20090505Comment.pdf

¡(~,~sioq~
Jean Jewell
i-r ~'
So ¡1i
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
vanarnem~cableone. net
Sunday, May 03, 2009 1 :50 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Bob Van Arnem follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-09-06 & IPC -E-09-07
Name: Bob Van Arnem
Address: 3049 South Whi tepost Way
City: Eagle
State: Idaho
Zip: 83616
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: vanarne~cableone.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Add to Mailing List:
Please describe your comment briefly:
What is the logic of charging customers for energy conservation programs, then charging them
if the objectives of the programs are achieved? And doubling the charge to us for the
programs!!! In IP cases before the PUC, reduced costs to customers are given as a benefit;
yet, to achieve the reduced costs, we will be charged more- - - is this logical? Even with our
energy conservation before conservation became fashionable, our bill has increased. If ever
there was an example of parading i The Emperor i s New Clothes', this seems to be it. Our meter
works just fine; has the proposed charge for new meters factored in the reduced meter reader
labor and associated costs? I have not had, until recently, a negati ve attitude toward Idaho
Power, but the seemingly regular and unending rate increases have created one. This all seems
a bit disingenuous.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 72.24.119.234
1