20230524Comments_7.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Andrew Bagley
Submission Time: May 23 2023 5:54PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2511 N Grandee St
Boise, ID 83704

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "ID
Please don’t let Idaho Power take money from the people who have installed solar. They will make
plenty off of their rare increases, they don’t need to punish those of us who have installed solar.
At least consider a grandfather situa�on.

Thank you "

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

Name: Wesley Matson
Submission Time: May 23 2023 6:35PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3312 N 36th St
Boise, ID 83703

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power Company

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I have commented before, but have given the issue some more thought. I would like to
provide further insights into the poten�al impacts of the proposed changes to the net metering structure
by Idaho Power Company.

In proposing that the export credit rate should closely mirror the retail rate per kWh, I'm providing an
example alterna�ve process. Regardless, the process for se�ng this rate should be transparent, fair, and
reflec�ve of the true value of solar power to the grid.

The retroac�ve applica�on of the net metering changes undermines customer trust, poten�ally
dissuades future adop�on of renewable technologies, and unduly penalizes those of us who made
financial commitments based on the exis�ng policy framework. For the solar industry to grow and thrive,
poten�al customers and investors need to have confidence that the rules will not change unexpectedly.
This proposal could undermine that confidence, and contradicts principles of good faith and fair dealing.

2

It is important to note that during peak hours, solar panels help reduce the load on the grid. This
distributed energy produc�on contributes to a more stable and resilient energy system. Under the
proposed changes, the value of this contribu�on does not seem to be adequately recognized.

Instead of proposing changes that discourage the use of clean energy, we should be working towards
making it more accessible and economically viable. I urge Idaho Power Company to reconsider these
changes and explore alterna�ve approaches that support renewable energy, respect consumers'
investments, and contribute to a sustainable and resilient energy system.

Thank you for your aten�on to these maters."

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

Name: Thomas McMahon
Submission Time: May 23 2023 8:16PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 10010 W Calico St
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "In a �me when Idaho is growing at a rate difficult to keep up with, why would we entertain a
case that would put more pressure and stress on the energy demands?

Pulling the rug on exis�ng customers and dissuading future solar installa�ons is a short sighted play.

With hydro, wind, and solar plen�ful - Idaho has a rare chance to lead the na�on in something that's
honorable. Let's not make it harder than it already is. "

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

Name: Hilary Johnson
Submission Time: May 23 2023 10:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9647 W Macaw St
Boise, ID 83704

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "• IPUC rejected the third-party study and devalued the “affiliate par�es” collabora�on to
assess value of Solar energy.
• No checks and balances for how Idaho power handles accoun�ng of credits.
3

• Current IPUC members were not on the board when Voder study was accepted, therefore a new
study should be presented.
• Idaho Power wants customers to pay for maintenance costs, however customers are not
compensated for their own maintenance costs for producing/distribu�ng energy.
• Idaho Power claims the Voder study was comprehensive yet le� out any monetary value of
environmental benefit of Solar.
• Idaho Power originally requested a Kwh compensa�on for ease of accoun�ng, why change now?
• Idaho Power claims to have designed the Voder study in coordina�on with the affiliated par�es
and public. FALSE
• The study and proposal are claimed to be understandable to the average customer. FALSE
• Idaho Power will provide an annual appraisal and impact of reliability to assess new ECR. Who
verifies the accuracy and completeness of this appraisal?
• Idaho Power claimed in Voder study that no benefit existed for solar produc�on during peak
�mes yet negates their own conclusion by atribu�ng 20 cents per kilowat during peak hours."

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: James Marconi
Submission Time: May 24 2023 8:04AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2841 S Brookridge Way
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Our current metering plan allows us to accumulate kwh to offset power drawn from the grid
and neted against power used during the billing period. The proposal to reduce the value of generated
electricity means that the power we generate will be worth much less than the amount to be billed for
power we consume.

I would like to propose that the value of the kwh credits that we have at the �me of a new rate structure
is put in place ((1/1/2024) be valued at the then current cost per kwh, e.g. 10 cents/kwh. This calculated
"cash credit" would then be applied towards any future net metering charges for power used without
any �me limit.

Gran�ng a cash credit based on the old rule would be consistent with the Commission's policy of
"grandfathering" customers. It would also offset the drama�c change in billing we an�cipate under the
new system. Future kwh credit at the "wholesale cost" value should also be able to be kept by the home
generators without limit. It seems that Idaho Power wants to "cash out' customers simply to facilitate its
bookkeeping.

4

It seems that Idaho Power benefits greatly from home solar generators by adding capacity to the grid
without any up front cost to them. This proposal seems to penalize home generators."

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Leslie Eberle
Submission Time: May 24 2023 12:31PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1522 Cherry St
Caldwell, ID 83605

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "My comment on this case is that it is not in fact fair. Why did I pay thousands of dollars for
solar for everyone else to receive a monetary benefit? I understand the bill would be increasing 30% but
I don’t understand why that responsibility falls on me when I am the one who paid for solar to receive a
benefit as I am helping generate power for the state.
Thank you for your considera�on. "

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

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Rob Black
Submission Time: May 24 2023 2:07PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3228 S Brookridge Way
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Once again Idaho Power is atemp�ng to Monopolize energy in Idaho. I feel this is an an�-
compe��on play that it not in the best interest of the very people the Public U�li�es Commission is
trying to protect. You claim you are put into place to protect the consumer but you con�nue to allow
Idaho Power to make any change they want to energy prices in Idaho. How does this rate change to
excess energy make any sense? Idaho Power sells energy to consumers at a retail price. Why on earth
should they be able to buy our energy back at half of the value? The next topic of conversa�on is this.
Mone�zing excess energy is going to allow Idaho Power to increase costs substan�ally over the course of
5

the next 10 years thus reducing the value of the excess energy we sell back. 4.9 cents is currently half
and in 5 years it will be 1/3 and so on. You simply can't allow them to diminish our ability to offset rising
energy costs so they can con�nue to make record net profits. The last point I want to make is in the
VODER STUDY. The Biased Study was done by Idaho Power. They claim that residen�al solar systems do
not help subsidize the grid during peak demand �mes. Then why on earth would they be willing to pay
.20 cents a kilowat during peak demand �me every Summer? If this so-called study was an accurate
representa�on of our grid here in Idaho then why would they be contradic�ng themselves now when
the rate case to change rates is on the table? The PUC needs to see through this crap and do the right
thing. YOU (PUC) need to be beter and do your job. And your job is to protect the public. You have a
chance here to protect renewable energy in Idaho and help save our planet. The ques�on is will you help
be a part of the solu�on or a part of the problem? I hope that some younger blood is now on the
commission that is willing to protect our planet for future genera�ons."

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