20230327Comments (7)_7.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday,March 21,2023 12:00 PM
To:Jan Noriyuki<[e-mail]-ROV>
Subject:Notice:A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Kevin Kelley
Submission Time:Mar 21 2023 11:54AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:311 SEAGULL DRIVE
REXBURG,ID 83440
Name of Utility Company:Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID:P-AG-E-22-01 PAC E-22-15
Comment:"Please note that Rocky Mountain Power's proposed rate changes will penalize customerswhoattempttoreducetheirenergyuse,while subsidizing those who use more.Consider the followingtwoscenarios:CustomerA,who is doing their part to conserve energy,uses 400 kWh of electricity eachmonth.CustomerB,who is not taking steps to reduce electricity use,uses 1000 kWh each month.Forthepurposesofthisexample,l'Il use the summer season rates.Underthe present pricing structure,CustomerA would pay the $8.00 monthly fee plus $44.79 in energycharges (all energyuse is in tier 1),for a total of $52.79.CustomerB would pay the $8.00 monthly fee plus $78.38for the 700 kWh in tier 1,
plus $39.30for 300 kWh in tier 2,for a total of $125.68.In year five of the proposed pricing structure,CustomerA would now pay a $29.25 monthly charge,plus $34.63 for the 400 kWh used,for a total of$63.88:an increase of $11.09 per month,or a 21%increase on their bill.On the other hand,Customer B
now pays a $29.25 monthly charge,plus $86.57 for the electricity (tiers have been done away with)for atotalof$115.82:a decrease of $9.86,or a 7.8%decrease.Consequently,the conscientious customerwhoisdoingtheirparttoreduceelectricityconsumptionispenalizedwitha21%increase on theirenergybill,while the customer using excessive amounts of electricity sees a reduction of 7.8%in their
costs.This is shifting the cost burdenfrom those who are less responsiblein their energyuse to thosewhoaredoingtheirpart.This proposed rate structure will remove incentivesfor energyconservation,contrary to the generalgoals of society.For these reasons,I recommend that this proposalbe denied."
[Open in the PUC Intranet application]
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:00:08 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: John Sherrie Kerschner
Submission Time: Mar 23 2023 3:37PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 3351 Sandy Sr
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-22-15
Comment: "PAC-E-22-15 We received an email notice of this yesterday. We would have attended the workshop on 3-14 had we been notified. Raising the home owners rates to
increase Rocky Mountain Powers revenue does not lower our annual rates. Large corporations, big box stores, fast food chains, the airport, hotels etc. Use more energy than we do, when are
their rates going to increase? By raising their rates to increase the utility companies revenue instead of senior citizens, and families, it will protect the middle class already burdened with
the higher cost of living. In our home our outside doors are sealed to keep heat in. All our light fixtures use energy efficient led bulbs. Our heat is gas using only a small amount of electricity
for the thermostat. We are senior citizens on a fixed income. Medical Insurance, gas, medications, food all continue to increase three times faster than the ave income. Please stand
together and vote NO on PAC-E-22-15 to protect the home owners, middle class, and senior citizens. Thank you for your time and help in this matter! Sincerely John & Sherrie
Kerschner"
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:00:07 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Hadley Westover
Submission Time: Mar 23 2023 4:55PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 5109 W Highway 36
Weston, ID 83286
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-22-15
Comment: "I am writing to voice my opposition to Case No. PAC-E-22-15 the Rocky Mountain Power Residential Price Modernization. I oppose this change because it gives
significant price increases to those who are conservative in their electrical usage or have their own electrical generation such as solar panels, while decreasing the cost for high usage
customers. For example, I have solar panels and this last month with net metering the usage on my bill came to 4 kwh. With the $8 standard charge and winter electricity rate, my bill totaled
$8.37. After the 5 year transition of this proposal my bill total would instead be $29.53 for the same usage. With solar panels during the summer months I do produce more power than I use.
The extra power is used to cover the standard charge and to build credits over the winter months. This large increase in the standard charge and decrease in electricity rates would
prevent my solar system from building up enough credits to get me through the winter months and significantly increase my bill. This increase in my monthly cost adversely affects the
payoff time for the solar panel investment. This change would also be a hindrance to others planning to get solar panels and would lower the possibility of solar panels being a cost
effective solution. If the proposal was enacted, the only way someone could bring their bill all the way to $0.00 would be to size the solar system to produce around 250 more kwh per
month in extra electricity to send to the grid to cover the standard charge. Before I got solar panels I used between 300-600 kwh per month. This usage comes from installing energy
efficient appliances and following energy conservation best practices. With the same usage under the proposal my bill would increase between $6-14 dollars a month. This proposal
change benefits those who use more than 700 kwh in the summer or 1,000 kwh in the winter. These people would actually see a drop in the bill. In other words it saves high-usage
customers money at the expense of everyone else. This proposal should be rejected and replaced with one that encourages people to be conservative with electrical usage and invest in
renewable electrical generation, not penalize them while reward those who don’t."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Friday, March 24, 2023 7:01:11 AM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Boyd Cook
Submission Time: Mar 23 2023 7:30PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 3061 Pinnacle Drive
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-22-15
Comment: "I attended the public meeting the other evening. Before the meeting I had lookedat the suggest service increase proposed by Rocky Mountain Power and discussed it with
neighbors and it was my neighbor that brought it to my attention. There were 4 consumers thatattended the meeting, 1 from Rexburg and 3 from Bonneville County and those three traveled
there together of which included me because of that I feel it gave the appearance everyone isok with it. As I have talked with others they just go online and pay their bill and don't look
around which is what I do. We may be so determined to get a $0.50 deduction on our bill wedon't look at anything else. The proposed service fee increases as I see it is going hurt some
people such as myself and others in the rural community and the suburbs surrounding IdahoFalls. Those on a fixed income and a lot of young families that populate many of the
subdivisions in starter homes and older residents in older homes in the area. Many of those Ilisted were barely getting before all the other rate increases such are fossil fuel and there are
still a few uses heating oil, but most homes use natural gas. Food increase, tax increases andother necessities that sustain life have all gone up and unfortunately when the cost of living
goes up, wages and social security recipient's income never follows. The proposed service feeincreases the way it was written looks again as if the customers are being penalized for using
less energy. One of the things discussed at the meeting was the need for another bracket forpower users like myself and many others. For me high usage months I may use around 700
kwh but most months I stay around 500 kwh. So really there is the appearance that there areno benefits for the lower usage customers because as shown for 10 years we will pay a hire
service fee percentage than high usage customers. Yes we will not pay as much kwh but theservice fee for me will almost double my bill. In March last year I used 598 kwh and 2023
March billing period I used 582 and it was colder last year. I have run a business and totallyunderstand that price increases must happen, not just to the consumer but to businesses which
includes utility companies. We need to come up with an increase base that is fare foreveryone. Being a consumer that pays the utility company for a product which is kwh and yes
there is a service involved with that, such as customer service, billing, utility workers etc. Inthe business I ran we had to either raise the price of the product or show and additional fee.
We tried to bill customers once for a fuel surcharge, you would have thought we had burnedtheir business down they were so upset. Then we charged the customer a bit more for the
product they understood that and if they did say I paid less than that last year it was easy to sayare you paying the same price for gas or other items, no and they understood it. We just need
to come up with an increase base that is fare for everyone, if I had all the answers I would be asking for your help with proposed service fee increase. I do appreciate the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission doing all they can to stand up for the people of Idaho. Thank you, Boyd Cook 3061 Pinnacle Drive Idaho Falls Idaho, 83401 Phone [phone] "
------
Name: Steven Prescott
Submission Time: Mar 23 2023 8:44PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 3448 E 200 N
Rigby, ID 83442
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Case ID: PAC-E-22-15
Comment: "I personally put in a lot of work and money to make my home as efficient as possible to both save me money in the long term and reduce my impact on the environment.
The changes proposed negate much of my effort and savings and give a bonus to those who don't care. This change would go against incentivizing people to reduce energy usage and the
countries goal of reducing carbon footprint. Please reject this proposal. "
------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Robert Boston
Submission Time: Mar 26 2023 9:10AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1282 N 590 E
Shelley, ID 83274

