20020510Consumer Comments.pdf

JeanJevvell
From:Ed Howell
Sent:Friday,May 10,2002 5:51 PMTo:Jean Jewell;Ed Howell;Gene Fadness;Tonya Clark
Subject:Commentacknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday,May 10,2002
4:51:28 PM
Case:IPC-E-02-04
Name:Kristy Webb
Street Address:2158 Addison Ave.E.City:Twin Falls
State:Idaho
ZIP:83301Home_Telephone:[phone]
E-Mail:[e-mail]:Idaho Powermailinglistyesno:yes
Comment description:Idaho Rural Council
P.O.Box 118Bliss,Idaho 83314
Idaho Public Utility Commission
via e-mail
Re:Comments on Idaho Power Company?s Net Metering Tariff
Case Number IPC-E-02-04
Dear Commissioners:
The Idaho Rural Council supports net metering.We believe that it is an investment in
Idaho?s future and an important first step in developing renewable energy.
It also encourages distributed generation.We believe renewable energy and distributedgenerationhaveimportantenergy,economic and environmental benefits for Idaho.
Unfortunately,Idaho Power Company?s Proposed Net Metering Tariff falls seriously
short of providing Idaho and its customers the full benefits of net metering.
Idaho Power?s proposal discriminates against irrigators.
Idaho Power?s proposal would give small commercial and residential customers credit
for energy generated and provided to the company for an indefinite period of time (an
indefinite carryover).
Idaho Power?s proposal would give irrigators credit for energy generated and provided
to the company only for the month it was produced (a monthly billing period forirrigators).Irrigators will be paid for energy in excess of the power consumed in aparticularmonthat85%of the market price for non-firm energy in the Pacific Northwest -
a small fraction of what irrigators pay Idaho Power for the energy they use.
The proposal is particularly disadvantageous for irrigators because they will probably
produce power primarily in months they do not irrigate.
The Idaho Rural Council recommends that Idaho Power?s net metering tariff forirrigatorsuseeither:1)the indefinite carryover Idaho Power had proposed for small
commercial and residential customers or 2)an annual billing period.
Idaho Power?s proposal discriminates against wind power.
1
Idaho Power?s proposal allows net metering on electrical generators with a name platecapacityofnomorethan100kW.
Idaho Power?s small ?name plate capacity?proposal precludes most efficient wild
turbines.The proposal discourages the use of wind power for net metering.
The Idaho Rural Council recommends that Idaho Power?s net metering tariff allowgeneratorswithanameplatecapacityof300kW.This will allow customers to use small,
but efficient wind turbines.
Idaho Power?s proposal should include fair and consistent interconnection standards
The absence of clear,consistent,and fair interconnection standards will discourage
customers from availing themselves of net metering.Customers need to know what it
interconnection will cost when deciding whether to generate power for net metering.Clear
and consistent interconnection standards assures customers of nondiscriminatory access to
the net metering tariff.Clear and consistent interconnection standards would also give
the Commission a better opportunity to estimate how many customers can realisticallyparticipateinnetmetering.
The Idaho Rural Council does not have the expertise necessary to suggest detailed
interconnection standards.We believe that the Commission should require Idaho Power
Company to prepare these standards.The proposed standards can then be submitted to the
Commission and the public for comment.
A clear,consistent and fair set of interconnection standards are essential to a
successful net metering program.
Conclusion
A strong net metering tariff from Idaho Power Company would encourage renewable energyanddistributedenergyproductionisIdaho.Unfortunately,Idaho Power Company?s proposal
falls far short of taking advantage of the potential for net metering in Idaho.We
encourage the Idaho Public Utility Commission to require Idaho Power to amend its netmeteringtarifftomorefullyrealizethepotentialofnetmetering.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Kristy WebbPresident,Idaho Rural Council
Transaction ID:5101651.28Referredby:http://www.puc.state.id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipuc
User Address:67.234.149.90
User Hostname:67.234.149.90
2
Jean Jewell
L
From:Ed Howell
Sent:Monday,May 06,2002 11:47 AM
To:Jean Jewell;Ed Howell;Gene Fadness;Tonya ClarkSubject:Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday,May 06,200210:47:09 AM
Case:IPC-E-02-04
Name:Bill Chisholm,IRC Energy CoordinatorStreet_Address:19073E Hwy 30City:Buhl
State:Idaho
ZIP:83316Home_Telephone:[phone]
E-Mail:[e-mail]
Company:Idaho Power Companymailinglistyesno:yesComment_description:May 6,2002
Bill Chisholm,Energy Coordinator
Idaho Rural Council19073EHwy30Buhl,Idaho 83316
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 Washington St.Boise,Idaho 83720
Comments:IPC-E-02-04
While the Idaho Rural Council is encouraged by the expanded net meteringopportunitiesbeingofferedtoallclassesofcustomersbythisfiling;we are deeply
concerned with the 2.9 Mega watt limit being imposed.Net metering presents anopportunityforIdahoPowercustomerstoinvesttheirenergydollars,not merely spend
them.These investments are not merely economic investment opportunities,but
environmental and security investment opportunities as well.
