20030718Comments.pdf

Jean JewellFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Ed HowellThursday, July 17 , 2003 10:45 AMJean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya ClarkComment acknowledgementWWW Form Submission:Thursday, July 17 , 20039:44:59 AMCase: IPC-E-02-Name: Marlin BrownStreet Address: 4723 N Draft AveCi ty: BoiseState: IDZIP: 83713HomeTelephone: 208-939-4434E-Mail: marlinbrownj r~msn. comCompany: Idaho Powermailinglist _yes _no: yesCommentdescription: I wanted to state that I am for automated meter reading for severalreasons. Primarily, it is my understanding that automated meter reading removes the humanelement from meter reading and is consequently more accurate. It also reduces the timesan Idaho Power person has to trudge through my yard , knowing that they do not stay on thesidewalk but just walk from one yard to the next. I understand that Intermountain Gas hasjust implemented a similar system and from the li terature they distributed it seems though they expect significant cost savings. I would expect Idaho Power to experiencesimilar savings. I am strongly for automated meter reading in Idaho.Transaction ID: 717944.
Referred by: http: / /www. puc. s tate. id. us scripts /polyform. dll/ ipuc
Use r Add res s: 1 9 8 . 1 8 2 . 9 . 1
Us e r Ho s tname: 198. 182 . 9 . 1
Jean JewellFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Ed HowellWednesday, July 16 , 2003 9:58 PMJean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya ClarkComment acknowledgementWWW Form Submission:Wednesday, July 16 , 20038 : 5 8 : 0 5 Case: IPC-E-02-Name: Lorianne TurpenStreet Addres s: 1123 Garfield St.Ci ty: Idaho FallsState: IdahoZIP: 83401HomeTelephone: 208-523-6159E-Mail: ki tty - tigger~msn. comCompany: Idaho Falls Power City of Idaho Falls)mailing list _yes _no: yesCommentdescription: I am curious about this , because if we , as the consumer foots thebill, i ti s g 0 i n g t 0 ma k e i t h a r d on tho s e 0 f u s t hat can bar e 1 y a f for d the use 0 f P owe rnow. I I m talking about the lower income people that only get minimum wage. And how wouldthis reduce our bill in the long run?? Especially when the regular rates keep rising likethey do.Transaction ID: 7162058.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. s tate. id. us scripts /polyform. dll/ ipucUse r Add res s: 6 5 . 1 0 2 . 7 6 . 15 3
User Hos tname: 65.102.76.153
Jean JewellFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Ed HowellWednesday, July 16 , 2003 7: 17 PMJean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya ClarkComment acknowledgementWWW Form Submission:Wednesday, July 16 , 20036 : 1 6 : 5 7 Case:Name: Patti Smi Street Address: 5125 Pinion DrCity: PocatelloState: IDZIP: 832-Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: cpsmi th~veloci tus netCompany: Idaho Powermailinglist _yes _no: yesCommentdescription: I DON I T believe Idaho Power should be directed to install automatedmeters. As I understand it , this technology, and implementaion , is fairly new. It has notbeen proven to be cost effective , and I don t believe will save consumers money, but willincrease power bills. Also , lets keep as many decent paying jobs in Idaho as we can. Atleast until a few trials can be run on just how cost saving the meters will be.Transaction ID: 7161816.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. s tate. id. us scripts /polyform. dll/ ipucUse r Add res s: 2 0 8 . 14 . 1 7 2 . 4 8
Use r Ho s tname: 208. 14 . 172 . 4 8
Jean JewellFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Ed HowellThursday, July 17 , 2003 2:05 PMJean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya ClarkComment acknowledgementWWW Form Submission:Thursday, July 17 , 20031 : 0 5 : 13 Case: IPC-E-02-Name: Steven E. SentenoStreet Address: 1957 Teal LaneCi ty: BoiseState: IDZIP: 83706HomeTelephone: 208-331-1311E-Mail: s. senteno~a tt. netCompany: Idaho Powermailinglist _yes _no: noCommentdescription: July 17 , 2003Gentlemen:Regarding: Case No. IPC-E-02-, Order No. 29291 and the Idaho Public Utilities Commissioninvi ting public comment on whether Idaho Power should be required to implement automatedmeter readers , what features they should include and how they should be paid for. As public member I respectfully submi t the following comments.Steven E. Senteno
1957 Teal Lane
Boise , ID 83706
Telephone: [phone]
Email: s. senteno~a tt. net
Should the company be directed to install automated meters?
Customers want:
A fair price for Service
Service that never fails
When Service fails , fix it
Meet your commi tments
Do it right the first time
fast
The Company wants:
To make money
To improve value to Shareholders
Unless the service price to Ratepayers is to be reduced , then the AMR infrastructure
deployment is of li ttle or no value to the Customer.
From a Company perspective , if a technology does not support improvements in process
efficiency through volume management , improved cycle time , reduction of cost and repeat
rates - then the Company (Shareholders) realize no gain.
Technology Vendors often attempt to sell "solutions " in search of "problems If the
Company s Account Management Processes (through performance data analysis) cannot be
streamlined by technology, then a mandate to deploy technology, makes no financial sense.
How can advanced metering technology help the company and its ratepayers make the most ofadvanced technology?Simply stated , the Company must show that AMR will contribute to efficiency improvementswi thin their Account Management Processes that shall translate to reduced rates and/ increased profit.Lacking the Company s concurrence , then it would seem reasonable to seek the input of anindependent 3rd party to investigate other Utility Companies ' use of AMR then bring yourteam an assessment.Certainly, the Company and PUC should stay abreast of the potential that technology brings(balanced against needs) yet not be swayed by a Vendor s proposed "silver bullet"solution.What are the types of technology that should be employed?The ONLY technology that should be employed is that which meets the Company s definedneeds. To leap to a choice of technology wi thout first defining a need is indeed , puttingthe cart before the horse.What is the time frame for implementation?If determined that AMR deployment is a "smart" thing to do and if the funding source isrobust, then "sooner and faster " is obviously better. Lacking an immediate and/orinfini te source of funding, then the deployment timeframe should occur at a rate that doesnot negatively impact Ratepayers or Shareholders.How should the Company recover costs associated wi th AMR?The question implies the funding source will not be robust and that Customers andShareholders will be asked to pick-up the tab - which puts this discussion in a circularpath: Should the Company be directed to install automated meters? The response does notchange: Unless the service price to Ratepayers is to be reduced , then the AMR
infrastructure deployment is of li ttle or no value to the Customer. From a Company
perspective , if a technology does not support improvements in process efficiency through
volume management , improved cycle time , reduction of cost and repeat rates - then the
Company (Shareholders) reali ze no gain.
Transaction ID: 7171305.
Referred by: http: / /www. puc. s tate. id. us scripts /polyform. dll/ ipuc
User Addres s: 12.82.144.
User Hos tname: 12.82.144.