20180305Comments (5).pdf

Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
[e-mail]
Monday, March 5,2018 3:06 PM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form: John WelhanSubject:
Name: John Welhan
Case Number: IPC-E-17-13 83201
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:955 Cahina Way
Pocatello 1D,83204
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: My name is John Welhan, Research Professor Emeritus with the Univ. of ldaho, a retiree and Pocatello
resident for 28 years. I thank the PUC for this opportunity to enter my comments into the public record.
Currently, lD Power's energy credit for net-metered customers is set at a 1:1 cost rate, but the Company contends that
this shifts the financial burden of maintaining the electric grid onto its non-power producing customers. According to a
LocalNewsS segment of Feb. 27 ,lD Power has gone so far as to call this a "wealth transfer from lower-income to higher-
income customers." Apparently, only high-income customers install solar systemsl Well, I'll be installing one on my roof
this summer because of low financing rates and the long-term cost-savings of solar, but as a retiree, I am most certainly
NOT a high-income customer, and really resent their contention that low-income customers don't carry our share. We
carry more than our fair share!The brazen callousness of that statement about wealth transfer is that it comes at a time
when more and more wealth in,this country is being transferred from the 99Yotothe LYo, with corporations and
Republicans in Congress doing all they can to bleed the middle class dry.
Net-metered customers represent only 0.3% of lD Power's current customer base, but they expect that proportion to
grow rapidly as people wake up to the fact that we're no longer beholden to power brokers for all our electric needs.
Clearly, this represents a threat to both their long-held monopoly and their profits. As the cost of rooftop solar
installations continues to drop and the long-term savings of rooftop power generation become widely known, more and
more residential customers will be financing solar power installations precisely because it makes good economic sense,
and because we want to be energy efficient. On top of that, we are investing in and helping to diversifo ldaho's energy
future. This is exactly the opposite of what lD Power would have you believe - that we don't carry our fair share.
How do you justify rewarding ldaCorp and its wealthy owners at the expense of ordinary tax-paying citizens? The
corporation has finally woken up to the fact that its business model is failing, and they're scared. So this proposal before
us today is only the first of many stop-gap measures to come, intended to prop up a short-sighted utility that only now is
waking up to the fact we've entered a new era of energy conservation and on-site energy production. A utility, I might
add, that expects customers to pay for its lack of foresight. I call that a failure of leadership. And what sort of political
system rewards failure? An oligarchy.
As if clutching at straws, lD Power's latest annual report even goes so far as to drag in the threat of terrorism and
disruptions to the power grid as an argument to prop up their position. That argument, however, conveniently ignores
the fact that decentralized power generation - exactly what rooftop solar delivers - is what utilities rely on to minimize
the impact of outages, by shunting power produced in one part of the grid to meet demand in other parts during a
disruption.
1
lf lD Power were truly concerned about terrorism, it would be encouraging on-site power generation rather than
attempting to penalize us for adopting it. More than anything, this bald argument exposes their real agenda: to do
everything they can to maintain their revenue stream as their monopolistic hold on ldaho's energy future crumbles in
the face of the on-site solar and wind power trends.
So, if the PUC truly represents the public good, my question to you is: Why should net-metered customers be penalized
for conserving energy and generating more green power? Remember, during the 2000-2001 western energy crisis, the
PUC ordered this utility to focus more on energy efficiency, not less. So, I ask, who is really at the helm, here? ldaCorp,
or the state of ldaho? Or does that old joke about ldaho being the only state named after a power company have more
truth behind it than humor? Let's face if on-site solar and wind power generation benefits everyone - including the
utilities, if they'd just wake up to the fact and adapt to a changing energy future rather than expect customers to bail
them out.
Finally, I would ask you to consider that net-metered customers won't be the only ones penalized by this proposal. ln its
Annual Report, lD Power proclaims its support for state-led efforts to "promote economic development with an
emphasis on attracting industrial and commercial customers." lf the company is truly sincere about attracting new
businesses to ldaho, then the PUC must consider the impact this proposal will have on slowing the growth of rooftop
solar power in the state and the number of new businesses that may not locate here because of that.
So, in conclusion, which side of history do we choose to be on? That of a short-sighted corporation slapping band-aids
on business practices that no longer work as they once did? Or a comprehensive, forward-looking economic growth
strategy for the entire state that considers more than just the myopic interests of a utility that continues to operate like
it did a century ago? I urge you to put ldaho's long-term interests ahead of the panicked proposals of a corporation bent
on prioritizing its profits to the exclusion of everything else.
