20250514Comments_29.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Duane Hamilton
Submission Time: May 13 2025 4:25PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3432 S Summerset Way
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "I am disgusted with how I have tried to help Idaho power sustain clean energy
but they keep making it better for them not the ones supplying it to them. It amazes me
they continue to give employees raises on the backs of the Solar customers. After
spending$45,000 to help me afford electric they have made my bill rise back to before my
solar savings. As a 100% Disabled Veteran living off my disability they are making it more for
them and less for me. They should pay me back for my solar!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Connie Ward
Submission Time: May 13 2025 4:30PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3768 S Lone Pine Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho public utilities
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I invested, as a senior to help fix my energy expenses. My concern is you will
give me less credit for my excess energy. This offsets my costs, and was part of my
thousands of dollars spent on solar. Doing this to seniors, making a lower return on my
solar investment would be catastrophic to my finances. I consider this a breach of your
connection with my system's original cost analysis. And finally this is not moving towards
clean energy since less people will sign up in the future due to your direct actions.
A slowdown in Idaho's move toward clean, independent energy"
1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Kenneth Mack
Submission Time: May 13 2025 4:47PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 25942 shanel dr
Wilder, ID 83676
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "This is ridiculous. These greedy companies make enough money on customer
fees ($15.00 per month per customer) and they have over 640000 customers which is 9.6
million per month. Do they really need more money?They also charge for the electricity
they sell. They also sell energy to California at a supreme rate. Idaho power doesn't need
further income, especially at the cost of Idahoan tax payers. Tell this greedy company NO
that they cannot adjust our power compensation rates just to add more money to their
pockets:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anna Owsiak(aowsiakjazz1 @gmail.com) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 7:44 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
IPC-E-25-15
Idaho Power's proposed change to the Export Credit Rate is a continuation of monopoly
business practices that are damaging to Idaho solar businesses and totally unfair to
homeowners like myself who have installed solar power systems. I'm getting screwed for
the second time after last year's rate reduction/fee hikes. This rate reduction to just 1 cent
for energy produced totally unfair and is undoubtedly meant to harm private energy
production. The VODER report is heavily biased to favor Idaho Power and should not be
used within this decision. The independent Crossborder study should at the very least be
compared to VODER and quite frankly, its information should be used in place of VODER.
The current rate change proposal should be DENIED, as it is a gross attempt by Idaho
Power to control all energy in Idaho and cripple Idahoan's freedom of energy choice and
2

use. I do not support this proposed rate change proposal and strongly encourage the PUC
to DENY 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,
Anna Owsiak
7505 W PORTNEUF RD
Pocatello, ID 83204
aowsiakjazz1 @gmail.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 [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

From: steve ernst ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 5:26 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
IPC- E-25- 15 The this request by ID power is against the interest of the consumer. the ID
power request must be denied to the overbearing monopoly.
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,
steve ernst
1806 East Terry
Pocatello, ID 83201
stevese60CcbgmaiL.com
[phone]
4

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: Marquis Acheson
Submission Time: May 13 2025 9:08PM
Email: macheson1410b9mail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15317, Cumulus Way
Caldwell, ID 83607
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "ID
It is completely wrong and unfair to decrease what we get for our solar energy. We are doing
our part for the planet and community and we have already been ripped off by the power
companies!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Chris Young
Submission Time: May 13 2025 6:24PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7675 S Carson Street
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPCE2515
Comment: "How is this fare or remotely legal? I payed over 19,000 dollars for my solar and
Idaho Power can dictate how much or how little they can pay for my energy. And I am forced
to connect to their grid and pay a 5 dollar connection wich is now 15 dollars. What a racket
they have going this is exstortion and forced compliance. I exspect to be paid one to one
solar credit nothing more. This is science fiction,but this is what you get with a monopoly. 1
5

