20231108Comments_20.pdf

1

RE: Case No. IPC-E-23-14

-----Original Message-----
From: Mari Knutson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 4:08 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: Idaho Power Rate Changes

Dear Members of the Public U�lity Commission, My husband and I are re�rees and made the decision to
install roo�op solar, using much of our re�rement savings to do so. When people were curious about
how long it would take to pay off, we would smile and say, “Probably not in our life�me!” We were
(mostly) ok with that, because we were limi�ng our reliance on the grid AND helping our neighbors by
adding our power to the grid. We felt we were ge�ng a “fair deal” for our generated power. It was also a
simple trade, kWh for kWh. No fancy “calcula�ons” or accoun�ng trickery, just a simple exchange. Now IP wants to take our contribu�ons to the grid at a wholesale price - and charge anything they choose to
charge us when we need to draw that power back! The “study” this scheme was based on was
conducted by the Idaho Power! This is a conflict of interest, really shady, and against all Idaho ci�zens
sense of fairness. At the very least ALL current residents contribu�ng to the power grid with home solar
panels should be “GRANDFATHERED” in to the simple exchange we agreed to when we installed our
systems. Residents who install new systems AFTER the new rate schedules are adopted may be subject
to the new rate schedules, because at least they will know for what they are contactually agreeing to.
IP wants to be seen as a public Trust - beneficial to our State - when in fact it is behaving like a harmful
MONOPOLY. The PUC must protect us from their corporate greed!
Sincerely,
Marvin and Mari Knutson
2429 Hillcrest Way
Nampa, Idaho 83686
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Reagan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 4:11 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: IPC-E-23-14

Aten�on;

I urge the PUC to vote “NO” on Idaho Powers proposal.

I’m wri�ng this leter in response to Idaho Powers threat to Customer Genera�on and storage of clean
energy produced by solar power.

Idaho Power is struggling to meet its own clean energy goals and yet they are doing everything in their
power to prevent Idaho ci�zens from benefi�ng from their own investments in solar power and storage.

2

I own solar panels and storage bateries not to deprive Idaho Power but to make a personal contribu�on
to clean energy and help protect our environment. I’m willing to make this large investment to do my
part in reducing global warming.

Idaho Power should be welcoming these investments by the customers to help the growing need for
power in our state. These are investments that Idaho Power is NOT making. Yet, Idaho Power wants to
make the access unfair for future customers thus reducing the possibility they might invest in solar
panels and bateries. By taking away customer benefits in investments in solar it will severely reduce
installa�on of individual solar products.

Idaho Power should welcome the diversity of energy profile that individual solar installa�on provides in a
sustainable way, plus it provides resilience to remote communi�es and stabilizes the grid!

Personal investment in these clean energy solar projects helps Idaho Power meet its clean energy goals
without huge investments by that company.

Lastly, individual solar installa�on helps Idaho preserve our gorgeous outdoor spaces that are threatened
by many of Idaho Powers other energy sources.

Many of our surrounding states promote, encourage and in some cases require homeowners to install
energy producing and storage systems.

I ask why doesn’t Idaho Power encourage installa�on and storage of these systems by homeowners
rather than doing everything possible to discourage this financial and environmental investment?

Thank you, Ron Reagan

Sent from my iPhone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Margo Conitz
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 4:00PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 14075 Morell Road
McCall, ID 83638

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Please do not discourage roo�op power by reducing or denying compensa�on to individuals
who have or are wan�ng to install solar panels. The need for power is not going away, it is increasing,
and we can use power from all the sources we can get it from. "
3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: William Ward
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 5:01PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5368 N 18th E
Mountain Home, ID 83647

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

I don't understand. Almost every �me one turns on the TV, watches the news, reads a paper, or listens
to news on the radio, someone is talking about the need to get more renewable energy in order to save
the planet. Dispersed solar seems like a great candidate for adding to the na�on's (and world's)
renewable energy genera�on. It's a good idea and should be encouraged.

