20130124Comments (3 Total).pdf

Jean Jewell
From: mnimageschotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:18 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Ron Marquart follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Ron Marquart
Address: 3300 E. Red Stone Dr.
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83712
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: mnimages(@hotmail.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
According to case # IPC-E-12-27, Idaho Power wants to increase charges on residents who
have renewable energy installations (le. Solar Power) for their homes. A monthly service
charge increase from $5 to $20.92, and a basic load charge increase of 1.48 cents per kWh for
residents with renewable energy installations is being proposed. And, Idaho Power does not
want a public hearing to boot on its Modified Procedure!
These high increases on top of the already high up front cost to install renewable
energy sources will discourage citizens from supporting renewable energy. America needs to
encourage, not discourage, renewable energy. Hydro-dams have limited life spans and fracked
natural gas for power generation is a limited resource. We need long-term thinking on this
issue—not short-term thinking! I am making a strong request to the Public Utilities
Commission to deny this rate charge increase.
Ron Marquart
3300 E. Red Stone Dr.
Boise, Idaho 83712
Phone: [phone]
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/iuc1/ipuc.htrnl
IP address is 65.129.112.251
1
Jean Jewell
From: swk3filertel.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:19 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from steve kohntopp follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: steve kohntopp
Address:
City: Filer
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: swk3(filertel.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
To: PUC Commissioners:
I am recommending that Idaho Power's request to modify their Net Metering Service be
denied. It has been apparent Idaho Power has been against almost all forms of alternative
energy since PURPA was initiated by the federal government. In some areas their resistance
has been justified, but in attempting to modify their administration of Net Metering Idaho
Power has gone too far. According to Idaho Power there are about 350 Net Metering customers
that they want to penalize for generating more electrical energy than they consume in a year.
These Idaho Power customers were initially encouraged to invest substantial dollars into
alternative generation equipment like solar panels and wind turbines in the hope of
offsetting their personal high power costs and paying for their investment. If their
generation exceeded their consumption in a given year that was even better. Why didn't Idaho
Power object to this accepted practice at that time? Idaho Power's website says, 'The Net
Metering program helps to promote the use of renewable energy and reduce electric demand on
the electric system. Net Metering is part of a suite of options offered to customers to
promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.' As Idaho Power likes to say these types of
alternative energy sources are not reliable in generating a steady supply of electricity, not
unlike Idaho Power's generation of hyro power, even with minimum stream flow agreements, in
drought years. These small power generating producers and customers of Idaho Power are
limited to a maximum 25 Kw system for net metering and they do not know from year-to-year how
many dollars their costly investment will return to them. Now Idaho Power wants to take a
socialist approach to consfiscate the value of any surplus energy that may be generated and
place it into their coffers without having to pay anything for the extra power that their
customers generated. I did not hear Idaho Power saying they would send out a rebate check to
all of their customers including the Net Metering customers for this free energy windfall. It
obviously will be entered in their profit margin to ameliorate the value of their stock on
the exchange. Idaho Power is trying to renege on their original agreement after the Net
Metering customers have already invested their hard earned dollars in an attempt to become
energy self sufficient. It is inherently wrong that Idaho Power now wants whine and complain
to the PUC to correct this issue by using the excuse that it is unfair to their customers. If
the PUC sides with Idaho Power, Idaho Power should be required to reimburse their Net
Metering customers whose risk venture capital was spent in hopes of a fair return. As a
monopoly power utility company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange and is investing
heavily in building new power lines from Wyoming to bring into Idaho electricity generated
from their own coal fired plants cannot convince me that they do not need to buy or generate
1
more electricity. As an Idaho Power customer I would rather pay for Idaho generated
electricity. Their request smells of greed and a desire to eliminate any competition, even
from their own Net Metering customers. I urge the Idaho PUC to deny Idaho Powers request.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.htm].
IP address is 208.98.149.198
2
Jean Jewell
From: idpv©ida.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:52 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Charles Woodward follows:
Case Number: unknown
Name: Charles Woodward
Address: P0 Box 91
City: Victor
State: Idaho
Zip: 83455
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: idpv(ida.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Natural Resource Co. 208-787-2495
P.O. Box 91 Idaho Reg. Contractor # RCT-7134
Victor, Id. 83455
E Mail: idpvlida.net www.naturalresourceidaho.com
1/18/13
Dear Idaho PUC,
I recently heard on the news that Idaho Power is taking steps to increase its' "base rate"
charged to homeowners who use renewable energy sources to help power their homes by
$10 per month.
I am a solar contractor, and would like to comment about whether this is an acceptable
idea or not.
First, the number of people in Idaho currently using RE technology is still very small,
especially when compared with more progressive states ( who offer significant incentives) on
the coasts. We have a small RE installation industry, tiny by comparison to other states,
and it needs to grow and can provide more jobs and energy going forward. Also, Idaho
customers are know to be "so tight they squeek", and need to see encouraged to adopt new
technology. Most systems here are much smaller than in more prosperous states.
Locally, at $.072/ KwHr , the $10 monthly charge would mean that anyone with an array of
less than 1000 watts would lose money on their solar system. Someone with a 2000W array would
see their pay-back time double; only those who own really large arrays would not be harmed
economically.
As a nation, we need to produce more renewable energy. As a state with lots of hydro, plus
untapped wind and solar potential, we need to do more to move our energy production profile
towards renewables, not nip it in the bud.
In Germany, because of significant government incentives, they now have about 52% of their
electricity produced by renewables. 51% of that RE power is produced by individuals,
farmers, and small businesses! Yes, this changes the utility's role in the power market—
and it is time for that role to evolve so we move toward sustainability. Consumers first
become producers on some or all of the power they need. Others move on to become large
producers.
1
Our utilities will need to build new thermal generating facilities to meet growth, at huge
expense, unless we can balance growth of consumption with growth of renewables—much of which
can be done by individuals and businesses, instead of by the utilities.
Any way you look at it, power costs will probably continue to rise—it becomes a matter of
having a rate structure which encourages Renewables and Conservation rather than burning more
coal and gas—and which encourages individuals to do more of the investment in energy
production and energy efficiency improvements.
From my point of view, increasing base rates for net metered-systems discourages the
growth of renewables use, discourages RE business growth, and is way premature, since
Idaho's RE industry is so tiny! Don't do it.
You should be looking at how rate structures should evolve over time to increase the use of
renewables and conservation , and how utilities must evolve over time to be good service
providers in a more sustainable world, with a more varied energy production base.
Sincerely,
Charles Woodward
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€€`ipuci/€€€`ipuc.html
IP address is 190.197.51.94
rj