20250515Comments_34.pdf

From: Robert Pearson <robertpearson726()gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:20 PM
To:Adam Rush <adam.rush ftuc.idaho.gov>
Cc: Robert Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Changes to Solar Output Percentages—
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes by Idaho Power to
reduce the allowable output percentage for residential and commercial solar energy
systems. (IPC-E-25-15) Please do not let Idaho Power take advantage of us that spent
THOUSANDS of dollars for an investment that was supposed to help the environment and
reduce my power bill. As a resident/solar homeowner and concerned citizen in Pocatello, I
believe these changes would have significant negative consequences for the moneywe
invested.We would not be able to repay our loan for the solar installation.
When we invested we were getting a one for one credit for the power we generated. Then
our credits were decreased and now they want to decrease it again. (Our electric bill
doubled in December and January.) Between the two rate changes we will be getting about
80% loss in credit. We are pretty much living on our social security and need all the help on
our electric bill we can get.
We are vehemently opposed to the Idaho Power proposal and advocate for the continued
growth and fair treatment of solar energy in our community.
Sincerely,
Robert Pearson
855 Spy Glass Pt
Pocatello, Idaho 83204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marjanna Hulet<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:02 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Deny Rate Increase IPC-E-25-15
Please deny the rate increase IPC-E-25-15. This seems specifically designed to stomp to
death the small but growing solar power movement in Idaho, and for no good reason. Of
COURSE Idaho Power wants a complete monopoly on what power Idahoan's can use. The
1

baffling part is why the Idaho Public Commission would willingly want to go along with
it. You shouldn't. Deny this.
The people of Idaho are, above all else, fiercely independent. Your commission should be
doing all it can to help us remain independent. Solar power is one of those avenues.
If you want to really examine fee issues, then why on God's green earth would you let Idaho
Power conduct its own study, with its own goals, and accept that as truth? You
shouldn't. Hire an independent group to examine the issue. Don't just rely on Idaho
Power's biased, self-serving study.
Please, deny this rate change. Stand up for the people of Idaho and what we want.
--Marjanna Hulet
353 Washington
Pocatello, ID 83201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Krista Shellie
Submission Time: May 14 2025 3:02PM
Email: I<[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3477 Shadow Hills Drive
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Please deny the proposed decrease in Export Credit rate for residential solar
generators as proposed by Idaho Power for the effective date of June 1, 2025.
We invested $78,000 in a residential solar system in 2023 that was designed to offset 80%
of our annual power consumption.We financed our investment with a 10-year, fixed
interest loan. We designed our system and made our financial commitment with the
assumption that we would be fairly compensated for energy exported to the grid. Our
system became operational in May of 2023, and later that year, Idaho Power eliminated net
metering. In 2024, Idaho Power reduced the Export Credit Rate (ECR)to below purchase
price. In 2025, Idaho Power proposes to further reduce the ECR an additional 80%from the
2

net metering price. Idaho Power decided that all residential solar installed before 2019
should be grandfathered into net metering for 25 years at equal export and purchase price.
This changing economic landscape created by annually decreasing the ECR imposes a
financial hardship on Idaho residents who have made investments to enhance the supply
of clean energy.
My neighbor's property was purchased in 2024 with solar panels that were installed in
2016. My neighbors 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, am subject to
annual compensation adjustments. Where is the fairness in this scheme? Why shouldn't
we both get the same compensation for the same power supplied to the grid?
From June 2023 through December 2023 our cost to Idaho Power was $36.12, and our solar
system generated a net gain of 275 kWh.We were forced to forfeit the 275 kWh with the
new 2024 price structure. From June 2024 through December 2024 our cost to Idaho Power
was $214.32 a nearly 600% increase over the previous year. With the proposed 2025 ECR,
our cost to Idaho Power would increase to $343.50 for a 950% increase relative to net
metering. Idaho Power's costs have not gone up 950% between 2023 to 2025.This steep
rate increase imposes unjustified financial hardship.
The Public Utility Commission is chartered to regulate the public utilities to protect the
public welfare of the citizens of Idaho. Lowering ECR to less than a penny per kWh is
imposing financial hardship.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 Idaho Power 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.
I ask the PUC to reject the proposed 2025 rate plan and establish a fair plan that is
equitable to all generators of distributed energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

