20070619Comments.pdf

/;:J~ :::(~/qlb-'1
/)V'
Jean Jewell
Ii ;-1.I fa CrV"'-'tVvW'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
eladman~wildblue. net
Monday, June 18, 2007 11:49 PM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from Dale Podolan follows:
- -- - --- ----- -- ---- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - --
Case Number: IPC-E-06-
Name: Dale PodolanAddress: 8372 Brookside Lane
City: Boise
State: 10
Zip: 83714
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: eladman~wildblue. net
Name of Utility Compa~daho PowerAdd to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
This is in regards to the Petition for Reconsideration of Commission Final Order No.30322. This agreement will place a great burden on existing ratepayers. It is high time
that developments of this type start paying for their own costs! The Commission correctlyrecognized the problems with this agreement and properly rej ected it. I cannot understandAvimors comments that this unjustly turns Avimor s advance into a contribution which will
benefit other ratepayers at its expense. How is an increase in my rates for their
development a benefit to me?? The numbers and documentation simply do not support
Avimor s assertions and their request for reconsideration should be denied. Do not
subj ect existing ratepayers to more costs and risks to pay for these developments.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 15.235.153.104
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
j.v A'V 4Jz--if
() lr~
Jean Jewell
I~ AY-/1v
J-/
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mikereineck~mac.com
Tuesday, June 19, 20073:25 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from Michael Reineck follows:
- - - - - - - - - - ---- --- - -- - - -- - ---- - - -----
Case Number: IPC-E-06-23
Name: Michael Reineck
Address: 4760 E. Arrow Junction
City: Boise
State: 10
Zip: 83716
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: mikereineck~mac. com
Name of Utility Compa~~daho PowerAdd to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
After reading the appeal of final order # 30322 June 14 by the attorney for Avimor, I
challenge most of the attorney s statements: 1) The financial burden on current Idaho
Power customers will not be reduced but more likely increase. With over 30,000 homes in
various planning phases in the Treasure Valley, the market risk to Avimor is extreme.
Avimore would need to sell close to 450 home a year in a saturated market. Current
customers should not bear this risk. 2) I don t see the basis for Avimor attorney s claim
that the Commission s Order unfairly turns Avimor ' s advance into a contribution. The
Commission is protecting the public. 3) Charges of discrimination are not developed. It
seems to me that the Commission is not granting special, lower cost benefits to Avimor
residents that will funded by the rest of us. 4) New information that is onlyprel iminary?
What kind of joke is this? Keep a case open based on this type of claim which isapparentlyunsubstantiated?closingout most rulings.
If this precedent is allowed, the PUC will have a difficult time
Mike Reineck Ada County Resident and Idaho Power Customer
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.33.
- - ---- --- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -