20250425Comment_1.pdf

From: Garth Hillman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 11:04 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments on Case# PAC-E-25-02
**Garth Hillman**
5 E 1 st N Street
Sugar City, ID 83448
[phone]
hillmangarth - gmail.com
**Date:**April 13, 2025
**Subject:** Comments on Case#PAC-E-25-02
Dear Honorable Commissioner President Edward Lodge,
Commissioner John R. Hammond, Jr.,
Commissioner Dayn Hardie,
Commission Secretary Monica Barrios-Sanchez,
Ms. Allison Moore, Consumer Assistance Program Manager,
Ms. Jolene Bossard, Mr. Chris Hecht, Mr. Curtis Thaden, and Mr. Jon Kruck,
I extend my gratitude for your dedicated service to Idaho's citizens. While this letter is
somewhat lengthy, I respectfully request that you read it in its entirety, as I have diligently
researched the issues surrounding PacificCorp's (d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power) application
in Case#PAC-E-25-02. I believe my findings raise critical points for your consideration.
I commend the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)for its past decisions, including
the grandfathering of net metering Schedule 135"Legacy"customers, preserving their one-
for-one reimbursement, and moderating Rocky Mountain Power's proposed 23.2% rate
increase over two years to 16.8%, denying the 2026 increment. These actions demonstrate
the IPUC and its commitment to protecting Idahoans from excessive utility rate hikes and
affirm its role in exercising sound judgment.
However, I am deeply concerned that,just over a month after the recent rate increase took
effect, Rocky Mountain Power has submitted another application seeking additional rate
hikes and a drastic reduction in reimbursement for solar-generating customers under
Schedule 136—from 85%to as low as 25% . As a solar system owner, I contribute power to
1

the grid, particularly during peak summer demand, and find this proposal both
unreasonable and disheartening.
I reached out to Rocky Mountain Power's Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager, listed as the
contact for inquiries. My initial call was disconnected after I asked for Mark Alder by name.
On my second attempt, the call went to voicemail after a single ring so I left a voicemail
detailing the reason for my call.To his credit, Mr. Alder returned my call within an hour and
candidly acknowledged his own difficulty understanding Table 1 on page 8 of the
application, stating he understood my confusion and encouraged me to submit comments
to the IPUC. I found his transparency and honesty refreshing but was troubled bythe lack of
clarity in the application itself. The lack of understanding about Rocky Mountain Powers
policies and rates seems to be a common problem especially when contacting the
customer service representatives.
Table 1 appears designed to obscure rather than inform, citing rates such as 1.489, 3.721,
4.708, and 16.248 cents per kWh with a footnote stating, "Annual values for information
only."These figures seem misleading when compared to the 7-18 cents per kWh rates
quoted in correspondence to customers, while proposing to reimburse solar generators at
a mere 4 cents per kWh. This discrepancy undermines the application's credibility and
fairness while using unrealistic numbers in a way to disguise the reality of what they are
proposing. I find this quite underhanded and deceitful.
I recently celebrated my 60th birthday in March, I am self-employed and have never had
access to an employer-sponsored 401(k). Over the past decade, I have diligently worked on
my retirement through IRAs, recognizing that relying solely on Social Security would be
insufficient. In November 2024, 1 invested approximately$18,000 in a solar system, a
decision informed by the impending rate increases and the promise of an 85%
reimbursement for excess power fed into the grid. This investment was intended to secure
financial stability in retirement.
I am alarmed by the application's apparent provision allowing Rocky Mountain Power to
adjust pricing annually without oversight, if my interpretation is correct. Such flexibility
risks eroding consumer protections. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the IPUC to
reject this application. I outline my concerns below:
1. **Timing of the Increase**: Requesting another rate hike so soon after a 16.8% increase
unfairly burdens customers, particularly the 90%who rely solely on grid power.
2. **Impact on Solar Investors**: Reducing reimbursement to 25% devalues investments
2

made by solar system owners, discouraging future adoption.
3. **Value of Clean Energy**: Solar systems provide clean energy to the grid, a benefit
Rocky Mountain Power receives at no cost for 15% of my generated power.
4. **Economic Consequences**: Lower reimbursements will deter new solar installations,
harming Idaho's solar industry and its workforce.
5. **Unfair to Schedule 136 Customers**: Customers like me, who installed systems
expecting an 85% reimbursement, face unexpected financial penalties.
In summary, while I acknowledge Rocky Mountain Power's need to maintain and upgrade
the grid, solar customers already contribute by forgoing 15% of their generated power
annually. Penalizing those who invested in systems before this application was proposed is
unjust. Had I foreseen this change, I would have directed my investment elsewhere to avoid
the financial strain of recent and proposed increases. I worry that approving this
application will embolden further reductions in solar reimbursements, treating customers
as a means to offset denied rate hikes.
I respectfully urge the IPUC to protect Idaho's citizens by rejecting this application and
granting Schedule 136 customers the same 25-year grandfathered benefits afforded to
Schedule 135 customers—not at one-for-one reimbursement, but at the 85% rate we were
given upon installation. My installer was forthright with me letting me know of
the discounted rate I would receive from Rocky Mountain Power. I intentionally oversized
my system to account for the 15% loss and provide surplus power to the grid annually, only
to face the prospect of further reductions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust the IPUC will continue to safeguard
Idahoans from excessive and unrealistic demands utility companies try to have approved.
Thank you and Sincerely,
Garth Hillman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3