20130128Comment1.pdf

January 21, 2013
RECEVE)
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
2D13 JAN 28 PM 3:29
Attn: Jean D Jewell, Secretary DAFOPlJBUC
472 West Washington Street UTILIT
Boise, Idaho 83702
RE: Case No. IPC-E-12-27
Proposed Net Metering Changes
Dear Ms. Jewell:
We are one of Idaho Power's (IPC) small net metering customers that would seriously be
affected by their recent petition request, which now is in front of IPUC. We are senior
citizens living on a fixed income. We purchased our all-electric home in June 2010, and
because of an energy audit we took dramatic stops to make our home more energy
efficient. To further reduce our utility burden, by mid-October 2012 we had a solar system
installed, and interconnected with IPC's system. Additionally, we keep our thermostat set
for maximum energy effectiveness (winter 63-degrees & summer 78-degrees). We use
high-efficiency light bulbs along with clock timers for our house lights and hot water heater.
The lights simply go on when it is nighttime (winter 61 3M - 10PM, summer 8:30PM -
10PM). The hot water thermostat is set at 120 degrees and goes on from 4PM until 10PM.
We rarely use air-conditioning during the summer. In addition, we had extra insulation (5-
It) blown into our attic space, replaced leaking windows and installed thermo blinds on all
the windows. Once again, all of these measures were done in an effort to reduce our utility
burden. We take our own ecological footprint seriously, and we make every effort to
reduce or eliminate all of our waste, which includes recycling.
If IPC's proposed changes are granted by the IPUC our utility costs will quadruple despite
all of our cost saving efforts'! And then to add insult to injury, our solar credits would
simply disappear precisely when we need them the most!! We would be immensely
penalized by having a solar systemli When we went through great deal of expense for
our small solar project with a total payback period of twenty-five years. We were informed
by [PC that if they raised their standard rates, it would also be reflected in the solar energy
repayment. Our motivation for the solar system was purely to reduce our electric utility
burden, not to make money. Then again, just giving our solar energy away to [PC for
absolutely nothing also penalizes us for generating green power and defeats the
entire purpose of the PURPA laws. Now, they want us to accept a credit system
(use it or loose it) whereby, Idaho Power can eradicate those credits at Will, which is
totally unfair, irresponsible and unethical!! As a result, all net metering customers
would subsidize a monopolizing company (IPC) and paying them for the privilege. It
is not right to allow [PC to change the rules at their greedy whim. At the very least,
those already connected with net metering should be allowed to continue at the
current agreement or be grandfather in or not changed at all. A close comparative
analysis would be a bank account agreement whereby we regularly deposit money, only
later to be informed that all moneys deposited would be confiscated due to the bank's
whim!! Please remember, we have always been Idaho Power's customers too!
[PC claims that half of their power comes from hydro, wind, solar, biomass & geothermal
sources. So then, logic tells us the other half comes from their coal-fired or gas powered
plants. They further claim they are "doing their best to keep customer's rates low" but with
their recent petition they seem to disregard the increase costs to net-metering customers
who produce green energy. In our opinion, [PC is upset that FERC mandated them to
honor their contract With those wind power producers and pay them for generating power.
Also in our opinion, IPC would like to see the PURPA laws overturned.
Now, IPC wants to utilize their AMI meters to get "peak reading" in order to establish a new
per kilowatt price characteristic. This new reading is multiplied by $1.48 and its sum is
combined to the new service fee. Example added for simplicity [(2+2=4) (6-4=2)]. All of
these cost variables make up the customers electric power use. However when solar
energy is produced, it adds its own generated kW value on top of the customer's present
meter reading, increasing the peak amplitude indications. The meter does not reset its self
after the sun goes down. The meter carries that new peak reading until enough additional
solar power is produced to reset the meter's solar peak indication. This will repeat its self
for as long as there is an increase of peak solar energy. This value is used to set the
constant Basic Load Capacity (BLC) rate and charged each month times the number of
peak kilowatts. In spite of this, they only plan to review it every 6 months (182 days). We
question [PC's method because they have already admitted their new AM[ meters cannot
read both the present grid use and the solar production at the same time, within the same
meter.
Please just consider the following example (not factoring in any solar production): of 120
volts RMS, 60 cycles peak is 169.6 peak volts. [(RMS = 1.11 X average) (Average is .637
X peak which is 108 volts or 1.57 X average = peak)]. To us, these figures indicate a
built-in error (is approximately 42 percent increase) added to the other additional costs
used in [PC's methodology for these proposed new rates for net-metering customers.
