20231120Comments_7.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Lori Wright
Submission Time: Nov 18 2023 12:15PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3520 W MEADOW DR
BOISE, ID 83706

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I don't understand how Idaho Power is asking to decrease our solar panel electric genera�ng
fee's during peak hours of genera�on and then asking for an overall increase in fees for electricity we
bring in. I also know this is complicated and that costs have gone up. I appreciate the grid but want
more fairness, like not having to fight to make it cost effec�ve to install solar. Two subjects here but they
crossover for us.
Thank you,
Lori Wright"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: DONALD SHAFF
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 1:54PM
Email: dvshaff[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4552 N FOOTHILL DR
BOISE, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power Co.

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Idaho Power Company (IPCo) wants a rate increase to pay mostly for growth of the
popula�on in its service area of Idaho. Like Veolia Idaho Water Company (Veolia), IPCo has a failed
business model. The IPCo infrastructure requirements could have been done by developers of
residen�al and commercial structures. IPCo would have inspectors to insure the infrastructure is safe
and reliable. Further, all these new developments are paying the going rate for electricity use like the
rest of us adding substan�al revenue to IPCo and in turn its parent IdaCorp. Read the revenue and
dividend projec�ons from May 2023 IdaCorp has posted for investors on its website. IdaCorp is
dependent nearly en�rely on wheeling excess power generated by IPCo and selling wholesale at higher
rates than IPCo charges its customers to electric power hungry markets mostly in the West through the
inter�e network.
2

IPCo seeks an overall increase to adjusted base of 8.61 percent.an overall rate of return of7.702 percent,
with a capital structure comprised of 51 percent equity and 49 percent debt, and a 10.40 percent rate of
return on equity (“ROE”).
Many IPCo customers, par�cularly individual investors, commercial and industrial IPCo customers, would
love to have a 7.702 per cent rate of return and a 10.4 per cent ROE. A lot of t IPCo customers are barely
ge�ng by living pay check to pay check and certainly not investors only dreaming of owning a home
where their children in school get free or reduced lunch and some free breakfast. Such a request would
unduly burden this later group pushing them further down the the economic ladder.
The PUC can see from the proposed S�pula�on, IPCo is willing to have a 4.25 rate of return informing the
Commissions the IPCo Applica�on and its Affiants or Expert Tes�monies inflated their numbers to gouge
their customers for its and idaCorrp’s inflated benefit.
In IPC-E-23-14, IPCo proposed On-Peak and Off-Peak hours. I maintain the same approach should apply
to non-solar co-generators to incen�vize through hours of use reducing the use of electricity deferring
the use to Off-Peak hours, when consump�on such as washing and drying clothes and running the
dishwasher occur during Off-Peak hours. The period would apply year around. On-Peak would start at
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Off Peak hours would be 9:00p.m.to 8:00 a.m. Other states and u�li�es have
similar hours to incen�vize and defer higher electricity consump�on to Off-Peak hours.
I hear�ly urge the PUC at a minimum Order the rate increase of the S�pula�on but beter yet reduce the
rate of return to 3.5 per cent and the corresponding total dollar figure they can collect from their
customers.
Further, the proposed increase in customer billing rate ul�mately to $15 per month is outlandish and
hardly based on the cost of preparing the monthly bills when the labor and materials are rela�vely sta�c,
and the bills are computer generated and done in mass mail handling reducing the postal costs per
piece. IPCo offers no discount or savings for customers who use at IPCo’s urging customers to receive
their bills electronically. I implore the PUC to reject the IPCo monthly incremental billing rate en�rely."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Sergei Kashirny
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 6:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4061 E Barber Dr
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I am strongly against the proposed increase of the service charge by 200%. It is absolute
neglect on the commission side to protect own people from the monopolist. Service charge is the way to
keep "a cost" lower but the total bill will be significantly higher. More importantly, the commission
should protect the most vulnerable ci�zens, which are typically single, elderly or new families who tend
to leave in a smaller proper�es and therefore to use less electricity. If someone bill is only 30-40 $ a
month by just increasing service charge it will increase the bill by 25-30%!!!
3

While I do understand the need to increase the price or electricity, it should be the cost not a service
charge. When I fill a gas, I pay only for I use."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Sergei Kashirny
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 6:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4061 E Barber Dr
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I am strongly against the proposed increase of the service charge by 200%. It is absolute
neglect on the commission side to protect own people from the monopolist. Service charge is the way to
keep "a cost" lower but the total bill will be significantly higher. More importantly, the commission
should protect the most vulnerable ci�zens, which are typically single, elderly or new families who tend
to leave in a smaller proper�es and therefore to use less electricity. If someone bill is only 30-40 $ a
month by just increasing service charge it will increase the bill by 25-30%!!!
While I do understand the need to increase the price or electricity, it should be the cost not a service
charge. When I fill a gas, I pay only for I use."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Elena Kashirny
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 6:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4061 E BARBER DR
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I am against the proposed increase of the service charge by 200%. While I do understand the
need to increase the price of electricity, it should be the cost of electricity not a service charge. When I
fill a gas, I pay only for what I use. Don't punish people who use less."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Theodore Blank
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 7:50PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
4

Address: 2224 S Tawny Woods
Boise, ID 83706

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I object to the Idaho Power request to increase the service charge amount for residen�al
customers from $5.00 per month to an eventual charge of $15.00 per month. This is an unprecedented
request to TRIPLE the current service charge and reflects a perverse scheme to impose a rate percentage
charge increase that would fall most heavily not on customers who use the most electricity but on those
customers who use the LEAST electricity. The percentage increase on service cost for those customers
who seek to minimize electricity cost would result in a penalty for electric conserva�on by an
unavoidable base charge that saddles those who conserve with a greater cost to subsidize those who do
not atempt to conserve. Although the 3x �mes service charge increase is unprecedented it is not a new
atempt by Idaho Power to siphon funds from low electricity users as a similar service rate increase was
requested approximately 15 years age and was rejected by the Commission and I urge the Commission
to do the same here. Theodore Blank"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Anne Herndon
Submission Time: Nov 19 2023 7:58PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 6110 Bay Street
Boise, ID 83704

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I urge the Public U�li�es Commission to reject Idaho Power's rate increase applica�on and to
reject the proposed setlement. I'm especially angry about the impact that the increase in monthly
service fees will have on customers who produce energy for Idaho Power through on-site genera�on.
Idaho Power claims that their proposed rate increase will result in a 10.78% increase for residen�al
customers, but a jump from $5 per month to $25 per month is actually an increase of 400%. If the
service fee goes up to $35 per month, the percent increase would be 600%.

It's obvious that Idaho Power is seeking to find a way to make more money off customers who have
taken the ini�a�ve to save energy through home improvements such as beter insula�on, purchase of
energy-saving appliances, and installa�on of roo�op solar systems. Idaho Power claims they need higher
rates to cover infrastructure costs, yet they refuse to recognize the commitment of thousands of dollars
in personal funds that a single homeowner invests to conserve energy and install systems such as
roo�op solar that actually add clean energy to the grid.

5

Don't let Idaho Power get away with a rate increase that would discourage customers from conserving
energy. The ci�zens of Idaho who invest their hard-earned money in energy saving improvements should
be rewarded with credits from their power providers, not penalized by unjus�fied rate increases."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------