case #IPC-E-25-15 electronically and was limited in the number of
characters. I am now emailing my comment to the email address directed by the attendant at the
IPUC.
Dan Bennett
289 W Screech Owl Dr.
Kuna, ID 83634
208-608-1363
Idaho Power customer
Employee at EGT Solar
As the Director of Sales and Marketing for EGT Solar I am responsible for leading our team in
designing systems, articulating advantages and disadvantages of solar and summarizing the
policy and legislation affecting our industry. The following is a summary of what we must consider
when promoting accurate assessments and expectation of the return on a client's investment as
well as how the decisions by the IUPC affects the Solar community.
I believe it best to describe the changes to net-meter/billing compensation and the effect they've
had on our industry via system cost reflection and increased expense to homeowners.
2023 Net-Meter(excess generation) compensation:
Value of Net-Meter is deduced by the avoided average price per kwh, although the retail value,
once solar had been installed was considered roughly 8.9t/kwh as self-generators with equal
annual production/consumption were not billed at a tier 2 or tier 3 rate.
Retailvalue 10.97�/kwh (average residential price per
kwh)
* https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=ID
Current Net-billing(excess generation) compensation:
Summer On-peak 16.9966�/kwh 54.5% increase from 2023
Summer Off-peak 5.6533�/kwh 48.5% reduction from 2023
1

Non-Summer hours 4.8365�/kwh 55.8% reduction from 2023
Annual Average 6.2348�/kwh 43.1% reduction from 2023
Proposed Net-billing(excess generation) compensation:
Summer On-peak 14.0598�/kwh 17.3% reduction from current
Summer Off-peak 1.7682�/kwh 68.1% reduction from current
Non-Summer hours 0.8540Vkwh 82.5% reduction from current
Annual Average 2.4585is/kwh 60.6% reduction from current
Total proposed annual reduction from December of 2023 87.6%
This would be the single largest decrease to solar net-billing in the country's history, surpassing
California's roughly 75% decrease with NEM3.
A solar prospect prior to December of 2023, intending to offset 100% of their usage charges,
would have received an estimate with the following parameters:
1. The system, however designed (brand/rating of components/panels), would be
required to produce an equal or greater amount of electricity than the homeowner
consumed in the prior 12 months.
a. This information is provided by software specifically designed to indicate a
solar system's potential output and includes an assumption of weather condition
data.
b. The weather condition data is provided by three different condition sets, our
design team chose the middle output, providing the best chance of accuracy using
the variable data.
2. The excess energy(produced by the system and not immediately consumed)would be
passed beyond the meter to be compensated for. These kwh credits would be held in
perpetuity and applicable to imported energy from Idaho Power.
3. Because the energy consumed could be easily matched by the systems expected
production a fairly accurate assessment could be made of utility offset.
4. At this time the National and regional average price per watt for a Solar system fully
installed was $3.20/watt. A 7kw(DC Nameplate capacity) system would sell for
approximately$22,400.
a. A 7kw system would generate enough electricity to offset$100-130/month of
utility expense.
b. The variability of offset is due to the tilt, azimuth and shading of the panels as
well as many other factors.
c. A 7kw(DC Nameplate capacity) system would sell for approximately$22,400
given the $3.20 average above.
2

5. Although usage costs can be avoided, a connection fee of$5/month and a municipal
charge of 16-20�was required to pay on all monthly bills.
A current solar prospect intending to offset 100% of their usage charges would receive an
estimate with the following parameters:
1. The system, however designed,would be required to produce a multiple of 1.155 to
1.25 times the energy consumed in the prior 12 months.
a. Idaho Power claimed the average annual compensation for excess energy is
6.18Q/kwh.
b. Providing the majority of self-generators stayed in the tier 1 billing; the average
retail cost of electricity is roughly 90/kwh annually.
c. We can now deduce, on an average basis, compensation for excess energy had
been reduced by 31%.
d. A facility generating an equal amount of electricityto their prior 12 months
consumption on average uses half(50%) of the production immediately and will
pass on the remaining half(50%)to the utility for compensation to be applied to
future billing.
e. If half of the energy produced loses 31% of the compensation, we believe a
15.5% (half of 31%) deficit would need to be accounted for.
2. Because the value of compensation has such a vast difference seasonally and by hour
it would be nearly impossible to factor the prospects hourly consumption data vs. the
hourly production data and account for accurate excess credits.Therefore, we chose to
overcompensate and under-assume (degrade) system production relative to the loss of
value.
a. If usage for the specific prospect is highest in the summer, we could assume
the value of excess energy would most likely be lower than the 6.180/kwh average
provided by Idaho Power. We would then propose the estimated production of 120-
125% of last year's consumption even though the potential of immediate use of
solar production would increase.
b. If usage for the specific prospect is highest in the winter, we could assume the
value of excess energy would most likely be higher than the 6.180/kwh average.
Even though the potential facility will most likely offset more utility expenses than
we've estimated we would still propose the estimated production at 115.5% of last
year's consumption.
3. We do not account for Service charges, fixed cost adjustment or power cost
adjustment in the offset assumptions, although beginning in January of 2024, these fees
can be paid for by excess generation.
a. Example: the current$15 monthly service charge could be paid for by
oversizing the system. For every$1 of offset, the system will need to export 16kwh @
6.24380. If we apply these credits to the $15 service charge, an additional 241 kwh's
per month would be required. The production needed to offset this expense
annually can be produced by five (5) of the current 435-watt panels we are
installing.
3

