20121206Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
From: chisholm3©mindspring.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:31 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Bill Chisholm, Idaho Energy Education Project follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Bill Chisholm, Idaho Energy Education Project
Address: 19073E Hwy 30
City: Buhl
State: Idaho
Zip: 83316
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: chisholm3mindspring.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Co.
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Power seems to forget that in exchange for a monopoly on electrical service in an area
of Idaho, they have a public interest requirement. Renewable energy is an important aspect
of the public interest and rather than trying to strangle its development Idaho Power should
be trying to encourage it. The Idaho Energy Education Project therefore wishes to go on
record as asking for a public hearing in this matter. It is too important an issue to come
under Modified Procedure.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 209.86.226.19
1
Jean Jewell
From: bluelightningflc©gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:09 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Greg Olson follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Greg Olson
Address: 8399 West Hill Road
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83714
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: bluelightningllc(gmail.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I wish to voice my displeasure in Idaho Power putting Idaho years behind our neighboring
states in electrical jobs and training. Do not be fooled by Idaho Power's argument that this
is more expensive electricity. This is a jobs and education issue. If we stop installing DC
electric systems that include battery backup common in the renewable industry, but also in
the computer, electric vehicle, airplane, and telecommunication industries we will have no
one in this state qualified to do these systems in the future. Large DC electric systems are
more common in ALL these industries and provide high paying jobs in engineering, design, and
parts for years to come. Weather you like solar or not this affects a broad spectrum of
skilled labor jobs. Idaho is already over 2 years behind our neighboring states due to the
legislature not passing DC electric code provisions until well after all our neighbors. We
need people trained in these systems and the market/customers need to be able to make a fair
decision on the installation of a renewable energy system with out a very large and
unwarranted cost bias being placed by a clearly old school interest in last centuries energy
sources tipping the scales. Vote NO on Idaho Powers request to raise net metering costs.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/
``
ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 75.92.134.188
1
Jean Jewell
From: laurie_kuntzchotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:33 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Laurie Kuntz follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Laurie Kuntz
Address:
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83713
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: laurie kuntzhotmail.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I am outraged over this latest proposal by Idaho Power to increase rates for net-metering
customers. I am the owner of a solar grid at my home and this rate increase would effectively
nullify the benefits that I currently get. I am helping Idaho Power by providing supplemental
power to their customers and reducing or postponing the need for Idaho Power to build new
infrastructure, and should not be punished for being a responsible citizen who cares about
the environment and is actually helping to alleviate Idaho Power's problem of increasing
demand for electricity.
Idaho Power's proposal would make it more expensive for consumers to have solar, rather than
encouraging people to invest in renewable energy. In many cases the net metered customer's
bill would be higher than if they generated no renewable power at all. This is ridiculous and
would make net-zero buildings impossible.
Please reject Idaho Power's proposal and organize a public hearing on this issue so that
Idaho Power cannot implement these new rules behind closed doors.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€ipuci/€ipuc.html
IP address is 97.121.47.112
1
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:31 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from John Weber follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: John Weber
Address:
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: is weber(hotmail.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Dear Staff and Commissioners,
In all my years of commenting on rate cases this has to be the least thoughtfully written
case. I believe it should be thrown out the window. I request a public hearing at the very
least should be required.
Here is an example of the impact using actual numbers on my own house:
Example for simplicity using 7 cents per kWh
House without net-metering
Annual use 1,361 kwhs (based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total= $95.27 Monthly
service charges $5. Annual total = $60.00 Total annual cost (not including cost adjustments,
efficiency fee, and franchise fees) = $155.27
Same house with net-metering (if Idaho Power was granted what they asked for) Annual use
1,361 kWhs (based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total= $95.27 Monthly service charges
$20.92. Annual total = $251.04 Monthly BLC (Basic Load Charge) per kW is $1.48. For example 1
kw is used = $17.76 Total annual charges = $364.07 Total annual production is 1,629 kWhs
(based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total = $114.03 Total annual cost (not including
cost adjustments, efficiency fee, and franchise fees) = $258.04
This example does not take into consideration the kWh credit that would be lost at the end of
the Dec. billing cycle. The actual total cost for the house with net-metering would be even
greater if that were taken into consideration. There is also the $180.00 that Idaho Power
charges to net-meter in the first place. In conclusion: the customer that made/makes an
investment in renewable energy that helps the state be more energy independent, creates Idaho
jobs, reduces the need for expensive new generation, transmission, and distribution would
have to pay a higher electric bill than a customer with the same usage that had made no
investment at all.
