20230522Comments_14.pdf

1

From: Chris Hecht >
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 8:52 AM
To: Chris McEwan >; Jan Noriyuk
Subject: IPC-E-22-22 OR IPC-E-23-14
Jan,
I have inserted these two comments below that were attributed to IPC-E-22-22, that I believe
should be applied to the newer case IPC-E-23-14 despite being labeled as comments for the
2022 case.
Both comments were submitted after the 2022 case was closed and after the newer 2023 case
was opened. Both cases are regarding the new rates for non-legacy customers.

05/18/2023 COMMENTS 1.PDF
05/19/2023 COMMENTS_1.PDF

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Luke Landriani
Submission Time: May 18 2023 2:38PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 548 W. Criterion St.
Meridian, ID 83642

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC E 22 22 IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Seems like with this change, it will hinder people to make the move to solar. Under the
current net metering system, it barely made since to make the move to solar last year. This seems
counterintui�ve to Idaho Power and IPUC's goals of going green. How are they going to incen�vize
people to make the switch? Solar is a consumer choice and this would be a detrimental hit to the
budding local solar industry and take away our right to produce our own energy at a fair price."

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mauricio Steffen
Submission Time: May 19 2023 10:24AM
Email: mauriciosteff[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 17323 North Ronan Avenue
Nampa, ID 83687
2

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC E 22 22 IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Don't allow Idaho Power to change the on site genera�on rate. This will further discourage
homeowners from adop�ng solar as a renewable power source for their homes."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Phillip Pickman
Submission Time: May 19 2023 1:58PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5542 W DURNING DR
EAGLE, ID 83616

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I have a roof top solar system installed on my home. I purchased this home in May 2022. The
previous owner had installed the roof top solar system. I considered the roof top solar system a feature
of the house, and bought it in good faith, expec�ng that the on-site genera�on agreement with Idaho
Power would con�nue.
I received a leter dated May 1, 2023 sta�ng that Idaho Power proposes to change its on-site genera�on
offering for systems installed a�er Dec 20, 2019, which are considered "non-legacy". Idaho Power tells
me their records show that my system was installed March 2020.
If the Idaho Power change proposal is accepted, I urge you to make it effec�ve for systems installed a�er
the acceptance date. The systems already installed depend for their financial jus�fica�on on the then-
exis�ng Idaho Power compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on. It is unfair to make the change
effec�ve for systems already installed in good faith prior to the date a change is approved.
Thank you for considering this view. I hope that you agree with it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Ben Price
Submission Time: May 19 2023 4:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 15 S Ruby St
Boise, ID 83706

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power
3

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Hello,

Just read (and re-read because it was not very clear) the leter from Idaho Power regarding changing the
compensa�on for on-site solar.

If I'm understanding correctly they are going to quit paying for electricity we provide if it exceeds what
we use that month. (In cell phone terms, our minutes will no longer roll over.)

Idaho Power will use (sell) the power I provide, regardless of whether it is more or less than I consume
that month. This change of "compensa�on structure" is nothing more than a 30% rate hike on me to put
more money in their pocket. It is penalizing me for installing solar panels.

If we are serious about incen�ng on-site residen�al solar, which would be good thing for everyone, this
greedy cash grab by Idaho Power is a bad idea. Please disallow, or vote no, or whatever the equivalent
steps are on your side.

Regards,
Ben Price"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Morgan Dean
Submission Time: May 19 2023 5:31PM
Email: Buterfl[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 20182 COLEBROOK AVE
Caldwell, ID 83605

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The proposed solar situa�on is completely unfair and not environmentally friendly. I
completely disagree with this proposal."

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

Name: Darrin Grinder
Submission Time: May 19 2023 7:53PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 420 W Edwards Ave
4

Nampa, ID 83686

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am wri�ng to disagree with Idaho Power’s proposal to lower compensa�on/metering for
home solar power genera�ng customers such as myself. First, it is self-serving for Idaho Power to
generate its own study with a foregone conclusion—that solar generators essen�ally need to pay more
for electricity than they do currently. Second, a more fair report comes from the Crossborder, which
states that we should be compensated MORE than current rates (18c, vs the current 8-10c, vs. IP’s
proposed 3c). Third, reducing the net metering will likely result in fewer businesses and families
adop�ng solar; and every reasonable person knows that we need to be adop�ng MORE alterna�ve
energy sources, not fewer. Third, Idaho Power’s rates will be increasing do, at least in part, an aging and
over-burdened electricity infrastructure. Solar generators should be rewarded for relying less on that
infrastructure and, indeed, propping it up. Many of us have adopted solar power at least in part to be
less dependent on a system that will become increasingly glitchy (we have a batery and have “islanding”
capability).

