20231128Comments_16.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mauricio Steffen
Submission Time: Nov 23 2023 10:20AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 17323 N. Ronan Ave.
Nampa, ID 83687-9269

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "People are struggling enough with rising costs. Idaho Power makes enough money to be
able to absorb these costs without paying them on to consumers. Idaho Power should have to have an
independent financial review to prove the need to raise costs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Don Kemper
Submission Time: Nov 23 2023 10:33AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1821 Edgecliff Terrace
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I was ini�ally shocked by IPC's proposal to put the burden of the increase on low-income
families by raising the service fee six-fold and elimina�ng the conserva�on discount. However, I am now
thankful that the company, staff and interveners have agreed to lessen the fee increase (though it is s�ll
a 200% increase) and to keep the conserva�on discount for the first 800 KWh of monthly use. I also
appreciate increasing the summer peak dates and hours to encourage conserva�on. I support the
setlement and ask for the Commission's acceptance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Therese Gerard
Submission Time: Nov 26 2023 2:09PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3906 W Catalpa Dr
Boise, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

2

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Decisions regarding the proposed increases in this case should take into considera�on the
decisions being made in Case # IPC-E-23-14. The impact of the proposed enormous increase in the
monthly base rate per customer in this case, combined with the proposed move away from net-metering
in case # IPC-E-23-14, has the poten�al for a sever nega�ve impact for solar-power genera�ng
customers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Laurie Price
Submission Time: Nov 27 2023 12:32PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2812 Muskrat Ct
Nampa, ID 83687

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "With all the requests for rate increases, verses decrease to the annual Energy Efficiency
Rider, why? Why is it that with people not being able to afford living expenses, especially rent or
mortgage, who is hit hardest with each increase you've asked for, why not hit the construc�on
companies and NEW construc�on For infrastructure addi�ons growing customer base.
President and CEO Lisa Grow, why aren't the Oregon customers not impacted by this new filing coming
up in 2024.
My monthly electric bill will go up 11.61$ I've got friends who are struggling with u�lity electric hea�ng
bills this winter who's bill is already over $170.00. limited incomes, single parents.
Manage the money beter, get it from the new construc�on. We have to manage our money to live on.
Passing new bonds to cover educa�on costs, schools, lots of new construc�on and influx of people, there
has to be a beter way "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Farrell
3621 S Basilica Way, Meridian, ID 83642
703.622.3303 Idaho Power Customer IPC-E-23-11 proposes to begin a staged increase in the service charge from $5/month to $35/month over
the next few years. The no�ce of proposed setlement sets the increase to $10 in 2024 and $15 in
2025. Idaho Power Company (IPC) argues that the higher fixed costs will make collec�on of fixed costs
“more equitable” so that high volume customers are not “subsidizing lower energy users”. However,
they don't give any evidence in their proposal or tes�mony as to how the changes achieve those
objec�ves. I believe the new service charges are not equitable and that raising them will simply create
addi�onal revenue to IPC for the following reasons:
3

