20180302Comments (10).pdf

Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,March 2,2018 2:43 PM
To:BeverlyBarker Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Josephine Lowe
Name:Josephine Lowe
Case Number:
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:110 Limekiln Ln
Hailey Idaho,83333
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:Investing in rooftop solar to control energy bills while supporting Idahos clean energy sector is important to
me.Please maintain the net metering program as a simple and fair means to enable Idahoansto meet their own energyneeds.
The PUC staff looked at the details and found no evidence to support Idaho Powers request to segregate solar
customers.I agree.
Because I cant choose my utility,I rely on the PUC to ensure fair programs.Again,please maintain the current net
metering program.
Unique Identifier:54.174.189.8
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,March 2,2018 1:14 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Donald Watt
Name:Donald Watt
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:692 Stallion Springs Way
Middleton ID,83644
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I am opposed to the creation of a new service classification for Idaho Power customers who have their owngenerationequipment.Although,I do not have the capacity myself,I believe that having individuals with generatingcapabilitywillnotsignificantlyaffectthecostsofmyelectricity,in a negative manner.In fact,by encouraging more
production facilities,I believe my rates will remain the same as peak demand from the grid will tend to remain steady.Creating a new customer class for those generating some of their own electricity could create a situation where this is
discouraged,something which would not be beneficial in the long run.
Unique Identifier:96.19.242.81
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]:Thursday,March 1,2018 6:35 PMTo:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew EvansSubject:Case Comment Form:Johnathon McGee
Name:Johnathon McGee
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:18231 N Goldenridge Way
Boise ID,83714
Name of Utility Company:Idaho PowerComment:Idaho Power uses ratepayer money to encourage customers to conserve.Some Idahoansgo beyond byinvestingtheirownmoneyintoasolarsystem.Whether conservation or clean energy,customer just want to be treatedfairly.
Idaho Power's own Net Metering Report claims solar customers actually lower the system-wide costs for all othercustomers.Before making changesthe Idaho Commission should take the necessary time to determine the full range ofcostsandbenefitsthatoccurwhenacustomersinveststheirownmoneyintheirownenergysystem.
Idaho Power claims solar customers are not paying their fair share.Normally a utility produces a "cost of service study"to prove this claim.Idaho Power refuses to do so.The Commissionsshould require this normal utility practice beforeconsideringanychanges.
Idaho Power still collects a meter fee along with any additional use above what is made by the customer.This could beviewedasanattemptofgreedinsteadofseeingthefutureinwhichcustomersarehelpingtostabilizeanever-growingandoutofdategrid.
Rooftop solar is not a "cost",but a valuable resource and should be treated as such.Some of the benefits that rooftopsolarbringsare:
Helps reduce peak demand that in turn damagesgrids and causes rolling blackouts.
Increasesresiliency of the grid and reduces wear and tear on neighborhood transformers
Reduces new infrastructure costs for utilities that all customers pay for
Reduces exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices that all customers pay for
While I appreciate a regulated utility,competition is good.Many other states and markets have proven there is value inlocallyproducedsolarenergy.
Unique Identifier:174.126.145.253
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]:Friday,March 2,2018 12:00 AMTo:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew EvansSubject:Case Comment Form:Sergei Kashirny
Name:Sergei Kashirny
Case Number:
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:4061 E Barber Dr
Boise Idaho,83716
Name of Utility Company:Idaho PowerComment:Idaho Powers net metering program enables local citizens to support Idahos clean energy sector.Supportingthisgrowingsectorofoureconomicreducesthecurrentrelianceonout-of-state fossil fuels for roughly 50%of ourelectricity.
Investing in local solar power keeps more energy dollars in our communities and allows individuals to meet their ownenergyneeds.Individual control and local economic growth are Idahoan values.
Please stand up for these values by maintaining the current net metering program.
Unique Identifier:52.91.192.119
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]:Thursday,March 1,2018 11:55 PMTo:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew EvansSubject:Case Comment Form:Jedidiah Thomet
Name:Jedidiah Thomet
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:11101 W.Sandhurst Dr.