Albert Einstein said,'We cannot solve our problems at the same level of thinking at
which we created them."The recent energy crisis and future energy crises will come about
because we have failed to change our level of thinking,to invest in solutions.It isgoingtotakesometimetogetuptospeed,to make net metering a viable reality,but
while that is true setting our sights so low at the 2.9 Mega watt level,which could be
eaten up by big operators before the infrastructure is in place to make it more available
to residential,small business and smaller agricultural operations would discourageparticipation.We therefore urge the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to set the netmeteringlimit,if a limit is even needed at 10%of Idaho Power's load.We need to
encourage,not discourage distributed electrical production along with conservation and
energy efficiency.That is the kind of thinking that will prevent future energy crisis
and the kind of socio-economic and environmental upheaval that we have recentlyexperienced.
Submitted by,
Bill ChisholmEnergyCoordinatorIdahoRuralCouncil
Transaction ID:561047.9
Referred by:http://www.puc.state.id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipuc
1
Jean Jevvell
From:Ed Howell
Sent:Thursday,May 09,2002 11:56 AM
To:Jean Jewell;Ed Howell;Gene Fadness;Tonya Clark
Subject:Commentacknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday,May 09,200210:55:30 AM
Case:IPC-E-02-04
Name:Bill Chisholm,IRC-Energy CoordinatorStreet_Address:19073E Hwy 30City:Buhl
State:Idaho
ZIP:83316
Home Telephone:[phone]E-Mail:chisholm#@mindspring.com
Company:Idaho Power Companymailinglistyesno:yes
Comment description:May 9,2002
Bill ChisholmEnergyCoordinator
Idaho Rural Council19073EHwy30Buhl,Idaho 83316
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O.Box 83720Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
Additional Comments:IPC-E-02-04
These additional comments expand the previous comments submitted by the Idaho Rural
Council on this matter.Net metering does not only present an opportunity for the
individual customer to benefit by the investment of their energy dollars in a renewable
net metering project;all Idaho Power rate payers benefit by the stability andsustainabilitythatwillcomeaboutwithamorediverseanddistributedrenewable energyproductionbase.
In addition to the previous comments regarding the 2.9 Mega-watt cap suggested by
Idaho Power,which we believe should be raised to 10%of their projected needs,we believe
that in order to move net metering along,individual cap sizes,particularly foragriculturalprojectsshouldberaisedaswell.Net metering projects need to have the
economic incentives in them that encourage investment.So for irrigators the cap shouldberaisedfrom100kwto300kwandputonanannual,rather that a monthly true up.(See
the attached work sheet)
We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this process.
Sincerely,Bill ChisholmEnergyCoordinator
Idaho Rural Council
Calculation of Needed Wind Capacity to balance annual power costsunderIdahoPower's net metering proposal for irrigation
Enter your specific information in the blue cells
Annual Power Cost
1
Irrigation Pump Horsepower 100Operatingtimehour/year 2,000
kWh used by Irrigation Pwnp 165,778
Number of months of operation 6
Customer charge per meter per month/in season $10.07
Customer charge per meter per month/out of season $2.50
Demand Charge $/kW in season $3.58
Annual customer charge $75
Pump startup excess -power use during system startup 25%Billed demand kW 104Monthlydemandcharge $371
Annual demand charge $2,226
In season energy rate $0.045657
Annual energy charge $7,569
Total Power Bill $9,794
Annual Power Sales
Percent of power generated that is net metered 12%
Percent of power sold at 85%of Mid C rate 88%
Sales price net metered $0.045657
Mid Columbia rate $0.021Averagesalespriceper kWh $0.023959
Number of kWh needed to be generated to balance bill 408,805Windcapacityfactor%15%Average hours at rated capacity 1,314SizeofturbineneededkW311Dollarsofincomefrompowergeneration $9,794
Transaction ID:591055.30
Referred by:http://www.puc.state.id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipuc
User Address:67.234.149.98
User Hostname:67.234.149.98
2
Jean Jewell
From:Ed Howell
Sent:Monday,May 06,2002 3:56 PM
To:Jean Jewell;Ed Howell;Gene Fadness;Tonya ClarkSubject:Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday,May 06,20022:56:20 PM
Case:IPC-E-02-04
Name:Dan Hennis
Street Address:2792 Desert Wind RDCity:Mtn.Home
State:Idaho
ZIP:83647-5020Home_Telephone:[phone]
E-Mail:[e-mail]
Company:mailing list yes no:yesComment_description:Comments for Net-Metering
In "the real world"
1)I agree with the comment made that,"Wind power is no more non-firm than hydro"in
that in our day-and-age our Met.people do quite well at forecasting both short and long
range trends,(El Nino &La Nina).
2)We really don't have any State approved definitions of wind farms,sizes,registrations,(USDA or?),expectations,etc.
3)I join with the hundreds of people who have come to my little farm,to ask that wind
power not just be allowed in Idaho,but be strongly encouraged through either realistic
Renewables Portfolio or state production tax credits .that match federal production tax
credits.A Quarter or a Dollar a month is well worth it to have clean,cheap power,with
hydro put into more reserves.At the risk of sounding like a Democrat,perhaps a tax of
that amount could go to a grant/loan program to help foster wind power projects in Idaho.
