20211210Comments(2)_2.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Friday, December 10, 2021 7:00:07 AM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: James Apostolou
Submission Time: Dec 10 2021 6:52AMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 5783 E. Barrel Horse Ln.
Kuna, Id 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Co.
Case ID: IPC-E-21-21
Comment: "To IPC Commissioners, I am currently in contract to install a solar generatingsystem to our home..the home was built in 2007. We looked into doing this a construction
time but the cost vs. benefit did not work out. In many ways it still does not as the cost of asystem can be quite high and take up to 25 years to pay back. Electric bills, which are
continually rising, are a monthly expense that is much easier to come up with than the eithersignificant cash outlay or the highly inflated charges for financing an individual solar project.
In my research in this I have found the financial institutions used to finance a project throughthe solar rep. require up to 25% of the overall cost of the system in order to finance. This, of
course, is their prerogative, but nonetheless aggregious. Most people opt for this because ofthe case made by seller that they are trading a payment to the utility company ( rent)...to an
ownership pos.( buying) by the addition of a system. This all has nothing to to with IdahoPowers current request to be allowed to change the rate of compensation for electricity
produced and fed back into their system. It does , however , bring up a subject of risk vs.rewards for the Idaho Power customer. In this case the customer accepts a very high financial
risk, and responsibility of maintenence of a generating facility. By not allowing a guaranteedrate exchange of cost 1 to 1 kwh, Idaho Power advertently or inadvertently could be
discouraging potential customers from participating in a alt generating source of electricity. Asa provider of electricity to the grid and easing the demand on the entire system...not to
mention the environmental savings ...at a huge risk to the customer..I believe it presents afinancial insult, as well as financial unpredictably to the customer, without the forward
looking assurances he or she will be compensated fairly and fully for their participation in thealt electric source project. This , I say again, represents a disincentive to be proactive in Idaho
Power's stated green goals and has the possibility of making the end date stretch out furtherrather than on time or earlier. At this point, I believe the only fair conclusion one can come to
is a guaranteed rate of at least 1 to 1 kwh of compensation for Power produced individuallyand run back into Idaho Power system. Thank you for you consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, James Apostolou"
------
Name: James ApostolouSubmission Time: Dec 10 2021 6:54AM
Email: [e-mail]: 208-941-1522
Address: 5783 E. Barrel Horse Ln.Kuna, Id 83634
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Co.
Case ID: IPC-E-21-21
Comment: "To IPC Commissioners, I am currently in contract to install a solar generating
system to our home..the home was built in 2007. We looked into doing this a construction time but the cost vs. benefit did not work out. In many ways it still does not as the cost of a
system can be quite high and take up to 25 years to pay back. Electric bills, which are continually rising, are a monthly expense that is much easier to come up with than the either
significant cash outlay or the highly inflated charges for financing an individual solar project. In my research in this I have found the financial institutions used to finance a project through
the solar rep. require up to 25% of the overall cost of the system in order to finance. This, of course, is their prerogative, but nonetheless aggregious. Most people opt for this because of
the case made by seller that they are trading a payment to the utility company ( rent)...to an ownership pos.( buying) by the addition of a system. This all has nothing to to with Idaho
Powers current request to be allowed to change the rate of compensation for electricity produced and fed back into their system. It does , however , bring up a subject of risk vs.
rewards for the Idaho Power customer. In this case the customer accepts a very high financial risk, and responsibility of maintenence of a generating facility. By not allowing a guaranteed
rate exchange of cost 1 to 1 kwh, Idaho Power advertently or inadvertently could be discouraging potential customers from participating in a alt generating source of electricity. As
a provider of electricity to the grid and easing the demand on the entire system...not to mention the environmental savings ...at a huge risk to the customer..I believe it presents a
financial insult, as well as financial unpredictably to the customer, without the forward looking assurances he or she will be compensated fairly and fully for their participation in the
alt electric source project. This , I say again, represents a disincentive to be proactive in Idaho Power's stated green goals and has the possibility of making the end date stretch out further
rather than on time or earlier. At this point, I believe the only fair conclusion one can come to is a guaranteed rate of at least 1 to 1 kwh of compensation for Power produced individually
and run back into Idaho Power system. Thank you for you consideration in this matter. Sincerely, James Apostolou"
------