20040312Comments.pdf

s/,4ot.l
/?;
~ /1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Friday, March 12, 2004 1 :30 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday, March 12, 2004
1: 29: 32
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Timothy Traub
Street Address: 1348 N. Deer Creek Place
City: Meridian
State: 10
ZIP: 83642
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: tj traub0mindspring. com
Company: Idaho Power
mailing list yes no: no
Comment descriptIon: A 25% rate increase.... that is not acceptable to the consumer. Ipropose- a 1% increase. Rates continue to go up, up and up. Everthing is going up. Mysalary has not increased in 3.5 years. Maybe Idaho Power should cut spending and reduceoperating expenses.. .like other companies that are struggling.. .like cut advertising and
tv commercials. It is not like Idaho citizens have a choice in the electric company theycan use.
Thanks.
Transaction 10: 3121329.Referred by: http: I Iwww. puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dill ipuc
User Address: 209.19.139.
User Hostname: 209.19.139.
Jean Jewell
I-v/Otf
. ~If. j1J/v'~~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, March 11 , 2004 12:55 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, March 11, 2004
12: 54: 49
Case: Idaho Power Rate Increase
Name: Val Wahlen
Street Address: 2700 W. 1352
City: Aberdeen
State: 10
ZIP: 83210
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: vfwahlen0dcdi. net
Company: Idaho Powermailinglist _yes - no:
Comment description:' I would like to ask that the PUD take a serious look at the economic
trouble that the proposed rate increase would cause farmers. Many farmers already struggle
to pay high operating costs- including the CURRENT cost of power. I feel it is wrong to
ask the irrigation customer to pay unproportionally in this increase. It would be
interesting to see how the farmer contributed to the need of the increase. I would imagine
the numbers wouldn t match up. Please realize that by satisfying Idaho Power s request "
" the economic impact on the state would be NEGATIVE. There must be another way to
generate the needed funds.
Transaction 10: 3111254.Referred by: http: I Iwww. puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dill ipucUser Address: 12.160.224.108
User Hostname: 12.160.224.108
Jean Jewell
, ~
r/.Jot.(:3"'"
/j;
~ ,1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, March 11 , 2004 9:24 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, March 11, 2004
9:23:30 AM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Jeremy Nesset
Street Address: 16573 N Tullamore Dr
City: Nampa
State: 10
ZIP: 83687
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: j snesset0mindspring. com
Company: Idaho Power
mailing list yes no: no
Comment=descriptIon: r- was briefly viewing the proposal for 10 Power to increase
residential rates possibly up to 25%. This seems unreasonable. I understand there are
rising costs, but a few percent seems more realistic. I understand there are many
implications involving the rate increase... but I don t see the justification in this.
Power has, more or less, a monopoly in this. I don t have a choice to go with another
provider if I so choose. So, why can t 10 Power reduce other expenditures? For example,
how much money is spent in advertising? This seems like a waste. If we want power, we
have no choice in who we go with. .. thus why the advertising? Also, if 10 Power remainsprofitable, they are obviously doing ok... The past few years has had some significantly
lower water years, which has an obvious effect to the bottom line. But, what about thebetter water years? These years help generate more revenue and possibly higher
profi tabli ty. This isn t any different than what many other businesses have gone through
on a more economic standpoint over the past few years. Even with tougher times, other
businesses always find ways to reduce costs to make up for this. This doesn t mean 10
Power isn t entitled to raise rates, but a smaller increase seems more reasonable. From
business standpoint, wouldn t it be nice to know you always have a buffer... and not have
to worry that raising rates would lose customers. Instead of significantly cutting costs,
just apply for a huge rate increase to cover for the rising costs... seems nice. Maybe
m missing something...
We haven t seen a rate increase in sometime... I don t disagree that a small increase isfair. But 25%, even 10% is crazy.
Thanks for your time.
Jeremy
Transaction 10: 311923.
Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dill ipuc
User Address: 209.19.139.
User Hostname: 209.19.139.
