20100517Comment (Annie Black).pdf

RECEIVED
ZOfO HAY l 4 P" It: 51
IDAHO PUbliC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
May 14, 2010
VI HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
RE: IPC-E-08-24,
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FOR THE AUTHORITY TO RETIRE ITS GREEN TAGS
Dear Ms. Jewell,
Please find enclosed two (2) copies of my REC Management Plan comments in the
above referenced case. Please return one stamped copy for my fies.
In addition, I certify that I have provided a correct and complete copy of my
comments on this, the 14th day of May 2010, to the partes listed in Commission
Order No. 31062.
Sincerely,
R\Annie T. Black
Enclosures
Annie T. Black 0 1110 Marshall St.. Boise, 10 83706 0 208-383-4332 0 annieb.boise(ggmail.com
~~
Annie 1. Black
1110 Marshall St.
Boise, ID 83706
Telephone: [phone]
Email: annieb.boise~gmail.com
\
'~Ct:' \It.O~i.'~' .
?~ ,,:51
i\\\\ ~'i \ '" "'01\f'~r\O \"\J\\J\..~ CO
\)1\\.X\ ,t.'-
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR AN ORDER
AUTHORIZING THE RETIREMENT
OF ITS GREEN TAGS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-24
COMMENTS ON
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
REC MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMES NOW Annie Black, an Idaho Power Company residential ratepayer
representing herself and in response to the Notice of REC Management Plan Filing and
Notice of Modified Procedure issued by the Idaho Public Utilties Commission (the
"Commission") in Order No. 31062 on April 23, 2010 in Case No. IPC-E-08-24 (the
"Case"), submits the following comments.
i. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
On May 20,2009, in response to an Application filed by Idaho Power Company
("Idaho Powet' or the "Company"), the Commission issued a final Order, Order No.
30818, directing Idaho Power to sell its eligible 2007 and 2008 Green Tags generated
by the Elkhorn Valley Wind Project and the Raft River Geothermal Project. The
Commission also directed the Company to formulate a business plan regarding the
disposition of Green Tags generated in 2009 and later. Furthermore, on July 28,2009,
in response to a Petition for Clarification filed by the Industrial Customers of Idaho
Power ("ICIP"), the Commission issued a final Order, Order No. 30868, and wrote, "We
anticipate that after Idaho Power files its business plan that we wil initiate a new case to
examine the plan and the Company's proposed treatment of its 2009 Tags." Idaho
Power filed its REC Management Plan with the Commission on December 30, 2009. At
the April 19, 2010 Commission Decision Meeting, President Kempton invited me to read
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 1 of 8
my recently ¡ûbi\t~ c8mments into the record. Attachment 1 is a copy of my April 19,
': ;.1,.)
2010 submission.
B. INVOLVEMENT
As mentioned in my April 19, 2010 submission, I was employed by the Company
from 2002 to 2007 and am a member of the Idaho Conservation League. It is important
to reiterate that the views expressed herein are solely my own. I formulated the
following comments after reaching out to parties in the Case, discussing issues with
policymakers both in Idaho and elsewhere, reviewing the Case docket and researching
past cases, current industry guidelines and other related details.
C. GUIDING PRINCIPLE
The primary reason for my interest in this Case is to seek a better understanding
of how the Commission view RECs - what retiring does or doesn't mean for the
definition of the electrons entering the grid. Once decided, we must learn to tell the
same story. This story includes how the State should speak of resources that produce
RECs but whose RECs are sold to out-of-state buyers and how the Company should
speak of resources whose RECs are not retired (or intended to be retired) in planning
documents, policy discussions, investment disclosures and elsewhere. While some
may argue that these State or Company discussions or claims are out of the
Commission's jurisdiction, I would submit that the Commission's definitions and
interpretations in this Case should form the basis for how Idahoans discuss renewable
energy, RECs and related matters. If the Commission views a REC as something
insubstantial in the definition and assumptions about wind power, geothermal energy
and other energy sources that the market has determined warrant the creation of a REC
than the Company's REC Management Plan as submitted is sufficient. If on the other
. hand, the Commission sees a REC as a critical component in the definition and
assumptions about the abovementioned energy sources, than the Company's REC
Management Plan is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, flawed.
While i readily admit that I support an ever-increasing amount of wind power and
