20231107Comments_18.pdf

1

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Carol Hughes
Submission Time: Nov 6 2023 8:13PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 216 Elkhorn Road
Sun Valley, ID 83353

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "We installed 17 solar panels on our roof in May 2022 cos�ng $17,000. We did this to reduce
our energy costs, decrease our dependence on the grid and fossil fuels, and to reduce our impact on
climate change.

Idaho Power’s proposal to change its compensa�on structure will undermine our energy savings,
discourage other residents from installing solar, and ul�mately increase our dependence on fossil fuels.
At a minimum, I urge you to adopt a system like Nevada and Arizona that locks in the ini�al Export Credit
Rate for 10 years in order to provide financial stability for this major, long-term investment. This would
help to encourage people to install solar panels and assist in paying off the large expense incurred when
a solar system is purchased.

Please reject Idaho Power’s current proposal to change the solar credit system."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Jack Garret
Submission Time: Nov 6 2023 8:34PM
Email: fugal [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2025 E Chateau Dr
Meridian, ID 83646

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Dear Idaho Public U�lity Commissioners,

Amid infla�on, rising energy costs and grid instability, it’s clear that Idaho Power should be doing a whole
lot more to promote roo�op solar. Instead, the u�lity has submited a proposal (Case Number IPC-E-23-
14) that would make going solar harder and more expensive.

Idaho Power is proposing a dras�c overhaul to net metering with a complicated set of charges and
credits. If these proposals are approved by the Public Service Commission, they will make solar
unaffordable and inaccessible for you, and our working families.

2

Net metering is a billing policy that ensures solar customers receive full, fair retail credit from their u�lity
for the excess energy they produce. People and businesses in Idaho Power’s coverage area rely on net
metering so they can use solar to produce their own energy. No one that has solar makes money off of it.
In turn, they receive a bill credit for the electricity they send back to the grid and share with their
neighbors. The proposed changes to net metering would have a devasta�ng impact on customers who
have already gone solar or are thinking about going solar, at a �me when they can least afford it.

Addi�onally, the proposed reduc�on and/or poten�al elimina�on of net metering diminishes the
economic poten�al for the roo�op solar industry to grow and create local jobs. Net metering is the
keystone policy that keeps solar economically viable and helps solar customers earn a return on their
investment in clean energy. It takes years to get the return as well.

I urge you to oppose Idaho Power (Case Number IPC-E-23-14) proposal that would diminish the benefits
of roo�op solar and prevent more families from going solar.

Thank you for your considera�on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Dexter Pitman
Submission Time: Nov 6 2023 8:56PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13689 N MARBLE DR
Pocatello, ID 83202

Name of U�lity Company: private party

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am opposed to approval of this IPC proposal by the Commission. Doing so will con�nue to
allow IPC and other public u�li�es to set Idaho Energy Policy by their business plans rather than the
Idaho Office of Energy and Mineral Resources, Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance an ul�mately the Idaho
Public U�li�es Commission. "the primary thrust of net metering is to provide customers the
opportunity offset their own load and energy requirements. ...However that it may reconsider the way
net metering customers receive credit for excess energy." IDA COR needs revenue to maintain their
stock status (IDA Security Review). Interest Payments are not well covered by earnings; Dividend is not
well covered. I get it! IPC Calcula�on of Revenue Impact. Table page 329. Percent change base to
base:Residen�al Service On-Site Gemeera�on 60.82 %' Small Service On-Site Genera�on 70.39%. Alll
other classes 0.00%. This is company business policy not Idaho Energy Resilience Pollicy. Even as a
Legacy Customer I will begin paying more with planned fixed monthly service charges than my pre-roof
top solar power bill to IPC. Absolutely no program by IPC to encourage roof top solar as poten�al energy
sourcing for the future. No industry. No Jobs related to RRTS unless one goes off-the-grid. What a
waste. My RRTS investment will not make 3.16% Annually as my equivalent IDA Security. It will be a
freebee for IPC. The IPUC regulates investor owned electric...u�li�es..To ensure adequate service, just
reasonable and sufficient rates. I see nothing just, reasonable or reliable about this IPC rate case
proposal. Only sufficient (RRTS Rate Payer Subsidy) for Ida Corp Business Plan. Thank You for the
opportunity to express my reac�on."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Bert Hughes
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 8:36AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 215 Elkhorn Rd
Sun Valley , ID 83353