b. If a client would like to produce enough energy to compensate for the
additional monthly costs (aside from the base rate) although variable and prorated
based on volume, we assume an average of roughly$25-30/month, typically 8-10
additional panels required.
4. Battery storage can now increase the value of self-generated energy by increasing
grid-independence; a term used to describe the percentage of consumption directly from
distributing resources.
a. As noted above, a homeowner producing an equal amount of electricity to the
consumption will have a grid-independence of 50% on average. If the home
consumes 40kwh's per day the system will produce roughly 80kwh's. Instead of
sharing the excess 40kwh's beyond the home and decreasing the monetary value, a
battery can store some or all the electricity to be used when solar production is not
available. If 20kwh's of battery storage capacity is available to be cycled each day,
this homeowner would then have a 75%grid independence. Only 25% of the
system's production would now have a reduced value.
b. A battery system can also be programmed to offload stored electricity to the
grid during increased compensation times. During the Summer on-peak times each
kwh passing outside the home will generate a credit of 16.9966Q.
c. Our estimates do not include the added benefit of grid-independence or
battery programming during Summer on-peak simply because the value cannot be
determined with the limited information available. Hourly production and
consumption data for the individual would be needed as well as hourly weather
data. Once this information is available the conclusion would be in reference to the
prior years' data and consist of too many variables to consider accurate.
d. The added benefit of battery storage is best calculated by assuming the
remaining grid-dependence and what percentage of the facility's production is
exposed to decreased value from net-billing.Thus, the higher the percentage of grid
independence, the more valuable the produced electricity is.
e. If a client would like to increase grid independence and mitigate the loss of
value, the cost is roughly$1.50/watt for battery storage capacity considering the
battery and additional infrastructure required.
f.
5. Currently the National and regional average price per watt for a Solar system fully
installed is $3/watt.
a. The prior offset of$100-$130 is now increased due to the rise in the base rate
of power; almost 8% last June and almost 4% in January and now requires a
production increase of 15.5-25%to offset the same monthly payment. The prior 7kw
system must now be an average of 8.4kw.
b. An 8.4kw system installed is now sold at a price of$25,200 given the $3/watt.
A future Solar prospect, given the proposed net-billing compensation and intending to offset
100% of their usage charges, could receive an estimate with the following parameters.
1. The system, however designed, would be required to produce a multiple of 1.37 to
1.52 times the energy consumed in the prior 12 months.
4

a. The assumption has been made, in Idaho Power's net-billing proposal the
average annual compensation for excess energy would be 2.4585�/kwh.
b. Providing the majority of self-generators stayed in the current tier 1 billing; the
average retail cost of electricity is still claimed to be roughly 9t/kwh annually.
c. We can now deduce, on an average basis, compensation for excess energy will
be reduced in value by 73%.
d. A facility generating an equal amount of electricity to their prior 12 months
consumption on average uses half(50%) of the production immediately and will
pass on the remaining half(50%)to the utility for compensation to be applied to
future billing.
e. If half of the energy produced loses 73% of the compensation, we believe a
36.5% (half of 73%) deficit would need to be accounted for.
2. Because the value of compensation has such a vast difference seasonally and by hour
it would be nearly impossible to factor the prospects hourly consumption data vs. the
hourly production data and account for accurate excess credits.Therefore, we would
choose to overcompensate and under-assume (degrade) system production relative to the
Loss of value.
a. If usage for the specific prospect is highest in the summer, we could assume
the value of excess energy would most likely be lower than the 2.4585Q/kwh average
provided by Idaho Power. We would then propose the estimated production of 145-
152% of last year's consumption even though the probability of immediate use of
solar production would increase.
b. If usage for the specific prospect is highest in the winter, we could assume the
value of excess energy would most likely be higher than the 2.4585�/kwh average.
Even though the potential facility will most likely offset more utility expenses than
we've estimated we would still propose the estimated production at 136.5% of last
year's consumption.
3. We do not account for Service charges, fixed cost adjustment or power cost
adjustment, or other fees in the offset assumptions. The client can request additional
panels to offset the cost of these fees, however, we would strongly discourage this as the
payback on investment is now outside of the life of the product.
a. Example: the current$15 monthly service charge could be paid for by
oversizing the system. For every$1 of offset, the system will need to export 41 kwh
@ 2.4585�. If we apply these credits to the $15 service charge, an additional
615kwh's per month would be required.The production needed to offset this
expense annually can be produced by thirteen (13) of the current 435-watt panels
we are installing.
b. If a client would like to produce enough energy to compensate for the
additional monthly costs (aside from the base rate) although variable and prorated
based on volume, we assume an average of roughly$25-30/month, typically 20-26
additional panels required.
4. Battery storage can increase the value of self-generated energy by increasing grid-
independence as defined above.
5

a. During the Summer on-peak times each kwh passing outside the home will
generate a credit of 14.0598�.
b. Our estimates will not include the added benefit of grid-independence or
battery programming during Summer on-peak as explained above.
c. If a client would like to increase grid independence and mitigate the loss of
value, the cost is roughly$1.50/watt for battery storage capacity considering the
battery and additional infrastructure required, however, this cost is expected to
increase as the moratorium on tariffs for Lithium products has now ended.
S. The National and regional average price per watt for a Solar system fully installed is
expected to increase 5-10% by June 1st as the moratorium on tariffs for imported solar
products has ended. If we assume the lower end of the estimate (5%), the price per watt
will be $3.15
a. The prior offset of$100-$130 will now require a production increase of 36.5-
52%to offset the same monthly payment. The prior 7kw system must now be an
average of 10.01 kw.
b. A 10.1 kw system installed is now sold at a price of$31,532 given the
$3.15/watt.
In summary:
1. A prospective solar customer would pay 41.1% more June 1 st to offset the same ratio
of usage charges as they did in 2023. According to a well know source for local and
National solar data, EnergySage, the average power bill in Idaho currently requires 12.68kw
to offset.
a. Pricing comparison:
§ 12.68kw/1.2 = 10.56kw(system size required in 2023) Cost
of$33,792
§ 12.68kw(system size required
currently) Cost of$38,040
§ 10.56x1.4425 = 15.233 (system size required June 1st as
proposed) Cost of$47,9842
2. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has stated their Mission to be:
• Determine fair,just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates and utility practices for
electric, gas, telephone and water consumers.
a. This proposal is not and cannot be perceived as "fair," "just," "reasonable," or
"nondiscriminatory."
1. "Fair" - The distribution of electricity by Idaho Power is monopolistic by
definition.
a. Fairness would be allowing a homeowner the ability to provide
electricity to their home by any other means not inhibited by the utility
company.The vast majority of homeowners are required to supply
electricity to their property via the electric utility company per the
neighborhood CCR's.The only alternative source of distribution, not
unaffordable in comparison to the electric utility, is privately owned
solarfacilities, owned and maintained by the homeowner.
6

