HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031113Comments.pdfIDAHO
PUBLIC UTiliTIES
COMMISSION
Case No. IPC-O3-
November 13, 2003
Boise Id
WHAT DO YOUTHINK?
If you want your opinion noted in the record. Please use the space below to write your
comments. Add extra sheets as needed. You may either hand this sheet to a
commission staff member or mail it to:
IPUG, PO Box 83720, Boise, 1083720-0074.
You may also post comments on our WebSite.
www.puc.state.id.
click on "comments & questions.
r7 i (~CI ,.-L
2.t) I If /Il- AJ/J d ft/u 1- ' (.-:/1/7 fill f1 AJ! (~) 6. I alfl
tk~ u S:;J
/1 / ()/Zr J; I tl1 (J.
j-
h, c:; qli J .N 7 t:fL-mJ)) jJA( /~fJ4Jul. f7;~/o
" ..;. ~,
,YI1 on. --1:- .J? ..J q /:1:: d ,
:(/y?
M.l /J't ./ R'. ,.
14J~ 'C&J JLJ fJ ~ -& /Y( 'z pJ3~ 1 ~ - j:::)1
1-
eft 1
(J c:lffz ~ t nL't~ to (! Pi. !o "+JuMl-
Cr/rrl -a 1; + A.f. /W7 L -i .J l lj /;:;L :3 -e- J..f b-J.
Jlc\b 1\
. "
t:~A r;~
~~oT
;;/
TIu'V)
/,
Jh()t (jeuPr: oj,U,6J-I OF ~UClfl~f- 1.)(/10 rjJ c D O'1J;:;J,a/1m~
ifl--IJ 6rn fir Print Na,A id!)1 .:YYI; 1:: Sign Name
IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
Case No. IPC-O3-
November 13, 2003
Boise Id
WHAT DO YOUTHINK?
If you want your opinion noted in the record. Please use the space below to write your
comments. Add extra sheets as needed. You may either hand this sheet to a
commission staff member or mail it to:
IPUG, PO Box 83720, Boise , 1083720-0074.
You may also post comments on our WebSite.
www.puc.state.id.
click on "comments & questions.
g;y, m,/4'ol1 #'~r k?r~L',7'-~l!~r"? ~CJo oCJCJ
4/ :to
~;:-.
Zd~~ ,Po"PfJdL-
/;
'/7 i CJ/tJ1~-n..R)
.-1.e. d Y7 t!~;q e.. -$.5'.:z:.
~.
/'nc!p~ I-'r-~ P?A:-r2 '0,
~.:!
; 5 'jt7'
' I c...~-
~(:!
tJtl/CliYJ f!:fn;.6u.-
'-'
f4~Y'J
~ /
,z e.. .e..
('
h,'5,Y7
..z u/t
,.
Q t~e:'roi feJ b?(
Q. AIl,,",51-(1 t1n !Ill or:
;L?, .J-.4/s
:11 Ma ,.f"
f-l .9,..., f w Ut.
"-/':')
I- A-J2.
~cdep" ~ 0 ner-~ ().f2-,:) tY :r L.J,,'
) az:,tf -i-4.u.Ve;J..24' ;U;r OPf~-'oJ h1 ~ h ~nt'-4i- kJ,h ~ v~ J-o
7z t-t')
(t t;!(,1 -I/e-~
sit! tJ-.R- ~ r ../ i c~ -f; n' q. -Y~rc:D"'-.It:
" r l' 4"5'"
....,
Print Name f-qJ a r .L .c f/l..J Sign Name
HECEIVED
FILED
. I.~"
znGJ NOY , 2 PMq: f 4
U PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Robert L. Baumgartner
1818 SE 5th Way
Meridian, Idaho 83642
November 11, 2003
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Sf
Boise, Idaho 83702
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have just received the notification ITom Idaho Power that they are in the process of requesting a
rate increase.
I respectfully request that you disapprove not only their interim 4.2 % rate increase, but their
request for a 19% rate increase in residential rates.