Name: Kyle Wheatley
Submission Time: May 14 2025 3:39PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 744 W. 100 N.
Blackfoot, ID 83221
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am against the proposal by Idaho Power to cut the ECR rate . Putting solar on
my house was sizeable investment and it will take along time to recoup.What the power
company is proposing will extend that time more than double. I realize Idaho Power should
not have to pay for my solar but they are benefitting from my production and need to
compensate me for it. It looks like with their rate decrease proposal that they are taking the
credit they were paying use and giving it to all of their other customers:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Douglas Daniels ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 5:31 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
The Idaho Power monopoly has gone too far by slashing the Export Credit rate to nearly
$.01.This proposal will discourage potential clean solar energy customers from installing
solar. The excess solar power eases the strain on the electric grid. I am confused on the
proposed ECR and the structure.Wouldn't it be easier to put solar customers on the legacy
plan? Eliminating all the anticipated projections, seems simple to me.
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
4

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,
Douglas Daniels
2236 S Rachel Circle
Boise, ID 83706
LawndudeusaPyahoo.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.carePsierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Joanna Guilfoy
Submission Time: May 14 2025 5:09PM
Email: ioannaguilfoy� maiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1131 E. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83712
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I do not have solar and I OPPOSE the application to lower the export credit rate
(ECR)for people who do have solar (non-legacy and going forward) and I ask that the
Commission deny the proposed ECR update. My reasons include the following:
5

1. Everyone in Idaho, including Idaho Power, should be doing all we can to promote
alternative sources of energy, including solar. Lowering the ECR does the opposite for non-
legacy folks and for those who might be thinking of installing solar. As a non-solar
customer, the few cents, even few dollars, that might save me is not worth the
disincentivizing of new solar. I am FINE subsidizing solar customers. I'd rather Idaho
Power pay an ECR that encourages folks to use solar and export their excess to the grid.
2. It is my understanding that Idaho,and Idaho Power, anticipates huge load growth,
including for users such as Micron and data centers and that Idaho Power is planning to
add solar to serve new large loads. As a non-solar customer, it strikes me as unfair that the
ECR of solar customers is lowered while the utility is adding solar for these mega load
customers. On the same idea, it seems likely that some percentage of solar customers will
simply stop exporting to the grid and utilize battery storage. How does that help meet load
demand? And, how does it meet the State's preference for Idaho-based sources of
electricity?
3. Similarly, I worry that this increased load may convince Idaho Power to add new gas
plants to serve its load growth. As a ratepayer, if gas prices go up or there's eventually a
carbon tax, the utility will pass that cost on to me. As a non-solar owner, I feel I benefit
when customers invest in solar, and I ask that the Commission deny the proposed ECR
update and do nothing to discourage customers from investing in distributed resources
which add resilience to our energy mix.
4. If the PUC will not reject this ECR update, it should consider a different amount, or a
floor. The proposed ECR amounts are not reasonable.
Finally, I would like to express that I hope, and expect, that the PUC represents me and my
interests/expressed goals and opinions in this process and not just the goals of Idaho
Power. The PUC should not be a rubber stamp of Idaho Power's wish list. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: James Gerschutz
Submission Time: May 14 2025 7:34PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13388 W Waldemar
Boise, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
6

Comment: "I do not believe that it is legal nor proper to renege on an initial power-purchase
agreement made at the time of solar installation. There will come future times when Idaho
Power will continue to benefit greatly from the availability of solar power during peak
summer demand.This is clearly a case where IP seeks to maximize their profits by not
Living up to their original promise.to their customers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Oliver Kijas
Submission Time: May 14 2025 8:11 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 969 W KINGSLEY DR
MERIDIAN, Id 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a resident in Meridian, ID and customer of Idaho Power since 2015, and
installed a rooftop PV system on my house in 2023.
1 am commenting in support to maintain the currently existing ECR and reject the proposed
ECR.
The relevant studies that have been done reflect who paid for it and after review, I'm almost
certain that most customers won't be able to follow and understand the content as it
couldn't be further away from the reality of customers.
In it's application, Idaho Power justifies the substantial proposed reduction of ECR with the
price differential between 2022 and 2024. The reality for all(!) residential customers of
Idaho Power, is that comparing the very same years, the monthly service fee increase by
200%from $5.00 (2022) to $15 (2024), while the price per kwh increased by 14.9% during
the summer period (from 8.6518ct (2022)to 9.9398ct (2024)) and by 8.8% during the non-
summer period (from 8.039ct (2022)to 8.7476ct(2024).
Factoring service fee and kwh prices in, an average bill for a 800kwh monthly usage went
up by 27.4% during the summer period (from $74.21 to$94.52) and by 22.6% during the
non-summer period (from $69.31 to $84.98).
In the light of these real life examples, it seems almost ridiculous, that the ECR should be
reduced by 17.3% (summer-peak), -68.7% (summer off-peak) and for 3/4 of the year by a
whopping-80.3% (non-summer).
If energy prices would have fallen so drastically that the proposed reduction of the ECR
would be justified, should we not have seen a reduction for the average residential user as
well, instead of an increase between 22.6-27.4%?
7

