BOISE — Since the recent death of her husband, Nancy Anthony is wondering how she will afford basic expenses.

About a year ago, Anthony, 77, a retired school teacher, and her husband, a retired cannery worker, made the decision to install solar panels on their home near Parma. They saw it as an opportunity to fix the cost of their electric bills.

Anthony’s house is passively constructed, meaning it is built so that it uses little energy. Unlike most local homes, Anthony’s winter heating needs are greater than her summer cooling needs.

But with an Idaho Power proposal before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to change how solar panel owners are compensated for the excess electricity they generate and give to the grid, and living on half of her historic income, Anthony is unsure how she will afford power in the colder months.

“An increase in my power bill on top of the fixed payment for solar panels is going to have me using kerosene for lighting, I think, and I don’t know what for heat,” Anthony told the commission at a public hearing Wednesday. “I’m 77 years old; I’m really too old to get another job. And I’m just wondering how I’m going to survive the winter.”

Wednesday’s Boise hearing was the first of two in which the commissioners will hear public testimony on the proposal to change the compensation structure for onsite power generators; the second hearing will take place Nov. 8 in Twin Falls at the American Legion Post 7 building (447 Seastrom St., Twin Falls).

The commission will be accepting public comments on the case until Nov. 8.

Comments can be submitted through the commission’s website, puc.idaho.gov, or by emailing commission and Idaho Power contacts, as detailed in a news release from Oct. 12. If an individual lacks computer access, they can mail comments to the commission and the company.

Read on for a refresher on what Idaho Power is proposing and highlights from Wednesday’s hearing.

PROPOSED CHANGES

The hearing is part of a six-year process on the part of Idaho Power to adjust how onsite power generators are compensated, as previously reported. In November 2022, the commission heard public testimony on a study it commissioned Idaho Power to undertake to determine fair compensation rates. The commission accepted the Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VODER) study, despite public criticism of its validity, fairness, and a perception that it is misaligned with the company’s goal of achieving a 100% clean energy portfolio by 2045, as previously reported.

At the public utility’s commission’s request, Idaho Power’s proposal outlines five main changes it would like to implement to its compensation structure. All of the changes would only apply to on-site power generators who had their systems installed after December 2019.

The first would change how the company bills for energy use, shifting from net-metering to net-billing, which would allow the company to bill for real-time energy use rather than the current monthly timeframe. Second, the company would like to implement an export credit rate, or what it credits customers who generate solar power, that could be adjusted regularly.

Third, the company wants to establish on-peak and off-peak export credit rate, or what is credited to people who give their excess solar power they generate but don’t need back to the grid. Under the proposal, the on-peak timeframe would be June 15 to Sept. 15, 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with Sundays and holidays excluded. While excess solar power contributed back to the grid during those hours would be credited at 20.42 cents, off-peak generation would be credited at 4.91 cents.

Fourth, the company would like approval to periodically reevaluate the numerous costs that go into the export credit rate, many on an annual basis.

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

Though not as packed as last year’s hearing on the VODER study, Tuesday’s three-hour hearing was filled with public testimony from homeowners, solar advocates, students, and more, with everyone who spoke questioning the proposal.

Of those who had solar panels, it was about evenly split who was grandfathered into the old compensation system and who was not. Reasons people said they installed solar in the first place included to combat climate change, to help take stress off of the grid, and wanting a fixed payment on their electric bill each month.

Many speakers urged the commission to reject the proposal entirely, while others offered suggestions for how to make it more fair.

Lisa Young, director of the Idaho Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that outside studies and experts have concluded that there is no cost-shifting happening from Idaho Power’s customers who generate solar to those who don’t, and therefore, no need for a change in compensation. Instead of creating a system in which the average export credit rate is in the 5-cent range, Idaho Power should be compensating solar generators in the 10-cent range, Young said.

“Customers deserve to be compensated fully and fairly for this valuable energy that they provide back to the grid, which Idaho Power then sells to other customers,” Young said. “Please don’t let Idaho Power cheat people out of that by chipping away at these compensation rate calculations.”

Young suggested that the credit rate could be locked in when a customer installs their solar panels, as is the practice in Nevada and Arizona.

Though the on-peak export credit rate of 20.42 cents sounds decent, it would be rare to receive it in practice, said Tracy Vedder, who installed solar panels on her small farm in Ada County. For example, even on the longest day of the year this year, June 20, Vedder said her panels would only have been generating power at maximum capacity until 5 p.m., though the window for the highest credit is 3 p.m.-11 p.m.

“My husband and I made the green decision (to install solar panels) for our future, for Idaho’s future, and for the future of Gen Z and beyond,” Vedder told the commission. “Please don’t let Idaho Power short-circuit the community’s ability to provide clean, low-cost energy that will ultimately benefit everyone.”

Jim Swain, a Nampa resident, said he believed that people who install solar should be compensated fairly for their decision and what they contribute to the grid.

“Keep in mind, every onsite generation system is a producer that Idaho Power does not have to finance, build or maintain,” Swain said. “The entire cost (of the system) is paid by the owner, at a great savings to Idaho Power.”

People also said they see onsite solar generation as a means to supply power to their neighbors, rather than it being generated at large solar arrays and sent to out-of-state markets.

“By generating power locally, we’re actually helping to save energy,” said Justin Welty, a Boise resident.

Some who testified characterized Idaho Power’s motivations as changing the rules of engagement for those who had already invested in solar or are considering it.

“I think that it’s disingenuous to retroactively change the rules on people who made a decision in good faith based on what information was available at the time … and can’t take back now,” said Monica Carreon, a Boise resident.

Jordan Rodriguez, a spokesperson for Idaho Power, shared the following statement: “We are looking to change the way we credit customers for energy they generate, often from rooftop solar, because the current credit structure is unfair to the 98% of our customers without solar panels. Customers without rooftop solar pay an unfair share of grid maintenance and improvement costs. The changes we have proposed will help update the credit so it is sustainable and fair for all customers.

“We support solar and we’re seeking to pay a fair market price for it, whether that’s from a large solar array or a customer’s rooftop. We are proud to have some of the lowest energy costs in the nation, but we can only maintain that by making sure we’re looking out for the interests of all customers while we invest in our clean energy future.”

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correctly state Lisa Young’s title — she is the director of the Idaho chapter of the Sierra Club.