Thank you,
John weber
1
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:06 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Richard Sarasua follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Richard Sarasua
Address:
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: rsarasuavahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Homes that use renewable power sources and contribute power back to the grid should not be
punished, they should be encouraged.
The form submitted on httP://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/
`€`
ipuci/€`"
ipuc.html
IP address is 71.220.149.136
1
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:13 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Adam Waldron follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Adam Waldron
Address:
City: Pocatello
State: ID
Zip: 83201
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: [e-mail]
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I am adamantly opposed to the proposed rule changes except the request to increase the
cumulative nameplate capacity. I would also request that a public hearing be held rather
than the application be processed via Modified Procedure.
The press release and customer insert do not provide all the facts that the public and net
metering customers should have. The press release honestly seems misleading. I am
particularly concerned about the customer insert that will be mailed to existing and slated
net metering customers.
Nowhere in the customer insert does it clearly state or explain the new monthly meter or BLC
fees. The comparison of rate tables should be included with the customer insert, as well as
clear instructions on how to calculate what their payments for the previous year would have
been under the new rules.
If customers, renewable energy businesses, and the public clearly understood the impacts of
the proposed rule changes, I doubt they would remain docile in their responses.
The new rules particularly discourage small scale renewable energy projects by homeowners, as
the new fees would outweigh all the financial benefits. In fact customers would end up
paying more with a small wind or solar project, than without. The financial margins are
already minimal, the new rules would not only completely wipe out any gains, the scales would
actually be tipped in the other direction, in essence requiring the customer to pay for the
privilege of owning a grid-tied renewable energy system. A payback period would become
nonexistent.
As an example we can use the popular skystream wind turbines we see popping up in many
backyards across the state. The Skystream wind turbine is rated at 2.1 kW, and can be
expected to generate about 200kWh per month or $14.80 (using an annual average 7.4 cents per
kWh for tier 1 residential service). Under the new rules this system would incur a monthly
fee of $24 (including the avg. BLC charge for 2.1kw). To be fair we will subtract the $5
meter fee already being paid, which brings us to a monthly increase in fees of $19. You
would end up paying Idaho Power $4.20 more a month than if you did not have the wind turbine!
For those who have already invested in net metering systems, this is changing the rules
midgame. Such systems were installed based upon payback calculations and in many cases the
promise or hope of a zero dollar power bill. All those plans, promises and hopes are now
thrown out the window. Some customers will end up in a situation where they would be better
off without a renewable energy system, but they have already made the substantial investment.
1.
The expiration of kilowatt-hour credits in December is also disconcerting. The following
cold winter months of January, February and March are generally months of least production
for solar, and highest electrical consumption due to heating. So customers who have garnered
a large amount of credits during the high production summer months would not be able to use
those credits when needed most. Most net metering customers are obsessively energy efficient
in the hopes of attaining that zero dollar power bill or increasing the credit they receive
from the power company. The new rules discourage efficiency as the net metering customer
will lose all credits, and not receive financial offsets for fees and service charges. If
all kilowatt-hour credits expire in December customers are faced with a use it or lose it
scenario, and nobody likes to be on the losing side. Customers instinctively mitigate
potential losses by increasing consumption. These types of loss aversion scenarios have been
played out, proven and studied countless times. We end up with a scenario where rather than
contributing power to the grid, customers are drawing more from it. Solar installations
provide the additional benefit of providing the most energy during the mid-day, one of the
peak consumption periods, thus offsetting some peak demand from other customers.
The new rules make new net metering projects financially impractical and will put an end to
new net metering projects. This will not only impact homeowners, but will also be
detrimental to the nascent renewable energy industry and business owners who cater to the
needs and wishes of homeowners.
