20250512Comments_26.pdf

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lynda Clark
Submission Time: May 9 2025 4:02PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 10240 W Arnold Rd
Boise, ID 83714-3821
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I think solar power is a good option and shoudl be a requirement for all new
house builds and be put on every roof top to help with the energy crises we are facing. it is
a good way to subsidize our PUC power grid -taking the load off the DAMS and COAL and
Natural GAS. We shoudl be credited the same price for any extra electricity we share back
to the grid as what Idaho Power charges us for their electricity coming into our homes.
That allows people to invest in solar and help with what little they can.
Idaho power shoudl not be threatened by this but shoudl embrace it. As EV continue to
grow so does demand. this is just away for the regularjoe to help.
Because Idaho/ PUC keep taking away any benefits for me having solar, --> it really makes
me want to purchase batteries and go completely off grid. thus not paying anything to
Idaho Power. It seems like we could work together to benefit all. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Clayton Armstrong
Submission Time: May 9 2025 4:10PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13246 W Trail Creek Road
Pocatello, ID 83204
Name of Utility Company: Armstrong Sprinklers & Landscaping LLC
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
1

Comment: "To whom it may concern.
We put solar power in 4 years ago and saw a significant savings our first 3-years. Everyone
is always pushing"go green" and help reduce the drain on the power company. Last year
when Idaho power changed how they paid solar customers for producing power...we saw a
huge loss in the rate we were getting back. My system is large and cost$65,000 dollars. We
felt good about producing clean energy and helping lesson the demand on conventional
energy sources. Now Idaho Power is stealing our energywe produce. In truth we should be
paid the same amount for our power production as they charge a consumer. Why is this not
so?Why is Idaho Power cheating all of the solar owners? Please help protect us and future
Solar clients. It is wrong, unethical, and poor business practice for Idaho Power to benefit
from the expensive solar systems solar owners have put in. We are trying to help the
environment and they are hurting us for it. Idaho Power is taking advantage of solar owners.
It is yourjob to protect us and help things to be equitable, fair and honest.
Sincerely,
Clayton Armstrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Larkin ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:16 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
This is totally unfair to solar home owners.
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.
2

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,
Michael Larkin
7505 W Portneuf Rd
Pocatello, ID 83204
mlarkinaowsiakC�gmaiLcom
[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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Jessica Larsen
Submission Time: May 10 2025 12:49AM
Email: weeloow1(cbyahoo.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8687 Washoe Rd
Payette , ID 83661
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID:
Comment: "I'm a homeowner here in Idaho. I'm writing to express my deep concern—and
frankly, frustration—over Idaho Power's latest proposal to slash the value of rooftop solar
credits by up to 80%.
Like many Idahoans, I invested in rooftop solar because I believe in energy independence,
sustainability, and doing what's right for my family and future generations. I wanted to lower
my energy bills, reduce my reliance on the grid, and contribute to a cleaner environment.
But this proposal feels like a betrayal of those values.
3

Under the new plan, the credit for excess solar energy would drop to just 0.95 cents per
kilowatt-hour from October 1 to May 31 —the exact time of year when energy is most
critical for keeping our homes warm. And now even summer credits are at risk, further
eroding the return on a significant investment that many of us made in good faith.
This doesn't just hurt me—it hurts anyone in Idaho who might want to go solar in the
future. It makes solar less affordable, gives Idaho Power even more control over our energy
choices, and discourages local solutions to the very real challenges of extreme weather
and rising costs.
Idahoans value independence. We value resilience. We value the ability to make decisions
that work for our families—especially when it comes to something as essential as energy.
Please don't let this proposal move forward. It punishes responsible homeowners,
undermines energy freedom, and sends the wrong message to anyone considering clean
energy in our state."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: george Steinmetz
Submission Time: May 9 2025 6:51 PM
Email: stein [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4959hawthorne
chubbuck, ID 83202
Name of Utility Company: steinmetzracing
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I like my solar,it helps great on my power bill."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4

