20230427Comments (2)_2.pdf

1

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Logan Haglund
Submission Time: Apr 26 2023 4:19PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5252 Lindee Lane
Ammon, ID 83401

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "I would like to thank Rocky Mountain Power for providing their most recent response. What
has been clear throughout RMP's efforts is that there has been a veiled atempt to recoup revenue lost
when individuals make energy saving decisions. In par�cular, it appears as though this rate change is a
concerted effort to recoup costs against those individuals who have have a net nega�ve energy
consump�on/produc�on. Thankfully, RMP's April 25, 2023, Reply removes that guise and allows the
public to see RMP's true inten�ons.

As homeowners con�nue to find ways to go "green" in an effort to lower their energy consump�on and
bills, it is of course en�rely logical that an energy company needs to find an alterna�ve pay structure to
maintain revenue. RMP has essen�ally skirted responding to this in all of its filings un�l its most recent
Reply, at which point it unabashedly stated that "[e]lectric prices are subject to change and gradually
increasing the fixed monthly charge fairly assigns solar customers for the cost of the grid upon which
they depend." However, the issue here is not simply the increase in fixed monthly charges, but the
coinciding reduc�on in kWh rates. RMP has strategically chosen to combine a flat rate increase with a
reduc�on on kWh rates under the guise of "revenue neutral." The issue here is that RMP is not simply
sugges�ng solar users pay their fair share, they are coupling a flat rate increase with a devalua�on of
electricity that solar users return to the grid.

Perhaps the most concerning statement made by RMP comes when it compares the struggles of
residen�al users to implement green energy with RMP's own costs to maintain the power grid. Such a
comparison is nonsensical as RMP is a mul�million dollar company with annual earnings in excess of
$100mil. Rather then encourage investment into green energy, such as solar, RMP appears to be more
concerned with protec�ng those annual earnings and disincen�ving residen�al customers from going
green. I encourage the Commission to see RMP's Applica�on for what it is, a blatant atempt to claw
back funds from customers who have invested in green renewable energy."

------
htps://puc.intranet.idaho.gov/apps/intranet/Comment [Opens the PUC Intranet applica�on]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

-----Original Message-----
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Russell Daines
Submission Time: Apr 27 2023 10:44AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 270 Baldwin Dr
Rexburg, ID 83440

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "I am opposed to the proposal to “modernize residen�al rates”, Case No. PAC-E-22-15. Rocky
Mountain Power’s conten�on is that the new rate structure more fairly distribute fixed costs among
customers.

I feel this ignores two issues.
First, there has not been a major shi� in costs to Rocky Mountain Power. Electricity genera�on costs
have not suddenly dropped by a factor of 2 or 3, making fixed costs a greater frac�on of the total cost.
From what I understand, na�onwide energy costs per kWh have been increasing. This means that for
many years, Rocky Mountain Power has been sa�sfied with the current rate structure in spite of the level
of fixed costs built into it. I don’t see a pressing need to make a change now.
Second, Idaho has one of the lowest per kWh electricity costs in the na�on. Although that is partly
because of the rela�vely lower cost of genera�on for this region, it also means that the current rate
structure is likely shared by most u�li�es across the country. (If Rocky Mountain Power charged
significantly more than other u�li�es on a per kWh basis, that might indicate their rate structure was
different from other u�li�es.) I don’t feel like Idaho should treat electricity costs differently from the
na�onwide public u�lity standard.

I feel the new rate structure will hurt the most economically vulnerable in the state.
The poorest residents of the state live in some of the smallest housing units and use the least electricity.
Two online sites that I looked at indicated that someone in Idaho living in a 1000 �.² townhouse
apartment would probably use about 500 kWh per month. With the new rate structure, by the �me it is
completely phased in, they will be paying an extra $150 a year. For people in this financial situa�on, $150
per year could be somewhat significant. On the other hand, a family living in a 4000 �.² house would
typically use about 1800 kWh per month. With the new rate structure, they would save $250 per year.
For people in their economic situa�on, the extra $250 per year is probably far less significant than the
extra $150 per year that someone ren�ng an apartment would experience.

3

Finally, one addi�onal point. This new rate structure significantly discourages adop�on of solar. I own
solar panels, and when I bought them, I calculated a payoff �me of a litle over 12 years. Recalcula�ng
with the new rate structure, the payback �me is over 18 years. This is significant. If we want to
encourage residents to get solar, the pay back �me needs to be kept as short as possible. When it starts
approaching 20 years, that is a major detriment to adop�ng solar.

Thank you for considering my comments."

------
htps://puc.intranet.idaho.gov/apps/intranet/Comment [Opens the PUC Intranet applica�on]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------