20220713Comments(5)_5.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:00:06 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Ray Toland
Submission Time: Jul 13 2022 12:35PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 10665 W Albany Ct
Boise, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "Comment on update to VODER study: I am a homeowner with a 4 kW roof solar installation that has been active since early 2022. The motivation for installing the system
included: 1) helping to reduce the need for Idaho power to build additional power plants, 2) reducing the cost of energy for our home, 3) providing uninterrupted power during grid
outages, and 4) providing power for a future EV, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In the recent study, considerations of financial compensation vs. kWh compensation, values Idaho
power at about 8-10 cents/kWh; and that generated by a homeowner at 2-4 cents per kWh. This makes no sense. A kWh is a kWh. And the cost of a home solar system actually costs the
homeowner well over 6-7 cents per kWh when installation and associated hardware are calculated. I am aware of "financial based" systems used in other states. Some recognize the
true value of a distributed network to reduce the need for more large power plants; some don't. But the only fair way, in my view, is to use kWh equivalence, calculated continuously; then
credit or debit determined monthly, or in similar manner. Respectfully submitted, Ray Toland Boise, ID"
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 5:00:06 PM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Richard Williams
Submission Time: Jul 13 2022 4:15PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 26 Savage Ranch Road
Salmon, ID 83467
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "We do not wish to see any change in the current net metering program. With the steady increases put on Idaho Power they should be pleased to have us ease their load and give
us back our excess energy 1:1. We have spent a significant amount of money and effort to lighten their burden of service."
------

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, July 13, 2022 4:00:06 PM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Clark Nielsen
Submission Time: Jul 13 2022 3:03PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 4145 E Granger Dr
Meridian, ID 83646
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "I would like the PUC to require Idaho Power to keep the current net meteringprogram in place for any existing home. Most of our solar production comes in the late
afternoons when Idaho Power needs it most. Please help any existing customer protect ourinvestments in solar."
------
Name: Barry Martin
Submission Time: Jul 13 2022 3:18PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 11464 W Rosette Dr
Nampa, ID 83686
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "My wife & I are both retired. Earlier this year we made the decision to add solarpanels to our home to help offset the increasing demand created by the high growth rate from
people moving here. Changing the formula for compensating home systems from kilowatts toa monetary value, along with changing the measurement from daily to hourly would have a
very negative effect to our monthly bill. Had we known of this potential change in rules, wewould not have made the decision to install solar panels. Please consider leaving the current
structure in place, or offer a grandfather clause for existing customers. "
------
Name: Curtis DeptuckSubmission Time: Jul 13 2022 3:34PM
Email: [e-mail]: 650-474-9355
Address: 651 S Aspen Lakes WayStar, ID 83669
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "I am against any proposal to changes with the net billing interval. This would
create an inequity between postpaid and net generation customers via a statistical trick in a clear effort to reduce the value of the excess power generated by these systems while
concurrently dismissing the benefits they do in fact provide. As a net solar customer, I am providing electricity during some of the most profitable parts of the day, locally, and I am
already offsetting things like distance, conversion losses, etc. In many ways the energy I generated locally is more valuable, appropriate and effective, using less infrastructure than the
traditional grid. As part of this co-generation cooperation, I feel it is very fair to maintain a non-refundable kwh credit on a monthly basis with a carry forward to offset my residential
electrical use as it is now. As a suggestion, if the utility operator wishes to further maximize revenue, may I suggest looking into better state export methods/agreements and/or excess
energy storage systems (ie. battery, molten salt, gravity, etc) which would allow them to use this relatively cheap energy production to offset more expensive times."
------