But now, if I understand it correctly, Idaho Power is trying to make dispersed solar more expensive.
Maybe prohibi�vely expensive. And, if I understand it correctly, the IPUC is considering le�ng Idaho
Power do just that--make dispersed solar much more expensive.

If the price of something goes up, there will be fewer people willing to invest in it. Fewer people willing
to invest in dispersed solar means less installed renewable energy--and that is exactly the wrong
approach! Well, according to con�nuing commentary on virtually all news outlets that we need more
renewable energy it is the wrong approach.

I don't understand. Are virtually all the news outlets wrong? Is renewable energy not a good idea?
Should we burn more fossil fuels instead? I'm just a humble u�lity customer. I don't know the answers
to The Big Ques�ons. But it sure seems to me that making dispersed solar more expensive and, thereby,
limi�ng future installa�ons, is the exact wrong thing to do.

I encourage the IPUC to reject Idaho Power's grab for more profits at the expense of the Planet.

Thank you and regards,

William Ward"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Carl Erling
Submission Time: Nov 7 2023 8:09PM
Email: [e-mail]
4

Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2608 S Canonero Way
Boise, ID 83709

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The Idaho PUC, I assume, has a responsibility to the public, and is not "in the pocket" of the
power companies such as Idaho Power. Solar Panel customers producing local power save Idaho Power
R&amp;D costs. Addi�onally, this is clean power that produces no CO2, and benefits the present
genera�on and genera�ons to come. These customers have paid their dues by financing their power
genera�on. They should not sustain an increase in Idaho Power's basic charge. Such an increase sends
the message, "Idaho PUC does not value you or your considerable investment in clean energy for the
present and the future." Idaho PUC apparently takes no responsibility for the welfare of future
genera�ons."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Joseph McCormick
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 8:40AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 811 Terry Dr
Emmet, ID 83617

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The proposed changes from Idaho Power do not promote a more stable grid solu�on and
instead is limi�ng clean energy solu�ons. Please do not approve of Idaho Powers proposal."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Garman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 6:44 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: IPC-E-23-14
Dear Public U�lity Commission:
I am an Idaho Power ratepayer and an Idaho resident and taxpayer. Before moving to Idaho, I served in a variety of
professional and voluntary posi�ons related to the subject mater of this proceeding, including:
• Professional Staff, Subcommitee on Energy Research and Development, Commitee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate;
5

• Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy;
• Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy;
• Chair, Electric Power Research Ins�tute (EPRI) Advisory Council
• Member, Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center advisory board
• Member, Na�onal Renewable Energy Laboratory Energy Systems Integra�on Facility Advisory Commitee
• Member, Na�onal Academy of Sciences commitee evalua�ng policies to accelerate the deployment of
cleaner energy technologies.
I have two homes in Idaho, both of which have a grid-connected solar power genera�on system. One of these
homes is a net-zero energy home. The process of integra�ng my on-site genera�on with Idaho Power’s system was
seamless and efficient, and I am grateful to Idaho Power and the Public U�li�es Commission for making the process
easy to implement.

However, when I read Idaho Power’s Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VODER) study, I was struck by its lack
of rigor and sophis�ca�on. It relies on simple, econometric Excel spreadsheet studies for its analysis, and its
assump�ons are suspect as illustrated by the third party study undertaken by Crossborder Energy. As I know from
my own work on the Na�onal Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Energy Systems Integra�on Advisory Commitee,
there are far more sophis�cated tools that could have been employed to characterize and model the issues of
interest in calcula�ng the value of on-site solar genera�on to Idaho Power ratepayers.

I strongly believe the Public U�lity Commission (PUC) needs to completely reevaluate its approach in this mater.

First, the PUC must resolve Idaho Power’s General Rate Case. An accurate “value of solar” study cannot be
undertaken without resolu�on of that case.

