20180307Comments (3).pdf

Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Wednesday,March 7,2018 4:05 PM
To:BeverlyBarker Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Jonathan Contrucci
Name:Jonathan Contrucci
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:1507 E Wright St.
Boise ID,83706
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I am a solar salesman,net metering customer,and Idaho Power shareholder.I oppose IP creating a new solar
class for Net Meter customers.IP's proposal has already made my job more difficult and less lucrative as multiple
potentialcustomers have decided it is too risky to invest in solar due to IP's statements.This is my livelihood that is
being considered.Sellingsolar in Idaho is hard enough due to low power costs.The company I work with employs 40
workers with good jobs.Jobs that could be at risk with changes to the Net Meteringagreement.I have read IP's proposal
have have not seen enough evidence to convince me there is cost shifting between Net Meteringcustomers and non
solar customers.It very well could be the opposite!If any change takes place it should be based on facts and a non bias
study,and motivated by fear of the future.Green renewable energy should be incentivized,not discouraged.Net
Meteringis good for everyone including for IP.And as I have said IP hasn't shown me that I am wrong about this.Solar is
not just for the rich either.My disposable income is limited but I have solar,and the majority of my customers are
middle class or lower middle class.They have invested tens of thousands of dollars in the future.IP has been
encouraging customers to look into solar with one hand and with the other they are trying to make it more difficult.This
seems two-faced to me.One their website the very first link is solar pricing.Interesting enough IP assumes their rates
won't go up in the next 20 years when calculating the break even point.IP needs to be honest.Either support green
renewable energy or stop pretending.For the future of Idaho's jobs,capital,and environment I request the commission
say NO to the proposal on the bases of IP's lack of evidence to support their argument and the possible negative affect
on the the solar industry in Idaho.
Unique Identifier:166.170.5.82
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Wednesday,March 7,2018 4:08 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Jason Kreitler
Name:Jason Kreitler
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise ID,83702
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I will keep this very brief,given the outpouring of support for net metering and glaring errors in the rationale
offered by Idaho Power to create a new user group that will presumably be used to change costs or the terms to the
existing schedule 84 for net metering.
1)The benefits of residential solar PV are not acknowledged.Idaho Power claims a significant expense of finding new
generation capacity,but doesn't recognize the benefit (subsidy)that PV owners are providing them in turn by generating
electricity at the point of use,and sending excess into the grid.
2)How about the differences in cost between urban and rural distribution?I don't want to sound anti-rural or anti social
justice,but don't talk about the differences in costs of distribution or 'PV grid freeriders'without at least acknowledging
the distribution subsidy that rural (and irrigation!)users.
3)If Idaho Power really wants to correct any supposed economic burden of transmission among classes of users,start
by changingthe entire structure of how distribution costs are collected and get a truer cost by class.Like
urban/rural/agricultural/industrialetc.
4)And Idaho Power,please change your tone towards residential PV generation.The net-metering letter you sent me
was laughably biased and grouchy towards solar.Same with the 'suggestions'you provide @
https://www.idahopower.com/energy/renewable-energy/green-choices/solar-power-options/
I find this example cherry picked that shows a very high cost,and hence a slow paypack and not economically favorable.
In my case,my installed cost will be <$1/watt with a ~6-8 yr payoff rather than the 17-19 yr payoff the website suggests
for my residence.I understand Idaho Power has to generate profits,but please generation type agnostic,and don't
discourage responsible and climate friendly solar PV generation.Also,let those rivers run free!I fish and I vote!
Unique Identifier:24.117.233.224
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Wednesday,March 7,2018 1:47 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Peter Fitzsimmons
Name:Peter Fitzsimmons
Case Number:IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:2100 NE Wapiti Lane
Mountain Home ID,83647
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:Lets face it,these proposals are absolute absurdity.As a net metering customer that installed at significant
personal expense both wind and solar power generating capability I'm now looking at the possiblity of being charged
more?In yearly net we are still using more than we generate,so l'm still paying Idaho Power,but this proposal would
further penalize me even as a net user.At peak production I provide power to the grid,ofentimes at peak demand
(especially for solar),and this power cost Idaho Power exactly zero infrastruture to generate.(a simple "thank you"
would be nice).My use of solar and wind means less use of their carbon based generating facilities,thus less CO2 and
other greenhouse gasses.There is public demand for renewable energy in other markets and geographic locations.In
other places you can actually pay extra to get your power from renewable sources or pay extra to offeset your use of
traditional less-green power generation.But,somehow,here in Idaho they want to penalize those that are acting
responsibly.Absolute absurdity.
Unique Identifier:132.49.221.26
1