geothermal energy as part of the Company's diversified portfolio and the Company's
Green Power Program, in this Case, I do not seek to influence the Company's. resource
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 2 of 8
mix. Instead, I am looking for clarity and consistency in the handling of RECs.. for the
sake of ratepayers, policymakers and the Company itself.
D. REQUEST
In light of my interests, I respectfully request that the Commission grant a hearing
to review the specifics and the implications of Idaho Power's REC Management Plan.
Furthermore, should it please the Commission, I welcome an opportunity to take part in
collaborative discussions regarding the issues in the Case. If my research has turned
up nothing else, I have found that the complexities of the Case have lead to as many
misunderstandings as they have disagreements. Absent a hearing, I respectfully
request that the Commission deny the Company's REC Management Plan as written
and request a new plan that either (a.) reflects the inherent value to Idaho Power
ratepayers of retiring all 2009 and future RECs the Company obtains the rights to, or
(b.) allows for the sale of 2009 and future RECs but requires the Company chart a
course of action that more comprehensively educates stakeholders - ratepayers,
policymakers and shareholders - on the implications of sellng those RECs and report
annually to the Commission on those education efforts.
II. DISCUSSION
A. ISSUES OF THE CASE FULLY VETTED OR NOT?
In researching my comments, the argument arose that the Case has been fully
vetted, the Commission stated its preference for the treatment of RECs in Order No.
30818,and that nothing substantial has changed in the meantime. In that light, perhaps
the Company's only course of action was to submit a plan that followed in the footsteps
of the Commission's final order. I lack any evidence that the Federal or State legislative
landscape has changed or that a large shift in the market has occurred. However, a
significant shift occurred in this Case during the reconsideration arguments. The
primary request of the Company, authorization to retire its RECs, was abandoned by
the Company in favor of a request to bank all RECs for future use. With ICIP arguing in
favor of sellng the RECs and Staff opting not to enter the fray, the retirement of RECs
was left undefended during oral arguments before the Commission on April 22, 2009.
As a ratepayer, I would like an opportunity to defend the position that the Company
abandoned.
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 3 of8
B. UNANSWERED CRITICAL ISSUES
In my comments dated April 19, 2010, I argued that there remains a need for
discussion and identified four critical issues. I have since identified two additional issues
(one of which is bundled with an earlier presented issue). In total, my concerns are as
follows:
· Is energy produced from a wind resource in any significant way different
from energy produced from coal or natural gas if its associated RECs
are not retired? How should the Company and its stakeholders refer to
an energy resource when its RECs are not retired?
· What role should the State's Energy Plan and other State policies play
in determining the appropriate energy mix for Idaho Power?
· Does the Commission believe that non-hydroelectric renewable energy
on Idaho Power's system is currently merely a hedge against a future
federal or state Renewable Portolio Standard (RPS) or a resource with
inherent benefis to the Company and its customers?
· Does sellng RECs undermine the Company's Green Power Purchase
Program and leave it as the only option for purchasing non-hydroelectric
renewable energy?
· Is an order to sell or bank RECs creating a liabilty for the Company with
regards to truth in advertising (or perhaps better stated, truth in
discussing resources both today and in the future)?
Please reference the arguments presented in my earlier submittal in addition to the
comments offered below.
Wind VS. Coal or Natural Gas
In addition to the comparison to wind or geothermal to coal or natural gas, a
related question arises of what to call energy that no longer is delivered with its affilated
tags. Both banking and selling RECs leave the Company and energy planners with no
claim to the carbon or other environmental benefits of wind or geothermal energy. The
definition of RECs.generally accepted in the market and put forward multiple times in
this Case acknowledges that an electron from a wind or geothermal resource that
enters the grid without its affliated REC is no longer an electron that can be associated
with its generating resource's environmental benefis.
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 4 of 8
