20250505Comments_35.pdf

From: Rex Hanson ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:26 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I strongly support expanding incentives for solar power- not reducing them!
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,
Rex Hanson
602 Marie Ct
Caldwell, ID 83605
[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 [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Leslie Perkins
Submission Time: May 2 2025 4:13PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12020 W. Gamekeeper
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I recently received notice that Idaho Power is looking at decreasing the Export
Credit Rate for customers with solar panels. The main reason we got solar panels was to
save money on power bills so making a change such as this that could increase our bill by
34% according to the notification is extremely concerning. We based our purchase of solar
decision on the cost savings and was never informed that the billing structure could
change in regards to these credits. Allowing a corporation to gauge their customers like
this is incredibly unfair and I hope this request from Idaho Power is denied."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Dane Filemyr
Submission Time: May 2 2025 4:24PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2917 E Umatilla Dr.
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I have always respected Idaho Power for its green initiatives, acknowledging
and supporting the importance of a diverse and evolving power types to support all of our
neighbors, but I am increasingly frustrated by the decreasing value of customer generated
power through the solar program.
2

While I fully understand that IPisa company that needs to make money to stay in business
and support our local communities, this ongoing year-over-year devaluation of our power
contributions smacks of nothing but ongoing corporate greed.
At this rate, my household - and I suspect my other neighbors who have installed panels -
will end up paying more annually because of purchase and installation fees than if we had
not participated in the program in the first place. Punishing customers for stepping up and
helping contribute to the local community by providing extra power during the periods of
highest use (our hot summers days) makes no sense and doesn't support Idahoan
principles:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Linda Engle
Submission Time: May 2 2025 9:39PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 340 S 11th
POCATELLO, ID 83201
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "It is unfair to Idaho homeowners, farmers, ranchers and business owners that
Idaho Power (IPC) is wanting to cut the Export Credit Rate (ECR) by nearly a 75 percent.
This will decimate the solar power industry in Idaho.
The Public Utilities Commissioners (notice the word "public" in the name!) should be
protecting Idaho citizens from price gouging and infringment on private property rights.
People should be able to put solar on their property to control energy costs and be energy
independent. But because farmers and others are locked into buying their power from IPC,
they are locked into the pricing scheme IPC dreams up, in this case buying low and selling
high. Past PUC Commissioners have not protected the public from unfair pricing such as
this.
Many Idahoans buy solar to help control their rising energy costs. Since 2000, the price of
residential power from Idaho Power has doubled: from 5.40/kWh to 100/kWh. Solar power
3

could give families, farmers and small businesses a hedge against these energy increases,
while offering emergency power and increased self-reliance.
Idaho Power's proposed rates are based on their own internal report, the 2022"Value of
Distributed Energy Resources". That report is itself a conflict of interest; that analysis
should have been done by a trusted third party. In fact, an independent third party,
Crossboarder Energy, did perform an independent analysis. They found that Idaho Power
had severely undervalued rooftop solar. Experts in the field pointed out to the 2022 Public
Utility Commissioners that IPC's report relies on cherry-picked data and assumptions that
are flawed and outdated. The Commissioners dismissed those comments and the
Crossborder Report; the Commissioners rubber-stamped IPC's flawed value of solar
analysis.
Because Idaho Power has no competition, better state regulatory oversight is critical. Your
job at the PUC is to keep monopoly utilities in check and ensure fairness for the citizens of
Idaho.When regulators just rubber-stamp giving monopolies whatever they want without
due consideration, that's not regulation—that's cronyism.
Even people without solar, will be affected by IPC's proposed rate changes.The PUC
recently approved a hike in Idaho Power's flat fee, from $5/month to $15 now and we
expect$30/month soon. These flat fees hit lower-income and fixed income families the
hardest, because fixed fees mean customers really have little control over their bill and
they are less likely to conserve energy.
Mike Engle, Chair of the Portneuf Resource Council, summed it up: "We need the PUC to
protect every Idahoans' right to generate their own power. IPC's request to lower the ECR
even further makes an already bad deal much worse."
When IPC can change the ECR at the drop of a hat potential solar owners have a difficult
time calculating whether a solar investment will payoff. How can the Idaho solar industry
survive when they cannot show a prospective solar owner a stable return.
Please remember that rooftop solar has other benefits to society; it increases energy
resilience, creates local jobs, helps the economy and can provide emergency power. In a
time of growing federal overreach and inflation, personal energy production should be a
conservative priority.
4