One of the issues in this valley that continues to trouble me is the incessant growth imposed on
the citizenry. Here we go again with another outgrowth of growth...the request for us to foot the
bill because of the growth that has occurred or is anticipated to occur. Frankly I am sick of being
told by politicians, developers and others oftheir ilk the valley has to grow. The quality of life
here, for those of you on the commission who may remember, is not what it was 25 years ago.
Are we to continue the growth folly in order to make a few people more wealthy while
sacrificing the quality of life for the rest of us?
Please take a stand by denying the Idaho Power Company this huge rate increase.
Sincerely,
p,
i(~~~ ,~ . . .
fX1
HED
/1 th/
/;
chzJ
ZOO3
::;
~ ~U
~"
UTILITIES COHMfSSlON
;tJ 7~ ZiJ
~ ~
5/ ;Q- ~d?at~
;:Z;td-,:V
~L --I
~~~~~.
of!-
;t) 667-3 d'dL
1 K
. .
840 N. Crane Rd. ~ /1 Midvale, ID 83645-5514
...-
L.,...-/
ECEIVED 0 1./, 1
M.
7 ~
~ )
FILED
~'-" , (' . ~~~
lO~3 NHV 12 PM 2:52 ' (JJ~
'/
~Jf
ut~U to'if~I~SfON d"'J6 DS
fto V
~:fr
~~-~~ ~~
~~)Z
~ ~
-ff ~
~~a--~
4- a-.~~c!~~,nt--V'
~~ ~~ ~~~
d--,
~~~
()
J ~a!.-J-
~~~~VE1;, ~
~'
if
~V--& / tnD3 NOV ~ 2
ID~
,,\
~i-- v.)~
~UT~ '/J,i(t~!OtJL
./ (,.
t7V.... I~~
~~
bv-e
~, . ,\ ,
U~"
evf~k-
rZ-J!
~~
zf;
r'-
UJ ?-1,-,-
fJLL~- c~~. ~JO~ ~~;.L
::tJ ;?:~:i
# ~
uU FcLVl ~t:JL d.-~~ 0
If,z r~ ~"'-v ,~ cJ~
.jf I
- .~ ~
I!?
~ ~~
~:--L
;;~
0f) c))r-
()
/Or II
/4~'Y'-
..kY
"'"
. 1
f'~'~ t::.v....J!rv.",-
',--,,-,
fy~~ ,jJ /~
~'J-
~~
rY-
~ 1
~ ~
!k
~~
~L /~.c~
1"
7I':J D
?"
~7:7)
\: ~~ ~
a.1J! ~'"' C . ~w
~~
f!~;;f-
~ .,J -J l'~ h 1M .,C.cVi.---'l":-Z:~ J' ' tA-
j:~
T J
~~ ! ,(~
f~
~ ~
-Pj,z ~--r'~ jr'tL' .::fkP~
'11
'tv
) (;-:r-
'" . ,
i.-~L--r
..) -=-"-----
4)~
\;..~~ '---
(I;"
/~(1 ~n
//
t./It- h~ ~tfV\ 4-bLV'vJ.-L
~7
10 ~K7
AC-~ (i~(.,~"-P'
~ ,) . '
ci~~ ~Q ~ ,,2'~3 ~O. ~':7)
If 11
bc~~?.-
'0"
, '
,. c;"
Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, Idaho
REGEl VED illFILED
lOlllNOV l2 AM!; 'I
WAllO PUBLIC
unLIT lIS COMMISSION
Idaho Power, a s4bsiderary ofIdacorp has just asked for 25% rate increase. There are several
reasons why I believe it should be refused by the Public Utilities Commission. In fact I feel that
there are several reasons there should be a reduction in the current rates charged the general
public. If there is a change, it should be done on the charge per kilowatt not on percentage
charged. It should also be made public how much it costs to produce, distribute, and service by
the kilowatt. I do not believe that changing to a part ofIdacorp fulfills the basic agreement.
Idacorp having control does not fulfill the public utility agreement of constitutional monopoly.
Years ago Idaho Power was made one of our public utilities. It was given a monopoly that is
illegal unless controlled by a public utility commission and Idaho Power is guaranteed a profit of
a certain percent.