Second, the PUC should instruct Idaho Power to return to the drawing board with regard to its VODER study. There
are far beter tools, including modeling and simula�on so�ware that could accommodate “what if?” ques�ons
and alterna�ve scenarios that would be valuable to the Commission and the public.

Third, I would require “Red Teaming” or alterna�ve, third party analysis. Throughout my �me in both the na�on’s
energy and intelligence communi�es, we depended on “Red Teams” to challenge lazy analysis and misguided
assump�ons. In short, compe��ve analysis never failed to yield a beter analy�cal product at the end of the day.

I regret that I was unable to atend the public session on this mater where I had fully intended to in order to raise
the points offered above, which leads to my fourth and final recommenda�on: the accommoda�on of
virtual par�cipa�on in the public process. This is an important op�on for individuals who wish to be heard, but may
not be able to make a specific in-person mee�ng due to travel or other considera�ons.

Thank you for your considera�on of these recommenda�ons.

Sincerely,
David Garman
4923 E Sagewood Drive
Boise, ID 93716

224 Rapid River Vista
Riggins, ID 83547
6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Mary Hofle
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 9:14AM
Email: mhofl[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 95 Drake Ave
Pocatello, ID 83201

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "8 November 2023
Case Number IPC-E-23-14

To the IPUC:

I am a customer of Idaho Power, a shareowner in IDACORP, and installed roo�op solar panels on my
home in 2019. I am part of the “legacy” credit system. I have to say that the plan proposed by Idaho
Power will harm Idaho and its ci�zenry. Instead of collabora�ng with the solar industry to bring more
jobs to Idaho by encouraging the people of Idaho in our fine state to move to solar, they want to send
the message to anyone wan�ng to install solar that they will be penalized. What a nega�ve incen�ve!

I wonder:
• What individual will want to invest in solar or any other renewable energy?
• What renewable energy companies, offering job opportuni�es to Idahoans, will want to build
their business here?
• What does this say to the people of Idaho, the na�on, and the world regarding the impact on the
environment, increase in consump�on, and corporate greed?

What it says is Idaho Power doesn’t care!

I’m not against companies making money. But to plan to get free/low cost energy from individual
producers allows Idaho Power to sell this energy on the open market making significantly more money
than what they compensate the producers from the sale of this energy is not just unfair compensa�on
but truly contemp�ble.

Many more Idahoans would like to be solar powered and this will make that transi�on more difficult. I
ask that the IPUC keep our economy strong by bringing solar jobs and regula�ng Idaho Power to move in
the direc�on of their 100% renewable commitment.

I encourage the IPUC to vote against the current proposal and against any other proposals that would
hinder solar development in Idaho.

Thank you for your �me and considera�on.
7

Mary M. Hofle
95 Drake Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201
mhofl[e-mail]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: David Adams
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 9:26AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13281 Kind Way
Nampa, ID 83686

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "Good Morning! I imagine you have received many comments reference the proposed
changes to those Idaho Power customers with Solar systems. I would start by simply reques�ng you vote
NO on the proposals. My wife and I paid $38,000 to install our roof system over 2 years ago in 2021, and
apart from the minimal cost to IP to switch out the meter, they have paid almost nothing to maintain the
service to us, while we are helping to relieve the stress on their system. IP informed us our payments
would go up at least $360 per year based on last years usage - when we were gone several months and
used very litle power. Instead of only considering one study that recommended dras�cally increasing
the monthly payments, this proposal needs to have at least three independent studies to be fair. Last
thought - To be fair to all those that purchased systems in the past, IF you vote to ins�tute this proposal,
it should start with those installing Solar star�ng Jan 2024, NOT to those only a�er 2019. Why are those
before 2019 special? This would be fair to all users, as everyone would know what to expect. Thanks for
considering our input.."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Cc: Robert Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roo�op solar proposed changes

There are several reasons why Idaho Power should not change the solar panel rate structure:
It Disincentivizes solar adoption: The proposed changes would make it less financially
attractive for Idahoans to install solar panels, which would slow the growth of the solar
industry in the state. This would be a missed opportunity for Idaho to create jobs, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and combat climate change.
8

