20130102Comment1.pdf

Jean Jewell
From: js_weber©hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:21 AM
To: Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
Subject: PUG Comment Form
A Comment from John Weber follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-12-29
Name: John Weber
Address:
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: is weber(hotmail.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Power has spent decades building the trust of their shareholders, employees,
ratepayers, and regulators. Within the last 2 years the company has made an about face and
lost the trust of their shareholders, employees, ratepayers, and regulators. This case is
regarding trust as well.
Over many years with many employee hours and millions of dollars, ratepayers were told that
by participating in DSM programs besides getting a small benefit, they would be helping the
greater good. They were told these programs were very important to reduce costs for all
ratepayers and help the reliability of the electrical grid. They encouraged participants to
spread the word to their family, friends, and others about the programs and how good they
were.
Idaho Power now wants to suspend the programs! Participants trusted Idaho Power and adopted
DSM as part of their lives. This trust will be lost if the programs are suspended. How long
will it take for participants to regain trust, if ever? How many participants will drop out
and never return? (For the AC cool credit program if 14% is the normal drop out rate (Theresa
Drake pages 14 - 16), 15% is too low of a number to use to estimate the drop out rate if the
program is suspended. If the drop out rate doubles, which is very possible, the cost of
suspending the program for one year will be greater than running the program as it was
designed. How much employee time and money will be needed to restart the programs if they are
suspended and reactivated in the future?
This case seems very short sighted. The Langley Gulch gas plant would not have been needed
last summer if the DSM programs were used. It seems Idaho Power is trying to justify the
building of the gas plant by trying to shut down PURPA and other renewable energy projects,
net-metering, and now suspending DSM programs. The ratepayers had the biggest rate increase
in a very long time this summer to pay for the gas plant. During the PUC hearing for the
approval of the gas plant, there was much debate regarding its need. With hind sight, it
would not have been built or the building would have been postponed.
The 2013 IRP should include existing and planned DSM but it has not. (Mark Stokes page 8
"Typically, peak-hour load reduction from existing and new demand response programs is also
accounted for in the load and resource balance." Why not this year? DSM resources should be
used before natural gas peaking plants or high priced purchased power.
It is true the IRPAC includes "major stakeholders" but it does not represent the majority of
stakeholders (Mark Stokes page 4). True the public has a chance to be involved but as one of
the people on the IRPAC stated in 2012 "Idaho Power tells the IRPAC what they want, they
listen to the council, and then they do what they want".
Stokes (page 7) admits that the Shoshone Falls upgrade will do little to address Peak
capacity. If this is true and non-peak generation is not needed, then in the ratepayers favor
the Shoshone Falls upgrades are not needed and if completed no rate of return should be
approved for Idaho Power.
I respectfully request a public hearing.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 69.80.36.75
2