Name: Roy Evans
Submission Time: May 9 2025 7:22PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3320 HWY 95
Parma, ID 83660
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "ID My wife and I spent over$70,000 to install a solar system on our property.
We did this to save on our utility costs and invest in our future. What Idaho Power is
proposing is a regress to the promises made to us when we signed our contract with Big
Dog Solar. If this is allowed to go through there will likely be more cutbacks in the future.
Please deny.
Roy Evans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Robert Phelps
Submission Time: May 10 2025 5:11 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4449 S Dazzle Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Dear Idaho Public Utility Commissioners,
With economic uncertainty and rising energy costs, it's clear that Idaho should be seeking
ways to support more affordable energy choices. Rooftop solar has provided many families
and businesses with a solution to lower their electricity bill and generate reliable electricity
for themselves and their communities. Contrary to Idaho Power's statements home solar
5

owners are not competitors to the utility but rather partners in providing electricity to our
neighbors.
That is why I am concerned about the proposal Idaho Power has submitted in IPC-E-25-15
that would make going solar harder and more expensive. The proposed changes to net
billing rates would have a devastating impact on customers who have already gone solar or
are thinking about going solar, at a time when they can least afford it.
Rooftop solar reduces the strain on aging utility infrastructure and lowers the need for
costly utility investments, which saves money for everyone. It's been proven in state after
state that, over time, this leads to a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient energy system that
benefits all ratepayers—not just those who own their own solar systems.
Additionally, the further reduction of net billing rates will devastate the $1.6 billion local
rooftop solar industry and put more than 700 jobs at risk.
I hope you will oppose IPC-E-25-15 that diminishes the widespread benefits of rooftop
solar and prevents more families from going solar.
Thankyou,
Robert Phelps"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Randy Aebischer
Submission Time: May 10 2025 7:03PM
Email: randy2shoes58Ccbgmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 110 holly st
Caldwell, ID 83605
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "We decided to buy solar panels to try and help the environment and when we
found out that we could get them and the Idaho Power would be buying back our Excess
power it looked like the wayto go so after we bottom had them installed and now you guys
want to change the rules you know it's not fair it's totally wrong and we are not happy about
it"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6

Name: Anne Herndon
Submission Time: May 10 2025 8:57PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6110 Bay Street
Boise, ID 83704
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Commissioners:
RE: Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) case IPC-E-25-15
Idaho Power's recent 200% increase in fixed meter service charges plus a proposed
decrease in the Export Credit Rate (ECR) of up to 80%via Case IPC-E-25-15 constitute a
direct attack on rooftop solar customers. Idaho Power needs to honor its commitment to
move to 100% clean resources by 2045 by providing incentives to on-site generators just as
it provides incentives for customers who participate in their energy efficiency programs.
Customers who contribute clean, renewable energy to the grid should be rewarded, not
punished.
The Commission's duty is to protect the PUBLIC from unfair practices of monopolistic for-
profit utilities such as Idaho Power.The Value of Distributed Energy Resource (VODER)
study that Idaho Power was allowed to use in order to create an ECR formula that provides
huge profits to its shareholders was totally biased and unfair.
I urge you to right the wrongyou created in earlier rate cases by rejecting Idaho Power's
current application in Case IPC-E-25-15. The application document is 48 pages long and
intentionally overloaded with technical verbiage to disguise the fact that Idaho Power's
complicated ECR Methodology was developed solely to increase their own profits and
extinguish any chance of future growth in rooftop solar.
I suggest allowing ALL on-site generators, current and future, to be compensated for the
excess energy they produce via the Legacy system with no expiration dates. The Legacy
formula is simple: 1 excess kWh produced = 1 kWh credit. Forget convoluted formulas with
controversial annual updates and simplify everything by expanding the Legacy system
permanently to all customers.
7

Thankyou,
Anne Herndon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Gary Deatherage
Submission Time: May 11 2025 10:47AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15311 Sequoia Grove Way
Caldwell, ID 83607
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I had solar panels installed on my new home right after purchase. I've always
believed in this option for energy, but my previous residence had to many trees. Now the
utility company wants to change the rules and charge me for being a responsible citizen by
using clean energy. Solar was a huge investment into clean energy on my part. The utility
company needs to keep their hands out of my pocket and continue to as previously agreed.
NO NEW FEES OR TAXES. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Stacy Moon
Submission Time: May 11 2025 12:51 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3550 N. BROOKSIDE LANE
BOISE, ID 83714-0000
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "I am sending a comment to protect my large investment in solar energy. We
are constantly be informed we as individuals all need to be more green with our enery
consumption. Since I have installed my system, the system has changed from a net
8