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Please reject Idaho Power's proposal to change the Solar Credit rates.
We installed solar panels on our roof at a net cost of approximately $17,000 in May 2022. We began the
process almost immediately a�er purchasing our home because we believe in reducing our net power
consump�on.
I understand that Nevada and Arizona lock in the Export Credit Rate for solar power for a period of 10
years. This seems very reasonable, and I think it's important to maintain good incen�ves for people to
install solar panels and reduce their dependence on fossil fuel.

Herbert R Hughes
Sun Valley ID 83353"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: LISA HECHT <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:37 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Cc: LISA HECHT <[e-mail]>
Subject: IPC-E-23-14 Case Comments

Dear Idaho PUC,

Please submit my comments below for case IPC-E-23-14, which are due
before November 8.

Lisa Hecht

4

***
Dear Idaho PUC Commissioners,

Thank you for your service, and for extending the opportuni�es for Idaho Power customers to provide
input on IPC-E-23-14.

I live in Boise. I am an Idaho Power customer since 1980, a re�red electrical engineer, a shareholder
since 1959, and a mother of a 30-year-old and a 27-year-old, who will inherit the earth we leave to them.
I’ve atended Idaho Power IRP mee�ngs for decades. I’ve had solar panels on my roof since 2016, so
have personal experience with the func�oning and financial aspects of that decision.

As commissioners, you are charged with se�ng fair and reasonable rates and protec�ng customers
where u�lity monopolies provide services such as electricity, gas, and water. The decisions you make will
impact customer financial well-being, the financial well-being of our business communi�es (both Idaho
Power and solar installers, for example), and our energy future and sovereignty; our ability to use the
solar, wind and other natural energy resources with which Idaho is blessed.

Having read most of the Applica�on submited by Idaho Power and atended a hearing in Boise, my
comments follow.

1. Energy ne�ng intervals: IPC is using hourly ne�ng for META’s and Micron’s self-
genera�on; but proposes instantaneous for Residents and Small Genera�on customers.
Why are these customer classes being treated differently?
2. Include Independent Third-Party Valua�ons: Allowing Idaho Power, the filer of this
proposal, to suggest the value of customer exports, is a case of the fox guarding the
henhouse. They will be inherently biased on �l�ng rates (ECR, etc.) in their favor, with
their inside knowledge. Please give full and fair considera�on of the differences
between what IPC is proposing and how it differs from what a third party, Crossborder,
proposes for ECR and other valua�ons related to this case. I’ve seen solar valua�ons
from 26 states, and they include many more (and higher) values of customer-generated
solar than are being included here.
3. Respect Customer ROI: Idaho Power proposes to update the ECR frequently. While the
ECR should reflect energy values as they change (e.g., with more solar and less coal
genera�on), customers who invest their hard-earned money in solar should have rates
exis�ng at the �me of their PV installa�on apply for at least 5 years. Hearings I’ve
atended on this always included re�rees atemp�ng to reduce their ongoing energy
5

