20191202Comments_(129).pdf

Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Oecembet 2,2019 6:23 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Joe Rarick
Name: Joe Rarick
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 451 W Maple Ave
Meridian lD, 83642
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho power should not change the current Net metering program. The current program is the main reason
we made the investment to go solar in the first place. We are providing clean enerBy to the power grid and helping to
reduce the stress on the system. The minute amount of revenue missed by ldaho power due to us going solar pales in
comparison to the revenue generated by all the new construction in the area. The commission has made commitments
to residential rooftop solar customers and should keep the current net metering program. ldaho Power claims that solar
customers don't pay their fair share of the cost to maintain the grid yet refuses to study the actual cost and benefits of
residential solar. This, despite mounting scientific evidence that residential solar is a net benefit to utilities. Besides, we
already pay a monthly service charge to maintain the grid.
Thank you.
Joe Rarick
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
to:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 7:07 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jennifer lsenhart
Name: Jennifer lsenhart
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2901 N Mountain Rd
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: lf approved, this proposal could prove to be a death blow for the already weak residential solar industry in
ldaho. The changes are so extreme that, when implemented fully, residential solar power will no longer be financially
feasible.
We are at a pivotal moment in history. lt's time to put our children's futures ahead of corporate profits. Please do not
approve this proposal.
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 7:'18 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kevin Kitz
Name: Kevin Kitz
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 208-7 6f-3442
Address: 5078 E Stemwood St
Boise lD, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
comment: lt/tsl2079
ldaho PUC
Docket IPC-E-18-15
Regarding Net Excess Energy from Rooftop PV
From: Stephanie Bender-Kitz and Kevin Kitz
5078 E Stemwood
Boise, lD 83716
Dear ldaho PUC:
It is financially very important to us that existing rooftop PV owners be grandfathered for an extended period of 20
years. Our specific requests to the PUC are:1) Do not destroy the investments in residential and small commercial clean energy that have been made to-date
by a radical change of policy after the investments were made.2l Grandfather existing systems for 20 years to provide a reasonable time to recover the investment.3) The grandfathering must stay with the home and the PV system, and not be lost when the home is sold.
ln November 2019 invested 535,000 in a rooftop PV system and a high-e HVAC to complement it, comprising: 4kw PV,
19 SEER A/C, 10 HSPF heat pump, and 97% gas furnace. The heat pump will cut our summer peak demand by more than
50% and add winter load. We intentionally installed the heat pump to greater "levelize" our electric use across the year
by adding electric load in the winter to help match our Pv output, but doing so caused us to increase the size of the PV
system.
The cost of our brand new 4kW rooftop PV system will NEVER be recouped under this proposal. We would never have
installed PV at all underthe compensation plan proposed. The PV system isa poor 4% investment even with net
metering, but we made it to reduce our carbon footprint. The 20 year grandfathering is needed to not totally explode
that investment. Simple payback takes 14 years, given lPCo's recent flat power rates. 52,5m/kw I $760 hrs r 20%
capacity factor * S0.1/kwh) =14years. So a 20 yea r gra ndfathering duratio n is reasonable to account for time value of
money.
The precedent for grandfathering is the many PURPA contracts that ldaho Power has signed, and that the PUC has
approved. The net metering program is essentially an unwritten Feed-ln Tariff. However, like PURPA contracts, net
metering is a program that was approved by the PUC. When a Puc-approved PURPA contract becomes uneconomical
I
compared to projections (as many did), there is no cancellation of the contract. The same should be true of those
residential and small commercial systems that invested in PV under the pseudo feed-in tariff of net metering.
All three of the installers with whom we spoke in August - October this year encouraged us to install a system that
produced as many kwh per year as we used. Not once was hourly net metering raised by them as a risk. Based on this,
we added a heat pump to our energy efficiency investment and increased the size of the PV system to 4kw from 2.5kW
to cover some of the heat pump load. The change to net metering not only strands our investment in PV, but also our
additional S2,00O investment in a heat pump.
There are an infinite number ofways that lPCo and the PUC could choose to make the transition. A 2o-year
grandfathering is clearly both the easiest and recognizes the similarity between a PV net metering investment and a
PURPA contract. But there are many others, including buy-outs to rate base, slow reduction ofthe net metering rollup
period (e.g. 6 years each at 12,9,6, and 3 month net roll-up), incentives for heat pump installation.
The second best option would be to make net metering hourly, but have ldaho Power's shareholders make-up the
difference to the former net metering customer. After all the bad BUSINESS decision on net metering was ldaho
Powe/s, not the individual ratepayers who are getting sucker-punched by ldaho Power/s callous proposal.
It is both hypocritical and disingenuous of ldaho Power to assert that the lPCo website clearly informed the public of the
punitive changes they had planned. lt can be argued that they provided information. But overall the tone was neutral
or encouraging but did not indicate that most of the information provided would be invalid soon. This goes on even
today. For example, San Jose and Boise and compared in the FAQ section. lf lPCo wanted to CLEARLY communicate the
risk of investment in solar to customers, there should be a 3rd column with what they were proposing, but as of today
that is not there. No doubt it would show that a breakeven payout would never EVER occur. Similarly, the description of
Net Metering in the FACfs describes the annual net metering program only and makes no mention of the draconian
change that will occur in less than 6 weeks. ln short, lPCo even today shows a total disregard for their customeds
potential investments and seems to expect that every customer become an expert on lPCo's regulatory issues on the
PUC website.
When business and regulatory environments change and lPCo Brid-connected investments become less valuable than
anticipated, lPCo expects the ratepayer to cover those changes, and fights tooth and nail to get those costs covered. ln
the same way, we invested money on the good-faith expectation that our grid-connected investment would be treated
fairly.
The fairest thin8 going fonuard is to provide current annual net metering customers grandfathering of annual net
metering for 20 years. The rooftop PV systems were investments made in good faith by ldaho Power's ratepayers
Those people, including us, deserve better than to be left holding a very expensive investment that can never be
recouped.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kitz and Stephanie Bender-Kitz
Unique ldentifi er: 164.L65.206.42
2
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 7;31 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Scot Horton
Name: Scot Horton
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: marga ret@ rtci.net
Telephone: 2O8/ 543-4473
Address: 1896 East 4500 North
Buhl 1D,83316
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: L2/2/L9 PLEASE grandfather in existing solar customers at the current net metering condition.
We just put in solar earlier this year. We used our retirement IRA to fund it as we viewed the solar as a way to invest
now to save on future utilities as I am retired. We made the investment decision in solar based on the present net
metering rules. lt would not be fair to let ldaho Power change the deal after the fact. We held up our end by making the
investment upfront. Now they want all the benefits of customers' investments at a discount after the fact. Right is right,
wrong is wrong. Please stand up for what is right and fair to the impacted customers. We will be so very grateful if you
can help us. Scot Horton - Buhl, ldaho
Unique ldentifier: L64.t65.206.42
L
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rudderboyl [e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 7:49 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: ,eff Erwin
Name: Jeff Erwin
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4361 N Cartwright Road
Boise lD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The proposed changes do not reflect economic reality. Any excess power generated goes to the nearest
need, i.e., the immediate neighborhood homes. The proposal to phase down net metering to 50% of ldaho Powe/s
retail rate is too much. Anyone who has made this investment used the full kwh rate to make their investment decision.
Consumers who have made this investment took a risk, and allow ldaho Power the ability to meet customer demand
without making additiona I generation investments, especially during periods of peak demand.
The number of existing customers is small, and will get smaller as a percentage of ldaho Powe/s business as their
service area grows. These early adopters deserve to be grandfathered in at the net metering rate that existed at the
time of their investment. Thank you for time.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 8:16 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Susie Vader
Name: Susie Vader
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7840 Apache Way
Garden City lD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We bought our solar system based on several premises including the payback period, environmental
concerns, and to save money. The proposed settlement could cost us (and 4000+/- other rooftop solar customers)
thousands of extra dollars on our power bills.
First, we believe that ldaho Power has an obligation to grandfather in existing net metering customers. Our systems
were designed for tracking our usage on a monthly basis and this proposal totally changes everything. The rules should
not change after consumers make such significant investments. Applying the proposed program to only new customers
is a commonsense compromise.
Second, we believe that a cost/benefit study of the effects of onsite generation on ldaho Powe/s system needs to be
completed and evaluated by all parties involved including the public, PUC, and anyone with net metering. lt is pertinent
that all power generators (including rooftop solar) be involved and be given the opportunity to comment.
We hope you will consider our comments and protect the plight of all existing rooftop solar customers. Thank you for
this opportunity to comment.
Unique ldentifier: L64.1.55.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 8:18 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Dorian Duffin
Name: Dorian Duffin
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]L4
Address: 7840 Apache Way
Garden City lD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We bought our solar system based on several premises including the payback period, environmental
concerns, and to save money. The proposed settlement could cost us (and 400Gr/- other rooftop solar customers)
thousands of extra dollars on our power bills.
First, we believe that ldaho Power has an obligation to grandfather in existing net metering customers. Our systems
were designed for tracking our usage on a monthly basis and this proposaltotally changes everything. The rules should
not change after consumers make such significant investments. Applying the proposed program to only new customers
is a commonsense compromise.
Second, we believe that a cost/benefit study of the effects of onsite generation on ldaho Power's system needs to be
completed and evaluated by all parties involved including the public, PUC, and anyone with net metering. lt is pertinent
that all power generators (including rooftop solar) be involved and be given the opportunity to comment.
We hope you will consider our comments and protect the plight of all existing rooftop solar customers. Thank you for
this opportunity to comment.
Unique ldentifier: 754.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 8:33 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Ruth Leonard
Name: Ruth Leonard
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5230 S Willamette Pl
Boise ldaho, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The Commission should uphold the origlnal solar net meter program that was agreed upon by ldaho Power
and solar customers.
ldahoans should not be penalized for investing their own money into a program that was created to incentivize
purchasing renewable generation. Approving a net metering policy that encouraged investment for long term savings,
only to have it invalidated in this manner, is unethical.
We expect more from our appointed officials on the Commission and our public utility. lf ldaho Power had no intention
of honoring the service agreement, they set out initially, they shouldn't have even made it an option. But they did, and it
should be honored.
Changing the terms now on existing solar customers is not fair and should not be allowed.
ldaho Power should not be allowed to make a profit on the backs of solar customers.
Please consider allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net metering program and apply the new
program only to new customers as a commonsense compromise that allows all parties to keep agreements made in
Bood faith.
Thank you for your consideration
Ruth & Jeff Leonard
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 8:40 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Earnie Lewis'
Name: Earnie Lewis'
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 20040 Hoskins Rd
Caldwell ldaho, 83607
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am writing to oppose ldaho Power's proposal to change the Net Metering Policy. I installed solar polar in
September, 2017 for which I made a sizable investment. Of course this benefits me but it also impacts ldaho Power's
need to do their own investment in power generation. I resent the proposal that my investment would be reduced in
the next several years. This change only benefits the already prosperous ldaho Power and punishes folks like myself.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.f55.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 8:56 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Janet Dennis
Name: Janet Dennis
Case Number:
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 701 Soldier Creek Rd.
Fairfield 1D,83327
Name of Utility Company: ldaho power
Comment: I am adamantly opposed to IPC-E-18-15. I installed my solar power system less than a year a8o. I invested in
local clean energy expecting a fair deal.
ldaho families and small businesses shouldn't have the rules changed on them after they have already made their
investment.
The new proposal could cost existinB solar customers thousands of dollars on their electricity bills.
Allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net metering program and applying the new program only to
new customers is a commonsense compromise that allows all parties to keep agreements made in good faith.
When changing net metering, utillties and commissions around the nation allow existing customers to keep the original
terms, because it's unethical and unfair not to.
Maintaining existing utility rates and terms for existing customers is a very common practice for other utilities in the
region making similar changes - lt's reasonable to expect the same for ldahoans.
The PUC promised that discriminatory rates would not be the outcome. lf changes are implemented that negatively
impact customers' solar investments, it would be discriminatory. You need to hold true to your word.
ldaho families and businesses should not be penalized for investing their own money into a program that was created to
incentivize purchasing renewable generation. Approving a net metering policy that encouraged investment for long term
savings, only to have it invalidated in this manner, is unethical. We should expect more from our appointed officials on
the PUC and our public utility. lf you had no intention of honoring the service agreement you set out initially, you
shouldn't have even made it an option. But you did, and it should be honored.
Unique ldentifier: t64.L65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:17 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Michael Rush
Name: Michael Rush
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8230 W Tether St
Boise lD, 83709
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment; ldaho Power has a stated goal of using 100% clean energy by 2045. There are a number of people willing to
invest tens of thousands of dollars to help them reach that goal. All they ask is that their investment be recognized by
allowing them to offset their own power bill. ldaho Power benefits by not having to build their own generation capacity,
not having to build supply lines to get that capacity to the consumers and by being gifted significant power generation
realestate right in the middle of their existing grid. Please maintain the existing net meterinB arrangement.
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
1
From:
Scnt:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 9:27 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kurt Fesenmyer
Name: Kurt Fesenmyer
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1507 N 25th St
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear ldaho Public Utilities commission:
RE: Case Number IPC-E-18-15
I am writing to urge the PUC to reject the proposed settlement agreement for case number IPC-E-18-15 the following
reasons:
1) Unfair treatment of existing net metering customers
ln 2017, my family had a 2.4kwh residential solar system installed at our house. We were motivated to invest in a
residential solar system because of the long-term economic and environmental benefits. Our system's size, layout, and
configuration is designed based on the model of the existing monthly net metering program and balances our monthly
production with our monthly consumption over a 12 month period - we produce excess energy during spring and
summer afternoons and consume energy in the evenings and during winter. We anticipated a l4-year payback on our
investment, but understood when we si8ned up as an ldaho Power net metering customer that the rate we receive or
pay for production or consumption is subject to change under the net metering program and we were comfortable with
the possibility that the time horizon for payback on our investment would be extended by several years. But we never
expected that the structure and model of the program would completely change. The change to an hourly net metering
model as proposed in the settlement agreement would render our existinB system over-built and inefficiently-oriented
and will significantly lengthen the time horizon for payback of our investment, potentially by decades. This is unfair and
unreasonable, and imposes a significant financial penalty on consumers like us who made good-faith investments under
a program that is now proposed to substantially change. I urge the commission to respect the investment of Individuals
like us by rejecting the settlement agreement or upholding the original program and keeping existing net meter
customers separate from any proposed change for at least 20 years.
2) lncomplete study of costs and benefits of on-site generation
PUC Order No. 34045 Case No. IPC-E-17-13 ordered a comprehensive study to evaluate the costs and benefits associated
with on-site generation. The proposed settlement agreement does not use any study or publicly available information to
determine the various rates within the Export Credit Rates- Furthermore, the Avoided Transmission and Distribution
Capacity Rate and Environmental Benefits Rates (Section lV) are not calculated in the settlement agreement. As such the
agreement is incomplete and should be rejected.
Sincerely,
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet ?,2019 9:27 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Tara Penry
Name: Tara Penry
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]L
Address: 419 N Bacon Dr
Boise ldaho, 83712
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I do NOT support the change in the net metering rate for solar customers proposed by ldaho Power. The top
priority for public utilities should be clean, renewable energy for the health of our environment. Policy and rates should
ENcourage households to add solar power to the electric grid. This is a more efficient and environmentally sustainable
method than even solar and wind farms and other forms of "sustainable" energy production. lf rooftop production can
minimize turning large plots of animal habitat over to a solar farm, that's a GOOD thing. Please DO NOT REDUCE the net
meterin8 rate returned to customers who add solar energy to the grid. I offer this comment as an ldaho Power customer
who does not have solar panels on my home. I support using power generated from rooftops first and foremost. Please
set rates that encourage MORE home production of solar energy. lt should be cost-effective for individuals because it
benefits us all. Thank you.
Unique ldentifier: 764.L65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:32 AIvl
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Leslie Kerr
Name: Leslie Kerr
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 208 / 67 O-O57 I
Address: 1013 W 400 So
Heyburn lD, 83336
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
comment: I do not want ldaho Power to change its net metering policy for solar power. By doing so, they are penalizing
current owners of solar panels considering the cost of the investment. Customer-Benerated electricity is just as valuable
as ldaho Powers electricity and should be paid for as such. Had I known this settlement was in the works, I NEVER would
have made such a decision to go solar.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 12:21 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Aimee Christensen
Name: Aimee Christensen
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 20872L86L9
Address:
5un Valley United States, 83353
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear Commissioners,
The approval of this change will undermine a strategic opportunity for the state's economy, security and environment:
energy resilience, and undermine individual choice and responsibility. By developing ldaho's homegrown renewable
energy resources, we can have more and higher wage jobs, a protected environment and a decentralized, diversified,
more secure grid to make ldaho more competitive and better able to attract growing industries seeking clean, secure
power.
Already ldaho policymakers have sanctioned previous utility efforts to reduce competition and slow the growth of
renewable energy, thereby stymieing the expansion of cost-effective renewable energy resources and the associated
cost savings and income, (especially to farmers and other landowners), and quality job creation in a state suffering from
some of the lowest wages in the country!