Creates unfairness for existing solar customers:
The proposed changes would retroactively apply to existing solar customers, which would be unfair and could lead to financial hardship for many families. It minimizes the
fact that rooftop solar produces energy during peak demand times and uses power from the grid during lower demand periods.
Damages Idaho's reputation as a renewable energy leader: Idaho has made significant progress in developing renewable energy sources, and the proposed changes would send a message that the state is not serious about its clean energy goals.
Undermines consumer choice: Idahoans should have the freedom to choose how they generate their electricity, and the proposed changes would limit that choice.
Contributes to higher energy costs: In the long run, the proposed changes would likely lead to higher energy costs for all Idahoans, as they would reduce the amount of solar energy being generated and increase the reliance on fossil fuels.
In addition to these reasons, there is also a strong moral argument for keeping the current solar panel rate structure in place. Solar energy is a clean, renewable source of energy that has the potential to help us address the climate crisis. Making it more difficult for people to install solar panels is a step in the wrong direction.
I urge Idaho Power to reconsider its proposed changes to the solar panel rate structure.
The current structure is fair, equitable, and in the best interests of Idaho's economy, environment, and residents.
Robert Pearson
855 Spy Glass PT
Pocatello, ID 83204
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kevin Kitz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 8:23 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: IPC-E-23-14 Comments on Idaho Power rooftop solar proposal

Dear PUC,

I am wri�ng in regards to the Idaho Power roo�op solar proposal.

Support for One element of the Fee Structure (peak and off-peak)
9

I support the structure of the fee proposal. The components make sense to me.
1) Any power genera�on system has value in part based on its ELCC. Roo�op solar on average will
have less ELCC than u�lity grade solar because of the varia�on in orienta�on. I’ve seen solar
panels behind trees and with tall chimneys to their southwest. My own system points to the
Southeast, and while I am a legacy roo�op solar owner, my output curve shows that my roo�op
solar contributes very litle to late a�ernoon genera�on. So I believe that a peak hour value is
appropriate, and is fair to those Idaho Power customers who do not have roo�op solar and
would otherwise have to pay for the roo�op solar customer’s share of peaking resources.
2) The lower value for other hours also makes sense on an annual average basis. Solar output in
the spring and fall are very high and load is very low. Idaho power has shown in previous IRPs a
rela�onship between load and system average air temperature. Load is very low at
temperatures when solar panels are at maximum output. This power is of low value, and has to
be recognized and accounted for in a single annual value.
3) So as far as the payment structure goes, I have no issue, and think it is overall fair to Idaho
Power’s total customer base.
a. As a side note, it seems likely that this rate structure will encourage the installa�on of
future PV on the westerly side of buildings. If so, then the rate structure will have
properly incen�vized design that provides maximum benefit to both the panel owner
and Idaho Power’s ratepayers.

Opposi�on (variable pricing is unfinaceable)
However, that said, there is one glaring failure in this proposed rate structure, as I understand it, and that
is that the price paid to each PV system owner will be adjusted on some basis. If I understand this
correctly, then I must recommend that the PUC reject Idaho Power’s current proposal un�l they fix this.

Roo�op solar is a grid-serving capital investment no different (in fact far more expensive) than any other
power plant. Idaho Power knows that they would get zero responses if they issued an RFP that required
the proponent to supply all the capital and opera�ng expense, and in return for that up-front investment
and ongoing expense Idaho Power would let them know each year what they were going to get paid, and
that they should expect to get paid less as �me goes on. In short, such an RFP would invite the
construc�on of new power plants to serve in a merchant role. Such a PPA would be completely
unfinanceable and so Idaho Power would get no new capacity built. Is it possible that this is the exact
strategy being proposed for roo�op solar customers? It is false to state that roo�op solar is an op�on, if
it is well-known that customer-owned PV would be such a poor and uncertain investment that
deployment will effec�vely cease. Any argument about declining future solar prices is irrelevant. It is
declining because more is being installed. It is not appropriate to penalize those who made the up-front
investments. Again, this is not the prac�ce in u�lity-scale PPAs. Once a PPA is signed, then changes to
the market are irrelevant to the future price. Idaho power has many PPAs that have diverged from
future value (higher and lower) and none of those prices change. In fact it would be a breach of contract
for Idaho Power to do so. The same should be true of a roo�op (effec�ve) PPA.