Again, my wife and I are strongly agains this proposal from Idaho Power. In a state that lacks publicly-
owned electricity and yet allows for a powerful monopoly like Idaho Power to exist, the Public U�lity
Commission’s only responsibility is to protect the consumer who has no other choice but to use Idaho
Power. Has Idaho Power shown that it is not profitable? In fact, it con�nues to be a very profitable
company, at least in part on the good will of families who adopt solar energy.

We are by no means a rich family. We live in a fi�y-year old home. We both are professionals who work
full �me for non-profit industries. We invested in solar for the good of the world, and we were able to
jus�fy this, in good part, on the current net-metering rates."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kyle Wheatley
Submission Time: May 20 2023 10:14AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 744 W. 100 N.
Blackfoot, ID 83221

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I just had solar power installed on my house and although I understood that there was no
contract with Idaho Power to always pay one for one on the excess power generated I think they should
not be able to basically completely negate any benefit that I receive for going solar. They are offering to
5

pay a premium for electricity generated during so called peak hours of 3 pm to 11 pm which is not peak
genera�on �me. And on top of that they would only pay around 40% of the exis�ng rate during the peak
genera�ng hours of the day. I am not advoca�ng for the con�nua�on of the one for one program and I
realize they have expenses and need to make a profit but to gut the program like the proposed plan is
not even close to being fair to the customer. It also will make it a lot harder for the consumer to benefit
from his investment in solar. I would think under the exis�ng circumstances Idaho Power and
Government would want to encourage the investment in solar. I understand there are government
programs to encourage solar investment but I will not qualify for much of that because of my income.
Had I known beforehand about the proposed plan I seriously doubt that I would have had solar installed.
Grandfathering solar that is up and running by the approval date would be more reasonable and fair.
Thank you
Kyle Wheatley"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Alyssa Knesek
Submission Time: May 20 2023 11:35AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5943 E Foxgrove Dr
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I’m wri�ng regarding the proposal to change credit rates for customers with solar panels.
I’m opposed to this proposal. There is no reason why credit should change and the reasoning behind the
proposal is not outlined in the leter from Idaho Power. Having the credit for the electricity my home
generated reduced and increasing my electricity bill seems like nothing more than a money grab and a
bait and switch and punishment by the power company because I’m not en�rely reliant on their supply
of electricity. Please deny this proposal."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kevin Farley
Submission Time: May 20 2023 4:52PM
Email: kbfarley@fron�ernet.net
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1110 Saddle Horn Ln
Parma, ID 83660

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power
6

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "It is my request if the proposed changes for compensa�on that Idaho Power wants to
implement, all solar systems installed prior to the effec�ve date of any changes be grandfathered in. We
installed a solar system in January 2023 and the main selling point was that all excess energy would be
banked for our use. It appears that Idaho Power only wants to compensate us with a frac�on of the total
value that we produce and put into the grid. Idaho Power should not be allowed to profit at our
expense. Thank you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: John Staebler
Submission Time: May 21 2023 10:45AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1927 Stonetree Dr
Mountain Home, ID 83647

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "IDAHO
So will this pay me for my overages? At the end of monthly cycle total kWh le� a�er usage?

I rely on my storage of kWhs from the winter months when we are gone to use during the summer
months while we are hear in Idaho."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: James Giuffre
Submission Time: May 21 2023 2:47PM
Email: jgiuff[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 352 N Panorama Place
Boise, ID 83702

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

7

Comment: "First, the leter sent out by Idaho Power on May 1, 2023 needs to be resent in plain
language. The power industry jargon is unintelligible to most readers. For example, the defini�ons of
and ra�onale for changing from net monthly to real �me net billing and the term "�me differen�ated
export credit rate (ECR)" is totally confusing and not fair to the average reader to understand. Fix it and
have IP send out a leter that is in plain language to explain their ra�onale for the change and what those
jargon terms actually mean.
Second, Idaho Power commissioned a study that drama�cally lowers the rate of credit per Kwh. It is an
industry biased study. Idaho Power's study comes up with a Kw/hr credit of $3.8 cents, and an
independent study by Crossborder Energy comes up with $18.3 cents per Kw/hr. Clearly the PUC needs
to examine both studies and determine why there is such a wide varia�on in credited rates per Kwh in
the Idaho Power study vs the Crossborder Energy study and come up with a fair rate for credi�ng solar
consumers who put energy back into the grid. Thank you for the opportunity to comment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kevin Marsh
Submission Time: May 22 2023 10:52AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 111 Prairie Sun Road
Bellevue, ID 83313