Boise Idaho,83709
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:DearCommissioners,
I attended the March 1 public hearing in Boise,and I wanted to thank you for taking the time to hear from the public.Ididnothavemycommentspreparedinadvance,so l'm composing them after the fact.
Not only is adding new rate classes for net metering customers unnecessary,but the new proposed rate classes will notreduce/eliminate the cost-shifting that idaho Power claims is occurring.To prove this point,one need only look at theclassof"net zero"customers --those who generate more than they consume.Under the proposed Schedule6,everynetmeteringcustomerpaysmorefortheirconsumption--except the net zero customer,who still pays no more thanthestandardinterconnectfee.Since no cost-shifting is resolved,it's easy to see why Ms.Aschenbrenner,in her rebuttaltestimony,declared that "Recovering fixed costs through a volumetric rate simply does not work for this segment ofcustomers",referring to net metering customers.While we do not know what percentage of net metering customersarenetzerousers,we can tell from Idaho Power's 2017 Annual Net Meteringreport that net metering customers hadaccrued2.3 million unused energy credits at the end of 2016.With only 1,067 active net metering systems at that sametime,it seems that the number of net zero customers would be fairly significant.Given that the proposed rate plandoesn't address the cost shifting,one wonders what the real purpose of the new rate plan is,except to be a vehicle forfuturefeesandrateincreases.
Finally,Schedule 6 would also have unanticipated consequences:The rates established in this schedule are sufficientlypunitivetothenetmeteringcustomertodisincentivisetheinstallationofanysitethatisnotabletoachievenetzerostatus.As a result,a sizeable percentage of new installations would be net zero installations,further exacerbating thecost-shifting imbalance.While I urge the Commission to reject the creation of a new rate class entirely,I would alsourgetheCommissiontorejectthesespecificrateplanssuggestedinIdahoPower's application.As many others testifiedtoday,a more reasoned approach,considering the input of all stakeholders,can result in a better proposal,but thestartingpointhastobetherejectionofthecreationoftheserateclasses.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jed Thomet
Unique Identifier:96.19.4.72
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]:Thursday,March 1,2018 7:23 PMTo:BeverlyBarker Diane Holt;Matthew EvansSubject:Case Comment Form:Laura Treider
Name:Laura Treider
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:9411 W Sloan St
Boise ID,83714
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I understand the need to not charge less fortunate citizens to subsidize servicing those folks lucky enough toaffordsolarpanels.I feel strongly,however,that Idaho needs to balancethat with creating an atmosphere friendlytorenewableenergy.We have to leave this world to our kids and grandkids,and I want to leave them a world less pollutedthanIfoundit.Encouragingsolar will also bring more jobs to the local area.
The $65/month net metering fee that Idaho Power is asking for is more than my current electric bill without solarpanels.I want to install solar panels on my roof,but I'm afraid to do so and be locked into paying even more than l'mpayingnoweventhoughIwouldbegeneratingenoughelectricitytooffsetmyownusage.A modest net metering rate intheneighborhoodof$20/month would be a good compromise between encouraging people to go solar and helpingoffsetsomeoftheadditionalcostsIdahoPowertakesontoservicenet-metering connections.
Unique Identifier:24.119.34.70
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]:Thursday,March 1,2018 7:56 PMTo:BeverlyBarker Diane Holt;Matthew EvansSubject:Case Comment Form:Charles Blair
Name:Charles Blair
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:4782 S Spotted Horse Ave
Boise Idaho,83716
Name of Utility Company:Idaho PowerComment:I am opposed to Idaho Power's request to create a separate rate class for residential solar customers.IdahoPoweristargetingsmallcustomerswhochoosetoself-generate electricity,punishing them for reducing energy use andrewardinghigherenergyusecustomers.Peak power generation by residential solar customers likely coincides with peakdailysummer-time use by all Idaho Power customers,thereby reducing the need for outside power purchasesorincreasedproductionofelectricityfromdirtycoal.
