20050428Comments.pdf

/~ AdLtI /
'1/~ilo)
Jean Jewell
./1(/Ilt!.1'.1'u
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28 , 2005 1 :05 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
12 : 04 : 52
Case: TfC -E-O5" -
Name: Jeff Justus
Street Address: 4031 st J ames loop
Ci ty: nampa
State: idaho
ZIP: 83687
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: eme0heri tagewifi. com
Company: idaho power mailing list _yes _no:
Comment description: A real conservation program by Idaho power is the answer, not a rate
increase. There
rate increase will just begin the snowball effect and cause every
increase there cost. Which will in turn cause Idaho power be backincrease next year si teing cost of labor ect., and then comparingother states
electric user to
for another ratethere low rates to
The "other states " have created a snowball effect so large and costly that, people andbusiness are leaving.
My house is 3500 sqft with 135 lights. I replaced 125 of them with compactfluorescent bulbs. The avg. life of the bulbs is 6 years. My 13 month avarage
electrical usage is 28 KWh per day or 840KWh per month or $42.72 per month.
Each bulb uses 114 the energy with the same light output (14watts replaces a 65watt)
Idaho power does not have a real good conservation program. Why?
They will now drive the cost of natural gas up as well, using it to produce electricity.
Here is the "rocket scienceI f idaho power had a program to replaced some of the light bulbs ( each bulb saves
50 watts) 50watts x208,000 people (each person has 1 light bulb,most houses have
45 light bulbs and assuming 4 people per house)
So 208,000 people X 50 watts not needed=1040000watts surplus per hour for years.
It does not take long to have a surplus of power available.
And there is the money spent on trying to get a rate increase because of "drought"or "demand" or what ever.
2 8 . 6 or 9. 6 million dollars it will never end, Idaho power could replace every light
bulb in every house for far less money and have mega watts surplus power to sell
the market with out a rate increase.
The bottom line is simple, Idaho power you don t get any more money and you would
not be requesting more money if you had a real conservation program. Investing
money in the demand side is the simple solution. A $ 7 dollar credit does not get it.I reduced my electrical operating cost by more than 65% !
So explain to me again why a power company can not do this?
We can be the most energy efficiant city in the United states if we had the will.
The program that Idaho power use to have of a stepped cost per KWh after X KWh
is the incentive that used to get my usage down.I urge you to just say no to the increase and focus on the conservation of end users.
We do not need the same rates as "other states" that are out of control!
( What put calif in the hole? Do you remember Gray Davis and the power deal?)Did Calif implement conservation? No And they are broke now.
The cost of AIC in a very small house in calif is well over $300 per month
We are smarter and more conservi tave than other states.
Lets stop the snowball effect and show the rest of the world how it is done.Lets "meet the expected increasing peak loads as usage on the company s system
continues to rise " with a conservation program that works. Not a Increase with somecompairson to "only 2.2%" or average 6.3% per year or the real compounding % of 6.
on 6.3 for every year. and at some point will have power costs that are what Califpays or higher.I want a 6.3% raise but wont get it.
My property taxes are approching "other states
So how much less will i have? At some point We will have to leave Idaho.
As the cost of living compounds, there is far reaching effects on schools, goverment,
cities, and our quality of life here.
Our average income here is much lower than other states. We can not pay high rates.
So what does happens if you say no? Will they Quit?
All the companies I have worked for, could solve this problem.
Simple light bulbs could be a mega watt start, VF irrigation pumps are next, High
SEER AIC credits or trade in. A stepped cost per KWh used is good, I changed my
bulbs and cut my usage.
When All the Conservation programs have been implemented that can be
implemented, then and only then should a increase be approved.
Stop this snowball effect now before it becomes to large to stop and
our quality of life. I can see where we are headed and we dont need
has effected
to go there.
I Urge you to just say no.
Regards Jeff Justus
Transaction ID: 4281204.Referred by: http: I Iwww. puc. state. id. us/scripts/polyform. dll/ipucUser Address: 63.76.118.
User Hostname: 63.76.118.
Jean Jewell
/,A/L~~'
q/Vl!O)
via A,vi '1u
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28 , 2005 8:40 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
7:40:24 AM
Case: Idaho Power Increase Request PC-E-o5--
Name: John Hopson
Street Address: 305 NE Mashburn Rd
City: Mountain Home
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83647
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: hopsonj 0msn. com
Company: Idaho Power /~.
mailing list yes no: (ye
Comment = desc ipt on: ~ease disallow any increase to Idaho Power until such time that
they start seriously building renewable power source plants. Natural Gas is not one of
them. I don t want to pay for these type of plants, please do you job and protect thepublic, not the providers.
