20130204Comments (11 Total).pdf

Jean Jewell
From: secretary
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comments for IPC-E-12-27
From: Julia and Ron GarrettFSMTP:JULlARONGARRETTäMSN.CQMJ
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 5:17:53 PM
To: secretary
Cc: Julia and Ron Garrett
Subject: Comments for IPC-E-12-27
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Case No. IPC-E-12-27
Name Ron Garrett
Address 5110 S. Latigo Drive
City Boise
State Idaho
Zip 83709
Phone Number 208-794-6159
Email Address juliarongarrethmsn .com
Name of utility Idaho Power
Acknowledged per Comment Form for the Commission
I started installing a 3kw PV system in November. I had reached 80% completion by Dec.5, 2012
when I received a notice from Idaho power stating that I basically was wasting my time and
money(lots of time and money)if they get their proposal passed by the IPUC. Just the one item to
increase my monthly fees by 400+% will kill any chance for me to ever recover my investment. I
retired because of the economy failing and the stagnant recovery. I used a big portion of my
retirement funds to install this system for two reasons. First was to help with my power bills through
my retirement years and also to be a better steward of the environment.
One of the other issues with Mr. Larkin's comments about having to pass on the costs of the 354
net meter customers to the customers that are not is totally false and a LIE. I paid a $100.00
application fee up front to Idaho Power. I finished the project and IP changed the meter on
Dec.24th. They spent less than one hour at my site to inspect the operation of my inverter and to
swap out the meter. (The meter is the same as anyone else's but is programmed to register in or out
for net metering) The $100 bucks should have covered that and then some. They(Idaho Power)have
"0" zero dollars invested in my PV system and have zero costs to pass on to other customers. My
subdivision was built in 1974. Any infrastructure costs have been paid back many times over by now.
If there would have been any further infrastructure cost I would have had to pay them, not Idaho
Power. Mr. Larkin has failed to tell the public that and many other things that he has conveniently left
out. He was right up front with the expansion numbers(Patting self on back) that are the only thing
about there proposal that makes any sense at all.
If this proposal is even considered by the PUC there needs to be a public hearing. I have some
good questions for Mr. Larkin.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ron Garrett
Ron Garrett [phone]
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 9:30 AM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Net Metering
From: Leslie Manookian [mailto: neiIandleslieme.com ]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 11:23 AM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: Net Metering
Dear Ms. Jewell,
I attempted to submit my comments via the web but kept getting a failure message so here are my
comments in an email.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Leslie Manookain
State your comment or ask your question:
[Submit Comment]
Dear IPUC,
I am writing regarding the suggested changes to net metering. These changes are plain wrong headed. Unless
the intent of these proposed changes is to kill or strongly discourage citizens from investing in clean sources of
energy, then they make no sense. I don't doubt that IPC does want to do away with individuals getting off the
grid or benefitting from producing their own energy but as a corporation granted a monopoly, that is too bad
and it is your job to make sure that what IPC does is fair to all.
IPC should be paying energy generators a market rate for the energy they produce whether they be small
individual producers or larger producers. They need to pay this on a regular basis, not wipe it away at year end.
They need to be in the business of helping clean up our air and environment and working with the citizens of
Idaho, not against them. There is no way that this can be interpreted as good for Idahoans and the net metering
suggestions should be rejected.
IPC should also not be permitted to change the terms on agreements of this nature retroactively where citizens
have invested private funds on the basis of expected rates, return on investments, and other terms.
Thank you for your time.
Jean Jewell
From: secretary
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Comment on Case IPC-E-12-27
From: Steve White[SMTP:STEVEBERKELEYINC.COM1
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:46:15 AM
To: secretary
Subject: Comment on Case IPC-E-12-27
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Hi,
I'm submitting this to you by email as your online submission option hasn't been working since Saturday. I acknowledge
that this submission is a matter of public record.
In my comment submitted 2/2/13, I urged adoption of a policy to protect the rights of net metering customers--as Idaho
is one of only seven states not to have such a policy. In the interim while we wait on such a policy to be enacted by the
legislature, it is the responsibility of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to protect those rights.
