20201013Comments(5).pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Saturday, October 10, 2020 7:00:08 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Randy Anderson
Submission Time: Oct 9 2020 8:40PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 119 Westello
Pocatello, ID 83204
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-20-26
Comment: "Please do not allow Idaho Power to restrict future solar installers from netmetering advantages. Also, please extend the comment period for commercial and at
companies to no more than 100kw limit on net metering. As this is harvest time, many farmersdo not have time to respond. With all the effects of climate change Idaho Power should put the
needs of our country ahead of it’s own drive for more profits. Lastly Idaho Power needs toaccurately evaluate and compensate private solar installers for the value we contribute to
Idaho’s energy independence. Thank you, Randy Anderson"
------[Open in the PUC Intranet application]
From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, October 12, 2020 7:00:05 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lindsay Meloy
Submission Time: Oct 11 2020 10:43PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 1507 E Wright St
Boise, ID 83706
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-20-26
Comment: "There are SO many reasons that removing the dual-meter requirement for newsolar systems on farms is unfair. Idaho Power has proven time and time again that they have
only their best interests at heart, so I emplore the PUC to act as the voice of the people sincewe can not vote by switching away from the Idaho Power monoploy. Power costs are among
the most expensive inputs to farms with irrigation pumps. In order to control this and be moreself reliant - something extremely important to Idahoans - many farmers choose to install solar
under Idaho Power's current net metering program. However, now Idaho power wants tochange part of that program (the dual-meter requirement) without establishing new and fair
export rates. This proposal lays the foundation for lowering the net metering credit rate, whichwould have a big impact on the investments of current and future solar owners. Idaho Power
claims that solar is growing too fast even though they know that irrigators would add about 16MW of solar to a system that can handle more that 3600 - that's .4%!! This means that
individual solar systems are important for individual farmers, but have no meaningful impacton Idaho Power’s total system. Net metering is for individuals who want to invest their own
money in their own farm. I am asking you to protect a farmer’s right to control their ownpower bills with home-grown energy. I am also asking you to extend the public comment
period beyond the fall harvest season, when farmers can more meaningfully engage in theprocess.This stands for inself. To have a process meant to give those who will be affect a
voice, but then run that process during a time when they can't use that voice is simply unfair.Add to that the fact that Idaho power isn't even prepared because they don't have an alternative
plan, and waiting makes the most sense. Idaho Power has already shown that they do not wantto appropriately value exported power. We saw that when they tried to change residential net
metering and were told they actually had to bring facts to the table first. Please ensure IdahoPower maintains fair export credit rates and accurately values the extra power customer-solar
provides using independent data. Additionaly, I ask the PUC to give farmers the freedom toinvest in a solar system that’s large enough to meet their energy needs.The arbitrary 100
kilowatt cap means a business or farmer cannot offset all of their own needs and must thenbuy from Idah"
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet application]
From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, October 12, 2020 9:00:06 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Laurie Zuckerman
Submission Time: Oct 12 2020 8:52AMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 3909 W Camas St
Boise, ID 83705
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-20-26
Comment: "Please extend the 12/1/2020 cutoff date for the solar net metering program untilIdaho Power and Idaho farmers have agreed to a plan that allows Idaho farmers, ranchers and
commercial customers to generate their own energy. Our agriculture sector is the secondlargest industry in the state and needs this energy option to thrive. Idaho Power can remain
profitable even if we diversify our grid. If fact, by diversifying the grid, we not only promoteagriculture, we promote our state security. It is not safe to rely on a single company for
energy."
------[Open in the PUC Intranet application]
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Wendy Hosman <[e-mail]>
Jan Noriyuki
Comment re: Idaho Power"s 2020 Electric IRP, Case No. IPC-E-19-19
Monday, October 12, 2020 3:35:23 PM
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
I am an Idaho Power customer and I support the clean energy commitments that Idaho’ Power
has made, but would like you to shorten the timeline and reach these goals sooner. Cleanenergy can grow Idaho’s economy, support energy independence, protect our air quality, and
help combat climate change. I am concerned about climate change and want to reduce our useof fossil fuels like coal and gas. Idaho Power should not waste money on gas and instead
invest in local Idaho resources.
Regards, Wendy Hosman
491 Maple Ridge LoopBellevue, ID 83313
I acknowledge that submitting a comment in an open case constitutes a public record
under Idaho Code § 74-101 (13) and all information provided by me on this form is available for public and media inspection. My comment may be reviewed by the utility.
I would like to express some concerns I have with Idaho Power’s application referenced in order
no. 34728. My primary concerns are twofold:
1. Idaho Power has proposed grandfathering customers who interconnect a generation
system to their system prior to December 1, 2020 under Schedule 84’s present terms.