Transaction ID: 428740.Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dlll ipucUser Address: 65.102.77.104
User Hostname: 65.102.77.104
Jean Jewell
AJ-if If/z1/o-;
V1d AV,//fd
~ If
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Wednesday, April 27 2005 10:10 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
9 : 0 9 : 50
Case: IPC-- Ot;-15
Name: Lon Childers
Street Address: 208 10th Ave. North
City: NampaState: id
ZIP: 83687
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: randlenterprise0msn. com
Company: Idaho Power
mailing list yes no:
Comment description: I think it is past due for the PUC to consider building Nuclear
power plants along the Snake and Columbia rivers. It is a simple solution to a long term
problem with the rapid population groth in the Northwest. Nuclear power plants were
suppose to be built along the Columbia river in the mid seventies between Hanford
Washington, and Boardman Oregon. This problem needs to be acted on soon or all residents
of the Northwest will be without power, or subj ect to brownouts. Lets leave a good power
supply for generations to come.
Transaction ID: 4272109.Referred by: http: I Iwww. puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dlllipuc
User Address: 207.225.39.252
User Hostname: 207.225.39.252
Jean Jewell
A.,
..".
AJt-;:J-vn '1/Jj /D~
110 Av,vlo
;.
5k1J
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28 , 2005 11 :27 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
10:26:42 AM
Case: TPC-E-o~-/O S(JC- E-o~-
Name: Brad Gore
Street Address: 2348 Echo Ave.
City: Parma
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83660
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: albngore0 fmtc. com
Company: Idaho Powermailinglist _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.
~--- "-. .' ..
fG-E-O~-
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: I Iwww. puc. state. id. us/scripts/polyform. dlllipuc
User Address: 137.118.
User Hostname: 137.118.
Jean Jewell 1:;
~/b'~ Ct~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Wednesday, April 27 20054:29 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
3 : 2 9 : 0 5
/'"
Case: Electricity Rates April 2005 -:LPG - t.. -65" /~
Name: Ron Daugherty
Street Addres s: 149 N. 16th Avenue
City: Pocatello
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83201
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: rondaugherty0earthlink. net
Company: Idaho Powermailinglist _yes _no: J:l2.Comment description: After reading your " justifications " for an upcoming rates increase of
some 6.3 percent, you folks are just not getting the idea. And you re sure not planning
for a reasonable future. Forget water as your primary source. Begin investing in steam,
sun and wind power al ternati ves. You do nothing of benefit in these areas at all. Drill
for thermo power from underground; use it generate power and re-circulate back into theground. All you folks do is maintain the status guo and take, take, take the money from
customers. And nothing will change. Next year, we ll see the same shortages with the
same thoughtless excuses for not developing pro-active planning for the future. Stop
taking the money and running....
Transaction ID: 4271529.
Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dlll ipuc
User Address: 4.228.137
User Hostname: 4.228.137
.;~
f d
'Zi16
,j
nil 'fc
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:52 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, April 28, 2005
7:52:28 AM
Case: IPc..-G-O5'-
Name: Patty
Street Address: 1104 W Washington
City: Meridian
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83642
Home Telephone:
E-Mail:
Company: Idaho Power mailing list yes no
Comment description: I realize that costs are going up, but I feel that Idaho Power wants
these rate increases in order to keep their profit levels up. It is getting harder and
harder for people to make ends meet and this rate increase will make it just that much
more difficult. Please, for once, consider the middlellower income families who will have
to come up with this extra money and deny these rate increases.
Transaction ID: 428752.
Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. us I scripts/polyform. dlll ipuc
User Address: 12.18.144.101
User Hostname: 12.18.144.101
Af~
~q
/e
A.v.11d ,,; /1
""".....;!
; b- '0,
,...,....,
t~,
"r I \!F" ;\ r. t.! L I 'W
nc~ at) ? P it;! ~'
~ '
tuuv Hf 1\ ,-0 1"'
;. ....
A. Wayne Frandsen
644 Main Ave. No.
Twin Falls, ill 83301
, ',."
