20130211Comment.pdf

Jean Jewell
From: Gene Fadness
Sent: Monday, February II, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Erik Jorgensen; Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: PUG's webpage consumer comments not working
Importance: High
From: Britt Ide [malito:brittide@gmail .com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Gene Fadness
Subject: PUC's webpage consumer comments not working
Gene,
The PUC webpage allowing consumers to make comments is not working. I completed this
page htt-p://www.pue.idaho.p-ov/forms/l*pucl/ipuc.html and repeatedly tried to submit it. It failed saying: "This
webpage is not available. The connection to www.puc.idaho.gov was interrupted." I tried again repeatedly
over many days and using different browsers (Chrome & Firefox).
I'd like to comment on case # IPC-E-12-29. I acknowledge that it will become public record.
I support Demand Side Management. I'm concerned with IPC's proposal. While I appreciate that the
DSM may not be needed this summer, I believe it will be needed as the economy and population grows.
We'll need DSM to keep our rates low going forward. The proposal (especially the letter I already
received from IPC as a Cool Credits participant) seems to kill the DSM program without future
planning. The letter doesn't have a future proposal and wasn't clear. I worked hard to recruit friends to
join Cool Credits to help keep IPC & customer costs down (by reducing peak demand). This proposal
jeopardizes the entire program (it is hard to recruit busy people!) and is short sighted. Please encourage
a more thoughtful program to better protect IPC and ratepayers.
PS Many people see this proposal as a "bait and switch": Build Langley Gulch and then Kill DSM. I
don't think that is the PUC or IPC intent. Please help clarify commitment to DSM in our future. The
cheapest KW is the one we don't use.
Thank you.
Britt Ide
Boise, Idaho