20050428Comments.pdf

v' "f/ll/oS;
Jean Jewell
,/10 u~.i-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Wednesday, April 27 2005 9:12 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
8 : 12 : 1 6
Case: :IPc -O~
Name: Kathryn Taghon
Street Address: 925 N Parkdale Ave
City: Meridian
State: ID
ZIP: 83642
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: ktaghon~msn. com
Company: Idaho Power .
-:::.:
mailing list _yes _no: (ye0
Comment description: ~ar Commissioners:
I am writing to express my concern over the Idaho Power request to place the construction
costs of the Bennett Mountain Power Plant into its base rate, which by Idaho Power
analysis would be an annual increase of $ 9.6 million.
I am opposed to this request, because quite simply , this is the responsibility of the
stockholders to pay for infrastructure and capital improvements. I do not feel that it is
the burden of the rate payers. I urge you to turn down this request.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Taghon
Transaction ID: 4272012.
Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/scripts/poly form. dll/ipucUser Address: 70.56.200.135
User Hostname: 70.56.200.135
Jean Jewell
it - 1/(-----
Pi.l.lh...
- ,
v . 110 14;/'~1c
.. 5f'1/
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28 , 2005 11 :27 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WNW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
::::~
Ife-- (-Ch-N! IPC-E-O5"-/S
Name: Brad Gore
Street Address: 2348 Echo Ave.
City: Parma
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83660
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: albngore~fmtc. com
Company: Idaho Power
mailing li st _yes _no: yes
Comment description: IPC' s PCA, Bennett Mtn., and tax adjustment rate cases should be
deferred or denied outright. Something is structurally wrong when IPC requires "rate
relief" every year. If IPC needs to ask for a moratorium on new construction for a period
of time to get its supply in line with existing demand, then so be it.
Those of us who have lived here for years are being continually as ked to foot the bills
for all the new customers IPC has signed on. These are the people who should pay a
surcharge for new power production faci ti ties, such as Bennett Mtn. This idea is not
dissimilar to impact fees charged by the City of Boise to developers. New IPC customers
should be paying impact fees to defer the incremental cost of providing new generationcapability.
Speaking as an agricultural irrigator, yearly increases in power costs will soon put me
and other pumpers out of business. I cannot continue to pass on my increased irrigation
charges to downstream buyers. If I then have to eat the increased cost of production, I
will be left with no profi tabili ty. Irrigators, at least, should be exempt from additional
near-term rate increases. It is far easier for commercial and industrial electricity users
to defray increased costs. Residential consumption is minimal enough so as not to be
crippling. Let non-irrigation users bear the near-term costs for whatever the IPUC
determines is fair rate relief for IPC. And make new IPC clients pay surcharges for the
problems arising from their entry into the IPC market.
Transaction ID: 4281026.
Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ ipuc
User Address: 137.118.
User Hostname: 137.118.
Jean Jewell
.I A;;1~/o vfo
~ H
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28, 2005 1 :26
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
12: 26: 03
Case: :Lfc- (Jt)- JO
Name: Blair R. Anderson
Street Address: 157 Cordova Ave.
City: Twin Falls
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83301-8032
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: brand~filertel. com
Company: Idacorp/ Idaho Power
Comment description: I am in wonderment as to why thoes of us who are forced to use Idaho
power s electric are compelled to pay for two new gas fired power plants? most of us are
not share holders! we can t even afford to buy any! I was always taught that the investers
paidthe cost of any new construction out of there dividends, before being passed down tous poor people on retirement, wi th very little income! What has happened to wind power in
this state? most every other state in America has wind power, why is this state always 50
years behind the times?!
I have also heard that some concern located in San Diego Ca. has planned to build a coal
fired elect plant North/East of Jerome, Id.
Coal went out in the 40' s !! We do not need any more polution in any form! yes, we need
elect power! but not that bad! It is my opinion that
only after you have shown some progress in serving the people of this state with more
modern up to date methods do you deserve any rate increasrs! In other words, Put up or
Shut up!! eather produce
somthing us poor people can pay for or get out and let thoes who can do it!!!
I have been back in Idaho for 19 years now, and every year Idaho Power has applied for
large rate increase!. Some of us just do not have the money to pay these increases! I f
could see some posi ti ve advancements toward new technology, and I don t mean in the next50 years, I mean now! like in the next year!
What advancement's have been made in the use of Geothermal energy in Idaho ? Iceland has
used it for 100 years, California has some also Nevada, Why are we not looking for these
sources? Idaho has some great Geothermal locations!
Transaction ID: 4281226.
Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us / scripts /polyform. dll/ ipucUser Address: 63.165.173.
User Hostname: 63.165.173.