'l' i-U~jLit.l
U T \ L '(fiE s~ co H i~'HS SlGN
April 26, 2005
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POB 83720
Boise, ill 83720-0074
-==-=_..-",_."~-,...__.._~ "/ '-
RE:Idaho Power proposed rate increases. .Ift -0)' -10 Ife,- E-o~
To whonl 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 down and not up but that ain'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 power 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 allow 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 IF stated the plant was to
produce power to meet peak loads "at times when customers use the most power, namely hot
summer afternoons when air conditioning and irrigation use are at their highest". This is all well
and good, but IF 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 customers power rates, and
that is just plain wrong. One of many reasons for the influx of new 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 with a resultant savings of a bunch of power. 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 with 173 000 acre feet of water or to shut down thousands of additional
wells. Since their ain t 173 000 acre feet of water 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 sununer 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 COlne to fruitio~ and the pumping shutdowns 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 seIVice 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 % permanent 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 will 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.
61)
A. Wayne Frandsen
4/27/2005 7:02 PM FROM: Fax TO: 334-3762 PAGE: 002 OF 003
I )jp" 1-gl 0
t)1fi
vlo
j.J/,/10 f:4~'
f035G
~~
G9i.
rlJoUB.I Gfdak 83704
~~:
208-378-0922
'if~: 208 -401-2842
infowench~ldvlngstkn.com
April 27, 2005
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
RE: Proposed Idaho Power Rate Increase - I.Pc.-
-($
There is a Federal Law entitled "The American s With Disabilities Act" that
prohibits the discrimination of the disabled. While it is strictly observed in other
states, in Idaho, it is basically ignored, and our disabled become the unwilling
victims of abuse, discrimination and victimization.
It is easy to abuse and ignore this segment of the population. Why? These are
individuals who in some cases have lost the ability to live as normal, functioning
parts of society. Their inability to continue earning an income, has destroyed
their confidence, their way of life, and any hope they had in living a somewhat
comfortable life.
Many have owned homes, and as their income disappears, lose the home they
worked so hard to obtain, and watch their dreams crushed. They find Idaho
Power asking for increases they can not afford since their Sodal Security is fixed
and even cost of living increases don t cover increases for medication or food.
Now Idaho Power claims that they can no longer afford the present rates because
of the years of drought, when in fact their executives and parent company are
paid according to linron standards. They are asking for an increase.
I am disabled, and have been subjected to the worst violations under the act. I am
disabled and I have been lied to, abused by lenders and utilities. It takes two years
for you to tread your way through the system, to the point where you are finally
heard by an Administrative Law Review Judge. Then, if you are lucky, your claim
for your social security will be approved. In the two years that it takes any savings
or retirement accounts that you had accumulated all the years you worked are
now depleted.
4/27/2005 7:02 PM FROM: Fax TO: 334-3762 PAGE: 003 OF 003
Again, and again, I have found myself in a humiliating bottomless void that does
not properly address the needs of this group of citizens. Yes, there is Energy
assistance available but even the annual EA payment is bein~ decreased in
increments and soon this so needed assistance will no longer he availahle. There
are no low income or special rates for the disabled that other Power Companies
provide offered by Idaho Power.
For those with the ability to get up in the morning, go to work to earn the funds
you need to live, I say this: Consider what would happen, if you lost that ability.
After years of workin~, contributin~ your life, time, and enerKY to insurin~ your
needs, those of your fa mily, and those of your country, you sudden ly lost that
ability. Do you have savings? I did, and they are gone now. Do you have family
to help? I do not. My mother has breast cancer and is elderly. My parent's
savings must see to her needs first. My father is deceased. Do you have friends
who will help? I don t think any of us will approach friends for money that they
are nol cerlain lhey will be able lo pay back. Mosl seem lo be in the same
situation with mounting bills and pay that does not keep up with the basic cost of
living
The bottOIllline is this - the citizens of Idaho are not in the financial position to
pay for another increase. Most have not had an increase in their pay so an
increase by Idaho Power makes no sense.
I think most Idahoans would agree that the salaries and bonuses paid to Idaho
Power were paid at the expense of and at the victimization of the citizens of the
State of Idaho, especially those who are living on a benefit like Social Security as I
am. JTOU don t.iustify rate increase toith the drought and then over
pay your executives. It is a fraudulent ahuse especially since there are
other options available in Idaho to change to. They have a monopoly on the
market and consumers have no choice but to deal with them for their power.
Please, reject Idaho Power s latest request for a rate increase. Idaho can not
afford to pay more. We certainly can not afford the rates we have now.
Sincerely,
~~~