20110209Comments.pdf

iab 09
2011 8:31AM
I
HP LASERJET FAX page 1-------
daho PUblic Utilties CommisSion
:rfc.-£ -IO-il,
We ere one of the farmers thet have USed the Peak rewafis program. I feel Uke It has been ve
s cessfu We heve mede soe changes so that It Will ..orl for us, bul if the Irintl1 's reuce' think
th progrm wil lose its value. There Will be fanners thei ..lIlhínk It wil be to much of. hass. II
. I' hanged we might lose some.
to k a while to get some fermers on board end (f th incent ve IS C
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
secretary
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:40 PM
Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
FW: case #IPC-E-10-46
- ---------- - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
From: jflorence~citlink. net (SMTP : JFLORENCE~CITLINK .NET)
Sent: Tuesday, February e8, ie11 8: 38: e8 PM
To: secretary
Subject: case #IPC-E-1e-46
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Justin Florence
139 Heinrich Lane
McCall, 10 83638-Se91
February 8, ie11
Public Utilities Commissioners
PO Box 8372e
Boise, 10 837ie-ee74
Dear Public Utilities Commissioners:
I would like to comment on the Idaho Power Irrigation Peak Rewards Program, case number IPC-
E -le-46. I have been a participant in the program for i years. It added hardship and burden
to my operation and every year I evaluate whether it is worth it or not. It would not take
much of a reduction in the intensive for me to not participate in the program.
Sincerely,
Justin Florence
ie8-634-72e9
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dean~magicvalleyproduce.com
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:22 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from dean gibson follows:
---- - ---- - --- --- - --- - --- - - - - --- - - ---
Case Number: ..flt-c-/O-Ll(,
Name: dean gibson
Address:
City: paul
State: idaho
Zip: 83347
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: dea~magicvalleyproduce. com Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. 8372e Boise, Idaho 8372e-ee74
RE: IPCO irrigation Peak Rewards program change
Dear Commission:
My farm, with 3 meters on the IPCO Peak Rewards Program, has been enrolled since the Peak
Rewards Program' s inception several years ago. I have expended considerable effort and
modification of my electrical systems to accommodate their program. It is functioning better
after many modifications and the credits offered make the effort worthwhile. However, with
the proposed changes in the amount of credit offered I don i t think the program will be
worthwhile to participate in next year. Also the proposal by IP i to replace the program with
existing thermal resources or purchase power' further erodes the value of the program for
conservation purposes.
This program was devised by IP and instituted by them after careful consideration; therefore
they should have to operate the program. They must have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars equipping systems with devises and developing software to run the system and all this
expense born by the rate payer and now it will be diminished or lost altogether. I object to
any substantial changes like those being proposed.
Sincerely yours,
Dean Gibson
Circle G Farms, Inc.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 216.83.68.141--- - - - - ------ -- - - - --- ----- - --- - --- --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
calzola~earthlink.net
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:48 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from South Elmore Irrigation Co., Inc. follows:
- - ----------- - ---- - - - - - ---- - - --- - - --
Case Number: IPC-E-1e-46
Name: South Elmore Irrigation Co., Inc.
Address:
City: Mountain Home
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: calzola~earthlink.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Dear Public Utilities Commissioners:
The peak rewards program has been a benefit by helping offset the increasing costs of our
irrigation pumping costs.
We would like to see the program stay at the previous levels or at least increase the fixed
payment incentive.
We have made significant changes to participate in the peak rewards program, contributing to
decreases in the summer peak loads and reducing the risk of Idaho Power having brown outs
and/or requiring additional gas peaker plants to be built.
If the proposed changes are approved it may reduce the percentage of participants which in
turn will result in higher power rates for everyone.