They not only do not own the dam sites, but the use of them and the use of the water s weight to
run their turbines to propel their generators was to be taken care of by what is called mitigation.
Parks, planting of fish and other recreational services were to be financed by Idaho Power to take
care of this part ofthe agreement. Sorp.e of this agreement has not been satisfactorily done
according to the fish and game and others. They ve managed to get out of paying for these
services and also not paying taxes by never finishing anything, by leaving an empty "stall" in
their power plants. All of their signs at the dams call it a project not a power plant. Technically
they use the reading of the law to their benefit.
The use of water bought ITom Bell Rapids irrigation should have been questioned not only by the
PUC, the state water resource department, but also by the governor. The state of Idaho owns the
water not the Bell Rapids farmers. The farmers only have a use right.
I believe a citizens commission with almost the power of a grand jury should investigate fully
and report to the general public, because it appears to me that sweet heart deals have been made
that do not meet state constitutional law.
Sincerely,
-;;:(' ~~ ~.
Laurence 1. Smith
543 River Road
Bliss, IDAHO 83314
208-837..6658
To: Idaho public utility commission
From: Phil Auth 3543A Hwy 93. Twin Falls, Id 83301
Re: Idaho power rate increase
I received my bill today, and with it IPC's information as to why they should have a general rate increase. My bill was as
a residential customer with a 1219 KW usage. That makes me an Average Joe.
I've never written you before. Now is the time. I regard your role as that of Advocate and Protector'" forwbat would
other wise be a monopoly run wild. Yours is largely a thankless job, and I regard it also as an essential one. I've several
points that I ask: you to consider.
I'm still smarting from the 2001-02 energy bubble which drastically escalated rates. I regard that partly as a cost of limited
deregulation fallout but also IPC's indirect windfall tbru Money Laundering' a tale yet to be told As such it leaves a bad
taste in my mouth and as yet another reason to mistrust a monopoly which I already mistrust. The net result of this was 3
or $400 in additional payments. This multiplied by the number of customers, yields roughly a billion dollars in windfall
revenue. Sorting out how much of that was justified by increased costs is surely an accountant's nightmare. Still I feel
Raped.
IPC quotes 3 different residential base rates in their billing info. 4.93 on one page 5.17 on another and 5.53 on my bill
itself. Why is that? All I know is I have to pay based on the one for which I am billed. (5.53). Are there Hidden Charges"
which, like an auto loan, just make the deal look sweet on paper? Anyone carefully reading their bill and inserts would say
something smells fishy here.
Seasonal rate adjustment is probably a good thing since it passes on legitimate higher costs in summer to residential
customers. While this could be Hidden in a year round average, it make s people aware, which just might cause
conservation measures to happen. Especially as applies to excessive lawn watering which not only costs pwnping dollars,
but also wasted water increasingly a scarce resource. Lower AlC temperatures might also ensue.
A seasonal power cost adjustment in late spring is also reasonable, though not new. But it ought to be based upon a risk
factor, not a sure bet, that IPC share holders ought to bear as a cost' associated with owning stock. Put another way
PCA's should not reflect worst case scenarios, only reasonable scenarios.
Meter charges: $2.51 to $10. This seems another way of guaranteeing money. While it may be true this would off set an
additional percentage base rate increase, it does not reflect the real cost of keeping a customer hooked up. 2.51 may be too
low, however. Beyond meter reading and billing monthly, hook up costs are negligible. Based on accepted formulas these
costs reflect $2-3 per month to IPC. An increase is only a way of offsetting other costs, or making more money.
If I were you, I should deny this and challenge IPC to creative savings incentives, to be passed on to customers.
Examples:
Opting for E-billing would save you $lImonth,
Opting for E-payment would save you an additional $lImonth,
Stable customers would be eligible for quarterly billing and meter reading saving $2/month, decreased usage
(conservation) compared to last year would give you a free pass on your monthly billing charge (2.51 currently).