1. Simple math shows that the higher service charges alone make the average cost per
KWh much higher for low volume users. How can that be a good thing to charge low volume energy users more for their energy? Conversely, how can it be good to charge higher volume customers less on average for their energy?
2. Recovery of fixed costs through volumetric charges works and keeps average costs
equal for all users. There is no need to change it.
3. IPC admits that the new service charges are only trying to recover a portion of the
fixed costs in a more equitable manner. So, why not allow them to recover all their fixed
costs through service charges with a charge of $70 or more per month? The same reasons you have for not going to $70/month should convince you to keep it at $5/month or drop it all together, Volumetric recovery of fixed costs already works. Don’t mess things up with large service charges.
4. With the large service charges, I would expect to see corresponding drops in
volumetric rates. For example, if my service charges increase by $10//month, shouldn’t there be a corresponding $10/month reduction in energy costs to keep my costs the same. I searched IPC-E-23-11 and saw no evidence that IPC was offsetting the new
service charges with lower energy costs. That means that the new service charges are
simply a new revenue secure stream for IPC. Given the number of residential customers that IPC has, that is a revenue increase of $74M alone ($10/month*12months*620,000customers) 5. There’s no doubt that if there were competition in the power market, IPC would not
be asking for large servicer fees. As a customer, I do most of my business with companies without service fees. That’s how I buy my gas, food, clothing etc. Think of a local gas station trying to charge you $10/month for the privilege of buying their gas– I’d never shop there unless their price was so low and I bought so much that I’d save
money. The only time I’ll go with a company that charges an annual service fee (like
Costco or Amazon) is when I’ll save money in the long run or get something extra in return. But IPC is not Costco or Amazon and the service fees don’t result in any savings or benefits to me. Allowing IPC to charge a service fee is a bad idea.
I urge IPUC to reject the original IPC request for an increase in the service charge and also reject the
proposed setlement increases. The changes are unjus�fied and simply create new revenue for IPC and
are not in the public interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Tim Yoder
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 9:12AM
Email: �[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2700 N 30th St
Boise, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power
4

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Dear Idaho Public U�lity Commissioners, I urge you as Commissioners to reject Idaho
Power's base rate increase applica�on and reject the proposed setlement. I do agree that infla�on of
wages and material cost may increase Idaho Power's cost to maintain the current infrastructure. If this is
the case, then the base rate should only be increased by the rate of infla�on. Perhaps this measure
could be assessed by the Cost Of Living Adjustment provided to Social Security recipients. To increase
the base rate 100%-500% is absolutely out of bounds in the field of reasonableness and fairness. This
proposed increase would dispropor�onately and adversely affect those on a limited and fixed income.
Idaho Power claims it needs more money to cover infrastructure costs of the growing valley popula�on.
Current customers and ratepayers should not have to bear this cost burden for Idaho Power to expand
its customer and profit base. That added infrastructure cost should be borne by those demanding this
increase, namely the developers of expansion projects.
It's obvious that Idaho Power is trying to increase its revenue from customers who have taken ini�a�ves
to save energy through home improvements like beter insula�on and energy saving appliances. These
measures are promoted by Idaho Power and now the Company wants to extract a larger percentage of
revenue from these same customers who have saved them energy.
Please don't allow Idaho Power this unreasonable rate increase.
Thank you for your considera�on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Rian Keyes
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 10:40AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1452 East Adelaide Street
Meridian, ID 83642

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I do not agree with these significant rare increases. I guess I don't get how you expect for
families in Idaho who already struggle to put food in the tables for their children to be able to keep the
heat and lights on in their homes with the increases everywhere else if this addi�onal increase goes
through. It's absurd to be honest. You should have plenty of customers that have moved here to Idaho to
keep the rates down. Be a good company and think about the people here locally. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Daryl Albiston
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 2:00PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
5