I am asking the Commissioners to carefully read the Crossborder Study, ask questions of
independent experts, and make a new decision concerning IPC's export credit rate
proposal. If these proposed rates are allowed to stand, it will bring about a decline in the
Idaho residential solar power industry. It will mean fewer energy choices, higher bills, and
Less control over our own electricity.
As an Idahoan, I believe in freedom, fairness and responsible stewardship. If monopoly
power companies are allowed to rewrite the rules to consolidate their power and boost
their bottom line, all our citizens lose:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Tyler Harris
Submission Time: May 2 2025 10:44PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 646 S. Granite Way
Boise, ID 83712
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Dear members of the PUC,
This rate change request squarely puts Idaho Power at odds with the needs of the State of
Idaho. Please deny it.
Rooftop solar provides clean energy close to where it is used. It provides resilience and
reduces grid strain, since it does not require transmission, and distribution is typically a
nominal distance.This improves efficiency of delivery and reduces risk of fires, something
which should be top of my mind as our State gets hotter and drier. It will help to fill the gap
Left by hydroelectricity, which will become less prevalent and less reliable as snowfall
decreases. It is cheaper and cleaner than methane, which Idaho Power is planning to use
to fill in the gap as loads increase due to population growth, hyperscalars, and
electrification. Solar adoption avoids carbon at each stage of energy use: production,
transmission, and distribution. The environmental benefits are dramatic and are not
included in the analysis performed by Idaho power. They spend millions seeding clouds to
increase snowfall, augmenting hydroelectric generation, while actively deterring green
5

energy production which will be the only hope for maintaining snow pack into the middle of
this century. We are at an inflection point in the climate crisis, and policy must meet the
moment.
I implore the PUC to be more active in promoting green microgrids throughout the State,
which would provide much needed generation, redundancy, and resiliency. This 60% cut in
net metering reimbursement does the opposite. It heavily disincentives distributed
generation, exacerbating the State granted monopolization of energy production.
Homeowners throughout the State will lose money on solar projects they have purchased.
Those considering solar will largely decide against moving forward.We will all suffer as a
result.
The fuzzy math used in Idaho Power's analysis does not match the results of objective
outside analysis. They have failed to account for environmental benefits of solar. They have
failed to account for the carbon liberated by the methane plants that would have been
avoided if solar generation increased, as well as the downstream effects on extreme
weather, fire, and public health. They neglected to include the state and community direct
economic effects from kneecapping a vibrant solar installation industry replete with local
small businesses.The factors that were studied and quantified were cherry picked for the
most favorable cost estimates.
Idaho Power is greedy and selfish. I implore you to be a bit more selfish on behalf of
Idahoans - reject this rate change. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Ken Patterson
Submission Time: May 3 2025 10:37AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3082 Boehm Estate Dr
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
6

Comment: "Idaho Power has consistently complained that their credit for rooftop solar-
system power in excess of the power used by the owner is unfair to customers who do not
have solar generating capability. They complain that they are trying to recover the cost of
using the system lines that were put in place years ago.They complain that solar
generators are not carrying the same cost as Idaho Power. That is not true. Idaho Power
knows what the cost of generation of power from their own sources is. They have already
figured the cost of employees and line maintenance when they say power from them is
worth 14 cents per kWh, so them complaining that they are losing money by compensating
the solar generators an honest amount is looking at the coin from the back side. It is
nonsense.
Idaho Power does not operate at a loss. The generation of power at hydroelectric dams and
coal-powered generation sites has already been figured into the system. The public helped
pay for those generation systems through government participation. They aren't hurting.
They simply want to make money from both sides of the coin. That is dishonest:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Mark Rotman
Submission Time: May 3 2025 10:OOAM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3349 W SUGAR CREEK DR
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Hello Commission, I recently had solar added to my home. Interesting
process, and thus I have some comments.
I was motivated by the Federal Government's tax credit plan, by the availability of storage
batteries for the system, and by the potential to be independent of outside electrical power
(for periods of time, not necessarily totally independent forever). A nice feature was that I
could get some credit for excess power I generate and use that credit when solar was
producing minimal power).
7

My understanding is that Idaho Power(IP) may not be at any given time ideally set up to use
this excess power my system generates, and thus IP does not want to provide a credit equal
to what my system outputs. I feel this is inherently unfair.
Essentially this is a mechanism to discourage individuals from producing excess power.
That excess power if thought of cumulatively could significantly reduce IP's need for
additional power on standby. Ok, then if this is the case, and it appears to be, why notjust
Limit the size of the solar on a house by house basis, attempting to create individuals who
only provide their own needs (no, or little capacity for excess). Or better yet mandate and
subsidize additional individual battery back up/storage so that some excess power could
be stored and released into the system on an as needed basis?
I can understand that IP wants to limit individual customers who also generate power as to
how much power they generate. They do not want individuals to become private small
solar farms. Yet, with adequate battery storage, these home owner sized solar farms in the
aggregate could generate significant power, available to IP under certain circumstances.
Why discourage this by taking power and only giving back credit at a fraction of the value?
Granted I am not an electrical engineer, or someone with experience with power generation
and distribution, I get it. I am a retired Pharmacist who specialized in making radioactive
drugs for diagnosis and therapy, also a retired Commissioned Officer in the US Public
Health Service who served 20 years in the Nuclear Medicine Department of the Clinical
Center(hospital) at National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. It seems obvious
that Idaho Power can do better, and encourage its patrons to do better as well.
Thanks for taking the time to read my contribution.
Sincerely
Mark Rotman, Captain, USPHS retired, PharmD, BCNP"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Jeff Klamm
Submission Time: May 3 2025 12:04PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1732 9th Avenue East
Gooding, ID 83330
8

Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Public Comment on Case#IPC-E-25-15—Opposition to Proposed Solar
Compensation Rate Reductions
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Idaho Power's proposal under Case#IPC-E-
25-15, which seeks to significantly reduce compensation rates for rooftop solar customers.
This proposal not only undermines the investments made by thousands of Idahoans but
also sets a concerning precedent for the state's commitment to clean energy and energy
independence.
Many Idaho residents, including myself, have invested substantial amounts—often
exceeding$100,000—into solar energy systems based on the understanding of a stable
compensation structure.These investments were made in good faith, with the expectation
of contributing to a more sustainable energy future and achieving long-term financial
savings. The proposed rate reductions, which suggest a drop from 6.18 cents to an average
of 2.46 cents per kilowatt-hour, and even less than 1 cent during certain months, represent
a drastic shift that jeopardizes these expectations.
Such abrupt changes not only threaten the financial viability of existing solar investments
but also erode trust in the regulatory framework that is supposed to ensure fairness and
transparency. It's particularly disheartening when utility companies, which benefit from
Large-scale solar projects, impose unfavorable terms on individual solar contributors who
are, in essence, partners in the state's energy ecosystem.
Moreover, this proposal could deter future investments in renewable energy, hindering
Idaho's progress toward a cleaner and more resilient energy grid. It's essential to recognize
that rooftop solar customers alleviate strain on the grid, especially during peak demand
periods, and contribute to environmental conservation efforts.
I urge the Commission to consider the broader implications of this proposal and to uphold
policies that support and encourage individual contributions to Idaho's renewable energy
9

goals. Maintaining equitable compensation rates is not just a matter off a irness; it's a
commitment to the state's sustainable future.
Thank you for considering this perspective:'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:Terry Maret
Submission Time: May 3 2025 12:29PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4083 S Argonaut Ave
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "To: Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPC-E-25-5)
Date: May 5, 2025
Please reject Idaho Power's proposed changes to net metering. Here are the reasons why:
We installed solar panels to our home to do our part to reduce fossil fuel consumption that
has resulted in global warming and enormous environmental damage from mercury
emissions and other air or waterborne pollutants. The cost and benefits of this solar
installation on our home were based on a fair net metering rate with Idaho Power. It would
be unfair to have the rules changed now. Recovery of our up front investment costs would
be in jeopardy. The proposed export credit rate is very unfair to home owners. It benefits
Idaho Power by selling electricity at a much higher rate than it proposes to give
homeowners that produce solar. I understand the annual export credit rate proposed for
homeowners would be reduced by about 60%. We have also noticed a doubling of
administrative costs on our electric bill, not sure this is justified.
Institutions and utilities should be encouraging this move towards alternative energy
sources and not penalizing those who feel we can do better to sustain our planet and way
of life. Idaho Power's internal study is unfairly singling out solar customers.They are
attempting to monopolize the solar industry with the intention of increasing profits for
shareholders.The Company contends that because net-metering, solar customers reduce
the number of kilowatt-hours they purchase from the utility they avoid paying their fair
share of fixed costs. Net-metering solar customers also provide power to their neighbors
10

and can help reduce the need for expensive transmission and distribution infrastructure
necessary to move electricity from power plants that may be hundreds of miles away. If the
Company wants to look at cost shifting, they need to take a much broader look at the issue
rather than just focus on the changes that net-metering may make. For your information,
solar now employs more people in the U.S. electricity generation than oil, coal and gas
combined. Idaho needs to pass legislation to offer more incentives to encourage solar
systems. There are so many new urban developments without solar in the Treasure
Valley...what a shame and missed opportunity for an area with abundance of solar energy.
Idaho Power's in-house study results mayjeopardize this growing industry in Idaho and
cast a shadow of uncertainty in the marketplace.
We look forward to attending the public hearing in Boise on May 20, 2025 on this issue.
Terry and Delores Maret
Boise, ID
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Wilson
Submission Time: May 3 2025 12:35PM
Email: marshalljames51 @gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 935 E Highland View Dr
BOISE, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Company
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I have solar PV system installed on my roof. (My primary intention was to
reduce my CO2 footprint. Investment-wise, I knew the system might never pay for itself.) At
the time of installation, I understood that the reimbursement terms might change over
time. Today, I am disappointed that ALL reimbursement rates have dropped this year! ( Off-
peak reimbursement dropped 80%) This is a true dis-incentive to additional investment in
solar production.
I understand that Idaho Power is subject to many constraints, but I know that hydro-power
is cheap but limited. Why not generate most of the hydro-power during night-time hours,
and utilize more solar power during the daytime?Why not dial back some fossil fuel use
when you can? Also, why doesn't Idaho Power have adequate energy storage online?
I would like to know what I can do to lower my energy costs. Should I install battery
storage? I am sure that the professional staff at Idaho Power has information about this:'
11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Christopher Stipa
Submission Time: May 3 2025 4:16PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 14180 Hollow Rd
Caldwell, ID 83607
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "This proposal to change rates for solar generation is changing to a level that is
no different from extortion. If you look at this from the lens of greed it makes sense, they
already sell power at a higher rate than what they pay to be generated by almost a factor of
three, with the investment not paid for by the power company, but the individual or
business, so now they are delving into double dipping the populace,fleecing them for
generating free power by paying them 1 cent during summer peak hours, and with a made
up currency that can only used for Idaho Power. And they have the gall to provide no
evidence for their "market factors"that is causing this rate change. If you wanted to make
an argument for why one should go off grid, then this is the answer. I hope we get a sane
government in 4 years, and that FERC absolutely using the full might of the federal
government to put a stop to this greedy bullshit:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Tony Seikel
Submission Time: May 4 2025 8:01AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 367 W McNabb Rd
Inkom, ID 83245
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
12