am all in favor of a class action lawsuit against Idaho power if this slides through and I
exspect it will. IF YOU WANT MY POWER PAY ME WHAT I AM FORCED TO PAYYOU 1-1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Randy Repstad
Submission Time: May 13 2025 5:22PM
Email: randyrepstad gmaiL.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6048 S Sturgeon Way
Boise , ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I tell everyone I see and meet, don't do solar in Boise because it's not worth it.
It was great 4 years ago with the one to one credit but not anymore since the new tiered
system.With $15 a month service charge and the new pricing I now pay$40 a month
average with solar. Before it was 0 and I always had credits. So why would anyone want to
put out$20,000 for solar and spend $40 a month on a bill? Not me. I had started the
process of buying a battery back up and I just let my deposit go as I'm not investing
anything else into this solar system. Please return to 1 for 1 credits so solar if worth the
investment for Idahoans. Thank you:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Amber Briggs
Submission Time: May 13 2025 5:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3862 S Firenze Way
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Electricity
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I was just informed that there's a proposal to change rates for solar users
again. This feels not just unfair but wrong. How can it be okay to not give credit equal to
what was used? Especially when we were lured by credits and a supposed energy crisis
6

into making a large investment to get solar panels in the first place. It's shady and
dishonest:'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: John Mooney
Submission Time: May 13 2025 6:45PM
Email:jkscm01 @gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7153 E Highland Valley Rd
BOISE, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a residential Idaho Power customer opposed to the proposed Export
Credit Rates for on-site solar generation. I also opposed and provided written testimony for
your December 2023 ruling where you granted Idaho Power the ability to switch from a "net
metering"to a "net billing"system.
I was shocked with your quasi-legislative decision permitting the switch to net billing in
2023 which completely ignored those IPC residential customers that made immense
financial decisions in the period between December 2019 (legacy customers) and
December 2023. 1 was (and remain)very confused as to why IPC customers such as myself
were not also`grandfathered' in your December 2023 ruling. In my case, I purchased a
19.125kW solar array @ $86,457.92 in September 2021 based on a presentation from
Idahome Energy, and—most critically- based on the current and projected rules and
arrangements between the government and Idaho Power. It was an IMMENSE personal
financial decision which was completely undercut by your December 2023 decision and
will be further diminished by this proposed ECR from Idaho Power.
My spouse and I made a difficult financial decision to`lock-in'our electrical energy costs in
our fixed income retirement with a solar installation that produced (annually)what we had
consumed in the previous three years in our home (average annual consumption). Since
net billing has been in effect, we now also owe an average of$50/month to Idaho Power.
Thus, our monthly energy costs include the solar loan payoff($277) and Idaho Power
energy costs ($50). Our decision to trust that the"rules wouldn't change"was clearly naive
and we recognize that now. However, your capacity to ignore every customer that
purchased solar in the period from December 2019 to December 2023 is egregious and
7

demonstrates that some appointed officials struggle with making informed and judicious
rulings.
In my retired capacity, I have continued to serve the public as an appointed city planning
and zoning commissioner making similar difficult rulings. I understand the challenge each
month preparing for public hearings where you are charged, as an unpaid volunteer, to
digest an applicant's proposal weighed against the law/code, the staff report, and public
testimony. I humbly ask you to`up your game' because your decisions in this particular
area of law and governance have truly caused substantial harm to a small number of
private citizens for the sole benefit of a private for-profit power company.
We oppose this ECR and we request the IPUC reconsider the status of IPC customers that
made the same financial decisions as those granted `grandfather'status. Why are we
discriminated against by the IPUC and IPC?
John Mooney, Jr., Colonel, USAF(Retired)
7153 E Highland Valley Rd, Boise, ID "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Ronald Lamkey
Submission Time: May 13 2025 7:08PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 303 Volkmer st.
Marsing, ID 83639
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a senior who purchased roof top solar panels to reduce energy costs and
help with global warming. It is disheartening to have Idaho Power keep cutting amount they
pay for roof generated power. Please NO MORE REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNT IDAHO POWER
PAYS HOME OWNERS FOR ROOFTOP GENERATED POWER."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8

Name: Robert Lanci
Submission Time: May 13 2025 7:26PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1455 S Wanpum Way
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am writing regarding Idaho Power's latest attempt to further reduce my solar
credit. They already have reduced it significantly by using a questionable report. They
should have"Grandfathered" my system in and applied the new rates to new systems. But
that would have prevented them from selling my power for higher rates and crediting me
with much lower rates. This is a classic Bait and Switch by a company that gives lip service
to clean energy, but only if it benefits them financially.
I will be at the May 20th meeting and will be loud. I've watched this same type of collusion
between a power company and the PUC in California and won't be quiet about it.This rate
adjustment needs to be rejected!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Anderson
Submission Time: May 13 2025 8:54PM
Email: iima1005Ccbhotmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 350 Snowmoody Way
Ontario, OR 97914
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "It seems that with the explosive population growth in western Idaho the
reduction in payment for solar generated power is at best ill advised unless Idaho power is
going nuclear. Also there is that perpetual threat to hydropower production with the desire
of many to remove the lower Snake River dams. Please reconsider and oppose this
proposed plan from Idaho Power. Sincerely, James Anderson. Ontario Oregon"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9