Address: 26736 Old Highway 30
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I am opposed to the Idaho PUC once again giving a "pass" to Idaho Power because they
made bad financial decisions in the past, and have failed to acknowledge them.
As a private ci�zen and former government employee, I learned early on that Idaho Power was/is a
business whose only concern is the "botom line" and its stockholders.
Had it really been a "public u�lity" then the people of Idaho would have had 85% of the "voice" when it
came to Wyoming coal-fired genera�ng plants, solar farms, and buy-back of excess electricity from Idaho
Power customers who also had solar panels.
Idaho Power should be reminded that, although it works in the u�lity industry, it is a PRIVATE business
who cannot keep coming back to the PUC for "bail-outs" due to those errors in financial judgement."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Barbara Albiston
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 2:22PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 26736 Old Highway 30
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I am adamantly OPPOSED to yet ANOTHER rate hike by Idaho Power because of faulty
decisions made by its corporate officers and out-of-state stockholders.
Coal-fired generators, in 1969, were probably a good idea in regards to the Jim Bridger Genera�on Plant.
By the late 2000s, however, Idaho Power should have been more "forward thinking". Instead, in
November 2013, it asked the PUC for millions of dollars (from ratepayers' pockets) for upgrades to same
which were being mandated by new Clean Air Act rules concerning Regional Haze!
At that �me, a Sr. Vice-President from Idaho Power was quoted as saying: "(Idaho Power) would have to
think seriously about any decisions the PUC takes that rejects a reliance on rate-payers to bear the costs
of upgrades".
Hmm, I always thought that's exactly what "real" businesses and their stockholders do in such
circumstances. But, it appears that Idaho doesn't share that opinion OR the PUC wouldn't be holding
these PUBLIC hearings.
Let's be clear shall we. Everyone knows that Idaho Power is NOT and NEVER has been a "public u�lity". It
is a corpora�on who worries more about "stockholders" than "stakeholders"; i.e. its electrical
companies.
I think NOW is the �me for the PUC to look at Idaho Power as a BUSINESS and not solely as a UTILITY.
I have a fairly good re�rement, but I worry about those who don't or the 2-wage earner households who
are among the 35%-40% of Idahoans at or barely above the poverty level. How will these CONTINUALLY
rising costs affect them in the future?
6

Maybe the PUC should be thinking more about them and less about Idaho Power and its stockholders
greed.
Oh, and just how many of those stockholders are actually Idaho residents and care about what's
happening here?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Eric Elliot
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 3:02PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2911 N Sheffield Ct
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Idaho Power's proposed price "moderniza�on plan" is the opposite of what the people of
Idaho need. The plan will unfairly raise prices for families that can least afford it, increasing power bill by
over 30% for homes that use very litle electricity. And it will significantly decrease the power bills for
homes that use a large amount of electricity.

The plan discourages energy efficiency. This is in opposi�on to Idaho Power's stated goals, and will result
in wasteful design of homes and neglect of fundamental things like energy efficient appliances, windows,
doors and insula�on.

It may also encourage some to leave the grid completely, using solar and batery in the home to supply
power. This is the opposite of where we should be aiming with power policy. We should be encouraging
a flexible and efficient grid, with power priced to encourage energy efficiency and crea�ve behaviors and
innova�ons at the home level that can help stabilize the grid, such as charging electric vehicles during off
peak hours, transferring power from home batery to grid during peak hours.

IPUC, please stand up for fairness and a more efficient energy future and turn down this applica�on by
Idaho Power.

A price increase should be from an increase in charge for power use, and should be a uniform
percentage increase at each level as currently priced.

Sincerely,
Eric Elliot, MD

It "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Eric Elliot
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 3:34PM
7

Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2911 N Sheffield Ct
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "This is an addendum to my earlier comment.

I wanted to atend the hearing in person, but since it was scheduled in the middle of the a�ernoon on a
Tuesday, I could not leave work to be present.

I atempted to call in, but the IPUC website did not have informa�on to dial in for this mee�ng. I called
and spoke with a very helpful person, Leslie, and she provided me the call in number and I was able to
connect. Unfortunately, due to the �me it took me to access the mee�ng, I was only able to hear the last
minute of tes�mony at approximately 3:10pm, and then heard that no one else showed up to speak!

Leslie confirmed that the website doesn't have the informa�on to call in to today's mee�ng, which is
now over, at 3:25pm.

This hearing did not provide adequate access to Idaho Power's customers:
1. It was held in mid-a�ernoon on a weekday, when most customers are at work and cannot atend.
2. Informa�on to dial-in to the mee�ng was not provided on IPUC website, therefore it was not
adequately published.

I respec�ully request that a second hearing be held because of these issues, on an evening so that
access is improved.