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am a customer of Idaho Power, and I oppose Idaho Power's proposal to end net metering
for distributed produc�on of solar power. The study conducted by Idaho Power in 2022 does not
sufficiently account for the value of distributed produc�on by understa�ng the long-term benefits of
offse�ng power produc�on at peak summer demand, reducing loss from transmission, and helping to
build a more resilient power grid for future years. Any adjustments in compensa�on for household solar
produc�on need to more completely take these benefits into account and compensate those
homeowners for their investments. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Scot Burlingame
Submission Time: May 22 2023 1:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3520 Kingswood Drive
Boise, ID 83704

8

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Once again Idaho Power (IP) is advoca�ng for a change in the rela�onship between the
power company and independent solar producers. Unsurprisingly, the proposal skews the facts and the
money to IP’s benefit. I am wri�ng to the IPUC because it is the IPUC’s role to enforce the balance
between the public interest and the need for the electricity genera�ng monopoly to remain viable.

We can no longer afford to be indifferent to the sources of our electricity. Climate change has become
revealed as a clear and present threat. Building a livable future will require sources of energy that do
not, as a cost of their use, mean more contribu�ons to warming. The construc�on of a green future has
started, but we are way behind. In the short term we need to seize every opportunity. One significant
and growing contribu�on is private businesses and private ci�zens spending their own money to expand
solar genera�on. IP says it will spend over $200 million to the next 20 years to obtain 120MW of power
for Idaho. They evince no par�cular concern as to the source of this power.

The popula�on of the United States and the world con�nues to grow. The need for energy will con�nue
to grow. It is unques�onably in the interest and to the benefit of the country as a whole that new
electricity genera�on not contribute to further climate change. In the past when na�onal need arose
ci�zens stepped up—there were paper drives, rubber drives, ra�oning, and bond drives to men�on a
few—and acted on their patrio�c concern for the country. Many of us who up-fronted tens of thousands
of dollars hope to at least break even in the long term, but for many of us it has been a patrio�cally
mo�vated atempt to contribute to a beter future for the country.

As demonstra�on of the need for its current requests IP wrote the Voder study. At minimum this is
flawed methodology. Is it possible that a study writen by a u�lity with the mo�va�on to increase its
revenues would stress those things that bolster their conten�on and ignore those things which argue
against it? A quick check reveals considerable cherry picking in IP’s analysis. For example:
1. IP maintains it compiled the Voder study in collabora�on with the public. Not me. No one I know
was every consulted.
2. IP Voder is clear and understandable by the average customer. It seems prety opaque in some
cri�cal areas.
3. Voder says there is no benefit for solar produc�on during peak hours, but elsewhere assigns 20
cents per KH.
4. An alternate evalua�on accoun�ng for the broad societal benefits of solar genera�on was
discounted by IP.

Everyone wants IP to be a robust and successful company; our state and na�onal interest demands it. At
the same �me, we are in a �me of significant na�onal and global risk. Keeping our u�li�es strong is vital.
This should not, however, be in conflict with the patrio�c ac�ons of private businesses and individuals
who build out, on the home front, new electric capacity. My hope is that the IPUC will take a stance not
only suppor�ve of IP viability, but will ac�vely welcome, suppor�ng concrete protec�ons for those who
have gone solar, or who are considering doing so.

Scot Burlingame
Boise, ID"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Harry Reifschneider
Submission Time: May 22 2023 3:16PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3510 E Via Estancia Lne
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am wri�ng to strongly object to Idaho Power’s effort to change the rules on power
genera�on from solar panels on my house.
I think it is unreasonable to make this change a�er the fact. I made a significant financial decision to put
solar panels on my house. I took the decision very seriously since it involved a $75,000 expenditure. My
analysis was based on the way Idaho Power handled power genera�on at the �me.
They have offered to grandfather plans that they call legacy that were in service 4 years ago. How am I
not legacy? I’ve had solar panels for almost 3 years. Why would they choose an arbitrary date? I have
no objec�on to them changing the rules for future projects. People can look at the program and make an
intelligent decision. My decision has already made made. I spent the money, I can’t change my mind.
I spent a lot of money mostly for the good of the climate. It’s a stretch to think it makes economic sense
but I did it believing that over �me I would maybe come close to break even. Now they want to change
the rules and make my decision even more ques�onable.
I urge the commission to deny this request or at least force Idaho Power to grandfather anyone who has
already spent the money to get solar.
Thanks
Harry Reifschneider"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------