costs. Who will invest in adding this capacity to Idaho Power’s total genera�on if they
can’t even es�mate Return on Investment (ROI) or Break-Even-Time (BET)?
4. Time-of-Day Pricing and Granularity: I am pleased to see that Idaho Power’s proposed
ECR includes peak and off-peak pricing, which could be even more granular in the future
to shave peaks and reduce overall cost. I’m pleased that the ECR valua�on is much
higher during seasonal peaks, reflec�ng costs then.
5. Lower Fixed Connect Fees: Many studies around the U.S. have shown that fixed and
high connect fees discourage both energy efficiency and investment in customer solar.
This is the wrong message to send to the poten�ally very large market for solar and
energy conserva�on, when Idaho and the U.S. will be needing more of both. Minimize
connect fees. Transmission and distribu�on costs may change in the future with more
microgrids. Residen�al and Small Genera�on Investments in solar reduce the need for
IPC’s investment in transmission, bateries, wind and solar.
6. Include externali�es which all IPC customers will pay if not accounted for in rates. Our
energy economics must value those most important things that support human and
other life: a habitable planet, with clean air and water. Those are beter accounted for in
the Crossborder study. There are means to mone�ze the renewable energy atributes of
solar; please maintain a placeholder for that and re-evaluate those values annually.
7. Lastly, I ask the PUC commissioners to consider how this and other rate-design
decisions will affect the grid of the future such that it benefits all. If customer solar
genera�on is not fairly valued, customers will either stop purchasing solar PV systems,
or will install bateries to keep the energy that IPC is undervaluing. This results in
transmission and distribu�on losses because instead of local, distributed resources,
energy will be generated far away, and line losses will be greater. This also reduces
opportuni�es for microgrids and a more locally resilient system. ECR 43 in the
Applica�on asserts: “The product that customer generators are expor�ng to Idaho
Power system is inherently different than the service Idaho Power is providing to its
customers.” In one respect it is superior, in that my excess exported energy goes directly
to my neighbors, with no transmission loss and minimal distribu�on loss. It is also less
impacted by outage events farther away. It’s also superior in that customers can use our
roo�ops to generate energy, reducing the need to put panels in farm fields that could
be beter used for growing food or for open space for Idaho’s amazing wildlife. If
customer solar genera�on is appropriately valued, we will be able to harness the power
of customer investment, the free market.

Thank you for your service and for reading and considering my comments in your decision.
Sincerely,
Lisa Hecht
4920 E Sagewood Drive
Boise, ID. 83716
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

From: Kaye Turner <ky�[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:50 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: Case IPC-E-23-14 comments

Thank-you for this opportunity to comment on the Idaho Power request for a rate hike to home
solar users.

The IPUC should reject the rate hike proposed to solar system owners. If approved it would
result in a future rate hike to all customers. This is because when homeowners review such a
rate hike, they will not acquire solar systems at anywhere near the percentage that do
now. With this reduced contribution of solar power to the grid, it would necessitate Idaho power
to compensate this loss by buying power by traditional sources, including coal and natural gas
sources. But these traditional sources cost significantly more than the low cost of managing the
solar power input to the grid. (Which is the basis of this rate hike request. )

After all, the home-owners themselves buy the solar system that adds power to the
grid! Granted, Idaho Power must meter the system and manage it so it is not totally free but it is
certainly less costly than the alternative: which is paying for power from coal and natural gas! (
Idaho Power charges homeowners $5.21 a month- a fee to recover Idaho Power’s solar
management costs.)

It should be noted by the IPUC that home-owners are very keen about reviewing their power
usage and comparing the cost of solar vs reduced monthly bills before purchasing a
system. The tipping point on this decision is very tight and will be changed by the rate hike,
such that much, much fewer home-owners will purchase a system.

Therefore the current Earned Credit System, using monthly balances is the simplest and fairest
system, one that in the long run saves all customers of Idaho Power.

Therefore the IPUC should keep Idaho Power’s existing monthly billing and compensation rate.

Thank-you
Kaye Turner
838 W. Bonneville St.
Pocatello, ID 83204
[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Darrell Calton
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 9:08AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 671 W White Sands Dr
Meridian, ID 83646

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho Power is atemp�ng to unfairly change net metering in Idaho to scrape in more money
for the u�lity at a cost that is nearly undefineable to Idaho customers that have invested heavily in our
economic and ecological futures. As a senior ci�zen, on the cusp of re�rement, I and many like me,
pulled hard earned savings, re�rement funds in some cases, to prepay our electricity usage in what is
supposed to be our golden years, through the upside of net metering. Will Idaho Power return my en�re
investment of $52,000 a�er they again "move the goalposts"? There will be long term damages if
regulators approve this. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Lila Dressen
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 10:28AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4453 N 2157 E
Filer, ID 83328-5095