Additionally Idaho Power refuses to allow private individuals or
companies to install community solar systems if connected to their
grid.
b. The value of the excess energy provided by the facility is uniquely
determined by the IPUC.This type of commodity value determination
by a small body of three (board appointees) is unprecedented and
affects now close to 20,000 self-generating facilities. This
determination will negatively affect the well-being of these individuals
and their families whilst granting the privately owned power company
another record year of profit.
2. "Just"—The IPUC has refused to consider third party testimony or studies
provided to discredit the findings of Idaho Power and their heavily contested
value determination of the ECR.
a. The Cross Border Energy study directly refuted much of the
testimony provided by Idaho Power in the prior case, leading to the
decision to allow the net-billing program as we have today.
b. The method for checks and balances of Idaho Power's testimony
has not been disclosed, rather the IPUC has taken the Private utility
company at their word. This is notjust and the people of this
community have repeatedly clamored for a review of these findings by
any third party. It is the responsibility of the IPUC to fact check the
studies provided by Idaho Power and justify the compensation to the
self-generators in Idaho and they refuse.
3. "Reasonable"—It is not reasonable to lessen the value of compensation to
homeowners by 87.6% over a 1.5 year span; increasing the cost of the system to
comparatively offset by more than 41%. The current self-generators will take a
massive hit to the affordability of electricity, setting the industry and the
advancements in technology back roughly 8-10 years in regard to price vs. cost
of utility.
a. In 2019 the IPUC suggested the change in compensation would
be contingent on a third party study, easily understood by the public
and failed to hold accountable to either of these demands when
reviewing the VOIDER study.
4. "Nondiscriminatory"—Service charges have openly been called
discriminatory as the fees disproportionately affect low-income individuals.
a. An individual in a large home with an average usage cost of
$300/month would have seen a $10 increase in service fees from
2023 to now; a 3.33% increase in cost per month.
b. An individual living in a small home, potentially low-income, with
a usage cost of$50/month would have seen the same $10 increase in
service fees; a 20% increase in monthly utility expenses. Next year,
the $10 addition will account for a $20 increase in monthly service
fees in just two years, a 50% increase for the small homeowner.
7

c. If either homeowner would prefer to provide an alternative to the
utility expense the cost has risen dramatically to pay the additional
fees for service and other charges. As indicated above, 20-26 panels,
a system size of 10.005kw($31,515.75) is needed to cover the cost of
these fees annually, this directly discriminates against a group of
people; the solar community.
• Ensure the delivery of safe, reliable and efficient utility services.
a. This proposal is not and cannot be determined to promote increased or
even maintained safety, reliability or efficiency.
1. "Safety" - solar energy is considered safer and more environmentally
friendly than traditional utility power sources, as it doesn't produce
pollution, requires little water, and avoids the environmental damage
associated with fossil fuel extraction. Most importantly, a wildfire has
never been caused by a solar panel or solar farm in the state of Idaho.
Disincentivizing solar installations in any manner, especially as dramatic
as this proposal reduces the safety of consumption/distribution.
2. "Reliability"—Solar installations directly affect the reliability of the grid
in positive means. Reducing the necessity for increased transmission and
distribution efforts as well as providing individual resources of sustainable
energy provisions due to isolation components with battery systems.
Disincentivizing solar installations and reducing the supplemental demand
assistance provided directly negates the mission to provide and maintain
reliability, especially as Idaho Power has increased recent messaging
regarding outage preparedness.
3. "Efficiency"—There is no more efficient manner of consuming
electricity than self-consumption and on-site generation to be used within
a small radius. Further negating the value of distributed energy resources
by individuals is harming the efficiency of transmission and distribution.
• Regulate the public utilities to secure and promote the general safety, health and public
welfare.
a. This proposal is not and cannot be determined to promote increased or
even maintained safety, health or Public welfare.
1. "Safety" - solar energy is considered safer and more environmentally
friendly than traditional utility power sources, as it doesn't produce
pollution, requires little water, and avoids the environmental damage
associated with fossil fuel extraction. Most importantly, a wildfire has
never been caused by a solar panel or solar farm in the state of Idaho.
Disincentivizing solar installations in any manner, especially as dramatic
as this proposal reduces the safety of consumption/distribution.
2. "Health" -Solar power is generally considered healthier than the grid
because it's a clean, renewable energy source that produces zero
emissions, unlike traditional grid power often generated from fossil fuels,
which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and air
pollution. Disincentivizing solar installations directly negates the health
8

advantages of Solar generated electricity as an alternative to the majority
of Idaho Powers procurement resources.
3. "Public Welfare"— It is not in the best interest of public welfare to
Lessen the value of compensation to homeowners by 87.6% over a 1.5 year
span; increasing the cost of the system to comparatively offset by more
than 41%.The current self-generators will take a massive hit to the
affordability of electricity, setting the industry and the advancements in
technology back roughly 8-10 years in regard to price vs. cost of utility.
The Idaho Public Utility Commission has clearly and willfully sided against the general public in
prior Solar cases, aiming to increase the profitability of Idaho Power and the parent company,
Idacorp. The IPUC has failed its mission and primary purpose to shield the people of Idaho from
price gouging and unfair business practices by turning cheek to contradictory evidence and the
pleas of this community. The IPUC must hold a hearing in response to this proposal and consider
the will of the people most-affected by the case in front of them. This recommendation for the
ECR by Idaho Power is biased, obscene and illegitimate.We demand checks and balances and
for the IPUC to do their work as regulators should.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Quinn Skillin
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 9:54AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1808 Abbs St.
Boise, ID 83705
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Please do your job and protect our community againt a for profit monopoly. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micki Selvitella ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
Sent:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:21 PM
To: secretary
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
9

