20230515Comments_31.pdf

1

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 7:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Michael Knudsen
Submission Time: May 11 2023 6:08PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 408 Broadway Avenue N
Buhl, ID 83316

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Hello,

I oppose the proposed changes to the on-site genera�on offering because, by Idaho Power's own
admission, they adversely affect my power bill.

I installed solar panels with the understanding I would be properly compensated for my household's
contribu�on to the power grid.

Under some no�on of "fairness", it seems Idaho Power wants to declare the kilowat hour I send to the
grid to be worth less than the kilowat hour I take from the grid, and charge me the difference. This
seems a whole lot like a smokescreen of numbers being used to jus�fy ripping people off. A kilowat hour
is a kilowat hour. Period. And I need to be compensated for it.

It's not ul�mately surprising a government en�ty, or quasi-government one, would renege on
gentleman's promises, weaselly fine print notwithstanding, in order to charge me more money. But that
is simply the way of the world. My family and I le� California to escape this sort of abuse. Unfortunately,
government en��es and their surrogates know only one course: grow more, charge more, deliver less,
wherever they may be.

I urge the IPUC to buck that trend and leave the current reasonable compensa�on structure in place. My
family deserves beter than to be swindled like this.

Regards,

Michael Knudsen "

-------------------------------------------------

2

Name: Alissa S�eha
Submission Time: May 11 2023 6:55PM
Email: as�[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4304 W Clark St.
Boise, ID 83705

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I understand that as a "non-legacy" solar system owner I am subject to compensa�on
changes. I understood when there was going to be a change from allowing us to have a credit with Idaho
Power to the "auto pay out" every month we were last made aware of, that made sense even if it felt like
a lazy choice. But the idea of charging solar users in "real �me" is downright obscene. We use solar
because on the days it is sunny we open windows or cook outside and we store up that energy for the
days it is rainy or cloudy. We also have solar because we understand it is our duty to help provide for
others, not just ourselves and this change forces us to be more selfish. Why wouldn't we use more
power then on days when it is sunny and nice? The message you are sending by shi�ing to this
"con�nuous pay" model without allowing a credit is too many strikes against those of us who made
choices to try and help our community.

How is this program supposed to move towards Mayor McLean's net-zero program that was adopted by
the city as a whole? How will this encourage industries to move to Idaho that want to use solar to power
their produc�on facili�es if they are penalized for choosing green.

Who does this actually benefit? Who is being treated "unfairly" when honestly the government pays so
much for people to get solar that really those who are choosing not to get it should be penalized, not us.

Please pass along my disapproval for these changes."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Kirk Kirkham
Submission Time: May 11 2023 8:16PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1075 Sagewood Place
Pocatello, ID 83201

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request to transi�on from net metering to real �me net
billing.
3

Idaho is fortunate to have some of the lowest energy costs in the na�on. Idaho Power's abundant
hydroelectric resources have benefited local agriculture, industry, and residents.

Low energy costs, however, provide litle incen�ve for investment in addi�onal renewable infrastructure.
Thanks to Idaho Power's net energy metering, it has made sense for certain residen�al customers to
invest in solar genera�on on their proper�es--even though this came at considerable costs to the
homeowners.

If the IPUC approves Idaho Power's request to transi�on to real-�me metering, solar inves�ng will no
longer make financial sense. If approved, Idaho Power will con�nue to benefit from the tremendous
investment that residen�al consumers have made, but homeowners will no longer be fairly
compensated for the energy generated on their property.

I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request to abandon net metering. Power consumers in
my area do not have a choice when selec�ng a power company. We have to use Idaho Power. The IPUC
need to act to protect Idaho residents from the u�lity company ac�ng so obviously in its own interest
and not in the interest of Idahoans.