Name: Bruce Christensen
Submission Time: May 14 2025 6:42AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 687 Lynwood Blvd
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Those, like myself, who purchased solar panels for economic reasons made
certain assumptions about whether or not it was economically worth it. We should have
been grandfathered in to protect our investment. Changes to payment structure made
retroactively are unfair and show contempt for those who do their best to pay their bills and
become self reliant:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Genoa Beiser
Submission Time: May 14 2025 7:28AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 104 South 6th Street
Bellevue, ID 83313
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I oppose Idaho Power proposing to reduce the credits we receive for our solar
energy.We should be fairly compensated for the energy we put back into the grid. To reduce
the export credit rate by 60% and 80%from October to May does not make sense as they
continue to charge customers the same amount. I implore the PUC to denythis proposal to
reduce credit for solar energy customers contribute back to the grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: LeeAnn Burfeindt
Submission Time: May 14 2025 8:30AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6805 S Santa Cruz Dr
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "As stated the April 1 filing with proposed ECRs was not a "new thing," but rather
an implementation of a change in compensation structure that was approved by the IPUC
in December of 2023. In the ruling, the IPUC granted Idaho Power the abilityto switch from
a "net metering"to a "net billing"system as well as designate time frames for ECR
compensation in accordance with the hours of the day that electricity sees the highest
demand and the time of year that sees the highest demand, which is during the summer
months, as previously reported by the Idaho Press.
Solar panel owners who purchased or installed solar panels prior to December 2019
remain under the net metering rate where the excess power sold to Idaho Power was
compensated at about the same rate that Idaho Power sells electricity to other users. In an
email, Idaho Power said that about 5,300 individuals with on-site power generation are
subject to this legacy credit rate.
Changing the rates compensated by Idaho Power to customers that had purchased solar
systems between December 2019 and December 2023 should be illegal. Purchased
systems with the understanding that the net metering was how they would be reimbursed
should be grandfathered in according to the rules when purchased. This IS a case of"Bait
and Switch" and is an unethical rulling!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lawrence Hulme
Submission Time: May 14 2025 9:36AM
Email: lhu!me83301 @yahoo.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11656 W Camas
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "As a roof top solar owner, and excess power provider, I find the proposal from
Idaho power to reduce the amount of compensation for my excess power an insult. Just like
Idaho power has a right to be reimbursed for infrastructure through rate increases, we (as
solar owners) also have the right to recover our costs (ROI). Most all who invested in solar
wanted to reduce their bill, reduce their electrical grid usage, contribute the excess to the
grid (with compensation), and get a Return Of Investment over time.
The new proposal does away with almost all of that! By bowing to there every wish, YOU
HAVE TURNED IDAHO POWER INTO A MONOPOLY! That's just this year! Next year they will
take everything away because you have allowed it! When will it end!!!
Most solar owners I have spoken with wanted to join Idaho powers quest go green, use
more solar but their true colors are showing.The solar industry is dying because of this.
It's clear now that Idaho power has little interest in their goal of clean energy in the future
otherwise they would go the other way and offer their own incentives to add power to the
grid. They don't want ANY competition!
No one has been able to, or tried to answer the question of how my solar is hurting the
neighbor who doesn't have solar. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Todd Stevens
Submission Time: May 14 2025 9:35AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2440 W Kuna Mora Rd
Kuna, ID 83634
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 my family with
a solution to lower my electricity bill and generate reliable electricity for themselves and
their communities.
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,
Todd Stevens
208-602-9120
Kuna, Idaho
13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Shelly Smith
Submission Time: May 14 2025 10:19AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13252 N Faulkner Ave
Mountain Home, ID 83647-5044
Name of Utility Company: AS&amp;F Trucking LLC
Case ID: IPC-E-25-1
Comment: "My husband and I already have MASSIVE regret purchasing our solar panels.
The first year, our system worked as planned....We have consistently had a power bill for
the last year. So our system isn't covering our usage, and we now have both a power bill
AND a solar bill.....
The very last thing people of this state need is for our solar systems to be LESS effective.
We sure wish we could've known what was REALLY going to happen.
If we could, we would sell it back. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Dexter PITMAN
Submission Time: May 14 2025 10:17AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13689 N MARBLE DR
Pocatello, ID 83202
Name of Utility Company: private party
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am in opposition to the Idaho Power Company proposal referenced above to
the Public Utilities Commission. The IPC proposal will continue to allow the Company to
set Public Energy Policy for the State of Idaho, not the public interest of Idaho. It will further
strengthen the Company's monopoly on energy decisions by the public. It will incentivize
the public to choose natural gas as their energy source for heating because of its
14

