20120912Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-1 2-07
Original Message-----
From: Carol Sperry [mailto:w.buhler(live.com ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:20 PM
To: Gene Fadness
Subject: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commissioners,
I'm writing to ask that you DO NOT APPROVE Avista Utilities' application to reduce its Idaho
energy efficiency rider by 1.3 percent, or $3.46 million, in case AVU-E-12-07.
As you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, energy efficiency is the least-cost resource
available to our electric utilities, and they should be encouraged to increase their energy
efficiency programs rather than decreasing them. While I understand that Avista says it is
over-collecting through its energy efficiency rider, I also understand that there are always
new and improving technologies to obtain even more savings than we're already getting. In
this time of promising advances in ways to save energy, the last thing we should be doing is
reducing the modest amount of funding for these programs. Avista has done a good job in
providing efficiency programs and incentives to its Idaho customers, but it can do much more.
Allowing the company to cut its efficiency funding would send exactly the wrong message
during these times of energy challenges.
While Avista said it surpassed the electric savings by 115 percent of its Integrated Resource
Plan goal, I urge you as regulators to question whether our utilities are placing the bar too
low in setting their efficiency goals. Surely there are even more savings that are achievable
by Avista and that meet your cost-effective tests, and the more energy we save today means
we'll need to build fewer expensive power plants in the future. It might be one thing if
Avista was collecting millions of extra dollars from customers, but over-collecting $316,231
for electric efficiency programs does not seem so extreme as to justify reducing funding at
the present time. Reducing the efficiency rider now could raise the risk that the demand side
management (DSM) programs could be underfunded in the future if Avista does its job in
pursuing all cost-effective energy efficiency.
Finally, at about $1.05 for residential customers, the impact of reducing the rider funding
on customer bills will hardly be noticeable, while the customer savings from a well-funded
DSM program can more than offset the cost of the rider. On behalf of customers of all
utilities across Idaho, please let our utilities know that energy efficiency is still our
highest priority and that Idaho will do its share in meeting our region's ambitious energy
conservation goals!
Thank you,
Carol Sperry
150 Adams St
Twin Falls, ID 83301
1
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Original Message-----
From: William Blair [mailto:wb1air4318aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:59 PM
To: Gene Fadness
Subject: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commissioners,
I'm writing to ask that you DO NOT APPROVE Avista Utilities' application to reduce its Idaho
energy efficiency rider by 1.3 percent, or $3.46 million, in case AVU-E-12-07.
As you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, energy efficiency is the least-cost resource
available to our electric utilities, and they should be encouraged to increase their energy
efficiency programs rather than decreasing them. While I understand that Avista says it is
over-collecting through its energy efficiency rider, I also understand that there are always
new and improving technologies to obtain even more savings than we're already getting. In
this time of promising advances in ways to save energy, the last thing we should be doing is
reducing the modest amount of funding for these programs. Avista has done a good job in
providing efficiency programs and incentives to its Idaho customers, but it can do much more.
Allowing the company to cut its efficiency funding would send exactly the wrong message
during these times of energy challenges.
While Avista said it surpassed the electric savings by 115 percent of its Integrated Resource
Plan goal, I urge you as regulators to question whether our utilities are placing the bar too
low in setting their efficiency goals. Surely there are even more savings that are achievable
by Avista and that meet your cost-effective tests, and the more energy we save today means
we'll need to build fewer expensive power plants in the future. It might be one thing if
Avista was collecting millions of extra dollars from customers, but over-collecting $316,231
for electric efficiency programs does not seem so extreme as to justify reducing funding at
the present time. Reducing the efficiency rider now could raise the risk that the demand side
management (DSM) programs could be underfunded in the future if Avista does its job in
pursuing all cost-effective energy efficiency.
Finally, at about $1.05 for residential customers, the impact of reducing the rider funding
on customer bills will hardly be noticeable, while the customer savings From a well-funded
DSM program can more than offset the cost of the rider. On behalf of customers of all
utilities across Idaho, please let our utilities know that energy efficiency is still our
highest priority and that Idaho will do its share in meeting our region's ambitious energy
conservation goals!
