20230607Comments_3.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Larry Taylor
Submission Time: Jun 6 2023 4:27PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2204 S. Michigan Ave.
Caldwell, ID 83605

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Powe

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Please add me to your email list I want to know outcome and reasoning on any decision
dealing with Idaho Powers request dealing with case IPC-E-23-14 I have writen a comment here but I
want to say that everything Idaho Power has put out about this is very confusing.
We installed solar in our home in 2022 because we felt was good for the environment and, in the long
term, a good financial investment. This decision was based on rules and costs established by Idaho
Power. Since then, Idaho Power has is wan�ng to change the rules making it less rewarding to use solar
power and making consumers more dependent on them. The most recent changes proposed to Idaho
Public U�li�es Commission (reducing the compensa�on for electrical power produced by solar
customers)clearly benefit Idaho Power but are based on a study PERFORMED BY IDAHO POWER! This is
clearly a conflict of interest. Before any proposed changes are made, a study should be completed by an
independent third party.

Larry Taylor
2204 S. Michican Ave
Calwell Idaho
208-880-7987"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Lyndon Jenkins
Submission Time: Jun 7 2023 9:36AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1038 West Loon Street
Meridian, ID 83642

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "A�er discussions with two of your staff, I now understand that I was not grandfathered into
permanent kWh trade for kWh since I installed my solar roof a�er December of 2019. I understand that
2

my not being no�fied by the solar company of this fact is not your fault. The sales pitch never included
this important informa�on for me to make a decision on a solar investment. I'm sure somewhere in the
paperwork it does state this fact. I spent over $20,000 on this investment to assure that I had enough
panels to power my house for the whole year. They now propose credi�ng me power I put onto the grid
at wholesale and then charging me retail for power that I use off of the grid versus the kWh for kWh
trade off. I am strongly opposed. One thing that is not being considered in this proposal is how I am
being compensated for power I put onto the grid in excess of what I use over the year. Idaho Power is
receiving free power onto the grid with out me ge�ng any compensa�on whatsoever for this excess
power without their having to invest any money into my 'litle power plant'. Please consider maintaining
the status quo of kWh for kWh.

Thank you,

Lyndon and Nancy Jenkins"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Ray Toland
Submission Time: Jun 7 2023 12:54PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 10665 W Albany Ct
Boise, ID 83713

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Comment on Idaho Power's proposal to restructure billing for solar/point of use power
genera�on:
1) Net billing is the fair and sane way to structure billing; for several reasons:
a) Point of use power genera�on, regardless of type, saves Idaho power the need for like amount of
addi�onal non-local power genera�on (power plants) b) point of use power genera�on is more efficient
(lack of line loss from distant genera�on - 40% or more) c) as commuter travel transi�ons to more
electric vehicles, point of use power genera�on makes more sense than "impor�ng" power from a
genera�ng plant far away; also less pollu�ng.
2) Net metering balances the point of use power investor with the distant (Idaho Power) producer with a
KW for KW equal exchange."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------