Isn't the PUC's main role to protect consumers by ensuring fair pricing, reliable service and
adherence to state and federal regulations?
Can the PUC explain in layman terms, how such a glaring discrepancy between ECR and
pricing for redidential electricity can be fair?
Thankyou,
Oliver Kijas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jesse Call-Felt ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 8:13 AM
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,
Jesse Call-Feit
1598 Juniper Drive
Pocatello , ID 83204
jessecallfeitPgmail.com
8

[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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cathy Kriloff([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 7:58 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Please deny this proposal in order to prevent further de-incentivizing distributed solar
energy adoption and use. I am a legacy solar owner, but I want more recent adoptees to
also earn a fair export credit rate and other residential customers, businesses, and farmers
to add solar. I also care about the impacts of continued dependence on less clean forms
of energy on people?s health and on Idaho?s economy and natural spaces. Shifting to
solar energy is one crucial component in addressing this global issue and I hope you will
support that shift by turning down this unfair change in the rate and requiring that analyses
of a fair rate are done by impartial third parties.
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.
9

Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Cathy Kriloff
209 S. 8th Ave.
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 [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elinor Flanders ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:34 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I am writing regarding IPC-E-25-15. Idaho Power should not be allowed to change the rules
around the reimbursement for solar power in Idaho so radically. This change completely
destroys the incentive to invest in solar in this region, and it is incredibly unfair to all the
people who have already made major investments in solar power and are now going to be
unable to recoup the cost of those investments. Increased use of solar power should
benefit all Idahoans by offering less expensive and less environmentally damaging energy.
It makes no sense for Idaho Power to be the one to profit financially from my neighbors'
investments in 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
10

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,
Elinor Flanders
1024 East Bonneville Street
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 [e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad Nelson ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:51 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
RE: IPC-E-25-15
I am an Idaho Power customer and have a solar system installed on my roof, the proposed
change will rob me of thousands of dollars directly into the pockets of an immoral
corporate monopoly that has no competition for my business. Do not allow a monopoly to
force changes on customers that they have no control over and no alternative to go to. This
is not how a free market should work.
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,
Brad Nelson
161 S 15th ave
Pocatello, ID 83201
brad nelsona rO'«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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Bouton
Submission Time: May 15 2025 10:20AM
Email: mbouton0559(bmsn.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9632 W Dorsetshire Pl
Boise, ID 83704
12

Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Please reconsider this case coming up during a hearing May 20, 2025. 1 truly
believe it is a clear case of greed in regards to Idaho Power and the way they want to treat
solar power customers.We all have bought in to the concept of helping our fellow citizens
by installing solar panels to relive the strain on the power grid. I didn't spend over
$22,000.00 for my own selflessness. I did it to be responsible..
If the Commission grants this request to Idaho Power, we the Idaho Solar Owners,will have
no trust in what you, the PUC stand for. It will be as if you are being bought off. There seems
to be "No Good Faith" in this government entity.
Please tells us why a moratorium on solar owners can not be established. At least consider
a benchmark date as to this export credit rate for those that have spent many thousands of
dollars trying to do "The Right Thing"for our future power needs. Is there no justice left in
this world?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Glenn Russell([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 11:16 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
Dear IPUC, as you are probably aware, Idaho Power(IP) has made electricity for Idahoans
unnecessarily more expensive. In the last year, my connectivityfee has tripled with no
justification from IP. This certainly not explained by inflation. So as may of us have
installed solar to offset cost of IP electrcity monopoly, IP is not trying to make it so that
rooftop solar is useless. Please stop IP from the latest request. The current and the latest
proposed rates they are proposing will make the energy rooftop solar unvaluable. While
IP continues to make more money and not investing it in infrastructure that will improve
energy efficiency, reduced environmental degradation, improve habitat for ESA species,
reduce wildfire risk, and will not make energy more affordable, what we see IP doing is
developing new IP office buildings instead of replacing their infrastructure with new better
environmentally friendly and energy efficient solutions.
13