The Staff continues to assert in its comments that sellng RECs has "no bearing
on whether the power is generated from a renewable energy project." Perhaps it has no
bearing on the generation of that power, but it certainly has a bearing on the naming
and the assumptions customers make about that power. In fact, RECs that are sold
are "glued" by their buyer to an electron that would have otherwise not had such
environmental benefits (i.e. associated with an electron likely produced by coal-fired or
natural gas plant). Ifthe REC buyer is using a REC to "substitute" wind-generated
electrons for coal-generated electrons, are Idaho Power ratepayers in essence leftwith
the attributes of the REC buyer's coal-generated electrons?
Role of State's.Energy Plan and Other State Policies
IPIC's oral arguments presented on April 22, 2009 before this Commission
reiterated a claim IPIC made earlier that the State's energy policy amounts to "nuclear,
natural gas or nothing." This claim was derived from a quote attributed to the
Administrator of Idaho's Offce of Energy and Chair of Idaho's Strategic Energy Allance,
Paul Kjellander. This claim is further substantiated by IPIC in its comments, citing that
the Offce of Energy's Wind Power Working Group was disbanded. These
(mis)characterizations(a.) ignore the words of the Idaho Energy Plan already
referenced numerous times in this Case, (b.) bypass the reality that the Idaho Strategic
Energy Allance's Wind Task Force was already hard at work at the time of IPIC's oral
arguments and (c;) grossly misrepresents the breadth of options under consideration as
stated in a current Idaho Strategic Energy Allance public information piece included as
Attachment 2.
The State continues to pursue a diversified energy portfolio for its citizens. The
most cost effective way to deliver wind or geothermal energy today as apart of a
diversified portolio.is to rely on existing resources already connected to the grid.
However, this is only achieved through the retirement of RECs associated with these
resources. Banking of the RECs holds the environmental attributes hostage and sellng
the RECs deliveries those attributes to another part, presumable outside the State -
neither of these options aligns the Company with currently recognized State policy.
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 5 of8
Renewable Energy: Hedge or Inherently Valuable
Case history points to a general support of portolio diversification and some
renewable energy development by this Commission and its Staff. The relevance of
these supportive statements hinges on how the Commission views the arguments laid
out above regarding the characterization of a resource whose tags have been sold.
Cases with supportive assertions include the approval of Schedule 62 (Case No. IPC-E-
00-18) and the acknowledgement of the Company's 2004 and 2006 Integrated
Resource Plans (Case Nos. IPC-E-04-8 and IPC-E-06-24)'
The inherent value of wind and geothermal energy on Idaho Power's system has
been hotly debated, using the Green Power Program as a proxy for ratepayer interest in
the resource. This argument is flawed. I believe there is a substantial difference
between a customer's wilingness to pay a very small amount (estimated by the
Company at 9 cents a month during the 2009 PCA year) embedded in their monthly
energy charge and his or her wilingness to participate explicitly in the Company's
Green Power Program. Who would take the time to locate a special program,
understand its design and costs, fill out and submit a participation form and track
monthly expenses on his bil (9 cents per month) for the benefit of securing
approximately 9.5 kWh per month of green energy (based on Idaho Power's Green
Power Program Contribution Calculator)?
The best publicly available surveys paint a different picture as welL. The
Company referenced the Idaho Energy Policy Survey 2007, conducted by the Energy
Policy Institute in their initial application. In addition, Boise State University issued data
in 2007 from their 1 ¡th Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey further supporting citizen
interest in renewable energy generation (Attachment 3). The top five resources sited as
"desirable" were renewable resources, four of which are resources directly impacted by
the Commission's position on RECs. In addition, respondents were asked if they
supported "paying a slightly higher electric utility rate to encourage development of
small renewable power generation (such as wind) in Idaho?" A full 62% supported or
strongly supported this notion while only 22.5% opposed or strongly opposed the idea.
Paying for the retirement of tags to capture the benefits of small renewable power
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 6 of8
. .;.