Perhaps, IPC would prefer to monthly send out a meter reader (to all 353 net-metering
customers) to examine those net-metering customer's inverters to verify their E-total output
which is updated daily, and guaranteed by the manufacturer to be accurate
As both IPC's customers and retired employee's, we are greatly saddened by their recent
IPUC request that penalizes their Net Metering Clients In our opinion, IPC's does not
consider their net-metering customer's huge expense (i.e. panels, inverters, wire, large
earth machine work, any inventory, all hardware expense, labor or maintenance) for even
a small solar production system. Net metering customers are not subsidized through
public funds We do not get any "special treatment" nor do we add any additional costs to
their standard residential customers! We are enclosing our most recent bill that proves
that we pay all the same fees as all their other residential customers
[PC is a state-granted monopoly with vested interest to discourage any potential client's
from investing in solar, wind or hydro electrical production. Furthermore, all of IPC's
customers must pay for their TV spots, advertisements, brochures and alike in an effort to
persuade people's thinking that IPC is actually trying to keep their costs down. Instead, in
our opinion, they are cost motivated and they reap many benefits in using these legal
tactics. Nowhere have they given an accounting or testimony as to their true costs for
requested reimbursements dollars vs. net-metering customers just using up their own
2
power credits. Again, in our opinion, they "bundle" these statistics then give vague
generalized statements and figures to the IPUC.
We believe they need to stop growing middle and upper management. Instead, they need
to better understand all of their customers. They need to comprehend the true impact to
the State of Idaho with job losses, lack of expertise, negative state growth, together with
even more poor air quality, then coupled with global warming that will also impact IPC's
hydro production. They need to recognize their own responsibilities to their customers and
the State regarding their carbon footprint. Surely we consumers cannot be expected to
pay for their flawed analyses and poor management decisions too! Therefore, we believe
that the Idaho Public Utility Commission should deny their petition or hold a public hearing
on IPC's request prior to changing the net metering rules and regulations (Case No. IPC-
E-12-27) with such dire consequences!
' Z1dA,e
E. and E. VandJrpool
6177 Somerset Lane
Star, Idaho 83669
208-286-0459
Cc:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Idaho Conservation League
Page I of 2
An eacofiP con'ea,ry
www.lclahopower.com
Questions? contact us at:
PO BOX 70, Boe, ID 83707. Customer Name: EVERETT & EILEEN M VANDERPOOL
Or call [phone] (Treasure Valley). Account Number:
Se habla español.
For tester service please call Billing Date: 01111/2013
Tuesday - Friday, 7:30 am. to 6:30 p.m. Print Date: 01/11/2013
Due Date Please Pay
01/2912013 $19968
- Account Previous Balance .....................................................................................$35.67
Activity

Payments - Thank You ...............................................................................$35.67 CR
BalanceForward .......................................................................................$0.00
CurrentCharges .......................................................... ............................ ______
- Account Balance 199.68'
Ptease Note: Any unpaid balances will be assessed a monthly charge of one percent (1%) for Idaho customers. An', 'redit due to a
rebilling will be applied to future billings or can be refunded upon customer request Returned checks may be resubmitted electronically for
payment. Checks remaining unpaid will be charged a $20 tee.
Consider joining Idaho Power in supporting Project Share, a valuable community service that
' uses voluntary contributions to assist individuals and families who need help paying their energy
bills during the winter heating season. To make a pledge, visit our Web site
(www.idahopower.com) or mark the appropriate box on the back of the pay stub.
What is your What is your energy use?
energy use? What is your biggest day? Your biggest hour? Become an Account Manager at
www.idah000wer.com and see your monthly, daily and hourly data. Be energy aware and learn
ways to save money and energy. Use less and save more!
Questions? cts
PO 13OX 70, Boise, to 83707.
n incosconwany Or call [phone] (Treasure Valley).