I?m very concerned about Idaho Power?s proposal to slash rooftop solar compensation rates by
up to 80%. Paying rooftop solar owners less than 1 ?/kWh for the power they put onto the grid for
eight months out of the year, while then charging regular customers at least 8?/kWh for that same
electricity, is extremely unfair.
Last year's solar rate changes, coupled with the increased fixed service charges, were already
devastating for Idaho Power customers. Please do a thorough review to check the utility's math
and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and don't let this monopoly utility
unfairly squeeze money out of its customers and undercut their right to generate their own power.
Also, please improve the public process by adding a virtual testimony option (as is provided at
Public Service Commissions in all neighboring states)to help ensure you can hear the important
perspectives from everyone who will be impacted by Idaho Power?s changes. Written comments
and public hearings with limited times and locations are not enough.
Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Micki Selvitella
3340 Southeast Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97214
[e-mail]
[phone]
This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated
with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or(415) 977-5673.
-----------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Mark Helsley
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 10:36AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3389N 2800E
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Poweer
10

Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I have a substantial investment in my solar panels. I have gone from a minimum
hookup fee to a few monthly payments to Idaho Power after the first change in rate adjustment. If
this next adjustment is similar to the first adjustment, then my investment has become nullified.
Please consider the investment that Idaho has asked its citizens to undertake (in leu of tax credits
for solar energy)to enhance the quality of living in Idaho. Idaho has on average 280 sunny
days. All Idahoans should be able to benefit from this natural energy source. Thank You"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Isaac Flanzbaum
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 11:46AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5782 S Olearia PI.
Boise, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Idaho Power is a for-profit business that is ran as a monopoly throughout most of the
state.We have no other options for power. Many of us Idahoans bought into solar panels to help
reduce the cost of our power bill, add power to the grid, and to use more green energy. Our rates
have already have retroactively gutted because Idaho Power believes they need all the money they
can get from the 3% of Idahoans that have installed solar panels. 3%...that's it.Why do they feel
the need to not just get the export credit rate even more but completely get rid of it in non-summer
months?The letter I received today says that there will be no export credit for on-peak electricity
export in non-summer months.That alone completely negates the reason for having solar panels
and essentially creates a complete loss of investment for anyone that has already had solar
panels installed.We can't just sell these to get rid of them, they were an investment that would
have paid itself off if not for the immoral and unethical previous getting of the net metering rates.
Now onto the 87.5% decrease between on-peak and off-peak rates in the summer months. If the
IPUC shares the same unethical values as Idaho Power, then I'm glad I only wasted $12,500 on
these solar panels and I feel sorry for those that spend upwards of$50,000. Idaho Power doesn't
need these decrease export rates ON TOP OF the increased usage rates. The Chairman of Idaho
Power, Lisa Grow, makes a salary of$920,000 with bonuses and incentives increasing her pay to
over$7,000,000 as reported by Idaho Statesman. This is for a public utility that runs as a for-profit
monopoly. If Idaho Power is bleeding so much money that they need to cause irreparable
monetary harm to the 3% of us that have solar panels, then the IPUC should make the suggestion
11

to cut her pay to the company median of$112,000, which anyone in Idaho can live off of
comfortably. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Thomas Morden
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 12:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8316 Willowcourt Drive
Boise, ID 83714
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The power company should be paying off site generators more for power since most
of it comes when the power company needs it the most. This proposal would drastically reduce
incentives to produce more off site generation, which would be necessary if all these data centers
open:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Amanda Byram
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 12:27PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8940 W Bradbury Dr
Boise, ID 83704-4303
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Idaho Power states they are managing prices to make them more equitable for their
customers. All 640,000 (estimated) customers have the choice, perhaps not the opportunity, to
install solar panels. Why then is Idaho Power reducing the export credrate from roughly 25% of the
fee to 10% of the fees charged per kilowatt hour?The company lists, in their own
publications, how helpful this energy resource is to them and their customers and yet they are
punishing these residential providers.
Please give serious consideration to this fee restructuring. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
12

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Melody Studer
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 1:05PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 462 N Cove Colony Way
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I received a mailer today noting the proposed change of export credit rates for on-site
customer generation. I am beyond disappointed in this decrease of export rates! I wanted to
publicly note that our solar system at our residence was purchased with the idea that it would
cover our electricity bill in full(100%), and a large part of that was calculated from expected export
rates collected in the spring and summer months that would be banked for use in the winter
months when solar production is lower. These proposed rates are ridiculous - specifically the shift
from the current 4.8365 cent non-summer export rate to a proposed 0.954 cent non-summer
export rate. Utterly ridiculous! That's over an 80% shift!!! I urge you to NOT approve this proposed
update at all. On site generators should not be punished for generating more than they use at
such ridiculous rates from Idaho Power. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Janice Eckmier
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 1:16PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 462 N Cove Colony Way
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am extremely disappointed in reading about the proposed lowered rated for export
rates for our on-site solar generation. I don't feel that this reduction is very fair to the customers
who do generate enough power at their property to gain advantage year round when they perhaps
do not generate enough to cover their use. These export rates should at the VERY least be fair to
the customer- and within some reasonable percentage of the actual cost of a kilowatt. Why is
Idaho Power telling me essentially that the power I send back to the grid is SO much less valuable
13