And increased energy resilience is urgent: our region has faced costly power outages and we have identified backup
power opportunities at critical infrastructure (fire, police and medical facilities), but by filing this proposal to cut by 50%
the price ldaho Power pays for power generated by the 4000+ solar owners, ldaho Power Company (lPC) is undermining
our chance to become energy resilient. ldaho National Laboratory is a showcase for energy resilience, with its own
operating microgrid demonstrating how solar and battery storage can provide better solutions for businesses and
communities. This filing's approval will make these solutions unreachable for ldahoans, which is idiocy in a state where
our own INL has shown how and why they are so clearly superior.
Perhaps most importantly, ldaho Power's proposal also runs counter to ldaho values of freedom and security, market
competition and conservation: it effectively forbids individuals from generating their own power - which makes our grid
less resilient and kills a fast-growing economic opportunity. This is a lose-lose-lose proposition - except for ldaho Power.
The electric utilities in Nevada proposed a similar measure, and Nevada lawmakers approved it - only to regret it when
they watched thousands of solar jobs leave the state and the largest power users rise up to demand change because of
the cost effectiveness ofsolar. Let's learn from others, let's lookat the facts and the public interest, and do what is best
for ldahoans.
1
lf this most recent filing is approved, it would be a travesty - risking entirely the chance for our state to continue to
benefit from a rapidly growing industry - solar energy - that is creating iobs at 10 times the rate of the rest of our
nation's economy. ldaho has the natural resources and human resources to tap into this opportunity, indeed, "ldaho's
solar industry currently employs 557 people and has invested over 5645 million in the state...according to the Solar
Energy lndustry Association." (ldaho Conservation League, ICL)
I applauded IPC'S recent commitment to provide 100% clean energy by 2045, but I agree with ICL that, "by ending net
metering and potentially lowering rates for existing solar customers, ldaho Power is making it clear that it wants to be
the only one that controls that affordable, reliable clean power." This is to the detriment of our state. IPC may think they
are protecting their bottom line and therefore customer costs, but what it risks is losing customers, new and existing.
With storage costs declining rapidly, solar producers may leave the grid to independently supply all of their own power
needs, and then IPC will be stuck with stranded assets - lines and poles - with fewer and fewer customers, harming those
who remain dependent on an increasingly irrelevant - and unwanted - grid.
Please stand up for ldaho's greatest public interest, for the public, for jobs, for higher wages, for clean air and water, for
the freedom of residents and businesses to help build a more secure and clean grid for all of us, residents and
businesses and so we can attract the largest power users (e.g., technology companies such as Apple, Microsoft and
Google - where I worked on these matters - and major brands such as Walmart and IKEA) who demand 100% renewable
energy. Together, with smart regulatory guidance, ldaho's power users and ldaho's power providers can build a resilient
energy future to benefit ldaho. Please support ldaho's - and each of our - opportunity to be part of this better future,
now.
Thank you,
Aimee Christensen
Founder, Christensen Global Strategies
Sun Valley
Unique ldentifier: 764.f65.?06.42
2
Dave and Cindy Hovland
2203 F.. Trail Blazer Drive
Meridian, ID 83646
RECEIVED
r0r9i}Ec-2 At{ 905
rilrl,ii,l PUBLIC
' ; :.1,'ii:.,:l (;0MMISSION
November 30. 2019
Email: ees.hovland yahoo.com
Telephone: [phone]
RE: Case Number: IPC-E- l 8- I 5
Name of utility: Idaho Power
To: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
In 2015 my family made a huge financial decision to install solar panels on our home. This major
investment was not an easy one considering our limited fixed budget as retirees. We did so based
on critical information from Idaho Power related to the cost of purchasing the ldaho Power net
metering system and cost savings and payback values over time. We also considered the
incredible added value to our home if we chose to sell it in the future. In addition, it would be
fair to grandfather existing net metering customers and for them to be able to pass this
grandfathered rate on for a future buyer ifour house is resold. This was another financial
consideration in installing solar as it adds value to our home for resale. Anything less would put
our faith in Idaho Power's credibility injeopardy and cast a cloud on how you reat your
valuable customers in atime when trust in big power companies is waning.
We are not aware of any specific study that was used to determine the terms of this settlement
decision. It also appears that existing roof-top net metering customers, such as us, did not have
the opportunity to be part ofthe process that generated the proposed settlement agreement.
Even our Idaho Power contact person, at the time of installation, appreciated us installing solar
because of all the new homes and apartments being built in the area. He said this would help
Idaho Power keep up with the ever-increasing power demand in the Treasure Valley.
As there are only a relatively small percentage ofexisting net metering-rooftop solar generators,
I would propose they be grandfathered in at the existing rates. This fair gesture will certainly
help Idaho Power reach its goal of 100% cleal energy by 2045.
Sincerely,
)* uJ.,l
Dave Hovland Cindv Hovland
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 9:51 At\4
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: JACOB LUSK
Name: IACOB LUSK
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5600 N Glenwood St
Boise lD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: Boise Hawks
Comment: There is no advantage to going green if excess energy can't be sold back at the retail rate. You're creating a
monopoly on power for the valley voiding a major factor in decision to go solar. We still pay every month for power used
so its not a net loss for our residential dwelling.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.763.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:53 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Brenda Ford
Name: Brenda Ford
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 2211 W Smith Ave
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The PUC should uphold the original program that was agreed upon by ldaho Power and solar customers.
ldahoans have invested in local clean energy expecting a fair deal.
I shouldn't have the rules changed on me after they have already made the investment.
The new proposal could cost me thousands of dollars on my electricity bills.
Allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net meterin8 program and applying the new program only to
new customers is a commonsense compromise that allows all parties to keep agreements made in good faith.
When changing net metering, utilities and commissions around the nation allow existinB customers to keep the original
terms, because it's unethical and unfair not to.
Maintaining existing utility rates and terms for existing customers is a very common practice for other utilities in the
region making similar changes - it's reasonable to expect the same for ldahoans.
The PUC promised that discriminatory rates would not be the outcome. lf changes are implemented that negatively
impact customers' solar investments, it would be discriminatory. They need to hold true to their word.
Uniq ue ldentifier: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:53 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Peter Fabrick
Name: Peter Fabrick
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3077 E 97 S
ldaho Falls lD, 83405
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Comment: I am against the utility company proposal to end net metering for the following reasons:
1. Decreases our use of fossil fuel such as gas and coal 2. lt decentralizes the power grid for residences during natural
and enemy downing of grid.
3. Reduces the pressure for new online power stations 4. Unfair to consumers who have purchased solar power ( at a
minimum need a twenty year grandfather clause).
Lastly, like phone service with the residential endinB of landline phones, if you endorse this proposal, all that may
happen is more residential homes just go off grid. Your seeing this move in California with the power company shut
downs. You can't stop technology by regulation. So, the net result would be utilities with less power in the grid and less
customers sharing the burden.
Can there be an argument for commercial solar power operations,yes. However, I would think those would be
individuals that produce say twenty times their consumption could be classified as wholesalers of power. They would
reflect a profit center. Though again why would we hamper the production of pollution free power over the generating
of fuel driven power
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:55 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Travis Winters
Name: Travis Winters
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2682 E Rhyolite Court
Nampa lD, 83586
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The PUC should uphold the original program that was agreed upon by ldaho Power and solar customers.
ldahoans have invested in local clean energy expecting a fair deal.
ldaho families and small businesses shouldn't have the rules changed on them after they have already made their
investment.
The new proposal could cost existing solar customers thousands of dollars on their electricity bills.
Allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net metering program and applying the new program only to
new customers is a commonsense compromise that allows all parties to keep agreements made in good faith.
When changing net metering, utilities and commissions around the nation allow existinB customers to keep the original
terms, because it's unethical and unfair not to.
Maintaining existing utility rates and terms for existing customers is a very common practice for other utilities in the
region making similar changes - it's reasonable to expect the same for ldahoans.
The PUC promised that discriminatory rates would not be the outcome. lf changes are implemented that negatively
impact customers'solar investments, it would be discriminatory. They need to hold true to their word.
ldaho families and businesses should not be penalized for investing their own money into a program that was created to
incentivize purchasing renewable generation. Approving a net metering policy that encouraged investment for long term
savings, only to have it invalidated in this manner, is unethical. We should expect more from our appointed officials on
the PUC and our public utility. lf they had no intention of honoring the service agreement they set out initially, they
shouldn't have even made it an option. But they did, and it should be honored.
U niq ue ldentifier: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 9:58 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Steve Vaught
Name: Steve Vaught
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1924 Montclair Dr.
Boise lD, 83702
Unique ldentifier: 764.L65.206.42
1
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: This appears to be a bait and switch from ldaho Power where we were promised one thing and then switched
to another less than optimal program. This is an injustice for people who have spent thousands of dollars to help not
only the environment, but to put less stress and pressure on ldaho Power's grid. Now ldaho power wants to pay us a
less than optimal wholesale rate and charge a retail rate on our own production system that we are forced to sale our
electricity too with no means of negotiation and/or strength in business dealings with them. lt would be an iniustice to
allow ldaho Power to force solar customers into a unilateral decision.
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 10:25 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Aaron Stockwell
Name: Aaron Stockwell
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 10792 W Spring River St
Boise lD, 83709
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Do not change the net metering for existin8 solar customers like myself. Our solar panels produce more
energy than what we consume, so this benefits other non solar customers.
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 10:26 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: David Morgan
Name: David Morgan
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2Oa447OO74
Address: 1384 5W Gillespie Lane
MOUNTAIN HOME ldaho, 83547
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am a Senior Citizen with a limited fixed income. I chose to invest a good portion of my saved retirement to
install a solar system so that I can manage my cash flow later in life. I live in a house that has no other utilities other than
electric.
I sized my system to be able to generate enough electricity during the spring and summer to carry me through the
winter with no other charge from ldaho Power than their monthly service fee. So far, this is working well except that I do
produce a little more than I use during the year.
As the system is now, which I agreed to when I installed solar, ldaho Power gets to keep any excess power without
reimbursement if I die, move, or any other reason that I am no longer the named customer. lf I have 10 MW of credited
power, ldaho Power can clear it off their books as a liability. They have already sold that power at the retail rate to my
neighbors. I have no problem with that agreement.
But now, I have heard the sentiment that they are complaining that it costs them too much to maintain my service and
they need to find a way to collect more money from me because if I can afford to install solar I can pay more for
electricity. As I said in the beginning, I am on a fixed income. My solar was an investment to protect me from rate hikes
and winter power usage. I am generating electricity for ldaho Power at whatever rate they are selling it for to my
neighbors. I shouldn't need to pay more for the return of power I Benerate when ldaho Power Bets to sell off my excess
with no reimbursement!
I made a good faith agreement with ldaho Power when I installed my solar system. lam just asking that they keep up
their end of that agreement.
Unique ldentifi er: 764.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sentl
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 '10:28 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Lisa Bosworth
Name: Lisa Bosworth
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1849 Mortimer Dr.
Boise lD, 83712
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: No net metering changes, or settlement proposals should take effect until the comprehensive study of the
cost and benefits of on-site generation on ldaho Power's system, as was ordered by the PUC in Order No. 34045 Case
No. IPC-E-U-l3, has been completed, analyzed, and those findings evaluated by the public, PUC, and all parties with net
metering interests, as stated in that docket.. No study, nor any information related to a cost/benefit analysis study, was directly used to calculate the terms of
this settlement decislon.. lfa study was used to calculate these proposed changes, then that study should have been made available to the
public and PUC for an opportunity to review before reaching the terms of this settlement or determining any other
potential net metering changes.. The proposed settlement is an arbitrary representation of parties who met behind closed doors without consulting
the constituents who actually invested in on-site generation.. All net metering interests were not taken into consideration during these settlement proceedings. ln fact, the vast
majority of net metering interests were not taken into consideration durint these settlement proceedings. Order No.
34045 and Case No. IPC-E17-13 indicates that this case should include all net-metering interests in this study.. Any changes to net metering should be evidenced based, and only then should we have a hearing about the
whether net metering changes are properly iustified.. The current hearing is non-scientific, undemocratic, and should be postponed until a legitimate cost and benefit
study has been properly conducted rather than completely ignored.
2. Grandfathering in existing net metering clients should be an obligation, not a consideration.. No settlement should have taken place behind closed doors without the direct input of existing net metering
customers.. Systems were purchased and engineered based on existing net metering policies that track production and usage
on a monthly basis.. There were no other existing net metering models for the design of PV systems, or other types of on-site
generation, at the time of this investment.. The adoption of hourly net meterin8 as proposed by the settlement would completely alter how existing systems
would have otherwise been desiBned. This dramatically alters how these investments otherwise would have been made.. ln order to protect these investments, systems should be grandfathered along with the meter number attached to
the residence and not only the account number of the client currently residing there. A calculated, expected increase in
home value was a major factor in many solar investments.. Any implemented changes that may happen should become effective 30 days from the PUC'S decision and should
not take place retroactively. This is a standard practice for most policy changes.
Thank you for consideration of my comments - Lisa Bosworth
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 10:39 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: R, Keith Hammer
Name: R. Keith Hammer
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3004 South Brookridge Way
Boise lD, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We are ldaho Power customers. Thank you for taking our comments
Bonita and I purchased solar panels for our home in the summer of 2019 because we thought it was the right thing to do
for our world, nation, and community. We are retired and our monthly income did cover this, so we used money from
our savin8s to make the purchase. According to the terms quoted to us from ldaho Power using "net metering" as it is
now in place and, even with the tax incentives we will receive, it will take us at least 12 years to recover our investment.
We are committed to doing what we can to support green energy so we have also recently purchased an all-electric
automobile to replace our 15 year-old car.
It is seems to us that it would be highly unfair to present customers and counter productive to encouraging customers in
the future to invest in renewable solar generation to change the rules governing net metering and payment for excess
generation of electricity from those in place at the time customers made their purchase. We understand that it is a very
common practice for other utilities in the region and around the nation who are seeking similar changes as ldaho Power
is seeking to maintain existing utility rates and terms for existlng customers. We trust that the ldaho Public Utility
Commission will be fair to present solar customers and follow the same practice.
Keith and Bonita Hammer
3004 S. Brookridge Way
Boise, lD 8316
Unique ldentifier: f64.165.206.42
L
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 10:45 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Royce Rowles
Name: Royce Rowles
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]L9
Address: 4658 W Quaker Ridge Dr
Meridian lD, 83646
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The assertions made by net-meeterinB.idaho do not supply sufficient evidence on the benefits and cost offset
of home mounted solar panel energy. without this, how can they declare what is or isn't fair?
As a solar panel owner, I am already paying a standard service charge, And for several months, during months that I use
more energy than I generate, l'm paying the retail rate of power. ldaho Power should have to pay me the retail rate as
well, especially considering that I made a large investment in equipment, installation, and maintenance to create it for
them.
Maybe they would prefer if we just hooked up batteries and disconnected from the grid all together.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.f65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjea:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 10:50 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Keith Roskelley
Name: Keith Roskelley
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2339 NE 10th Ave
Meridian ldaho, 83545
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Adding Solar to a residential home is a major investment by the owner and is based on the evaluation of the
return on investment of adding solar to the residence. For myself a major considering point in determining to go solar
was ldaho Powe/s Net Metering proBram.
ldaho Power should not be allowed to eliminate Net Metering for existin8 customer and offer an alternate program with
a significant reduce in return on investment for the home owner. lf ldaho Power wants to change the program for new
customers that should be allowed.
Please deny ldaho Powers proposalto replace Net Metering for existing ldaho Power customers
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,?O19 10:51 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Thomas Jensen
Name: Thomas Jensen
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8805 W Steve Ct
Boise lD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I would respectfully request that there be a grandfather clause placed for those who have purchased solar
panels under the current net meterlng rules so long as they own the property. This will enable them to keep the same
rates they came in with as long as they keep solar power on their residence/small business and own the property. When
I purchased solar panels I purchased them with the understanding that I only needed to offset my regular usage. While I
appreciate the need to pay for the maintenance of power lines and other services to keep our power grid up and
running, switching rates on customers who have already purchased solar panels to match the net metering rates
available to them at the time of purchase is unfair. Making new solar power users have a lower rate will allow the power
company to begin the process of lower net metering rates while allowing those with their current solar power output to
benefit as they understood they would benefit when purchasing solar panels. The attrition that will happen as owners
sell their homes that were grandfathered in will eventually put everyone on the same net metering rate so the power
company isn't locked into a situation of losing money. I won't live in my home forever so the next owners purchasing the
home would purchase it under the current net metering rates.
lf a grandfather clause is deemed untenable I would request that another option be considered: provide funding for
current customers that have been uslng solar power to enable them to purchase additional solar panels at no additional
cost to them so that the rates remain equivalent. While it would have the potential of a high initial upfront cost, long
term the benefit would potentially be Ereater. The power company is essentially building out solar power in our area
that they will be able to keep everyone on the same net metering rates if that was the most important thing to happen.
