20121220Comment.pdf

Del Dickerson
1035 Beverly Drive
Eagle, ID 83616
208-850-8850
19 December 2012
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P0 Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Sir,
fl!2DEC 2I AN 8:39
IDAHO UBU
UTILITiES COMM .
IPC-E-1 2-27
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Idaho Power Company's (IPC) filing IPC-E-12-27,
regarding their proposal to change the current net-metering policy.
Whereas the request to increase the cap on net-metering service from 2.9 to 5.8 MW is necessary to
continue the State of Idaho's goal of supporting the growth of renewable resources, the proposed
changes to the current rate structure is an economic disaster for current and potential residential
photovoltaic customers.
As a case in point, I am currently exploring the installation of a 4KW grid-tied photovoltaic system on my
residence. Such a system would more-or-less meet my family's annual energy needs. After reading the
public comments relevant to this case on your web site, I called IPC and asked them to calculate the
economics for my circumstances, should their filing be approved. Their response was that, should I invest
$10-20,000 in such a system, I would not only give IPC my generated power for free, I would owe them
an additional $130 per year over my current rate.
What's wrong with this picture? I spend $10-20k, IPC gets the power I generate (mostly during peak
demand times) for free, and I pay them an additional $130 per year. Their numbers, not mine.
Additionally, IPC's proposal to zero-out all net-metering accounts as of 12/31 of each year further dis-
incentivises photovoltaic development. My highest power consumption occurs from November through
February. To build-up a credit over the summer, only to have it erased at the end of December, is a great
deal for IPC. Not so great for me.
I will not go into the "avoided cost" issues at this time, but these are critical, especially for "peak demand"
solar. IPC is currently paying my neighbors and me to turn off our irrigation pump during certain "peak
demand" times during the summer months. I think that it would be advantageous to incentivize residential
photovoltaic development and forgo the expense of the "Peak Rewards" program, for which all customers
contribute.
In summary, I thought that if my family would install a photovoltaic system to meet our electricity needs,
we could lower our carbon foot-print, decrease global warming, and maybe come close to breaking-even,
economically. We are not intent on profiting from this investment(?). Under IPC's current net-metering
policy, this would have been possible. If the IPC filing is approved as proposed, future residential solar
development will be unlikely.
I petition the IPUC to hold a public hearing on this filing.
Respectfully,
Del Dickerson