comparative affordability(less expensive heating option) compared to electricity thus
encouraging fossil fuel emissions rather than reducing them. It will disincentivize
residential roof top solar contribution to clean energy solutions for Idahoans and
encourage carbon emission energy sources via natural gas rather than clean electricity
energy production. It will send messaging to Idahoans and others that fossil fuel emission
concerns are in fact not of concern to us as policy and action. Negative education as to the
significance and impacts we in Idaho and globally are experiencing with climate warming
and drying is the messaging by this and similar previous PUC allowances by IPC.
At the same time, as a residential rooftop solar producer, my investment is losingvalue, I
will soon be paying more in electricity"other fixed charges"than I was before my solar
investment. My neighbors get the advantage of my surplus electricity generation and Idaho
Power Company will make 10 times the money on my production than I will receive in
winter power credit banking to help me reduce my dual system natural gas consumption
and carbon emissions in winter. Obviously, the PUC interpretation of Idaho Energy Policy
is promotion of natural gas wintertime emission not clean energy commitment as policy
states. Say one thing but do the opposite and also increase the Companie's revenue
stream.
Clean up your act and clean up emissions in fact. Deny IPC-E-25-15 as a start and apply
effective actions to meet the stated desires of clean energy Idaho policy. Financial position
of IPC and its stock value is not the highest and only priority for Idaho residents, farm
industry and broader considerations. Important, yes, but not the only consideration in
energy decisions.
Thank You for the opportunity to share my concerns and experiences:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Johann Shindler
Submission Time: May 14 2025 11:10AM
Email:jcshindler151 @gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1821 W Greenhead Dr
Meridian , ID 83642-6159
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
15

Comment: "Idaho power is and the power commission is making our Solar system
worthless! I paid $24,000 for my system and now it's practically worthless! And Idaho
power is using all the power I generate to profit themselves and make my system of no
benefit to my home. They shouldn't be allowed to take all the benefits of my$24,000
system. If that's what they are going g be lawfully allowed to do then they should buy the
solar system from the customer's. They should have to pay for the system. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Candy Hahlbeck
Submission Time: May 14 2025 12:18PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 90 N Stanford St.
Nampa, ID 83651
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.
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.
16

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,
Candy Hahlbeck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Ben Mock
Submission Time: May 14 2025 1:47PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3023 Laurel Way
Emmett, ID 83617
Name of Utility Company: IPC
Case ID:
Comment: "I was under the impression that Idaho Power was committed to sustainable
green energy, rather than monopolizing energy production. I spent$60,000 on the solar
system I installed on my home, and with the proposed changes, I will lose money unless
invest another$40,000 in batteries.What's next?Will the IPUC allow Idaho Power to start
charging me to generate my own power? "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicolas LEFEVRE <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 1:12 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Comment for case IPC-E-25-15
Nicolas Lefevre
2755 Via Valdarno
POCATELLO, ID 83201
May 14, 2025
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
17

11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Re: Public Comment on IPC-E-25-15—Residential Solar Compensation
To the Commissioners:
My name is Nicolas Lefevre, and I live in Pocatello, Idaho. I am a homeowner with solar
panels on my roof, and I'm writing to express my concern over the proposed changes in
Case IPC-E-25-15 regarding how Idaho Power compensates residential solar customers.
I made the decision to invest in rooftop solar because I believe in self-reliance, energy
security, and building a better future for Idaho. Installing solar was not only a personal
financial commitment—it was also an investment in our state's long-term resilience and
sustainability. I'm now deeply concerned that Idaho Power's proposal would diminish the
value of customer-generated solar energy and discourage others from following a similar
path.
This isn't just about those of us with solar panels. Distributed solar generation provides
broad benefits to Idaho's energy system and its people:
It helps reduce demand during peak hours, delaying the need for costly infrastructure
upgrades and new generation assets.
It contributes to grid resilience, by producing energy closer to where it is consumed,
helping maintain reliability during extreme weather events or emergencies.
It lowers long-term system costs by avoiding transmission losses and easing strain on the
grid.
It supports local jobs, particularly in solar installation, engineering, and service—
industries that are growing in Idaho and strengthening our economy.
Importantly, Idaho's abundant hydropower resources and rooftop solar are natural allies.
Solar generation typically peaks in the summer when water levels are lower and demand
for electricity is highest. This complementary timing allows the state to better balance
supply and demand across seasons and daily load curves. Leveraging both solar and hydro
together creates a more flexible, stable, and low-carbon energy mix for all Idahoans.
18