The property owner would be responsible for the maintenance costs and upkeep of the solar panels rather than the
power company having to pay for upkeep on them. Long run they would reap the benefits of more electricity generated
and purchased by the power company at a lower rate. This would benefit everyone in that we would have an expanded
means of power generation in combination with our other more fixed renewable energy as the valley continues to grow
in population.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.L65.206 -42
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
ashton@archstone,group
Monday, December 2, 2019 10:52 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Royce Rowles
Name: Royce Rowles
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]L9
Address: 4658 W Quaker Ridge Dr
Meridian lD, 83646
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: The assertions made by net-metering.idaho do not supply sufficient evidence on the benefits and cost offset
of home mounted solar panel energy. Without this, how can they declare what is or isn't fair?
As a solar panel owner, I am already paying a standard service charge. And for several months, during months that I use
more energy than lgenerate, I'm paying the retail rate of power. ldaho Power should have to pay me the retail rate as
well, especially considering that I made a large investment in equipment, installation, and maintenance to create it for
them.
Maybe they would prefer if we just hooked up batteries and disconnected from the grid altogether.
Unique ldentifier: L64 -765.206.42
1
ldaho Public Utility Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, lD 83720-0074
November 27, 2019
Response to cases:
rPC-E-18-15
tPc-E-18-16
tPc-E-19-15
NET EXCESS ENERGY FROM CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION
FIXED COSTS OF PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS
MEASUREMENT INTERVAT FOR ON.SITE GE N ERATION-U N DER SCH EDU LE 84
Thank you for allowing comments on these proposed rule changes that would affect all net metering rate payers
who supply 100KW or less to ldaho Powers electric Brid. I have read many but not all of the comments posted so
far and many of my concerns have been previously stated so I will try to keep this as short as I can.
I installed a rooftop solar array a few years ago at my own expense (over $30,000 in materials alone). lt has a
nameplate capacity of 15.3KWh. The actual output averages about 10KWh during spring, summer, fall, and 4kwh
in the winter. This gives me an annual net zero power usage. UsinB the net metering rules in effect at that time
this worked out to a 10 to 15 year payback for the initial investment and a 10 year period worth of interest on
the investment in the 25 year life facility. This is about equal to putting your money in the bank while doing
something for the environment at the same time. lf the proposed changes in schedule structure are granted; I
might as well have invested in the Brooklyn Bridge.
I have lived in ldaho my entire life and have witnessed many of ldaho Powers requests and their effects. ldaho
Power is a monopoly and does not make a request that is not in its self interest to increase its revenues whether
by rate increases or by cost decreases. This has been very apparent since the 1970's when they cried on the
commissions shoulder to raise rates due to the increased demand for electricity. Then a year or two later cried
again for a rate increase due to consumer conservation. ldaho Power must make a profit to stay in business. lt's
the commissions' responsibility to control a monopoly in the public interest not rubber stamp its requests to
increase profits. Decreasing incentives for investment in home renewable resource installations is not in the
public interest only ldaho Powers interest to increased revenue.
There are large public benefits to onsite generation. As more residential costumers gain the ability to generate
part or all of their electrical demands, the need for increasing capacity in existing and adjacent residential areas
decrease, reducing ldaho Powers infrastructure expenses. ln the case of solar generation, the largest output of
the solar systems corresponds to the highest demand period for power (mid afternoon in the summer). Under
most circumstances, any excess power generated is used by another in the immediate area. ldaho Power reaps
the profits by charging for power it didn't have to generate or buy as well as not having to invest in replacing or
enlarging any existing infrastructure for increasing demand.
RECEIVED
,3i9 DiC -2 All l0: 3l
ri] ,iro ;'uBLlcl,: ll'-i(l0MhllSSlON
Dear Commissioners,
Forcing small independently owned (under 100KW) net metered customers to replace existing inverters with
smart inverters at their own expense is irresponsible. This is the equivalent of telling ldaho Power to replace all
of their 5 year old transformers with brand new units the customer can control and absorb the entire expense
while decreasing the rates they charge for power. For large (megawatt) commercial facilities, this may be
reasonable since their sole purpose is to provide power for sale to the electric utilities. ln the past, many years
ago, lda ho Power complained about having to su pply all of the irrigators with power. Now irrigators installing
100KW or less of generation facilities will have less power demand on sight. They also will be generating some
excess power thus helping ldaho Power distribute energy over a larger area without enlarging the local
infrastructure due to the nature of distributed generation; all while providing a higher percentage of renewable
energy than would otherwise be available. lndividually, these facilities constitute a mere pittance in capacity
when compared to a normal commercial generating facility. aggregated together, however, these facilities
present a considerable amount of power generated without generating any known environmental issues. Any
change in the present measurement interval and proposed compensation for net metering purposes should be
at the individual suppliers request not ldaho Powers. ChanginB the metering interval negates net metering. This
would give a very lopsided compensation advantage to ldaho Power which is undoubtedly ldaho Powers general
concept.
The net excess compensation structure being proposed by ldaho Power will have a very detrimental effect on
the continued increase in numbers of consumer/producers falling under the net metering rules due to removing
any payback possibility on their investment. The number of these small producers needs to continue to increase
unless the commissions' intent is to make large entities such as ldaho Power the sole supplier of electrical power
available to all users, possibly increasing the reliance on hiBh carbon output fuels which ldaho Power has a major
stake in.
lf the commission approves these requests, the effect after 9 years will be to force all customers on schedule 6
and 8 to sell power for 4.4 or 4.9 cents per KWh, then purchase power at whatever the going rate is at that time.
The current schedule 6 and 8 rates ranBe from 8.5 to 12.2 cents per KWh and will not be any cheaper in the
future. This guarantees ldaho power a minimum of a tOOYo profit on electricity, in which they have no
investment, and most likely many times this amount due to increasing rates. ln simpler terms ldaho Power is
saying in 9 years l'll borrow a bushel of apples to sell to Joe and give you a % bushel or less back after the sale.
This makes a very one sided deal. Remember ldaho Power does not participate in the initial investment or
maintenance expenses for these generating facilities. All expenses are borne by the owner not ldaho Power who
reaps the profits.
The information presented by ldaho Power concerning its fixed cost study seems to conveniently forget a few
important factors with time being a major player. Without residential customers there would never have been
an ldaho Power Company. Residential customers may have a higher initial service cost due to smaller demand
and a less dense service area than large industrial user. However, the service infrastructure for existing
residential customers remains the same for very long periods of time. For example the north, south, and east
ends of Boise have a basic infrastructure that is approachinB 100 years of age and has had little if any updates
unless new adjacent subdivisions have been added. These existing infrastructures have been paid for many
times over. Large power users tend to change or move more frequently than residential customers causing
demand changes in given areas and forcing infrastructure updates more often. A residential owner or developer
must bear the entire cost of getting power from a distribution point to their subd ivision or home. However,
ldaho Power bears much of this cost for large users as it enlarges feeder capacity. Another item being
overlooked is that most ofthe power distribution systems were put in place to service residential, farm, and
small businesses that fall under the normal user rate schedule, the large consumer businesses came later and
attached to an existing system reducing their costs.
I am sure in the future ldaho Power will pat its self on the back and claim they are promoting green energy so
they can sell or use any future carbon reduction incentives that have been solely produced and paid for by the
residentialand small renewable energy producers. Yet in reality ldaho Power is using the IPUC'S rule making
ability to make it financially unreasonable for anyone to invest in a residentialor small renewable energy
system. These changes requested by ldaho Power with relation to its residentialand small renewable energy
producers are unreasonable, discriminatory, preferential, and predatory.
Thank you for your time.
Bernard Valentine
P.O. Box 85
star, lD 83669
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 1 1:02 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Mick Woodburn
Name: Mick Woodburn
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 509 E Selway Dr.
Homedale ldaho, 83628
Name of Utility Company: Homeowner
Comment: I am a home owner and have invested in a solar system for our home, I don't feel that it is right to let the PUC
be able to change the program that both ldaho Power and the solar customers have agreed on, lf moving forward they
want to write an new agreement that works for new customers and ldaho power then let them try that, but changes to
the existing customers agreement just don't seem fair. Thank you for your time.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.L55.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subjea:
Lars.Sandven@g mail.com
Monday, December 2, 2019 1 1 :05 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Lars Sandven
Name: Lars Sandven
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1916 N 24th Street
Boise ldaho, 83702
Name of Utality Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Thanks for this opportunity to share my concerns regardinS increasing energy cost.
We had 34 solar panels installed on our roof a couple of years ago. The stipulation/promise at that that time was that
the current cost regulation would stay in place perpetually ( if not specifically stated). That a price hike was hiding
around the corner was not anticipated.
We have been very happy with our solar program. The cost was considerable, but we felt good that in a small way we
helped reduce the proverbial carbon footprint. Besides, we live in a desert, thus providlnB us with an unusual amount of
solar energy, trapped by our solar panels, which again charBes our car.
Now ldaho Power is trying to chan8e the rules, going back on what we thought was a deal benefiting all of us, actual
partners or not.
We do appreciate there are tremendous costs building and maintainin8 the needed infrastructure, but nothing in that
regard has changed pertaininB to cost.
As ldaho Power plans for the future, and hopefully, more customer will choose going solar, it seems only fair that
current customers are honored with the promise they signed up for. We think that is fair. lam confident power
consumers will still sign upforsolar,even if the utility finds nootherway butto increase rates.
Thanks for listening.
Unique ldentifier: L64.f65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 1 1:05 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Robert Davison
Name: Robert Davison
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1158 sweetwood circle
Nampa ld, 83551
Name of Utility Company: ldaho power
Comment: I just purchased solar to reduce my bills if u give us a power hike just because you can mainly cause u can't
manage your own budget then u will most likely make me and my family homeless but like most large monopolies all u
care about is how to screw over the little people
Unique ldentifier: L64.765.205.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
SubJea:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 11:OT AM
Diane Holt
case Comment Form: Sarah Matlock
Name: Sarah Matlock
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 5175 S. Farmhouse Pl
Boise lD, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I would like to express concern on the recently proposed changes to solar net metering. As an early adopter
of solar power aimed at helping our area move to alternative clean energy, lwill be penalized instead of incentivized.
Changing the rules after an investment is made is unethical and against what I believe ldaho Power stands for.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
S€nt:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December ?, 2019 I 1:09 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Wm Randolph Bynum
Name: Wm Randolph Bynum
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 431 Arrowhead Dr.
Nampa ldaho, 83686
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear IPUC Personnel,
I urge you to allow customers with on-site solar generation to continue under the original agreement established with
ldaho Power that includes monthly net metering. This is a fair practice agreed upon by both parties that encourages
solar "green power" production and adequately compensates those of us who have invested tens of thousands of
dollars in our solar generation modules.
ldaho Power's new proposal would discourage investment in solar power and penalize those who have invested and
agreed with ldaho Power in good faith. The new proposal would only benefit ldaho Power's profits.
The Commission should uphold the original program that was a8reed upon by ldaho Power and solar customers. ldaho
Power should not be allowed to make more profits by unfairly treating solar customers.
We should not have the rules changed on us after we have already made our investment and otherwise relied on ldaho
Powe/s imposed requirements and standards.
I am opposed to changing the measurement from monthly net metering to hourly metering. This again would benefit
only ldaho Power and penalize solar power customers.
ldaho Power consistently solicits donations for "green power." They should recognize the investment that thear most
environmentally conscientious customers have made.
ldaho families and businesses should not be penalized for investing their own money into a proBram that was created to
incentivize purchasing renewable generation. Approving a net metering policy that encouraged investment for long term
savings, only to have it invalidated in this manner, is unethical. ldaho Power should honor the service agreement that
they set out initially. The ldaho Power plan decreases access, availability, and affordability of residential solar.
Thank you for your work and for your consideration of our viewpointsl
WRBynum
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 11:16 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kristina Jensen
Name: Kristina Jensen
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8806 W. Steve Ct
Boise lD, 83714
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
1
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power
Comment: I purchased solar panels for my home a little over a year ago. l'm disappointed to hear that there could be
some big changes to the program. I would encourage you to be fair and uphold your word. Don't discriminate against
people who have invested in this program. I invested a lot of money to find out that I would have to buy more panels or
go back to having a hefty power bill. ldid this the knowing it would help in the long run and l'm disappointed to hear
that it may change. Consider allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net metering program and applying
the new program only to new customers. This would be a commonsense compromase that allows all parties to keep
agreements made in good faith. Do the right thing. Honor the agreement that was originally set out and that I
understood when ldecided to invest in solar panels.
Diane Holt
From:
S€nt:
IO:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 'l 1:20 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: MaryCarol Nelson
Name: MaryCarol Nelson
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1541 Baldy View Drive,, Hailey, ldaho 83333
Hailey ldaho, 83333
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment:
I recently moved to Hailey from Washington State. Attending a meeting of the Hailey Climate Action Coalition, t
learned about an urgent concern of the group for the many solar customers that have panels on their homes. Their
cAltra Afw1757f Women's Timp Trail Running Shoeoncern is about the new program that you are going to make a
decision on in the next day or two.
It is obvious that I do not know enough about how ldaho Power functions , and the cost in providing power to
customers. Also, what percent the excess solar kwh produced by the net metering customers is of all the kwh that
ldaho Power sells in a year?
What I would like to say here, however, is to emphasize the importance of your decision ! I would hope you do not
base your decision on profit alone: thatyou rea lize that by your actions, yo u holdthe future ofthisvalley, state, nation
and the world in your ability to make clean energy a major priority in the shortest time possible.
Sincerely, MaryCarol Nelson
Unique ldentifier: f64.165.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 .l 1:25 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Sharon Payne
Name: Sharon Payne
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Meridian lD, 83@2
Name of Utilaty Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am writing about the proposed changes for solar customers. My husband and I crunched the numbers and
saved up for years to afford to put solar panels on our home. Now, those numbers and our investment are in danger.
We entered into this program in good faith. lt is unfair and seems unreasonable to me that the rules can simply be
changed and we can be out money we cannot afford. The existing utility rates need to be maintained. Our
understanding when entering into this investment in our community was that discriminatory rates would not be the
outcome. And, yet, here we are arguing for this unethical proposal to change the aBreement.
Please do the right thing for solar customers in our community. Thank you for your time. - Sharon Payne
Unique ldentifi er: 164.t65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 1 1:28 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Dorian Hitchcock
Name: Dorian Hitchcock
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: d oria n. h itchcock @gma il.com
Telephone:
Address:
Pocatello lD, 83204
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I think ldaho Power's proposed rate changes go contrary to their stated goal reach %100 renewable energy
by 2045. lt puts an unfair burden on home owners who have made a significant investment in a sustainable future
through their installation of solar panels. Please make the power they generate for us all of equal value to any other
power on the grid.
Unique ldentifier: f64.L65.206.42
L
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2, 2019 'l I :34 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jane Groebner
Name: Jane Groebner
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6803 Pomona Rd
Boise lD, 83704
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I tried calling that conference llne this morning and I want to tell you I think this is a terrible way to Bet
customer comments. Some of the people are very long-winded and after waiting thru a number of calls I gave up
I have previously commented here on the changes in creditin8 solar customers so I just wanted to gripe about your
conference call set-up
Unique ldentifi er: 164.165.205.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2, 2019 .l 'l:49 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Thomas Southorn
Name: Thomas Southorn
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2703 S Falling Brook Way
Boise lD, 83706
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment:
Dear colleague,
My wife and I are residents and voters living in SE Boise, ldaho. We recently (August 2019) installed solar panels on our
home. We did so for several reasons some of which include economics and climate change. We have two boys, Max
and Dylan, who are 10 and 12 years old. lt is our desire to leave them and their progeny the same clean and livable
environment we currently enjoy. Not to invest in our and their future would be irresponsible. After proving that the
economics proved out and that our solar panels would pay for themselves after about a decade, we made the capital
investment and installed the panels on our roof.
Part of the permitting process prior to installation was ldaho Power evaluating that our home would not place an undue
burden on the grid and was an appropriate candidate for solar. ldaho Power did this evaluation and gave us the "go
ahead". Only after the panels and our net meter were installed did ldaho Power send us a notification that they hope to
change the value of power exchanged through net metering. We feel this is double dealing. We did our due diligence
when we evaluated the economics of solar, and now ldaho Power is proposing to change the rules mid-game. Thisis
unfair.
As voters we also evaluate our representatives and their administrations. We will be watching closely to see how those
who have invested in solar power are treated. We urBe you to prevent ldaho Power from changing the rates that
current net metering customers pay.
Yours,
Tom and Rachel Southorn
Unique ldentifi er: 164.L65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Su bject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 12:04 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: ROY COSSAIRT
Name: ROY COSSAIRT
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9921 W. EDNA ST., five mile
BOrSE rD, 83704
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We installed 31 Solar Panels on our house in August of 20U. The decision was not taken lightly and a HUGE
part of the decision to move forward was net metering. We were shown documentation that havinB the installation
completed in 2017 would allow us to be GRANDFATHERED should the net metering program be altered.