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 yearandapos;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 utilityandapos;s math and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and
donandapos;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,
Glenn Russell
446 S. 9th Ave.
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.careCcbsierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shannon Ansley([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 11:27 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
14

I understand that the PUC is beholden to the State of Idaho, therefore, to big business
interests and not to the citizens of the State. The actions of the State government and
especially those of the current State Legislators make it clear that our government is no
Longer for the people or by the people. It is the same with corporate monopolies like Idaho
Power who operates as a totalitarian and vindictive entity that seeks to destroy small
residential solar business in Idaho under the cover of andquot;engineeringandquot;
concerns that are so convoluted and that effectively obfuscate any clear and logical
reasoning. Good job, Idaho Power lawyers hoping to become 1%ers and good job Idaho
Power leadership, also hoping to become 1%ers on the backs of Idaho citizens. Shame on
you.
So, PUC members.....have you a
spine or other body parts that would help you stop this greedy, evil money-grab by Idaho
Power? I think not. In recent years, as Trump behavior becomes the norm,youandapos;ve
shown your colors.
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 yearandapos;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 utilityandapos;s math and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and
donandapos;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,
Shannon Ansley
424 South 7th Avenue
Pocatello, ID 83201
15

[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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Munson ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 11:45 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-25-15 Public Comment
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
We have solar production on our home and this move will further cripple solar generators
throughout the state. The independent study done was dismissed by Idaho Power in favor
of their own flawed study that just showed their point and penalized solar producers even
further than they already have. This will be the third time is the past six years that they have
reduced the amount paid to solar producers while still raising costs to us, as if we are to
subsidize those that donandapos;t have solar production capabilities.
This request should be REJECTED swiftly to stop the power-grab by Idaho Power, as they are
simply showing their profitability means more than the residents of the stateandapos;s
rights to produce and use our own power without being penalized further by private
companies, specifically Idaho Power, who is trying to be a powerful monopoly that can
squash the wants and needs of power users.
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 yearandapos;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 utilityandapos;s math and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and
donandapos;t let this monopoly utility unfairly squeeze money out of its customers and
undercut their right to generate their own power.
16

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,
Ed Munson
1749 COTTAGE AVE
POCATELLO, ID 83201
munsedC«-oisu.edu
[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.care(sbsierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Nicole Plumb
Submission Time: May 15 2025 11:30AM
Email: nplumb876«gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 19552 Hartford Ave
Caldwell, ID 83605
Name of Utility Company: IDAHO POWER
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "To whom it may concern,
I am writing to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to ask that they do not pass the most
recent Idaho Power proposal to lower the excess credit generation rate for Idaho solar
owners that has been proposed.
My family and I installed solar in September of 2021.We intentionally bought a system that
produced more power than we consumed, with the intention of helping the ongoing power
crisis while also providing for ourfamily's needs.
17

Idaho Power sent a flyer out in the spring of 2023, which provided highly misleading
information regarding the impact that the, at that point, proposed changes would have on
our bill. The information provided indicated that the bill would go up an average of$11.61
per 950 kWh used.This was grossly underrepresentative of what actually happened. In July
of 2024, we received a bill that was $134.84. Our previous year's bill for the same month
was $5.21, despite our consumption not changing. When I spoke with Idaho Power, the
solution that they provided to me was that my family should simply use less power at night
and more power during the day since that is when we were generating more power. I guess
they don't realize that the average person works during the day... I was absolutely appalled
when I received yet another flyer from Idaho Power stating that they are once again
attempting to cause a significant financial impact to solar owners. After what happened
Last year, wherein only a couple of the bills that we received were in line with Idaho Power's
communicated projected increase (and even then it was only in line because we were
using gas and not power at that time), I decided that this time I can't remain silent.
As a solar owner, I can say that we purchased solar with the intent of having a consistent
power bill, in this case, the monthly payment that we put out for our solar system. Our
system generates more than enough power to cover us (the month I mentioned above we
generated over 2.4 mWh and used less than 2.0 mWh).We are not allowed to go off grid
because we live within city limits, and doing so is not allowed,yet being able to do that
would make it so that we would go back to only paying our solar bill since our system
generates enough power to cover us.
I encourage the Public Utilities Commission to force Idaho Power to provide the proof that
supports their prior claims of the actual fiscal impacts that their proposal had on people
Like me, because Idaho Power will not be able to produce the data. If the IPUC approves
this newest request,you will be placing unnecessary strain on those who own solar during
a time of uncertainty.
I bought solar to have a consistent bill,yet now, with Idaho Power's prior approved request,
I am paying more for power between my solar payment and the exorbitant rate that Idaho
Power is charging, than I was when I was just using power. This newest change would make
it even more in that I am paying Idaho Power for power that a system I paid tens of
thousands of dollars for is generating. I implore you to not allow this asinine request to go
through and further, hold Idaho Power accountable for the blatant lies that they told when
you passed their request the first time."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18