Addi�onally, Idaho Power generates some of its power from non-renewable sources, including natural
gas, coal, and diesel. De-incen�vizing investment in renewable energy, including residen�al solar, is bad
for Idaho's future as well. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Steven Warren
Submission Time: May 11 2023 8:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1300 E Pineridge Dr
BOISE, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I disapprove of the proposed change to move from net monthly to real-�me net billing
compensa�on structure for non-legacy "solar" or other systems.
Our family took on the extra burden to create green energy faster for the energy grid before Idaho
Power and took on the extra costs related to that. We con�nue to pay a upkeep fee and connec�on fee
to Idaho power which contributes to their needs to keep the grid on.
It is unfair to increase our bills by 30%.
We do not have the op�on for differen�ated financial billing for purchasing our energy from Idaho
Power. For example, electricity is cheaper at night but more expensive during high power usage on the
grid. We expect to be treated the same way as Idaho Power bills their customers. A straight credit and to
con�nue the kilowat-hour credit system.
4

We propose if Idaho power wants to decrease the benefits provided by our onsite power, they take on
the extra costs related to the systems installed - there is an expecta�on that individuals do not get
saddled with extra costs years later.
As Idaho Power con�nues to purchase energy from out of state, they should encourage local genera�on
of Idaho residents and not burden us with extra fees as we benefit the grid.
We do have a ques�on: What are the exact prices of the differen�ated financial bill credit for the 5 to 20
cents per kWh per each hour or minute - depending on the granularity that Idaho Power plans to charge
us? Is this consistent day to day, or does it fluxuate depending on their output?"

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Kathy Kirkham
Submission Time: May 11 2023 8:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8055 Prospector Hollow Ln
Pocatello, ID 83201

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request in case no. IPC-E-23-14. If
approved, Idaho Power will con�nue to benefit from the tremendous investment that residen�al
consumers have made, but homeowners will no longer be fairly compensated for the energy generated
on their property.

I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request to abandon net metering. Power consumers in
my area do not have a choice when selec�ng a power company. We have to use Idaho Power. The IPUC
needs to act to protect Idaho residents from the u�lity company ac�ng so obviously in its own interest
and not in the interest of Idahoans."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Andrew Descalso
Submission Time: May 11 2023 8:53PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1619 Primrose Drive
Nampa, ID 83686

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The fact is Idaho Power DOES NOT care about Idaho or its customers. It is a publicly traded
company on the NYSE, look up IDA (Idacorp, Inc.), and its only focus is Profit for shareholders.

5

Idaho Power is following PG&amp;E (California) and using the same playbook that they are, but are
doing a worse job of it.

Idaho Power does not want anyone to have energy Independence, they want to keep their Monopoly.

Idaho Power is An�-Solar and their limita�on on commercial solar projects is cos�ng the state 10's of
millions of dollars from companies that want to invest in Idaho but can't due to the limited size. A big
box store can't even put 300 panels on a roof (100KW max) so they don't even bother and invest out of
state. For reference The Tesla Gigafactory in Texas has 30,000 panels and when finished will have 70,000.
This is also cos�ng Idaho good paying Jobs!

Idaho Power does not care about the environment yet they have a marke�ng department and run
commercials trying to sway the public opinion. If they did care about the environment they wouldn't
s�fle solar or any other renewable energy like they have in the past and are currently trying to restrict
even more.

Keep Idaho Independence and Don't let Idaho Power turn OUR public u�lity into California!
"

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Lauren Kirkham
Submission Time: May 11 2023 9:07PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1075 Sagewood Pl
Pocatello, ID 83201

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request to transi�on from net metering to real �me net
billing."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Timothy Slemp
Submission Time: May 11 2023 9:15PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2580 E. Taormina Dr.
Meridian, ID 83642

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

6

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I respec�ully request that the IPUC thoroughly balance the interests of the power
companies, residen�al solar generators, and the public. I understand that the power companies face
challenges with energy costs con�nually going up and a desire to keep rates fair for all customers,
however, we should be reminded that the power companies are businesses with their own interests, not
always in the public's interest. Idaho Power's proposal to adjust residen�al solar genera�on credit policy
should be at least viewed from the lens that their recommenda�on is mostly in Idaho Power's favor first
and foremost, the public's next, and the residen�al solar generator last. The proposal fails to balance all
interests equally, and the IPUC should consider if it is truly fair to all par�es and interests to let the
power companies do the majority of the research and studies on these policy proposals without the
direct input of residen�al solar generators?

