20230601Comments_4.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mary Stewart
Submission Time: Jun 1 2023 11:00AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1254 E Whig Dr
Kuna, ID 83634

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am wri�ng to express my disapproval of the request by Idaho Power to change its on-site
genera�on offering. There has been a significant push for residents to transi�on to solar energy, which
many residents have done. This change is an obvious atempt to recoup money lost by Idaho Power. By
that I mean, they are receiving less money from customers who are now genera�ng their own power.
They can no longer raise rates on us, so they are atemp�ng to do that with these changes. The idea that
customers without solar are subsidizing the rates for self-genera�ng customers is ridiculous. Self-
genera�ng customers are reducing the demand for power generated by Idaho Power, which reduces the
demand on the grid during peak power �mes, including summer.
I respec�ully request that you deny this request by Idaho Power. "
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mathew Stalker
Submission Time: Jun 1 2023 12:31PM
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: "Please append the following comment to my comment from 5-23-23:
...
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 that capability from IPUC's hands in the future is not something I
want to see happen.
Last, in the public interest is conserva�on. Idaho Power puts out hundreds of thousands of impressions
on conserving electricity and doing our part. Yet they do not apply the same framework to the solar
generators providing addi�onal power at peak temperature events. This double standard is to be noted.
2

The Idaho public would also benefit from diversified sources of jobs. Technological innova�on, industry
development, and energy independence align with residen�al solar.
Thank You.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kelly Mooney
Submission Time: Jun 1 2023 1:52PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 7153 E Highland Valley Rd
Boise, ID 83716

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "As a residen�al on-site genera�on customer, I am opposed to the proposed changes in the
compensa�on structure. I made a personal financial decision of great magnitude ($86K) to install roo�op
solar. That decision was based on the current compensa�on structure and the business case outlined by
the solar installa�on company. I agreed with their financial analysis, based on the current arrangements
for on-site solar genera�on and my unique property details. To now change that financial dynamic for
“non-legacy” customers is patently unfair.
If the PUC determines this proposed change from Idaho Power is appropriate, it should NOT be levied on
customers that made business decisions before the changes were enacted. Further, the Idaho Power
claim that is outlined in IPC-E-22-22 sta�ng that customers such as myself are being subsidized by other
ratepayers is very difficult to follow, which greatly diminishes the credibility of the Idaho Power claim. As
your IPUC news release stated, “The primary objec�ve of the on-site genera�on study and
corresponding modifica�ons to the program is to establish a sustainable on-site genera�on program that
is fair and equitable. Ideally, the parameters of the program should minimize or eliminate cross-subsidies
that could exist between par�cipants and non-par�cipants of on-site genera�on.” I challenge the PUC to
claim that my on-site genera�on is a ‘cross-subsidy’ benefi�ng me personally at the expense of non-
par�cipants or the very profitable Idaho Power Corpora�on.
Idaho Power should be pursuing efficient opera�ons and dividends for their shareholders but NOT at the
expense of on-site genera�on customers that made financial calcula�ons based on the current
compensa�on structure. Changing it without amending the "non-legacy" status of customers is unjust
and your duty as a commission is to deny the Idaho Power proposal."
----------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Rick Aldinger
Submission Time: Jun 1 2023 3:34PM
Email: [e-mail]
3

Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9433 W Deerfawn Dr
Star, ID 83669

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I oppose the "Proposed changes to the compensa�on structure for on-site genera�on" that
was outlined in Idaho Powers leter to customers with on-site genera�on.

1. Isn't the goal to be less energy dependent and as Idaho Power states on their web site, 'cleaner
today, tomorrow, working together and caring for the environment’? On-site genera�on/solar systems
are reducing usage during peak hours, as well as reducing some of the strain on the grid/infrastructure.
The solar systems also provide Idaho Power with the ability to sell excess power that hopefully benefits
other Idaho Power customers and/or cover their costs for addi�onal rebates, incen�ves, etc.

2. Idaho Power provides all kinds of incen�ves, rebates and credits for installing energy efficient
appliances, insula�on, doors, windows, weatheriza�on programs, and Easy Savings coupons for a free
electric furnace or heat pump tune-up. All of these programs help reduce energy usage and
dependence. Are these customers penalized for using less electricity? Technically they see a kWH for
kWH when reducing power usage. Roof top solar genera�on provides similar benefits as all of the
programs Idaho Power promotes and subsidizes, poten�ally providing more benefits to Idaho Power and
their customers.

3. The new compensa�on proposal for solar systems/on-site genera�on, is very complicated, vague
and difficult to follow/understand. Following is an excerpt from the leter: ‘maybe valued around 10
cents (?), �me differen�ated financial bill (?); ranging from approximately 5 to 20 cents (?), updated
annually, no carry over, maybe some?

4. Botom line, the new pricing is not fair. Look at the 'average monthly bill impact' chart they
proposed; customers using the least amount of power would pay more than 30% increase, i.e. $5 to $12
or $23 to $35 is more than a 30% increase. Majority of solar customers are at the lower �er of solar
usage. Why are customers with installed solar systems who are using less energy being penalized for
providing addi�onal benefits to Idaho Power?

5. It is unfortunate that there are only 3,754 customers genera�ng power via roof top solar systems
(see Idaho Power Chart). The popula�on and energy usage in Idaho is going to increase. Idaho and
Idaho Power should be leading the way to promote more solar usage, not penalizing households that
install solar.

Summary, Idaho Powers new proposal is discriminatory towards solar installa�ons, one sided, arbitrary,
complicated, vague, confusing, and very penalizing for current as well as future solar owners. Actually,
the VODER study is contradictory to other studies. The new proposal does not talk about the costs
moving to a new system. Does it require new equipment, addi�onal equipment, major administra�ve
changes, etc?

4

Let’s actually work Together and help Idaho Power move towards their goal “Clean Today. Cleaner
Tomorrow®, 100% clean energy by 2045”. Maybe current/future solar installa�ons can help improve the
date as well as meet various goals Idaho Power has stated on their web site.

Thank you for your �me.
Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------