Comment: "Dear friends,
We are well beyond the point where we can choose to ignore climate change. Even if you
don't believe it, you can recognize that 25% of insurance companies have opted to stop
insuring Idaho residents because of increased fire risk(our homeowner insurance in rural
Idaho was terminated as of June, 2025). My sister lives in Oklahoma,which suffered severe
flooding last week in the superstorm that hit the midwest. The sister's cousin in North
Carolina was hit by hurricanes, though she's nowhere near the hurricane danger region. My
point is, Global Warming is real: This is a home game and mother nature bat last. The
people who are using roof-top solar (including us, though we're grandfathered in) are
working to reduce our footprint, and Idaho Power is making money off of our efforts. I don't
mind Idaho Power taking a good cut of our generation, but why not charge us producers a
storage fee instead? Idaho Power is actively repressing rooftop solar generation, and
reducing our ability to fight climate change. Please reconsider your decision to allow Idaho
Power to do this. You, my friends, have the power to control this utility, and I urge you to
use it. Thank you for your service to the people of Idaho:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: CHRIS CATHERMAN
Submission Time: May 4 2025 12:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1838 E. Kamay Dr
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I think what you are doing is criminal. We bought the solar for environmental
reasons and it seemed the right thing to do. YOu are ruining the reasons we got the solar.
Stop this nonsense:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Medina Blanchet
Submission Time: May 4 2025 1:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12747 N 11th Ave
Boise, ID 83714
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Fortunately, we had solar installed just prior to the rule changes regarding solar
usage and we are grandfathered into the old rules and get to keep all the excess power that
we make at the current rate. We have family that live in Star, Idaho that installed solar after
the rule changes and have watched as those rules have changed again, making it very
unfavorable to an Idaho resident with Idaho Power to install solar panels. If we were
considering solar today, I would not do it as there is no advantage to the resident- Idaho
Power keeps changing the rules to make the excess power made by residents less and less
valuable. Residents pay tens of thousands of dollars to have solar installed, and with the
going rates for power reimbursement, they will most likely never make their money back. It
is a shame because Idaho is the perfect place to have clean, solar energy. I propose that
we go back to the old system (prior to December of 2019)that we are fortunate to be
grandfathered into."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: James Compton
Submission Time: May 4 2025 3:07PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4447 N Arrow Crest Way
Boise, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
14

Comment: "I am an Idaho Power customer, not a competitor. I chose to install solar panels
and to become a solar power generator for several reasons. I did not install solar to
"compete"with Idaho Power. My reasons for Solare are: 1) Environmental oriented, reduce
environmental footprint (reduce or remove my home natural gas demand toward clean
electrical). 2) Support Idaho Power's conservation programs. 3) Provide to Idaho Power
excess energy with hopes of them preserving coal, gas, nuclear and hydro resources for
use at other opportune demand times. 4) Provide power to Idaho Power so the company
does not need to purchase power from more expensive suppliers.
I have read that power utilities state home solar generation families to not contribute grid
access charges (GAC). I contend we do pay for GAC when our input Net Metering"IN"or
"Home Use" is calculated at the company's fair market fee schedule. When Idaho Power
calculates the in-home usage, we the customer are charged at that moment for grid access
use.
Excess energy is provided to the company for distribution through the grid system. Idaho
Power then charges those customers for this energy at Idaho Power fair market fee
schedule rates thus again customers are once again paying for grid expenses.
There should be no further reduction in excess energy compensation to home generation
system owners.
I believe my installation of solar power was for the benefit of my home, Idaho Power
customers, and Idaho Power. If the PUC deems a further erosion of my return on
investment in support of Idaho Power rate request, I will work aggressively to install solar
battery technology to recoup 110% of my generation and remove all excess generation
away from a company that I have support for many years.
Thankyou
James R Compton"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jeremy Brunson
Submission Time: May 4 2025 3:17PM
Email: mtnchiefPgmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1217 W. 11th St
Meridian, ID 83642
15

Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am writing to strongly urge you to reject Idaho Power's proposal to decrease
the export compensation rates for solar owners. Monopolies are against every principle of a
free-market and should not be able to exist without strong public regulation or ownership.
Us solar owners make up a small percentage of Idaho Power's customers and we help to
provide extra energy into the grid to help power our community. So how much are us solar
generators truly costing the monopoly?The changes the PUC approved last year were
already devastating enough and have handed a monopoly the authority to profit highly off
our surplus energy. For instance, last month I sent an extra 190 kWh into the grid that the
monopoly sold at a profit and I still had to pay a bill, even though I used less energy than I
generated. Does that make any sense, either financially or ethically, that I paid them to use
my excess energy?This is worse than just plain theft as I paid them to take the energy that I
should own since it was my private property that generated it.We Idahoans value our
independence and our private property and that applies to the energy that we generate.
Please do not throw your fellow members of the community under the bus so that Idaho
Power can put more profit over the people of Idaho. Please fulfill the responsibilities of
being a public servant and put the interests of the people that you are supposed to
represent above the avaricious interests of Idaho Power. I implore you to reject this case
and to revisit your previous decision and include 3rd party analysis to fairly evaluate the
value of exported energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: KELLY KYLE
Submission Time: May 4 2025 3:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12571 Lakeshore Dr
nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "i feel screwed, i nstalled solar panels at great expence ,and now they want to
take any return from from the homes that saw a way to help the planet. i don't see how
anyone else will want to invest in this in the future:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16

Name: Scott Robertson
Submission Time: May 4 2025 3:47PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5333 W White Hills Dr
Boise , ID 83714
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) has a mission to serve Idaho
citizens and utilities by ensuring fair,just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates and
policies for utility services.
If this is your philosophy, granting Idaho Powers request to change from net metering to net
billing doesn't follow your mission based on what Idaho Power wants to do to those who
have had solar installed in their homes. Under this proposal, Idaho Power is going to be
allowed to devalue the energy that we create and send to the grid. All awhile charging us
solar generators a premium of upto 80% more than what Idaho Power wants to give us for
the energy we provide to the grid. How is this just, fair, reasonable, and non
discriminatory? Idaho Powers proposal should be denied or at the very least adhere to the
PUC standards in your mission and purpose. The power we generate is of no less value
than the power we need to use sometimes and should reflect that in whatever billing is
decided upon going forward. Thank you. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kyle Thompson
Submission Time: May 4 2025 5:14PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1067 N 575 E
Firth, ID 83236
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
17

Comment: "I purchased solar for my home in 2022. At that time, it was an investment that
would take 12.5 years to break even and then the next 12.5 years would be a return on said
investment. However, the power companies keep changing the rules - reimbursing less and
Less for the power my panels produce. They want to have me and all others who purchased
solar panels pay for the energy produced, by decreasing reimbursement. Then they get to
charge others full price for it. I can see how costs can change etc, but changing the rules for
those already invested is dishonest and dirty. For new customers, change the rules and let
them have wide open eyes when making the investment, but don't change it for those who
invested counting on conditions to be one way and then lose money cause they can't
recoup their initial investment because conditions have changed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Bibiana Nertney
Submission Time: May 4 2025 5:48PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6826, N Brock River Pl
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "My husband and I recently purchased a home with solar panels. The cost of the
panels increased the cost of the home to us by$15,000+. We object to the request by
Idaho Power to lower the rate paid to us for our power and hope the Commission will deny
the request. Thank you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Patti Raino ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 2:38 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
18

Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I installed solar power on our home in 2021. Since that time my home has produced more
than 40 MWH of power. Idaho Power needs to recognize the value of the electricity I
produce.
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,
Patti Raino
4905 W Outlook Ave
Boise, ID 83703
[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 [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19

From: Donna Lybecker([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 3:34 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
We are a family who watches our budget and works to support what we see as important.
We chose to get solar because we believe in alternative energy both as a way to diversify
and as a way to minimize impact.The solar we have provides energy and we area happy to
share, but find it unacceptable that so much of the benefit of solar may to to the power
companies rather than the hardworking Idahoans who own the solar. Please support
Idaho citizens and reject Idaho Power's proposal on rooftop solar.
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,
Donna Lybecker
446 S 9th Ave
Pocatello, ID 83201
[e-mail]
20

[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 member.carePsierraclub.org or [phone].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Cynthia Beauclair
Submission Time: May 5 2025 8:16AM
Email: csbeauclair1 C«@gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3807 N Collister DR
Boise, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "When I invest in battery storage will Idaho Power eventually get away with
punishing those of us who have invested in clean energy by charging us a higher monthly
service charge? Idaho Power is a monopoly and it looks like their only concern is their
shareholders.Their plan looks like a total scam to me. I am concerned about the solar
companies that maintain and service our units, will they go out of business? I don't know
how the solar industry is going to survive this. How does Idaho Power get away with this?
Why can't we have a co-op alternative power company that looks out for citizens?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following complaint was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Richard Stouse
Submission Time: Apr 30 2025 3:OOPM
Email: rick.stousePbigdogsolar.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 538 Dell RD
CHUBBUCK, ID 83202
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Contacted Utility: No
21

Comment: "I put solar on my house in 2023 when it was a one for one rate for the power I
generated. The PUC gave Idaho Power a change to billing rates that completed hosed me
over. I went from mostly covering my power bill to barely covering my power bill. And now
you want to give them another price cut!!!! Can the PUC be anymore corrupt? Maybe
Idaho should start its own DOGE and investigate some off shore accounts with PUC
commissioners names on them. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Ashley Musick
Submission Time: May 5 2025 10:27AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3520 Tayten Dr
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I have long been a fan of Idaho Power. I know that their rates have been some of
the cheapest in the region, if not the country. However, I have been questioning this lately
due to how they are handling solar panels. I installed solar panels a few years ago, and
found that I now have a year-round bill. I do generally agree that this feels like a bait-and-
switch situation. I believe it would be unethical to use only their own study as a basis to
adjust rates when they expect to benefit/profit tremendously. Using an average of all
studies commissioned would likely give a more accurate picture of what rates should be
used. Perhaps the rates should be based on the producer's (my) out-of-pocket expenses,
and not what they pay for mass-produced energy from large suppliers. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Ralph Cavalieri
Submission Time: May 5 2025 10:59AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 16250 S Curtis Rd
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
22