generation wil only increase a residential customer's bil by $1.09 (estimated by the
Company for the 2009 PCA year).
In addition, it should be noted that if ratepayers view wind or geothermalenergy
as inherently valuable than a REC is no longer a surplus utility asset in their eyes. ICIP
has. argued to the contrary. Ironically, if my assumptions regarding the membership of
ICIP are even partially accurate (the most recent list of participants I could find was
issued in discovery in Case No. IPC-E-09-03), then some ICIP members. themselves
have publicly stated support for the very renewable energy resources that produce
RECs.
Effects on the Green Power Program
My comments presented on April 19, 2010 regarding this issue are complete.
Truth in Representation of Energy Sources
The onus put on the Company to truthfully represent the energy on its system is
an undue burden. Despite significant steps taken by the Company to disseminate
accurate and straightforward information on their Web site (see
ww.idahopower.com/aboutus/companyinformation/energysources.cfm), the potential
for stakeholder confusion is very high. Ratepayers continue to believe that the
Company has some amount of wind on its system that is being delivered to their meter.
The benefits they have associated with wind have been stripped away in the sale of the
REC. In addition, State policymakers, media outlets and other interested parties
routinely talk about the State's current wind and geothermal production as well as its
future potentiaL. It cannot be understated, the challenge the company has in managing
all of the ways stakeholders might come to false conclusions regarding the Company's
resource mix. Is the company the only one liable if a ratepayer learns that its REC lies
in the hand of a ratepayer in Montana where a renewable portfolio standard requires the
REC or is owned by a corporation buying RECs in the voluntary market to promote
themselves as a green business. The National Association of Attorneys Generals and
the Federal Trade Commission have an active interest in protecting consumers from the
kinds of misunderstandings that easily occur when a REC is at play.
III. CONCLUSION
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 7of8
,.-- .
The issues before the Commission create a challenge for all of us to consider the
definitions for the terms we use, the implication of the policies we implement and the
assumptions that others unknowingly make. In a time of rate pressure there stil remain
compellng arguments for the value to ratepayers in retiring RECs. More importantly,
however, we must do what we can to be on the same page regarding how we reference
energy sources, the implications of retiring, banking or sellng tags and how we
represent to those outside the inner circle of energy details,
For these reasons and those stated above, I request the Commission grant a
hearing to review these issues. If a,hearing is deemed unnecessary, I request that the
Commission deny the Company's REC Management Plan as written and request a new
plan that either (a) reflects the inherent value to Idaho Power ratepayers of retiring all
2009 and future RECs the Company obtains the rights to, or (b) allows for the sale of
2009 and future RECs but requires the Company chart a course of action that more
comprehensively educates stakeholders - ratepayers, policymakers and shareholders -
on the implications of sellng those RECs and report annually to the Commission on
those education efforts.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of May, 2010.
~J~
A niack
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Comments of Annie T. Black,
Idaho Power Company Residential Ratepayer
Page 8of8
April 19, 2010
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
The Commission has been asked whether it wishes to accept the Idaho Power REC
Management Plan ("Plan") submitted by Idaho Power Company ("Company") on December
30,2009 as part of Case No. IPC-E-08-24. I am writing to request that the Commission deny
the Plan as submitted, evaluate a handful of issues brought up by the Plan and request a
revised plan be submitted.
I would like to disclose some of my background and my association with interested parties
in this issue. In the early 1990s, I worked in the utilty regulatory industry as a consultant
for a firm active in the Caliornia market. Years later, I was hired by the Company to run
programs using the Company's BPA Conservation and Renewable Discount dollars. I was a
Company employee from 2002 to 2007, at which time I left to be a full-time mother. That
remains my occupation. My primary role with the Company was in energy efficiency, but I
also worked on a variety of projects including the Company's Green Power Program.