If a new rate class is created without first conducting a thorough benefit /cost analysis you can be sure that Idaho Powerwillbeaskingforarateincreaseforthatnewrateclassofcustomers.It is essential that a thorough benefit /costanalysisMUSTbeconductedtodetermineifanewrateclassforresidentialsolarcustomersisevenwarranted,
Idaho Power claims that solar customers,which today constitute less than 0.19%of all customer demand,unfairly shiftscostsofprovidingelectricityservicetootherresidents.However,the Company has yet to complete a comprehensivecost-benefits study to demonstrate there is even a cost-shift issue that needs to be addressed.In contrast,a 2016 report by the nonpartisan Brookings Institute found that net metering "frequently benefits allratepayerswhenallcostsandbenefitsareaccountedfor"in states that had performed analysis.Idaho Power's ownanalysisofrooftopsolaridentifiesacostshiftthatamountstolessthan0.02%of its annual revenues within thecustomerclass.
Without conducting a cost-benefit analysis,Idaho Power has not put PUC is a position to make informed judgmentsaboutcostshiftingbyfailingtoaccountforthelongtermbenefitsrooftopsolarprovides,such as avoiding the need tobuildnewpowerplantsandtransmissionanddistributioninfrastructure.
Completing a comprehensive benefit-costs study is necessary before any changesto existing net metering policy areimplemented,If it is determined that the fair value of energy exported to the grid is less than retail rates,any changes toexistingpolicyshouldbefocusedonthevalueenergyexportedtothegrid.Idahoans should continue to have the right tooffsettheirownelectricityusageatretailratesallcustomerspay,just like customers have the right to pursue energyefficiency
Unique Identifier:96.19.9.11
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,March 2,2018 8:52 AM
To:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Sierra Laverty
Name:Sierra Laverty
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:2310 W State St.Unit A
Boise ID,83702
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I would like to be in control of my own energy bill!I believe that I have a right to supply energy myself,
without interference from utilitycompanies or public works.The program created by Idaho Power is good as is.I don't
have an option to switch to a different utility company,so they need have an inherentlyfair system.This means NO to
solar segregation.
Thank you for your time.
Unique Identifier:75.174.12.227
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Monday,February26,2018 4:45 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Ronnie Huff
Name:Ronnie Huff
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:445 E Chateau Dr
Meridian ID ,83646
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I am a current net metering customer with a 9.9 kw solar panel system.It is my hope to offset dramatically
the amount of reliance on public utilities (electricity)for my home.
I oppose any changeto the net metering process in that if I haveto pay for just having the service,then why would I be
credited at a lower rate of the electricity I use.I understand the need for creating differing use classifications,but
lowering the rate at which the electricity generated is provided to the electric company does not make sense to me.I
will have to pay one rate,but will be credited at a lower rate for the electricity I send back to the grid makes no sense.
No commercial customers who are classified for on demand users pay a different rate for the electricity used because
they are consuming more electricity than residential customers.Perhapsthey should look at lowering the rate for those
who are embracing renewable energy for home electricity consumption.Thank you for the opportunityto present my
thoughts in opposition to any change with the net metering program.
Unique Identifier:137.200.0.109
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Thursday,March 1,20184:36 PMTo:BeverlyBarker Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Alejandro Necochea
Name:Alejandro Necochea
Case Number:
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:713 N 20th St
Boise Idaho,83702
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:Idaho Powers net metering program enables local citizens to support Idahos clean energy sector.Supportingthisgrowingsectorofoureconomicreducesthecurrentrelianceonout-of-state fossil fuels for roughly 50%of ourelectricity.
Investing in local solar power keeps more energy dollars in our communities and allows individuals to meet their ownenergyneeds.Individual control and local economic growth are Idahoan values.
Please stand up for these values by maintaining the current net metering program.
Unique Identifier:52.91.165.249