3Jrz,/04 11o
~ (1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, March 11 , 2004 8:33 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, March 11, 2004
8:33:26 AM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Scott Erickson
Street Address: 6350 Reining Horse
City: Kuna
State: 10
ZIP: 83634
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: swerickson0buympc. com
Company: Id Power
mailing list yes no: no
Comment descriptIon: RE: proposed rate increases. 19.9% AVERAGE for residents? Absurd!13.9% + - for companies and irrigaotrs? Completely unreasonable. The financial situation for
Idaho Power may be difficult. However, the answer can t be to keep increasing rates,
especially at these amounts. Idaho Power can tighten their belt like many companies andbusinesses have had to do the last few years. I work for a manufacturing company that has
had handled the tough economy by getting more efficient and cutting spending, not by
trying to take unrealistic increases to our customers. If we launched a comparible plan
d be out of business wi thin a year. The key difference--we have competition. The IPUC
needs to be heavy-handed on this one. Consider 1% as fair.
Transaction 10: 311833.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
User Address: 209.19.139.
User Hostname: 209.19.139.
,4J-.
,/
~3jr~ot(
,//f,~Page 1 of 1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Tonya Clark
Wednesday, March 10, 20043:14 PM
Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: idahopower increase
-----Original Message-----
From: albertjohnston (mailto:pajohnston(Qjcableone.netJ
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:51
To: Tonya Clark
Subject: idahopower increase
i see media on the increase proposal. i feel that the commission may not think about me as an idaho power
user. having been a formerl user of a CO-OP power enity
i wwish the same consideration when you consider rate increase s requests. i still think that Idaho is not being
treated right on the power market. there is no need for an increase in my rate to increase Idacorp profits.
Thankyou
Albert Johnston
3/11/2004
~ ~.
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:45 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
3: 45: 22
Case: IPC-E-03-13
Name:
Street Address:
City: Council
State: Id
ZIP: 83612
Home Telephone:E-Mail:
Company: Id. Powermailinglistyesno: QQ
Comment description: We DO NOT agree with any power rate hike. We cannot attend any
public hearings, due to lack of transportation and disabilities. There are many power
outages in our area, and the utility service is poor. We have enough poverty in our county
and state without adding to it with power hikes, especially one as large as the onesuggested.
Don t force more people to leave our state to make ends meet by raising our expenses in
power.
Thank you!
Transaction 10: 391545.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dill ipucUser Address: 12.30.214.User Hostname: 12.30.214.
Jean Jewell
,/ ~
~"I'~~..
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Tuesday, March 09, 20042:11 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
2:10:45 PM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Gary L. Rainsdon
Street Address: 3356 N. 2600
Ci ty: Twin Falls
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83301
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: r2spruce0pmt. org
Company: Idaho Power Company
mailing list yes no: no
Comment=descriptIon: -r respectfully submit this comment in opposition to the rate
increase and the fee increase for both irrigators and residential power users that Idaho
Power Company has proposed. The rate paid by Idaho users for power generated in Idaho on
cheap hydropower should be kept as low as possible. Idaho Power Company needs to be
strongly encouraged (with as much power of Idaho s people as we can muster) to operate as
efficiently as possible to keep the rates low. With greater population density and morepower users , the power company should be able to reduce rates and still make more profits.
In this day of computers and the drive for greater efficiencies, there is no need to raise
the monthly fee. The monthly fee should actually be reduced due to automation andefficiencies. I f the power company can t reduce the fee this year, send it back with the
mandate to reduce it next year. Under no circumstance give the company authorization to
raise the fee and become less efficient.
This summer will be the first reprieve from the last rate increase. The failed power
buyout program was a sham program designed to take advantage of Idaho power users and to
profit the power company. When it backfired, it was the Idaho power users who had to pay
the power company for its greed. Now that we will finally have our rates reduced again,
the power company is asking for a rate increase to get the revenue back.
The drought and other operating costs have increased for agriculture but irrigation power
is the single largest cost on my farm. I can not afford the proposed rate increase.
Please do not allow any of it.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Rainsdon
Transaction 10: 391410.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dill ipuc
User Address: 216.83.76.
User Hostname: 216.83.76.