Comment: "I am writing in opposition to the proposed rate change for purchase of
residential solar panel generation that Idaho Power seeks in this filing. The power purchase
rates as described are a dramatic decrease in the values currently in place. I analyzed my
usage before investing in 61 panels and anticipated a 25 year simple pay back time. This is
not an inordinately long time for a utility investment. However, that calculation is irrelevant
if the new purchase rates are approved and will make the purchase of residential solar
panels a poor investment, even for those who have a passion for increasing the use of this
form of renewable energy. The proposed change is clearly a 'bait and switch"tactic. I was
informed of the potential change from net metering to the current method of purchase and
considered that when conducting my engineering analysis for the capital investment. But,
there is no way a reasonable person could have anticipated the significant decrease that it
proposed in the case. I strongly urge the commission to deny this change:'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Mark Parsons
Submission Time: May 5 2025 11:25AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2687 W Neff St
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Subject: Opposition to Case#IPC-E-25-15—Idaho Power's Proposed Rooftop
Solar Changes
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express strong opposition to Idaho Power's proposed changes to the Export
Credit Rate (ECR)for rooftop solar customers (Case#IPC-E-25-15).These changes would
unfairly penalize existing solar customers who have already made significant investments,
discourage new solar adoption, and harm Idaho's economy and energy future.
23

Many homeowners and small businesses chose to invest in rooftop solar systems based on
a reasonable expectation of being fairly compensated for the clean energy they provide to
the grid. Changing the ECR undermines that investment and represents a broken promise
to Idahoans.
The proposal also disincentivizes new solar installations by making the economics no
Longer viable for most consumers. This is a direct blow to local solar businesses and
workers, reducingjob opportunities and local economic growth. Instead of keeping energy
dollars in our communities, the change shifts money to Idaho Power's shareholders.
Rooftop solar reduces the amount of electricity Idaho Power needs to generate or
purchase, particularly during peak periods. It provides clean, reliable energy close to where
it's used, lowering transmission costs and line losses. In a rapidly growing state—with
demand surging from new homes, data centers, and facilities like Micron's expansion—this
Local generation is critical.
Finally, reducing customer-supplied solar will lead to higher infrastructure and generation
costs for all ratepayers over time.
I urge you to reject this proposal. Protect Idahoans who have already invested in clean
energy and support policies that allow distributed generation to grow and benefit us all.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark Parsons
Boise, ID"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Wanek
Submission Time: May 5 2025 11:48AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3420 W Grover Ct
Boise, ID 83705
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
24

Comment: "Please deny the reduction in Export Credit Rate request recently filed by Idaho
Power.
I installed solar panels in July 2021 with Idaho Power's approval, and did not qualify for
"legacy" status under Idaho Power's randomly chosen cutoff date of 2019. Consequently,
the pay back period for my$26,000 investment in quality solar panels has lengthened,
possibly beyond my life expectancy!
Last year's reduction in the Export Credit Rate, supposedly to reflect the wholesale value of
the power that my panels send back to the grid, has resulted in my electric bill doubling
over what I paid in 2023.
The on-average 80%further reduction in the proposed Export Credit Rate will continue to
increase what I have to pay to Idaho Power, unfairly penalizing my contributions to reducing
the stress on the power grid.
What started out as a fair exchange - 1 unit of power generated to offset 1 unit of power
used - has eroded to the point where Idaho Power is using its dominant position to reap the
power I provide for further profit.
Society as a whole would benefit if more roofs were producing power to share, but Idaho
Power's latest actions are all about protecting its profits for shareholders, rather than the
Long term benefits to the environment and energy independence that come from
encouraging more solar panel adoption by customers.
Again, please deny the requested reduction in the Export Credit Rate filed by Idaho Power.
If possible, please revert the Export Credit Rate back to what it was prior to March of 2024,
when it was a fair economic exchange:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Drew Izatt
Submission Time: May 5 2025 12:29PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3021 Trevor St.
Pocatello, ID 83201
25

Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "From what I understand, Idaho Power has been an advocate for Solar Power
Panel installation on private residences in the past with stated expectations that such an
investment would, over time, be recouped and would help mitigate or help delay the capital
expenditures that Idaho Power would need to make to their infrastructure in order to meet
demand. Yet their recent actions have been a direct attack on those of us who have
invested in rooftop solar systems, and this new request they have made to offer only 1 cent
and 2.6 cent per kWh has no basis in logic.
On the last reduction request they made, I called in to voice my opposition, and could see
some of the logic in why they were doing what they wanted, however I did come away with a
sense that the large solar farms are one of the biggest reasons that the reduction was being
requested. Additionally, from what I understand, either all or most of the public comments
were against the decrease in rates paid for solar power. It is interesting that it still passed.
With this new request, if it can be argued that it is logical and reasonable, it does not make
sense to punish those who have made these quite large individual investments based on
expectations created in part by Idaho Power that such an investment makes sense. I would
understand it if those of us who have invested under these expectations were
grandfathered in,just as those residences who were grandfathered in who had their
systems before December of 2019 because of the expectations they were subjected to.
If grandfathering were to be offered to those who already have solar systems, then I would
not be against whatever Idaho Power can get passed because then people who
contemplate solar system purchases "after passage" could then evaluate what new rates
and plans Idaho Power is promoting, and then make an informed decision on how to
proceed. I am guessing that individual solar power investments would be severely
reduced, but at least there is open dialog and informed investment decisions could be
made.
Idaho Power is a monopoly in Pocatello. If this new proposal were to become reality,
would be right there with everyone else who thinks that there is some kind of corruption
going on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Stephen Hoffman
Submission Time: May 5 2025 1:01 PM
Email: sj1 [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7669 E Santa Anita St
Nampa, ID 83687
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "We installed solar panels on our home April 2022. Idaho Power is/has
continually made adjustments to excess power compensation for solar power generators. I
am sick and tired hearing about Idaho Power submitting proposals to the Idaho PUC on this
topic. The latest proposal in front of the board needs to be denied. Enough is enough. It's
strictly corporate greed.This PUC commission must deny this latest request. We are tired
of Idaho Power moving the goal posts regarding compensation for excess solar power
generation. As a governing body please side with the solar generators.
Thankyou,
Stephen Hoffman"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Kelly Goughnour
Submission Time: May 5 2025 1:32PM
Email: goughnour.kelly(cbgmaiL.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2687 w Neff St
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am opposed to Idaho Power's ECR changes. Please reject these changes and
uphold policies that are fair to existing solar customers (like us) and supportive of new
clean energy.
Thankyou,
Kelly Goughnour"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Donald Hahlbeck
Submission Time: May 5 2025 3:40PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 90 North Stanford Street
Nampa, ID 83651
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "Good day,
I am writing to share my opinion on Idaho Power's latest attempt to use those who invested
in a solar system as essentially free producers of electricity to feed their grid. Several years
ago I bought my solar system at the steep prices of around $25,000 with the idea in mind
that over time the outlay would eventually pay for itself in reduced, or no energy bills.
When the bills kept coming, we were told that the original array was not enough to cover
our usage, so we sunk almost as much into a second array which finally did cover our
usage. Again, I believe it worth the investment as it would pay for itself in time with
minimal energy cost. Then Idaho power decided in 2023 to stiff us generators by changing
the ECR calculation and reducing what we would get for generated electricity, then again in
2024. Now, it seems that they are going to make it an annual event until they are getting the
power we generate for no cost while we get the expense of installing the infrastructure. I
am sure it is by no coincidence that their rate shenanigans will go into effect around the
same time as they typically charge the most for electricity each year.
This is entirely unsatisfactory, and feels a bit like a bait and switch. It seems like they they
made adding the systems attractive only long enough to dupe people into installing the
system, having outlaid the cash for it now as I stated they want the power being made at
our expense and to give us nothing in return for it.
Should their rate change succeed I have every intent of disabling my solar array until such
time as I can get a storage system, or leave it disabled indefinitely. What Idaho Power is
doing amounts to theft. They want to pay the generator pennies for the electricity while
charging its customers dollars for the same electricity. I could call that abusive, but it
would be more proper, I think to call it theft. They courted us with honeyed words of cost
28

cutting, and now are trying to rob us after we trusted them and made the investment. I
sincerely hope that you will block their effort to defer cost to us, while profiting off our loss.
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Donald Hahlbeck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: James Davies
Submission Time: May 5 2025 3:25PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2463 Andrew St
Pocatello, ID 83201
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "From what I understand, Idaho Power has been an advocate for Solar Power
Panel installation on private residences in the past with stated expectations that such an
investment would, over time, be recouped and would help mitigate or help delay the capital
expenditures that Idaho Power would need to make to their infrastructure in order to meet
demand. Yet their recent actions have been a direct attack on those of us who have
invested in rooftop solar systems, and this new request they have made to offer only 1 cent
and 2.6 cent per kWh has no basis in logic.
It seems to me that the homeowner, has footed the bill for building up Idaho Power's power
generation. Now we are paying for Idaho Power's profit with this new proposal.
Their last rate hike and attack on home solar generators, did not meet their profit
expectations, so what do they do...back to the IDPUC asking for more.
Additionally, from what I understand, either all or most of the public comments were
against the decrease in rates paid for solar power. It is interesting that it still passed.
29