One argument put forth by Idaho Power in this rate case is that this would shift fixed costs somehow equitably to net
metering customers (an argument that is absolutely wrongheaded). In this same case, they ask that credits that the net
metering customers build up during the course of a year expire at the end of the year. This is analogous to a person
saving money in a bank account for later use; for a bank to suggest that it would take away the money at the end of each
year would have bank regulators threatening to shut it down. I find it highly ironic that Idaho Power uses some false
notion of "equity," to ladle up extra costs on net metering customers, while not noticing the gross inequity of taking
kilowatt hour credits away at year end without just compensation.
Let's examine the notion that net metering customers are not paying their "fair share," of fixed costs of the transmission
and distribution network. The fact that net metering customers are paying the same base charge of $5/month as
regular customers is somehow insufficient in the company's position. Idaho Power suggests that the fixed costs of
maintaining the grid for net metering customers are higher. This makes no sense whatsoever. A net metering customer
is drawing less power from the grid in general, and most critically during times of peak demand--that customer is at least
reducing his/her net power needs, or even putting power back on the grid--in either case, that customer is less of a
burden on the grid than a regular customer.
Consider what's happening to the power during times where the net metering customer is producing more than he/she
is consuming, and power is flowing back onto the grid. Electrons flow in the path of least resistance; thus, that power
would flow over to a neighbor's home that was drawing power from the grid at that time. The burden on the grid is
exceptionally low--measured in feet, not the miles that a regular customer would be drawing power from a generating
plant.
In summary, it seems much more logical that net metering customers should pay a lower fixed fee than regular
customers given their lower burden on the grid, versus the higher charge that Idaho Power speciously suggests.
Distributed generation that net metering customers provide makes the grid stronger, lowering line losses while also
lowering the chance that Idaho Power will have to buy power from other utilities during the peak load season. Net
metering customers should be rewarded for providing those benefits of distributed generation to the grid--at a
minimum, they should not be penalized, like this rate case tries to do from multiple angles.
This email may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and
obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than an
intended recipient is unauthorized. Ifyou received this email in error, please advise our office ('by return
email or otherwise,) immediately.
Jean Jewell
From: suebow©adelphia.net
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:20 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Sue Bowser follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Sue Bowser
Address: 2203 E Lakeside Av
City: Coeur d Alene
State: Idaho
Zip: 83814
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: suebow(@adelphia.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Power needs to encourage solar power not disable it through exorbitant monthly charges
and useless credits!
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 76.178.179.118
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 9:12 AM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Consumer Assistance Form, Possible comment for IPC-E-12-27
Original Message-----
From: ransomd(@q.com [rnailto: ransomdq . corn]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:29 AM
To: Front; Beverly Barker
Subject: Consumer Assistance Form
Consumer Assistance Form submitted by david ransom follows:
Name: david ransom
Contact E-Mail: ransomdg.com
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Home Address: 3525 s. norfolk way
City: boise
State: Id
Zipcode: 83706
If this concerns a Business, Business Name: ransom rentals Business Address:
way Business Phone: [phone] Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Have you
utility regarding your concern?: No
Please describe your question or complaint briefly:
3525 s. norfolk
contacted the
Please keep the metering system as it is in the current wording. Especially important for
solar power success is the buy back system for electricity and the affordability of solar
power.
David Ransom
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/``cons/`€€cons.html
IP address is 65.129.67.249
cons
2
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:52 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Jay Brahe follows:
Case Number: IFC-E-R-27
Name: Jay Brahe
Address:
City: boise
State: Id
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: 1aybraheme.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I will vigorously will work to voice opposition to this change. This thinking is not long
term and not a good strategy for long term energy consumption for individuals, our state, or
our country.
There is no question that public utilities will need to adjust their business model to adapt
to new and more efficient energy technology. The buy back program was in line with this
attitude. I'm disappointed that the Commission felt compelled to capitulate to short term
interests.