Solu�on (for Full Support)
Thus, the solu�on to make roo�op solar on parity with other PPAs is that the customer should get a
period of fixed pricing 20 years is reasonable, but perhaps 15 years and then a phase-in to current
pricing with some floor/ceiling (e.g. 60% to 125%) would also be financeable. The offering price could be
updated every 2 years and be valid for any applica�on submited during that following 2 years. There
10

are other pricing op�ons, but any op�on should be made with strong considera�on of financeability, just
the same as any other PPA pricing structure. If the change to pricing is made so that projects have price-
certainty and are financeable, I am in support of approval. If not, then I encourage the PUC to reject this
applica�on un�l it is fixed.

Respec�ully,

Kevin Kitz, P.E.
================= KitzWorks LLC
[e-mail]
208-761-3442 (cell)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carol J Henry <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:09 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Cc: Climate Ac�on Coali�on Wood River Valley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roo�op Solar in Idaho: Comments on PUC Case IPC-E-23-14
As a resident of Idaho, I must raise objec�ons to the Idaho Public U�lity Commission’s proposed ac�ons
on solar roo�op regula�ons.

I’m very concerned about Idaho Power’s proposal to slash roo�op solar compensa�on rates, making
roo�op solar further out of reach for Idahoans. Roo�op solar provides so many benefits to Idaho Power
and all its customers, yet Idaho Power’s calcula�ons don’t capture that full value.

A) Please resolve Idaho Power's General Rate Case first, to allow for a more accurate assessment and
understanding of this case for roo�op solar customers and regulators alike.

B) Please look to Vote Solar’s expert recommenda�ons to correct Idaho Power’s calcula�ons (on
Genera�on Capacity, Line Losses, Transmission & Distribu�on Deferral, Fuel Price Hedge, &
Environmental Compliance) and provide customers with an ini�al Export Credit Rate of at least 10
¢/kWh.

C) Please also adopt Vote Solar’s recommenda�on for customers to lock-in their ini�al rate for at least a
10-year period (as is done in NV and AZ) for financial stability and planning.
Lastly, please improve the public process by adding a virtual tes�mony op�on (as is provided at Public
Service Commissions in all neighboring states) to help ensure you can hear the important perspec�ves
from everyone who will be impacted by Idaho Power’s changes.

11

Thank you.

Regards,
Carol J Henry
Hailey, ID 83333
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Case No. IPC-E-23-14

From: Evelyn Hitchcock <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: Comments on PUC Case Number IPC-E-23-24.
The Idaho Power company is allowed to have a monopoly in the electricity market in Idaho
because it is subject to the regula�on of the IPUC which in turn is supposed to ensure that It
operates in the public interest. The current changes are supposedly jus�fied because they will
be more fair to the ratepayers that cannot afford to install solar panels. That implies that those
of us who do install solar systems are wealthier than those who do not. I am a solar customer
who is a single fixed income senior in my seven�es who qualifies for the circuit breaker tax
break. So I'm hardly wealthy.

There is another financial reason the proposal dispropor�onately harms
poor people. The proposed change to increase the fixed connec�on charge by as much as
sevenfold from the current charge is unfair to small users like me. It is higher than my actual
electricity usage in some months and effec�vely negates the Legacy status of my system. It
amounts to a regressive tax. The Idaho PUC should prevent this from happening.

Some�mes less affluent people are willing to make sacrifices to do our part to fight
Global warming. The Idaho Power Company should be forced to give a higher priority to do the
same thing instead of favoring investors. It is the PUC who has the responsibility to ensure it
does.

