20060830Comment.pdf

Il'fu,v
w-- 01b .Jt 1,/7
Jean Jewell
AlI A:~'.I fJ
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1: 11 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WNW Form Submission:
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
12:10:55 PM
Case: IPC-E-06-17
Name: Leslie Tidwell
Street Address: P.o. Box 2919
City: Ketchum
State: IO
ZIP: 83340
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-MaIl: ktinsv~cox. net
Company: Idaho Power mailing list _yes _no:
Comment description: August 29, 2006
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Re:Change of Net Metering Schedule 84
I installed a roof mounted 3,600 watt PV solar system on my home this past January for
$33,500. It was my understanding at the time of installation that Idaho Power would
reimburse me at my retail rate for any power produced beyond what I consumed. Now Idaho
Power contends that such reimbursement would be a windfall for me. There is relatively
little chance that I will be a net exporter of power over a year s time. Therefore, a
simple and fair change the PUC could make in Idaho Power s proposed change to Schedule 84
is an annual net metering reconciliation rather than a monthly one. This could be astart.
However, there is a bigger picture here. Idaho Power says in their draft 2006 Integrated
Resource Plan that they have two primary goals, one of which is to "Identify sufficient
resources to reliably serve the growing demand for energy within Idaho Power s service
area throughout the 20-year planning period". My 3,600 watt solar system is a smallcontribution to the 1,300 MW supply-side resource additions Idaho Power has identified asnecessary to handle future demand. When farmers put up a small wind turbine in a remote
location, they are also becoming part of Idaho s energy solution - at a considerableexpense to themselves, with a long-term payback. My $33,500 installation has also saved
6622 lbs of carbon dioxide from going into the air so far this year.
Your own direction to the public through your 'Power Myths ' site says "A recent study
estimates that customers conserving as little as 5% at peak times can result in power
market price reductions of 25% to 50%. When all the plants are running to meet demand,
every little increment of added power becomes more expensive. Cutting only a little bitcan have a dramatic impact in reducing price spikes.When all of us little net metering
customers reduce demand especially at peak times (solar) through our own power production,
we are a valuable resource for you.
Please stop making it so hard for us to construct renewable energy proj ects in Idaho.
Idaho Power and you at the Idaho PUC have made it virtually impossible for small PURPA
projects through moratoriums, 90/110 forecasting clauses, and avoided cost calculations
that are completely non-correlated to today s natural gas prices. Idaho s public has
spoken, loudly and clearly, that they do not want a coal-fired plant to built in Idaho.
It is time that the PUC hears that public. It would be a small step in the right
direction if you do not accept Idaho Power s net metering tariff revisions proposal, but
instead give a crumb of support to small renewable energy producers and deny this ratechange request.
Sincerely,
Leslie A. Tidwell
Transaction IO: 8291210.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ ipucUser Address: 68.105.214.User Hostname: 68.105.214.