Thank you,
William Blair
11561 W. Colony Street
11561 W Colony
Boise, ID 83709
1
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Original Message-----
From: Lisa Lintner [mailto:lisalotus(cox.net )
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:50 PM
To: Gene Fadness
Subject: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commissioners,
I'm writing to ask that you DO NOT APPROVE Avista Utilities' application to reduce its Idaho
energy efficiency rider by 1.3 percent, or $3.46 million, in case AVU-E-12-07.
As you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, energy efficiency is the least-cost resource
available to our electric utilities, and they should be encouraged to increase their energy
efficiency programs rather than decreasing them. While I understand that Avista says it is
over-collecting through its energy efficiency rider, I also understand that there are always
new and improving technologies to obtain even more savings than we're already getting. In
this time of promising advances in ways to save energy, the last thing we should be doing is
reducing the modest amount of funding for these programs. Avista has done a good job in
providing efficiency programs and incentives to its Idaho customers, but it can do much more.
Allowing the company to cut its efficiency funding would send exactly the wrong message
during these times of energy challenges.
While Avista said it surpassed the electric savings by 115 percent of its Integrated Resource
Plan goal, I urge you as regulators to question whether our utilities are placing the bar too
low in setting their efficiency goals. Surely there are even more savings that are achievable
by Avista and that meet your cost-effective tests, and the more energy we save today means
we'll need to build fewer expensive power plants in the future. It might be one thing if
Avista was collecting millions of extra dollars from customers, but over-collecting $316,231
for electric efficiency programs does not seem so extreme as to justify reducing funding at
the present time. Reducing the efficiency rider now could raise the risk that the demand side
management (DSM) programs could be underfunded in the future if Avista does its job in
pursuing all cost-effective energy efficiency.
Finally, at about $1.05 for residential customers, the impact of reducing the rider funding
on customer bills will hardly be noticeable, while the customer savings from a well-funded
DSM program can more than offset the cost of the rider. On behalf of customers of all
utilities across Idaho, please let our utilities know that energy efficiency is still our
highest priority and that Idaho will do its share in meeting our region's ambitious energy
conservation goals!
Thank you,
Lisa Lintner
8 Buttercup Rd.
Hailey, ID 83333
1
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:57 PM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Original Message-----
From: Carol Vilevac [mailto:cvilevac(gmail.com )
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Gene Fadness
Subject: Comments on Case No. AVU-E-12-07
Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commissioners,
I'm writing to ask that you DO NOT APPROVE Avista Utilities' application to reduce its Idaho
energy efficiency rider by 1.3 percent, or $3.46 million, in case AVU-E-12-07.
As you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, energy efficiency is the least-cost resource
available to our electric utilities, and they should be encouraged to increase their energy
efficiency programs rather than decreasing them. While I understand that Avista says it is
over-collecting through its energy efficiency rider, I also understand that there are always
new and improving technologies to obtain even more savings than we're already getting. In
this time of promising advances in ways to save energy, the last thing we should be doing is
reducing the modest amount of funding for these programs. Avista has done a good job in
providing efficiency programs and incentives to its Idaho customers, but it can do much more.
Allowing the company to cut its efficiency funding would send exactly the wrong message
during these times of energy challenges.
While Avista said it surpassed the electric savings by 115 percent of its Integrated Resource
Plan goal, I urge you as regulators to question whether our utilities are placing the bar too
low in setting their efficiency goals. Surely there are even more savings that are achievable
by Avista and that meet your cost-effective tests, and the more energy we save today means
we'll need to build fewer expensive power plants in the future. It might be one thing if
Avista was collecting millions of extra dollars from customers, but over-collecting $316,231
for electric efficiency programs does not seem so extreme as to justify reducing funding at
the present time. Reducing the efficiency rider now could raise the risk that the demand side
management (DSM) programs could be underfunded in the future if Avista does its job in
pursuing all cost-effective energy efficiency.
Finally, at about $1.05 for residential customers, the impact of reducing the rider funding
on customer bills will hardly be noticeable, while the customer savings from a well-funded
DSM program can more than offset the cost of the rider. On behalf of customers of all
utilities across Idaho, please let our utilities know that energy efficiency is still our
highest priority and that Idaho will do its share in meeting our region's ambitious energy
conservation goals
Thank you,
Carol Vilevac
10111 Stardust Drive
Boise, ID 83709
1