As the process was being evaluated for changes ltried numerous times to become involved without success. As the
recommended changes are now coming out I see the value of the residential solar net metering clients are being valued
at nearly zero value.
I recognize swapping a net credit 1:1 isn't ideal for ldaho Power but offsetting residential customers as if they are large
power producers is an extreme swing. The power produced during peak summer is credited at the same rate as the
first/lowest rate watt. lf this were accounted for in the proposal it would go along way toward showing appreciation of
the value of the energy being returned and immediately used on the grid.
Consider the value of the power being produced during peak summer demand is readily available and ample. The
equipment costs have been paid by each residential producer and the excess power is readily available in the area and
at a nominal cost to ldaho Power-essentially the cost of a net meter plus wiring back to the grid.
So we spent 525,000+ for 31 panels, ldaho Power puts a couple hundred dollars into a NET meter on our house plus
wiring, and we generate about 80% of the electricity we use over the course of the year.
I believe ldaho Power is acting in bad faith by seeking these changes and once again it appears ldaho Power is seeking to
own the means for energy production instead of working cooperatively with generous forward thinking customers to
use logical rooftops instead of creating large solar farms damaging thousands of acres of land further away from the end
users.
This proposal defies common sense for most parties involved while spitting in the face ofthose of us trying to be good
stewards and contribute to the energy needs of the public at large as well as for our family.
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.47
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembe( ?, 2019 12:24 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: adrian paz
Name: adrian paz
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2O825O2O57
Address: p.o. Box 32, 694 view dr
Notus ldaho, 83656
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Comment: lAdrian Paz Don't agree with ldaho Power making changes with are solar net meter.lt should stay the same
as it was when it was offer to us when we made our purchase on solar system please don't let them make those changes
. thank Adrian
Unique ldentifier: 754.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjea:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 12:26 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jason Risser
Name: Jason Risser
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2Oa6974L72
Address:
NAMPA ID, 83686
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: After careful deliberation I decided to go residential solar in March 2019. I made that decision in large part
due to the net metering program that was in place at the time. I took the risk and made the siBnificant investment to
install the system and recover my investment over time. I feel now that ldaho Power is trying a "bait and switch" move
on me. To fix the value of a kw now (ldaho Power proposal)for power generated 6-8 years in the future is unreasonable
and dishonest. I believe that ldaho power is actually stru8gling to keep up with current power demands as it is and my
system actually helps to relieve this in a small way. (l am a net producer not consumer of power)That being the case why
should I be penalized for helping to solve a big problem? No, ldaho power should be good to their word and not try to
punish solar power generators like me.
Unique ldentifier: \64.165.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
to:
Subiect:
Name: Mark Wolfenden
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Mccall lD, 83538
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power
Comment: lam writing regarding ldaho Power's application to change the net metering program. What an anti-
American disgrace ! I am vehemently opposed to this for the following reasons:
1. There are only around 4000 ldaho Power customers with solar energy systems. This is a fraction of a percent of
their customers. This program makes NO difference to ldaho Powers bottom line. However, it does make a big
difference to the ldaho Power customers and families who willingly invested to support clean energy in ldaho.2. ldaho Powe/s customers who have invested large sums of money to support ldaho Power's grid and help the
state of ldaho with energy independence are to be told their investment is worth 50% less. This is robbery by ldaho
Powerl lf ldaho Power wants to give their solar power producing customers 50% less credit, then they should pay for
50% of the existing customers installation costs. Theses customers installed their solar systems with no clear suggestion
of ldaho Power pulling the rug out from them (that note about rates may change is not clear!!!). They should NOT have
their investments cut in half by ldaho Power. At the very least these customers should be grandfathered in and receive
full credit under the existing deal, for the power they produce.
3. lf this program is approved, it will further ldaho Power as an energy monopoly in most of ldaho. Monopolies are
bad for capitalism, bad for the free market, bad for ldaho and BAD for America.4. The renewable energy sector in ldaho is good business for ldaho. lt creates numerous well-paying jobs that have
a long-term future. Even if ldaho Power is unwilling to be dragged into the 21st century, renewable energies, such as
solar, are here to stay and are the future of our energy independence. This program would kneecap this industry, killing
a growing tech jobs sector in ldaho, and through government approval. VERY un-American!
5. ldaho Power proposed a study ofthe costs/benefits of residential solar, they have NOT done this. This
agreement is not the study they proposed. They should be held to their own standards and promises.
5. The hourly net metering is a bust. lt is simply a route for ldaho Power to manipulate the credit small energy
producers receive, to ldaho Power's benefit, basically allowing them to price gouge. Oft an illegal practice.
The future is here, it is in energy independence and a free market approach. ldaho Power is working to prevent this and
stopping good jobs from comlng to ldaho to line their own pockets. At the very least, as has been done in numerous
other states, existing customers should be grandfather in to receive the benefit of their investment. However, this whole
program stinks of an attempt by ldaho Power to create a monopoly. For all ldahoans, it should be stopped NOW.
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 12:32 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Mark Wolfenden
Diane Holt
F om:
Sent:
To:
Subjectl
jfsmith @ boisestate.edu
Monday, Decembet 2, ?O19 12:38 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: ,ames Smith
Name: James Smith
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1612 N. 9th St.
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: loppose anychanges made to net metering charges. Asan ownerofsolar panels, lhavemadea
commitment to reducing my power needs from the grid and to have a positive impact on carbon emissions and climate
change. We sell our excess electricity back to ldaho Power at the same rate we purchase it from them.
The PUC should uphold the original program that was a8reed upon by ldaho Power and solar customers. ldahoans
have invested in local clean energy expecting a fair deal. Allowin8 existing solar customers to stay on the existing net
metering program and applyinB the new program only to new customers is a commonsense compromise that allows all
parties to keep agreements made in good faith.
Unique ldentifier: L64.f65.706.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2, 2019 12:52 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Robert Vestal
Name: Robert Vestal
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 2021 N Stoneview Pl
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: December 2, 2019
Dear Members of the ldaho Public Utilities Commission:
My wife and I have been using a 24-panel rooftop solar system since February 2017. We made this large investment tor
two main reasons: (1) To offset the cost of our electrical energy needs, and (2) to do our part to address the dramatic
global threat of climate change due substantially to excessive production of greenhouse gases by burning of fossil fuels.
Please consider the following issues as you review the settlement on proposed rate changes for solar customers of ldaho
Power:
We believe that obligatory grandfathering of existing net metering customers, such as we are, should be required by the
ldaho PUC. Furthermore, to protect existing investments in solar, systems should be grandfathered with the meter
number attached to the residence and not only the customer account number. Our investment decision included a
calculated increase in value as a major factor.
(2)The study ordered by the PUC (Order No. 34046 Case No. IPC-E-u-13) should be completed before any settlement
proposals or net metering changes take effect. The proposed settlement took place behind closed doors and was made
without input from residential net metering customers. Why was this study not completed by ldaho Power and fully
evaluated by the public, all existing and potential future customers and the ldaho PUC before this settlement by a small
group of interested parties? Our understanding is that no careful cost/benefit analysis was used to develop the
settlement or any other potential net metering changes. Any changes in the existing net metering program should be
based on solid data that justify any changes in rate structure for existing or future solar customers.
(3) Finally, ldaho Power needs to act in a manner consistent with its own policy. ldaho Power states on their website
that the company is committed to 100% clean energy by 2045. The proposed hourly net meterin8 rate structure is a
disincentive to potential new investment in rooftop solar. This does not advance idaho Power's own stated clean enerBy
policy.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments
1
Diane Holt
(1) Monthly net metering for existing systems should be continued. The proposed change violates the principle of
fairness. Our decision to make the large investment in rooftop solar was based on the monthly net metering program
that tracks production and usage on a monthly basis. The system was designed based on this policy. There were no
other metering models at that time Hourly metering would have completely altered the design of our system and our
investment.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Vestal, M.D.
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
2
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjea:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 1:19 PtM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Aaron Shively
Name: Aaron Shively
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9229 W Shelterwood Drive
Boise ldaho, 83709
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Hello, I would like to voice my opinion in saying to please reject ldaho Powe/s dismantling of net-metering.
As a fellow solar customer, I think it is only fair to allow existing solar customers to stay on the existing net metering
program and applying the new program only to new customers. I believe this is a good compromise that allows all
parties to keep agreements made in good faith.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjec:
hitcevel@gmail,com
Monday, Decembet 2, 2019 1:43 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Evelyn Hitchcock
Name: Evelyn Hitchcock
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2O824O7O6L
Address: 1492 Los Altos Way
Pocatello ldaho, 83201
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am a single 73 year old woman on a fixed low income. I invested a large portion of my savings to install a
solar system which I thought would eventually practically eliminate my electric bill. ln addition to the actual cost of the
solar system I have had to shoulder the financing cost and insurance and liability for maintenance. I was promised a
federal tax credit and maybe a state deduction and told lwould continue to pay around 55 service charge to ldaho
Power and use their net meter to track how much excess electricity my system generates, and measure my usaBe when
my system is not generatinS more than my usa8e.
Now ldaho power is planning to change the rules in their favor, eventually only crediting me half as much for my excess
Benerated electricity as it will charge for my electric consumption. Their letter said this change "will help keep prices fair
and affordable for all customers". They seem to be claiming that the other rate payers are in effect shouldering my share
of the cost of maintaining the electric grid and it is not fair that I don't still have to pay for it. When I called the ldaho
Power Customer Generation team, for an explanation, a representative named Suzanne explained that less than 25% of
the kwh charge for electricity was actually for energy. The majority was for many other unspecified things including the
maintenance of the infrastructure, customer support (like her salary), etc. lf I have to pay for the cost of supplying and
maintaining the infrastructure of the ldaho Power generating system then it is only fair that lP should pay me the same
retail rate for my generated electricity to cover my rooftop infrastructure expenses.
I do feel that ldaho Power should be required to honor the agreement that was made to the existing customers with
onsite generation. Furthermore lfeel very strongly that it is in the public interest to continue with the current net zero
reimbursement system in order to make it possible for more individuals to take the risk I did to invest in clean power. lt
will help bring ldaho Power closer to their stated goal of 100% clean energy by 2045. Global warming is reaching a crisis
state and rooftop solar provides one way individuals can help.
The Pocatello community recently exceeded everyone's expectations for the number of people participating in the
Solarize Pocatello campaign. I can see the rooftop panels on many small houses around town. lt seems that the
participants were mostly small users like myself for whom the decision probably involved a huge investment. The
proposed rate change will stifle the success of future, similar campaigns. Please prevent ldaho Power from
implementing this unfair treatment of small customers with onsite generation.
1
Diane Holt
Unique ldentifier: 164.t65.206.42
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 1:48 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Sarah Mello
Name: Sarah Mello
Case Number: IPCE-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2806 N. 30th St
Boise lD, 83703
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power
Comment: Please continue to incentivize residential solar power generation by retaining the current net metering
regulations. Decentralized power generation improves local, regional, and national energy security. A secure power grid
is essential to a healthy ldaho economy. Financial incentives for ldaho residents can help to achieve these goals.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 2:00 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: SEAN tvlANlON
Name: SEAN MANION
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
BO|SE rD, 83709
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power should not be able to change the rates that were agreed upon during my investment into solar.
lf they change the rates as they propose, they are essentially de-valuing my si8nificant investment. This is ethically
wrong and discriminatory.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.L65.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 2:10 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Brian Williams
Name: Brian Williams
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: willib p6@gma il. co m
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5551 Kuna Rd.
Nampa ldaho,83685
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I want to have my voice heard about ldaho Powers desire to penalize current solar customers who invested in
green energy with the expectations of the current net metering agreement.
I find it ironic that a company that claims to be BoinS Breen would unfairly make a profit on the backs of those who really
help their system. They "Claim" that it is creating more costs for them but that is without any biased science or unbiased
3rd party looking at what it truly costs them or more likely benefits them.
Current solar customers should be grandfathered in with the original agreement that we agreed to or lwould have
never made this investment in green energy. I invested in clean energy to try to help our state and ldaho power live up
to their claim of a clean company and now they want to change the rules of the game and unfairly char8e me half of
what they will pay me for the energy I produce.
As in many other states at least they should be required to leave those who are already on the program at the current
rates and not unfairly and unethically change the rates after the investment is made. Most states who have had utilities
request the same have grandfathered in those who already made the investment. lt seems odd that Federal and ldaho
governments would Bive tax incentives to get people to go solar then turn around and let the utility punish them for
doing it.
I invested in Solar with the hope that after 15 years I could pay them off and hope to be able to mitigate the costs of
home ownership in my retirement years. With this change it destroys my ability to do so and makes the investment a
loss. I know that we are helping ldaho power with putting power on the grid without havinB to have all the transmission
lines to get it there. I don't see where I should be penalized for helping them balance their system with out ma,or
transmission costs. lt seems to me ldaho would want our population to be able to mitigate their costs later in life so we
are able to afford to stay here after our income making days are over.
Thank you and please take these comments to make a good decision for ldaho and ldaho residents, not for ldaho power
to make a profit on our backs.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.706.42
Diane Holt
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 2:12 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Ed Elam
Name: Ed Elam
Case Number:
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise lD, 83713
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am opposed to the changes in rates for the Net Metering that is currently proposed. We added Solar to our
home to be fiscally and environmentally responsible and take exception to any rate chanSes presented by ldaho Power.
As a solar energy contributor why should we be penalized financially for providing clean energy to a provider that is still
producing power non-Eco-friendly sources. ldaho Power needs to honor their commitment in regards to rates and
continue to make improvements to provide clean energy solutions. All of us need to work together to protect our
environment.
Unique ldentifier: L64.765.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 2:12 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: LISA SANTOS
Name: LISA SANTOS
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Tele phone: 2O8-92L-827 I
Address: 2492 E HEATHFIELD CT
EAGLE ID, 83616
Name of Utility Company: IDAHO POWER
Comment: When I retired, I made the decision to trade fossil fuels for photovoltaic electricity generation based on
ldaho Power's solar panel program on their website. They inspired this decision and showed me that the solar program
had a payoff projection of 16 years, (according to IDP website page titled "Curious to know what an investment in solar
looks like? based on the IDP residential Schedule 01 as of 11/1/2OL8.l The new settlement does not support this payoff,
but rather causes it to take longer to payoff than the actual lifespan of the solar panels! Which translates to there will
never be a payoff date because the solar panels lifespan is 25 years!
Higher energy living costs, were both expected and anticipated, for my retirement years. Again, this was why lfelt
that I needed to tailor a budget to meet basic living expenses, such as household ener8y costs and transportation needs
by driving an electric vehicle. However, with the proposed agreement, the solar company would have had to come up
with an entirely different cost and design for my solar panel rooftop layout, in order for the system to be cost effectivel
lf the program switches to hourly assessment vs. monthly, my financial outlook changes dramatically. lf I had known
IDP would not honor their stated program I would not have invested my retirement money into solar energy. I live on a
fixed income and I planned accordingly. My goal was to stabilize my enerBy costs. ldaho retired teachers, still do their
homework, and research the consequences offinancial choices. This leaves me with many questions. I do not know
how IDP got a free pass and did not conduct the proposed study prior to reaching this settlement? Why does my
electricity production to meet my own residential needs mean IDP gains and devalues my credits? lam worried that if
ldaho lets go of the incentives for solar power, that solar companies will leave the state. How do I have maintenance
done without qualified solar installers readily available? This proposed agreement threatens my retirement investment
in rooftop solar panels!
lf I am not securely grandfathered into the original program as an existinB customer, my retirement investment will be
greatly diminished. lfeel this is not fair treatment for those people who willing.iumped on board with lDYs "IOO%
clean energy by 2045". lf I had known that you would renege on this solar energy program, I would have not invested
S28,0O0 into solar panels. ltrusted full retail net metering (kilowatt to kilowatt exchange rate) would stay, and realized
that energy costs could change, but certainly not the whole basis of the solar program!
Now I am left disillusioned and feeling very misled. When I retired, lchose to put 27 panels on my rooftop and buy a
used Nissan Leaf electric vehicle. IDP inspired me with their fleet of electric vehicles at all the Electric Vehicle shows
downtown. I was proud of the choices I made, and so thankful to have IDP onboard for helping to fight climate change.
Please let my dream see fruition and continue to be in alignment with where IDP is taking us!
According to my SolarEdge app, I have saved L3,042.82lb in CO2 and planted the equivalency of 328.51 trees. This both
benefits our planet and promotes more sustainable living!
Thank you for this opportunity to share how this decision has effected my world !
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembe( 2, 2019 2:19 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Robin Wallis
Name: Robin Wallis
Case Number: ipc-e-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2O887O7449
Address: 4000 Nth Muldoon Pl.
