20070815Comments.pdf

/~
g/tt:;!o1
Jean Jewell
./~ 41 '/1'a t'7VI./VYvJ)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
nodes65~yahoo.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:06 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from JOHN K. NODES follows:
- - - -- - - - - --- --- - - ----- - -- -- - --- - -- --
Case Number: AVU-E-07-07
Name: JOHN K. NODES
Address: 3060 E. BURGUNDY TRAIL
City: POST FALLS
State: IDAHO
Zip: 83854
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: nodes65~yahoo. com
Name of Utility Compan~: Avista
Add to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
Kindly allow me to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed Avista rate increase. Asthis is one of many in the past year or two, I highly disagree with their proposals. Ifeel that a down-sizing is long overdue. What with CEO's acquiring original artworks,stockholders always on the plus side, inflated salaries, etc., let them tighten their
belts like everyone else. There s 46 million who can t afford health insurance. What arewe to do? Sincerely, John K. Nodes
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.htmlIP address is 76.178.140.
- - - ---- - -- --- ---- - - - -- - - -- --- - --- ---
' J'A--
/\~
ii""F'
Jean Jewell
Ij: I~/
/ ~
&rrvvYJ/V?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
judyofrancis~gmail.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:15 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from Judy Francis follows:
- --- - ----- -- - ------------ - - - - ----- --
Case Number: AVU-E-07-07
Name: Judy Francis
Address: 2584 E. Black Forest
City: Post Falls
State: ID
Zip: 83854
Home Telephone: [phone]Contact E-Mail: judyofrancis~gmail. com
Name of Utility compa AVISTAAdd to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
This is concerning Avista rate hike for Idaho. Unless CEO's reduce their salaries no rate
increase should be given. This increase hurts low income and what little is left of themiddle income, not the wealthy. Therefore the wealthy CEO will not be effected but
millions of others will. So say NO to this increase unless AVISTA CEO's are willing totake less.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 76.178.131.
- - -- ------ - ----- - -- ----- - - - - - -- - ---
. -- ~.
gj6fa
Jean Jewell
If., AY./ 1:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
gfleisch986~hotmail.com
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:47 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from Gerald Fleischman follows:
- - - - -- - - -- - - --- - - - -- --- - -- -- - - - - - -
Case Number: AVU-E-07-07
Name: Gerald Fleischman
Address: 11535 W. Hazeldale Ct.
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83713
Home Telephone: [phone]Contact E-Mail: gfleisch98 6~hotmail. com
Name of Utility Comp~ Idaho Power Company
Add to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:This surcharge (PCA) in this case takes the risk from those who make the decisions on
energy resources for power generation (the utilities) and put it on those who have no
choice (the ratepayers). The PCA process may have been a good thing when all generating
resources were known and the only variables were fuel costs, but that time has gone. Anysystem that is based on no change is bound to fail. Because of the PCA, utili ties have astong (very strong) bias in favor of known energy resources, those which may not be
intermi ttent, but which have price and supply risks. Perhaps an answer here is to place
more of the risk on those who make the decisions on resource acquisition. Perhaps 75%
utility and 25% ratepayer; opposite of what it is now. Is it good for the ratepayers that
the risks of price volitily are passed directly to them, when they have no say in ways to
limit or reduce that risk? How is a renewable energy developer going to compete against
fossil fuels whose limitations are obscured from the utilities by the PCA while thelimi tations of renewable energy resources are at least partly known and accounted for?
It may seem logical and good for ratepayers that reductions in costs are passed back
through to them. What is really passed back through to them is not higher or lower costs,it is risk. What is the definition of risk? Variability of outcomes. There is no other way
to see the PCA other than passing risk through to the ratepayer.
Another item, the utility has to show that the expenses are prudent and in the interest of
the ratepayers. Here is an example that could show the probable futility of such an
effort. Take Nome. All its electricity is supplied by diesel-fueled engine generators.Under a PCA system, why would Nome Joint Utilities Service look at wind power, somethingthat could provide energy at perhaps 8 cents/kWh? The answer is, it wouldn t. The problemfor Nome Joint Utili ties Service is that it is rather close to its ratepayers. They cansee and feel the cost of electricity. NJUS managers can t just sit back and say, 'Hey,what are we going to do? The price of diesel went up 50% in the last year? You got any
ideas? Besides, we re still doing OK. We just pass the fuel cost on to you and we
happy. That doesn t fly in Nome, as evidenced by Nome brining in Brian Jackson this week
for advice on wind power development, and it shouldn t fly here.
The form submited on http: / /www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.htmlIP address is 164.165.96.
------------ --- - - --- - - -- -- - -- - ---