These are just a few suggestions which IPC could incorporate into an optional customer savings package. Without your
Help" they simply will opt for the easiest path. While part of your role is advocate, another part is judge. Good
stewardship towards higher social goals ought also to play a role in your mission.
The biggest issue is GRI (General Rate Increase). At first blush I wonder why they have forgone requesting one for so
long. How have they made it (handsomely) for 10 years without one? Every other business adjusts annually to
marketlinfrastructural forces annually. I might be tempted to say they ve sucked it up for the benefit of consumers for 10
years, but that would be counter intuitive. Likewise, I don t buy the argument that increasing 100 000 customers (in 10
years) is adequate reason, since each of those 100 000 increased profit potential which benefits form economies of scale.
Likewise national trends in electricity production do not suggest this kind of increase.
My gut tells me IPC just Decided" it's time to bite the bullet and go fishing for whatever they can get I'm also
guessing that markets being what they are, they want to and indeed have, exported power from the local customer base to
other customer bases whose market forces justify higher rates. At what cost? Local IPC customers foot part of the bill for
IPC's expansion into now local markets. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.I cannot blame them. I would try to do that if I
were in their shoes.
Still it is yom job, as I see it, that they pass on costs to growth markets. The real cost of that growth rather than
asking old guard local customers to under-right a portion of those growth costs.
So I'm thin1cine a substantial portion of OR! is to generate guaranteed expansion capital for the next few years.
This Insurance makes for happy investors and shareholders. Both of whom ought to be assuming a higher degree of risk
in return for their dividends.
I believe you understand and agree with my arguments. Where you draw the line is another question, not mine to
answer.
Finally I want to address conservation. As you know the cheapest kilowatt you ll ever produce, is the one you save
(because you don t need to produce it). Reality (and past history) suggests consumers need incentives to conserve. I've
been an IPC customer for 29 years. Early on they provided "Incentives to Waste." The more power you used, the cheaper
the rates. It made sense in 1975. In the early 80' s they were wrapping hot water tanks. Recently they ve been subsidizing
efficient light bulbs. You have now the opportunity to build into a OR! incentives for conservation that if well crafted will
become a WinlWin
What will that look like? I don t know, but it needs to look like something. Excessive subsidies for solar by the
feds back in the late 70's proved too much, too soon (and too fast): it didn't woIk..
While the economics of savings and subsidies and market forces, are apparently not yom forte, it seems to me you
could draft and insist upon some broad strokes which would pilot and point a direction. Some suggestions:
Mandated monthly advertising for conservation and techniques in IPC's billing, requirements that IPC carry"
their billings ads from "qualified" conservation based companies/organizations,
Establishing low interest protocol thru IPC for conservation oriented big ticker consumer expenditures,
Subsidized hot water (household) regenerative solar systems. (the single biggest user of electricity),
Co-oping with local gas supplies to support switching to gas fired hot water tanks, subsidizing point source hot
water generators
Subsidizing set back thermostats on electric heating systems
Subsidizing monthly IPC carried conservation news letters
Mandating IPC inclusion of conservation websites in monthly mailing
Subsidizing hwnidifiers in electric homes
Buy outs of refrigerated air conditioners, as rebates towards swamp coolers
Partial subsidies towards window upgrades or cellular blind upgrades
Direct bonus payments to renters who get land lords to buy into any of the above. A kind of reward"based on
the dollars spent by land lord.
These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Doubtless you could come up with more. The point is you have an
opportunity that hasn t existed in a decade to negotiate and attach to any IPC's pending OR!, a set of conditions which
could or would become winlwin. This is part of the negotiation and truly an exemplar reason why you exist in the first
place. Not simply as arbiter but truly as advocate for the common good.
It needs stating that neither IPC, nor its share holders are in a position to do this in and of themselves, as much as
they might "like" to. It's simply impracti yen the Nature of the Beast.As intermedimy, you have the power to
make it happen, to the good of all.