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) intends to change the customer service charge, over a period
of five years from $8/month to $29.25/mo. The reasons given for this change is to “collect all
distribu�on and customer service costs in a fixed monthly service change” and “Collect other costs
(genera�on, transmission, energy) trough energy charges”. Renewable energy places an undue burden
on the consumer. Renewable energy producers should be the ones to pay for increased distribu�on and
genera�on costs. Furthermore, consumers that wish to obtain 100% carbon free energy from new
renewable energy sources (wind and solar) should pay a surcharge for this energy source. Another
op�on is for high power users to pay a premium for this power unless wind and solar energy is available.
Since there is no low cost solu�on for energy storage for wind and solar power, tradi�onal baseload
sources being forced to supply the consumer during periods of no wind and solar power, as was the case
in eastern Idaho in December 2022 and January 2023. I do not support the increase in the customer
service charge. Consumers that want to purchase new renewable energy and wind and solar power
producers should be the ones to pay for these distribu�on and genera�on costs. "

------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]

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

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kara Welch
Submission Time: Mar 27 2023 1:42PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 581 N 2700 E
Roberts, ID 83444

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "I am concerned with the proposed "modernized" rate structure recently communicated by
RMP. These changes seem to be targe�ng customers who have their own solar produc�on. This is being
marketed as a change that won't really impact the total bill for customers, as rates for energy decrease
but flat customer service charges increase, but Solar customers pay the service charge and then only pay
for the net power they consume from the grid. If they produce and send to the grid more than
consumed, a credit for future billings is created. This change will increase the u�lity bill from $8 to nearly
$30 per month over the course of 5 years, poten�ally raising u�lity costs hundreds of dollars a year for
customers who have made a personal investment in our power grid. Why "modernize" the rates at all if
not to atempt to recapture funds lost when these customers made a significant investment to be more
energy conscious and to provide power to the grid? It seems that RMP is targe�ng customers who have
chosen to use greener alterna�ves. Addi�onally, RMP sent out the no�ce for the public workshop with
the Idaho Commission on March 21st, one full week a�er that mee�ng had already taken place on
March 14, meaning that most customers did not hear of proposed change un�l a�er the mee�ng for
public comment had already passed. It is my hope that comments here will s�ll be considered, even
though the mee�ng has passed. Thank you."

------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]