Jean Jewell
~,~of ) 1'., IJ fJ--V,/1o
t IJ
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, March 11 , 2004 7:40 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, March 11, 2004
7:39:48 AM
Case: 10 POWER RATE INCREASE
Name: Marcia L Rensch
Street Address: 1734 N Falcon Circle
City: Pocatello
State: 10
ZIP: 83204
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail:
Company: Idaho powe
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment descriptIon:rate increase of the proposed 17.7% is out rageous for this comm-
unity and area. People cannot pay the utility rates as they are now, how will they beable to afford an increase. The retires on fixed incomes will suffer the most. IP may
have the lowest rates in this region of the USA, but the salary base is also low. And
maybe the electric being sold to California should have the increase instead of the people
in Idaho. The IP seems to be rather greedy with its own people and not creative in
compensating their own income. Please no increase in the rates.
Transaction 10: 311739.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dill ipucUser Address: 12.160.225.User Hostname: 12.160.225.
,.
r,,-
c..LL - t (1)
!i....Co-
ZfHJLJ t1AR - 9 M1 8: 22 3932 Leland Way
Boise, Idaho 83709-4656
6 March, 2004! u;) LJ C
'~'
r.
"""
Commission SecretMtI ! it.
~ -
f'I!"i ~
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83702-0074
Re: Case # IPC-03-13 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO
POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE
ITS INTERIM AND BASE RATES AND CHARGES FOR
ELECTRIC SERVICE.
Commission Secretary;
Thank you for mailing the notice of public hearing to me. I do not drive in the
evening and night time hours so do not attend public hearings. So I will take the
opportunity to comment for other lower paid and fixed income persons and myself.
First, I don t believe that such a huge rate increase is warranted. As customer base
increases so should income. Seems that the cost of installing the utility lines are included
in the developers cost which are in turn passed to the home buyer as part of the purchase
price. So that part of costs of installing the lines should be adequately covered. That
seems to be reflected in the huge jump in home costs.
I note a huge disparity in the costs to Simplot, Micron and the INEL. Would that
14.16% for INEL be a reflection of the fact that the facility is a government facility?
Thereby, as always, stick taxpayers with an unnecessarily high bill? It is somewhat
remote, but the lines and facilities used have been in place for many years. I have not
heard of many new missions for this facility in recent years. I might note that ifwe were
a smart nation, INEL would be allowed to generate all of its own power right there at the
plant, thereby not needing any outside source of power. It was after all, the first to
generate electric power from nuclear power.
I note that those who are the providers of our reliable food supply are also hard hit
with a 25% increase. Irrigation pumps do take a lot of power, but the farmer who installs
them also pays a high price to lay those lines. A small increase may be warranted but
certainly not 25%. It seems that everyone forgets just where that food on our well-
stocked grocery shelves comes from. To rely on foreign supply is down right suicidal.
We have already seen numerous outbreaks of disease from contaminated foreign food.
The farmers are forced to move further and further back from reliable water sources by
excess development of established farmlands. Again, we do the utmost to drive small,
efficient farmers out of business, so that food prices must raised to unaffordable levels for
the majority of the retired, poor, and lower paid working people. Not good for the
economy if the majority can t afford to buy anything.
Power Cost Adjustment is not included in this request to raise our rates 19% or
more. That then will add another ?10-20%? That is outrageous and, in our judgement
totally unnecessary. As I stated before the power problem that started in California was
engineered by Enron demanding that their stockholders receive their payments FIRST.
That put California in a financial bind, there was no power shortage except in the news
media s mind. This also is a result of government deregulation of everything,
which has pushed PRICES IllGHER, NOT lower as hyped. The prices go up not so
much because of demand of customers (our appliances, we are told, has become more
efficient) but by the demand of execs who demand outrageous salaries for themselves
while cutting workers and workers pay!
And most people I have taJked to see no reason to be charged a customer charge.
We are a captive customer base for very few of us can rig a system for ourselves that
would allow us to get rid of public utilities altogether. The meters produce revenue for
Idaho Power all year long. There is no down time on most meters. Perhaps a slight dip
when a homeowner goes on vacation, but I noticed very little difference in ours despite
having everything off except the refrigerator and water heater turned down before we
went to gas.