Sincerely,
Eric Elliot"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Sayed Bahuddin Mirbacha
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 3:36PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 240 E Elwood ln
Boise , ID 83706

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "Dear PUC!
My name is Sayed Mirbacha. I'm a freshman at Boise State University. It's been over two years I work as
an ac�vist. This is the third �me I'm atending here and the second �me tes�fying. Each �me I had to
8

skip my job shi� or skip my homework to be able to atend with the hope that I'm going there as a
resident and as a part of my responsibility and the PUC decision makers will make a decision and then
later I will say it’s worth it that I atend. I'm really confused about this, is the PUC job is to hear from the
people or they are here to help the business companies and money seekers to get rich with the money
that comes out of the Idahoans pocket? I don't know if you heard about the 17 sustainable development
goals of the United Na�ons. Their very first goal is ( no poverty) and their 7th goal is affordable and clean
energy. Now, according to the Idaho power plans, they will increase the fixed rate from $5-$15 within
the next two years and I'm sure they will raise it again and again. Don't you think how it will really
nega�vely affect the economy of low income people? We have 11% of people under the poverty line in
our community, and many more low-income people that struggle to pay their u�lity bills Currently, I'm
enrolled in college as a full-�me student and beside that I have two jobs and doing ac�vism. I'm working
hard not just because ge�ng a degree and making more money. I work hard as a resident to help the
people in my community with making a posi�ve impact. My message to the PUC is, if you sign and agree
to the Idaho Power Plan, it will not only make it harder for me to make a posi�ve impact as a resident,
but it will also increase poverty and hunger in the community. I want you to think deeply about this case
because this case is mostly harmful to and will hurt so manyIdahoans.
Thank you.
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Eric Elliot
Submission Time: Nov 28 2023 3:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2911 N Sheffield Ct
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-11

Comment: "I submit to the commission a report on the harms of fixed charges for electricity:

htps://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Caught-in-a-Fix-FINAL-REPORT-
20160208-2.pdf

The web address above can be copied into a browser to generate a pdf document.

Please read and consider this document in decision regarding the rate increase.

I thank the IPUC for detailed aten�on to this mater.