than the power they generate?! The numbers that stick out as absolutely horrendous is the less
than 1 cent per kWh in the non-summer!! We pay closer to 11 cents per kWh! And the summer,
when power is more needed, we currently get about 5.6 cents back non-peak, but they are
proposing to cut that to only 1.7 cents?! That is not fair at all. I plead to the committee that they
consider the residential generator and their helping out the community and not a power hungry
for-profit company that obviously does not care one iota about the little guy. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:William Spensky
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 1:31 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2305 W State Street
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "As stated byyour department's mission statement, the job of the IPUC is; "Determine
fair,just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates and utility practices for electric, gas, telephone
and water consumers:'
As the only safeguard we have from our for profit, publicly traded, monopoly of an electric
company...I ask that you do better than to be bullied again by Idaho Power and take their newly
concocted "study" as fact:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jeffrey Lundy
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 1:46PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 615 South Davin Creek Loop
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I had purchased solar panels prior to retiring to hedge against inflation during
retirement years, Idaho Power again is wanting to cut into our solar productivity by giving us less
for the power that we are generating. Our electric bill has gone from $5 per month to $40-65 per
month. According to "Google" Idaho Power's profit was $289.2 Million in 2024; as far as I am
14

concerned this measure is hurting Idaho residences (Little Guy) by forcing us to paid them more.
The oxymoron about this situation is, now Idaho Power has solar farms; since Idaho Power doesn't
want me to have solar, then I would like Idaho Power to take my solar system and refund me
$30,000 (1 have the receipts) - in my opinion this is all about GREED! And we need to stop it!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Race Ashby
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 1:49PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8018 W. Camas St.
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my outrage and profound disappointment regarding the proposed
reduction in the export credit rate for solar energy. This decision is nothing short of a betrayal to
residents like myself who invested in solar panels in good faith—under the clear impression that
our efforts to produce clean, renewable energy would be respected and fairly compensated.
This change is not just a policy adjustment—it is an aggressive, targeted penalty on homeowners
who took personal and financial risks to help create a more sustainable future. In the current
economic climate, where everyday essentials—from housing to groceries—are skyrocketing in
cost, slashing the compensation for energy that I generate and feed back into the grid feels like a
slap in the face.
Many of us made the decision to install solar panels based on the promises and projections from
utilities and state programs that encouraged renewable energy investment. Now,just when those
systems are finally starting to pay off—not just for us, but for the broader grid—you are moving the
goalposts.This isn't policy. It's profiteering.
This decision rewards short-term corporate interests at the expense of long-term environmental
responsibility and community resilience. It punishes those trying to do the right thing and erodes
public trust in the very institutions that are supposed to help lead us toward energy independence
and sustainability.
We are not simply"customers:'We are contributors, generating clean energy for the grid,
lightening the load during peak usage, and reducing the overall strain on your infrastructure. Yet
15

this rate cut treats us as freeloaders rather than the partners we were promised we would be.
I urge you to reconsider this move. If you proceed with this reduction, understand that you are not
only undermining solar adoption—you are sending a clear message to your community that clean
energy only matters when it lines corporate pockets.
We are watching. We are angry. And we are not going away."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katherine Wolfe ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
Sent:Wednesday, April 9, 2025 2:28 PM
To: secretary
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I?m very concerned about Idaho Power?s proposal to slash rooftop solar compensation rates by
up to 80%. Paying rooftop solar owners less than 1 ?/kWh for the power they put onto the grid for
eight months out of the year, while then charging regular customers at least 8?/kWh for that same
electricity, is extremely unfair.
Last year's solar rate changes, coupled with the increased fixed service charges, were already
devastating for Idaho Power customers. Please do a thorough review to check the utility's math
and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and don't let this monopoly utility
unfairly squeeze money out of its customers and undercut their right to generate their own power.
Also, please improve the public process by adding a virtual testimony option (as is provided at
Public Service Commissions in all neighboring states)to help ensure you can hear the important
perspectives from everyone who will be impacted by Idaho Power?s changes. Written comments
and public hearings with limited times and locations are not enough.
Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Katherine Wolfe
920 Mary Jane Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
[e-mail]
[phone]
16

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated
with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Member Care at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or(415) 977-5673.
----------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Karen Robbins
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 2:29PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 794 South Island Glenn Way
Eagle , ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-25-15
Comment: "ID Don't decrease the solar energy credits. We planned on this staying the same"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Paul Harder
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 3:34PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2169 North Doe Avenue
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power l
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "STIP CHANGING THE ECR RATES YOU GREEDY BASTARDS!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jeff Walters
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 3:48PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2950, N Turnberry Way
17

Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I just received a postcard with proposed changes to solar net metering, lowering the
export credit rates.
While I understand these things need to be evaluated from time to time, this seems extremely
lopsided and goes against what Idaho Power has stated in the past. How can they ask for help with
reducing grid dependence and promote solar out one side of their mouth while slashing the
credits for power production out the other side?
If anything, the demand is growing, making the production more valuable, not less.
Help customers understand this. I recently installed a solar system to help at a significant cost
and was already concerned about the current export credit rates. This news doesn't help. Please
consider what is being done and the message it sends to customers. Thank you for your time. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Timothy Foster
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 4:02PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5805 South Graphite Way
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Since your decision to let Idaho Power charge us home owner customers with solar
power a different rate, we have lost our investment into the solar we installed to help minimize our
usage on the grid. Now, Idaho Power is asking again to decrease our price for our solar. This is
outrageous that you would favor a business overyour constituents of this state. We here trying to
help, but now the solar we have paid for is worthless. Their on peak hours are a slap in the face
since almost half that time the sun is not out to create power. Your decision is eliminating the
publics way to try and help out our companies by using less power from the grid. I would please
ask that you do not approve the price decrease Idaho Power is asking for this year. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
18

