20250602Comments_9.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Brian Bates
Submission Time: May 30 2025 5:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6641 E Thornton St
Nampa, ID 83687
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "IPC-E-25-15
Idaho power having already diminished the value of any homeowner investment in solar
power know seeks to eliminate it altogether by reducing the amount paid for excess power
produced to ridiculous levels that that make solar power installations a financial liability,
rather than a benefit. They restrict the size of your installation. They charge a fee each
month for the privilege of owning solar power, then they make it completely unviable by not
paying a fair rate for any excess power produced. Less than 1/2 the amount they charge for
that same power. Now they want to reduce their payment for excess power even further.
And then they claim to be in favor of and supportive of solar power?!?!? No. The only thing
they ar in favor of is their monopoly. If the commission supports this proposal,you might
as well join the board of directors of Idaho power. Please don't forget the"Public" in the
name of your commission."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Jessica Chester
Submission Time: May 31 2025 11:51AM
Email:jussery91 @yahoo.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2049 E 3900 N
Filer, ID 83328
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
1

Comment: "Idaho power is stealing from Solar Owners.They were already making a profit
off of us, but with the proposed cuts they will be making a huge profit at cost of their
customers. If they don't want to credit me for my energy they are taking from me, then they
should pay my solar panel bill.
I am paying for my solar system to make energy that Idaho Power is taking from me. Then I
am basically having to pay Idaho Power to get MY power back that they took for me.
The credit cut NEEDS to STOPHH"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Amy Stanard
Submission Time: May 31 2025 10:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3488 S Glacier Bay Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I feel this increase is blind siding customers with existing solar and is unfair. If I
knew this is where Idaho Power was going, I'd have said no to solar since the cost is costing
me more. Before we were simply breaking even. When we lived in Spanish Fork, UT, we had
some solar people give us their sales pitch. They didn't realize the city had a wind farm that
would offset costs to residents. They were honest and said, it wouldn't make economical
sense to install solar. Idaho Power has already made changes and now they want to
continue to increase costs to residents that were trying to at least break even and reduce
their carbon footprint:'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Lee Gilbert
Submission Time: May 31 2025 11:02PM
Email: LeeGiLbert80CcbhotmaiL.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 877 N Aster Ave
Boise, ID 83704
2

Name of Utility Company: Lee Gilbert
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "What is the status of the above Case."
Thankyou
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 5:00 PM
To: secretary<secretaryPpuc.idaho.gov>
Subject: Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michelle Miles
Submission Time: May 30 2025 4:54PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3631 E. Darlington Dr
Meridian, ID 83642
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-
Comment: "To whom it may concern:
The purpose of this letter is to express my dissatisfaction with both Idaho Power and the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Their actions over the last few years exemplify the fact they disregard the public's opinion
and prioritize the well-being of their company and its profit margins over the citizens of
Idaho.
It is the American Dream to be self-sufficient and not reliant on corporations or state
institutions for survival. These choices are clearly intended to discourage people from
investing in their own source of energy production and just to settle for Idaho Power.
3

While I understand the fact that solar and other means of energy production greatly reduce
the inflow of money to Idaho Power, this also means they have to produce less, which
should alleviate their cost of operations, in addition to several other benefits such as:
1. Net Metering
2. Demand-Side Management
3. Reliability and Grid Stability
I believe the scenario is simple; if Idaho Power cannot come up with a way to remain
profitable while they are RECEIVING LOW COSTADDITIONAL ENERGYTO THEIR GRID, then
the current leadership is incapable and needs to undergo change.
Thank you for your time,
Michelle Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lon Mansuetti Sr
Submission Time: Jun 2 2025 12:59PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 343 W Tehuti St
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "What is the status of the outrageous ripoff that idaho power requested the
idaho puc to approve stealing from our solar investment by charging us full rate for
electricity, but only compensating less than 60%for the green energy that we generated for
them?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4

From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2025 7:00 AM
To: ConsumerComplaintsWeb <ConsumerComplaintsWeb(cbpuc.idaho.gov>
Subject: Notice: A complaint was submitted to PUCWeb
The following complaint was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Sandra Peterson
Submission Time: May 31 2025 6:25PM
Email: sandeepet123 gmail.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5222 W Waterwheel Dr
BOISE, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Contacted Utility: No
Comment: "I paid over$16,000 for 9 solar roof panels to help save on my power bill and
mostly to help the environment. I cannot afford a cut in my most valued compensation.
What can be done to stop this hike or is it already greedily in place? I welcome your
comments. Thank you"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: C Summaria <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2025 4:29 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Case No. AVU-E-24-13
My Name is Colleen Lawrence
9941 Rosebud St
Nampa, ID 83687
When we first installed our solar we were on a 1-1 ratio with idaho power. We export 10
apples, they pay us with 10 apples from their tree. Then we went to a $value for the apples
being exchanged. We were paid a set amount for each apple we grew and we were
charged a set amount for needing apples from you.
That was an unfair set up, but we didn't protest.
Now we are.
5

We want to go on record as opposing the decrease in the payment/credit that we receive
from idaho Power for the excess power our$28k solar panels produce. It is my
understanding that this decrease (or my reimbursement)will be evaluated every two years.
Since we know the costs will continually go up for ID Power as the grid expands and
improves to meet the growing demand, I have concluded every 2 years that an IRP will be
filed by Avista Corp. and my export credit rate will decrease. Eventually making my$28k
Solar system useless to me .
Since I am getting charged a specific rate for any energy I use, I think it is only fair that Idaho
Power matches their export credit rate to what they charge me to use their power.
What they pay me for
Exporting my power(my apples)should EQUAL what I am charged for buying their apples.
These actions will kill the solar industry in ID, Wa. and Oregon.
I am so disappointed in the approval of this case.
If I had it to do again, I would never have invested in Solar.
Congratulations,you are succeeding in killing the Solar Industry.
Very truly stated
Colleen Lawrence
408-219-9902
1 look forward to a response from a live person that is not a`canned' response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kaycee Cron
Submission Time: Jun 22025 2:22PM
Email: kayceecronPoutlook.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8877 S Broken Wheel Ln
Kuna, ID 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "To the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I write in strong opposition to Idaho Power's proposed changes to the Export Credit Rates
(ECRs)for rooftop solar customers. Slashing the compensation rate by over 60%—and in
6

some months, by more than 80%—is not only unjustified, it is a blatant assault on
Idahoans' rights to produce their own clean energy and receive fair value for it.
This proposal is a clear attempt by Idaho Power to suppress distributed solar, which
threatens its monopoly profits. Rather than encouraging the growth of local, renewable
energy that strengthens grid resilience, lowers long-term costs, and empowers Idaho
families, this plan punishes those who have invested in solar by shifting value from
individual households to corporate shareholders.
Let's be absolutely clear: paying solar producers less than 1 cent per kilowatt-hour while
charging their neighbors 8 cents or more for the exact same electricity is not only
inequitable, it is indefensible. It undermines market fairness, discourages innovation, and
contradicts Idaho's stated goals around energy independence and environmental
responsibility.
These changes would hit just as summer demand peaks and Idahoans rely more on energy-
intensive cooling. It would devastate consumer confidence, strand investments, and drive
up long-term costs for everyone. The PUC must recognize that this isn't about a technical
rate adjustment, it's about protecting public interest over corporate self-interest.
I urge the Commission to reject this proposal in full. Idaho needs policy that supports
forward-looking, community-driven energy solutions; not one that penalizes the very
people trying to build a cleaner, more resilient future.
Sincerely,
Kaycee Cron-rooftop solar owner in Idaho
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7