I know I would jump at a chance to get a low-interest State grant/loan to purchase
turbines.Perhaps the program could be similar to the money Oregon has lent out to help
the intermediate and large net-meterers to get started.In just one year,we could be
well on our way to as much as 5Mw of wind projects across southern Idaho alone.Just
think of the added revenues that would be gained in state with a few intermediate windplantsbeinginstalledandifoutdamswerefull.Fish and wild life would prosper and
recreation would boom as well as increasing development on a stable healthy scale.In
full view of our entire State energy plan,it is a "must"to marry wind and hydro.Winds
are best in the spring and fall whereas,Hydro is best used in summer and winter,with
reserves for those rare windless anomalies.It is common knowledge that hydro plants work
far more efficiently at a fuller level.This is not "eye wash,"these are facts!
4)I ask again,why is one of our most valuable State offices shoved into the corner of a
related office and stunted from being able to take the action that is needed?!?In other
words,why isn't there a "State Department of (Renewable)Energy,"instead of an after-thought office in the IDWR?!?Isn't Idaho's Energy Resources important enough to warrant
an office with the power to help Idaho's power needs?!?!
5)I wish to stress the need to correct the present misconception about outputs VS
surplus.To make a Net-Metering law that is based on outputs alone is asinine to say the
least.A law should,where possible,be positive in intent.The current agreement in
Net-Metering to govern by placarded output is grossly in error.This action is counter-productive and will foster lying and deceit in this new and growing industry in my
opinion.If people are to embrace the Idea of wind power,it must make reasonable sense
and,not be a burden or financially impractical.In order to meet their needs,small -
intermediate wind farmers will begin to do things like "velcro placarding"to survive and
1
make this work for them.This is not only dangerous,but will cause a feeling of mistrust
even greater than is now experienced between the utility and the wind farmer.I imploreyoutotaketheaffirmativeactiontodemandthatcapsbesetatareasonablelevelandgovernedprimarilyonsurplusoutputandnotbytheplacardalone.These caps need to be
realistic to work.In this industry,there are many provisions to regulate the output ofthesemillsbyshuntregulatorordiversionregulatorbesidesthecommonoutputregulators.To overlook the use and existence of these controls is like making cars with
no brakes.Their sizes would be unfairly stunted to render them useless in a horse-dominated world.
6)It has been my professional experience over the last 3 years that the 25Kw cap is onlymarginallyacceptableinonlythemostidealconditions.Since we must 3X to 4X size the
turbines in most areas to approach a break-even point,the next available size of turbine
is the 65Kw units,(for small scale),and 250Kw,(for larger farms).Therefore,for Net-Metering to work for the masses,it must be set at a realistic level for the winds we
receive.This could and should be the logic in setting the upper cap also.As I stated
in the meeting,an Ag farmer with a 400MwH/year load,will need to install at least 200Kw
of turbines.I seem to remember some kind of cap of 2.9Mw.This will be reached withonly15farmersintheentirestate!A SMW cap could be reached with only 25 farmers!
Perhaps a more realistic "real world"cap should be more like 300 to 400Mw.I know of
more than a dozen farmers in just two counties that wish to Net-Meter if they could begovernedonsurplusnotplacardedoutput.There are some 17 to 25 counties across
Southern Idaho that could take advantage of this option if the caps and regulations were
realistic.This one option alone,would free up vast quantities of present demand onhydroresources,allowing farmers to grow more and better crops as well as allowing the
rest of the state to progress without the pressure of skyrocketing power prices.This is
not to mention the many other benefits too lengthy to state here.Like my analogy,please
do not staple our hands to our feet and expect everybody to work faster.
7)Please consider that our State has NO incentives,funding,or other financialassistanceofconsequencefocusedatharvestingthevastwindresource.With the thirdbestwindinthewest,you would think we would be at least the third MOST AGGRESSIVE
STATE and not the LAST!!!When the Islands and third world countries shine over us at a
rate exceeding 5 to 1,I get ashamed of the lax efforts made in my government.
Sorry,I did not want to say it so coldly.I had promised to not "hammer "you guys,but this is how I feel and how outsiders see Idaho.
Transaction ID:561456.20
Referred by:http://www.puc.state.id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipuc
User Address:67.250.133.207
User Hostname:67.250.133.207
2
Jean Jewell fC
From:Ed Howell
Sent:Wednesday,May 08,2002 8:54 PMTo:Jean Jewell;Ed Howell;Gene Fadness;Tonya ClarkSubject:Commentacknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Wednesday,May 08,2002
7:54:21 PM
Case:
Name :Maureen Bol ing
Street Address:401 BrooksCity:Ëazelton
State:ID
ZIP:83335
Home Telephone:E-Mail:[e-mail]
Company:ID PowerComment_description:Please approve net metering and make it as accessible as possible sothatmoreindividualsandbusinessescanparticipate.Thanks,
Maureen Boling
Transaction ID:581954.21
Referred by:http://www.puc.state.id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipuc
User Address:216.222.12.52
User Hostname:216.222.12.52
1