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Idaho Power's jus�fies their request for a reduc�on in the compensa�on structure of excess
energy produc�on provided by roof top solar by saying they want to make sure the pricing of power is
fair for all customers. They claim the current pricing policy overcompensate customers with solar at the
expense of customers without. I have a hard �me understanding that logic. Everyone is pushing green
energy. Those of us who have gone along with the idea of solar have spent between $40,000 and
$50,000 to install systems on our roofs with the idea of receiving some kind of benefit for the
investment. Under current policy that return takes at least 10 years. If you installed solar before
December 20, 2019 you will con�nue to get that benefit...if you are a�er that date you missed the boat.
Is Idaho Power not benefi�ng from our roof top units in the same manner as units installed before
December 20, 2019? Idaho power doesn't have to provide us power five to six months out of the year
and we are providing them our excess power during these period. Doesn't that delay the need for them
to build addi�onal power sources to meet everyone's needs? Surely that should be worth a even
exchange in what they give us for our excess power. Installing solar in a major investment. With a even
8

credit the payback period is already atleast 10 years. By allowing Idaho Power to reduct that amount by
a large amount moves that payback to 20 years or more. They are in effect trying to put solar companies
out of business to their benefit as the move for solar grows. Returns that far out don't encourage people
to make the investment in solar. Any adjustments in the net metering policy should be based on a
review made by an independent, non par�san group. Please don't let Idaho Power divide us in to those
who have and those who haven't installed solar as a reason for this adjustment to the net-metering
policy.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: daniel farrell <dw�[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: comments on IPC-E-23-14

Please add the following comments to case IPC-E-23-14

Dan Farrell
3621 S Basilica Way, Meridian, ID 83642

Note: I shared some of the comments below in the Oct 24 public mee�ng; however, was unable to cover
all the topics in the 3 minutes alloted. Here is the full text of what I wanted to say.
I am a homeowner who installed a 5.8KW Grid �ed system in July 2020. I did it for the same reasons as
others before me: help the environment and save some money in the long run. I installed the system in
spite of the uncertainty created by the effort to change the terms for on-site genera�on because I felt
home solar was the right thing to do.
While the effort went on to change the terms of on-site genera�on, my system has produced a total of
30.1 MWh, exported a total of 18.6 MWh with a net export over my home usage of 1.3 MWh. That is so
exci�ng to me and makes me glad I didn’t wait in spite of the uncertainty. Now that IPC-E-23-14 has
been proposed I am concerned that the changes therein hurt those who have already installed solar by
significantly increasing our costs. It also disincen�vizes those who are considering solar by crea�ng
uncertainty in their opera�ng costs and the economic evalua�on that anyone inves�ng in residen�al
solar considers.
Here are some my issues with IPC-E-23-14:
1. My monthly operating costs (bill from Idaho power) due to IPC-E-23-14 will go up from
$5/month to $12/month – an additional $1,680 over the 20 year life of my system. That’s a 15%
increase in my overall system cost over its lifetime. And I’m one of the lucky ones with western
facing panels that generate power during the proposed peak summer hours. Others will see a
much larger increase.
9