(~~#/O v1o
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:48 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
11:48:29 AM
Case: ..:I:Pc -os-IO
Name: WILLIAM AUGSBURGER
Street Address: 16066 LATAH DRIVE
City: NAMPA
State: IDAHO
ZIP: 83651
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: augies~webtv. net
Company: IDAHO POWERmailinglistyesno:
Comment description: A BROCHURE IN MY LATEST POWER BILL TITLED "ELECTRICITY RATES APRIL
2005 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT CHANGES TO YOUR ELECTRICITY RATES" WAS THE FIRST I HAD
KNOWN THAT I WAS ABOUT TO GET TO "BUY" PART OWNERSHIP OF A POWER PLANT! IT PUZZLES ME THAT
I AM BUYING INTO THE BENNETT MOUNTAIN POWER PLANT AND NOT EVEN A STOCK HOLDER. I'LL BET
THE REAL STOCK HOLDERS ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!
Transaction ID: 4281148.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ ipuc
User Address: 209.240.205.
User Hostname: 209.240.205.
;:~
lLED
."""""..," ,
r- ""''- t;-(tL.tl" L
tUns APR LEi At; 1= 32
A. Wayne Frandsen
644 Main Ave. No.
Twin Falls, ill 83301
:i~) , f-f~r-"
UTiLITIES COf~11J;ylnn
April 26, 2005
Idaho Public Utilities Con1111ission
POB 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
, ' ..;::::--" '--------
RE:Idaho Power proposed rate increases.If L - IE OS- lS-
To whom it may concern;
In reading over the propaganda that Idaho Power sent out in support of their rate increases
several things came to mind that I think should be considered prior to action on these increases.
As to the PCA, I understand what it is and why it is needed. I obviously would prefer that
rates go do,vn and not up but that am't going to happen. I do question what will deferring this
increase to later will do later if the drought continues. At some point Idaho pow-er will be forced
recoup these increased generation costs. Obviously the deferral is in a attempt to keep rates from
increasing to much at once, and I appreciate this. Hopefully the future will bring improved water
conditions and will allow these costs to be recouped when generation costs are lowered as a result
of more hydro power being available. However we can not be assured of this and I hope someone
.. is keeping this in mind so as not to allo\\T us to be caught between the proverbial rock and hard
place.
As for the Bennett Mountain Power Plant, I have some serious reservations about increases
to fund this. It is my understanding that this plant is being built to supply anticipated future power
needs as more customers hook up to the system. In their propaganda IP stated the plant was to
produce power to meet peak loads "at times when customers use the most pow-, namely hot
summer afternoons when air conditioning and inigation use are at their highest". This is all well
and good, but IP has done a excellent job of meeting those peak loads in the past without Bennett
Mountain. The only reason for them to be unable to continue their excellent record would be
increased loads due to new customers. That being said, why are existing customers being asked to
foot the bill to provide power for new customers? Why not let these new customers pay for their
own power and the generating capacity needed to produce it? If this necessitates a two tier rate
structure, one for old customers and one for new customers then so be it. The current proposal
amounts to the current customers being forced to subsidize the new cu...crtomers power rates, and
that is ju...'rt plain wrong. One of many reasons for the influx of ne,v residents is our low power
rates. They are used to much higher rates any way so why should I have my rates raised so they
get a break?
Lastly you may recall, the State of Idaho recently announced the intent to purchase water
rights on several thousands of acres of farm land. As a result this water will not be pumped out of
the river, but will be left in it \vith a resultant savings of a bunch of po\ver. I am not sure how
much exactly this will be, but I have seen the pumps that are being idled and I guarantee you can
run a fair sized city on the power they won t be using. In addition, IDWR has recently ordered
well irrigators to come up \vith 173 000 acre feet of water or to shut do'\tvn thousands of additional
wells. Since their ain t 173 000 acre feet of\vater available it stands to reason that there will be a
major shutdown of wells with resultant power savings. And all these savings are during the claimed
hot summer irrigation peak. How much consideration of these savings has been given in this rate
increase? Since power plant construction and resultant rate increases are planned years in advance
and take more years to come to fruition, and the pumping shutdo'wns have come about in the last
year or less the answer to that question is obviously none.
So it becomes apparent that Bennett Mountain is not needed to provide power for existing
customers. It is also apparent that Idaho Power should look to the new customers to pay for
generating capacity needed to service them and rates for existing customers should nor be
increased for this purpose.
Basically Idaho Power is saying that they are going to defer a 4.75% temporary increase in
favor of a 1.84 % pennanent one. After all it will take only slightly over 2.5 years to make the
same money with the permanent raise and it doesn t expire like the larger one does. And note the
larger increase is deferred, not waived. They ",ill be back in the future wanting that one to.
For these reasons the Bennett Mountain increase should be, and I urge that it be, DENIED.
Thank you for your tune.
6-oU
A. Wayne Frandsen