20230612Comments_5.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Barry Mar�n
Submission Time: Jun 9 2023 6:45PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11464 W Rosete Dr
Nampa, ID 83686

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "As re�res on a fixed income, we wanted to fix or reduce our u�lity expenses. Based on
current guidelines we installed solar on our home in 2022. The proposed changes would have a
significant increase to our u�lity bill. We currently have payments to the solar company for the panels.
For this reason we are opposed to changes in the compensa�on structure. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: TIMOTHY BARBOUR
Submission Time: Jun 11 2023 8:07AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 9747 West Jadewood Drive
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho powers preposed change to solar net metering will do nothing but hurt individuals to
generate revenue. Many of us invested in solar pannels without being informed of this potentual change
and as such did not factor into our system sizing or budgets.

This change if it goes thru will keep people from installing new systems."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Joshua Van Dyke
Submission Time: Jun 11 2023 1:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3640A North 1000 East
2

Buhl, ID 83316

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power unfortunately

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "There are so many problems with the current Idaho Power (IP) proposal that I don’t even
know where to begin.
1. IP hypocri�cally wants customers to pay for system maintenance costs, yet there is no compensa�on
for customers who maintain their power genera�on systems (solar).
2. Solar is NOT a different product-its all electrical energy in the end.
3. Who verifies the proposed annual appraisal and impact of reliability to assess new ECR?-without
crea�ng a conflict of interest?
4. The Voder study was NOT created in coordina�on with any affiliated par�es nor the public-that’s
called manipula�on.
5. Adjus�ng the ECR as proposed contradicts the IP ‘green agenda’ by decreasing the value of solar
produced energy (thereby DISincen�vising people to actually ‘go green’.
6. Through these proposed changes, IP is also ‘punishing’ owners of solar systems for their efforts to be
sustainable and who are actually in alliance with many green policies-it’s a HUGE double standard!
7. There is an overall lack of checks and balances, and the proposals are based on rigged informa�on.
DO NOT ALLOW THESE PROPOSED CHANGES TO HAPPEN!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: James Obland
Submission Time: Jun 12 2023 10:17AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 407 Elk Creek Road
Idaho City, ID 83631

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I don't believe that the power company should be allowed to cut the rates that apply to solar
generators. In fact, I believe that the rates should be raised during peak hours. They charge more for
power during peak periods for users but do not pay more to suppliers. So they pocket all the profits
during these �mes. They want to be carbon-free, so they should generously compensate the solar
generators."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Ryan Williamson
3

Submission Time: Jun 12 2023 11:13AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 30 Tamarack Ct
Garden Valley, ID 83622

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I can’t help but no�ce that this proposal provides a very �ny window of opportunity for
customers to generate “on-peak” electricity, and an extremely large window for credi�ng customers half
of today’s rates.

• Tiny Window of Opportunity - There are 8760 hours in a year. The proposed “on-peak” window only
offers an opportunity for solar customers to generate “On-Peak” rates for 618 of the 8760 hours per year
(or ~7% of total billable hours annually). This is an impossibly small window to try to make the higher
rates. And that’s of course if you get lucky and its sunny during those �mes.

• Impossible to make daily On-Peak rates for the majority of customers - This model pays a higher rate
for customer genera�on from 3 pm – 11 pm (and doesn’t include Sunday’s OR holidays)? Half of these
daily hours, the sun isn’t shining so the vast majority of customers (who are grid-�e only) will have no
op�on to take advantage of the higher on-peak credit rate. If they are lucky, they may make a higher
rate for two or three hours per day for just 12 weeks out of the year (minus Sundays and holidays of
course)!

Telling customers you’ll credit them at a higher rate for energy they produce at 10 pm at night sure
seems odd since undoubtedly most of your customer genera�on comes from solar (as opposed to other
renewable sources that produce all hours of the day) and the sun doesn’t shine at 10 pm at night(?) Its
like giving someone an incen�ve for something they can’t possibly achieve. Isn’t that a bit cruel?

And why even build a higher credit �er if it only applies to 7% of your annual poten�al creditable hours
(and really it’s only ~4% because PV panels don’t produce for almost half of the hours in the daily
window (8pm-11pm)? It’s almost pointless to even have the “On-Peak” �er because it hardly ever has to
pay out. Why bother??

There are �mes in life when someone pisses down your back and tells you it’s raining (be happy!). This
definitely seems like one of those moments. “Thanks customer for inves�ng all that money in solar to
partner with us to help us meet our renewable energy goals! As a thank you, we’re going to credit you
half of what we normally compensate you, and then we’ll give you a lotery �cket (On-Peak) as a
consola�on prize. Good luck!!”

Frustra�on aside, if I’m actually understanding this properly, this does seem like Idaho Power wants to
credit us significantly less going forward for 95% of the poten�al creditable hours annually. I really wish
I had known this was coming when we invested in the design and implementa�on of our quite expensive
system 2 years ago. Our return on investment is now going to take a couple of decades with this change.

4

I make a point to never complain without offering poten�al solu�ons to the problem. Here are some
thoughts that I’d like to add to the conversa�on with this group.

Possible Solu�ons:
• Increase “On Peak” opportunity window so it’s easier to achieve - This could be realized through
increasing On-Peak hours per day (12 pm-8pm maybe?) and also by increasing beyond 3 months out of
the year (to maybe 4 months or 5 months out of the year?).
• Build a Third Tier – Design an addi�onal �er that splits the difference between “On-Peak” and “Off-
Peak”. (Mid-Tier?) This might credit customers at ~12 cents and would kick in earlier in the day, maybe
from 12 pm-3 pm or something along those lines.
• Just S�ck With A Flat Rate Credit Model - Get rid of the hourly �ering system if it’s not going to be
implemented in a meaningful way to the vast majority of your customers. Go with a flat rate that is
equitable to all solar customers; including all the people who have grid-�e only systems. (Systems with
batery backup can poten�ally feed the grid a�er the sun goes down, but most solar customers do not
have a batery/storage solu�on)

I strongly encourage you to reconsider the details and fundamentals used in this new proposed model.
It’s not fair to any of us who have tried to do the right thing by inves�ng in renewable energy.

Sincerely,
Ryan W"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------