20230815Comments_2.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Andrew Johnson
Submission Time: Aug 15 2023 1:00PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 22395 Hoskins Rd
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "A�er atending the workshop, and reviewing the documents for IPC-E-23-11, it appears that
this Case can affect, and/or be effected by, Case No. IPC-E-23-14. I believe it would be in the best interest
of all par�es (customers, the Idaho Public U�li�es Commission, and Idaho Power) to have a workshop
that describes how the combined outcomes of IPC-E-23-11 and IPC-E-23-14 will affect Schedule 6
customers and Idaho Power.

Such workshop would address: (1) What would be the combined effect if both Applica�ons were
approved; and compare it to (2) What would be the effect if only IPC-E-23-11 were approved; and (3)
What would be the effect if only IPC-E-23-14 were approved.

Synthesizing this informa�on into a coherent forum would beter help all par�es see the big picture, and
understand the implica�ons of approving or denying these applica�ons as they relate to one another.
Looking at each individually, and not as a whole, does not allow us to see the true impact of either Case.

Also, prior to hos�ng such workshop, I believe it would be in the best interest of all par�es for Idaho
Power to send each Schedule 6 customer a pamphlet explaining the three outcomes listed above, so that
the workshop could be more efficient with its �me and resources.

In the event it is not possible to host a workshop that addresses two Cases at once and shows how each
affects the other; I would request that the Commission s�ll require Idaho Power to send Schedule 6
customers a pamphlet describing the ways each Applica�on, and their combined in singular outcomes,
affect Schedule 6 customers. Such pamphlets should be sent out with enough �me for customers to
research the issues and have reasonable �me for comments. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Andrew Johnson
Submission Time: Aug 15 2023 3:25PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 22395 Hoskins Rd
Caldwell, ID 83607
2

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Many farmers and home owners in the area have a separate meter on their shop or
outbuildings for their power consump�on. Case No. IPC-E-23-11 proposes to change the monthly Service
Charge for each meter from $5 to $35 in 2026.

For those farmers and home owners with these separate meters, the electricity usage is o�en seasonal
or sporadic, and less consistent that the usage at their primary residence. These folks benefit from the
separate meter because they can easily dis�nguish what electricity is being used for business purposes
(such as farming and home-based businesses), and what electricity is being used for personal home use.
The electricity for business use can be writen off on their taxes as an expense.

Changing the cost of the meter from $5 to $35 increases the cost of this separate meter from $60 per
year to $420 per year. The increase is not equally offset for these folks by the reduced cost per kWh
because the usage is less than the average use for a home, and is likely seasonal or sporadic. Meaning
the farmers and others are paying $35 per month for a meter that they may not be using during certain
months of the year.

To adjust for this increased cost, farmers and home owners must either pass this expense on to their
customers (which could put them at a disadvantage compared to the compe��on), eat the cost, or
connect their shop to their home’s power meter (which is usually cost prohibi�ve). None of these are
favorable outcomes.

Even if they were to connect the shop to their home, and eliminate the meter, there would be no
decrease in the number of kWh used and drawn from the grid, because the shop would simply draw its
electricity from the home’s meter.

Since the meters are already in place, the billing is automa�c, and the kWh usage would be the same
whether they have a separate meter on the shop or �e it to the home, there should be litle to no
addi�onal cost to Idaho Power to maintain this separate meter. Thus, the proposed increased cost of the
meter nega�vely impacts these customers dispropor�onately, while not adding a balanced value to
Idaho Power, other than an increase in month revenue for a meter that is not being used much.

I propose that the Service Charge for each meter remain $5 to avoid dispropor�onate expenses to
farmers and other property owners who have an extra meter on their property, who will not benefit
from the decrease in costs per kWh as it relates to this extra meter.

Or, as an alternate sugges�on/comment, I would propose the following: If an address has more than one
meter on it, that the first meter be charged a $35 Service Charge in 2026, and all other meters at the
same address be charged a $5 Service Charge in 2026. This would offset the nega�ve impact felt by
farmers and others with extra meters on their proper�es. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------