With this new request, if it can be argued that it is logical and reasonable, it does not make
sense to punish those who have made these quite large individual investments based on
expectations created in part by Idaho Power that such an investment makes sense. I would
understand it if those of us who have invested under these expectations were
grandfathered in,just as those residences who were grandfathered in who had their
systems before December of 2019 because of the expectations they were subjected to.
If grandfathering were to be offered to those who already have solar systems, then I would
not be against whatever Idaho Power can get passed because then people who
contemplate solar system purchases "after passage" could then evaluate what new rates
and plans Idaho Power is promoting, and then make an informed decision on how to
proceed. I am guessing that individual solar power investments would be severely
reduced, but at least there is open dialog and informed investment decisions could be
made.
Idaho Power is a monopoly in Eastern Idaho. If this new proposal were to become reality, I
would be right there with everyone else who thinks that there is some kind of corruption
going on:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Jentry Hull
Submission Time: May 5 2025 3:57PM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2072 N Painted Rock Ln
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The proposed customer solar-generated power kickback reduction of 80% is
asinine. Us 2% of your customers who willingly sacrificed and "invested" in solar to give
back to the community need to be handled better. I'm upside down on my solar system,
but I still feel good about what I'm doing for the environment, and Idaho Power provides a
Little financial relief. WHY WOULD YOU REDUCE THAT BY 80%??This is foolish and
seriously bad business. Don't be the corporate giant that everyone hates. Praise those who
are willing to help out. I beg that you reconsider the reduction, and if you do proceed with
the reduction, please allow ALL systems installed prior to JUNE 1, 2025 to be in legacy
30

status. Why go back to 2019?We invested in 2021...during COVID. Please don't punish us
further. I'm asking that you reconsider.Thank you!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Adam Young<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 4:22 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Comments on IPC-E-25-15
Good afternoon Ms. Monica Barrios-Sanchez,
I have attached public comments regarding IPC-E-25-15 on behalf of our family's farm.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Adam Young
[phone]
May 5, 2025
Re: Case Number IPC-E-25-15
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
secretalykpuc.idaho.gov
Dear Public Utilities Commissioners:
My name is Adam Young, and my family farms 2,700 acres of wheat, barley, and alfalfa in
Bingham County. I am writing with great concern about Idaho Power's recent proposal to
dramatically reduce export credit rates (ECRs) for customer generators. Such an abrupt change
would do great harm to our farm and to other irrigators who have made significant investments
in solar generation to offset rising irrigation power costs. If approved, Idaho Power's proposed
ECRs would reduce the value of the energy our farm provides to the grid by more than half. The
Commission should reject Idaho Power's proposal for several reasons, including the following:
1. Misalignment between the ECR structure and irrigation rate schedules creates an unfair
disadvantage for irrigators.
31

2. Idaho Power is adding tremendous amounts of solar generation to meet future demand
while simultaneously devaluing customer-generated solar.
In my 2022 testimony before the Commission, I expressed concerns that a time-variant ECR was
out of sync with static consumption rates. The misalignment between time-based values in the
ECR structure and the high demand charge and flat volumetric prices in the irrigator rate design
means that the energy that we generate during peak-demand hours is already undervalued: when
our pumps are running, we're only credited 5.70 per kWh (irrigators'volumetric rate) for times
when Idaho Power has valued that energy at 170 per kWh. The current rate structure does not
credit any portion of our demand charges, even though our generation provides Idaho Power(and
all ratepayers) an avoided cost benefit.
Idaho Power's irrigation rate structure over the past several decades has incentivized farmers to
build systems that run 24/7. This has placed us in a situation where we are largely unable to
mitigate rising electricity costs, especially since there is no incentive for irrigators, at large, to
shut off during peak-demand hours. In fact, under the current rate structure, my electric bill
would be higher if I designed a system with the capacity to shut off during peak-demand hours
than if I irrigated day-in and day-out. This fundamental misalignment could be remedied by
giving irrigators the option to pay a time-variable rate in lieu of demand charges.
The value of our solar generation is further diluted by the fact that all customer classes are paid
the same rate for what we export. The highly-advanced solar trackers that we have invested in
produce a larger amount of energy throughout the entire day than stationary or rooftop solar.
Importantly, our systems are productive during the "shoulder"periods when rooftop solar is
offline. I recognize the Commission's interest in keeping classes combined but, if we were
separate, irrigators'ECRs would be higher. If the Commission wishes to keep classes combined,
then perhaps it could consider recognizing the differences in the value provided by fixed and
tracking customer systems regardless of customer class.
Lastly, it is entirely inconsistent for Idaho Power to dramatically devalue customer generation
while simultaneously expanding its solar infrastructure—and increasing rates to cover the cost.
According to the company's 2023 Integrated Resource Plan(IRP), solar generation alone
represents 48% of the infrastructure investment that Idaho Power plans on making over the next
20 years. Solar generation, combined with battery storage, represents a whopping 69% of the
company's planned portfolio additions. The company has signaled that it will seek rate increases
over the next several years as it expands to meet growing demand.
While the 2025 IRP has yet to be finalized, preliminary portfolio options include large additions
of solar and batteries in the near future to meet growing demand. If Idaho Power plans to add its
own solar, then the energy that customers with self-generation are providing to the grid is likely
32

much more valuable than Idaho Power is claiming. Please correct that underpricing of our
exports before approving any changes to the ECR rates.
Respectfully,
Adam Young
Young Family Farms
1543 W Taber Rd
Blackfoot, ID 83221
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33