Name: Ken Bosworth
Submission Time: May 15 2025 11:35AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 95 Drake Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201-3439
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Re: Case Number IPC-E-25-15
Dear Members of the IPUC,
I am submitting comments on the proposed changes on how Idaho Power Corp. will
compensate residential solar power production. I will present my arguments against the
adoption of these proposed changes.
My wife and I invested in rooftop solar panels, at an approximate cost of$22,000 in 2019.
Our installation was designed to cover 90% of our average annual kW-hr energy
consumption. We made this investment based on the net-metering protocol in use
presently, before we were surprised (more accurately, blind-sided) by the new proposed net
metering scheme. Under the existing protocol, our system would pay for itself in
approximately 15 yrs. And, being environmentally aware citizens and power consumers,
we felt this was the correct decision. Under the proposed changes to the export credit rate
(ECR), it is unlikely our system will break-even over the expected operational lifetime of the
system. The proposed changes will punish those residential solar producers, and is akin to
changing the rules in the middle of a game. Not that Idaho Power is"losing", rather they
want to boost their profits at the expense of residential solar producers. At the very least, if
the proposed changes are adopted, existing residential solar producers should be
"grandfathered in" under the rules in place when they made their investment.
In closing, I urge the IPUC NOT to ADOPT the proposed ECR changes. Residential solar
production is a boon to the economy and the environment, and both will suffer if these
changes are adopted. We need the IPUC to push this state towards a more sustainable and
cleaner energy future, not to stifle such a move. Please don't put the shareholders of
IDACORP (of which I am one!) ahead of the future of our state.
19

Sincerely,
Ken W. Bosworth, Mary M. Hofle
95 Drake Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201-3439
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Alex McKinley
Submission Time: May 15 2025 11:52AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1407 E. Jefferson St.
Boise, ID 83712
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "The situation we are currently in is unfortunate and frustrating, but NOT
UNEXPECTED. Even with tremendous public and expert input in previous cases the PUC
commissioners and staff accepted Idaho Power Company's (IPC) in-house export credit
rate calculation methods. Now after only a single year they are proposing to cut an Export
Credit Rate (ECR)that was already manipulative by close to 80%for most of the year. It is
obvious to any reasonable person that what is proposed in this case is ridiculous. That
means either the calculation has been done with errors, or the calculation method doesn't
work.
People are exceptionally frustrated and have lost faith in the PUC as a functional governing
body. We are tired of"workshops"where we are told what IPC is already going to do as if
the decision has already been made. We are tired of writing comments that no one pays
attention to.We are tired of attending hearings and having disinterested commissioners
Look like they could not think of anything more boring in the world to spend their time on. It
does not matter whyyou are on the commission—you might be an expert on utility
regulation, or you might be buddies with the Governor and tons of IPC folks. Yourjob is to
ensure that an investor-owned utility, that has been granted a monopoly, treats customers
reasonably and fairly. IPC has no incentive to do anything except find out what the limits are
to rate design and customer charges.The PUC's job is to regulate the utility not
rubberstamp everything it asks for and hide behind legal maneuvering and a pile of
different cases to explain its actions.
20

