20180813Comment.pdf

Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,August 10,2018 4:14 PM
To:BeverlyBarker;Diane Holt;Erik Jorgensen;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Courtney White
Name:Courtney White
Case Number:CASE NO.IPC-E-17-13
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:1518 N KNIGHTS DR
Boise ID,83712
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Comment:I would like to add the following perspective in support of excluding non-exporting customers from Schedules
6 &8:
Good problem solvers attack the issues not the people.Owning on-site generation is not the issue.My use of the grid
may affect my rates,but I should not be discriminated against simply because I own a rooftop solar system.Regarding
the costs and benefits of 2-way grid use,the PUC has laid out a path to address these.If I don't use the grid to export,I
belong among customers who use the grid in a one-way manner.Any issues with my usage can be addressed by aligning
rates for all rather than discriminating based on whether or not I own on-site generation.
A common source of frustration for us customers is when the utility lumps together two separate issues as attributable
to on-site generation owners:The use of the grid to both import and export energy,and the utility's cost recuperation
when a customer uses less than average energy.The latter is not specific to owners of on-site generation.The PUC orderincludestwostudiestoassessthesetwoissuesseparately,as is appropriate.So the utility has a venue for exploring its
concern with fixed cost recuperation,there is no need to lump non-exporting customers into a new class designed for
customers who use the grid to both import and export.
I encourage the PUC to exclude customers who do not export from schedules 6 &8.
Unique Identifier:160.2.103.141
1