This is a mater of fairness and honor. Any proposals for changes in residen�al solar genera�on policy
should be balanced, fair to all par�es, and the greater good of the public. As presented this proposal is
neither. It purports to be a more fair solar credit strategy but ul�mately it penalizes residen�al solar
generators and favors the power company. Residen�al solar generators INCREASE the supply of
electricity to the grid. Idaho Power has made it crystal clear over several years that it resents having to
buy back energy from residen�al solar customers at the same retail rate that they sell it to others. This is
a half-truth. It is true that the solar credit system is essen�ally a retail buy-back rate, but that lacks
perspec�ve since the power company is not the consumer of the electricity in the grid, it's the public.
Any excess genera�on supplied to the grid by a residen�al solar generator is made available directly to
Idaho Power's customers first. The customer is the one paying the retail rate, not the power company.
Secondly, and what does Idaho Power do with excess electrical energy? They sell it. They sell it to those
on the grid, or they export it out of state at even higher rates, for profit. Is it fair to the residen�al solar
generator that Idaho Power is able re-sell some of the excess energy that a residen�al solar system
generates out of state at even higher rates and not pass any of those benefits back to the residen�al
solar generator? Instead, they propose policy that penalizes the residen�al solar generator because,
a�er all, more kilowats into the grid INCREASES supply, which is not in their business interests. Think
about that.

Idaho Power's agenda is clear - they want to DISCOURAGE residen�al solar investment. Their interest is
not purely to benefit the public with more abundant, renewable energy, instead they want to be the
primary broker of the energy and prefer to reduce compe�tors to the power grid even if it means
discouraging private renewable energy investments. Any cost in expanding the energy or power
genera�on grid by Idaho Power is passed directly to the consumer. The more that it costs Idaho Power
to generate energy the more the cost of power goes up. Any infrastructure investment results in higher
costs to the consumer. It's inevitable, especially as the demand for power outpaces hydro-electric
sources. However, residen�al solar generators DO NOT INCREASE the cost of power in the grid to the
public customer PRIMARILY because every residen�al solar generator is privately funded by a home-
owner who incurs 100% of the solar investment on their own shoulders. Their cost DOES NOT get
passed to the public. However, the singular incen�ve to atract residen�al consumers into inves�ng into
solar genera�on at their own expense is to allow them to benefit from a 1-to-1 credit in power
generated/used. This is in the public's interest and the greater good because it allows the power grid to
expand to meet increasing power consump�on demands without increased cost to consumers.
However, it has one major downside - it creates a compe�tor to the power company because now
someone other than Idaho Power is pu�ng power in to the grid.

7

I respec�ully urge the IPUC to be sensi�ve to the interests of all par�es and fully grasp the obvious
agenda of the power companies. Balance that with what is ul�mately in the greater good of the public -
that is the most sensible pathway for encouraging private investment into expansion of the power grid
that provides more power to the public with the cheapest infrastructure expansion via residen�al solar
genera�on. Protect the solar credit system that thousands of people incurred great expense to invest in.
It's the honorable thing to do and ul�mately benefits the public. Would the IPUC expect Idaho Power to
make an infrastructure investment with no way to recoup the cost? We should be INCENTIVIZING
private solar investment not penalizing it."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Wesley Matson
Submission Time: May 11 2023 10:23PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3312 N 36th St
Boise, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Ques�on: Will customers be provided a cash credit in months where they generate more
export credit rate money than they use retail rate energy?

Comment: We filed the paperwork to install our system in January 2023, under the understanding of net
metering allowing us to carry credits across months. This is fine if it's in the form of cash in our accounts,
but we wouldn't have made this financial decision if we expected the power company to abandon our
investment into their renewable rollout. In addi�on, it would be greatly preferable for the export credit
rate to be �ed closely to the retail kWh rate and fluctuate with it.

If this rate structure change is to go through, it should start affec�ng customers that got into the deal on
a date *a�er* its proposal, as happens for basically all laws, regula�ons, and general customer service
announcements. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Anabel Manchester Lopez
Submission Time: May 11 2023 10:31PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2339 W Spring Mountain Dr
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

8

Comment: "Today I received a leter from Idaho Power regarding my solar panels and how I will soon be
charged higher bills through Net Billing versus the current NEM billing. As a consumer, approving this
plan feels like you as the PUC are pu�ng the best interest of the power company over the best interest
of the consumer and the environment. People inves�ng in solar panels made that investment in good
faith that we were both doing good for the Earth and would eventually be saving money on our u�lity
bills. Making this change in favor of the power company takes the financial incen�ve away from
consumers and basically punishes people for wan�ng to do good for the planet. This is not logical.