Finally, I am a member of the Idaho Conservation League (ICL), an intervener in Case No.
IPC-E-08-24. It is important to note that the views expressed in this letter are solely my
own, not those of the Company nor ICL.
Some might argue that any comments relative to this Plan should have been brought prior
to the Commission's earlier rulings.in Case No. IPC-E-08-24. I would like to explain why
this is the first point at which I am engaging with the Commission on this issue.
I became aware of Case No. IPC-E-08-24 some time after the Commission issued its initial
ruling in Order No. 30720 in which the Commission approved the Company's request to
retire Green Tags. I was pleased to hear this and, given my current pursuits at home, did
not take the time to check back about any reconsideration filngs. I heard after the fact
about the reconsideration proceedings and subsequent orders. At that time, the best
course of action seemed to be to ask about RECs as a policy issue in the 2009 Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP) process. At a 2009 IRP public hearing, I learned the Company had
filed its REC Plan and was awaiting acceptance by the Commission. That brings us to today.
In evaluating the submitted Plan, the Commission is ruling on the nature of renewable
energy on Idaho Power's system for the foreseeable future. The Plan outlines four
components: (1) Existing Long-Term PPAs, (2) Existing PURPA and REC Generating
Contracts, (3) New Long~Term PPAs and (4) Qualified Renewable Projects. While the
Company's plans reflect the Commission's Order No. 30818 in Case No. IPC-E-08-24, I urge
the Commission to reevaluate some of the key issues associated with RECs prior to
accepting the Plan.
Attachment No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-24
REC Management Plan Comments, Black
Page 1 of4
From my perspective, there are four critical issues:
Is energy produced from a wind resource in any significant way different from
energy produced from coal or natural gas if its associated RECs are ll retired?
What role should the State's Energy Plan and other State policies play in
determining the appropriate energy mix for Idaho Power?
Does the Commission believe that non-hydroelectric renewable energy on Idaho
Power's system is currently merely a hedge against a future federal or state
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)or a resource with inherent benefits to the
Company and its customers?
Does sellng RECs undermine the Company's Green Power Purchase Program and
leave it as the only option for purchasing non-hydroelectric renewable energy?
Certainly there are a number of subsequent issues such as the shelf life of tags, the
monetary value of tags to customers, the clarity of communication to customers regarding
the status of owned or sold RECs and more. Some of the critical issues I've mentioned
above did surface during deliberations of Case No. IPC-E-08-24 but were not answered to
my satisfaction. Furthermore, I am concerned that these critical issues are not understood
by many who are interested in Idaho's energy policy and resource mix but are not central
players in this case.
With regards to the critical issues, I offer up a few comments and welcome the opportunity
to discuss them further.
Wind vs. Coal or Natural Gas
Most people would argue three significant differences between wind and coal or natural
gas as an energy source - dispatchabilty and associated integration costs, fuel costs and
environmental impacts. RECs are not relevant to the first two but are at the crux of the
third. If the Commission finds no merit in the environmental impacts and thereby requires
the Company to sell its RECs, it implies that the environmental (or carbon) risks and costs
associated with coal or natural gas are not relevant
Role of State's Ener~ Plan and Other State Policies
The Stateissued an Energy Plan in 2007 and has subsequently set up the Idaho Office of
Energy Resources. Both the Plan and the Office have references to the role of renewable
energy in Idaho's energy equation. I assume that the Commission intends to regulate
utilties in a way that supports the State's energy policies. In fact, the Commission did
address this in Order No. 30720 where in its findings it writes,
We further find that approving the present Application comports with
several policies of the Idaho Energy Plan. In particular, retiring Green Tags at
this time promotes the development of renewable resources, diversifies
Idaho Power's generation portfolio, and yet preserves the Company's abilty
to meet changes in energy policy. State Energy Plan, Policies 1-2,5,10-11.
Attachment No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-QS-24
REC Management Plan Comments, Black
Page 2 of4