metering to Idaho Power paying for my excess energy at a lower price than they charge me
for use. Since the switch from net metering to paying for excess generation, My tracking
compared to previous year shows that my solar payment with my energy consumption
payment is no longer an advantage. If this price reduction of excess genertation is put into
place, I will be at a net loss from my generation and payment for my solar. If I had known
this was going to be the outcome of installing Solar, I would not have invested in solar. lam
requesting the PUC to deny Idaho Powers request. I would actually prefer the PUC to
reinstate the net metering that was in place when I installed my Solar. Please quit
punishing individual for investing large amounts of money and then being punished
financially for the investment by continually moving the finish line. Thankyou. Stacy.
Moon"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Donald Kemper
Submission Time: May 11 2025 3:14PM
Email: dkemper398 - gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1821 N EDGECLIFFTER
BOISE, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "The IPUC exists to protect the interests of citizens from the unfair practices of
monopolies. Idaho Power is a monopoly across its service area in two ways.
First, it is the only power company that can sell power in its service area.
But Idaho Power is also the only power company that can buy power in its service area. It
has a power buying monopoly.
Idaho Power's proposal to greatly lower the price of power bought from co-generators in its
service area is an unfair monopolistic practice for three reasons:
1. A co-generator must pay Idaho Power for the right to buy power but Idaho Power
pays nothing for its right to buy power from the co-generator.
2. Idaho Power doesn't pay for the power they buy; they only issue credits.
3. The power they buy from the co-generator often allows Idaho Power to sell the
equivalent power outside of their service area at market prices well-above the ECR level.
9

To do its job in protecting the public against these unfair monopolistic buying practices the
PUC should do one or more of the following:
1. The PUC could require Idaho Power to discount the monthly service fee by the
percentage of power out vs. power in for each co-generator. (A person who generates to the
grid twice as much power as he uses from the grid would pay only one third of the monthly
hook-up fee.)
2. The PUC could require IP to reimburse co-generators at no less than 90% of the
electricity market clearing price in effect at the moment of the transmission into the grid.
(Yes, sometimes that market rate might be negative and a negative amount would be
deducted from the co-generator's credit surplus.)
3. Idaho Power could simplifythe power purchase agreement with co-generators by
paying them a 0.9 kwh to 1.0 kwh exchange for power no matter when delivered to the grid.
(Similar to the 1 to 1 exchange still in place for grandfathered co-generators)
4. To acknowledge the value of green (low carbon emission) energy, the PUC could
boost the exchange rate in #s2 and 3 above by the same $0.01/kwh that it charges
customers for green energy.
At a minimum, the PUC should pause all changes to the ECRs until the anti-monopolistic
strategies discussed above are completely developed, reviewed and considered:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Pamela Ward
Submission Time: May 11 2025 4:49PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12805 W. Reservation Rd
Pocatello, ID 83202
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: " Idaho Power's new rate structure would make rooftop solar less affordable
for Idahoans each year. The PUC should reject Idaho Power's proposals to limit locally
owned solar power.and require fair rates &amp; fees for local solar owners. Idaho should
be expanding access to solar to equitably address climate change &amp; support local
economies:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Bart Harloe
Submission Time: May 11 2025 4:53PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6238 W Parapet Ct
Boise, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Representing self
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "We invested in solar power last year based upon the net metering system
approach. Now in a bait and switch Idaho Power is trying to jack up rates by moving to a
new pricing system that totally negates the advantage of investing in solar power in Idaho.
This is simply malfeasance on the part of Idaho Power. I would hope that the Public Utilities
Commission would act according to the public interest and make net metering an ongoing
commitment in Idaho. Otherwise, one has to wonder what is the point of having a Public
Utilities Commission. The point is now to act in the interest of Idaho citizens by supporting
this effort to help move toward more solar in Idaho. This is both in the short-term of Long-
term interest of Idaho as a state and the citizens who have invested in solar as a way to
mitigate some of the challenges facing all us in the future.
Bart Harloe
6238 W. Parapet Ct.
Boise, Idaho 83703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Philley([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 10:17 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I want to assure my family?s future safety by installing solar but don?t want to do this when
I cannot trust the electric company to be consistent in how they will support my efforts.
11

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,
Susan Philley
8639 W Atwater Drive
Boise, ID 83714
suephilley@gmaiLcom
[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.careCabsierraclub.org or [phone].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Bryan Schultz
Submission Time: May 11 2025 8:03PM
Email: fabschultz1997@gmaiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2300 W HIGHWAY 33
Rexburg, I D 83440
12

Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I would like to comment that what the power company is doing is dishonest
business practice. One of the selling points of investing in solar power was to give the
control of power use and source to the consumer and in good faith having the power
company purchase the excess power produced by the panels for use into their system. It is
exceedingly unfair practice of the power company to pay a fraction of the going rate in order
for them to turn around and resale that power for their already high price:'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: EARL CHRISTIANSEN
Submission Time: May 12 2025 7:10AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3707 E 3793 N
Kimberly, ID 83341
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The impending Export credit rate decrease for self solar generation certainly
doesn't reflect the upward price pressure and inflationary conditions which have been
experienced the last couple of years by Idaho power customers in most all services and
goods.
I would strongly oppose and urge the commission to not decrease the Export Credit rate
which private generators are receiving for their solar energy generation,
The positive impact from solar must not be discouraged as it is a very good sustainable
energy source. The "current" Export Credit rate doesn't really reflect the "true value" of the
energy being generated by private energy generators are we are currently being short-
changed in credit for the power we are sending back into the grid.
To approve a rate decrease is certainly in THE WRONG DIRECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Benjamin Price
Submission Time: May 12 2025 8:16AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15 s ruby st
Boise, ID 83706
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I'm a writing to object to Idaho Power's latest proposal to cut solar credits
again.
I purchased a residential solar panel system in 2021 with the understanding I would get a
one for one credit for the power I produced and sent to Idaho Power. Every kW I produce I
get 1 kW back. This seems obviously fair and even handed. It makes the installation of
residential solar panels slightly financially feasible. Thus encouraging the use of clean
energy and making for a more resilient power grid. It is the direction the IPUC should be
Leading us for the maximum community benefit.
However, since then IPUC has allowed Idaho Power to cut credits with a confusing on-peak
and off-peak system. The net result here is less residential solar and the homeowners like
me that invested in good faith are now financially penalized. And this latest proposal is
laughably unfair. Credits cut by up to 80%???! What is Idaho Power doing here? They are
certainly not trying to be "fair" as they claim. It is a money grab, literally a power grab, and
not in the best interest of our community. I look at the CEO's compensation increasing
from 4.4M to over 7M in 2023 and it just makes me disgusted at the greed and pillaging
being allowed. Support solar and other clean energy alternatives. Support a flexible and
strong power grid. Support the community not executive greed and bonuses. Please push
Idaho Power back to fair and equitable practices such as giving 1 to 1 credit for solar power
buy backs. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Pamela Clark
Submission Time: May 12 2025 9:20AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1122 N Dawn Dr
Boise, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "As our population grows, so does our need for power. The more residents who
have solar power, the less stress on the power grid. Reducing the solar credits will result in
fewer people opting for solar power, which, in turn, increases stress on available resources.
As providers of power, home owners with solar panels should be compensated an equal$
amount as the cost per KWH. Not reducing the credits continues our drive to provide clean
energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Don Jakovac
Submission Time: May 12 2025 1:21 PM
Email:jakdon custertel.net
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 544 Hwy 93 South
Salmon, ID 83467
Name of Utility Company: self
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Dear Idaho Public Utility Commissioners,
With economic uncertainty and rising energy costs, it's clear that Idaho should be seeking
ways to support more affordable energy choices. Rooftop solar has provided many families
and businesses with a solution to lower their electricity bill and generate reliable electricity
for themselves and their communities. The incentive to build out solar by individuals is
dramatically reduced when public utilities attempt to discourage solar build out by paying
15

unfair and below wholesale prices for exported power. This nation and Idaho need to
encourage solar build outs to provide electricity to an electrical grid infrastructure that
coming under more stress every day. The exponential growth of EVs and data centers is
going to put huge stress on the current infrastructure in a short amount of time.
That is why I am concerned about the proposal Idaho Power has submitted in IPC-E-25-15
that would make going solar harder and more expensive. The proposed changes to net
billing rates would have a devastating impact on customers who have already gone solar or
are thinking about going solar, at a time when they can least afford it.
Rooftop solar reduces the strain on aging utility infrastructure and lowers the need for
costly utility investments, which saves money for everyone. It's been proven in state after
state that, over time, this leads to a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient energy system that
benefits all ratepayers—not just those who own their own solar systems.
Additionally, the further reduction of net billing rates will devastate the $1.6 billion local
rooftop solar industry and put more than 700 jobs at risk.
I hope you will oppose IPC-E-25-15 that diminishes the widespread benefits of rooftop
solar and prevents more families from going solar.
Thankyou,
Don &amp; Gloria Jakovac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Swanson ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:57 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
re IPC-E-25-15
I installed solar about seven years ago because it was the right thing to do for the
environment, and an investment for my future. Idaho Power seems to be dead set on using
16