Sincerely,
Terry Ketterling
& Jack Post
South Elmore Irrigation Co., Inc.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 75.167.185 .1ei
--- - -- - -- ---- -- - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - -- --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dallasw~wadafarms.com
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:55 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from DALLAS WARD follows:
Case Number: :£P(.-£-IO -t.tø
Name: DALLAS WARD
Address:
City: PINGREE
State: IDAHO
Zip: 83262
Daytime Telephone: 2e8-6S6-7227
Contact E-Mail: dallasw&wadafarms.com
Name of Utility Company: IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
To the commissioners of the IPUC:
This letter is to let you know that we are dismayed to hear that Idaho Power is
requesting a reduction in the incentive per KW for the participants in the Peak Rewards
program. We have seen significant savings in our pumping cost for those pumps that we have
enrolled in this program. We believe that it is a much wiser use of resources to pay
customers to shut off irrigations pumps during the peak summer hours than it is to build new
power plants and transmission lines or purchase power from other providers to meet peak
demand.
The advantages appear obvious to us. We can save up to 25% of the costs of pumping for
those pumps that are enrolled, while at the same time we protect our natural resources from
further development and the money saved by us stays in the great State of Idaho and helps in
the economy grow, rather than being a paid to another out of state power provider.
We would also like to point out that we have experienced here in South Eastern Idaho
two consecutive summers of below normal temperatures. Hopefully when we return to unormal"
summer weather patterns IPCO will realize the expected benefits of continuing this program in
its current form.
We hope that as commissioners of the IPUC you will deny IPCO's request for any changes
in this program.
Best Regards,
Dallas Ward
Dallas Ward
CFO
Wada Farms
326 South 148e West
Pingree, Idaho 83262
2e8-684-9881
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc. html
IP address is 63. 23e .118 .le9
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dirk. ~driscollenterprise.com
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:24 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Dirk Driscoll follows:
---- -- - -- --- - --- - ---- - - -- - - - -- - - - - --
Case Number: :Ic-£-ro -'Iv
Name: Dirk Driscoll
Address: 3344 W 22ee S
Ci ty: Aberdeen
State: Idaho
Zip: 8321e
Daytime Telephone: 2e8-7eS-814e
Contact E-Mail: dirk.~driscollenterprise.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
We (Driscoll Brothers) feel very strongly that the Idaho Power Peak Rewards Program be
continued. We have planned on it this year as it has worked very well the past few years for
both our pivot and wheel line irrigation mangement on our crops to keep them irrigated
efficiently and also allow a financial help to our farms with the credits received. We
encourage all involved to look closely at the benenfit this is to all concerned and have it
continued as we feel it is a 'win-win' situation for everyone! We have already budgeted with
our bank an estimated credit back to our farms that reduces the power costs to us that is
significant similar to the past few years. To lose that, or have it reduced very much will
continue to impact us where in we are already see our other costs to produce our crops
continue to rise significantly.
Sincerely, Dirk Driscoll
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 67.215.46 .1e
-- ------ --- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
tlket~starband. net
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9: 13 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Terry 1. Ketterling follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-1e-46
Name: Terry 1. Ketterling
Address: 475 E 16th N
City: Mountain Home
State: Idaho
Zip: 83647
Daytime Telephone: 2e8 599 ieie
Contact E-Mail: tlket~starband.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power company
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Respectfully to the Public Utilities Commission
As consumer of electric power for production agriculture I am concerned about proposed
changes to the Peak Rewards program that has been used for the last couple of years. After
analysis we as a canal company (South Elmore Irrigation Company, Clover Hollow LLC, and TLK
Farms Inc) have made significant investment to equipment and management to be able to
participate. The time effort and financial resources necessary to participate do not include
the possible effects on yield reduction or extra labor expenses, however as a means in doing
our part to curb increase in power rates we fel t it necessary to make every effort to
participate. The proposed changes may not allow us to use this conservation method to help
not only the utility but may not make financial sense for our participation. We as farmer
know full well the importance of the conservation methods and plans for efficiency. We would
hope that the program would not have significant changes and continue similar to last year.