May God bless you!
r -
=ie'
C"?_,02::
:J: t1:3:r-'
tnC=)
c.n
1".:1
(..U
...c::
'1 ;;:0::::: rrl
("")
rr1 rr1c:J
..c:::rr1c:J
c:.e
;; CJ0
)~
!o~
fCEf VED FlLED
znO3HOV 12 AM 8: Ii
IOAi'i(J PUBliC
UTiLITIES COMMISSION
f7~
p~
td-d~~
t.,,-fj,
-k'
~ ~
0-fv
),
o-J;l -t;- #- 11.7
r~
( 11~
'~)~~ -:- ~ -
#t!J-.-v~ / CL ~..h
d'--
~!
-k-
~",
.,v
-f P(J~Ii ,/0 70
~ ~
d4~
ovJ -y~-L jJ ,h-
;JJ
t I
-( t-:,
4r-.
7. 7)flu --J
rf d-:,
~;Y~ v:;~
ItJd:?7/ ;:J
):CI
23JIY w?---75/-0:;-17
RECEIVED mFILED
20H3NOY 10 AM 8: 56 John Hartman
507 N. Commercial
Emmett , Idaho 83617
208-365-4125
IU/\JiU t"UdLIC
UTILITIES COriMfSSION
Open Letter to PUC
Thursday, November 06 , 2003
Dear Sirs.
On the subject of rate increases for our utilities
for the reason of paying for new growth.
I am very much opposed.
I neither wanted or will I benifit from this new
growth.
Idaho is now what California was 20 years ago
and we are headed in the same direction.
Is this what we really want?
Thank you
John Hartman
Subject:Idaho Power Company and Ida Corp.
~ECEIVED ILED
ZUU3 NOV I t AM 9#f.j(j)
iDAHO PUBLiC
U I fUTlES COt1MISSWN
GREAT CRY FOR MORE MONEY.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
O. BOX 83720-0074
BOISE , IDAHO 83720-0074
We suggest that Ida Corp recover the BIG MONEY they drained off Idaho Power
Company to Big Bonuses to help solve Idaho Power's money problems. Ida Corphas just reported a 2'71 increase in their quarter profits.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Built in GROWTH of customers. Idaho Power states
a growth of 100 000 plus of new customers in place to draw income from and
they are still growing.
NO OTHER BUSINESS IN IDAHO HAS HAD SUCH CONTROL. We mentioned this matter in
a letter to you April 17, 2002.
The cash flow of Idaho residents in all walks, senior citizens , farmers , and
other industry has gone DOWN. No interest money from banks on saving accounts
to spend.
CROP PRICES ARE AS LOW AS EVER, BEET PAYMENTS ARE LOWERING , BEAN PRICES SHOW
NO INCREASE FOR SEVERAL YEARS , BANKRUPl'CY ON THE INCREASE AND QUESS WHAT--
IDAHO POWER COMPANY WITH GAINS IN CUSTOMERS IS WANTING A 19%, 21%, and 25% IN-
CREASE TO COVER THEIR MIS-JUDGEMENTS OF DOING BUSINESS. POOR MANAGEMENT.
SUGGESTION: HAVE IDA CORP TRANSFER MONEY BACK TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO COVER
THEIR CASH FLOW OR JUST PUT IT ON THEIR CREDIT CARDS.
I have an example....on cashflow pf $100,000 at major banks, one year earning
is $2301.01 and less than above for other saving accounts.
The people of Idaho cannot be responsible to pay Idaho Power such big increases
and still be able to pay for their necessary needs as FOOD , HOUSING , HEAT, MEDICINE
CLOTHING on the low incomes that many seniors and young families have. Some can-
not afford health insurance. Also consider the HIGH FUEL PRICES IN THIS STATE.
MY CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU IN THE PAST, YOU STILL GIVE THE IDAHO POWER COMPANY
THEIR REQUESTS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.. .WHEN DO YOU STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR
GREAT STATE?
IT IS TIME TO LISTEN TO AND CONSIDER THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.
~ ~
d;,d~~
~~
~i 'iJ::k~,$:J6/1
L ' kJ!. T /1 ;11l'.r71 Ie 5
t:t.a 15~, cffd0 (jJ
~p,
We thank you for consideration.