20220920Comments(2)_2.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 2:00:05 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kent Britton
Submission Time: Sep 20 2022 1:31PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 2606 E. Piccadilly Ln
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: " I have a solar system on my home. I have listened to the IPC's presentation of theVODER study and tried to read through and understand it best I can. I can understand IPC's
desire to lower the cost of purchasing electricity from residential solar systems, however Ihave questions and comments that I hope the IPUC can ask as they try to evaluate and decide
this issue. First, I would like to comment on the cost of electricity and generation issue. Fromthe study, It doesn't reveal the cost IPC would have from it's own solar generation facilities. I
think solar is generally less efficient than hydro power or natural gas, and there is the firmnessissue of the power. However, IPC touts their investment in solar generation and battery farms
in recent news articles. So, my question is, if it is desirable to have solar generated electricity,should the comparison for costs of wholesale power not be more for that type of power.
Second, As I understand IPC does not include an environmental or social factor in theircalculations because IPC is under no mandate to produce that type of energy, or there is no
cost for failure to produce energy in that way. If that is the case, again, why is IPC toutingtheir own solar development? Is it for public opinion only? One way to look at my investment
in solar power is that I am not only investing for my own future reduction in energy cost, but Iam also investing in IPC's generation of electricity. Should a homeowner who puts significant
resources into purchasing a system and utilizes the space on their rooftop not get some returnon their investment for the production of energy returned to the grid? I feel the current net
monthly billing with the ability to store credits does compensate for that investment. If anotherformula is used to calculate the payback of home generated electricity, I think some factor that
would compensate for that investment of money and square footage should also be included. Iguess what I am saying is that to some degree, my investment in solar generation for my home
is also an investment in IPC and maybe there should be some return on that as well. Back tomy questions. So, if solar generated power is important to Idaho Power Company, why not
continue to incentivize homeowner to make that investment using their rooftop space ratherthan going out and using land to build more solar farms? At the same time the Federal
Government is trying to incentivize with tax credits, why does IPC want to deincentivize withrate structure change. A comment on the credit balances. I know in Colorado where they are
also on net monthly billing, that they will pay off the credit balance at the end of the year at awholesale rate. That way the credits do not just continue to accumulate and look like a huge
expense owed on the books. I would be willing to accept something like that. Thanks, KentBritton "
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:00:08 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Jon Minkoff
Submission Time: Sep 20 2022 3:44PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 11648 Eva Lane
Caldwell, ID 83607
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-22-22
Comment: "Idaho Power is a very good company, but its in-house VODER Study is terrible. The underlying assumptions lead to a significant underestimation of both the avoided costs
and the environmental and social benefits of on-site solar generation. The resulting proposed cut in compensation would greatly discourage the installation of new panels and slow the
transition to renewable energy at a time when it is clearly sorely needed to counter the climate crisis. Idaho Power should be credited and rewarded for the amount of customer solar
generation it links to the grid, as well as for its company-owned solar generation. They both help to move us toward a clean, safe and sustainable future. I like the idea of monetary credit
for excess energy sent to the grid because Idaho Power currently pays nothing for net surplus energy from larger producers who can’t use it all on their contiguous property. The amount of
uncompensated excess energy should be factored into the cost-benefit analysis for the company. IF a rate change requiring separate channel meters is approved, all current net meter
producers should be grandfathered in and the new meters should just be mandated for subsequent installations. That would save a lot of money and honor the investments people
have already made. Customer generators should be considered colleagues and contributors in relation to Idaho Power, not competitors. We lighten the load of infrastructure investment and
energy demand, and deserve a fair compensation in return. Underpaying on-site generators would negatively impact not only those households, but also the state and the planet as a
whole. Please reject the VODER Study and either authorize a new independent study or keep net metering as a functional future-oriented system. "
------