20070314Comment.pdf

.; ~/O1 ,/
/0 14- t//1c
PC-E-O7-
March 10, 2007
--:' '::'.. ", ', .
J c.. ,
Dear Public Utility Commissioners:2UJ7 i'U:q I t+ Ail 8: 10
Hi/,He i;U LJUGSome time ago I commented against Idaho Power about their attemP'clirt~lddi1Y;&l~l)gIS8IC,
power contracts with various wind power entrepreneurs who were investing millions of
dollars in the attempt to develop alternate energy resources in Idaho. Wisely the
Commission required Idaho Power to complete certain contract power agreements with
those wind power producers prior to August 4 2005.
As a disclosure I have no financial interest or stock with Idaho Power or any of the wind
power investors. My motivation as a power user in Idaho is that we the consuming public
need to be protected from unfair practices of monopolistic power providers and that we
should receive reliable, safe, and hopefully low cost power in the future. It is hoped that
whatever the Commission decides that they do not eliminate the small alternative source
provider that may wish to install a solar power or wind power system for their own use
and run any excessive electricity back into the Idaho Power grid. The small independent
provider should be exempt from any changes in the current laws that require Idaho Power
to allow hook up to their electrical grid and reimburse that provider for their generation
of surplus energy. Over the years I have vacillated with the idea of installing a wind or
solar system to provide power to my residence, but current cost payback formulas have
so far prohibited that idea.
Now I see Case No. IPC-07-03 is before the Commission. Based solely upon my
cursory reading of local news and Idaho Power s petition plus my limited knowledge I
have the following comments and observations to convey:
1. It is my understanding that Idaho Power has paid substantial dollars for their
study from an independent source. The results of that study may be substantially
accurate. However, in the past it has been customary that several companies pay
for an independent study skewing the results biased toward the party paying for
the study. Usually the results downplay the negative and embellish statistics and
costs in favor of the provider of funding. I am hopeful the Commission will
carefully scrutinize this study with a jaundiced eye.
2. I am once again very disappointed in Idaho Power s overall strategic plan. For
years they have allowed reverse turbines and smaller alternate power projects to
hook up to their system with minimal or no cost to the provider. Now, when
power costs have finally raised high enough to attract independent entrepreneurs
along with State and Federal incentives, Idaho Power appears to now look at these
new entrepreneurs as competition to their monopoly. As a businessman I realize
that certain up front investment costs are necessary in hope of a greater return in
the future. It would appear that Idaho Power wants their "cake and eat it", while
still harboring desires of establishing their own wind power systems sometime in
the future. It is my understanding Idaho Power also has aspirations of building
more coal-fired plants to handle our energy appetites. It has become apparent that
we as a society, particularly those in positions of authority, need to begin to take
responsibility for the long term environment we will pass on to our descendants.
There will most likely be no future hydro projects, but hopefully there will be
many more wind and solar projects, and hopefully no more coal fired plants
without controlled emissions. Even though these wind power projects may
increase the cost of the infrastructure to Idaho Power, Idaho Power should not
solely think about their financial bottom line and how a reduction in net income
may affect their shareholders. Idaho Power should be sent a message that
inhibiting the proliferation of pollution free energy sources by trying to pass
through their exorbitant costs will reduce the financial incentive of wind and solar
providers to develop their projects. This is not the correct approach for a
monopoly to operate.
3. A disturbing article in a March Times News article indicated that one of the
potential wind power individuals has been delayed long enough by the
moratorium to create their bankruptcy.
4. Idaho Power s requests in Items 1 , and 4 should be denied. The
Commission s previous order should stand for item one. Item two: Obviously the
wind power companies are not going to invest millions of dollars without already
conducting their own wind power studies for their own evaluation. Besides
approval of any financial institutions loaning them money will require a solid
business plan along with those studies. If Idaho Power wants to use some other
wind forecasting service they should do so at their cost. Even hydro facilities are
affected by Mother Nature. If Mother Nature does not cooperate in the future the
wind companies will suffer more than Idaho Power who will just come back to
you with a request to raise rates.
5. IfIdaho Power is granted these requests I am fearful that the profit incentive for
green energy under the old rules will evaporate and Idaho will suffer greatly in the
long term.
PURPA's 1978 law was intended that the energy rates offered to private providers by
utility companies be favorable to the producer, and it was intended to encourage more
production of environmentally friendly commercial energy production as a means of
reducing emissions and dependence on other unfavorable sources of energy.
Even though your decision is difficult it is hoped that it will be based substantially on
PURP A's goal. If we in Idaho have to pay more for this type of green energy I am willing
to shoulder my share of that burden as long as Idaho Power shoulders their share.
2186 E. 4200 N.
Filer, ID 83328