20230412Comments (8)_8.pdf

1

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Dahlin ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 7:37 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,

Samuel Dahlin
4303 Plum St
Boise, ID 83703
[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Lo�us ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:03 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

Today's high infla�on, unaffordable housing and expensive FOOD is making it difficult for Idahoans to pay
their current u�li�es, much less such a large increase. Please don't allow Rocky Mountain Power increase
its fixed fee at this �me. Thank you.

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,

Laura Lo�us
2608 W Woodlawn Ave
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[phone]

3

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Kearns ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

As if the ridiculously over priced housing market wasn't enough, now you want to QUADRUPLE your
rates. Seems a litle crazy to me. Do you understand energy efficiency and fair rates, or do you just want
to con�nue to line some fat cats pockets?

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,

Jason Kearns
3401 W Hillcrest Dr
4

Boise, ID 83705
[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Sleten ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:33 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

This proposed rate hike makes no sense for the u�lity customers. It only means more profit for Rocky
Mountain Power, which they don?t really need or deserve.

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,
5

Greg Sleten
2207 W Camus Ct
Coeur d Alene , ID 83815
[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Chaloupka ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:36 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,
6

Susan Chaloupka
1117 North 19th St
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: christopher collins (tmfi[e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:51 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

Sincerely,
7

christopher collins
2465 N 15th St, Apt 206
boise, ID 83702
tmfi[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: James Van Dinter ([e-mail]) Sent You a Personal Message
<kwautomail@phone2ac�on.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 5:50 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: PAC-E-22-15 Rocky Mountain Power Rates

CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and atachments BEFORE
you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency service desk with
any concerns.

Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission,

The Idaho Public U�li�es Commission should reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to nearly
quadruple customers? fixed charge. A $30 fixed charge is far out of line with comparable u�li�es in the
state and creates a rate structure that incen�vizes energy waste, harms low-income and low-usage
customers, and increases the overall cost of our u�lity grid.

By reducing the value of a kilowat?hour saved or self?generated, a higher fixed charge directly reduces
the incen�ve that customers have to invest in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on. Customers
who have already invested in energy efficiency or distributed genera�on will be harmed by the reduced
value of their investments. With litle incen�ve to save, customers may actually increase their energy
consump�on and states will have to spend more to achieve the same levels of energy efficiency savings
and distributed genera�on. Where electricity demand rises, u�li�es will need to invest in new power
plants, power lines, and substa�ons, thereby raising electricity costs for all customers.

Data from the Energy Informa�on Administra�on show that in nearly every state, low?income customers
consume less electricity than other residen�al customers, on average. Because fixed charges tend to
increase bills for low?usage customers while decreasing them for high?use customers, fixed charges raise
bills most for those who can least afford the increase.

High fixed charges, such as the one Rocky Mountain Power is proposing, create an unfair, inefficient rate
structure. Please reject Rocky Mountain Power?s proposal to increase rates to $29.25 per month per
customer.

8

Sincerely,

James Van Dinter
12088 W. Tidewater Dr.
Boise, ID 83713
[e-mail]
[phone]

This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with
Sierra Club. If you need more informa�on, please contact Lillian Miller at Sierra Club at
[e-mail] or [phone].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:01 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Kit Menlove
Submission Time: Apr 11 2023 11:11PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 639 W Pleasant St.
Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "Dear Idaho Public U�li�es Commission, I would like to express my concerns with the "rate
moderniza�on plan" proposed by Berkshire Hathaway's PacifiCorp. I feel increasing the monthly service
charge by 366% over a rela�vely short period of five years is overly burdensome and unreasonable,
par�cularly for smaller and lower income households and those who have based their decision to install
solar panels upon having rela�vely stable fixed monthly charges. While I understand the need to re-
balance the u�lity's sources of revenue, I believe an annual increase of 15% (rather than the 30%
average annual increase proposed for schedule 1) would be much more reasonable and jus�fied. For
example, I feel fixed monthly charges of $9.20 for year 1, $10.60 for year 2, $12.20 for year 3, $14.00 for
year 4, and $16.10 for year 5 would be both fair and in the interest of the Idaho public who would be
more readily able to adapt to the changes. This would allow PacifiCorp to more than double over five
years the amount of fixed revenue they bring in while providing sufficient �me for customers to adjust.
Both the great state of Idaho (through statute 63-3022C, the "Idaho Residen�al Alterna�ve Energy Tax
Deduc�on") and federal programs have encouraged the installa�on of systems and devices that take
9

advantage of solar radia�on, wind, geothermal, and some biomass resources for supplemen�ng energy
needs. By distribu�ng electricity genera�on over a wider geographical range we increase the strength
and resilience of the grid. By encouraging the installa�on and maintenance of renewable energy sources,
we reduce pollu�on and help conserve the environment for future genera�ons. In contrast to their
asser�on that "Rocky Mountain Power supports the desire of its customers for a sustainable
environment for future genera�ons," it appears they have a goal to discourage customer genera�on and
solidify dependence on and increased use of their product. In November 2020 (through Case No. PAC-E-
19-08), they closed schedule 135 and replaced it with schedule 136, a rate schedule less favorable to
customer genera�on. With this current order, they seem to be once again discouraging customer
genera�on in addi�on to reducing the incen�ve to conserve and reduce power consump�on by has�ly
conver�ng a significant por�on of their usage-based revenue into fixed revenue. I find it ironic that Mr.
Meredith jus�fies the elimina�on of �ered rates by sta�ng "A large household with a lot of people living
under one roof will be more likely to have usage in the higher second block rate than a person living
alone. Effec�vely, inclining block rates unfairly reward some customers and punish others, o�en for
reasons outside the customer’s control." While there is merit to that argument, similar jus�fica�on can
be used to argue against the large increases in fixed monthly fees he has proposed. Large fixed monthly
fees also unfairly reward some customers (large households) while punishing others (smaller
households, those who wish to conserve energy, or those with their own genera�on methods). I
disagree with his asser�on that recovering costs through usage-based energy charges "results in larger
customers who use more energy subsidizing smaller customers who use less energy." Indeed, I believe it
is quite fair and just to charge users based the degree to which they use the service provided. I believe
most people would agree it is fair and just for someone who buys twice as much gasoline as their
neighbor to pay twice as much for the increased usage and that this higher cost shouldn't be considered
a form of subsidy. So while I largely agree with the elimina�on of blocked �ered rates, I do not believe
that increasing fixed charges at the speed proposed is just or reasonable. Thank you for your
considera�on, Kit Menlove Idaho Falls, ID"

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