2. I don’t trust the annual avoided cost credit (ACC) and export credit rate (ECR). I’ve seen
wildly different numbers proposed for the ACC and ECR. That variability leads me to think it
hasn’t been adequately vetted. Here are my questions and concerns:
a. Is it relatively stable or highly volatile? What would the value of the ACC/ECR have
been over the past 10 years if it had been in place? What is the projected value of the
ACC/ECR for the next few years?
b. What are the factors in and out of Idaho Power’s control that can influence the
ACC/ECR?
c. How will different Idaho power initiatives (infrastructure/accounting/etc.) impact
the ACC/ECR? How will the ACC/ECR change when energy storage systems are brought
online?
d. What factors are missing from the ACC/ECR that need to be included? Is the value
of the ACC/ECR low because of these missing factors? Who has decided not to include
them and why?
e. Will this calculation be automatically done every year and applied without
commission or customer review? Is that wise given the fact this is a new, untested
metric? I think there should be a review/approval any time its value is changed.
f. The uncertainty in the ACC/ECR is a huge disincentive to residential solar as it makes
the calculation of operating costs a guess.
2. I am thoroughly confused by the fact that IPC-E-23-14 is being considered concurrently with
IPC-E-23-11 (GRC) and that the GRC schedules do not reflect the new provisions of IPC-E-23-
14. The rates in 23-14 are only set until May 31, 2024, the GRC rates will be the ones that
matter and, for me, the test case on the effect of the changes on residential solar owners. And
when I looked at the new proposed GRC (IPC-E-23-11) to see what might be coming down the
road, I was stunned by what I saw – a complete upheaval in the pricing including a change to
impose a service charge to recover fixed costs as opposed a charge in the volumetric rates. This
change alone would mean much higher costs to low volume users like me. Since I only use
400kWh/month on average, my volumetric rate would need to go down by $10/400 =
2.5cents/kWh if the service charge increased to $15/month for my pricing to stay the same
(30/400 = 7.5cents/kWh when the service charge hits $35/month ). Did the price of residential
power decrease in IPC-E-23-11? I looked at the proposed rates to see how much my rate would
go down and instead saw it go up! There was nothing there to offset the higher service charge! I
could easily see my 20-year operating costs increase by $7,200 or more by only the service
charge provision of IPC-E-23-11 when it hits $35/month. High service charges are a bad idea for
all customers and an especially bad idea for residential generators.
3. Idaho power argued that the recovery of fixed costs through a service charge was a
modernization of their rate structure and that it brought greater fairness into the rates. Yes,
recovery of fixed costs through volumetric charges is a very old idea. However, it has worked
wonderfully for centuries at stores, gas stations and power companies. Consider a gas station
that has decided to charge a monthly service charge to any who wants their gas. And what
would they get for that service charge? The privilege of getting as much gas as they wanted –
with a small discount! The station across the street sells gas at a slightly higher price – without a
service charge. Where are you going to shop? Large volume users may well opt for the new
station if it saves them money. However, small volume users will stay with the station without
the service charge as it saves them money. It’s no different for our power. Unfortunately, we
10

don’t have the option of choice as Idaho Power is our only service provider. Please protect us
from this!
4. One final observation. Overall, the increase in revenue for schedule 6 in IPC-E-23-14 for all
customers is 62% from $8.9M to $14.4M ($5.5M) without any decrease to any other
schedule. Does the $5.5M simply become additional profit? Or is it refunded back somehow to
Schedule 1 users? I couldn’t find the answer in the proposal but suspect that the increased
revenue simply goes to the bottom line of Idaho Power.

So, here are my requests with regard to IPC-E-23-14:
1. IPC-E-23-14 is bad for residential solar and should be rejected on that basis alone.
2. Don’t adopt the current proposed ACC/ECR without additional due diligence.
3. Put in place mechanisms to have a formal review/approval of annual ACC/ECR changes.
4. Make sure any increased funds from IPC-E-23-14 are paid to Schedule 1 customers.
5. Don’t move recovery of fixed costs from volumetric rates to customer service fees.
6. Complete IPC-E-23-11 and then adjust IPC-E-23-14 based on the approved GRC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not sure the Commission received this public comment due to a typo in the Commission email
address and thought it best to bring it to your aten�on.

From: Rose McDonald <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:26 AM
To: [e-mail]; Nordstrom, Lisa Goicoechea Allen,
Megan IPCDockets
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Case #IPC-E-23-14

Dear Idaho Public U�lity Commission:

We purchased our solar panels under certain condi�ons just over a year ago and that is what we expect
for the life of the contract. It seems to us that we could be working in tandem with Idaho power to help
solve some of our power deficit problems but proposing such net metering policies I believe would push
11

a lot of solar customers to purchase bateries so that they are not connected to Idaho Power. If we did
buy bateries we would not have to worry about such policies changing in the future and Idaho Power
would not be benefi�ng from our panels in any way. I know we are now considering a batery system as
this is the second �me within our first year of being solar customers that Idaho Power is atemp�ng to
change what we signed up for. It was a huge investment for our family but one we felt would help not
only our botom line but also the environment. These terms should not be allowed to affect anyone who
is already a customer, it is not a produc�ve move for Idaho Power.

