20170810Comments (2).pdf

Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
[e-mail]
Wednesday, August 9,2017 9:10 AM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form:Jay BasenSubject:
Name: Jay Basen
Case Number: IPC-E-L7-13
Email: jay.m.basen @gmail.com
Telephone:
Address: 180 Cranbrook Drive
Hailey lD, 83333
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: One year ago ldaho Power held a public meeting where they presented new fees targeted at owners of solar
panel systems. The overwhelming response at that meeting was opposition to their plan. In spite of that public
response ldaho Power is trying to move forward with new fees through this submission to the ldaho Public Utilities
Commission. These fees, and new requirements for hardware, in many cases, would make these system cost prohibitive
and stifle innovation that solar systems have the potential to bring to electricity production in the state of ldaho.
First and foremost, ldaho Power's plan is to specifically burden solar system owners with higher fees. However, to me a
solar panel system is no different from any other energy savings initiative that a homeowner, or business, can initiate.
lncandescent light bulbs can be replaced with LED bulbs. Older, less efficient appliances can be replaced with energy
star rated appliances. Electric stoves, furnaces, and even hot water heaters can be replaced with ones that use
inexpensive, naturalgas. All of these reduce the consumption of electricity and lower electric bills.
What ldaho power is doing is to take the lower consumption per user, because people have become much more energy
conscious in recent years, and are placing that entire burden on net metering customers (ldaho Power's term for people
with solar generating systems). ldaho Power isn't recognizing that net metering customers are really the same as their
entire customer base; they have simply invested more to further reduce their bills. To signal out net metering
customers to cover the burden of lower consumption by all customers is a totally invalid approach that will stifle
innovation that can keep ldaho Power from having to invest in new generating infrastructure and potentially even
reduce the costs oftheir current infrastructure.
Secondly, ldaho Power is now viewing residential and business operated solar energy systems as competition. ldaho
Power believes in solar energy. They have recently put online their own solar generating system and are charging a
special subscription fee for people to gain access to the power generated by this environmentally friendly system.
Providing power with a special fee to make people feel they are helping the environment has the potential to make a lot
of money for ldaho Power. But, residential and business solar generating systems have now become a competitor to
their own solar generating system and the "feel good" fee they have attached to the power generated from it. The new
fees that ldaho power is proposing can also be seen as a way to attack that competition to maintain a monopoly on
power generation.
Finally, ldaho power has proposed new requirements for the hardware used in residential and business solar generating
systems. They want to require these installations to use state of the art equipment that, of course, costs more than
equipment that is adequate and safe. This is simply another technique for raising the costs of solar systems to make
these systems cost prohibitive.
1
Potentially, in the future, a great number customers could have solar systems installed. ln that scenario ldaho Power
might be able to significantly reduce their fixed costs by closing their older, dirty, coal fired, power generating stations.
This possible future scenario has no chance of becoming reality if ldaho Power pursues its current rate plans which
would completely stifle residential and business investment in solar energy by making it cost prohibitive.
Please deny this request.
Thanks for your time, consideration, and support.
Unique ldentifier: 68. 105.213.59
2
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Name: David Manning
Case Number: IPC-E-77 -L3
Email: [e-mail]
Te le p ho ne : 208-9L4-O87 2
Address: 5305 N NorthwallAve
Boise 1D,83703
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power bases its argument on the solar energy penetration of approximately 1,400 residential and small
generation service customers in its service area of approximately 500,000 customers (-O.3% penetration), asserting that
the discontinuation of Schedule 84 is necessary because of unfair cost-shifting caused by the O.03% penetration. ldaho
Power forecasts that participating R&SGSC customers would increase to 6,000 to 7,000 by ZOZL, increasing the cost-shift
burden to no-participating customers. The basic flaw in this argument is the assumption that ldaho Power's customer
base remains static at 500,000, disregarding the high population growth rate experienced recently and expected to
continue. The basis of their argument is a faulty penetration estimate.
Particularly concerning in ldaho Power's request is the change to net-metering capacity limits for Small Generation
Service Customers from 100kW in Schedule 84 to 25kW in Schedule 8, effectively eliminating the use of solar photo-
voltaic systems by most commercial businesses. This is extremely detrimental to our community small business owners
who would explore ways to reduce the cost of operation.
As demand load increases due to population increases, ldaho Power's capability to provide service is further
complicated by the projected loss of coal-fired generation and potential reduction of hydro-electric generation caused
by public pressure for dam breaching. lncreased capacity through distributed energy resources during peak load times
would seem to be a logical mitigation of these expected constraints.
Although ldaho Power has not specified any rate changes in their request, the reduction of net-metering in Schedule 8 is
an an obvious constraint to cost reduction options for our small business community. I can only conclude by the
language in the request that it is less about the fairness of cost-shifting and more about impeding the growth of solar
photo-voltaic distributed generation.
U niq ue ldentifier: 7 5.L7 4.130.63
[e-mail]
Wednesday, August 9,2017 10:30 AM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form: David Manning
1