Name: Marto Salomonson
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 4:04PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 751 E. Knoll Dr.
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am writing to express my strong opposition to Idaho Power's proposed reductions in
export credit rates for solar net-metering customers, set to potentially take effect on June 1, 2025.
These drastic cuts will have significant and far-reaching negative consequences for solar
customers, clean energy adoption, and Idaho's progress toward sustainable energy solutions.
Currently, net-metering customers receive fair compensation for excess solar generation that
contributes to Idaho Power's grid, particularly during peak summer demand. These rates-
16.9966�for On-Peak Summer, 5.6533Q for Off-Peak Summer, and 4.8365Q for Non-Summer—are
an equitable reflection of the value of solar energy. However, the proposed rates-14.059ft
1.7682�, and 0.9540Q respectively—represent cuts of over 80% in some cases. Reducing credits
to less than one cent per kWh is not only unreasonable but also a disincentive for future
investments in renewable energy by Idahoans.
These reductions undermine the efforts of homeowners and businesses who have invested in
solar energy with the understanding that they would be fairly compensated for their contributions
to the grid. Solar generation during peak hours helps reduce the strain on the grid, minimizes
reliance on fossil fuels, and decreases overall costs for all Idaho Power customers. Penalizing
those who support these goals is counterproductive and discourages the adoption of clean
energy, which is vital for our state's energy future.
Furthermore, these changes threaten Idaho's reputation as a state that values innovation and
energy independence. By devaluing solar energy, Idaho Power sends a message that renewable
energy is not a priority,jeopardizing the state's ability to meet environmental goals and attract
businesses that prioritize sustainability.
I urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's proposed reductions in export credit rates. These rates
must reflect the true value of solar energy contributions to the grid and encourage Idahoans to
continue investing in renewable energy. Instead of penalizing solar customers, Idaho Power
should work to support and incentivize clean energy solutions for a stronger, more resilient grid.
19

Thank you for considering this public comment. I trust the IPUC will act in the best interests of all
Idahoans and uphold fair and equitable policies for renewable energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Gibson
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 4:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1220 garland st
nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Idaho power taking the power I generate for ten cents and selling it back to me for a
dollar is criminal. This is theft and should be illegal. It is offensive to everyone who invested in
idaho, and into the power grid. It would be cheaper for me to just pay a power bill than to pay for
the loan for on-site generation and also pay an increasing power bill for the energy they are feeding
back to me that originated from my own property in the first place.This type of criminal corporate
theft needs to be handled immediately. There is no reason why anyone should be punished for
adding to the power grid.We should be receiving nearly an equal credit. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Palmer
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 4:48PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 14160 N Buck Basin Ave
Garden City, ID 83714
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Havingjust made a major capital investment in a solar system and Testa batteries at
my home, I'm very concerned with the proposed change in the compensation arrangement. I have
not begun to realize any possible return on this investment. Had I known that this change was
coming, I would not have considered making such a commitment or partnered arrangement to sell
my power back to Idaho Power at the proposed pricing. If solar is the future, I believe this planned
increase will kill any future investment by private citizens in residential solar. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
20

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Glenn Tourville
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 6:26PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2300 N Aronmink Way
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID:
Comment: "What in the heck did I spend over$30k for solar panels just to have to spend the same
amount for power. This is corporate greed at its finest! Please do not approve this!!! "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Rayo Cobbley
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 6:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12855 triple crown
Pocatello, ID 83202
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-25-15
Comment: "I received notice today of Idaho powers request to drop their ECR for on-site
generating customers. Please, Please, Please do not allow them to do this. We who have installed
solar panels have only seen our credit for power we supply to Idaho power drop. If Idaho power
wants to go green they are doing the exact opposite and discouraging people from anything that
will reduce our power use. If I would have known 1-1/2 yrs ago what Idaho power would be doing i
21

never would have installed the solar in my home. Again, please do NOT allow them to do this. I
used to have a great deal of respect for Idaho power. No so anymore! Rayo Cobbley"
-------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Tyre[ Murphy
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 5:13PM
Email: tyre[[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2813 Sunflower Dr
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Commissioners,
I have been made aware that the Idaho Power Company, which holds a monopoly on all power
purchased in my area, is asking for a very small reduction in the power charged to customers.
Idaho Power is also asking for a huge reduction in the export credit rate See percentages below:
Summer on peak reduced by 17.27%
Summer off peak reduced by 68.72%
Non-summer on peak reduced by 80.27%
Non-summer off peak reduced by 80.27%
This is absurd. For the average home using 950Kwh a person can see around a 6.00 decrease in
their power bill yet a person generating power will see a 34% increase in their bill. (This information
comes directly from Idaho Power's pamphlet they sent out).
Last year I paid $1,814.55 for power so a $72.00 reduction is a 4% reduction. For the past 4 years
of living in my home my average payment went from 120 dollars to 170 dollars per month. This is
the main reason I chose to go solar. The price increases are getting ridiculous. As more people
move in more power is needed and the grid grows, but so does the money in the pocket of the
power company as they get to bill more people.With the constant price increases of everything
else in life this is a unrealistic ask. Idaho Power is a business that needs to make money but not by
holding a persons livelihood hostage.
If they proposed a similar 5.28% reduction in the export credit to match the residential reduction
they are asking for it makes more economic sense. Why penalize people for trying to reduce their
22

own costs. The power generated from on-site generators reduce the overall demand during peak
energy times that Idaho Power has to provide to the general public. On-site generators also reduce
the cost to Idaho Power by avoiding transmission, distribution, and line losses. They get to reap
the benefits of the on-site generators without compensating the generators?
Please do not let this pass. Ask Idaho Power to come back with a more reasonable reduction in
the excess credit rate.
Sincerely,
Tyrel Murphy"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jane Dunn
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 5:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 575 S Main St.
Star, ID 83669
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "When I signed up for solar panels on my home in the summer of 2021, I signed on for a
very different deal with Idaho Power that what I now receive. For the first couple of years, during
the summer months I only paid the $5 service charge because I was generating more energy than I
was using. IP got the advantage of that excess. Then IP asked for a change in how they measure
the excess generation. Last year, I was always having to pay IP every month more than in the
previous years. Now, IP wants to change that again. Don't let them do this. I would never have
signed up for solar if I knew I was going to be stabbed in the back by Idaho Power."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Russell Johnson
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 5:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4039 N Foxboro Ave
Boise, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
23

