20250620Comments_2.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kim Weissinger
Submission Time: Jun 19 2025 1:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3720 Sage Creek Dr.
Boise, ID 83714
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "To the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Case No. IPC-E-25-15):
I am writing as the spouse of an Idaho Power employee, and as a customer who deeply
appreciates the role Idaho Power plays in our community. My husband has always spoken
highly of the company's commitment to serving the public interest with integrity and care.
By him, I know firsthand how dedicated Idaho Power is to doing what's right for Idahoans,
especially as we move together toward a more sustainable energy future.
In 2024, we made a significant personal investment by installing rooftop solar on our home.
We did so not only to reduce long-term energy costs and support the transition to clean
energy, but also to enhance the resilience of our home's power supply. Like many
Idahoans, I view this investment as a contribution to a broader energy solution. While I
understand that utility cost structures must evolve, I respectfully ask the Commission to
consider keeping compensation rates for customer-generated solar energy closer to parity
with what we pay for retail energy.
It's important to note that several of Idaho's neighboring states—such as Washington,
Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming—continue to offer full retail net metering to rooftop solar
owners, typically around 10-13 cents per kilowatt-hour. These policies encourage
individual investment in clean energy and recognize the value of distributed generation to
the grid. In contrast, Idaho Power's current avoided-cost model compensates solar exports
at just 3-4 cents per kilowatt-hour, with proposed changes aiming to lower that further. If
Idaho falls too far behind our neighbors in valuing customer-generated solar, we risk
discouraging future investment in technologies that benefit all ratepayers over time.
1

This proposal to reduce export compensation also comes on the heels of the tripling of
Idaho Power's fixed flat monthly fee in January 2025, which already added financial
pressure on customers—including solar users who still rely on the grid for nighttime and
backup usage. Layering additional reductions onto customer-side solar compensation
creates a discouraging financial environment for those who want to be part of Idaho's clean
energy future.
This request also directly supports Idaho Power's own stated goal of achieving 100% clean
energy by 2045. Empowering customers to contribute distributed clean energy helps
reduce the need for large-scale infrastructure upgrades and accelerates progress toward
that long-term objective in a cost-effective and community-driven way.
Distributed energy resources like rooftop solar play a crucial role in grid resilience, reduced
peak demand, and the transition to clean, locally generated electricity. I believe Idaho
Power can continue to lead in clean energy while supporting policies that fairly
compensate those of us who invest in the grid from the ground up.
Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to the people of Idaho:'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Jonathan Petrakos
Submission Time: Jun 20 2025 2:13PM
Email:jonathanC�petrakosco.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5290 W Octavia Drive
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Companyq
Case ID: IPC-E-25-15
Comment: "I reside in Idaho Power's service territory and invested in rooftop solar in
December 2023. 1 did so believing in a stable compensation structure that would support
my solar investment. To my dismay, I've learned that the export credit rate for non-legacy
solar customers is slated for a —60-80% reduction, with non-summer rates dropping to as
Low as $0.00959/kWh,just shy of one cent.
2

Major concerns:
1. Retroactive rate reduction
I installed solar under the expectation of a certain rate. I did not know the PUC would
approve an annual recalculation that could decimate my credit rate. Cutting compensation
years after investment undermines trust and confidence in the program.
2. Grandfathering inequities
Current rules grandfather customers with systems installed by December 20, 2019
(residential) and December 1, 2020 (commercial/irrigation), for 25 years
red dit.com+3idahocapitalsun.com+3reddit.com+3idahostates man.com. Why are
investments made in 2023 or early 2025 treated differently? If stability and long-term
planning are essential, shouldn't all those who were installed before this next rate change
be grandfathered equally?
3. Fair compensation for recent investors
Many of us installed solar systems costing$18,000—$100,000, financing through loans,
with the expectation of savings. The proposed rates—only—2-3 cents per kWh—mean my
payback now extends far beyond what I was led to believe votesolar.org.
4. Broader impacts on adoption and fairness
The drastic drop in export credits combined with rising fixed fees (now$15/month)
undermines solar adoption, risks harming local solar businesses, and erodes consumer
confidence
red dit.com+2votesolar.org+2reddit.com+2reddit.com+5solarpowerworldon Lin e.com+5sola
rpowerworldonline.com+5.
Recommendations:
• Extend grandfather protections to include all customers whose systems were
installed before approval of IPC E 25 15, such as those who installed in 2023 and early
2025.
• Stabilize export credit rates by limiting annual reductions to a reasonable band (e.g.,
no more than 10% per year) or by basing credits on a transparent, independently verified
value-of-solar study.
• Ensure clear disclosures: Solar installers should be required to disclose potential
future adjustments to export credit rates and how they could impact payback periods.
In summary:
I respectfully urge the Commission to recognize the investments made by homeowners in
good faith and extend grandfathering protections. Abrupt, retroactive rate cuts punish
recent adopters and destabilize the solar market. Thoughtful grandfathering and moderate
3

rate adjustments would strike a far better balance, honoring past commitments while
allowing the utility to adapt to genuine cost changes.
I appreciate your consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4