20060918Comment.pdf

fW~
/,
!jM~.
q;lrtJO
Via Ai /10 t~w:J.
~ (--I
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tanya Clark
Monday, September 18, 2006 8:18 AM
Jean Jewell
Gene Fadness
L.(I..$ No. IPe.. - f - 0& -
-----Original Message-----From: Ed (mailto:ed.howelll~gmail.comJ
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 8:03 AM
To: Tonya Clark
Subj ect: here you go
Dear commissioners Kj ellander, Smith , and Hansen,
Case No. IPC-E-06-
I don t believe the proposal is fair and equi table. I do believe it could be
wi th some minor changes. One change could be to exempt all systems under 5
KW. Another would be to address all surpluses on an annual basis, not
monthly. Another would be to exempt solar systems. The last would be to pay
solar net metering 100% of the monthly average non-firm on-peak price
because that is what they would have to pay to buy it on the market.
I made a decision to invest $20,000 in a grid connected solar system based
on the tariffs at the time. If I were aware of Idaho Power s proposed tariff
revisions I would have invested much less money in solar electric and much
more in solar heating. It is not fair to change the rules once someone has
made such a big investment. On Feb. 2 of this year it was up and running. My
goal was to get as close as possible to net-zero (to use as much power as I
produce annually). In order to do this I need to have surpluses in the
summer months to offset my heating in the winter months. My goal is not to
make money selling electricity but to try to break even at the end of the
year. According to Scott Gates at Idaho Power I am the only surplus producer
of solar power. I received a $2.05 credit in May, a $1.21 credit in June, a
$2.30 credit in July, and a $6.04 credit in August. These will all be usedup the first cold month. These credits can t be considered material for a
company the size of Idaho Power. Let us see the facts! I can t find any in
the application, just words like: contends, perhaps, and may.
I paid for all the installation and connection, including a $100 fee to
Idaho Power. I am complying with all their rules and regulations. I still
pay a monthly service charge. Idaho Power incurs no generation,
transmission, or distribution costs as my surplus power is used and billed
to my neighbor. Currently my system is more reliable than Idaho Power s, as
I can t produce power when their grid is down.
In other states the power companies pay thousand of dollars to help lower
the cost of solar installation to the customer. As an additional benefit in
other states electricity is billed at on-peak and off-peak rates. In other
words during the day when I am producing surplus power I would be paid the
on-peak price and at night when I use power I would pay the off-peak price.
Why does Idaho Power paid for , install for free, and give a credit to thefor the ac cycling switches? I believe it's to reduce peak power demand on
those hot summer afternoons. The same time my systems is at it's best
feeding power into the grid to help satisfy demand. And now they want give
me even less money. I don t get it. Why shouldn t I get a credit too?!
Idaho Power contends that the current pricing " pays customers more than the
actual value of the generation itself". I would disagree with this for solar
and would like to see some hard facts to back up this statement. Shouldn
decisions be based on facts? I believe Idaho Power does recover it's full
costs and then some from it's solar net metering customers. On July 24 of
this year the non-firm on-peak cost according to the Mid-Columbia
Electricity Price Index was 23.679 cents per KWH. I sold my surplus to Idaho
Power for 5.4251 cents (which was actually less than the 5.428 cent winter
rate). Ask Idaho Power what it cost them per KWH to run their natural gas
peaking plants. When I use electricity, I use the cheaper to produceoff-peak power.
On page 1 & 2 of the application Idaho Power states "The Company supports
net metering and allowing all participating customers to realize the value
of their generation. Therefore, the Company is proposing modifications to
its net metering provisions to eliminate certain financial barriers to
participation, to reduce cost-shifting to non-participating customer, and to
treat all net metering customers in a fair, just and equitable manner." It
is not fair, just, or equitable to treat all net metering the same. The cost
of a solar system is much more than a small wind or hydro system. The
benefit is also higher. All solar production comes during on peak hours
(6am-l0pm according to the Dow Jones Index) in the peak months. This is of
much greater value than producing in off peak hours or off peak months.
The Idaho PUC and utilities should encourage diverse, "made in Idaho , zero
emissions power , that creates local jobs, no? Other customers also benefitfrom this reliable, zero emissions, local, low cost peak electricity
source.
On page 7 of the application it states there are only "26 Idaho net metering
customer from all rate classes . It is my understanding this is all about a
couple of big surplus hydro customers. If this is true , exempt the 5 KW and
below systems or the solar systems. It is not fair to punish everyone
because of a couple. Is it?
Please do not approve case no. IPC-E-06-17 as it currently reads.
Thank you,
John Weber
9535 W Cory
Boise, ID 83704
Js weber~hotmail. com
208-321-4998
PS: Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
FYI: Idaho Power s definition of "Avoided Energy Cost is the monthly
weighted average of the daily on-peak and off-peak Dow Jones Mid-Columbia
Electricity Price Index prices for non-firm energy " to subscribe to this
information costs $1 500 a year according to Ernest Onukogo from Dow Jones.
Solar is 100% on-peak and 0% off-peak. I am just an average guy trying to
walk the walk making Idaho a better place for all to live.