20130528Comment.pdf

RE C V .P
May24,2013
ZDl3HikY2B Ml 8:t8
Re.:Case No.IPC-E-13-10 concerning the application of Idaho Power
Company for Authority to Implement PCA Rates for Electrical ervice 1
from June 1,2013 —May 31,2014
Comments of David Monsees
1347 W Parkhill Dr.
Boise ID 83702
[e-mail]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this case.I respectfully
ask the IPUC to proceed with caution in reviewing this huge PCA
request.
•IPC could reduce its costs by encouraging net metering,rather
than following through on their request to end the program.
Under net metering,I have heard from several reliable sources
that IPC makes a handsome profit by selling electricity for more
than they pay homeowners for it.
•We ratepayers continue to pay for the Langley Gulch plant that is
not needed now or for at least the next four years according to
IPC’s own projections.Most of the power generated is sold
outside IPC territory.IPC has had the best quarter in some time
by selling the electricity elsewhere and not reimbursing the
ratepayers who fund the plant.This may be legal,but it is
certainly not fair to the ratepayers.
•The requested flat rate increase will place the most hardship on
those who can least afford it,people who more likely have older
living quarters which lack insulation and who frequently rely on
space heaters.
•IPC’s cost projections have proven notoriously inaccurate in the
past,and there is no reason to believe they will be any better this
time.
•Finally,I would remind the IPUC that IPC proudly followed the
last rate increase within one month of its approval by a
substantial increase in shareholder dividends,raising doubts that
the money was really needed.The Oregon PUC has criticized the
IPC lack of management that puts ratepayers at risk and reduced
their request for cost recovery accordingly,I hope that you will
examine this case in a similar light.
Tb nkyou,
David44on ees