20230329Comments (3)_3.pdf

1

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:01 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Gaylen Jensen
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 10:30AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 980 Westwood Dr
Rexburg, ID 83440

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "Please do not approve of the rate change request proposed by this case. I especially object
to the customer service charge increase of over 365% over five years. I invested over $15,000 in solar
panels for my home to decrease my monthly power costs. I was disappointed that I had to pay $5 per
month (later $8) for the privilege of connec�ng to the grid, but later thought it was reasonable to pay
something to be able to connect to the grid. But increasing that privilege cost by so much is unfair. Why
penalize those who invest in solar energy? Why discourage the use of a technology that will reduce
global warming and save all of our collec�ve "bacons"? I am disappointed in this proposal and urge that
it be denied."

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

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

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Shane Peterson
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 11:21AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 13795 N 15th E
Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

2

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "I have a concern with the proposed changes in case PAC-E-22-1. Rocky Mountain Power
states that they do not intend to receive any addi�onal funds with these rate changes, therefore their
income is not expected to change. The proposed decrease in the variable energy rate (kWh) and
increasing the fixed customer service charge will transfer the payment burden from high kWh users to
the more conserva�ve users. High energy users will have lower bills and conserva�ve users will have
higher bills. Many more customers are high users so the impact to the most conserva�ve users (likely
lowest income) will be highest. This decreases the effect a customer can have on their overall bill by
being more conserva�ve with energy use. It really appears in part to be an atempt to reduce the value
of the grandfathered solar schedule 135 Net Metered users export credits in the name of more even
internal income/expense measurement. If that is the case, the already passed Net Billing schedule 136
should be the path for managing solar credits moving forward. "

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

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

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kris�n Tupen
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 12:31PM
Email: kris�[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 11 N 3667 E
Rigby, ID 83442

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "I par�cipated in Rocky Mountain Power's virtual mee�ng on March 29th from 10:00-12:00. I
found Robert Meredith to be very informa�ve and pa�ent in answering our ques�ons, much
appreciated. My main concern, taken from the mee�ng, is that those of us with alterna�ve methods of
energy, natural gas and wood, will be penalized with a higher customer service charge versus what we
are charged now. Per Mr. Meredith, those of us that use less then 700 kwh will be charged the full
higher monthly service charge over a period of 5 years under this new plan which means if we con�nue
to use less energy per day we may be paying more for our services versus those households that use
more electricity and do not have alterna�ve methods of hea�ng, cooking etc... Households with more
people or who use more kwh will receive a reduced rate a�er 5 years with the more energy they use
versus those of us that do not use more than 700 kwh. Mr. Meredith stated that they were doing this to
be more equitable to those household using more electricity and that are larger but it is the homes
3

using less electricity with less people that are going to be paying for this equity, which isn't far to us.
Many of us in smaller homes or with less electricity use are senior and on fixed incomes. Infla�on and
the war on alterna�ve energy sources ie hydropower, nuclear, natural gas, wood have hurt our ability to
pay more for higher energy, fuel, grocery etc... and now isn't a good �me. It seems like this proposal is
about rewarding those that have all electric homes versus those of us that do not and we are caught in
the middle of crazy government "green" policies and u�lity companies who embrace them or are being
forced to go "green" by the federal government. The consumer is the one being hurt, not the
corpora�ons. Many of us using natural gas or propane, especially in rural areas of Idaho, have had
recent rate increases due to the war on them by government and we can not afford another one. I
would like the commission to ask Rocky Mountain Power to rethink the whole 700 kwh cut off as it will
hurt those us on on fixed incomes ie seniors or small households that are trying to conserve or have put
in alterna�ve sources for energy, including solar per the conversa�on with Mr. Meredith. I appreciate
Rocky Mountain Power's interest in hearing from those that will be affected, unlike CA's PG@E, and
found the mee�ng to be informa�onal and his answers candid which I appreciated. "

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

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