And the biggest INSULT of all is to have 25% higher rates in the summer than in
the winter. Summer has longer light time-no lights need to be on; people outside or gone-
no TV, cooking outside, people gone on trips. Air conditioners are used but in the winter
heaters are used and more lights are on, more indoor activity is used, cooking is indoors
and lots of Christmas lights are up. Lawns are watered in summer, but we are already hit
hard by the greedy French Company and monopoly United Water, who charges us
exorbitant customer charges along with higher prices for a commodity that is OWNED
by no one and is FREE! Water, folks, is not owned by anyone and is free. The costs they
claim are a lie and only needed to pay a few high-priced execs and shareholders. We have
seen no improvement in our water service and many of us have had the extra high costs
of water softeners and filters so we can drink the water. Water that was drinkable and
needed no softening until United took over and has dumped tons of unneeded chlorine in
our water supply so they can use contaminated river water.
To sum up my objections then I find such huge rate increases unnecessary and
needed only to fulfill the greed of executives and shareholders. Many of us on fixed
incomes of$500 to $800 dollars already are close to bankruptcy. Another $10.00 here
and $30.00 there are not something we can just pull out of thin air. I hear your reply now-
GO TO WORK! All well and good, but I am unable to work. I am too slow for all
employers in all sorts of jobs. (It has taken over 3 hours just to try to type this letter.
Putting more people out into the streets is not really cost effective. It is also highly unfair
to push old people who have worked and done their best to be self- sufficient all their
lives out oftheir homes just because they are now old and didn't make billions in their
working lives. You know the ones; those who do the dirty work the rest of you don
want to do like janitor work. We here in Idaho make about $8 000.00 to $10 00O.00/year
at that kind of job. Not enough to stash thousands away for when we can no longer work.
Therefore, I and many like me, who feel nobody listens to them and just give up, request
that you NOT approve this huge increase for Idaho Power.
Sincerely, !
. ---r----
v;4r r.Af.-.-L-,;...J if'~ri-7/lz v
-------
Mrs. Sandra Hickstein
~II'Vlo'i I/(.
/!l.
1u
3 -
j-
lJ
I\ECEIVED 0 "3 bJ -feloNJ- ~;r-r ('9A.~~. IIA
' '
rJ).
"'-
, m.
',
m -
~ ,
'-'~1 IAlIN (i:Jll$ 0- ~o!~u~~8~
!L;i."U ,UuLiC
WHLlTtES COI-"Ii-USSION
R~ -CA-~,f. If--- lPc
~ -
()3 ~/ J
()~4~r..
# .
~/'f 3 (,
.. --q~~~~
?ne /lA(~
h1,
~~ ... -
FT.'7/I_J-
' ,',
/t/f1JWl
" ,
1/ 4/J-
, '- -- -
n -,.
~ ~~'
-a.wv, .-u-
A-o w-!1 ;du.
f'U:~'
~ ~,
a,:1';(- M- Mret( f !wkA:1J~~'
If13 ~ti .f-
7/.".LvI~A-
.. ~ ~
iI-.M!~
AVYuv~
/(,~ .
~tVU . u
;;ltv4- M-. tA-
~ ~
rJ-aJi
~~~~..
tUrf ~....~tU~~~~~M ~~IV
l)~."
,-
fi
~..
-r;
..
w1 J I!.,-d
'"
.;1 """A-
- ' ,,- ..
1/"
~ ~
~C":
~ ~
~. ~'L/""""MY\.
/~-"--_. -.. ,. /?~~. ..............
1--"
tr11U/U~,
- .
, ;t/k f:; fv
(s- f7 i?/lfi~ #V\
... ...~. ~.&.;~ ~~~;
$~IL
~.
A:U.JL ~ ~rl.v+
~~~~
t1::
. '
7'
~ '
.4A2
+......... .........
7ff:.
;/.
/t/~ t1A--
. '
.J--til~
tv 'ArJ
~ ~
-P~
~.
tI/1f
'*
tl
$f
,zt- J:..~/t~
.. ------
~. ~m~ jrJ.u !__u