Please deny Idaho Power’s request to switch to Net Billing customers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: ryan zelinsky
Submission Time: May 12 2023 8:22AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5349 N QUAIL SUMMIT WAY
BOISE, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: 83605

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Typical money grab from a short-sighted quasi-public en�ty with no strategic vision.

If they were smart they'd figure out ways to give customers incen�ve to add solar panels and then they'd
really make money. How? They own the grid the power travels over and the consumers pay for the
panels that generate the power. Power plants and power genera�on (and those employees) are large
costs in the business model and customers with solar panels + distributed storage (also owned by
consumers, bateries/ev cars) would eliminate those costs. Yes, it's more complex than this but it's easy
to see for anyone who's has managed P&amp;L responsibility for a large company.

The policy as proposed was created by luddites."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
9

Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Brad Walker
Submission Time: May 12 2023 9:35AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 530 San Badger Dr.
Hailey, ID 83333

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I adamantly disagree with the proposed changes to the compensa�on structure for on-site
genera�on. As a farmer I receive incen�ves and leters every year from Idaho power about reducing
power consump�on from my irriga�on pumps. So I installed a solar system on my house to reduce my
power consump�on and now Idaho Power wants to pay me less for the power I generate. This is crazy
logic. The grid is the same grid whether I put in a net-meter solar system or not. Do not be fooled by the
Value of Distributed Resources study. As usual, I expect the IPUC to not listen to ci�zens and just rubber
stamp what Idaho Power is asking for on the change to the compensa�on structure. Stand up for the
ci�zens of your state! Vote NO to this change from Idaho Power!"

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Marina Au�na
Submission Time: May 12 2023 12:04PM
Email: Marinaau�[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 716 meadowview dr
Nampa, ID 83651

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I feel like this is a bad proposal. Idaho already provides worse benefits to people who use
solar than other states. This will be a further obstacle to increasing solar panel use in this state. This is a
penny pinching move and punishes people who are helping you provide energy for the grid. "
10

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Lisa Parrillo
Submission Time: May 12 2023 1:50PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5003 N Contour Way
Boise, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I made a significant investment into solar panels with the goal of assis�ng the community
and planet by genera�ng my own energy and then returning the excess energy to the grid. The proposed
change by Idaho Power increases my costs significantly. Net-metering is the standard in 38 other states.
By taking this away, Idaho power means to take advantage of the energy I generate without
appropriately compensa�on. In fact, based on the proposed changes, they would penalize me by
increasing my costs by more than 100%. The valley is growing. Our energy needs will be increasing
significantly. How is it produc�ve to create such a system that does not incen�vize individuals to install
solar power? This proposal does not seem to support the community at all, but only help Idaho power
generate more money from the individuals that wanted to help contribute to them. Thank you for your
�me."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Thomas Dickson
Submission Time: May 12 2023 4:23PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 24832 Bat Corner Rd
Parma, ID 83660
11

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "ID I received Idaho Powers proposed change to rate structure for non-legacy on site power
genera�on systems. what I believe I read was they want to increase my rate by 30%. Now why would I
want to pay more for electricity when I installed solar to reduce my electric bill. There was also a
comment by Idaho Power that non solar customers are subsidizing solar customers. That is not true. A
kilowat of power is a Killowat of power. If I pay for one kilowat of consumed power then Idaho Power
should pay me for one kilowat of delivered power. I oppose any rate increase! The PUC should be
suppor�ng rate decreases for those that reduce consumed grid power."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Michael O'Brien
Submission Time: May 12 2023 4:41PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1905 N. Dalton Ave.
Boise, ID 83704

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power Company

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho Power Company sent a leter on May 1 to on-site generators to say that they proposed
a change from net monthly to real �me electrical billing. The leter is so vaguely worded that I have litle
idea what they are actually proposing.
Ques�ons:
1) The exported energy credit change requested is "5 to 20 cents per kWh." This is a big range.
2) What does "�me differen�ated" mean? Does the credit change monthly, hourly, or as demand on the
grid fluctuates? How would a generator know?
3) Can Idaho Power send a second leter that explains their proposal in more detail?"

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2023 7:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Ben Johnson
Submission Time: May 12 2023 6:50PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
12

Address: 2845 SW Heaton
Mountain Home, ID 83647

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "So basically Idaho Power wants to set the rate for which the buy electricity from me. That is
completely backwards. They don’t do that when purchasing electricity from other electrical power
companies. Furthermore my power genera�on helps to extend the life of their power genera�ng
equipment because it does not have to be run as “hard” to generate the required power. Idaho power
should not be able to set rates in this manner. Furthermore if there are any changes anyone who is
already online prior to the change should be grandfathered. Not penalized down the road. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: John Carr
Submission Time: May 13 2023 8:47AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2660 E Red Garnet St.
Eagle, ID 83616

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The proposed changes by Idaho Power to on-site genera�on net metering do not fairly
compensate on-site power genera�on when compared to the current net metering prac�ce.
During the hot days of the summer air condi�oning puts a heavy load on our power grid and creates high
demand for electricity. During the day�me in the summer is when my solar panels are genera�ng the
most electricity. More electricity that I can use in my home even when my air condi�oner is running.
That excess energy from my solar panels creates more available energy on the power grid relieving
strain and reducing need for addi�onal “leaker” power plants.
In the proposed changes the value of solar panels decreases and will result in fewer exis�ng homes,
retrofi�ng solar panels and fewer new construc�on adding solar panels. As Idaho con�nues to be the
fastest growing state in America, our electricity needs are only increasing. Residen�al roo�op solar
should be highly valued in its ability to reduce strain on the grid. Any changes proposed should not
reduce the value of residen�al on site power genera�on but should only be made to increase that value.
13

A�er reading the informa�on sent to me by Idaho Power regarding these changes, the only benefit I can
see is an increase in their revenue which is not an appropriate reason to change our long standing, very
simple, net metering policy that has worked well and will con�nue to work well for the people of Idaho.
Thank you. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2023 7:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Terry Ford
Submission Time: May 13 2023 7:21PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2749 Suncrest Circle
Twin Falls , ID 83301-8950

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power Company

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am an Idaho Power Company (IPC) customer. I have recently installed a modest solar panel
system on my residence, and am a non-legacy on-site generator. IPC's proposal (the subject of case IPC-
E-23-14), in its development of a proposed excess energy export credit rate (EEECR) to be paid on-site
generators, defines "on-peak" hours as being 3-11 p.m. Mon-Sat (excluding holidays) for the period of
only June 15 - September 15 (for a total of around 638 peak hours annually).

However, in addressing the pricing of energy provided to customers under IPC's "Idaho Time of Day
Plan", IPC defines "peak" hours differently, as being from 1-9 p.m. (on weekdays only) for the period of
June - August, and 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. (on weekdays only) for the period of September - May, which comes to
a total of around 2,730 hours annually. That's quite a discrepancy in the periods of peak energy usage:
638 vs 2,730.

For on-site generators, IPC proposes to reimburse them for excess energy genera�on during peak hours
at a rate of 20.42 cents. For those customers who choose to par�cipate in its "Time of Day Plan", IPC
proposes to charge either 12.8910 cents per kWh (summer) or 9.5159 cents per kWh (non-summer)
during the much longer (over four �mes longer) peak energy usage period. It seems only equitable that
the peak energy usage periods should be the same for both scenarios. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

14

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2023 8:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Bradn Griffin
Submission Time: May 14 2023 7:29AM
Email: griffi[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5380 S. Bentwaters Way
Meridian, ID 83642

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I believe that those that made the investment in going solar prior to Idaho Powers suggested
net metering changes should be grandfathered to protect the consumers return on investment.
customers that choose to install solar panels a�er the January 1st 2024 proposed changes should be
subject to the new net metering proposal, since the consumer has the opportunity to calculate the cost
of the system and if it had any benefit to go solar. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2023 3:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Patrick Byrne
Submission Time: May 14 2023 2:41PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15633 Moosehorn Way
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Gree�ngs,
15

I had a solar panel installed on my property, shortly a�er I moved to my current loca�on, with the
inten�on to trade one cost for another: The loose, variable, and o�en expensive cost of power
(especially through the summer) for a more fixed, rou�ne loan payment, paying for the cost of the solar
panel install. While my power bill does climb and vary during the non-summer months, it remains
affordable, and in fact becomes essen�ally free during the summer (just $5/month for the admin cost
essen�ally).