Unique ldentifier: 205.185.79. 140
2
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
[e-mail]
Monday, March 5,2018 3:34 PM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form:Jan BrinkerhoffSubject:
Name: Jan Brinkerhoff
Case Number: IPC-E-17-13
Email : jan @ brinkerhoff. net
Telephone: 2O84L264O4
Address:
Boise lD, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power's decision to segregate rooftop solar generators into a special rate class certainly feels like
preparation for simple rate adjustments/charges on those who choose, for whatever reason, to generate energy from
the sun. This may be a fools errand on the part of ldaho Power as smarter, larger and more affordable home batteries
start to come online. Heck, the largest EV maker in the U.S. is now installing 100kwh batteries in their cars and a
German car maker just announced a lllkWh battery in their newest offering. Who's to say if/when you can use your EV
car to power your house at night? This group that ldaho Power targets is likely to be early adopters of new energy
storage technologies and will simply disconnect from the grid and walk away from ldaho Power if promoted to do so.
Then what? A charge for not being connected to the grid in an attempt to somehow make it fair? Doesn't sound right to
me. Perhaps other comments are correct in suggesting ldaho Power do a little more to understand what is going on, it's
effect and why. Perhaps ldaho Power's future is more a power distributor than a power generator? I don't know. I'm
certainly no expert. ljust think it is a huge mistake to alienate and segregate a growing population who choose tap the
sun's energy, and perhaps a bigger mistake to discourage others from doing so. I urge the commission to reject this
request unless and until ldaho Power comes up with a more holistic approach to the subject. I've always thought ldaho
Power was a great company, doing great things, in a unique roll that they've always seemed to understand. I hope that
continues.
U nique ldentifi er: 24.L17 .129.200
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
[e-mail]
Monday, March 5, 2018 4:09 PM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form: Leah LeavittSubject:
Name: Leah Leavitt
Case Number: IPC-E-77-L3 83201
Email: [e-mail]
Tele phone : [phone]
Address: 42OGW Libby St
Boise |D,83705
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power has not completed a cost-benefit analysis of rooftop solar, so the PUC cairnot make an informed
decision about cost-shifting. Rooftop solar is increasing in ldaho bringing more and more jobs to ldaho and another
source of clean energy. ldaho Power's new rate class threatens ldaho's solar industry and customers.
Uniq ue ldentifier: 77 O.232.227 .220
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
laurie_kuntz@ hotmail.com
Monday, March 5,2018 4:'14 PM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form: Laurie Kuntz
Name: Laurie Kuntz
Case Numbe r: IPC-E-L7 -L3
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5742 N Black Sand Ave
Meridian 1D,83646
Name of Utality Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am a net metered solar customer who believes that solar power is and will be a huge benefit to ldaho, and
we should be proactive in producing solar power at all levels to minimize future economic and environmental risks.
ldaho Power is proposing policies that would unfairly discriminate against customers who produce part of their own
energy from rooftop solar panels. This would stifle the growth of ldaho's booming clean energy economy. ldahoans
must continue to have the right to offset their energy use though generating their own electricity, just like customers
have the right to pursue energy efficiencies.
ldaho Power alleges that customers who produce part of their own energy from rooftop solar panels are not paying for
their fair share of the electrical grid infrastructure. The company has asked state regulators to approve a plan to put
these customers into their own customer class - a first step towards charging rooftop solar customers different rates.
While many net metering programs around the nation have been shown to actually save ratepayers money, ldaho
Power has yet to conduct any comprehensive cost-benefit studies. Creating a new rate class for net metering customers
right now is premature and discriminatory.
Thank you.
U n iq ue ldentifier: 7 2.29.46.27
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, March 5,2018 4:25 PM
Beverly Barker; Diane Holt; Matthew Evans
Case Comment Form: Jack Swaim
Name: Jack Swaim
Case Number: IPC-E-17-13
Email: jackswaim46@gma il.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1540 E Rivers End Ct
Eagle 1D,83616
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear PUC,
ldaho Power should be encouraging solar panels on roof tops, not proposing to charge higher rates for those with solar
panels!
lnvestment by homeowners in solar panels reduces the need for investment in infrastructure by ldaho Power, and also
improves air quality.
Thank you for listening.
Unique ldentifier: 63. 155.11.101
1