20200929Comment.pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, September 28, 2020 4:00:04 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Darek Jentzsch
Submission Time: Sep 28 2020 3:22PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 20106 5th Street
RUPERT, ID 83350
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-20-26
Comment: "My name is Darek Jentzsch. I am the General Manager of Jentzsch Kearl Farms.We farm 20,000 acres in Southern Idaho. We do not currently have any solar panels through
the net metering program as of yet but we are seriously looking into them both as aninvestment for our own farm as well as helping some of our landlords look into net metering
through solar panels as well. One of the main reasons that we have not yet engaged in one ofthe projects is because of the uncertainty surrounding net metering and Idaho Powers stance
against it. We believe that the following points would help alleviate the uncertainty around thenet metering program for irrigation customers. 1. Addressing the 10 year "grandfathering"
period versus the residential customers being granted a 25 year grandfathering period on the18-15 case settled. My viewpoint is that the irrigation class should be treated the same for
consistency of programs. Another note is that as an irrigator, under the current system, we willbe paying a demand charge on all offset stations, resulting in even less impact on the customer
class as a whole versus the residential one meter, non-demand charge system. On another note,I specifically designed my system based on a 25 year warranty panel. 2. Addressing that the
current program, in its entirety, be grandfathered. This would cover aggregation acrosscongruent property and yearly movement of credit transfers at an energy credit. 3. Defining
the effective date. Setting a final date is helpful, but without defining a replacement programessentially leaves too many variables to do a complete analysis to utilize the program. 4.
Addressing issues in the program to help further beneficial use of a solar program in thefuture. Challenges that I saw on my project consisted of 100 kW limits, which caused
aggregation issues in design, and uncertainty of program longevity and design criteria.+Lifting the 100kw system limit and aligning it with the actual load at the pump sites would
eliminate a bunch of confusion in how to offset loads that are not exactly 125 hp. +Defining asolid replacement program would allow for better judgement of actual financial decisions,
good or bad. I utilized federal programs that are encouraging green energy development tofund my project. Like any investment, the decisions are vetted very thoroughly, and the
abstract approach that began in 2019 made it very difficult to do accurate analysis of solarprojects. Th"
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet application]