20230523Comments_10.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: CJ Adams
Submission Time: May 22 2023 5:45PM
Email: cjadams.myna�[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12885 Three Point St
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I know that Idaho power is trying to change the net metering program. I work for a solar
company, and if these changes get approved, I will probably be leaving the industry. I and many of my
solar customers love having solar and producing our own energy. These changes will make it less worth it
for many people and not worth it at all for some people to get solar in the future. These changes will
cost people money and put people out of jobs. Please do not approve the requested changes. At the
very least, grandfather the people who already have solar. Thank you for taking �me to read this."

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

Name: Georgiann Crosta
Submission Time: May 22 2023 6:20PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 19510 Maywood Pl.
Caldwel, ID 83605

Name of U�lity Company: idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "My daughter and I moved here from alaska less than two years ago and have been excited
about solar energy since we arrived. Today, our solar panels were installed and as soon as the inspec�on
is completed by Idaho Power, we will be using power generated by the solar panels. Today I also received
a leter regarding proposed changes to the compensa�on structure for on site genera�on. please do not
allow changes to on-site genera�on regarding fair prices for all customers. We have opted to try solar
panels for a reason, trying to use alterna�ve energy, and it would be unfair to those of us op�ng for solar
energy to be punished. Idaho Power should be giving more incen�ves to those of us who have chosen to
help our planet. "

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jana Waddell
Submission Time: May 23 2023 8:52AM
2

Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7582 w corona dr
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: LLL-U-00-00 IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I don’t know how to not feel like this is a response to Idaho power losing money. My solar
panels currently cover my power bill 100% and it all evens out over the year with my level pay that I
don’t have a power bill. I can’t help but see this as Idaho power saying, oh well that doesn’t work for us
so we’re going to make it so you s�ll have to pay us even though your panels cover your bill and it’s a
wash. I work in real estate and most systems don’t even begin to cover everyone’s power bills so I can’t
fathom how Idaho power thinks non solar customers are somehow being unfairly billed because of our
investments. It feels icky and shady and makes me lose respect for Idaho power. "

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

Name: Andrew Johnson
Submission Time: May 22 2023 9:21PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 22395 Hoskins Rd
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I received the recent leter from Idaho Power "RE: Proposed changes to the compensa�on
structure for on-site genera�on." The leter states that the average bill will increase by $12, but does not
clearly describe the proposed method or algorithm for compu�ng a customer's bill.

Prior to moving forward with this proposal, I request that a leter be sent out to those with on-site
genera�on, which describes in great detail the method or algorithm for determining the customer's new
bill.

The vagueness by which Idaho Power has glossed over the increase, and has simply stated the
approximate average without providing details, is a cause for concern, as the lack of clarity indicates that
Idaho Power is hiding something from the public which Idaho Power knows is repugnant.

Please either (a) reject the proposed changes completely, or (b) require that Idaho Power issue a leter
detailing in depth the method for calcula�ng the new bills, and allow the public ample �me to review
the informa�on, conduct research, and respond. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Linda Stevenson
Submission Time: May 23 2023 10:37AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 22624 Aura Vista Way
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I feel that those of us that have bought solar equipment and have been customers before
the proposed changes in how we are receiving our credits should not change and we should be
grandfathered in as we are now receiving our credits.
Thank you"

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mathew Stalker
Submission Time: May 23 2023 11:19AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 12170 State Highway 75
Hailey, ID 83333

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Good day.
There will be a lot of heated voices on this topic, but I hope this is one of a balanced perspec�ve.
My main points in reviewing this proposal have a founda�on in the IPUC mission statement. A statement
that I believe to be fair, and important.

This response highlights concerns about the credibility of the report, the unfair treatment of solar
generators, the lack of considera�on for specific residen�al solar dynamics, and the failure to account for
the broader benefits of residen�al solar genera�on.

The first item I wanted to address is the fostering of a fair and compe��ve marketplace.
How are we expected to take a 166-page document, which has 6 pages for a glossary to define unknown
terms, and uses Terms like "VER integra�on costs" and PURPA QFs and 'normalized or "base level" of
NPSE'. It took me hours to breeze through parts of it and formulate an educated response. I understand
4