its influence to make solar a pointless investment, push out solar businesses, and punish
solar customers for making an environmentally responsible choice.
The new proposal reduces the export credit rate down from about 4 cents per kilowatt-hr
(kWhr)to less than 1 cent for 8 months of the year(non-peak, non-summer). The 4 cents
per kWhr was a major reduction from the legacy net metering when Idaho Power customers
received a 1 for 1 credit for excess energy transported to the grid (approximately 10 cents
per kilowatt-hour).
This is corporate greed. I ask the PUC to reject this proposal.
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,
Ann Swanson
2161 Diane Lane
Pocatello, ID 83201
[e-mail]
[phone]
17

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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KEITH REINHARDT([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 3:29 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
PLEASE REJECT IDAHO POWER'S PROPOSALTO REDUCE ROOFTOP SOLAR
COMPENSATION. SEVERAL AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THEIR
INTERNAL STUDY THAT JUSTIFIES THESE REDUCTIONS IS FLAWED, AND DOES NOT
COMPARE WELL TO A STUDY CONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT COMPANY.
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,
KEITH REINHARDT
18

356 South 8th Avenue
Pocatello, ID 83201
[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 member.carePsierraclub.org or [phone].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Gardner([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 2:57 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
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,
Joel Gardner
35 Creighton St
19

Pocatello, ID 83201
studio305(@gmait.com
[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.careCcbsierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20

;oaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720 2025 MAY 12 AM If: 53
Iv1�1,1 10 PUBLIC
Boise, ID 83714 J 1 li..i T IES COMMISSION
Case#: IPC-E-25-15
I am a homeowner that made the decision to install a fairly large solar system on our
house.We have a large extended family, a 100%electric house due to location and this
results in a very large power bill.Anything that will lower the annual cost of power for my
family is a benefit to me. Compensation for excess power and the way the IPUC regulates
this has caused me concern. I don't pretend to know how this all works. I do think that the
Idaho Power Company seems to not look at this co-generation arrangement with a proper
perspective.
As I understand the IPUC and Idaho Power Company,the company's rates are
regulated because they are in a monopoly position and are allowed to access public right
of ways and other protections granted by the government including protection from
competitors. It has been a very good arrangement for consumers and a profitable business
for Idaho Power. Independent co-generation and increased demand for electricity has now
complicated how Idaho Powers place in the system works.
Electricity rate calculations would be very simple if Idaho Power owned 100% of the
generating capacity.The power rate would be calculated by taking the cost of production
plus the distribution costs and multiplying that by the rate of return or profit the IPUC is
going to allow Idaho Power Company to receive. In the past this worked. Now Idaho Power
is being supplied with power to the grid that they don't produce, and it affects everything.
How this power is used and compensated for naturally impacts everything Idaho Power
does. To allow Idaho Power to compensate co-generators at a level that is lower than the
cost of production is shortsighted and is going to negatively impact Idaho Power and
consumers in the future.
The demand for power in Idaho is going up,which requires more generating
capacity. I don't imagine there will be any new hydroelectric projects in the future that will
supply any of that new demand. This means that any new generation will come from coal or
gas fired generators, solar or wind power. Coal and gas generators are the easiest to match
supply with demand and all have different costs of production. If as in the past Idaho Power
owned and operated all the generators this would still be an easy calculation. Idaho Power