There are numerous technical reasons why this current ECR proposal should be rejected,
but really what we need is to start back a square one and actually find a solution that is
reasonable. IPC is currently proposing a general rate change as well. One would expect a
significant hike to fixed charges on top of what has already been instituted to be part of that
proposal. This overall change to rate structures is reason enough to reevaluate why the ECR
was originally considered and how a comprehensive rate structure (that fairlyvalues both
distributed generation and storage) could be implemented that meets the needs of both
the utility and its customers. IPC is obviously looking to move to a model that includes high
fixed charges and disincentivizes both energy conservation and on-site generation. While it
may be frustrating for the commission to think about starting over, after all of the time that
has been spent on this issue, it is the right decision. Instead of looking at it as wasted time,
we can view it as confirmation that the utility alone does not have ability or interest to
design a rate structure that is fair and reasonable. If we didn't have the concrete evidence
of that previously, now we do. This case is extremely important. The PUC needs to take its
role seriously and order that IPC go back to the drawing board when it comes to rate design
and how it values on-site generation.
Exceptionally frustrated with this situation, Alex McKinley"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:William West
Submission Time: May 15 2025 12:34PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 359 N 455 W
Blackfoot, ID 83221
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "As a solar homeowner with Idaho Power, I strongly oppose the proposed
changes in Case IPC-E-25-15. These changes would unfairly reduce the value of the clean
energy I generate and make it harder for Idaho families to protect themselves from rising
utility rates. I invested in solar based on the promises of fair compensation for the energy I
produce, and these changes feel like moving the goalposts. Please protect homeowners'
rights to energy freedom and reject this proposal:'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Brian Albertson
Submission Time: May 15 2025 1:19PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4225 S. Choctaw Way
Boise, ID 83709
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "1)Where can I find the line loss adjustment study from 2023 and the
integration cost study from 2024 referenced on pg 19 of presentation from the public
workshop on May 7?
2) Could you define and/or elaborate on avoided capacity value (pg 18 of presentation)with
respect to value during non-summer period? It seems this should be a value > 0$ as
rooftop solar can replace power generated by the over 40% of Idaho power's energy mix
that comes from storable sources (coal, natural gas,...). Or does hydroelectric and wind
(47.9%) meet the entire demand during off-peak hours? ID Power's "time of use" rates
suggest that there is an increased demand during certain hours during non-summer
months as it segments kWh values into on and off peak rates. If there is an increased
demand, then that would seem to indicate an additional strain on ID Power's capacity
which would be helped by rooftop solar during these non-summer on peak hours
3) Speaking of ID Power's"Time of Use" plan, there are 3 rate tiers during summer months.
However ECRs only have two tiers during these same months. Is there no rooftop solar
being delivered to grid during this 3rd tier(7pm— 11 pm) and if so why don't ECRs reflect
that generation/delivery?
4) Have you reviewed ECRs from other states and/or their equation for determining value. If
so where can I find these listings?
5) Per ID Power's Energy mix, 6% is solar. Does customer rooftop solar make of this full 6%
or are there other sources. If other sources, what are their ECRs?
6)where was energy information for 2022 &amp; 2024 obtained (pg 20 of presentation from
public workshop) and is this available for public download? Per case PAC-E-25-02, Rocky
Mountain calculates different energy values than what is listed above mentioned
presentation. How is this not an apples to apples comparison?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22

Name: Phillip Pickman
Submission Time: May 15 2025 1:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5542 West Durning Drive
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a solar homeowner with Idaho Power, I strongly oppose the proposed
changes in Case IPC-E-25-15. These changes would unfairly reduce the value of the clean
energy I generate and make it harder for Idaho families to protect themselves from rising
utility rates. My investment in solar was based on the promises of fair compensation for the
energy I produce; these changes, on top of the ones already approved, represent an
additional moving of the goalposts. Please protect existing and on-going homeowners'
incentives to produce solar energy and to provide more flexibility to the power grid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: John Schert
Submission Time: May 15 2025 1:56PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 812 W Brumback St
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "As a solar homeowner with Idaho Power, I strongly oppose the proposed
changes in Case IPC-E-25-15. These changes would unfairly reduce the value of the clean
energy I generate and make it harder for Idaho families to protect themselves from rising
utility rates. I invested in solar based on the promises of fair compensation for the energy I
produce, and these changes feel like moving the goalposts. Please protect homeowners'
rights to energy freedom and reject this proposal"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23

Name: Kenneth Gough
Submission Time: May 15 2025 1:58PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6705 Joe Lane
Nampa, ID 83687
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "After spending$40,000 on rooftop solar that I will be paying for the next 25
years, Idaho Power benefits from my solar and all I do is pay more. Your decisions have
also put the company that I purchased them from out of business so I have no support
either. I now have a $150 a month solar bill and an electric bill that is about as much as my
regular power bill was prior to solar in the winter and I have also had power bills half as
much as previous before solar in the summer months when I am producing tons of energy
for Idaho Power. I can't understand how anyone at the Public Utilities Commission can feel
justified in robbing the consumer to please and only benefit the power company. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Mark Smith
Submission Time: May 15 2025 2:40PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1908 N 29th St
Boise, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: CASE IPC-E-
Comment: "As a solar homeowner with Idaho Power, I strongly oppose the proposed
changes in Case IPC-E-25-15. I purchased my solar panels in 2021, knowing that I would
not be grandfathered by the retail-rate compensation that existed at the time, but I never
dreamed that subsequently adopted rates would effectively be punitive. I was concerned
Last year when the new compensation algorithm was proposed, and suspected that it
would be manipulated to reduce compensation, but was surprised to see the scale of the
reduction. There are several things in the Idaho Power statement filed by Mr. Ellsworth that
24