The proposal in IPC-E-25-15 risks undercutting this progress. It sends the wrong message
to families, businesses, and local industries who want to be part of Idaho's clean energy
future. It also potentially penalizes those who invested in solar under the expectation of fair
compensation and stable policy.
I respectfully urge the Commission to take a broader view of the value residential solar
provides—not just to individual customers, but to the entire grid and economy. Let's
continue to make Idaho a place where forward-thinking investments in clean energy are
welcomed, not discouraged.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Nicolas Lefevre
2755 Via Valdarno
Pocatello, ID 83201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Jares
Submission Time: May 14 2025 1:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11424 W Sonata Ct
Nampa, ID 83651
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "In 2024, my wife and I installed solar panels on the roof of our home. We made
the investment in solar as it was understood that Idaho Power supported in-home
generation as away to augment the power they were supplying to the public. We saw a way
to actively be apart of the solution rather than just adding to the problem.
The rate of Idaho Power's buy back of excess energy hasn't been a large concern for us.
Our intention was to be able to generate enough electricity to be able to take our portion of
use off the grid and be able to put something back that others could use.
19

While we receive compensation for excess generation, it is not an immediate trade.
Meaning we don't generate and then immediately get that much energy returned to us.
Idaho Power has the ability to utilize what all solar panel generators use as it it produced.
In my opinion that provides a benefit to all Idahoans in the form of less energy that has to
be purchased. While it may be a small amount at this time, providing homeowners with the
incentive to "get with the program" certainly makes more sense than offering an
opportunity that may end up costing the consumer more that if they didn't participate.
A small amount of good will always grows into something bigger. I believe I speak for other
homeowners in saying the investment we made in solar was for the good of everyone. It
wasn't' something that we saw as a benefit for us without giving something back to the
community.
Idaho Power got our intention with their pledge to offer alternative forms of electricityto the
people. We support that pledge joined the efforts.
Please don't make us a victim of the circumstances and regret partnering with a worthy
cause. We all need to work together in order to move forward.
Mike Jares
Nampa ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Lon Stewart
Submission Time: May 14 2025 1:11 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3477 Shadow Hills Dr
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I request that you reject the rate change as proposed by Idaho Power(IP).
Idaho Power's proposed rates for the Export Credit Rate (ECR) are an insult to people who
have installed customer owned distribution systems since 2019. The artificially imposed
cutoff time for customers to receive the Net metering rate of buying back one kWh of power
20

at the same price as purchasing a kWh. These customers have a price guarantee for 25
years. This is a business arrangement I could live with.
I installed my system in 2023 knowing that the compensation pricing was going to change.
I did not expect a short term payout for my expensive cash outlay, but I did not expect
annual changes to the compensation rate and being paid less than a penny per kWh for
most of the year. The business or payout aspect of such an investment, as per the
proposed compensation schedule is an insult. No business would agree to such terms for
an investment, so why should individuals be subject to such terms. IP would not buy
power from a solar or wind farm under such an agreement. They want Longterm contracts
and stable prices, so do 1.
My neighbor's property was purchased in 2024 with solar panels that were installed in
2016. They are compensated at the net metering rate of roughly 10 cents/Kwh for 25 years
and increasing as the general rates increase. I, on the other hand, installed panels in 2023
and am subject to annual compensation adjustments with the current proposal for
compensation at less than one penny per kWh for most of the year. We both use the same
energy source, the sun, using similar panels to create electricity, and send the same power
to the grid. Where is the fairness in this scheme? Why shouldn't we both get the same
compensation for the same power supplied to the grid? Isn't the IPUC supposed to protect
all the citizens of Idaho equally? This compensation rate is not equal and not fair to
customers who have made major investments.
Our solar system became operational on May 4,2023. and has decreased our grid
purchases by approximately 1000 kWh/month based on 2022 statements. Our system has
contributed to reducing the load upon Idaho Power's grid leaving more capacity for new
customers.
From the June 2023 statement through December 2023 we had a net gain of 275 kWh and
our cost to IP was $36.12 reflecting the monthly service fees. The 275 kWh was forfeited
with the new price structure in 2024. If the IP proposed rate is applied to the June thru
December 2024 data, and compared to the same period of 2023 my costs will increase to
$343.50 or 950 % more than I was invoiced under the net metering agreement. IP's costs
have not gone up 950% in the last 2 years! I should not be forced to pay for arbitrary fake
cost increases, especially when I am reducing my load on the grid.
The Public Utility Commission is chartered to regulate the public utilities to protect the
public welfare of the citizens of Idaho. Dropping compensation rates to less than a penny
21