would simply add up all the various costs of production plus the distribution costs, a
reasonable rate of return would be added, and the power rate would be established. If
Idaho Power owned all the production assets, they would expect a rate of return on those
generating assets that would repair and replace them as necessary and those assets would
add net worth to the company.
The problem that now exists in the system is determining how to compensate all the
different power producers fairly and benefit consumers in general. Idaho Power
experiences a loss in demand for power with every solar or wind system that is installed
that they don't own.When they compensate for the excess power at a level that is below
cost and resell that to other customers at a large mark-up then they find themselves in the
horrible position of having reduced demand and excess profit in these small steps. It
prevents Idaho Power from adding its own production to the grid that would increase net
company worth and be compensated with regulated rates to support that. Keeping supply
matched with demand and control of that is the only way Idaho Power can manage rates
that will produce the income that IPUC will allow. It is interesting to note that there are
several small hydro-generators that the Boise Project Board of Control installed over the
past few years that Idaho Power does not purchase the power generated. Consumers in
other areas are willing to pay more for that power than Idaho Power can profitably add it
into our local grid. So,this creates a dilemma. Keeping Idaho rates as low as possible for
consumers and allowing Idaho Power Company to remain relevant in the larger power grid.
I don't have a brilliant idea to solve this problem. It is unlikely that allowing Idaho
Power to compensate co-generators at less than the cost of production and reselling that
power inside the Idaho grid will do anything more than hurt Idaho Power in the longer term.
We installed our system because at the rates we were charged for power and the expected
exchange we expected for our excess power made sense.The new exchange rate means
that we will pay more for power in total while adding to Idaho Power's windfall profit.That
windfall for Idaho Power is good for the overall rate payers because that unearned profit will
keep rates down because Idaho Power can't account for the cost of production. Not being
able to account for the cost of production as a component in the rate calculations requires
Idaho Power to keep rates unrealistically low because the profit in this exchange are
unrealistically high.
The IPUC would never allow Idaho Power to receive a rate of return that is below the
cost of production. Idaho Power would be insolvent in a very short time. Idaho Power would
never add generating capacity without knowing that capacity is going to be paid for at a
profit. Changing the compensation formula after the generating capacity is installed
doesn't do anything but cause damage to someone, me. I know we have some of the lowest

;.power rates in the nation. That means we have excess power generating capacity. Maybe,
;daho Power needs to be allowed to sell every watt of power generated by solar and wind on
the larger power grid and be investing in interstate power transmission instead of becoming
an irrelevant bystander. They need to pay co-generators at a level that covers the cost of
generating that power in order to justify higher rates over the entire system. Stealing the
power and reselling it will only shrink Idaho Power in the long run.
I hope you will consider some of the things that I have said. Idaho has benefitted
from low-cost powerforever.We have become so accustomed to that tow-cost power that
when increased rates come along,we look for alternatives. Solar was our method to
answer that. Unfortunately,that negatively affects Idaho Power Company.That company
will not grow and may possibly shrink in size if it can't unload some of the power it is not
producing. If power is worth more in other areas, let Idaho Power purchase our power at
whatever rate that happens to be and pay us for it. Ship that amount of power out of our
grid. Our cost of production would be compensated for and maybe even at a profit.We
didn't put our system in to lower the cost of electricity for all our fellow Idahoans. I would
prefer to sell my power to another system if it is worth more and purchase the power we
consume from Idaho power at a lower rate if that is the price structure that exists.We put
our system in for our personal benefit and to lower our individual costs. Not recognizing
that Idaho can use power as an exportable commodity doesn't seem wise and we
shouldn't be required to give our production to Idaho Power at a loss and they shouldn't
have to supply it to the Idaho grid with an unearned profit attached.That doesn't really do
Idaho Power any good and it actually hurts me.
Thankyou,
James Howell
25455 Jacks Road
Parma, Idaho 83660
[phone]
.jrAkeiwe<I& rope �tAe. n�f

Maya, 2025 � LCEIVEL
RE: Case Number IPC-E-25-15 1025 HAY 12 AM 11: 53
IL, ,'-I 3 i-UHiC
Commission Secretary II_!41% COMMISSION
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
secretaryfpuc.idaho.gov
Dear Public Utilities Commission,
My name is Randy Bauscher and my family farm grows crops on around 12,000
acres.We grow numerous varieties of potatoes, sugar beets, canola seed, dry edible
beans, and malt barley.
We have had 3 100Kw solar units for around 5 years, we are in the process of putting
in 33 of the very large oscillating units. Many are in the process of getting ready to start
supplying power.
I feel there is a misalignment between time-based values in the ECR structure and
high demand charge and flat volumetric prices in the irrigation rate design, that the energy
that we generate during peak-demand hours is already undervalued. When our pumps are
running,we only are credited $.057 per Kw and Idaho Power has it valued at$.17 per Kw.
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 off Line. I recognize the Commissions' 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.
It is inconsistent for Idaho Power to dramatically devalue customer generation while
at the same time expanding its own solar infrastructure.
Please correct the underpricing of our exports before approving any changes to the
ECR rate.
Sin rel ^1
f�—
ndy B scher
B&H Fa ing
83 North 100 East
Rupert, ID 83350