Boise ldaho, 83713
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear Commissioner, My decision to install a solar system was a significant financial decision,given that I am
72yrsold, about to retire and probably will downsize my housing over the nest 10+ years depending on my health. I
made the decision to install the system believing that the existing rules would prevail and they my investment was
secure and everyone benefited by this investment, including ldaho Power and future generations of ldahoans. I wanted
to eliminate many financialvariables with and investment that was secure, had a reasonable payback,would add to the
value of my house and was environmentally friendly. Not to mention that the federal government was encouraging the
decision with feral tax credits. I analyzed the investment based on an ROI of approx. 15 yrs, but based on the proposed
net hourly metering the payback moves out to more than 32 yrs. The proposal to limit the net metering benefit to
existing home owners eliminates any possible return I mi8ht receive when I sell my home. None of these actions and
resultin8 impact seem like decision that are consistent with the responsibility ofthe IPUC. lt appears that the propsed
program favors the traditional business model of big business; to exploit the individual for their own financial gain. My
investment has provided ld. Power the ability to generate 100% ROI on all the exess power I Benerate without any
invested capital oftheir own to develop new capacity or utilize expensive, alternative energy systems. lt also reduces
their need to build new facilities to support ldaho's continued growth. ldaho Power receives free energy from the roof
to customersand sells itto their neighbors atthe existin8 rates. Whataheckofagreatdealll What other businesses
have people offing to pay for their capital expenditures? The suggestion that I make the investment to generate power
and that ldaho Power takes it and sell it to my neighbor at the current rate during the day and credits me at a
discounted rate and than sell it back to me at night at the existing (higher ) rate seems unfair to say the least. Makes me
wonder what people are thinking or who they work for. Clearly this proposal clearly favors ld. Power. Rules should not
be changed after the fact, especially ones that have such signiflcant financial impact on the public. lfind it hard to
believe that you could support this proposal without consulting the constituents who actually invested in on-site
generation. I would think that it is in the benefit of all ldahoans that the existing rules remain in place or at minimum all
existing rules covering net monthly metering are Brandfathered to the existing house and limited to the existing home
owner. A win, win for ldaho would be for the IPUC to pass rulings that encouraged rooftop solar installations preserving
our great lifestyle, environment and democracy. thank you for your consideration, Robin R. Wallis
Unique ldentifier: f64.L65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 2:23 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Bebiana Evans
Name: Bebiana Evans
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 908 16th Ave. S.
Nampa lD, 83651
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: My solar doesn't cover my power bill now, and with the loan for solar I am paying more now than ever. Once
the loan is paid in 2o/3oyears it is to help compensate my investment and provide a Breener environment. lf what we
put in is taken then people may not make the changes needed. Please do studies that will provide better understanding
of what is needed, and if your proposed changes will effect us negatively, financially or otherwise, then you need to
some how compensate for our investment. I have agreed to how it is now and if that changes, how am I to address what
has already been done? I can't return my solar system and can hardly afford it as of now. Contracts and working
relationships should be kept in good faith.
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 20'19 2:30 Ptvl
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Doin Ludwig
Name: Doin Ludwig
Case Number: Case Number IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1821Tracy Ct
Meridian ld, 83646
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Powerl
Comment: I had Solar Panels installed on my home and on my son's home at 1585 Biddick ct Meridian. Mine was
installed three years ago and the property at Biddick Ct almost 2 years ago. I feel with the agreement of ldaho Power to
convert to Net Metering that his agreement should be honored and not changed. ldaho Power says they have a goal to
go green and people installing solar is helping them reach that goal. We should not be penalized for improving the
environment and saving the environment. ldaho Power needs to do more to encourage others to do the same instead
of charging more money. Thanks for your consideration of a concerned ld Resident.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:03 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Joe Decano
Name: Joe Decano
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1813 North Eagle Creek Way, Eagle, lD, USA
Eagle lD, 83616
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho families and businesses should not be penalized for investing their own money into a program that was
created to incentivize purchasing renewable generation. Approving a net meterinB policy that encouraged investment
for long term savings, only to have it invalidated in this manner, is unethical and cost many homeowners a poor return
on investment.
Unique ldentifier: !64.t65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sharidorsey'l @gmail.com
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:OG PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Shari Dorsey
Name: Shari Dorsey
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1190 E Carter St
Boise lD, 83706
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Public Utilities Commission, We are voicing our objection to ldaho Power's proposal to change the net
meterin8 system for existing solar customers. We, and many others, made the decision to invest in a solar system based
on the current net meterin8 system through ldaho Power and it would not be fair or reasonable for this to be changed
for existing solar customers. lt is common for businesses to change the plans they offer to new customers while leaving
their existing custome/s plans the same. This is a customary and reasonable business practice. We've lived in ldaho for
over 40 years and one thing we value is the ability to trust our government and utilities companies. We are very
disappointed that ldaho Power would even consider going back on their word by proposing to change our net metering
agreement. We trust that the PUC will reject ldaho Powe/s proposal, require them to do what is reasonable and moral
for their customers, and keep your promise that there will not be any discriminatory changes to our power rates.
Sincerely,
William and Shari Dorsey
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.?06.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:06 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Todd Woodell
Name: Todd Woodell
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]ALa
Address: 428 W. Maple Ave
Meridian lD, 83642
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I paid over S20K for my solar system this summer in order to lower my utility bills and increase the value of
my home. ldaho Power is now trying to chanSe the rules and would effectively make my solar system worthless if their
"Compromise" is approved. I disagree with this plan wholeheartedly and hope that the IPUC will side with the small
percentage of ldaho power customers that have laid out a substantial investment and currently have solar panels on
their home.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42.
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:09 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Suzanne Gebhards
Name: Suzanne Gebhards
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: s uza nn ig@gma il. co m
Telephone:
Address: 1444 Dragonfly Loop #4391
Mccall lD, 83638
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: As a homeowner with a small roof top solar system, I am appalled that the IPUC and ldaho Power are
considering chan8ing the rules regarding Net Metering for solar. My investment in solar provides clean renewable
energy and costs ldaho Power nothlng. Now the IPUC and ldaho Power want to pay me half the value of any excess
power I produce and contribute to the electric grid. This is ridiculous! Why should ldaho Power be allowed to profit from
my investment? I don't have to pay more at the gas station for driving a fuel efficient car, so why should I be given less
for something that ldaho Power doesn't pay to receive? lt's time for the IPUC to stand up for the consumer and small
power producers in ldaho.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
oecember 1, 2019
To: ldaho Public Utilities Commission
From Edward Robertson
Re: IPC-E-18-15 (Net Metering)
Hello Commissioners,
Last year my wife and I installed 24 PV panels on our roof and this year we added an additional 3 panels.
We added the additional panels because we purchased a used Electric Smart car this Spring and thought
that we would need the additional production to charge the car each day.
Our total investment was 524,510 for the panels. We made this investment for several reasons:
1. We believe that with the increased population growth in ldaho Powers service area that in the
future rates will have to increase.
2. We also believe that there will be more low water years in the future due to climate change and
that again ldaho Power will need to raise their rates.
3. Use of electric cars for local trips can help to offset the declining air quality that we are
experiencing in the valley due to population growth.
4. We have a new south/south west facing roof and have the ability to maximize the benefit of
good exposure for maximum power production.
5. We believe that adding the PV panels will enhance the resale value of our home when the time
comes for us to relocate.
6. Even with overall low ldaho Power rates, addin8 these panels just seems "like the right thing to
do."
We made this investment wath the expectation that the direct metering credit of approximately 8 cents
per kWh would be the amount that we would be credited with in the future and perhaps even a hiBher
rate should ldaho Power need to raise their rates. To see the settlement a8reement anticipate a new
estimated rate in 2028 of 4.4 cents per kwh would be unfair to customers who have made this
investment.
As for a chanBe to net metering from calculation on a monthly basis to one on an hourly basis, would
this mean that in the future we may be credited at the rate of 4.4 cents per Kwh for the production of
our power during the day and then be charged the going rate that non power producing customers
would be charged for our use of electricity at night when our system is shut down?
As I mentioned earlier, we made this investment as we believe that everything else being equal, the
addition of a PV system should increase the value of our home. For this to be a reality, a future owner of
this property should expect to have the same benefit cost wise for the system that we have today.
Can I assume that the fine points of the proposed settlement were based on the results of a
comprehensive study of the cost and benefits of residual on site power generation on ldaho Powe/s
system? Assuming this study has been completed, are the results available to the public? lf the study has
not been completed, then the proposed rate changes in the settlement would seem to be arbitrary.
ln addition to the IPUC considering rate changes for the ldaho Power service area, I think that the
Commission should also be encouraging the increased use of PV systems as a mechanism to reduce the
use of natural gas and coal as we think about climate change. Climate change is not an issue sometime
in the future. lt is impacting our valley right now. By encouraging home PV systems you will also be
supportinB electric cars for short trips throughout the valley. Air quality is an issue that your ruling can
impact.
Not knowing or understanding all the factors that you will be considering, I would hope that you will
"Grandfathe/' in those of us who have made a significant investment and allow us to continue with the
plan that we currently have.
Thank you.
Edward Robertson
4201 West Quail Ridge Drive, Boise 83703, 208 343 4427
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 5:02 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Thad Farnham
Name: Thad Farnham
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2O872OIL04
Address: PO Box 3535
Ketchum ldaho, 83340
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Sirs,
I am writing you concerninB the proposed change in net metering that would result in being credited back for power
returned to the grid at less than the current rate. I installed a 10K solar system on my roof as part of the construction of
my home last year. My aim was to reach net zero by using advanced construction methods such as super insulation,
ultra tight construction and triple pane windows. I also made the choice to go all electric including a heat pump heating
system, a heat pump water heater, condensing dryer, and induction cooktop. Part of the justification for the substantial
investment was the ability to send excess power back to the grid when I didn't need it at the same rate I was paying for
power when I did need it.
I feel it would be a breach of faith to change the rules for those of us that made financial decisions based on ldaho
Power's existing policies. My rooftop solar alone cost over $30,000. and my commitment to leading edge electric heating
also added cost.
I would like to see the rate at which I and others that already have installed rooftop solar systems, be exempt from the
changes proposed by ldaho Power.
As a construction professional I stand by my commitments every day and I feel it is only fair that ldaho Power do the
same.
Thank you, Thad Farnham
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
Diane Holt
1
Diane Holt
From:
S€nt:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, ?019 2:54 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Megan Jones
Name: Megan Jones
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15,
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 208342L684
Address: 2303 N 22ND ST
Boise ldaho, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
comment: Please, please, please do not give into the demands of ldaho Power to move to their proposed changes in the
use of solar power. I just installed my solar power system; it took me 30 years to save up for it. I am not a rich person
but am proud that I have been able to invest in a lifestyle that aligns with my values. I made the investment because in
ldaho we have the opportunity to contribute to maintaining a healthy environment for all. My solar power system is a
gift to my community and to our Earth. Under current regulations, lwill make back my investment in 20 years under the
proposed changes, I will not live to see any return on my system.
ln addition, I ask the commission to look seriously at the supporting documentation delivered by ldaho Power
supportin8 the changes. I have not seen any cost-benefit analysis information. Nor have I seen any information on how
the changes will affect jobs in the Boise area.
I hope the PUC will support the "little guy" supporting their community. I wish ldaho Power would adopt the same
approach.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.L65.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 20'19 2:55 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Brian Mattingly
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I urge the ldaho PUC to reject ldaho Power's regressive Net Metering proposal. lt is critical that the ldaho
PUC foster and incentivize MORE residential rooftop solar in an effort to safeguard and strengthen our power grid. lt is
shortsighted and dangerous to put all our power e8gs in one basket, as we have now. Power production should be
decentralized and spread among many sources to help Buard against adversarial cyber threats (EX: Russia, China).
Rooftop solar helps do this. The PUC should make policy that helps the PUBLIC as much as the utilities. Public production
of energy is now a vaable option. Don't kill it before it has a chance to thrive.
Unique ldentifier: 164.1.65.206.4?
Name: Brian Mattingly
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise lD, 83703
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December ?,2019 2:57 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kim Mott
Name: Kim Mott
Case Number:
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 1004 N. 31st Street
Boise ldaho, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Public Utilities Commission - I want a fair rate for solar owners in ldaho. I just installed solar on my home this
fall of 2019 and had calculations done based on current rate for economic viability. Please don't make my positive
decision to have a bad return as a result of your rate change.
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 2:59 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Molly Trautman
Name: Molly Trautman
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1838 S Eroadmoor Dr
Boise lD, 83705
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We should not be cutting credits for solar power producing homes. People going green deserve to earn the
real cost or credit of power they produce and send back to the Erid, lf they do not its the same as stealing in my opinion.
We should be rewarding green energy not hindering it. lf we look at what doing the right thing really looks like I think we
all know that this is the wrong thing.
Unique ldentifier: 764.t65.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:02 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Erin Rohlman
Name: Erin Rohlman
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3350 Big Creek Rd.
New Meadows ldaho, 83554
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power must continue to encourage customer investment in solar energy by maintaining the rate it pays
for net-metering. The proposal to change compensation rules in order to decrease the price ldaho Power pays to
rooftop solar owners is unfair and a detriment to climate stability. We need more solar development, and we need to
decrease or eliminate dependence on hydroelectric dams and coal. As occupants ofthis planet, it is our responsibility to
protect our dwindling natural resources and move towards zero impact!
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:02 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Richard Llewellyn
Name: Richard Llewellyn
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9170 W HILL RD
BOTSE rD, 83714
Thank you,
Richard Llewellyn
PhD Biochemistry
Unique ldentifier: L64.L65.206.42
1
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Please retain the current net metering rate structure for those ldaho Power customers that generate power
and send it back to the grid. Solar power in particular has great promise for ldaho with our largely sunny weather.
Distributed solar - that energy capture that is based on individual initiative with the investment of solar panels on roofs,
porches, garages, and other creative means of capturing sunlight, has tremendous potential to provide a significant part
of ldaho's future energy needs. As battery technology continues to improve, it will be more feasible for both utilities
such as ldaho Power, and individual consumers and producers, to store the energy for hiBh peak demand and when the
sun isn't shining. Let's continue to support investment in in our future by maintaining our established rate structure.
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:04 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jan Brinkerhoff
Name: Jan Brinkerhoff
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise ldaho, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: This is my second comment. In my previously submitted comment I overlooked one of the very important
issues: the change from monthly net credits to hourly net billing.
ln addition to my solar PV system, I drive an electric car (also in an effort to reduce my carbon footprint - and it's
working great). I also have a Level 2 charger in my garage.
My current behavior is to export energy to ldaho Power all day long. During the summer months this can be as high as
75kWh per day. lthen charge my car in the middle of the niBht, when demand on ldaho Power is at it's lowest. Under
the new plan, lwould be exportlng energy all day at 4.4 cents only to turn around a few hours later and buy it back for
8.6 cents.
Clearly EV owners will quickly learn to charge their cars durinB their PV system's peak performance times. This means l'll
be charging during the day when my system produces it's highest energy level in order to avoid the export/import
penalty. I cannot see how this helps ldaho Power, the grid, or anyone else.
Sure it's easy to say that not that many people have Electric Vehicles. I would guess that Tesla, Rivian, Ford, Volvo, and
many others would confirm that many more EV's are coming. A8ain, the world is changing and ldaho Power might want
to try to change with it? There will be far more EV's ten years from now and under this proposal they will all be trying to
maximize their char8e with clean energy. I'm wondering if ldaho Power considered this (l'm thinking they did).
Again, I strongly urge you to reject this entire aBreement until something that makes sense can be worked out that
acknowledges the benefits of distributed production to the grid and the environment.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Flom:
Scnt:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:05 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Gregory Mortensen
Name: Gregory Mortensen
Case Number: 6674832
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 975 E 17th N
Mountain Home ldaho, 83647
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: To whom it may concern:
I had written in an earlier message about my concern regarding the loss of a good investment if ldaho Power's new
credit compensation plan comes into effect, especially for those who already have solar. I had a new thought and that
was, has ldaho Power considered buy all the power that comes from a customers solar panels? That way they could use
it how they wanted and it might save them money. Or would they even be interested in buying the panels themselves?
Thank you for your time.
Gregory Mortensen
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:18 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Johanna Wills
Name: Johanna Wills
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2143 W Piazza St
Meridian ldaho, 83545
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power should not be able to change the rate pricing of what is produced by solar customers. When we
purchased solar panels we made a significant investment and based our decision on the pricing model we currently have
producing our own power. lf this were chanBed it would be discriminatory toward solar panel customers. Please do not
allow ldaho Power to discriminate make money off of our investments.
