20050120Comments.pdf

~.
4vi~
~;J '/~io5
fo A.vlu
'c-
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POBox 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720
f::CErVEID, m
t,-, !It'r ~t~L' .
2Ijfj5 JArt 1.1; PPt 2:4'
10 rtU UBL1C
UTILiTIES GOf'lr1ISS10N
Case Number: IPC-04-
January 13 2005
Commissioners:
I am totally against the increase in funds Idaho Power is requesting to collect from ratepayers
connection with the "energy efficiency fee While the residential programs which were utilized
in years past have been very successful, I question the effectiveness of the current programs.
also believe that no small commercial conservation programs have been implemented, howevex
this customer also contributes to the additional rate fees.
Idaho Power, as a company, has little or no monetary investment in making these programs
functional. The use of subcontractors as a mode of conservation is not involvement in
conservation, but more a method used to present an image. As example, I would like to address
the "high efficiency clothes washer" program. The price for each of these units is between
000 and $1 500, a cost which is out of range for the average consumer. This is no more than a
contractor program promoted by Idaho Power.
In previous years, Idaho Power has had very active and productive conservation programs with
employees responsible for the results to the benefit of the ratepayers as well as the company.
These programs were discarded in favor of deregulation (which did not occur).
It is my opinion that until Idaho Power Company and their employees take an active interest in
these types of programs, they will continue to be just an ongoing image projection. Increasing
the amount of money collected from the ratepayers is not a solution, as should be noted by the
fact that they have asked for another increase in 2007.
There is a real need for energy awareness programs as well as active conservation. As long as
Idaho Power can continue to sell all of the electrical energy they have access to, it doesn t appear
that they are deeply interested in programs that involve serious commitment.
Thank you for the opportunity of expressing my opinions.
elk L
~~~
Alan E. Robinson
Jean Jewell
A -Iv
;:;
II~O 5 (fa
ftV 11u /1'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:33 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Sunday, January 16, 2005
5 : 32 : 58
Case: IPC-E-04-
Name: Steve & Nora Mickelson.
Street Address: 11140 W. Oneida Drive
City: Boise
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83709
Horne Telephone:
E-Mail: signwest~cableone. net
Company: Idaho Power ..mailing list _yes - no :G..
Comment description: We are new residents to Idaho, and cannot believe how often Idaho
Power requests a rate increase---i t appears that there is nothing they want to pay for out
of their own revenues! What happened to the "cost of doing business This latest
request is among the more ridiculous Ones we ve heard: they want ratepayers to cough up
more money per month in order to support programs to conserve energy?? They should
instead be encouraging ratepayers to use less electricity and suggesting ways we can dothat. In the long run, using less electricity is the very best plan for all of us. It
makes no sense for the utility to think only about buying more power instead of conservingwhat we have.
Please say NO to this latest request by Idaho Power.
Transaction 10: 1161732.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/scripts/poly form. dll/ipuc
User Address: 24.117.243.162
User Hostname: 24.117.243.162