New power generating assets without conservation are sure to raise all power rates and seems
not in the best interest of rate payers when these conservation method seem to be working
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely
Terry L Ketterling
On behalf of:
South Elmore Irrigation Company
Clover Hollow LLC
TLK Farms Inc
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 24.Se.2.129
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Iynn_tominaga~hotmail.com
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:06 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Lynn Tomminaga follows:
Case Number:.:t. -~ -10 -Lv
Name: Lynn Tomminaga
Address: P.O. Box 2624
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 837ei
Daytime Telephone: 2e8. 381. Ø294
Contact E-Mail: lynn_tominaga~hotmail.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Company
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
February 9, 2eii
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 8372e
472 W. Washington
Boise, 10 837e2
Re: Comments on Idaho Peak Rewards Program
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, I would like to submit the following
comments with respect to Idaho Power Company's (IPCO) proposed changes to its Irrigation Load
Control Program:
The changes IPCO initiated two years ago resulted in an innovative, flexible, and mutually-
beneficial Irrigation Load Control Program. This demand side management program allowed the
company to address its peak load requirements, offered individual participants an opportunity
to reduce their electricity costs, benefited the irrigation class by lowering its overall
cost of service, and benefited all ratepayers by not burdening them unduly with the cost of
building or buying more expensive electrical resources.
It is unfortunate that the past two years have been characterized by cooler, wetter weather
than had been experienced in the years leading up to the program's inception. Had the
weather patterns been different, we believe the value of this program to the company would be
substantially different.
A successful program must be cost-effective for the company, but IIPA had asked to delay
building Langley Gulch because we did not believe that resource would not have been needed
for four or five years or more. In fact, IIPA believed that the Peak Rewards program could
have gained 4ee-seø Mwh or more of demand side management (DSM) if the company would just
allow more irrigators to see the long term benefits of the program. In fact in April 2eie,
IPCO did not allow se-6e irrigators to sign up past the April 1st deadline. IPCO cited the
April 1st deadline so it could get participants in the program for the year, but in reality,
IPCO was realizing it had a very successful program and wanted to limit the participation.
1
IPCO could have taken those individuals names and had them be part of the 2e11 Peak Rewards
Program. In reducing the program's payments, it will limit participation and discourage
irrigators from signing up because the incentives will not cover the additional costs of
labor or management of the irrigation systems.
IPCO has also expressed concerns that relying on the program more heavily will place undue
hardship on the irrigators, possibly resulting in crop or yield losses, and reducing
participation. If participation is reduced, the company is at risk in reducing its peak
requirements during critical summer peak load. Irrigators appreciate the flexibility of the
"opt out" provision to address that concern. IIPA believes that there is an opportunity for
greater participation among irrigators, this opportunity spreads risk among a greater number
of irrigators and reduce irrigators "cost of service" which would enable this rate class to
stop taking the brunt of increased electrical rates when expansion and growth occur on the
system.
IIPA's concern about the program is that IPCO will use this program as a "resource of last
resort" or an insurance policy. The result of such an action would be to reduce the benefits
to individual irrigators and probably would lead to reduced participation. In the
conversations we have had with irrigators, none would object to the company using the program
more often. Their attitude is that IPCO bought and paid for a resource that they have chosen
not to fully use.
Another concern is the lack of information regarding the proposed changes. Because IPCO and
IIPA have been involved in negotiation, there has not been sufficient time to communicate to
irrigators the potential impact of the proposed changes. Again, in discussions with
irrigators, IIPA is hearing that some irrigators have already built their incentive into
operating budgets for the coming year. Should the company implement the proposed changes and
should the company use the program as insurance only, those irrigators will probably not
accrue sufficient financial benefit to continue their participation, making the company's
concern that it cannot rely on irrigator's participation a sel f -fulfilling reality.
IIPA has concerns that the administrative costs paid to IPCO and the installation of radio
controlled devices has cost rate payers millions of dollars. Will this be wasted if the
program is not utilized to its best potential? If participation from the irrigation
community diminishes because of IPCO short sidedness and not allowing the program to mature
to its potential it seems a wasted of resources for both IIPA members and IPCO.
This has been a successful program, a program that has not been fully tested, and one that
has some longevity for the company. IIPA agrees that the program must be cost-effective but
it must be allowed to mature and continue. IIPA believes that it can be useful if IPCO will
only use it more frequently to reduce its overall peak.
IIPA would like to thank the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for this opportunity to
comment on this important program to the irrigation rate class and its many farm families who
depend on the program.
Sincerely yours,
Lynn Tominaga
Executive Director
The form submitted on http://ww . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipucl/ipuc. html
IP address is 24.117.153.184
2