Unique ldentifi er: 764.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:25 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Roger Brazier
Name: Roger Brazier
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2Oa-972-5662
Address: 1234 W Parkhill Drive
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: My wife and I have made a significant investment in Solar generation within the last 12 months. We object
stron8ly to the proposal by ldaho Power to change the method of reimbursement for our power"afterthe fact". We
believe that our generation should be grandfathered for at least a 10-20 year period to allow us to recoup our
investment in this system. We paid for the system ourselves with no help from ldaho Power and do not believe that the
reimbursement formula should be changed in their favor. Roger & Bonnie Brazier
Unique ldentifier: L64.L65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December ?, 2019 3:29 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Gaylord Perez
Name: Gaylord Perez
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2257 Bruce Street
Pocatello ldaho, 83201
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power Company
Comment: I object to ldaho Powe/s proposed change to the net metering rates agreed upon when I installed solar
panels to my residence. I invested in solar power expecting a fair deal in supporting clean energy. Reducing the rate will
drastically affect my budget that I was counting on to sustain my use of solar power and a means to uphold my
commitment to the finance company who holds my loan.
ldaho Power should not be allowed to make a profit on the backs of unfairly treated solar customers.
The rules should not be changed on families who made their investment into solar power after meeting the
requirements and standards ldaho Power imposed.
Allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existing net meterinB program and applying the new program only to
new customers is a commonsense compromise that allows all parties to keep agreements made in Bood faith.
The new proposal will cost existing solar customers thousands of dollars on their electricity bills.
Over time the proposed net metering rate will be reduced by almost half making my solar system uneconomical. Right
now I am barely breaking even with electricity generated by my system.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:30 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Derek Cassel
Name: Derek Cassel
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Caldwell lD, 83507
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am very against the proposed changes to the way that ldaho Power bills existing solar customers. Creating a
precedent of being able to change the rules after we've already made our investment will only discourage people from
buying solar and other renewable systems in the future. They say that they want everyone to become more energy
efficient, but apparently that only goes so far before they turn on you. Are they really interested in green ener8y orjust
green?
Unique ldentifier: 164.t65.206.42
1
Diane Holt
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 3:32 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: cynthia limber
Name: cynthia limber
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: cm lim be r@gma il.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1715 n. 1lth st
boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: This proposed change to the solar energy program is an egregious way to claw back the gains ldahoans have
made using clean energy by a monopoly utility company and as a customer of ldaho Power, I'm completely against their
actions.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 3:35 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: marjorie reedy
Name: marjorie reedy
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11186 E Hwy 21
boise lD, 83715
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Comment:
It is time we supported clean energy!!l
The current arrangement between citizens and ldaho Power is one of the most important state policies for helping
Americans generate their own power from the sun. By encouraging private investment in local solar power, it's creating
jobs, reducang utility costs, and building a cleaner ener8y future for us all. I know that energy storage is a problem, but
instead of going backwards, build on the current program and force power companies to create progressive solutions for
the future.
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 20'19 3:38 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Andreas Decker
Name: Andreas Decker
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5001 W Wymosa St
Boise lD, 83703
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I think that ldaho Power is valuing customer solar generation at less than it should, but it is almost fair. More
should be placed on the savings from lower substation costs, lower transmission losses, and deferring system upgrades
due to less overall air conditioning loads. I think a fair accounting will make the buy back rate -3/4 of the tariff rate
rather than half, as ldaho Power proposes.
Unique ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
I
Diane Holt
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembe( 2,2019 3:42 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: John Schuyler
Name: John Schuyler
Case Number:
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: 2O834O7944
Address: 918 N CALEDONIA PL
EAGLE ldaho, 83616
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power tried this before, and now, here they go again. lP is discounting the benefit they receive from
customers with solar, and only talks about them "not paying their fair share". lP isthe direct beneficiary of generation
capacity installed at their customer's expense. Do not let them change the rules. They should be making friends with
their customers who use solar, otherwise their shortsightedness will come back to blte them when batteries become
cheap enough for the masses.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.\65.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:45 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Laura Raynes
Name: Laura Raynes
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4986 E SAWMILL WAY
BOTSE tD, 83716
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: we installed solar on our home because we want to do the right thing for future generations on this planet.
We also wanted to lower our utility bills. WE INVESTED lN THE CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE WE WISH TO SEE. For you to
even consider cutting the return on such investments is actually bordering on criminal. We need to be INCREASING
INCENTIVES to so that more and more people and utilities willget truly serious about eliminating carbon emissions. lt is
the only fair thing to do - for our future and that of our children.
Unique ldentifier: f64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 3:47 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Christine lsaacs
Name: Christine lsaacs
Case Number:
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7252 N PIERCE PARK tN
BOTSE tD, 83714
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: December 2, 2019
Comments to the PUc solar power hearings
tPc-E-18-15
My husband and I built a passive solar house on Pierce Park Lane in 2014 and installed 30 solar panels to reduce our
energy consumption and generate ener8y to be stored and credited back to us in the winter months. We are ardent
conservationists. We researched the options with ldaho Power and decided this was a good option that warranted us
paying several thousand dollars to install the solar panels. We have been quite upset that now you wish to change the
reimbursement rate to reduce the benefit to us. We are retired people who live on a fixed income and thought the use
of this option would allow us to meet our financial energy needs long into our later years. Now we have panels that are
goinB to be less advantageous, have cost us a lot and now we will pay more for power. We do not support the changes
you are recommending.
Furthermore, we would ask ldaho Power to be required to change their website showing hourly power usage from its
current 3-day delay to real time. This would allow us to track and coordinate our appliance usage to maximize home
power consumption at the same time we are producing the most solar power thus allowing us to be more conservative
in our power usage.
Unique ldentifier: 764.L65.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:58 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Don & Ann Dutcher
Name: Don & Ann Dutcher
Case Number: Case Number IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5821 W. Riverbend Lane
Boise ldaho, 83703
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
comment: Request to PUc.ldaho.Gov/forms/casecomment.aspx
For comment on solar power changes lt/29/2O19 RESUBMITTED with Case Number on \2/Z/2OL9
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on possible rule changes for managing solar power through ldaho Power.
We have been solar power providers (residential) since about 2016. We produce more power than we consume so we
are buildin8 up credits that we cannot use now or in the near future. Auric Solar made a too-hi8h estimate of our need,
over-built, over-charged and they even projected costs to be recouped in 5-7 years, when, in actuality it would be over
21 years(l won't live that long!). They aren't interested in providing any rebates for the overbuilt nor refu nds for their
fictional estimate of payback of the system I
But thafs another issue, with Auric. l've simply asked them to remove all the positive publicity lgave them via video &
in writing, before we discovered this.
Perhaps the PUC has some other creative ideas for using "excess power production credits?" Your ideas and creative
law-making would be greatly appreciated ... using the sun, being fair to providers & helping the poor .. if you have better
ways/programs please put them forward &, hopefully, implement them.
Thank you, from those of us who have had no "say'' in all this. May God give you wisdom, perseverance and grace in
producing fair laws/practices/administration.
Don & Ann Dutcher
Boise, lD
Unique ldentifier: L64.L65.206.42
Diane Holt
My request is simply to help us over producers do something with our excess. My wife and I propose two things:
1. That the credits be applied to eliminate the 55 monthly administrative fee for getting a report of usage/production.
2. That we could be Biven the right to transfer credits to poorer individuals that might need help with their electric bill.
We help the poor when we can; the Bible encouraBes that. And here's a resource that we have more than we need &
would be glad to share. At any time that our needs escalated, we would have the ability to adjust the amount we give,
as well. But our needs have been stable.
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:01 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kara Harris
Name: Kara Harris
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise ld, 83712
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power
Comment: Please deny any changes. Or grandfather in those with exciting net metering
Unique ldentifi er: L64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 4:OZ PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Tim Hastinqs
Name: Tim Hastings
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 1916 N 26th St
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I am wholly opposed to ldaho Powers request to decrease the payback on Net Metering to home owners an
businesses.
It's outra8eous to think that we are required to be connected to the grid, send electricity back to ldaho Power if there's
overage but can't sell back to them???
This company should be ashamed of their business practices.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subj€ct:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2,2019 3:?1 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jonathan Contrucci
Name; Jonathan Contrucci
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1507 E Wright St.
Boise lD, 83706
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: lam opposed to the proposed changes in Case Number IPC-E-18-15. lam a local Solar Ener8y Consultant and
a customer myself living in Boise. When a homeowner is interested in solar for their home, it is my job to design a
system for them and show them future savings based on the past and present. The net metering program was in place
for 17 years, and with this knowledge, my customers and I have made long term investments. lnvestments that bring
clean renewable energy to the grid.
I have over 100 customers that went solar with me personally, and lfeel bad for them. lfeelthey have been cheated if
these changes apply to them. Over the past year, we have made progress with the customer protection and HOA bill,
but this net metering program change proposal is a big step back for the industry. Back when the docket was created, I
was encouraged to read that discriminatory rates would not follow the ruling. I personally feel discriminated against
with this proposed plan and lack of grandfathering of existing customers. I am not impressed with the process or the
result. I also have not seen this study that was required as part of the rulinB. This all seems to be happing too fast and
too soon. ln the ldaho Power IRP they say there are 0.5% of ldaho Powers customers have solar. That is far below other
states in the west. lt's a drop in the bucket. The proposed changes will negatively affect me as it will make it harder for
solar to continue to grow here in ldaho. The math with solar was hard to pencil out already her in ldaho, and the
changes will make it even harder, leading to even less averaBe income people like me being able to make the choice to
install panels. I expect Solar will become even more of a luxury for the rich. I have customers from all over the income
spectrum, I doubt that will continue. lt may be that lwill no longer be able to make a living here in ldaho. I know other
companies are already leaving, and I hope I won't have to,oin them. I love ldaho.
I have run six real life scenarios based on the data over 12 months to see what impact net hourly will have on customer
bills. The difference from net monthly to net hourly is substantial. The behind the meter lfound is between 30-50%. This
means half or more of the energy produced will be diminished by half in value by this proposed program. This is a major
change to the program and changes how systems should be sized.
For my home, I had 12 30Ow panels (3.6kw) installed in April of 2017. My home produced 4935 kwh last year. lf I use
ldaho Power's $0.0868 value that is a savings of S428.36 last year. My yearly savings will be only $322.89 if this new rate
structure applies to me, assuming a generous 50% behind the meter. Over the 20 years, that is a lost value of $2,709.40.
My system will be still warranted for this period, but that is thousands of lost value because of this policy change. My
system is on the small side. Most customers have twice the size installed and I have a handful with over 12kw systems
installed. This program will negatively impact them much more than it does me with my smaller system. I would have
designed a different system for them they were under the proposed changes. The ethical and falr thing to do is to
grandfather these existing customers. This is what other PUC'S have done. lt is my request that this happens here in
ldaho as well.
Diane Holt
1
From my experience, people love their Solar that powering their homes and neighbors with clean renewable energy. We
receive an ample amount of power from the sun here in ldaho for solar to make sense. Please do not diminish the value
of this vital resource. We need the energy to maintain our standard of living. Generating the power on our roofs close to
the loads makes a lot of sense. What better way to use the space that we have already built on?
I believe there are other solutions to the problem that is trying to be solved that doesn't discriminate a8ainst current
future net metering customers. Let's slow down and do this right.
Unaque ldentifier: 164.L65.206.42
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:57 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Gary Sandusky
Name: Gary Sandusky
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Te lephone : 208-484-606?
Address: 2815 N 25th St
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Our family has invested heavily in 28 solar panels so that we do not have to worry about covering an electric
bill during our retirement. lf ldaho Power is allowed to change the rate structure to reduce the value of the power we
contribute to their grid, it will be a major financial strain on our limited income. Here are several reasons you must not
allow this change:
1. No net metering changes, or settlement proposals should take effect until the comprehensive study of the cost and
benefits of on-site generation on ldaho Power's system, as was ordered by the PUC in Order No. 34046 Case No. IPC-E-
17-13, has been completed, analyzed, and those findings evaluated by the public, PUC, and all parties with net metering
interests, as stated in that docket.
. No study, nor any information related to a cost/benefit analysis study, was directly used to calculate the terms of this
settlement decision.
. lf a study was used to calculate these proposed changes, then that study should have been made available to the
public and PUC for an opportunity to review before reaching the terms of this settlement or determining any other
potential net metering changes.
. The proposed settlement is an arbitrary representation of parties who met behind closed doors without consulting the
constituents who actually invested in on-site generation.
. All net metering interests were not taken into consideratlon during these settlement proceedings. ln fact, the vast
majority of net metering interests were not taken into consideration during these settlement proceedings. Order No.
34045 and Case No. IPC-E17-13 indicates that this case should include all net-metering interests in this study.
. Any chanBes to net meterin8 should be evidenced based, and only then should we have a hearing about the whether
net metering chan8es are properly justified.
. The current hearing is non-scientific, undemocratic, and should be postponed until a legitimate cost and benefit study
has been properly conducted rather than completely ignored.
2. Grandfathering in existing net metering clients should be an obligation, not a consideration.. No settlement should have taken place behind closed doors without the direct input of existing net metering
customerS.
. Systems were purchased and engineered based on existing net metering policies that track production and usage on a
monthly basis.
. There were no other existing net metering models for the design of PV systems, or other types of on-site generation,
at the time of this investment.
. The adoption of hourly net metering as proposed by the settlement would completely alter how existing systems
would have otherwise been designed. This dramatically alters how these investments otherwise would have been made.
1
Diane Holt
. ln order to protect these investments, systems should be grandfathered along with the meter number attached to the
residence and not only the account number of the client currently residing there. A calculated, expected increase in
home value was a major factor ln many solar investments.
. Any implemented changes that may happen should become effective 30 days from the PUC'S decision and should not
take place retroactively. This is a standard practice for most policy changes.
Please do not allow any changes untll the studies that were required have been completed and the data analyzed by a
neutral third party. And protect the financial wellbeing of those who have already invested in rooftop solar panels.
Changin8 the game after we are already in it is not fair.
Unique ldentifier: L64.L65.206.42
2
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 3:55 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Gail Heylmun
Name: Gail Heylmun
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2816 N 25th St
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Our family has invested heavily in 28 solar panels so that we do not have to worry about covering an electric
bill during our retirement. lf ldaho Power is allowed to change the rate structure to reduce the value of the power we
contribute to their grid, it will be a major financial strain on our limited income. Here are several reasons you must not
allow this change:
1. No net metering changes, or settlement proposals should take effect until the comprehensive study ofthe cost and
benefits ofon-site generation on ldaho Power's system, as was ordered by the PUC in Order No. 34045 Case No. IPC-E-
17-13, has been completed, analyzed, and those findings evaluated by the public, PUC, and all parties with net metering
interests, as stated in that docket.
. No study, nor any information related to a cost/benefit analysis study, was directly used to calculate the terms of this
settlement decision.
. lf a study was used to calculate these proposed changes, then that study should have been made available to the
public and PUC for an opportunity to review before reaching the terms of this settlement or determining any other
potential net metering changes.
. The proposed settlement is an arbitrary representation of parties who met behind closed doors without consulting the
constituents who actually invested in on-site generation.
. All net metering interests were not taken into consideration during these settlement proceedings. ln fact, the vast
majority of net metering interests were not taken into consideration during these settlement proceedings. Order No.
34045 and Case No. IPC-E17-13 indicates that this case should include all net-metering interests in this study.
. Any changes to net metering should be evidenced based, and only then should we have a hearing about the whether
net metering changes are properly justified.
. The current hearing is non-scientific, undemocratic, and should be postponed until a legitimate cost and benefit study
has been properly conducted rather than completely ignored.
2. Grandfathering in existing net metering clients should be an obligation, not a consideration.
. No settlement should have taken place behind closed doors without the direct input of existing net metering
customers.
. Systems were purchased and engineered based on existing net metering policies that track production and usage on a
monthly basis.
. There were no other existing net metering models for the design of PV systems, or other types of on-site generation,
at the time of this investment.
. The adoption of hourly net metering as proposed by the settlement would completely alter how existing systems
would have otherwise been designed. This dramatically alters how these investments otherwise would have been made.
1
. ln order to protect these investments, systems should be grandfathered along with the meter number attached to the
residence and not only the account number of the client currently residing there. A calculated, expected increase in
home value was a major factor in many solar investments.
. Any implemented changes that may happen should become effective 30 days from the PUc's decision and should not
take place retroactively. This is a standard practice for most policy changes.
Please do not allow any changes until the studies that were required have been completed and the data analyzed by a
neutral third party. And protect the financial wellbeing of those who have already invested in rooftop solar panels.
Changing the game after we are already in it is not fair.
Unique ldentifier: 764.165.206.42
2
Prtrick frcdericksor firrtcd tlt p.tttloL to ldaho P[bUc Utiliaiet ComEturior
ftlaho Powcr has proposcd r chaugc to thc Solar Paxl incentive pmgnm. Cunenoy yor rrc ch[Bcd fq thc powcr you
usc in r m@tb. They tlkc @c rradbg r motrlh, whrt GvGr you urcd yur arc billcd for, if lhcrE is cxt! lhsy cr! either
pay you or tale a crcdit.
Thc proposcd changcs will monitor it hourly, Pay thc honle owner a s ull portion during lh day time, thcn at night
will charge tto homoowncr for any uago.
At th€ €Dd oftte E yr rcll out plln cu5tomcrs vill rcccivc 0.04 cents aa hour while Idaho Pow6 will chrrgr 0.08 c.nts
to r non soh, cuEtomer. Thcn at Dight chllgp thc solr home owucr for arlditional nighl timo umge.
