The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20040428Comments.pdf~I1$I"t off. HAT BUT T E MU T U AL e A N A m~c5~j9E. , : f"PH 27 fJ1 8: 42 -- t " IIILIT IE~; CGr\I"liSSION April 26, 2004 To Idaho Power and the Public Utilities Commission: I am writing on behalf of the Hat Butte Mutual Canal Company. We are strongly opposed to the proposed irrigation rate hike. Although the need for raising rates may indeed be necessary, the division of the increase is inequitable. The amount of power used by irrigators has remained virtually unchanged over the past ten years. During the same period , the amount of power used by homes and businesses has increased substantially. Your proposed rate changes do not even remotely mirror this breakdown of the increase in usage, with the greatest increase going to irrigation. If new facilities are required to keep up with this growth , then those who are creating the increased demand need to pay for the facilities. ---- Gerrit Siebelink President, Hat Butte Mutual Canal Company 13735 MISSOURI AVE' NAMPA , IDAHO' 83686 PHONE: 208-467-9712 . FAX: 208-466-6222 ~~CE!VED j :-T! April 14 2004 ii 3: 30hi :' ~' State ofIdaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Street Boise, Idaho 83702 'I; i ; :~ ; ' I';~):'L i~' ~I Oi!j!\L,~IL_)I,\v'--' Subject: Proposed Idaho Power Rate Increases Dear Sirs: , the undersigned ratepayers, oppose the proposed rate increase, which we understand would be from 17 to 25%. As we watch power rates go up we see the level of service going down. understand that your staffhas recommended a rate increase of about 3%. In our area any increase puts an additional financial burden on the elderly on fixed incomes, low income working families, small business owners, and farmers and ranchers who are already struggling. We do not understand the intricacies of rate setting but we strongly believe that rate payers should not be burdened with costs that should rightfully be assigned to stockholders or developers. We urge you to listen to your staff, honor your responsibilities to us, the ratepayers and deny the proposed increase. Respectfully requested ..3-=194 f2v~ ( Cf2. IJ.~.~4 "'" ,g~ T.6 lOt;: ECEiVED . Ii 1:- , ' 0... :, ')0'11 ~ ,or) "'-n1,!,! !-\(I\ ~b PH 3: 30 April 14 2004 State ofIdaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Street Boise, Idaho 83702 JT iLlrltS-c'6i, ;;, SSION Subject: Proposed Idaho Power Rate Increases Dear Sirs: , the undersigned ratepayers, oppose the proposed rate increase, which we understand would be ITom 17 to 25%. As we watch power rates go up we see the level of service going down. understand that your staff has recommended a rate increase of about 3%. In our area any increase puts an additional financial burden on the elderly on fixed incomes, low income working families, small business owners, and farmers and ranchers who are already struggling. We do not understand the intricacies of rate setting but we strongly believe that rate payers should not be burdened with costs that should rightfully be assigned to stockholders or developers. We urge you to listen to your staff, honor your responsibilities to us, the ratepayers and deny the proposed increase. Respectfully requested -11r~ fa ~~I -t- 11o -2i/q Jfc :'o+r;/ pti (:)Lf' r ., , " ';:;;" L \ u, -.. ..,, 2;!~1 po S',,)-s ,:'- I iT" c' ""' \JILlllc,) ,H!r';) Jr" (J --------- 1\-~~(2,rloq ;1' I , I ~r ~s &-+' Q.()~~ LPto ClrV ~nrvl 0'-' ~\ ? ci~d~ ~VL rd \ ycQt€4 ~d riLlU. 0iV\ ekd-ti ~ 'PCW-1e (' t ~~ tJ 2),hu ~\ ~ \rf\G-~ iCLr 'fCA-~ CS ~v + CWL~ 6fX -r~r E'NY'\P(D4e-es. ~VC ,~..:, ;~,::-.:) ,"--::;:: ;:::'~'" '- n ::,c-"' , ' ,T' -:::(j) i'-') i'7; G - C0 c::; "'"'::d " - u) ;:: r;?(j1 (..) " - s:2 N -.:.. Ra t€!!0.~"w;ill s fuk"Jarmers 00 tt om line , "' ,:: ::':, : '" ',.,; " ," ,, " . ,," " adYersdyaff~ct its 1 200 ' " g1"Ower/owners and 2 OOOenipl()y- ees." " , . lpal1b Power says1rni~t raise rateS to pay for power'pJap.tSn.e~d- ~dto keep up with groWth.Th:e feal i11justice of the rate hikes. is that ini- ,gators arenottheicarise'fodhe i11cre~ingnee9S f9r, elect:1ic,ity.:" Raising energy rateS 25p~i:cent On irrlgatorswi1l dainagctli~ #~qii~ my aJ1dseri()~sly~paq: liveW:J.oods ttir()~ghout the state., O~p~haIf of' Idahb's agriculnful1coqilill,liUty, ~eyout6~ontacitl1e'IcI3A()" , Public UtilitiesC()1Ilti1ission and ask the1Il tq rejedihe25percellt ri.t~ hike. , ,", ;, . Ralph C.Burton is preSident and chief executive officer ofAmalgamatedSugM' Company LLC. " ,' ,~:"" ' 0- "" 1\ICr- 'J -- ' ' 0- ' ,/~ ~,,/O" /, ~, .lIt L/"-- L!J April 20 2004 . ~ ;: U .r-7' i"',~'1 " ~ "i' , ' ' /h " . "" 'iU"; 1"1 i'.,. '" 0 Dear Commissioners & Staff iT \ \ ,, ice C rl ;~l1~ ~Ru for allowing me to ,comment on the Id~o. Power rate increase -' 1 IL-l \ 'terse #i~C-03-13. My name IS DavId Bergh and I am WrItIng on behalf of myself and the Sugarbeet Growers of Elmore and Owyhee counties, I am a partner with my father on a 2300 acre farming operation in Elmore county and I also serve on the board of directors of 'The Elwyhee Sugarbeet Growers Association' which represents beet growers from Murphy to Glenns Ferry. Myself and the majority of sugarbeet growers in our Association operate high lift irrigated farms. Our district averages approximately 17 000 sugarbeet acres annually with a direct economic impact to these two rural counties of nearly $17 million from sugarbeets alone. With the average dollar rolling over 5 to 6 times in these communities the overall economic impact is approaching $100 million. In southern Idaho the majority of rural economies are structured around production agriculture, which in turn is structured around current input costs. To upset this balance is to put all of this in jeopardy These small towns have virtually no other industries to fall back on. Bear in mind that the Elwyhee District represents only about 7% of the total sugarbeet acres raised in southern Idaho, There are many other areas that will also be adversely affected all across the state, I give you these facts to help illustrate the magnitude of the potential impact this rate increase may have on these rural communities As ag producers we are a captive market for Idaho Power. Weare also at the mercy of the commodity markets when it comes to selling our product and therefore we have no means by which to pass on this cost increase, Profit margins have been, and continue to be, virtually non existent in production agriculture right now and to expect producers to absorb this increase is unrealistic and inappropriate. On these high lift operations our power costs are already the largest single input cost in raising a crop, The increase in our pumping cost has far outpaced increases in other input costs, in many cases by a factor of 2 or 3 times the rate of other costs, As sugarbeet producers we are somewhat unique in the fact that we have all invested substantial amounts of money to purchase our sugar company and form a grower owned co-op, The Snake River Sugar Company, to help us survive in a very competitive global industry. In the case of the Elwyhee Beet Growers Association, growers purchased a combined total of roughly 17 000 shares (gJ, $400 per share for a total investment of nearly $6.8 million in our district alone. These shares not only give us the right to deliver beets to our co-op, they also obligate to deliver our shares of production every year or face a severe financial penalty or share forfeiture for failure to deliver, As shareholders we can not pick and choose whether we want to raise beets or not each season, We must raise our beet shares each and every year. This is pertinent to this issue because we are rapidly approaching the point at which we can no longer cash flow a sugarbeet crop on high lift operations. In some cases we are beyond this point already. Growers are being forced to forfeit shares and liquidate their fanning operations because they can no longer continue to raise sugarbeets, or for that matter any other crop, at a loss. Most other rotational crops have already become unprofitable" due to low commodity prices and excessive power costs. This power increase puts a large number of sugar beet acres in my district, as well as other areas, in jeopardy. This has the potential to put our co-op at a serious economic disadvantage and could ultimately lead to the failure of the sugarbeet industry in southern Idaho. I believe Idaho Power has failed to adequately present their case requesting a 47% increase to achieve COS rates for irrigators. In testimony presented on behalf of the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Mr. Yankley presented a number of issues regarding non- transparency and flawed methodologies in Idaho Power s case. I don t see where these issues have been addressed adequately enough by IPUC staff to justify this rate increase or any rate increase for that matter. I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in energy and or PUC matters but I am an experienced business man and I have read testimony from all sides in this case and I am left feeling very uneasy about a number of issues regarding this case, The way in which Idaho Power allocates overhead cost to different rate schedules appears to be somewhat flawed and very vague in some areas. Common sense would indicate