Evelyn Hitchcock
1492 Los Altos Way
Pocatello Idaho 8320
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

From: Anne Stringfellow-Brookman <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: comments on PUC case #IPC-E-23-14
Dear PUC,

I am a roo�op solar owner in Pocatello, Idaho and am distressed by the proposals by Idaho Power to
raise my Monthly Fixed Charge and lower my Compensa�on for the Energy Generated by my panels. We
Idahoans deserve fair access to solar power=turn down Idaho Power's proposal!

I installed my solar panels at great personal cost (without any help from Idaho Power!) because I wanted
to do the right thing and now Idaho Power proposes to penalize me with higher fees and lower Net
Metering rates, even though the power my panels provide to the utility company helps to stabilize the
power grid. Talk about a slap in the face!

I ask the PUC to reject Idaho Power's greedy proposals mo�vated by the hope of increasing profits for
Idaho Power share holders rather than their responsibility to be fair to their customers.

Please require fair monthly fees and net metering rates for the good ci�zens of Idaho who take on the
personal cost of installing solar panels. Don't allow Idaho Power to raise monthly rates and lower net
metering, thereby discouraging folks from pu�ng in solar. Idaho Power's bad faith behavior (if you allow
it) will ul�mately encourage those determined to install roo�op solar to also purchase bateries allowing
them to disconnect from the power grid en�rely.

PUC: Please support fair compensa�on for roo�op solar in SE Idaho and turn down Idaho Power's
atempt to destroy it!

Sincerely,
Anne Stringfellow-Brookman
20 Purdue Ave
208-705-9711
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Bryan Passmore
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 11:34AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4503 W. Irving st
Boise, ID 83706

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14
13

Comment: "I don't think we should be disincen�vizing clean, home power genera�on for a few reasons:
1. Efficient land use - solar on roofs means one parcel of land not only houses people but powers our
grid 2. Distributed power genera�on could bolster system resiliency 3. Idaho Power relies heavily on
hydroelectric, which is great but vulnerable to low-snowpack years and as well as growing interest in
decommissioning dams. We should encourage home-based solar genera�on to reduce demand for such
sources.
4. Idaho Power relies on coal &amp; natural gas, which are less clean the solar on the balance. We
should encourage home-based solar genera�on to reduce demand for such sources. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Jim Crawford
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 12:17PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 51 East Lake Fork Road
McCall, ID 83638

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "We recently installed a solar system at our nursery, with full expecta�ons that we would be
compensated for the power we would be supplying to the grid. We feel that Idaho Power should
compensate solar producers for the power they supply. This addi�onal electricity helps offset shortages
from the high demand on hydroelectric power."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Randall Harville
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 1:10PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1168 N Litle Camas Ave
Star, ID 83669

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "I have roof-top solar genera�on and the system went live in 2017, so I am considered
"grandfathered" status and Idaho Power has treated me very well. I have a large credit built up that I
never hope to recoup but that is fine with me. I know this went to good use while sparing perhaps a �ny
bit of our wonderful state's resources. I know, and you know that the minds that mater in this decision,
14

in this case, have been made up. To resist roof top solar no mater what; no mater that it would benefit
each and every Idahoan; no mater that it would help protect what makes Idaho special; no mater that
economically it would benefit Idaho Power and every taxpayer in Idaho. The reason I felt compelled to
comment is that I have never heard anyone from Idaho Power explain: why? I drive by these tens of
thousands of square feet of baking roof tops that have been built over the past decade and imagine each
one of them collec�ng what God so boun�fully provides us, imagine Idaho as the idol of the na�on, and
provider of excess energy to an ever growing list of clients. California, Litle low? We got you!
Washington, grid upgrades got you down? We got you! I imagine how Idaho today could have been the
Alaska of the 70's with just a litle foresight and imagina�on. Why? I imagine property taxes, like Alaska
even today, are a thing of the past. The pipeline was so successful some folks even get a rebate s�ll
today. Why could they be forward thinking when we cannot? Is it greed? Poli�cal patronage? The yoke of
the big energy companies? Or perhaps the fight against solar is based on sound logic that I do not see
and I am open to hearing those arguments. But to date I have not heard, why? Why something that will
lessen the burden our grid, help keep the skies so that I can see the mountains from Star, lower Idaho
Power cost, and ensure that Idaho never has power issues can be harmful? Thank you. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following comments were submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Donald Reid
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 2:02PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11951 w pinewood river lane
Star, ID 83669