per kWh is not protecting the public. Cost of installation to the homeowners has not
dropped 80% in the past year, why should compensation. Why should customers be
compensated on two different schedules, net metering and ECR, for using the same
technology and providing the same electricity to the grid? Oregon Idaho Power customers
are compensated at yet another rate for excess generation. These different rates appear to
be an arbitrary monetary scheme to maximize profits to IP for compensation of electricity
generated by the same technology but differing in date of installation or location. There is
no equity in such a scheme.
IP says they want to be 100% renewable by 2040, they see the value in renewables but yet
they are not willing to compensate the general public for helping them achieve that goal.
They would rather pay higher prices to a solar farm, which is subject to the same sunny or
cloudy days as their customers, and transport the electricity over long distance
transmission lines. IP should recognize the benefits of distributed energy, purchasing
power locally versus losing power over transmission lines. Or having customers reduce
their overall electrical use, at the customer's expense, instead of building more
infrastructure. Customers are saving Idaho Power lots of money by avoiding capital
expenditures that is not being recognized. If IP put even 30% of what it costs to build a new
power plant or transmission lines towards customer distributed generation, they could
achieve their goal of 100% renewable much quicker and with a cheaper cash outlay.
Instead they are just trying to show larger profits for them and their shareholders.
I ask the PUC to reject the proposed rate plan and establish a fair plan that is equitable to
all generators of distributed energy and does not hand over such profits to the
corporations. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RANDALL FRENCH ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 2:59 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Idaho Power("IP") acknowledges the benefit of rooftop solar from diversified sources but
complains that it receives more electricity than it can use. IP should increase storage
capacity rather than pay so little compensation as to actively discourage the adoption of
roof top solar. That would allow IP to accelerate the retirement of polluting sources of
22

electricity. Its plans to invest in gas-fired electrical generation incoming years - in
complete opposition to its stated goal of generating 100% renewable energy- shows that it
wants to increase it's revenues by basing rates on its large scale capital expenditures. IP
should put that investment into storage capacity. Paying residential rooftop solar owners a
fair rate, sufficient to fairly compensate then for their investment, would encourage
continuing solar generation and allows Idaho Power to obtain electricity without it making
Large capital investments. IP's proposed rates discourage solar power installations.
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,
RANDALL FRENCH
1436 East Lewis Street
BOISE, ID 83712
[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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Sandra Corey
Submission Time: May 14 2025 2:03PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15 E Ash St.
Middleton, ID 83644
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID:
Comment: "We need Solar Energy as part of an endeavor to stop polluting our planet.
Increasing the expense of Solar usage would be counterintuitive:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Peter D Stark
Submission Time: May 14 2025 2:20PM
Email: pdstark_71 @hotmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1427 W Elias Drive
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am requesting that the Idaho PUC please do NOT curtail the solar credits that
we solar owners are now currently receiving. I installed solar panels at a great cost two
years ago to assist the electrical grid and conserve energy from overloading especially with
the increasing number of people moving to the Gem State. Idaho Power had to approve my
installation and I was encouraged and commended by them for going solar. I believe this is
a now reneging of/on the savings of costs to us commercial and residential customers of
conserving electricity for the betterment of Idaho if this detrimental proposal is approved.
Thank you, the PUC for Your most serious consideration in denying this credit rate decease
for us concerned citizens. It is greatly appreciated!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24