Whatever changes you are proposing to do, please do not dilute my cost benefit from the solar panels. It
would be unacceptable to be paying both substan�ally higher costs for my power usage than before (out
of "fairness") on top of the loan payment I'm already s�ll having to pay, and could completely render
pointless my reason (and likely everyone else's reason) for even having installed solar in the first place.
(Note I wasn't ever offered "free" solar panels, whatever that all was that I heard about).

If my solar panel benefit is to effec�vely be erased or lessened because it's not fair that others don't
have solar panels themselves, then either reduce my solar panel loan payment, or pay it off for me
completely. (I'm paying $269.11 per month s�ll un�l about 2040.)

In the end, we ul�mately judge things by the botom line we have to pay individually (as is within our
interests), and I will certainly vote accordingly, should the change in cost structure be wholly
unacceptable. If the changes cannot be shown to at least be neutral in my situa�on, then I'd prefer that
the current cost structure be le� alone.

Thank you,
- Patrick."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: John Hall
Submission Time: May 14 2023 4:32PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2573 S Palma�er Way
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

16

Comment: "Re. Idaho Power's proposed changes to the compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on.

As an owner of a non-legacy on-site solar genera�on system, I knew when I contemplated and then
installed a system in the spring of 2021 that a change in the compensa�on structure was inevitable. In
addi�on to the final compensa�on structure, however, what was also unknown at the �me was how
those that installed their systems in the compensa�on transi�on period--now established in Idaho as
December 21, 2019 through 31 December 2023 for residen�al systems--might be impacted, in par�cular
regarding any kWh credits that were accrued through December 31, 2023.

Idaho Power's May 1, 2023 leter to customer's with on-site genera�on, as well as their associated
website FAQs, is silent regarding the disposi�on of accrued credits star�ng January 1, 2024 for customers
that installed solar systems during the transi�on period. This is an oversight that the Idaho Public
U�li�es Commission (IPUC) should address. Two op�ons are possible that I request IPUC to consider: (1)
accrued credits should be reimbursed at the retail rate as a lump sum or (2) (preferred) transi�on-period
customers should be allowed to draw down those accrued credits on a monthly basis, when their power
consump�on exceeds produc�on, un�l they are exhausted.

I am not an economist, so I made no atempt to analyze Idaho Power's real-�me net billing
methodology; however, I offer two observa�ons for IPUC considera�on: (1) the impact seems
dispropor�onate on the low net energy users and (2) such a compensa�on structure may have the
unintended consequence of causing a disincen�ve to install future residen�al solar systems. This would
appear to be at odds with current federal and state (here Idaho) renewable energy tax incen�ve
programs. As a result, IPUC should carefully balance compe�ng interests and consider the incen�ve
structures that may result. Of par�cular note is the more than 100% increase in es�mated proposed
pricing (i.e., $5 to $12) for those customers whose net produc�on exceeds their consump�on. The
currently proposed pricing structure would seem to lead to poor system sizing (i.e., oversizing is
penalized) if the goal is to increase the use of renewable energy."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 7:01 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Doug Lamb
Submission Time: May 14 2023 5:24PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5174 S CHOCTAW WAY
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

17

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I can understand Idaho Power's desire to change the compensa�on structure for on site
genera�on of electrical power. However, I do not feel it is appropriate to change the structure for those
who have already obtained a solar or other electrical genera�on system under the exis�ng rules. It feels
like a bait-and -switch. Customers who have already made a decision to obtain a self genera�on system,
used the informa�on that was available to them at the �me. It is impossible to look into the future and
make a decision based on yet undetermined factors. I therefore, recommend that if a change in rate
structure is to be made, it should be determined and publicized before taking effect. It is not proper to
change the rate structure for customers who already have a self genera�on system. New self
genera�ons customers who are deciding if they want to get a system, would then have accurate facts
and could make an informed decision.