that the increase in load and demand Idaho Power is experiencing would be due to 100 000 new customers and the required equipment and manpower to satisfy that load and demand. As an irrigator class we have paid demand charges for many, many years to help cover the increased load and demand resulting from our usage, Our load and demand has been steady or even declining in the past several years, To penalize irrigators for this cost is inappropriate, This cost increase needs to be passed on to the rate payers that are causing the increase, mainly new residential hookups. In Southwest Idaho, irrigators are also idling acreage, This season approximately 25 000 acres will be idled leaving an extra 75 000 acre feet of water in the Snake River, This is a win/win situation for Idaho Power in the fact that we are decreasing load and demand for Idaho Power and at the same time leaving water in the snake river for Idaho Power to generate additional hydroelectric energy at no additional cost to the company and yet as irrigators we receive no credit or even an acknowledgment from Idaho Power that this is occurring, I would also like to add that a guaranteed 11 % return on equity is inappropriate for a public utility in today s economy. Take a poll of any number of private business and see what kind of returns they are experiencing and I think you will find very few that are achieving this kind of return on equity, In a capitalistic economy reward should be tied to risk. Idaho power has virtually no financial risk and yet they are seeking returns greater than many other business sectors, most of which have great risk in the marketplace. It is unfathomable to me how the IPUC can allow a public utility to profit at these levels on the backs of struggling ratepayers. Idaho Power is a monopolistic entity and as such it cannot be allowed to profit at these levels unless it is also exposed to downside risk. They can t have it both ways. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the timing of this or any other rate increase, Ag producers have to make plans to plant a crop well in advance of May the 15th. Budgets have been set and approved and crops are planted and many large input costs are incurred well in advance of this date. We are committed to a full irrigation season without knowing what we will pay fot energy costs. For Idaho Power or the IPUC to make major rate changes after the fact is unfair and inappropriate to producers and their lenders. We need time to plan ahead and to make adjustments before a crop is planted and a grower is committed for an entire irrigation season. Therefore I would request that any rate increase levied against irrigators not go into effect until the next irrigation season. This is the only way that we as irrigators can adequately plan ahead and make adjustments in our operations. This rate increase request is a matter of financial life and death for my industry and as such I would ask that as a commission you seriously consider not granting any base rate increase nor any increase in demand charges to the irrigator class at this time. As Idaho Power customers your commission is the only representation we have as ratepayers. Weare relying on you to insure that we are treated fairly and equitably by the public utilities. Our future as Ag producers is in your hands. I would invite each of you on the commission to tour some high lift areas in these counties and personally witness the number of acres already idled due to high power costs. I stand ready to assist if you are willing to see for yourselves what is happening in these rural ag communities. You could be instrumental in stimulating growth within rural Idaho if you are willing to do the right thing and treat irrigators appropriately by not granting any increase in rates to Idaho Power in this case. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. ~ff David E. Bergh / Bergh Farms LLC & Elwyhee Beet Growers Association 6025 Highway 30 E Mountain Home, ill 83647 208/573-3542 ~ do rv/J ~I~ /1. r; " :=~.'-' I "--C ~A.. ~ - (\ Film, iWi? 75 B1'ig: D: G/'f1v rY~C---- iJ_d .'Il-- :JLj) JdCJCJ~ (I i' "r' IOt' '\J-v~ 3vc ~ ~. ~~-1.A:J d. ~~~ 1-/0.,. UJy, ~ 3~ ~ , 6-,uL, dLW ~ ~.~, A/yJ j:y~~. ~tJ-u1; :s 2Ly.v 7( t~ R6&// ~1'Vi1'" c' 'lc,- r / ~ ~ lJ r; CJ L- ,:= () /l " UJOi 1.1 Q:. ' t \ ') ~, ~ 4 "') /J --I /J -+ !. ' " ,: ,, iJIUj'!l~i1tfsr~N I ' ~~~~~~~~..' a- ~~. a- !L..dj ~h,~ /~~~..'--.""~~~~~. aLf~~~~~fJ(f &k~ ' " p4,w,7 ~~ -tr f~ f, O"YVi:k~. ....~~~. W.R..- ~ ~ a/I tk n ~- Gt..- r!o-.~A~ tVL0 ~ ~~. ak(.....t1-v.H ' ~~ A;r~ d'd-- A;td af/ d'-k.V ~. --ttM \:d ~ ~~~ W~~ ~ ~ 1-j (,IJ p~ Rl. ~~~ ~3b67