The filing speaks to trying to remedy a perceived inequity of the many customers supporting
the few. But is this not the case with the energy efficiency charge that everyone pays
monthly? Not everyone benefits directly from that fee, except for those that have the
opportunity or choose to participate in the programs. The public benefits of clean renewable
energy, conservation, jobs and economic development outweigh any perceived inequities.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 67.134.57.98
2
Jean Jewell
From: dlpkmbspro.net
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 6:13 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUG Comment Form
A Comment from Kevin Bayhouse follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Kevin Bayhouse
Address: 706 Opal St
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83705
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: dlpkmbspro.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Dear PUC,
I am closely familiar with a real life example of a local construct of a net-zero/solar home
and I know the former owner/builder (John Weber). If this new pricing structure were to be
implemented, it would make a mockery of ANY claims by the provider (Idaho Power) that they
are committed to clean/sustainable power generation. What good does it do to arbitrarily
raise prices on solar power (or other) in a billing structure?
John provided the numbers using his own billing history as an example of what would
happen -
Net-metering change and impact- Case IPC-E-12-27
Example for simplicity using 7 cents per kWh
House without net-metering
Annual use 1,361 kWhs (based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total= $95.27
Monthly service charges $5. Annual total = $60.00
Total annual cost (not including cost adjustments, efficiency fee, and franchise fees) =
$155.27
Same house with net-metering (if Idaho Power was granted what they asked for)
Annual use 1,361 kWhs (based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total= $95.27
1
Monthly service charges $20.92. Annual total = $251.04
Monthly BLC (Basic Load Charge) per kW is $1.48. For example 1 kW is used = $17.76
Total annual charges = $364.07
Total annual production is 1,629 kWhs (based on Sept. 2011 until Aug. 2012) Annual total
= $114.03
Total annual cost (not including cost adjustments, efficiency fee, and franchise fees) =
$250.04
This example is based on real numbers from my house. This example does not take into
consideration the kWh credit that would be lost at the end of the Dec. billing cycle. The
actual total cost for the house with net-metering would be even greater if that were taken
into consideration. There is also the $100.00 that Idaho Power charges to net-meter in the
first place. In conclusion: the customer that made/makes an investment in renewable
energy that helps the state be more energy independent, creates Idaho jobs, reduces the
need for expensive new generation, transmission, and distribution would have to pay a
higher electric bill than a customer with the same usage that had made no investment at
all.
So, what exactly is all of this extra charge for?
Most of us who look at energy policy can clearly see that fossil sources are heavily
subsidized in many ways. We also hear the hew and cries of the pro-fossil industries as
they point fingers at straw man examples like Solyndra (puhhlease) in order to categorically
eliminate clean energy from the pallet of choices. Please do not succumb to these vapid
charges and claims. Many of us WANT to be able to install alternatives when we get the
money and putting arbitrary barriers in front of us is just plain counterproductive.
Thank you,
Kevin Bayhouse
Boise
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/`ipuci/`€`€ipuc.html
IP address is 206.207.104.172
2
Jean Jewell
From: isaacl h©yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:44 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker;-Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from isaac hasselblad follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: isaac hasselbiad
Address: 3439 Shadow Hills Dr.
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83616
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: isaac1h(yahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: idaho power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
This proposal would make it not cost effective to build residential solar system. The Idaho
Public Utilities Commision should be encouraging it's residents toward solar and other
renewable sources. If we stop installing DC electric systems common in the renewable
industry, but also in the computer, electric vehicle, airplane, and telecommunication
industries we will have no one in this state qualified to do these systems in the future.
Large DC electric systems are more common in ALL these industries and provide high paying
jobs in engineering, design, and parts for years to come. Weather you like solar or not this
affects a broad spectrum of skilled labor jobs. Idaho is already over 2 years behind our
neighboring states due to the legislature not passing DC electric code provisions until well
after all our neighbors. We need people trained in these systems and the market/customers
need to be able to make a fair decision on the installation of a renewable energy system with
out a very large and unwarranted cost bias being placed by a clearly old school interest in
last centuries energy sources tipping the scales. PLEASE VOTE NO ON IPC-E-12-27
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/```ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.220.149.149
1