20191209Comments_(3).pdf

Diane Holt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[e-mail]
Saturday, December 7, 2019 z:04 PM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Walter Thode
Name: Walter Thode
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: wft [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4315 Njohns Landing Way
Boise lO, 83703
Name of Utility company: ldaho Power co.
Comment: I invested ln a solar power installation eleven months ago, with the expectation that the ongoing costs and
benefits would carry on through the life of my system. The Commission 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 Power should not be allowed to make a profit on the backs of unfairly treated solar customers. ldaho families and
small businesses should not have the rules changed on them after they have already made their investment and
otherwise relied on ldaho Powe/s imposed requirements and standards.
Any request for a change to the net-metering proBram must be proceeded by a cost/benefit study performed by a
neutral third-party to inform the Commission of the true costs and benefits of solar interconnection and to promote the
growth of on-site power generation.
The new proposal could cost existing solar customers thousands of dollars on their electricity bllls.
At the very least, allowing existing solar customers to stay on the existin8 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 existing customers to keep the
original terms. 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 Commission 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 investin8 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 Commission and our public utility. lf they had no intention of honorinB the service agreement, they set out initially,
they shouldn't have even made it an option. But they did, and it should be honored.
The ldaho Power plan decreases access, availability, and affordability of residential solar.
Should the Commission adopt the Proposal as-written and decide not to grandfather-in existing net-metering customers,
thousands of residential solar energy producers will lose their investment, the expansion of residential solar in ldaho will
end, thousands of jobs will be lost, and our beautiful land will suffer.
Unique ldentifier: L64.165.206.42
1
Diane Holt
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Name: Dudley Ward
Case Number: IPC-E-18-15
Email: d ud leypwa rd @gm a il. co m
Telephone:
Address: 1908 S. Streampointe Lane
Eagle ldaho, 83616
Name of Utility Company: ldaho Power
Comment: lt seems like only last year that ldaho Power made national news by setting a goal of being 100% "green
power" in the future. Confident of ldaho Power's long-term commitment, I installed solar generation at my cabin in
Donnelly. Now we see ldaho Power's true colors by pursuing a rate that will effectively stop consumers from installing
solar generation.....even though it is very complementary to ldaho Power's generation/usage profile. My brother Conley
Ward, former head ofthe ldaho PUC Commission, must be turning over in his grave to see how ldaho Power dictates
rates now.
Unique ldentifi er: 164.L65.206.42
1
[e-mail]
Sunday, December 8, 2019 1 1:06 AM
Diane Holt
Case Comment Form: Dudley Ward
RECEIVED
i019 OEC -9 At{ l0: 20 2 December, 2019
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
fax: [phone]
Dear Members of the IPUC,
I am submitting comments on the proposed changes on how ldaho Power Corp. will compensate residential solar
power production. I will present my arguments against the adoption of these proposed
changes.
My wife and I invested this year in rooftop solar panels, at an approximate cost of $22,000. C)ur installation was
designed to cover 90olo of our average annual kW-hr energy consumption. We made this investment based on the
net-metering protocol in use presently, before we were surprised (more accurately, blind-sided) by the new
proposed net metering scheme. Under the existing protocol, our system would pay for itself in approximately l5
yrs. And, being environmentally aware citizens and power consumers, we felt this was the correct decision.
Under the proposed changes, it is unlikely our system will break-even over the expected operational lifetime of
the system. The proposed changes will punish those residential solar producers, and isakin ro changing the rules
in the middle of a game. Nol that Idaho Power is "losing", rather they want to boost their profits at the expense
of residential solar producers. At the very least, if the proposed changes arr adopted, existing residential
solar producers should be 'grandfathered in" under the rules in place when they made their inv€stment.
The proposed hourly net-metering schem€ would not be so onemus if the rate paid by ldaho Power for surplus
kW-hrs being pumped into their grid were the same as (or at least close to) the rate they charge for delivered
kW-hrs. However, the scheme will gradually drop the value of these surplus kW-hrs to roughly half the rate we
pay them for energy! This is pure and simple greed.
Here's a scenario: suppose my household uses during the summer 24 kwh per day. Also, suppose this usage is
fairly constant through the day ( I kWh used per hour). This assumption of constant usage is not unrealistic, as
during the summer months we are usually not at home, and only the maintenance electdc usagc is occuning.
Also, suppose my system produces 48 kWh during the day with most of this during the 6 hours of highest
intensity sunlight ( 10 AM - 4 PM). So, assume this production is 8 kWh each of these 6 hours. Under the
current structurc, I bank 24 kWh for offsetting my usage in the winter months, when I don't expect my system to
produce even a quarter of that produced on a sunny summer day. Under the proposed scheme of hourly net-
metering, my daytime production of 48 kwh, taking away the 6 kWh of constant usage during this 6 hour
period, gives me a surplus of 42 kWh. However, because the compensation will be only at 14 the rate I pay when
I'm drawing energy frcm the system, it's like 21 kWh. Now there are still 18 hours in the day left to cover,
leaving now only a net surplus of 3 kWh. Hence, I hardly even break even during the sunniest time of the year,
and ldaho Power is essentially getting 2l kWh for free !!!!!
The fact that most surplus solar energy will be produced during the summer months is actually a boon to ldaho
Power. These summer months, especially the daytime hours, are often peak load periods. Residential solar
producers are putting excess energy into ldaho Power's grid prccisely when they (Idaho Power) need it the most,
and when out-of-state purchased energy is most expensive! We are helping ldaho Power, and their proposed
scheme is to screw us.
In closing, I urge the IPUC NOT to ADOPT the proposed neGmetering changes. Residential solar production is
a boon to the economy and the environment, and both will suffer if these changes are adopted. We need the
,I ,r-li,,,r r !..rn tl,t.::-)JlVrl
Re: Case Number IPC-E-18-15
IPUC to push this stale towards a morc sustainable and cleaner energy {uturc, not to stifle such a move. Please
don't put the shareholders of TDACORP (of which I am one!) ahead of the future of our state.
Sincerely,/- il g/''""L
Ken W. Bosworth
95 Drake Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201-3439
email: [e-mail]