HOME ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL
4250 W.SLIGARBERRY CT. �'� ' P.O.BOX 83720
EAGLE,ID 83616 �
BOISE,IDAHO 83720-0081
[phone]
[e-mail]
) E C"E I V E D .�
r�
[1125 MAY 12 AM 11= 54 Idaho State Senate
_I ± _ I1"4 f.0MMISSI01 SENATOR C. SCOTT GROW
To: Idaho Public Utilities Commission May 10, 2025
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Several of my constituents are concerned about the Idaho Power(IP)proposal to decrease their
Export Credit Rate (ECR),the amount IP pays to solar panel owners for electricity that goes into
the IP power grid.
One of them wrote: "For years we are encouraged by IP to install rooftop solar systems, and
now, having invested tens of thousands of dollars, they propose further devaluing the energy we
send to the grid? How can the IPUC justify a 250%reduction in the blended rate of return and
less than a penny per KWH non-summer, a reduction of over 500%,this after cutting that rate of
return last year by half. Should this shocking affront to current and future solar producers be
allowed, there will be zero incentive to install a solar system,very little incentive to return power
to the grid and a fatal blow will be dealt to the private solar industry in Idaho."
I have looked into this. It appears my constituents have some valid concerns. I think stated most
succinctly, the claims and counter-claims are:
IP: Claims they should not pay market value for privately generated solar power because the
solar power then uses IP infrastructure that those generating solar power privately have not paid
for. This causes an unfair shift to other customers.
Private solar generation: IP has no production cost when they use privately generated solar
power because IP uses the infrastructure purchased by private generators. Solar generation also
significantly decreases IP cost of building and maintaining infrastructure for what would
otherwise have required larger capacities, therefor,there is no unfair shift of cost to other
customers. Decreasing the ECR makes environmentally friendly solar power uneconomical for
the homeowner to produce, shifting power generation to production that is less friendly to the
environment.

Here are some things I have learned:
-- IP began this practice in 1983. The law requires that they buy this energy that is produced by
private solar panel owners,but allows IP (Idaho Power)to set the rate.
-- IP went to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission(IPUC) in 2022 requesting a major decrease
in the ECR.
-- The IPUC demanded a study. The design of the study was presented to the public and to
IPUC. It was approved.
-- The results of the study supported a large decrease in the ECR.
-- The gist of the IP argument is that panel owners should not get the full market value for the
energy they sell because they are using the IP infrastructure.
-- It appears they did not consider that the solar panel owners used their own infrastructure; IP
did not have the expense of producing the electricity.
-- A group called Crossborder Energy conducted an "independent" study,probably in September
of 2022. It is not clear who funded this study -- or if Crossborder did it on their own.
-- The Crossborder study quite compellingly supports an ECR of at least what IP is presently
paying.
-- Crossborder also claims the IP study did not do all that IPUC committed them to do.
-- It appears that the IPUC has accepted the IP study; IP is moving ahead with the decrease.
-- This makes investment in solar panels economically unfeasible. The payback at the existing
rate was 10-12 years. It would now be on the order of 50-80 years.
All this raises many questions. Some of them are:
-- The decrease clearly disincentivizes solar panel usage. IPUC appears to have some stated
objectives about moving to clean and renewable energy, as does IP. Is clean,renewable energy
really an objective of the IPUC? Of IP? If so,how can they justify this decrease? It is difficult
to imagine a more cost-effective way of partially meeting that objective than to encourage
private clean power generation.
-- Did IPUC ever see and consider the Crossborder study? If so, what were your comments?
-- Did IP ever see and comment on the Crossborder study? If so, what were their comments?
-- Does IPUC have a role in moving IP toward clean and renewable energy? If so, why not
encourage private, clean power generation?
-- IP apparently accepts no responsibility for setting what they now claim are erroneous ECR
rates that caused many to invest heavily in solar panels. Should they? They are now pulling the
rug out from under the investors that at one time they encouraged.
-- The present ECR has apparently provided stockholders an acceptable return for
decades. Why is it now unacceptable?
Please answer the above questions. Without answers, it appears the decreased ECR is not
justified.
Sinc ly, ^/
�v v
Senator C. Scott Grow