are unclear, especially the equation used to calculate the ECR of Avoided Capacity. He
references Order No. 36048, but that document contains no equation,just definitions.
What is the factor Export Energy in All Risk Hours, and how was the value determined? I
couldn't find the calculation in the VODER study, either. How does this year's calculation
differ from last year's?
The Idaho power proposal appears to be designed to protect their monopoly on electricity
rather than to be fair to consumers:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Christopher Gay
Submission Time: May 15 2025 2:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 17965 BRIAR CREEK RD
MURPHY, ID 83650
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "We, as customers AND providers of the power companywith property
investments and overhead, would also like to 'turn a profit' as much as Idaho Power. I
believe our rates should be reflected as such!
Thankyou:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kevin Lewis
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:05PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1565 S. Rovian St.
Boise, ID 83705-4269
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Company
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
25

Comment: "I respectfully urge the Commission to deny the Idaho Power Company(IPC)
request to update the Export Credit Rate (ECR).
I have been involved in hydropower licensing for nearly 30 years and am familiar with the
power market and pricing(including negative pricing). During the recent PUC workshop,
Commission staff explained the formula used by IPC to determine the proposed reduction
in the ECR. I have concerns with the formula and data used to set the reduction to the ECR.
The major rationale for reducing the ECR was the claim that wholesale power prices had
dropped dramatically in 2024 and experienced negative pricing at times. I understand
negative pricing and have followed it in other regions of the West, primarily California,
where it is a frequent occurrence. I downloaded a dataset from the Mid-Columbia Hub
(Mid-C)for 2023 &amp; 2024 and reviewed the pricing for both the summer and non-
summer periods. At no time did the available data show negative pricing.
Non-Summer(Oct.1, 2023—May 31, 2024) Summer (June 1, 2024—Sept. 30,
2024)
Daily High $8.00 MWh to$930.00 MWh Daily High $16.00 MWh to$300.00 MWh
Daily Low$4.50 MWh to$700.00 MWh Daily Low$12.00 MWh to $130.00 MWh
Daily Weighted $6.99 MWh to$934.00 MWh Daily Weighted $14.95 MWh to$156.35 MWh
Weighted Average for Non-Summer$78.56 MWh Weighted Average for Summer$52.26
MWh
IPC Proposed ECR $9.54 MWh IPC Proposed Off-Peak ECR$17.68 MWh
To be fair, there were a number of missing days in the dataset, and the highest daily
numbers appear to be caused by combining multiple days within a single cell. Still, even if
you delete the highest prices, the Mid-C weighted average for each period is dramatically
higher than what IPC is asking for in the revised ECR.
Additionally, it was stated that IPS purchases power from several trading hubs, so a better
analysis would benefit from a dataset that fully incorporates all of IPC's power purchases.
Finally, the IPC Schedule 89 (Unit avoided energy cost for cogeneration and small power
production) is $41.33 per MWh, Schedule 87 (Wind and solar 100 kW or smaller) is at a
minimum of$41.61 per MWh, and IPC's PURPA contracts for small hydropower generation
are significantly higher that IPC's proposed ECR of$9.54 MWh for Non-Summer and $17.68
MWh for Off-Peak Summer.
26

Conclusion
It is not surprising that rooftop solar generators are outraged by the proposed ECR
adjustment. I don't believe that any of us area ski ng for special treatment; we areas king for
a level playing field and a fair and transparent process. At the end of the day, the electrons
from my solar system are just as valuable as every other source of power.
Therefore, I recommend the following:
1. The Commission should remand the ECR update for further consideration.
2. The Commission should direct staff to verify IPC's wholesale power purchases from
all sources and develop fair ECR compensation rates that are in line with other sources of
power.
3. Ensure that pricing information is available to the public to help them understand
the process.
4. Investigate monthly dynamic billing that adjusts as wholesale rates rise and fall.
S. Revisit IPC's various"service charges"to ensure that ratepayers are not being
overcharged.
Thank you for your consideration."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Morgan Bessaw
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:37PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 125 S Parkinson Way
EAGLE, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a solar customer and I strongly oppose Idaho Power's proposal in case
IPC-E-25-15 to reduce compensation for the excess energy I send back to the grid.
I invested in solar based on fair compensation for the clean energy my system produces.
Changing the rules now would hurt homeowners like me and discourage others from going
solar.
27