It is unclear how the State's policies were treated in the Petition for Reconsideration as
most of that pètition was focused on the subsequent issues outlined above.
Renewable Energy: Hedge or Inherently valuable
Much of the deliberation in Case No. IPC-E-08-24 was focused on whether the Company
needed toretain rights to RECs in order to meet a future federal or State RPS. While such
speculation is important in business planning, it ignores the question of whether the
environmental and other benefits bundled in a REC have inherent value to the Company's
customers or for that matter, the State as a whole. I believe that acquiring RECs is
important in light of uncertainty surrounding a federal RPS. Furthermore, I would also
argue that non-hydroelectric renewable energy does have inherent value because of its
environmental characteristics.
i find it troubling to hear parties in this case say that RECs are not necessary to claim wind
power on one's system as a renewable resource. While RECs are complex, may be seen as
"irrational" as stated in Staff Comments and are sometimes painted as a marketing
gimmick, they are readily accepted in the industr. In the past, arguments have been made
that Idaho does not have a REC market so they are somehow irrelevant here. However,
while some components of RECs are to be regulated by the states, Idaho is a player in the
national energy market and must abide by standards in that market. RECs are part of the
national standard regarding the treatment of non-hydroelectric renewable resources
today.
With regards to customers, the Commission wrote in Order No. 30720 that "...by retiring
the Green Tags, Idaho Power retains the right to publicize and promote its renewable
energy resources in a way that informs customers and satisfies their expectations of the
utilty." Nothing in the Reconsideration deliberations counteracts this point, which leads
me to believe that the Commission stands by this point.
Effects on the Green Power Program
By ordering the Company to sell its RECs, the Commission opens up questions about the
premise behind the Company's Green Power Program. In Case No. IPC-E-00-18, the
Commission accepted the Company's application, one based on buying and sellng RECs as
an appropriate mechanism for delivering green energy (particularly wind and solar
energy) to customers. If RECs are not critical to the representation of what wind is as a
resource, then the basis on which the Green Power Program is built is flawed.
Furthermore, if the Commission adopts the Plan as stated, they wil be endorsing the notion
that the Company's only mechanism for delivery non-hydroelectric renewable energy to its
customer is through the Green Power Program. As a customer and program participant, I
find this unsatisfactory. I am wiling to pay more for additional renewable resources but
not wiling to pay more if the company is not also required to offer some of these resources
in its overall generation mix. I am asking that the Company retire its RECs so that the
renewable energy that it has planned for in numerous IRPs wil be delivered to me as a
customer prior to my putting my own money into the Green Power Program.
Attachment No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-24
REC Management Plan Comments, Black
Page 30f4
Past comments in the Company's IRP filings imply that Staff and the Commission accept
and perhaps endorse the Company's inclusion of wind energy in its portfolio mix.
In conclusion, I would encourage the Commission to further investigate these substantial
issues prior to accepting the Company's Plan as stated. I would welcome the opportunity to
offer up further documentation and information related to the above concerns. At a
minimum, I hope that the Commission can delay their decision until they are able to get
complete information on the saleofthe 2007 and 2008 RECs. Whether the Company's
RECs are certifiable by Green-e and what value these RECs produced for customers seem to
be important pieces of data priorto deciding what the long-term disposition ofthe
. Company's RECs should be.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Please let me know if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
~Annie T. Black
1110 Marshall
Boise, ID 83706
annieb. boiseaPgmail.com
383-4332
Attchment No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-24
REC Management Plan Comments, Black
Page 4 of4
What is the Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance?
Citizens, businesses, and state and local
government in Idaho are all feeling the
impact of higher energy prices and
other energy challenges. Governor c.l. "Butch"
Otter established the Idaho Strategic Energy
Allance to help develop effective and
long-lasting responses to these challenges.
