20120315Comment.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
wade411 ~ida. net
Wednesday, March 14, 20124:52 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Tauna Christensen follows:
- - -- ------- - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case Number: GNR-E-11-03
Name: Tauna Christensen
Address: 769 N 1100 E
Ci ty: Shelley
State: ID
Zip: 83274
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: wade411~ida.net
Name of Utility Company: Paci fiCorp
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
When incorporated onto the grid we know that there is no such thing as wind electricity by
itself, because in its raw form, wind is not reliable. To make it reliable, wind must be
paired with a complementary traditional source such as coal, gas, or hydro.
Because wind must always be paired with a complementary traditional source, wind cannot
replace any of those traditional sources, or reduce any of the costs of keeping them in
operation, other than the cost of fuel.
As such, we, citizen ratepayers and taxpayers, request the following:
We would like the IPUC to report how much fossil fuel wind has saved (expressed as the
percentage of fuel saved divided by the percentage of megawatt hours generated by wind).
Either direct savings, by reducing the fuel consumption of whatever fossil generation plant
runs in parallel with wind, or indirect savings, by storing water at a hydro facility for
later use.
If no hydro facilities can store water while the wind is blowing, then there are no savings.
The water is wasted.
Likewise, any calculation of direct fossil fuel savings must be rigorous. It should be
equivalent to rerunning the dispatch order without wind for some reasonable period of time
(say, a week or a month) and then comparing that rerun with what happened in practice.
Without knowing these answers, how can the avoided cost be calculated correctly?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tauna Christensen
Energy Integrity Project
1