Se habla espanoi
For faster service please call
www.ldahopower.com Tuesday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Service Agreement No:
Service Location: 6177 SOMERSET LN1STAR. ID
Page 2 of 2
Customer Name: EVERETT & EILEEN M VANDERPOOL
Account Number:
Billing Dale: 01/11/2013
Print Date: 01/11/2013
Next Read Date: 02/07/2013
[
Meter
L Number
Service Period
From To
Number
of Days
Reading
Type
Meter Readings
Previous Current
Meter
Constant
kWh
Used
12/07112 01108113 32 Regular 194 2494 1 2300
Billing kW BLC
23 0
Residential 12/0712012 - 01/08/2013 32 days
Rate Schedule Service Charge ................................................................................$5.00
184R Non-Summer Energy Charge 0-800 kWh © $0.072355 per kWh $57.88
Nóiiinèrgy Charge 801-2000 kWh © $0.080519 per kWh $96.62
Non-Summer Energy Charge Over 2000 kWh Q $0.08996 per kWh $26.99
Annual Adjustment Mechanism ...........................................................$6.48
Energy Efficiency Services .................................................................$7.46
Federal Columbia River Benefits Supplied by SPA $0.75 CR
(itrmnt (hrn - Flrtrir Strvit
CR = Credit kWh = Kilowatt-hour PCA = Power Cost Adjustment kW = Kilowatt BLC = Basic Load Capacity C = Generation
Your Electric 71.8
Use Pattern
Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13
PECK!
January 23, 2013
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Attn: Mr. Nathan J. Davis
Senior Deputy Secretary
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Stop Energy Discrimination
Dear W. Davis,
7013 JAN 28 PM 3: 29
MMSS
At the outset, thank you for serving the public good and for the positive results your
agency has accomplished in the United States. We are senior citizens living in Star,
Idaho. We own an all-electric home and recently had a solar system installed to ease
our electric utility burden. Idaho Power Company (IPC) has asked the Idaho Public
Utility Commission (IPUC) to change its agreement with all of its net-metering
customers There are approximately 350 net-metering customers, who own small solar,
wind and hydro systems. These folks also use their system to offset their electric utility
burden.
The purpose .of this letter isto draw your attention toatend insuffocatingoreven
killing off any chances of growth in renewable energy (with all its benefits) in the West.
In our opinion, both Avista and IPC are stifling green energy growth in order to maintain
a monopoly stranglehold over its customers. IPC is doing this under the guise of
increasing the megawatt nameplate rating along with not performing or honoring their
contract with their net-metering customers. In our opinion, IPC is waging a Public image
campaign to convince everyone their recent petition to IPUC is in fairness to all their
customers, when in fact they are oppressing any opportunities for renewal energy within
the state. Also in our opinion, they are upset with FERC's recent involvement with the
large Wind Energy Developers. These utility companies do not want to pay even their
small energy producers anything. However, they gladly except their energy production
and take the credit for having green power in their mix. IPC has informed the IPUC that
Avista is currently restricting its customers in the same manner as outlined in PC's
petition. It is our opinion, by not allowing the small producer to recuperate any of their
costs and wiping out all of their green power credits it will kill any chance of reliable,
efficient and sustainable renewable energy establishing a foothold within these States
(Idaho and Washington).
We realize that FERC does not generally get involved with rate cases, but what bothers
us is their selected abuse focusing on small net-metering customers. First they
quadruple the service fees then they use a complicated formula made up of many
variables to establish new rates and eliminating all payment to small producers. They
gladly accept all of the power generated by these small producers. However, they do
not want to pay for it, and they want to totally wipe off any green power credits at the
end of year. They are actually petitioning changes that will make it far cheaper to just
remain a standard grid user customer tied to their system. Idaho Power generates
more than half of their power from very expensive coal and/or gas fired plants which
spew pollutants into the air. In our opinion, the bottom tine is it is cheaper to remain a
"standard use customer than it is to build and operate even a small solar system. If this
trend continues, no one will invest or incur the large financial liability or burden for even
a small solar system. We are taking the liberty of including our most recent letter
requesting the IPUC deny IPC's petition. Our letter has specific reasons why these
changes are bad for any state. It does nothing but increase costs and dramatically
stifles green energy growth by unduly discriminating against the solar industry and all
the good it does. We strongly believe that if they are successful this trend Will not end
in the West but Will spread across the country. In order to stop this movement, we are
asking FERC to get involved to ensure that all rates, terms and conditions are just and
reasonable, without discrimination in order to promote the development of safe, reliable,
efficient and renewable energy along with protecting the public's interest.
!:Ii 4i.IUi
Cc: Idaho Public Utility Commission
Idaho Conservation League