The strùcture of the Allance allows a wide
variety of stakeholders to have representation
and playa role in developing energy plans
and strategies for Idaho's energy future.
The Alliance is Idaho's primary mechanism
to develop options for enabling advanced
energy production, energy effciency, and
energy business in the State of Idaho.
~.energy.w.gov
The purpse of the Allance is to enable the
development of a sound energy portolio
for Idaho that includes divers energy
reSOUKes and producton methods, that
provides the highest value to the citizens
of Idaho, that ensures quality stewardship
of environmental resources, and that
functions as an effecive, secure, and
stable energy system.
'~oHV
'A06'04ep!'ao~aliogeleS!l Ol I!ew-a
ue puas JO ~f66v-LSl (SOL) le sa)Jnosalj
Á6JaU3 10 a)!JO 04epl a4l 10 aiiog ei eS!1
lie) ~A06'04ep!,Á6Jaua'MMM le I
al!s qaM V3S1 a4l l!SIA aseaid 'aJOW UJeal
Ol JO uollsa66ns e a~ew Ol lueM noÁ 1
jlndUI ..OAlUUM aM
S"ecuring
Idaho's
Energy Future
..
MJ\~~ ¡,O.2-
ûi~ fÙ. i \t -t.. ~ 'b
Where We Stand
Around the globe, individuals,
governments and corporations are
wrestling with a fundamental challenge
- how to meet future energy needs in ways that
are affordable, sustainable and secure. We must
prepare now to meet this challenge, to minimize
the economic impacts and to capitalize on the
opportunities this challenge wil create.
Idahoans understand that our state and
our nation are facing an uncertain and
constrained energy fuure. The situation
is particularly challenging in Idaho.
For example:
. None of the oil, natural gas, and coal we use
is produced in Idaho. These three fuels are
used to meet more than two-thirds of our
energy demand
. Idahoans have long enjoyed low elecricit
rates due to Idaho's abundant hydropower
resources, but electrical demand in Idaho
now far exceeds our in-state supply
. Today only about half of the electricit we use
in Idaho is produced in Idaho. The other half
comes from out of state, much of it from large
coal-fired plants. in'neighboring states
. Idaho is growing rapidly and with that
growth wil come continued increase
demand for transportation fuel, heating
fuel and electricity; according to the
U.s. Census Bureau, Idaho's population
wil grow 52 percent from 2000 to 2030,
boosting the state's population to nearly
2 milion by 2030
. Meeting this growth in demand wil
require smarter use of energy, but
conservation alone is not going to be
enough; we also need investment in new
energy production and transmission.
Where We Need to Go
Three major external forces necessarily
influence the direction we take in shaping
Idaho's energy future: the immediate need to
become less dependent upon foreign sources
of energy, the significant ecological strains of
rapidly developing economies, such as China
and India, and the impacts of climate change
on our planet.
Idaho doesn't have much in the way of
traditional fossil energy reserves to draw
upon in meeting our fuure energy needs, but
we do have clean energy resources such as
hydropower, wind, solar power and geothermal
energy that can be used to reduce fossil fuel
consumption if adequate transmission exists to
get this energy to market. Idaho also has fertile
crop lands and forests that can be used to grow
renewable fuels with manageable impact on
prices and land use. And finally, Idaho has an
energy research, education and technology base
that can help turn our clean energy resources
into clean energy jobs.
Idaho's abundant hydropower resources
keep the average reidential retail
price of electricity low (6.21 to 7.5
cents per kilowatt hour compared to
up to 23.35 cents nationally).
Source: Engy Information Administratio
Developing a
Plan to Get There
We must chart a course for meeting Idaho's
fuure energy needs in a way that protects
our energy consumers, our economy, and
our environment.
The Idaho Strategic Energy Allance was formed
to help Idaho address the challenges and
capitalize on the opportunities presented by our
current energy situation.
The ISEA has established a number of task forces
to generate energy options for the state to act
upon. Based on the work of the task forces, the
ISEA has determined that its initial efforts will
be directed toward increased energy effciency
and making better use of the renewable energy
resource potential within the state.
The ISEA has also established task forces
to evaluate and prepare for other critical
energy issues we wil face, including
Economic Development, Transmission
and Carbon Management.
Meeting the energy needs of Idaho, the nation
and the globe is a daunting challenge but is
also a tremendous economic opportunit.
Building a clean energy economy in Idaho wil
bring signifcant opportunities for economic
development.
Idaho's Electidty
2500
21
!i: 15O
l
08-50S4
En
e
r
g
y