that this is the purpose of the IPUC; to allow industry experts, to maintain the public good, but the
report appears to obfuscate informa�on and dismiss other info while ignoring the set objec�ves of
regulators.
This study does not appear to be understandable to an average customer.
How are solar generators to accept rates based on a report from the company with the most incen�ve to
reduce these rates (as they make more profit from doing so)?
In con�nua�on of a fair and compe��ve marketplace, this proposal does not treat residen�al generators
as part of the marketplace. Industry-scale generators of all fuel types are provided long-term contracts
and guarantees. This proposal seeks to limit the rights, not nego�ate them. Mul�ple atempts have been
made to con�nually change the parameters which residents purchased equipment, and which Idaho
Power and the IPUC set.
For example, Idaho Power can take excess genera�on and produce profitable partnerships for "excess
energy" - without modifying any agreement with the generators.
In terms of a fair marketplace, I have a ques�on: How does Idaho Power define peak genera�on �mes at
different �mes than they charge their customers?
Consumers: Peak is: 1 p.m. – 9 p.m. - June through Aug – Weekdays.
Generators: Peak is defined as June 15 - September 15, Monday – Saturday, 3 pm - 11 pm. All other
hours are defined as Off-Peak.
U�lity-scale solar is used on p86 to es�mate rates of genera�on. How is this close to residen�al-scale
solar? U�lity-scale solar is usually far away from consump�on, meaning u�lity-scale solar has addi�onal
costs for transmission, maintenance, and overhead. Residen�al is generated in highly populated areas
where transmission is in the range of feet, not miles.
Solar generated on roo�ops is efficient. Power goes to the nearest voltage poten�al, which is most o�en
the neighbor. Yet Idaho Power is charging the neighbor for the full rate including transmission from its
power plant.
Another example, per the VODER report, is that Idaho does not have a Renewable Por�olio Standard
with a distributed genera�on carve-out, a Solar Renewable Energy Cer�ficate market, or any legisla�on
that establishes specific treatment of on-site genera�on RECs. (per the VODER study). And I agree with
that, but the corporate en�ty of Idaho Power does market and depend on residen�al solar genera�on.
Here is a quote from Sven Berg, corporate communica�ons specialist with Idaho Power: "Energy from
customer genera�on has value, and customers with roo�op solar panels will help us reach our 100
percent clean energy goal,"
Idaho Power's use of residen�al solar genera�on in their marke�ng without compensa�ng the
residen�al solar generators is an unfair prac�ce that exploits them for increased profitability.

The second item to address are topics under IPUC's mission to 'serve the public interest'.
The public interest is a large blank spot in the VODER report. Understandably, Idaho Power is focused on
profitably maximizing electricity to Idahoans, a valid goal. But there are more interests in the public
arena than only power.
As has been likely men�oned in many comments and independent reports, avoided environmental costs
are set to 0. Idaho is full of hunters, outdoorsmen, and women. They are proud of public lands, and pay
taxes to manage them. To imply that these have 0 costs is contrary to the work and du�es of local
people. Was Idaho Power disingenuous in agreeing to quan�fy the environmental, public health, and
local economic benefits of individual-owned solar–and then not doing so?

The public interest would be in grid stabiliza�on. Distributed genera�on, such as residen�al solar
systems, contributes to grid stability. Grid stability is also unquan�fied in this report.
5

But a func�oning grid is a founda�on for all other assump�ons herein, and incen�vizing (or at least not
penalizing) distributed resources is cri�cal to Idaho's future. Forward-thinking about preparedness is
cri�cal to IPUC's mission and to remove t"

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Steve Lozano
Submission Time: May 23 2023 12:57PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2727 West Lost Rapids Drive
Meridian ID, ID 83646

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "It is concerning that; the commissioner has allowed a public u�lity to do their own study and
chosen over a non-par�san study. The Commissioner’s fiduciary duty is to the residents of Idaho.
The Changes that Idaho Power purposed is concerning because home owners counted on these
incen�ves when they choose to install solar panels and the payment off set by the KWH credits to also
alleviate their loan payment vs any u�lity payment.
What Idaho Power is doing is to line their pockets by receiving these generated KWH and in turn will be
selling it either locally or out of state.
Idaho Powers interest are not what their study indicates “Fairness” but its more for profit, they are a
corpora�on not a charity.
Thank you for your �me"

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

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Eric Morris
Submission Time: May 23 2023 1:48PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4559 Paton Ave
Boise, ID 83704

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14
6

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 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. We
are now being penalized, how is this "fair"? My family deserves beter than to be swindled like this.
Regards, "

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

Name: Beverly Sherman
Submission Time: May 23 2023 1:56PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7746 West Middle Fork Street
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am in disbelief about the approximate $144 annual increase in my power bill! I paid a LOT
of money to install a Solar Panel System on my house in 2021. I wanted to help in my small way with the
environmental disaster looming over all of us. But, I also had to weigh the high financial costs of doing
this with the reduc�on in cost of paying for electricity. Did the equa�on balance out enough to where I
would foot the costs for something now that may provide a benefit possibly a decade or more later? A
benefit I may never experience - that provides benefit to the popula�on as a whole right now. This
increase will be a higher barrier for others to add solar to their homes, thus impeding progress of
dives�ng ourselves from fossil fuel products and possibly stopping the earth from being too hot/cold and
flooded to live on. This is a really bad move, in my opinion. If you are saying the general popula�on is
subsidizing those who can afford solar, you are also saying that the general popula�on shouldn't have to
change their behaviors - just allow others to beter the environment. Please rethink this. For anyone
concerned with the increase in climate disasters, it does not make financial sense in the long run!"

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

7

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Cory Kelley
Submission Time: May 23 2023 2:37PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2199 Navigator St
Middleton, ID 83644

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am very much against Idaho Power changing the compensa�on structure for genera�on of
solar power that homeowners sell back to Idaho Power. This would have changed many homeowners
decision to buy solar in the last 4 years. The fact that the study was not independent, but done by Idaho
Power should cause us to pause and consider carefully their recent report. It is also insane to me that
the excess power generated is generally being sold out of state for profit and not kept in Idaho. Please
don't subsidize California."

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