This proposal is unfair, short-sighted, and not in the best interest of Idaho families or our
energy future. I urge the Commission to reject Idaho Power's plan and protect fair solar
compensation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Chad Newman
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:44PM
Email: chad.newmanPidahomeenergy.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1350 N Webb Wy R-203
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "Though I do not have solar installed on my residence, I have worked in the solar
industry for manyyears and have seen the first hand consequences of utilities making
changes like this to solar customers. Changes like these only benefit shareholders and
executives of local utility companies, while solar customers suffer. Many solar customers
are older residents on fixed incomes, whose systems were approved by Idaho Power and
promised a certain period of time of production (research that goes into transformer
capabilities etc). California did this a few years ago, and it completely decimated the solar
industry, and about 1/3 of employees lost theirjobs. We should not repeat this in Idaho,
and should not approve these Idaho Power changes to prevent industry monopolization of
energy production. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: JOHN BARBIERI
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8716 Deer Sky Ranch Trl
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a solar customer and I strongly oppose Idaho Power's proposal in case
IPC-E-25-15 to reduce compensation for the excess energy I send back to the grid.
28

I invested in solar based on fair compensation for the clean energy my system produces.
Changing the rules now would hurt homeowners like me and discourage others from going
solar.
This proposal is unfair, short-sighted, and not in the best interest of Idaho families or our
energy future. I urge the Commission to reject Idaho Power's plan and protect fair solar
compensation.
Even a quick comment makes a big difference. Please take a moment todayto stand up for
your investment and help protect solar in Idaho.
Thankyou,
John Barbieri"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Kelly Mooney
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:47PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7153 East Highland Valley Road
Boise, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I am a solar customer that is sorry that my husband and I spent$75,000 on
solar. We live at a time when we are encouraged to "GO GREEN" and yet the minute we did
we were not grandfathered in to any law changes. Our financial calculus was based on not
have an electric bill in addtion to paying monthly on our solar purchase. I will vervently
encourage whenever asked to NOT put solar on your house because the State of Idaho will
change the rules on you and leave you out in the cold so that the private utility can continue
to prosper.
I strongly oppose Idaho Power's proposal in case IPC-E-25-15 to reduce compensation for
the excess energy I send back to the grid.
I invested in solar based on fair compensation for the clean energy my system produces.
Changing the rules now would hurt homeowners like me and discourage others from going
solar.
29

This proposal is unfair, short-sighted, and not in the best interest of Idaho families or our
energy future. I urge the Commission to reject Idaho Power's plan and protect fair solar
compensation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Cheryl Winder
Submission Time: May 15 2025 3:55PM
Email: cherylwinder(cbhotmaiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2112 Sunnyridge Rd
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: 719333602
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "We have solar panels on our house which provides power to the IPC. I think
this is a service that helps IPC provide power to other families especially since there is
such an influx of people moving into Idaho. Since we are helping, our service should NOT
be paid at a lower rate, but at a higher rate.With the number of families moving into Idaho,
the need for power is growing at an astronomical rate. Therefore I hope that IPC will re-think
this action and actually raise the rate as a thank you to all of us who are trying to make a
difference."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brad Kinney([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:30 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 yearandapos;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 utilityandapos;s math and assumptions, listen to outside experts and customers, and
30

donandapos;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,
Brad Kinney
5590 W Lucky Dr
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 member.care(asierraclub.org or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31

Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W.Chinden Blvd.
Building 8
Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
May 1, 2025
Dear Sirs:
I have gotten two mailings from Idaho Power about rate changes. I have solar panels, installed in late
2022. 1 never had to pay for electricity, any time of year, until they got that Export Credit Rate either
implemented or changed. Now I often have to pay something. I have a newer system so not sure why
mine is inefficient now over older systems that were exempted,as I understand it.
At any rate if you are having a meeting about Idaho Power rates,this would be something to do. I
understand solar panel owners will be having a demonstration about this but I will be out of town. I wish
I was going to be here.
Idaho Power's Export Credit Rate is hurting us. I was told getting a battery would solve the problem but I
do not want to invest in a battery.
Sincerely,
Dallas Chase
1831 N. Patricia Ave.
Boise, ID 83704 N01SSIA!'O'I)
5119 nci b i`s i
I :I I WV 9- ;'T-I NE