Sincerely,
Jay Brahe
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 75.174.57.47
3
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 1:38 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Steven Benner follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Steven Benner
Address:
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83706
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: sdbennerl (@cableone.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Company
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
This proposal seeks to solve a problem that doesn't exist and will seriously dampen the
momentum that the renewable energy movement has developed in Idaho. Idaho Power is sending
the message to the rest of the country, no solar, no wind, no renewables in Idaho. This is
a bad idea. In Idaho Power's letter they state: some net metering customers will pay more,
some will pay less. Did they ever demonstrate a scenario where a customer would pay less?
There is none.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 24.117.71.247
Jean Jewell
From: steve©berkeleyinc.com
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:20 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUG Comment Form
A Comment from Stephen White follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Stephen White
Address: 1518 Knights Dr
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83712
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: steve (@berkeleyinc.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
In my finance career, I have seen proposals with unsupported or overly aggressive
assumptions, but this rate case--a blatant effort to penalize net metering customers
certainly ranks as the most egregious.
Customers who use less of a commodity should pay less. That's the way it works in business.
If I decide to economize on flour purchases at the grocery store, I'm not asked to pay a
higher fixed fee when I shop there in the future. The grocery store also has fixed costs, but
it doesn't try to allocate a higher share of those costs to one or two groups of customers.
Net metering customers use less power from the electrical grid because they made an
investment so they could be more independent and produce most of their own energy. They
should not be penalized for being less of a burden on the grid; indeed, if anything, they
should be encouraged to do so.
Every time a net metering customer ties into the grid, it reduces the need for:
(1)Idaho Power to buy expensive power off the regional grid at high prices;
(2)expensive transmission lines like the one Idaho Power is proposing to build from Boardman
to Hemingway; and
(3)investment in additional capital plant, whether it be scrubbers for coal-fired generation
in neighboring states or natural gas fired generation.
Every time a net metered customer ties into the grid, it is good for all electrical
customers--period. All customers win as more net metered customers come onto the grid.
Idaho is one of only seven states which does not have a policy in place that protects net
metering customers from abusive practices like this proposal. We need to put a policy in
place immediately so that Idaho Power is sent a clear, strong message that no longer will
this type of activity be tolerated.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.htrnl
IP address is 209.151.52.193
5
Jean Jewell
From: millrjane 2003yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:56 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Dwight Miller follows:
Case Number:
Name: Dwight Miller
Address: 234 Saddle Ridge Road
City: White Bird
State: Idaho
Zip: 83554
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: millrjane 2003(vahoo.com Name of Utility Company: Idaho county Light&Power
Co-op
Acknowledge:
Please describe your comment briefly:
I have been seriously considering going solar for years now. The only drawback has been
finding qualified people to haelp with out getting ripped off. Ther has been more times that
I have lost power for hours and or minutes during the winter and especially in the summer.
Definitely not very reliable,especiaaly when you have timers to help feed livestock.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 170.215.65.43
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:26 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Amy Burkholder follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-27
Name: Amy Burkholder
Address: 20 Burks Lane
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83716
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: [e-mail]
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power Company
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I support solar energy in Idaho. Please deny Idaho Power's attempt to 'stick it to' those
using and wanting to use solar power.
Please check out Germany for a country that has made great strides using solar energy.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/€€€`ipuci/ipuc.html
IP address is 75.167.178.172
7
Jean Jewell
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:05 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC Comment Form
A Comment from John Meagher follows:
Case Number: IPC -E-12-27
Name: John Meagher
Address:
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: imeagher(spro.net
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I have considered installing solar panels on my soon to be paid off home in Boise and the
net metering issue, if Idaho Power prevails would or could be a deal breaker.
Admittedly, I'm on the green side of things and have owned a solar water heater during the
Carter Admin in an all electric home in Boise. It functioned and lasted much longer than the
life expectancy of the unit. I as truly impressed as to the reduction of cost and kilowatts
used to heat water for household use. Solar works.
Please send the message to investor held Idaho Power, your greed is duly noted, leave the
little guy alone and stand by the existing system in place presently.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 206.207.104.220
1