Any customer generation projects begun on or after that date would be subject to anychanges that might be made to Schedule 84 in the future. Our farm invested a significantamount of capital to construct two solar sites featuring 12 solar panels on dual-axistrackers. A significant amount of time was spent analyzing the proposed system, its cost,
its expected return, and its payback period. We did not move forward with the project
until we were very comfortable with the numbers behind our analysis. Idaho Power’sproposal would render such financial analysis impossible for projects starting on or afterDecember 1. It is unfair to deny grandfathering to such projects when no alternative planhas been presented. Simply put, we would never even consider such an expensive project
if we knew that Idaho Power could potentially pull the rug out from under us with
changes to the current compensation structure.
2.Irrigation customers should be granted the same 25-year grandfathering period asresidential customers. Our systems are built to last at least that long and, as stated before,
represent a significant financial investment.
On a more general note, I believe that customer generation represents a win-win scenario. It obviously benefits us as irrigators, or else we would not have invested in our system. But it also benefits Idaho Power and the company’s other customers. The compensation we receive for solar generation is dollar-for-dollar—a rate much lower than what the company can turn around
and sell that energy for to higher-paying residential and out-of-state customers. This is supported by the fact that Idaho Power is willing to compensate its irrigation customers for turning off their pumps during high-demand windows under its Irrigation Peak Rewards program and for upgrading irrigation systems to require less power. If my system is contributing to Idaho Power’s bottom line, then it cannot follow that I am increasing costs for fellow customers.
I would also like to express two general concerns dealing with the program that aren’t directly related to case IPC-E-20-26. The first has to do with Idaho Power’s 100 kW limit on customer generation systems and the company’s aggregation rules. The way these rules are applied creates design inefficiencies that are often purely arbitrary. For example, we had to abandon one
potential solar site because we would not be allowed to aggregate that point of diversion with any of our other pumps, even though all of our pumps are under the same name and within about 10 miles of each other. There also seems to be little reason for us to have been required to build two solar generation sites within two miles of each other instead of just one, simply to avoid exceeding the 100 kW limit.
My second concern has to do with the company’s responsiveness in completing the interconnection process. In the more than 60 years since my family began farming, we have had very positive experiences with Idaho Power. They have provided inexpensive, consistent electricity and have always been very responsive to outages or other problems. That is why I
have been surprised with the pushback and lack of communication we received as our project
From: Adam Young <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 10:32 AMTo: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Comments on Case IPC-E-20-26
neared completion. The non-electrical portion of our system’s construction was completed in
mid-July. We scanned and emailed our design consent forms to the Idaho Power engineer on July 21. We expected to pass final inspections in the next few days and have our system energized in the first week of August. After three days with no response from Idaho Power, our solar system builder (AgriPower Solar) tried to follow up via email with the design engineer,
who had also failed to respond to the electrical contractor who had questions regarding the
project and specific placement of the new meter base.
On August 7, we received an email from the design engineer with official quotes for interconnecting our two systems. We immediately signed those forms and delivered them with
payment, by hand, to Idaho Power’s Pocatello office. Shortly afterward, we were notified by
AgriPower Solar that they had spoken to Idaho Power’s design engineer and that we would be required to level the road to one of the net meter bases before it would pass inspection. It’s worth mentioning that Idaho Power has been using this same road to access our pump meter for decades. We leveled the road by August 13 and notified AgriPower Solar, who notified Idaho
Power. After waiting for a week, the design engineer came out to the site in question, inspected
it, left, and called AgriPower Solar to notify them that our road was not satisfactory and did not pass inspection. In each of these communications, Idaho Power’s engineer blocked his telephone number and did not provide a way for us or AgriPower Solar to talk with him directly, so we were left without any clear direction on what work we needed to do to pass inspection. They
also failed to move forward with our second site, which had nothing keeping it from passing
inspection.
In order to resolve the issue and move forward, I called the Idaho Power supervisor in charge of our project. I explained the issue and expressed that we wanted to do whatever needed to be
done to pass inspection, but that we were confused about exactly what issues were causing a
hang-up for the design engineer. I also expressed how helpful it would be to talk with the engineer in real time to better understand and resolve whatever issues were pushing our interconnection back. The supervisor agreed with me, apologized for the miscommunication, and explained that we would need to gravel portions of our road to pass inspection.
At that point, we graveled nearly the entire roadway and notified the company. After more than two weeks without any word from Idaho Power, we began to feel that the company was intentionally stonewalling us. I once again talked to the company’s supervisor, who came off annoyed and condescending on our phone call. A few days after September 8th’s large
windstorm, I called again to follow up on the status of our project. I was told, of course, that it
would be moved back as the company worked to restore power to other customers. On September 29, the day after the IPUC public workshop, our interconnection process was finally completed and we began receiving credit for our generation.
I share this to demonstrate what I felt was an intentional effort to stonewall and push back
against our solar project. Communication from Idaho Power seemed intentionally vague, and the interconnection process seemed to be dragged out way longer than necessary. This was not only a nuisance for us; it represented between $3,000 to $5,000 in lost generation from the beginning of August to the end of September.
Thank you for considering my comments and concerns. I look forward to IPUC’s decisions on
the case.
Regards,
Adam Young
1552 W Taber Rd Blackfoot, ID 83221-5022 [phone]