Comment: "In 2020 Blue Raven Solar installed a $15,700.00 system on my home. The Idaho
Power's agreement at that time was for Kilowatt to Kilowatt reduction to my electric usage. I
questioned the logic of that but was assured that that is the deal. My system covered about 85%
of my annual electric cost. With that agreement my payback on my system was 11 years and 7
months. Now, with there new program, my monthly credit against my usage has averaged $12.00,
and now they want to reduce that by 34%. What is the IPUC board thinking when it comes to the
consumers who have put out large amounts for solar with absolutely no possible pay
back? Shouldn't we at least have the opportunity to at least break even over the 25 year life of our
systems? I really like Idaho Power and the low cost reliable electric they provide but what about
those of use who took their word for a realistic pay back for our solar. Thank you Russell Johnson"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Darren Pittard
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 5:58PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3074 W Newbury Ct
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "It has come to my attention that Idaho power has requested to lower the export credit
rate for on-site, solar generation customers. I installed solar panels on my home after 2019.
Initially, I was credited by Idaho power for all electricity that I produced. Since net metering has
been introduced, my electricity bills to Idaho power have increased by over 200%. In effect I now
pay for solar panels that Idaho power uses at almost no cost. Idaho Powers most recent
recommendation to reduce The export credit would make their rate nearly the lowest in our
country. Please consider commissioning an external review and not accepting Idaho powers
internal biased study.. if this change takes effect, not only will it devastate any chances of
increasing Home solar in Idaho, it will severely hurt the thousands of Idaho homeowners who have
already installed and are paying for their current solar panels. Please let me know if there's any
additional information that I can provide to help the public utilities commission make a better
informed decision"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Randal Nelson
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 5:58PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 174 S Barkvine Way
24

Star, ID 83669
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal by Idaho Power to reduce the
compensation rates for excess solar energy generated by residential customers. As a solar energy
system owner and committed contributor to Idaho's clean energy future, I urge you to reject any
changes that would diminish the value of solar net metering credits.
Net metering is fair and essential. Solar customers provide real value to the grid by supplying
Locally produced, clean energy during peak daylight hours—often when demand is highest.
Lowering the compensation for this energy disproportionately impacts those who have invested in
solar technology in good faith under the existing rate structures, undermining the predictability
and trust that are critical for personal and public investment.
Distributed solar benefits all Idahoans. Studies have consistently shown that residential solar
reduces transmission losses, eases strain on grid infrastructure, stabilizes long-term energy costs,
and decreases dependence on fossil fuels. These benefits translate into public value beyond the
individual solar customer.
Reducing credits will stifle innovation and progress. A rollback in compensation will have a chilling
effect on future adoption of solar technology. It sends the message that Idaho is stepping back
from consumer empowerment and energy independence at a time when other states are investing
in the transition to a cleaner, more resilient grid.
I respectfully urge the Commission to conduct a full, transparent cost-benefit analysis of
residential solar before approving any rate changes. Idaho has an opportunity to lead in
distributed energy innovation—not retreat from it.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your commitment to fair and forward-
looking energy policy.
Sincerely,
Randal Nelson"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Robert Wilson
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 6:36PM
25

Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11331 W Pattie CT
Boise, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "This is a slap in the face to people who have invested in the solar economy. An 80%
reduction in off-peak rates is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine if you had invested your hard earned
money in a firm with the expectation of a 10 year return on investment and instead they pulled the
rug out from under you and are now telling you it will instead be a 50 year return after you've
handed over your hard earned money. There are many other electric utilities around the country
who are paying a much more reasonable export credit rate and are still able to maintain
profitability. I urge you to please deny this request for a rate change as it is completely
unreasonable. I would further request a public hearing to allow the public to voice their opinions
on this proposed rate change before making a decision:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: David Fesenbek
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 6:38PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3773 E Berghan St
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Idaho Power's proposed annual update to the Export Credit Rate (ECR)further
disincentives and discourages new residential solar power generation. Idaho Power's previous
rate change to residential solar power generation from"net usage"to"net billing"(with IPUC
approval) made all of us who installed solar generation after 2019 regret our decision. (Why did
you allow them to retro it back to 2019?)This current ECR shows Idaho Power is determined to
profit even more from our decision to install solar generation. Over the last year Idaho Power has
billed me between 9.17 to 10.52 cents/kWh (average of 9.21 cents/kWh over the year), while
crediting me an average of 7.08 cents/kWh. Why is my generated kWh worth so much less (23%)
than theirs?Those of us who calculated that solar generation barely made sense under"net
usage", now can consider ourselves financially duped. This new Idaho Power ECR should not be
approved unless you choose to further disincentives and discourage residential solar generation,
26