For many ofus, the rolu cr€dits we rrc banking in thc summcr hclp gct us thlu thc &ys of invcrsion and sbon wintcr
dsys. Thc orcot sturturc is working grcat for bo0r ldaho Powcr and Solar uscrs.
ldrho Powrr hss not provided thc D€cd6d Wgradcs, but is having the solar coqrrrios prllchrse rtrd iDgtrll thE'rn. Th€
homeowner is purchasing the cquiFnclt ryith a Fcdcral Grant program but stil prying a significsnt amornt, many
titrEs fnanciDg upro 20 yenn.
Deccrnber 3rd is thc meetiry !o linalizc this ansDgcrDcrt, Pleare joitr a crus€ rtrd let ldaho Pubtic Utilities
Crmmission know thrt wc likc things lhcy arc cunlntly lrid out. ldaho Powcr io not upgrading m having any cxpcnsc
to hsve its cusrom€rs go solar, th€ chsngc at lhis timc ie unwarranted
Pleese shnd with us rtrd let thc Idsho Public Utilitics know thel wc do trot support Eis ploposal.
Link to Notice bll p!1'E
change.org
Recipient:Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Lette r:Greetings,
Idaho Power changes to Solar Customers
Comments
Name Comment
Douq Namba Centerville, UT 2019-1'1-13 'l am signing be€ause I do not think that ldaho Power needs to
profit off of rooftop onsite generation. They are asking for too
much."
Meridian,lD "This will make idaho power even more of a monopoly. We deserve
to have options. This takes away customers rights away to <hoose
how they receive their energy."
Neil Mcculloch Pueblo, co 2019-11-',t 3 'Solar is a career and the power companies should not have a
monopoly!"
Austin Anderson wellsvalle, UT "ldaho as a state and ldaho Power as a ulllty has always been a
leader ln reknewable energy. This type ofagreement counterac6
the precedent it has been trying to create forthe entire country
for decades. Pushing back on customeE that have already made a
investment is more than offensive and damaging to homeowners
too. l'm not sure if everything was completely considered in this
decision and it seems a little biased or impulsive."
Nathan Hall Roy, US
Boise.lD
2019-11-',t3 "Solar should not be disparaged."
Lois wilhelm "Because solar ls the .lght thlng to do for our energy (rlsis! I love
having solar and feel llke I'm glvln9 back!"
Benjamin Heffron Idaho Falls,ID 2019-11-13 "As a solar professional in tdaho. this is a huge disservice to both
existing customers and solar enthusiasts in years to come'
',ohnathon Lopez Herriman, UT 2019-11-14 "Solar is an inevitable change. Lefs all speak up against the
monopolies!"
Christina Bodily Boise, ID 2019-11-14 "Ifldaho Power wants to make a change, those that already
purchased solar Panama should be grandfathered in to the original
deal. lt is a very expensive investment for homeowners, and Idaho
Power should not be able to change the terms after the investment
has been made by homeowners. Solar power is good for all of us
and should be rewarded, not punished."
Kuna,lD 2019-11-14 "Maybe they should pay 50q6 ofthe cost, that's the proposed prorit
for theml"
Amanda
Brant-Orchard
US 2019-1 1-',t 4 "I got solar and want itto bewonh it."
Sheilah Galer Santa Fe, NM 2019-11-14 "Our €ountry is creating destruction of Mother Earth and needs to
be a part ofthe solution and support solar energy."
"The utility companles contlnue to make rules that favortheir
monopoly and prevent customers from ownlng their own rooftop
solarl when wlll they get the message ,. the customers dld not marry
the electrlc utllty! Customers heed to be able to make cholces!"
US 2019-11-14
Tyler Grange
Location Date
2019-1't-'t3
2019-',t1-13
2019-1 1-'t 3
Brian Oberson
Greg [4inadeo
Name Location Date Comment
MachaelFolsom Meidian,lD 2019-11-15 "l dont mind paying some extra money for us being connected to
the power grid but by doing thls new rate it will total negate the
reason I went solar. They are goin9 to push solar companies out of
idaho if this is passed"
Rick Holder Austin,lN 2019-l !-16 "l'm signing because of the oppressive monopoly of utilities"
Signatures
Name
Patrick Frederickson
Doug Namba
Tyler Grange
River Skinner
Nic Hunter
David Ballew
Jared Hyde
Heather Jensen
Courtney Childers
Daniel Childers
Doug Hewitt
Amber Spencer
Max Hubbard
Aaron Stockwell
KAMIE HUBBARD
Kaden H u rren
Ashley Bradley
Tyler Grange
Location
Caldwell, ID
Centerville, UT
Eagle, ID
Meridian, ID
Boise, ID
Orange, CA
Salt Lake City, uT
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Mountain Home, ID
Salt Lake City, uT
Washington, UT
Portland, OR
Boise, ID
Sacramento, CA
Hooper, UT
Provo, UT
Boise, ID
Meridian, ID
2019-1 't-13
201g-'.t1-13
201 9-1 1-1 3
201 9-1 '1-13
201 9-1 1-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-1 1 -1 3
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-1 1-13
2019-1 1 -1 3
2019-1 1-13
2019-1',t-13
2019-1 1-13
Neil McCulloch Pueblo, CO 201 9-1 1-1 3
SHAWN ANSHUTZ
Date
2019-11-13
Name
Daidree Davis
Marshall Manley
Marla Gilson
Jaime Pedroza
Ryan Grange
Austin Anderson
David Robison
David Ballard
Samantha Grange
Everett Brewer
Adam Kaluba
Kiersten Bankert
Nathan Hall
Derek Peterson
Claudia Namba
Alejandra Gonzales
Broc Spinello
Mike Spickelmier
Jamie Goodro
Kelli LaMay
Location
Eagle, ID
Spanish Fork, UT
Los Angeles, CA
Cheyenne, WY
Logan, UT
Wellsville, UT
WestJordan, UT
West Valley City, UT
Eagle, ID
Salt Lake City, UT
Cincinnati, OH
Hanover, US
Roy, US
Ogden, UT
Boise, ID
Layton, UT
Irvine, CA
Bakersfield, CA
Boise, ID
Salt Lake City, UT
Boise, ID
Date
2019-1 1-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
201 9-1 1-1 3
201 9-1 1-13
201 9-1 1-13
2019-11-13
2019-1 1 -1 3
2019-11-13
2019-1 1-1 3
201 9-1 1-1 3
20't9-11-13
201 9-1 1-13
201 9-1 1-13
2019-11-13
2019-1 1-13
2019-1 1 -1 3
2019-1 1 -'l 3
2019-11-13
Eric Oester Amarillo, TX 2019-'l 1-13
Ben Claybrook
Name
Franklin Fox
Chris Malcom
Kelly Peterson
Joseph Robinson
Ben McCallister
Paulina Ruiz
Zach Hall
Kelsey Parry
Wesley Bryant
Andrew Burton
Mitchell Aloyo
Robert Compton
Bethany Wood
Zach Spencer
Garff Hubbard
Lavon Webb
Lois Wilhelm
Kade Mccallister
Marcus McDade
Taven Marquez
Brandon Preece
Location
Boise, ID
Middleton, ID
Black Hawk, CO
Meridian, ID
West Valley City, UT
Fort Wayne, US
Spring, TX
Boise, ID
Vancouver, WA
Middleton, ID
Twin Falls, ID
Twin Falls, ID
Los Angeles, CA
Ogden, UT
Hooper, UT
Meridian, ID
Boise, ID
West Jordan, UT
Meridian, ID
Caldwell, ID
Draper, UT
Date
2019-11-13
201 9-1 1 -13
2019-t1-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
201 9-1 1-1 3
2019-11-13
201 9-1 1-1 3
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
2019-11-13
201 9-1 1-1 3
?019-11-13
2019-1 1-13
201 9-1 1 -13
2019-11-13
2019-1 1 -1 3
2019-11-'.t3
201 9-1 1-'t 3
201 9-1 1-1 3
201 9-1 1 -13
Melissa Namba Green Bay, WI 2019-11-13
Name Location Date
Nampa, ID 2019-11-13
Brandon Grange Hooper, UT 201 9-1 1-13
Karissa Lazarte Garden City, ID 2019-11-13
Tylen Chillious Leland, US 2019-11-13
Jon Ramos Meridian, ID 2019-11-13
Jim & Cheryl Hunt Iowa City, IA 2019-1 1 -13
Ameera Ali Dearborn, US 2019-11-13
Carley Warren Pocatello, ID 2019-1 1 -1 3
Benjamin Heffron Idaho Falls, ID 2019-1 1-1 3
Nathan Meyers Meridian, ID 2019-1 1-1 3
James Swiderski San Diego, CA 2019-1 1-1 3
Dennis Frederickson Lawrence, KS 2019-11-14
Walter Cupa El Paso, TX 2019-11-14
Cayle Tabeek Twin Falls, ID 2019-11-14
Colin Villicana Pleasant Grove, UT 2019-11-14
Brian Brownlee Kansas City, MO 2019-11-14
Brandon Greaves US 2019-11-14
Eduardo Castaneda San Diego, CA 2019-11-14
Takashi Inzunza Lehi, UT 2019-11-14
Hiroshi Inzunza Lindon, UT 2019-11-14
Krystal Kilburn Boise, ID 2019-11-14
JOSEPH FIORELLA Newtown, CT 2019-11-14
Carly Neff
Name Location Date
Johnathon Lopez Herriman, UT 2019-11-14
Ryan Dodge Draper, UT 2019-11-14
Dennis Tuck Falls Church, VA 2019-11-14
Andre Gomez Pompano Beach, US 2019-11-14
Jason Anderson Twin Falls, ID 2019-'t1-14
Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Tyler Helmuth Saint Augustine, FL 2019-11-14
Ryan Hass Meridian, ID 2019-11-14
Andrew Jones American fork, UT 2019-'.t1-14
Jeff McCauley Eagle, ID 2019-11-14
Virginia Davis Eagle, ID 2019-11-14
Trisha McCauley Eagle, ID 2019-11-14
Haddy Hiatt Middleton, ID 2019-11-14
Tomas Gonzalez Midlothian, VA 2019-11-14
Marlo Salomonson Meridian, ID 2019-11-14
Wes Goodro Salt Lake city, UT 2019-11-14
Dennis Clark Eagle, ID 2019-11-14
Christina Bodily Boise, ID 2019-11-'.t4
Jay Nunya Palmdale, CA 2019-11-',t4
Eagle, ID 2019-11-14
Belle Handt Minneapolis, US 2019-11-14
Chase Blaser Nampa, ID 2019-11-14
Benjamin Layman
Aaron Salomonson
Name Location Date
Jonathan Clavijo Gilbert, AZ 2019-11-14
Marielle Carmack Meridian, ID ?019-11-14
Jayne Hopkins Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Trina Richards Meridian, ID 2019-11-14
Johnwayne Morgan Fort Lauderdale, FL 2019-11-14
Mary Charm Buaya Cebu City, Philippines 2019-11-14
Melody Bodily Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Brooke Allen Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Daisie Mccauley Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Shaundra Turner Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Miriam Stocking Eagle, ID 2019-11-'.t4
Mary Gilbert Boise, ID 2019-11-'14
Andrew Black Mount Pleasant, US 2019-11-14
Brian Oberson Ku na, ID 2019-11-14
Derek Salomonson Salt Lake City, UT 2019-11-14
Lindsay Meloy Boise, ID 2019-',t1-14
Shaun Fry Dayton, OH 201g-',t1-14
Amanda Brant-Orchard US 2019-'t1-14
Mark Ranjel Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Erika McCauley Meridian, ID 2019-11-14
Dallas Warren Pocatello, ID 2019-11-14
Cebu City, Philippines 2019-11-14Felix Sale
Name Location
Joel A Dejito Jr Cebu Ciry, Philippines
Todd Mccauley salt Lake ciry, uT
Asim Hafeez New Haven, CT
Sarah Sebastian Boise, ID
Elvin Wenceslao Cebu City, Philippines
Ellen Escribano San Juan, Philippines
Janina April Amodia Cebu City, Philippines
Russel Thomas Layumas Cebu City, Philippines
Al Bahala Pasig City, Philippines
Brad Mortensen Gilbert, AZ
Nicholas Buck Boise, ID
Len Galus Boise, ID
Wendy Dickison Caldwell, ID
Justin Pitts Herriman, UT
Rya n Simpson whittier, CA
Bernadette Kane Parma, ID
Hilary Glad Eagle, ID
Marcial Capin Danao City, Philippines
Lele Pons Oklahoma City, US
Terrill Shelly Los Angeles, CA
Jefrey Villoria Cebu City, Philippines
Date
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
?o19-11-'.t4
2019-11-'t4
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-1't-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
Lee Wa rren Salt Lake City, UT 2019-11-14
Name Date
Zikyu Jaramillo Cary, US 20't9-11-14
Adrian Holder New York, US 2019-11-14
Sheila h Galer Santa Fe, NM 2019-',t1-14
Jaleesa White Graham, NC 2019-11-14
Misha Smith Boise, ID 2019-11-',t4
Boise, ID 2019-11-14
William Cahill 5an Antonio, TX 2019-11-14
Jeremiah Abernathy Atlanta, US 2019-11-14
Melissa Dawson Coeur D'alene, ID 2019-11-14
Patricia McJunkin Caldwell, ID 2019-11-'.t4
Greg M inadeo US 2019-11-14
Betty Jones Cuyahoga Falls, US 2019-11-14
Alex Couey Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Cody Thiel Idaho Falls, ID 2019-1',t-14
Grant Hathaway Star, ID 2019-11-14
Jennie Grange Ogden, UT 2019-1't-14
Kim Shores Boise, ID 2019-11-14
Melvin Bodily boise, ID 2019-11-14
Deb Dawson Sandpoint, ID 2019-11-14
Jennifer Jansen Nampa, ID 2019-11-14
Stephen Wren Meridian, ID 2019-11-14
Zane McCallister Meridian, ID 2019-1'.t-14
Marti Dillon
Location
Name
Threcille Cubar
Jesse Kent
Loveta Geesey
paul goetter
Rylee Bennett
Jeremy Austin
Nicole Rainey
Emily Petersen
Amanda Torres
Heidi Fackrell
Cindy Hamilton
Alex Lungaro
Julia Darrington
David Fackrell
Jackie Meyer
Kirk Currey
Everett Mcconnaughey
Jenny Tucker
Daniel Nelson
Brian Freeman
Location
Twin Falls, ID
Idaho Citu, ID
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Sandy, UT
Dallas, TX
Bend, OR
Caldwell, ID
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Houston, TX
Seattle, WA
Boise, ID
Aurora, CO
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Syracuse, UT
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Date
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
?019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-'t1-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
?019-11-14
2019-11-14
Rudy Dye Gilbert, AZ 2019-11-14
Cebu City, Philippines
Cord Nichols
2019-1't-14
Name
Roger Steinback
Carol Santacroce
Malia Payne
Cobbina Ali Musah
Polleen Hansen
Aimee Craig
Robert Smith
Robert Smith
Maddie Schmidt
Alejandro morgado
Dallas Snyder
Ruby Yule
Rafael Gracia
Michael Folsom
keegan williams
Charla Roden
Marianne Nicholes
Bree Flowers
Edward Cuen
Christian Blaser
Location
Orange, CA
Southampton, NY
Cleveland, US
Accra, Ghana
Middleton, iD
Mountain Top, PA
Shickshinny, PA
Phoenix, US
Mountain Home, ID
Meridian, ID
Yonkers, US
Meridian, ID
Gilbert, US
Alavardo, US
West Valley City, UT
Meridian, ID
Kennewick, US
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
Date
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-1't-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-',t4
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-14
2019-11-'.t4
2019-1 1 -1 5
20't9-11-15
2019-1 1 -1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1',t-15
201 9-1 1-1 5
2019-'1 't-15
201 9-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
Adam Morgan Wilder, ID 2019-1 1 -1 5
Thomas Hall
Blackfoot, ID
Boise, ID
Name
Jenette Morgan
Joseph Davidson
Pat Clark
Alejandra Cardenas
Olivia Shumaker
Maggie Pintoff
James Roberts
Brian Miller
Shaun Lacy
Shyla Ray
Tim House
Landon chapman
Tammy Sargent
Lyndsay Hobdey
Matthew Rodriguez
Joe D'Errico
Nancy Morgan
Mary Lou Smith
Wayne Levy
Charles Tacke
Location
Wilder, ID
Boise, ID
Eagle, ID
Hammond, US
Baltimore, Us
Spartanburg, US
Warwick, RI
Nampa, ID
Eagle, ID
Post Falls, ID
Boise, ID
Clovis, CA
US
Nampa, ID
Canyon Country, US
Boise, ID
Eagle, ID
Glen Lyon, PA
Destin, FL
Boise, ID
Date
2019-1 1-15
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-11-15
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-11-15
2019-11-15
2019-1 1-'1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
201 9-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-11-15
20't9-11-15
20't9-11-15
20't9-11-15
2019-1 1-1 5
201 9-1 1-1 5
Sean Waters Boise, ID 201 9-1 1- l 5
Anthony Armas
Lenoir City, US
Name
Janet Maritt
Joshua Pelletier
Jeremy Stell
Amanda Jones
Mark Brunciak
Eduardo Barrios
Olivia Edginton
Jaclyn Wirth
Manis Petersen
Randy Braden
Connie Miller
Kate Kelley
Maryann Hopkins
Maxwell Dolar
Luis Villalobos
Toni Atwell
Keshaunnah Thomas
Deniz Spite
Rick Holder
Elisha Daniel
Jacob Acker
Location
Caldwell, ID
Richfield, ID
Parma, ID
Kooskia, ID
Little Falls, US
Oklahoma City, OK
Spokane, US
Pompton Lakes, US
Fruitland, ID
Parma, ID
Parma, ID
Boise, ID
Garden City, ID
Pocatello, ID
SouthJordan, UT
Chillicothe, US
Chattanooga, US
Williamsburg, US
Austin, IN
Shawnee, U5
Akron, OH
Date
2019-11-15
2019-11-15
201 9-1 1-1 5
2019-11-15
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-1 1-1 5
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-1 1-1 6
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
201 9-1 1-1 6
2019-11-16
2019-1 1-16
2019-'t1-16
2019-11-16
Natasha Burns Kinston, US 2019-11-16
Name
Jade Marz
Haley Bennett
Shu nae Dixon
Dj Varner
Jil Miles
Lavender G 1 01
Heather Thompson
Jackson Dunn
Matthieu Jean-Louis
Melisha Pachai
Cadence Green
Jennifer Butler
Barry Spencer
William Clementi
Bethany Pena
Sandy Clark
Lucas Essex
George Stanton
Kayla Kapitzke
Lily Recc
Sean Malloy
Location
Winter Haven, US
Chicago, US
Jacksonville, US
Ontario, OR
SouthJordan, UT
Hagaman, US
Brooklyn, US
Jersey City, US
Ogden, US
Boise, ID
Boise, ID
charlotte, Nc
League City, US
Portland, US
New Paltz, US
Boise, ID
U5
Burbank, US
Date
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-16
2019-11-17
2019-11-17
2019-11-17
2019-11-'.t7
2019-11-17
2019-11-17
20't9-11-17
20't9-11-17
2019-11-17
2019-11-17
20't9-11-17
2019-11-17
2019-1 1-18
2019-11-18
2019-1 1-18
2019-1 1-18
Ryan Carson Cheyenne, ID 2019-1 1-18
Nampa, ID
US
US
2019-11-17
Name Location Date
BRUCE DRAKE Denver, CO 2019-1 1-18
Wendt Joh nson Coeur d Alene, ID 201 9-1 1-20
Douglas Namba Boise, ID 2019-11-22
Los Angeles, CA 2019-11-24
Lori Warren WestJordan, UT 2019-11-26
Kevin Files
change.org
Recipient:Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Letter:Greetings,
Idaho Power changes to Solar Customers
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2,2019 4:10 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: James Mason
Name: James Mason
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise lD, 83706
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: As a residential solar customer, I am very concerned with ldaho Power's efforts to renegotiate net metering
terms. My family made the investment in clean energy with an understanding that the energy I produced could be
returned to the grid at a fair market price. Reducing the net-metering compensation rate would create a substantial
financial burden on my family.