We urge you to deny Idaho Power’s proposal and con�nue to allow Idahoans the freedom to generate
their own energy.

Thank you for your �me and considera�on,

Rose and Brian McDonald
New Plymouth, Idaho
208-570-7916
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jan Long
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 11:36AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5479 W Rosslare Dr
Eagle, ID 83616

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power Company

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "My comment is directed to the issue of Idaho Power Company customers who have invested
in home solar panels. My re�red husband and I moved to Idaho in 2017, and in January 2022 we had
pulled together the funds to invest in solar panels for our home. We obviously will not be grandfathered
in to any exis�ng agreement to help us out financially, and now we have learned that Idaho Power
Company is reneging on the informa�on we were given while researching whether or not it made sense
to invest in solar panels.

As well, I fail to see how other Idahoans are having to pay extra because of solar panels being installed
by some of IPC's customers. Please factor in the substan�al investment made by those of us who have
panels. In our case, it was approximately $30,000. When we did our math before making a final decision,
we factored in what we were told by IPC. Now, you want to change your system substan�ally. It appears
that because we who have solar panels on our roofs are in the minority, we now have no voice in the
12

mater. And, we somehow jeopardize the billing structure for those without solar panels even as we add
free power to the system. As well, our willingness to invest in renewable energy is now going to be
punished. I hope you will take the �me and fairly assess how this affects owners of solar panels, many of
us on fixed incomes. Please factor in the full story.
Thank you,
Jan Long"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Del Dickerson
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 12:41PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1035 Beverly Dr
Eagle, ID 83616

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Dear Commissioners,

I write in opposi�on Idaho Power's proposed changes to the net metering rate structure.

As you know, Idaho Power has been trying to undermine the incen�ves for residen�al roo�op solar for
many years. This, their latest atempt, tries to make the case that roo�op solar shi�s the burden for grid
maintenace onto customers don't have roo�op solar.

I find this laughable. Idaho Power is a publicly traded company. The only clients that they care about are
their sharholders. Idaho Power does not give a rat about customers who don't have roo�op solar. What
they do care about is their botom line, and residen�al solar generators have the poten�al to turn their
business model on its head. They want to sell power, or, as in this case, buy it at rates favorable to them.

Idaho Power pays my neighbors and I to turn off our irriga�on pump on summer evenings when
demand is high (see Peak Rewards program), but they don't want to pay me market rates for my solar
power during these same periods.

Idaho Power is all for solar - as long as they're the producers! Are Idaho Power's solar arrays also unfair
to residen�al customers who don't have roo�op solar?

Please vote to oppose this proposal. Thank you for your considera�on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Leroy Kerby
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 1:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 997 Cow Horse Drive
Kuna, ID 83634

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I am opposed to Idaho Powers request to remove net metering and moving to their
proposed hourly tru-up. This is not fair to consumers and is only being sought to increase revenue and
profits at customers expense. It will greatly deminish the ROI on solar panels, which they are using the
power generated and selling at full price for a profit. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: john decker
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 1:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: P.O. Box 430
Cald , ID 83606

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I have solar power and love it.
We had solar installed to do our share to protect the environment and to help Idaho power.
Please do not change the rate!
Thank you"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Jeremy Fort
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 1:46PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 601 S Eisenhower St
Jerome, ID 83338

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

14

Comment: "We am reques�ng IPUC to reject Idaho Power's proposal to reduce solar energy
compensa�on. Just a year ago, we completed the installa�on of roo�op solar panels and bateries to
reduce our energy costs and create clean energy. My wife and I took this ac�on to lower our power
costs, and we believed that selling power back to Idaho Power would help them offset large
infrastructure costs incurred because Idaho's popula�on is growing.

Given my experience in the public sector, I am aware that u�li�es will cra� proposals that are weighted
in their favor. We ask that you reject the current proposal and mandate that Idaho Power ins�tute a
minimum 10-year guarantee to preserve the credit rate at the �me of installa�on.