Sincerely,
Eric Elliot"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 26,2023
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission -I am writing to express our concerns about
Idaho Powers General Rate Case Request(IPC-E-23-11).In the flyer that Idaho Power
sent us they propose that the average Idaho Residential Consumer using 950 kilowatt
hours per month would see a bill increase of about $11.61.They went on further to say
that they are requesting to raise residential rates by10.78%and small general service
rates by 11.4%and irrigation users by 11.7%.However,in the same flyer they explain
that they are only requesting .9%for the large general services users and 5.98%for
large power users.It seems like the large power users in this state are not going to pay
their fair shares of the cost increases.
This request to the PUC from Idaho Power is lengthy and very detailed,really too much
to read and comment on at one time.I would like to focus on a couple of small details
that will affect us the most.We live in a house on 2.5 acres in Twin Falls County.We
get 2 power bills from Idaho Power We have a residential power bill with grandfathered
solar (schedule 06)and a separate service for a 3 horse power irrigation pump that is
on a separate transformer and bill (schedule 07).It is used to sprinkle less than an acre
of pasture.We currently pay $5.16 service charge a month in the off-irrigation season
when no power is being used and during the irrigation season,we pay between $8 and
$17 a month including the $5.16 service charge (for about 6 months).It appears that
Idaho Power plans to raise the service fee from $5 to $15 for schedule 06 and from $5
to $15 for schedule 07 folks like us -an increase of 200 to 300%on the first price raise
and more in subsequentyears!If they are allowed to charge the $35 they plan on -then
we in Idaho would be paying one of the most expensiveservice charges in the nation
and we live in a lower cost state.Doesn't seem right.It would cost more the first time
they raise the service fee than most of our total monthlybills are now.We don't even
pay $20 on our highest use months on the irrigation pump.This past year our highest
use month was 2.7kWh which cost us including the service charge $16.95.Now Idaho
Power wants us to pay $20 a month just for basic service without using any electricity!
That is more than our highest monthlybill!
Our house has solar panels and most months we only pay the service charge so again
we are facing a 220%raise next year and if Idaho Power gets their way more each year
for a number of years.I don't think they are taking into consideration that in the summer
air-conditioning and irrigation season when we produce excess power that they (Idaho
Power)sells our excess power at a seasonallyhigher price or possibly at the higher
green energy price.We do not understand why Idaho Power wants to hit us upside of
the head with a 2x4 like this price hike when they made a gross profit of 970.1 million
dollars last year (as I found on google).Both our accounts are paid auto-pay so they
don't even have to chase bill payment.
Idaho Power committed to the PUC that they would have outreach to notify the public of
their request.We think they were misleadingin the "Idaho Power files General Rate
Case"flyer that they attached to our July 2023 bills.They state "if this request is
approvedas filed the average Idaho residential customer using 950 kwh per month
would see a billing increase of about $11.61.Proposed impacts for all Idaho Power
customers in table below."The general rate case chart found in the flyer is different
from the general rate case (exhibit 48)in the official requestto the PUC.For instance,
residential 10.78%versus 12.25%.I think that if a slick statement about a specific kwh
usage and the cost of $11.61 had instead reflected that Idaho Power wants to increase
you service rate by 200 or 300%and then increase by a lot more in the near future you
would have had a lot more people chiming in on this request.Instead,we had to really
do some digging around to find this out.This info is further down in the document and
they don't even mention the service charge being raised in the flyer they send out.
(reference application --5,items 10,11,12...).
I don't think that Idaho Power should not be allowed to jack up service rates anywhere
near what they are asking for.
Thank you for listening and reading this letter -Melody Asher
2502 Laurie Lane
Twin Falls,ID 83301
Robert E.Sojka,2506 Laurie Lane,Twin Falls,ID 83301,Nov.27,2023
Around 2018 Idaho Power began a campaign that unambiguouslyand
persuasively declared its commitment to conversion to renewable energy.It
identified the environmental benefits and incentivized home-owners to join the
effort.Much of the public had recognized that need even before IDP made this
announcement and welcomed IDP's proclaimed commitment to partner with
them to achieve their goal of 100%clean energy by 2045.
IDP even provided modest incentives to encourage conversion.The federal
government also chipped in.But for most home owners,farmers and small
businesses their personal investment FAR EXCEEDEDthe total incentives.A
typical household spent an additional $20K to $40k or more out of pocket after
incentives to install solar generation to produce its full annual need for
electrical power.Our cost was nearly $40,000.
IDP stated monthly net metering would be the financial covenant between solar
homes and IDP,based on the set power rate for all residential consumers.
Homeowners would pay a small monthly grid access fee for power at night.IDP
could se11 excess day production at the going rate via the grid for profit.No
mention was made initially of changing the rate formula after installation.
It didn't take long before IDP changed the rate formula.A couple years into itsinaugurationIDPchangedconditionsinmidstreamforthoseembarkingthenon
the program.IDP Attached the agreement to the original installer/property
owner,not the structure (hence different conditions upon sale or inheritance,
which seems utterly unfair and unusual for most property infrastructure).A
termination date was established for the rate agreement(s)(2045?).Those
entering the program past the initial few years came in under different financial
arrangements,although original participantswere supposedly grandfatheredin
under the initial financial arrangements.Now once again IDP wants to change
its mind.We're told it's due to fairness consideration to non-solar power users.
My concept of a fair arrangement with non-solar-poweredgrid-users is that
before they have access to IDP power they pay the same per square foot cost
up front for their homes that we invested in our homes to generate power for
IDP.IPD benefits financially by not having had to create additional generation
or do the maintenance on our system.WE PAID FOR THAT.Show solar users
the actual profit IDP makes when selling our excess power to the grid.At the
end of the year pay us for the unused excess power that our solar panels
generated.Currentlywe operate in a financial information vacuum regardingtime-dependentenergy rates that is clearly being interpreted for the main
benefit of IDP and its investors,not for consumers of power at large.Fairness
depends on full transparency which I do not feel is the current state of affairs.
3ec
C 'O
r
%e
8 5 0 kww I