As an analogy, it would not be proper to change the rules a�er a game has already started. This is what
Idaho Power appears to be atemp�ng to do. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Clint Hinckley
Submission Time: May 14 2023 8:20PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12728 W. Band Drive
Star, ID 83669

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I would like to comment on the proposed changes by Idaho Power to change the
reimbursement for power genera�on of residen�al solar power and reimbursement. They state they are
proposing this for "fair" compensa�on. Whenever I hear the word "fair" my ques�on is always who is it
"fair" to? Placing a solar power genera�ng unit is no small financial endeavor. It is very costly and part of
the decision-making process is determining return on investment. I don't understand the arbitrary line of
2019 for the grandfather clause. Did they just pull that number out of a hat? If they really wanted to be
"fair" any solar system installed before the proposal should be grandfathered, then it would be fair to
anyone considering installing the system to know what the cost vs. return on investment will be and they
can make an informed decision. I think if the tables were turned and Idaho Power invested a large
amount of money into a power genera�on plant and then had their reimbursement rates drama�cally
decreased they would not be using the word "fair". It would be like someone buying a home at 3 percent
interest and then having the mortgage company come back a year a�er the loan and say "We don't think
it is fair to the people paying 7 percent on their loan so we're raising your rates." Homeowners who
make the difficult decision to invest in clean renewable energy should not be punished by greedy
monopolies like Idaho Power in the name of "fairness". If anything, they should grandfather in anyone
who installed before the proposal, and then anyone who installs a�er the proposal will have an informed
and transparent decision on whether the decision is right for them."

--------------------------------------------------------------
18

Name: Jason Paeth
Submission Time: May 14 2023 8:40PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1253 West Laughton Drive
Meridian, ID 83646

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho power restructuring the compensa�on for on-site genera�on is a disgus�ng money
grab. We are sending power to the grid that they are then selling. We deserve every cent that we are paid for it righ�ully. To allow them to gouge customers who have taken the ecologically and fiscally
responsible steps of installing solar power genera�on systems on their homes would be a disgrace. This
cannot be allowed to stand. Vote this ini�a�ve DOWN. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Roger Brooks
Submission Time: May 15 2023 5:53AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2470 E 3844 N
Filer, ID 83328

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "A�er reading about IP's 2023 first quarter net income increase over 2022 of 9.8 million
dollars, I received in the mail a request for Annual Power Cost Adjustment of 200.23 million dollars. It
seems Idaho Power is doing quite well.
I then received a leter of proposed changes for compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on. Idaho
Power wants to increase the average bill by $12 or 30%. Residen�al on-site genera�on of my bill would
increase from $5 to $12 (0kWh) or 120% compared to $235 to $252 (1700kWh+) or 7%. It would seem
that the increases need to be leveled such that increases are more fairly distributed.
It appears that Idaho Power is using a "let's throw spaghe� against the wall and see what s�cks"
approach to further increasing revenues. I just don't see the need considering the good revenue stream
that is currently present."

--------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 8:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb
19

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Herbert McDowell
Submission Time: May 15 2023 7:05AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15608 Fran Ln
Wilder, ID 83676

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho Power's proposed change to the compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on is
another example of them monopolizing power in a majority of Idaho on the backs of Idahoan's and
Idaho's resources. Earlier this year they sent fliers indica�ng that the cost of electricity is likely to go up
approximately 10%. Now they are proposing that for folks who have atempted to offset these increases
by pu�ng in on-site genera�on at their home, they will change the compensa�on structure which can
increase their average bill by 30%.

First, no discussion of this poten�al change was ever provided during permi�ng/applica�on of the on-
site genera�on install process. It is curious that the Federal solar power rebate tax credits expira�on is
drawing a close very near the same �me Idaho Power is proposing to implement the restructuring for
reimbursement for power genera�on.

The mass majority of power created are using Idahoan's natural resources. As such, Idahoan's should
reap the benefits. What benefit are we ge�ng for being residents if Idaho Power wants us to bear the
costs for them to expand and export energy outside of Idaho.