Name of U�lity Company: Self

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "It's in everyone's' best interest ,you DO NOT reduce solar benefit compensa�on !
Thank you
Dr Reid"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Kenneth Jensen
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 2:14PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2436 11th Ave E
vale, OR 97918

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "As an irriga�on customer with over 20 meters and 800Kw of solar in the net metering
program, in my reading Idaho Powers documents I don't think they gave fair representa�on to the
15

Irriga�on customers. Irriga�on customers pay a demand charge, which is quite a large por�on of the
irriga�on bill that residen�al customers don't pay, hence from a revenue standpoint, the two classes of
customers should have different net metering payment numbers for excess genera�on.
Thanks,
Kenneth Jensen
Jensen Farms LLC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Lon Stewart
Submission Time: Nov 8 2023 2:46PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3477 Shadow Hills Dr
Eagle, ID 83616

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Power

Case ID: IPC-E-23-14

Comment: "The proposed rate structure by Idaho Power is unfair to individuals producing their own
power and should not be approved.

Part of the purpose of the Public U�lity Commission (PUC) is to protect the ci�zens of the State from
undue u�lity costs. The PUC should be advoca�ng for the ci�zen rather than the stockholders of the
public u�li�es. The proposed rate case for Idaho Power seems to benefit Idaho Power and its
stockholders rather than the ci�zens who generate and export power to the grid.

Idaho Power states they want to be supplying 100% clean energy by 2045. Anybody genera�ng their
own power is contribu�ng to this goal. Yet Idaho Power only wants to supply this power on their terms.
Idaho Power is willing to spend millions of dollars to construct a solar farm or a natural gas plant plus the
transmission facili�es to deliver electricity to the customer and in so doing reap large corporate profits.
Yet individuals are willing (and have) put up their own money to generate power for their own
consump�on and to export to the grid. Individuals are not installing systems out of greed but out of a
conscience effort to help the environment, lower their monthly electric costs, or provide a reliable
backup power supply. Many of these systems will probably never realize an economic payout to the
purchaser. But give us some hope! Reducing the rate of compensa�on to the individual makes the
economics look worse and may not be at all viable to install a system.

Just think if Idaho Power contributed to individuals for their installed distributed genera�on. How many
systems could Idaho Power reimburse compared to the cost of a huge power plant? Or compensated
individuals based on computed line losses from distant genera�ng facili�es. Individual systems may not
provide the proper base load, but would definitely cut down on the load required for the system thereby
further reducing Idaho Power's opera�ng costs. An added benefit of distributed energy would be
virtually no line loss (hence lost revenue) as the power being exported into the system would be used by
the next customer down the line.

Idaho Power's rate case should encourage individuals to install distributed genera�on by providing more
incen�ves such as:
16

Increase the length of summer period to receive premium compensa�on (say from Mid May to Mid
October); Pay an amount in non summer period equal to current net metering values; Eliminate the �me
of day metering since no other rate structure uses this method of sales and is further discrimina�on
against individual power producers.

I installed solar panels this year. Each kilowat generated by my panels is all the same whether it was
generated on or off peak season and I should be compensated the same year round. I am opposed to
the rate compensa�on as proposed by Idaho Power and ask the PUC to reject it.

Respec�ully submited,
Lon Stewart
3477 Shadow Hills Dr
Eagle, ID 83616
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------