We made a major investment that we believed would benefit us and Idaho Power, and now we are at the
mercy of IPUC to protect home generators such as ourselves. Please act on our behalf to reject Idaho
Power's proposal and protect our credit rates."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jeffrey Stevenson
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 2:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 22624 Aura Vista Way
Caldwell, ID 83607

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "ID
The kind of incen�ve / rate structure currently offered for Residen�al Solar Generators by Idaho Power
does many things but the most important is to promote Residen�al Solar Genera�on which is very
important. Please deny the change they request. It could kill Residen�al Solar Genera�on! Thank you"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: IPC-E-23-14 comment

Hello,

My name is John Reuter. I’ve run a small solar company in Hailey, ID since 2016. Please don’t let Idaho
Power kill residen�al solar power. Help this state be a renewable energy leader. Give ci�zens a right to
15

produce their own energy. Help Idaho be a leader in conserva�on. Please. We all know the rate
proposal from Idaho Power is terrible…it will be the death of residen�al solar in this state.

Please.

Thank you.
John Reuter

126 S Main St, Suite B4
Hailey, ID 83333
www.johnreutergreenworks.com
208.721.2922

To IPUC,
I have been following the news articles of late regarding Idaho Powers proposed net metering
rate schedule. We have this scenario due to the fact this same IPUC members voted to allow Idaho
Power to request this proposed rate schedule by disallowing a neutral report versus the one Idaho
Power was allowed to conduct. Gee, no conflict of interest there right?
So, now we are at the next phase of the process, and hoping this time around the people with
solar are listened to and use their thoughts and info to help produce what Idaho Power keeps claiming
their trying to do “which is make it fair to all.” That is if you believe Idaho Powers talk? If they really
wanted to make it fair, Idaho Power would start undoing those grandfathered in under the legacy
program. Because Idaho Powers argument is that those on solar are causing those not with solar to
cover more of the infrastructure costs. So, let us start with those with solar who have nothing to worry
about if Idaho Power really is trying to make it fair for all. I know this is not a reality, but it goes to show
you Idaho Powers hypocrisy with this issue.
People on solar are benefitting the power companies, not costing them money. It would be
different if Idaho Power were paying and installing solar on people’s houses, but they are not. The
homeowner is bearing all the costs. And Idaho Power is reaping all the benefits by not having the added
infrastructure costs yet take all the excess power generated and sell on the open market or use it to
power other local homes. And this process allows Idaho Power to reduce their costs because they are
not needing to purchase additional power from the open market or have the added costs of trying to
produce in demand power from their already existing power producing infrastructure.
All Idaho Power is trying to do is increase their revenue bottom line, at the expense of those
trying to do the right thing by going solar. Idaho Power should be encouraging more people to go solar,
do to the fact it will lessen Idaho Powers need to spend money on additional power producing entities,
but instead just use all the excess power all the roof top solar that will be produced moving forward.
Idaho Power is not trying to make it fair for all, just trying to increase more money for the
shareholders, and that is all its about. People with solar are not causing any more costs for Idaho Power
that were not already there prior to that individual deciding to go solar. It is the opposite, because now
the person with solar is generating power for themselves, and hopefully producing a little extra for Idaho
Powers use. Which is a benefit not a detriment to Idaho Power.

Sincerely yours

Jeff Iverson
From:jeff iverson
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:RE: proposed solar changes
Date:Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:14:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachmentsBEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agencyservice desk with any concerns.
Yes, I am submitting this under the current case, I am an idaho power customer with solar.
Address 3720 w quaker ridge dr meridian idaho 83646
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:13 AM, Jan Noriyuki<[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Iverson,
Please confirm that you are submitting this letter as a public comment in
Case No. IPC-E-23-14. In order for your comments to be added to the
record in this matter, please reference the case number you’re commenting
on, verify that you are an Idaho Power customer, and provide your home
address. Please note that when submitting a comment in a current case, the
comment constitutes a public record under Idaho Code 74-101(13). All
information you provide is available for public and media inspection and
may be reviewed by the utility.
Sincerely,
J an Noriyuki
Commission Secretary