ln a state filled with sunshine, we should be encouraging a low-cost, decentralized grid... a grid that does not
compromise the existence of wild salmon. This move could cripple the burgeoning solar industry and price low to
medium income customers out of the solar market. On behalf of so many rate payers that are concerned about the
environment, I encourage the PUC to deny this change.
Thank you,
James Mason
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:16 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Randy Gregory
Name: Randy Gregory
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address: 2705 Fallcrest Street
Caldwell ldaho, 83607
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: I want to register my opposition to the changes to the Net Metering Policy being proposed by ldaho Power.
We paid a lot of money to have solar installed, with the expectation that we would not only be helping the environment,
but that we had a deal with the power company. We were trying to do our part to help the grid and the environment
and this move looks like an effort to penalize people like us for our efforts and maybe directly stifle environmental
action. l've heard the arguments about what the money will be used for but I am certain that most of us know that the
savings will go into the pockets of ldaho Power Company stockholders. Can you at least tell us the rules about us buying
batteries and cutting ourselves off the grid entirely so that the company does not have the use or access to the power
generated by us for resale by them. ln most wholesale/retail negotiations both sides have equal power to set the price.
This very clearly seems like just the type of situation where the government will side with biB business.
Unique ldentifier: 164.165.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
to:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:18 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Larry Taylor
Name: Larry Taylor
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: ZOaa66276t
Address: 3299 W. Davis Lane
Meridian lD, 83642
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: 18 November 2019
ldaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)
11331 W. Chinden Blvd, Bldg 8, Suite 201-4 Boise, lD 83714
RE: IPC-E-18-15
Larry & Tami Taylor
3299 W. Davis Ln.
Meridian, lD 83642
Dear Sirs,
This letter is in response to the notice that was received from ldaho Power regarding the above referenced Case and
Settlement Agreement. Earlier this year my wife and I made a substantial investment to our property by installing a
solar system. ln the determination to make this investment one of the primary factors was the Net Metering Program
offered and aBreed to by ldaho Power. The changes listed in this Settlement Agreement will adversely affect thls
investment and if these adjustments were in effect at that time we may have not made this improvement/investment to
our property. lt is extremely concerning that within months of entering our Net Metering Agreement that the
agreement becomes null and void without compensable consideration. My wife and I are asking this commission to
allow those of us who are already enrolled in the Net Metering Program to be grandfathered to the terms in that
agreement. lf changes are to be made to the net metering program it should be for new customers who will be able to
make informed decisions on making an investment in Solar or not.
Sincerely
Larry & TamiTaylor
Unique ldentifier: L64.765.206.42
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, ?019 4:27 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Carl Brown
Name: Carl Brown
Case Number:
Email: Cbrown7125 @gm a il.co m
Telephone:
Address:
Boise ld, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho power
Comment: IPC-E-18-15 Although I do not have solar on my home, I strongly believe that the citizens of ldaho who
worked with ldaho Power to invest in rooftop solar deserve fair net metering compensation and predictability from their
utility.
Please give a fair deal to existing customers who worked with ldaho Power to design their personal investments around
their program.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Carl
Unique ldentifier: t64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:28 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Rich Rayhill
Name: Rich Rayhill
Case Number:
Email: Rich rayhill@gm a il.com
Telephone:
Address:
Boise lD, 83712
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
comment: according to the American Public Power Association, 2018 wholesale power prices hit the highest levels since
2008 in the west. Average temperatures continue to rise. Peak summer loads on the lPCo system follow the sun: air
conditioning load and solar energy production track each other. NW hydro-electric generation dissipates as runoff
abates and lPCo lacks sufficient storage to maintain hydro-electric generation that matches load. This requires lPCo to
go to the open market and purchase power when demand is highest and hydro baseload generation has fallen off. This
is when solar generation is at its peak. local solar generation does not require wheeling; local solar generation allows
lPCo to avoid transmission constraints; the power is readily available when it is needed most. Net metering allows lPCo
to place electrons into its system and avoid the highest open market rates this avoids the most costly power purchases.
Solar generation allows ratepayers to avoid the costly (12.5 cents/per kwh) from the langley gulch power facility which,
ironically, was sold to the IPUC by lPCo as a means to incorporate renewable energy. approving lPco's net metering
reduction will shut down homeowner solar and will reduce available future power to offset open market energy
purchase when lPCo is at peak load and regional power prices are at their highest. Approval of lPco's net meterinB
reduction request will increase rates for lPCo customers, discourage increased, diverse, localgeneration and would
constitute a betrayal of those of us who added solar in good faith and with reliance on a kwh for kwh balance and runs
counter to the definition of net metering where the meter runs in reverse when power generated at one's house
exceeds the load at the house. I request the IPUC deny lPCo's request and keep ldaho moving forward toward energy
independence.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.165.206.42
I
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
lkscop066l @gmail.com
Monday, December 2, ZO19 4:28 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Lucy Scopinich
Name: Lucy Scopinich
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3334 E Dowling Mill CT
Boise ldaho, 83706
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: As an ldaho Power ratepayer, as well as an ldaho taxpayer, lfeel that ldaho citizens should be encouraged to
invest in clean solar power, and decreasing compensation per kilowatt is not supportive of solar power. ldaho Power is
an expensive and restrictive private entity and seeks to monopolize the energy market, holding ratepayers captive. Do
the right thing and support idahoans! Lucy Scopinich.
Unique ldentifi er: L64.L65.?06.4?
1
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:30 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Kenneth Reed
Name: Kenneth Reed
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15.
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2415 W Compass Dr
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: We support those who have pioneered solar power in ldaho, and we believe that existing ldaho Power
customers who have solar power capabilities should NOT have their agreement changed in any way. Existing solar
customers should be grandfathered in so that their contracts/agreements with ldaho Power are not changed or
devalued.
Unique ldentifier: L64.L65.206.42
1
RECEIVED
PH 2:00
November 26, 2019
ss
Re: Case No. IPC-E-I7-13
Commissioners:
Our family has serious concems about the proposed settlement agreement making changes to Idaho
Power Company's roof top solar program. We are (or will be shortly) a roof top solar net metering
customer. This June we started work on a project to install solar panels to offset most of our current
household electricity use. We are retired people trying to use our savings to make a reasonable
invesunent to control our monthly bills. Our system was is installed and we are waiting on Idaho
Power to install our meter and so we can tum the system on. The following are our concems:
Allow existing customers to continue under the monthly net metering program. If/when
you adopt an hourly net metering progam it should apply to people who have not already
installed a syslem and can still adapt the design to the new program structure.
9 BEC -2
ON
a
Deline existing customers as those with systems operating as of your final decision. It is
hardly fair or reasonable to expect people to design their solar systems to a program structure
that isjust a proposal, or in our case unknown for essentially all ofthe desigrr and installation
process. Our family has been working on a system design since June, and signed a contract for
a specific design on October 7,2019. We received city approval of the design on October 18.
By mid October the equipment was purchased and we were preparing for installation. Our net
metering application was submitted on November 4, 201 9. We did not know there might be a
reason to submit the application earlier; we waited until a new roof was installed.
We understand Idaho Power Company has proposed defining existing customers as those who
submitted thefu net metering applications before the proposed settlement agreement was
annowrced in mid October 2019. We suggest that:
l) for projects underway, way too much has been invested and decided before the net
maering application is submitted for that to be a fair basis for defining existing customers,
and
2) the announcement ofa plqpslg! settlement agreement is too uncertain to use for defining
existing customers. It'sjust not fair for people to have to guess the outcome of the currenl
process if they already have a project underway. Please use the date of your decision, plus
perhaps some additional time, as is customary for policy and regulatory changes.
Idaho Public Utility Commission
I I 331 Chinden Blvd. Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
l. Please provide fair and reasonable consideration ofour investment, which was completed in
good faith based on the program structure in place during project development and installation.
The change from monthly to hourly metering has a huge impact on project design. A project for hourly
metering would be laid out quite differently from the one we just installed. lt's neither fair nor
reasonable to change the rules after we made significant investments based on the current progmm
structure. Please organize the new program as follows:
Allow existing customers to stay in the monthly net metering program for 25 years from
the date the system began operations. This is the typical design lil'e o[aroof top solar systcm
Defrne eligibility for the monthly net metering program as a feature of the system, not t}re
people with the account. Our family researched and considered the impact to our house value
when deciding to make our investment. We are sure most people with existing systems used
the same considerations.
2. Please complete the comprehensive study of costs and benefits of onsite generation, as
specilied in your original order, before you decide how to change the roof top solar program. A
Brookings Institute study ofthe costs and benefits ofdistributed solar installations iound that in most
states, when the full range ofbenefits are considered, rooftop solar with net metering benefits both the
utilities and other customers. How can we know where we stand and how to properly orgarize a
program without the cost/benefit study?
3. Please include actual rooftop sohr customers in any negotiated program change and keep that
class of customers infbrmed rather than allowing select slakeholders to work behind closed doors.
5. Please make sure that Idaho Powcr Company does not make any profit from our private
investment to serve our own family's needs.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely
a
a
fr@+.-vLoi-.-
Peter Oberlindacher Sally Goodell Oberlindacher
4. Please explain why Schedule 8 customers should receive a higher export value than Schedule 6
customers.
lqe*Flo
DATE: November 29,2019
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
11331- W. Chinden Blvd
Building 8, Suite 201-4
Boise, lD 83714
SUBJECT: NET METERING CHARGES
This refers to IPUC Case Number IPUC-E-18-15. lt proposes to reduce
compensation for Net Excess Energy supplied by customers. lt is proposed to
become effective on or after January 01, 2020.
Our Solar system was approved and operational in February 2017. As such,
we feel this part of the proposal does not impact our Net Metering Charges.
Please advise if you agree.
Our concern is Section lX of the proposal. lt deals with existing customers. lt
requests IPUC review what future charges should apply to them.
Please keep us advised when IPUC starts a review of Section lX.
Sincerely
u^l!.;P
Willis L. Dagge
RECEIVED
ll9t)EC -2 Pll lr59
IiJ.T.I ,O i'UBLIC
; il lil[S COilifitlSSlON
J4^Jr,.-/ A *ft"il
Sandra L. Daggett
465 W. Ashbourne Dr
Eagle, lD 83616
208867 2137
CC: Auric Energy
3568 E. Lanark St.
Meridian, lD 83642
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Monday, Decembet 2, 2019 4:33 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Thomas Andrews
Name: Thomas Andrews
Case Number: docket IPC-E-18-15.
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Hailey lD, 83333
Unique ldentifier: !64.165.206.42
1
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: ldaho Power is trying to drive customers away from clean, local, affordable solar energy. Maintaining fair
pricinB for existing customers makes sense. This feels like ldaho Power reneging on good-faith agreements with
customers.
Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
SubJect:
[e-mail]
Monday, December 2, 2019 4:35 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Jason Kreitler
Name: Jason Kreitler
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
Boise lD, 83702
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: Dear ldaho Public Utilities Commission:
RE: Case Number IPC-E-18-15
Today I write to express my confusion and extreme frustration regarding the backroom dealings and unfair process of
the proposed settlement agreement for case IPC-E-18-15. I speciflcally object to the following serious shortcomings:
1.Financial penalty for existing net metering customers
I had a 4.6kw residential solar photovoltaic system installed on my roof in 2017, at considerable expense to my family's
finances, even though the - EXISTING - net-meterinB structure and State incentives were subpar compared to national
averages. My motivation was to offset my carbon emissions and the negative externalities associated with my family's
greenhouse gas footprint cost-effectively. While I could have received a much larger return on my capital through
investing in a simple index fund, lchose to reduce my future electric bills as an environmentally responsible investment
with a modest expected return. I was aware that future rates of electricity might change due to seasonal or Beneration
factors, or - lF - it was found that net-metering customers were not paying their -- TRUE - share or burden. However,
ldaho Power is now suggesting a complete change to the structure and timing of net-metering, which will render the
panel layout and design of my system inefficient for the 'hourly' net-metering change. Had this been known, the design
of my system would be completely different with the goal to offset ALI of my daytime electric;ty use, and optimized to
generate electricity over more hours during the day (panels facing east, south, and west), albeit for a smaller total
production of kilowatt hours (kwh) over the course of the day. lnstead, as is common practice, my system was designed
to - OPTIMIZE - total solar production (all panels facing due south), and now lD Power is proposing financial penalties
to legacy solar customers. I find this - UNFAIR - and - UNREASONABLE. I made a good-faith effort to be an
environmentally conscious and responsible global citizen; lD Power should do the same and not penalize distributed
solar customers and all the good paying jobs it has brought to the state of ldaho. I urge you to reject the proposed
changes and maintain the existing agreement with legacy net-metering customers.
Cost/benefit of on-site generation2.
PUC Order No. 34046 Case No. IPC-E-17-13 ordered a comprehensive study to evaluate the costs and benefits associated
with on-site generation. WHERE lS lT?l Surely lD Power can do better than "Attachment 1" to the Settlement
Agreement. lt rather conveniently (for lD Power's case) leaves out most of the benefits that distributed solar provides:
"The methodology to determine such value is not part of this Settlement Agreement..." - seriously? This is a case of an
incomplete assignment. I urge you to order lD Power to actually do their homework and try to understand the true
benefits and avoided costs that customers have financed and are supplying lD Power. At the very least, lD Power should
be able to articulate why their case is different than - MANY TACTUAL+ STUDIES - from PUCS, academict and national
1
labs that have found "the economic benefits of solar actually outweigh the costs and impose no si8nificant cost increase
for non-solar customers." Anything less will be unacceptable and disingenuous.
Sincerely,
Jason Kreitler, Ph.D.
Boise, lD
Unique ldentifi er: 164.765.206.42
2