and thus"clean energy" in general. Is this the path the IPUC wants to pursue, and how does this
benefit the rate payers?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: David Mihu
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 6:56PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 160 Del Mar Street
MOUNTAIN HOME, ID 83647
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I made an investment over 2 years ago to put solar panels on my roof. At the time I
made the investment the 1 for 1 credit was in effect, and this was a large determining factor in my
decision, as Idaho Power had begun a cycle of raising rates. With the rules that have since
changed in how Idaho Power'reimburses' us for the power we generate, on peak/off peak, summer
season, etc, my investment no longer makes sense. In this matter, Idaho Power is acting like a
monopoly, dictating the terms on which they will accept the energy supplied by citizens like myself
in a manner that only benefits them. That would be fine if they had been the ones to finance the
energy production, but they were not. These 'rules' need to be reverted to the ones in place at the
time I financed my energy production, or Idaho Power needs to purchase from me the assets that
produce this power. If I had the financial resources to do so, I would go 'off grid' completely,
installing battery backups and additional panels. Had I known that Idaho Power could and would
with impunity invalidate the investment I was making, I would never have spent the resources on
the investment in the first place. Idaho Power should NOT be allowed to change the playing field
on customer generation once that customer generation goes into effect. In my situation, we
designed the system I invested in to cover all the power needs of my home throughout the year. In
effect, Idaho Power is now negating the entire reason for my investment and therefore should be
Liable to purchase the system from me.
It's not like Idaho Power is hemorrhaging money, either. Earnings per Share rose from 5.14 in 2023
to 5.50 in 2024, and they have increased their 2025 guidance to between 5.65 to 5.85 per
share. Squeezing suppliers like me whose sole desire was to offset their own power consumption
to the point where the investment made was money wasted is part of their strategy to support this
EPS rise.
I am very much opposed to any changes that do not reset customer generation rules to what they
were in 2022:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
27

Name: Solomon Sahlein
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 7:24PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6725 W Kirkwood Dr
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a young homeowner that purchased a PV system in December 2023. Shortly
thereafter, Idaho Power modified their rates and effectively reduced the system benefit by 20%.
This was a tough pill to swallow as I had just invested a significant amount of money with clean
energy and home equity in mind. Honestly at that point I was upset, but it just meant that it would
take much longer for the investment to pay off. However, with this proposed cut to metering rates I
am basically waving goodbye to the $17,000 that I worked hard for as a small business owner. I
believe that the rates you sign up with should be locked in for a pre-determined number of years
before the utility can randomly decide to render your system useless. I know that I'm not alone in
feeling utterly duped by a company that claims to tout a progressive energy future, but punishes
the very residents who try to help achieve it. I hope that you can see the injustice here and not let
Idaho Power get away with this money grab at the people's expense. Thank you. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jeffrey Billups
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 7:54PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2005 N Rivington Way
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I received my notice in the mail today regarding the rate reduction you will be crediting
solar power owners. At certain times it is up to a 80 percent reduction in credit we receive for our
solar. Had we known this at the time, 4 years ago, we certainly would have spent$30k on
something else. This was not a good investment. And what is frustrating it was promoted by the
State of Idaho and Idaho Power for clean, responsible energy. California Governor Newsom is
doing the same for State of CA. Don't California Idaho. At the minimum perhaps current solar
customers can be grandfathered in at old rates and new solar installations would be subject to
28

new rates if you absolutely have to do this. Not happy!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Craig Wheeler
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 9:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 18453 S Cloverdale Rd
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "ID I am nothing but appalled at the behavior of Idaho Power over the course of the last
3 years. Idaho Power's proposed reduction of Export Credit Rates raises serious concerns about
their role as a public utility. Unlike a typical for-profit business, they have a mandated
responsibility to provide reliable and affordable energy to their customers. This proposed rate
change, however, suggests a prioritization of profit over the public's interest in clean, distributed
energy.The significant discrepancy between the compensation offered to solar producers and the
retail price charged to other customers indicates a potential exploitation of customer-generated
energy, effectively disincentivizing investment in solar and hindering the growth of clean energy in
Idaho.
The impact of these reduced ECRs on clean energy contribution is substantial. By undermining the
financial viability of rooftop solar, Idaho Power is discouraging individuals from participating in
distributed energy generation. This action directly contradicts the urgent need for renewable
energy sources to combat climate change and bolster grid resilience. Furthermore, the annual
fluctuation of ECRs creates an unstable financial landscape for potential solar investors, making it
nearly impossible to accurately calculate returns and discouraging widespread adoption.
Finally, the validity of the "Value of Distributed Energy Resources Study;' used to justify these rate
changes, needs thorough scrutiny. Reports indicate potential bias and selective data usage,
raising questions about the study's objectivity. A strong response to Idaho Power's proposal must
emphasize the necessity of fair compensation for solar producers, the importance of supporting
distributed clean energy, and the fundamental obligation of a public utility to serve the public
interest, notjust its own financial gains.
As a disabled veteran and small family farmer in Kuna, we invested heavily in solar to sustainably
irrigate our land within the Birds of Prey National Conservation Area and support local wildlife.
Initially, our solar investment effectively eliminated our monthly electricity bills, allowing us to
dedicate those funds to paying down the significant$75,000 installation cost. However, despite
29

consistently generating over 1 megawatt-hour more electricity than we consume each month,we
are now forced to pay Idaho Power an average of$200 monthly.We are paying for electricity even
when we produce a surplus.This financial burden, which directly undermines our ability to
operate sustainably and recoup our initial investment, will only worsen if Idaho Power's proposed
Export Credit Rate reduction is approved:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Ian Lumley
Submission Time: Apr 9 2025 10:29PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1290 N Basil Pl
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The proposed rates for excess generation credits for solar system owners beginning
June 2025 are unconscionable. These are so far below retail rates that it is impossible not to be
insulted as an Idaho Power customer and Idaho resident. The switch from net-metering to net-
billing was a tough pill to swallow, but I can understand and acknowledge that there are different
rates for different times based on demand. However, there is no logical explanation for why the
excess credits rates would be materially different from retail rates, at any time of day. A small
processing fee is agreeable, but solar owners are ultimately sourcing the energy that Idaho Power
turns right around and sells to others on the grid. The immediate discrepancy between retail and
excess rates at launch of net-billing was distasteful, but these new rates are leaving absolutely no
uncertainty that Idaho Power intends to abuse its position and take advantage of existing
customers and good residents. If approved, this change will most certainly tarnish Idaho Power
and IPUC reputations, and it will force the solar community to make plans to unplug from the grid
entirely."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Lisa Szentes
Submission Time: Apr 10 2025 6:45AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2593 W Brockton Ct
Eagle, ID 83616-3537
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
30

Comment: "I oppose any reduction to already reduced solar export credit rates. "
31