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
s
s
u
e
s
17
t
h

A
n
n
u
a
l

I
d
a
h
o

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

S
u
r
v
e
y
De
s
i
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

P
o
w
e
r

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

-

S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
Wi
n
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
59
.
0
%

1
3
.
6
%

3
.

3
.
8
~
0.
8
%
So
l
a
r

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
-
51
.
5
%

1
5
.
8
%

3
.

5
.
0
i
0.
8
%
Hy
d
r
o
-
p
o
w
e
r

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
41
.
0
%

1
9
.
0
°
/
Ó

6
.
5
%

I
1.
4
%
Ge
o
-
t
h
e
r
m
a
l

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
31
.
4
%

2
0
.
4
°
/
Ó

5
.
7
.
7.
1
%
lI
a
S
S
f
u
l
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
_

3
1
.
1
%

_
3
.
8
%
Na
t
u
r
a
l

ga
s
-
l
i
d

ge
n
e
r
a
l
i

_

3
7
.
9
%

_

3
.
5
%
Nu
l
e
a
r

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
21
.
7
%

1
4
.
1
°
,
4

3
6
.
0
%

I
2.
8
%
Co
l
.
f
i
r
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
5.
3
%

1
7
.
1
%

4
3
.
2
%

I
2.
7
%
Oi
l
-
f
i
r
e
d

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
4.
6
%

-
9
°
/
Ó

1
9
.
4
°
/
Ó

3
6
.
1
%
.
4.
2
%
Mo
s
t

D
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
Le
a
s
t

D
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
1
5

1

4

0

3

1

2

1
1

0

D
o
n
'
t

k
n
o
w
l
R
e
f
u
s
e
d
N=
5
3
4
BO
I
S
E
+
S
J
A
J
E
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
.4
~
~
3
'~
.
_
l
6
f
'
Z

_
-
'
~
~
"
.

I

Q
(
-
&
(
J
£
P
En
e
r
g
y

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
s
s
u
e
s
17
t
h

A
n
n
u
a
l

I
d
a
h
o

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

S
u
r
e
y
Do

y
o
u

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

p
a
y
i
n
g

a

s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y

h
i
g
h
e
r

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

r
a
t
e

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

s
m
a
l
l

r
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e

p
o
w
e
r

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
s
u
c
h

a
s

w
i
n
d
)

i
n
Id
a
h
o
?

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t

2
1
.
1
%
Su
p
p
o
r
t
40
.
9
%
Op
p
o
s
e
15
.
4
%
Do
n
'
t

k
n
o
w
l
Re
f
u
s
e
d

1
.
0
o
/
ò
St
r
o
n
g
l
y
op
p
o
s
e

7
.
1
%
Ne
i
t
h
e
r

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

o
f
op
p
o
s
e
14
.
5
%
N=
5
3
4
BO
I
S
E
+
S
T
A
l
E
u
I
I

I

V

E

R

S
I
T

_

Y

1
,
_

3
A-
\
c
.
~
Q~

L
o
f
z
ex

f
J
.

I
t
e
-
(
-
c
f
Z
c
.
.
.. '."
,.."'d.
...-....-
"f,
~. .