20230626Comments_2.pdf

1

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Lawrence Hulme
Submission Time: Jun 24 2023 2:01PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11656 W Camas St.
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "June 23, 2023
To the Members of the Idaho Public U�li�es Commission Comments regarding Idaho Power’s proposal
(case # IPC-E-23-14)

Dear IPUC Members -
In response to the no�fica�on mailed to me on May 1, 2023 by Idaho Power about the proposed rate
changes for solar customers, I have the following ques�ons and comments:
How are non-solar customers subsidizing the rates for self-genera�ng customers? This was not
explained at all in Idaho Power’s May 1st leter. If anything, solar-genera�ng customers are indirectly
subsidizing non-solar customers by providing Idaho Power with easily-accessed electricity at their own
current market rate.
Why are 1:1 rates for power delivered and power received not fair? The Value of Distributed Energy
Resources study (IPC-E-22-22) seems to show Idaho Power wan�ng to pay LESS for exported power that
is pushed back to the grid for use elsewhere and could generate a higher profit for Idaho Power.
Does Idaho Power consider privately generated power inferior, and worth less? Why would that need to
be updated annually? Would not the cost per kWh float with the regular rate to all customers?
This proposed change looks like it will discourage property owners from purchasing new solar
installa�ons, in spite of an increasing demand for power in our region’s growing economic market. It also
will alter the mutual working arrangement of the current system that we were led to believe would
remain in place, as part of the jus�fica�on to place a 10-year workmen’s lien on our home. Idaho Power
also wants to stop allowing credits for monthly excess energy generated, which currently can be used to
offset energy consump�on in future periods when Idaho Power’s overall consumer demand is lower.
The addi�on of solar to a home is a very substan�al outlay of capital. Anyone who makes capital
investments want a return on their investment. One of the ways that jus�fies this outlay is the current
one for one cost of a kWh (one kWh out, one kWh in, at the same cost structure). Peak power costs are
approximately 9.5159 cents per kWh and off-peak is 7.3899 cents per kWh, if I’m correct in reading over
your study. The revised export rate Idaho Power want to provide those of us providing solar power back
to them seems to be about 2.3-4 cents per kWh. How is this fair and equitable with a cost of tens of
thousands of dollars in infrastructure by private par�es, not Idaho Power, to install solar? It seems that
the people with solar will be subsidizing Idaho Power, who want to pay us less per kWh and then have
the op�on to sell it on the grid for full price.
Idaho Power’s request to the IPUC for this kind of rate switch-up makes me wonder if their statements
about encouraging the growth of solar power is truly sincere, if at all. They say they support their
customers who choose to develop solar energy systems while, at the same �me, they are reques�ng
ways to remove incen�ves.
2

I also find it interes�ng that their monthly statements promote a program to allow people to par�cipate
in using cleaner solar power, but at an addi�onal cost. I wasn’t aware that power could be directed to a
specific place with a specific kind of generated power! So this seems to be just another scheme to trick
residen�al customers into suppor�ng Idaho Power’s botom line.
It seems to me that the more solar electricity that is added to Idaho Power’s system, the more electrical
power fills the grid, and the more Idaho Power benefits. What I generate replaces the need to make
more, and I make power at the peak of need, in the day�me and at the hotest �me in the summer. But
I’m sure Idaho Power doesn’t want to send us a check every month as we provide them with our excess
electricity. They should abide by the present arrangement for excess exported energy credits.
Idaho Power is already a large monopoly! Let’s not let it get any more powerful than it already is.

Respec�ully yours,
Lawrence A. and Doralee Hulme
11656 W. Camas St.
Boise, ID 83709
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Bradley Wiersma
Submission Time: Jun 26 2023 2:55PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1914 N Thistle Dr.
Kuna, ID 83634

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: ""Please keep the 1-1 ra�o for private homeowners solar panels" We installed our solar
panels in July 2022. Even with the 1 to 1 ra�o it will take many years before I can break even on the cost.
The 1 to 1 ra�o was the selling point for the installa�on. Without it, it's a huge loss of investment. "