Some amount of increased costs are inevitable, but 10% for power and restructuring reimbursement
where it can increase costs by 30% is awfully large bites to take. Effec�vely, folks could see and increase
of 40% in their power bill. Unacceptable in principle but we are le� with no real voice. I hope IPUC can
provide more informa�on on this and other changes. What is being done to batle these increases for
Idahoans.

Thanks,
Herb "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Lane Durtschi
Submission Time: May 15 2023 7:32AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5 Mountain View Dr.
20

Carey, ID 83320

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Recently I got a leter in the mail from Idaho Power and it is about the proposed changes to
the compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on. In the leter, Idaho Power said the proposed
changes would go into affect January 1st, 2024 and the average increase would be 30%. I feel this is an
unfair amount of increase and would put an undue pressure on my family. I understand everything must
go up, but this increase seems excessive and unfair. It also appears to be a targeted atack on those who
took risk and spent money based on a net metering approach. Now it feels puni�ve to those who took
the risk and chance to improve their energy situa�on. I strongly encourage you to have Idaho Power
keep their rates lower and more fair to the average ci�zen.
Sincerely,
Lane and Nancy Durtschi
P.S. If you would like to discuss this concern I'd be happy to discuss it with you."

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Josh Ely
Submission Time: May 15 2023 8:32AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3053 West Tango Creek Drive
Meridian, ID 83646

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "To the Idaho Public U�li�es Commission:

I am wri�ng to express my concerns over the new Idaho Power proposed changes to how they bill solar
customers. I am a solar customer myself, and I am worried that these changes will make it more difficult
and expensive for me to save money on my energy bill.

The proposed changes would reduce the amount of credit that solar customers receive for the electricity
they generate and sell back to the grid. This would make it more expensive for solar customers to offset
21

their energy costs, and it would discourage people from going solar in the future. Solar is a clean,
renewable energy source that is good for the environment. It is also good for the economy. Solar creates
jobs and boosts economic development.

The proposed changes are also unfair to recent solar customers. Not making all current customers
grandfathered in is unfair. It feels like we are being punished for taking advantage of government tax
rebates to reduce our price of entry to solar. Solar customers are already paying for the cost of
maintaining the grid, even though we don't use as much electricity from the grid. The proposed changes
would make solar customers pay even more for the grid, even though they are already contribu�ng to its
maintenance.

I urge the PUC to reject these proposed changes. Net metering is a fair and equitable system that
benefits both solar customers and the u�lity company. The proposed changes would make it more
difficult and expensive for solar customers to save money on their energy bills and deter new solar
customers.

Sincerely,

Josh Ely
--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Brian Case
Submission Time: May 15 2023 11:54AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5621 JOE LN
NAMPA, ID 83687

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I would like to comment the Idaho Power Proposal IPC-E-23-14.
While I think I understand the concept my 2 main take aways are as follows...

1. Short version, average 30% bill increase for Onsite-genera�ng customer.
2. Severe Lack of transparency and accountability in billing, with the proposal. Currently very easy to
es�mate the cost of the power I have used. I have no Idea how to es�mate it with the proposed real-
�me net billing. I have not seen any examples of a real �me net bill in the proposals.
22

expanded comments.
1. I understand the need to fund infrastructure, I am just convinced this is not the way to do it, and a
30% increase is a large increase, which is in addi�on with the already scheduled annual increase.

2. Currently I can go read my meter any day of the month and reasonably es�mate my bill.
To date I have not seen an example of how a real �me billing would look, or how I can calculate my
power bill from it.
Will it require internet access for me to see my power usage and power rates?
Will my power usage and rates be updated and presented so I can see it Hourly, Daily, Monthly?
I don't want to wait un�l the end of the month to determine if I can afford my power bill or not?
Even at the end of the month, I am not sure how the data would be presented so that I could verify that
my bill was accurate calculated and billed?
If billing is not easily readable and verifiable, expect a lot of customer support calls from customer asking
to have their bill explained to them.

Thank You
Brian Case

--------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: RICH KIRKHAM
Submission Time: May 15 2023 12:38PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8055 Prospector Hollow
Pocatello, ID 83201

Name of U�lity Company: IDAHO POWER

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am interested in solar power so I strongly urge the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's request to
abandon net metering. This move would discourage investment in solar energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------