20140519Weber Comment.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:Jean Jewell
Sent:Monday,May 19,2014 9:08 AM
To:Jean Jewell
Subject:FW:IPC-E-14-09
From:Gene Fadness
Sent:Monday,May 19,2014 8:56 AM
To:Jean Jewell
Subject:Fwd:IPC-E-14-09
Dear Commissioners,
From your ruling on case WC-E-12-27 “Moreover,we are concerned that the Company did not
seek out or consider customer input before proposing such dramatic changes to the net metering
provisions.”It seems the same for this case as well.No one that I am aware of was spoken with
regarding this filing.How many times will the commissioners have to tell Idaho Power about
speaking with stakeholders and interested parties before filing with the PUC?I respectfully
request the commissioners dismiss this filing because Idaho Power has not done what the
commissioners have requested in the past.If not dismiss it,at least have a public hearing.
Wind,solar,biomass,geothermal,hydro,natural gas,diesel,and coal all have integration costs
and benefits.Studies of these kinds should be performed by the regulator (PUC)not the utilities.
Allowing the utilities to perform the studies allows them to stack the deck in their own self-
interest and not in the interest of the rate payers.It goes without saying that benefits should be
studied along with the costs.In some cases the benefits may outweigh the costs.These benefits
could include,cleaner air,no fuel costs,reduced healthcare costs,more employment,a more
stable grid,and others.
This current solar study looks much like the wind study that Idaho Power did in the past during
its first phase of its war on renewable energy.Of course,Idaho Power picks the people that make
up the TRC (Technical Review Committee).Looking at the makeup of the TRC,none appear to
be technical experts on the integration of solar power and utility grids.This strikes me as strange.
In testimony from Mr.DeVol it appears one basis for the study was a wind study.“This report is
used as the roadmap for Idaho Powers solar integration study.”Solar and wind are very different
resources and match Idaho Power’s load seasonally and daily in very different ways.I find this
strange as well.So,when the coal study comes up next,will the company use a hydro study for
its roadmap?
I had e-mailed Idaho Power regarding the TRC and meeting times and days.I suggested if they
really wanted to have the public involved they would have some of the meetings after the normal
working hours for the public.They did not even do this with their one public meeting.
1
How many times did Idaho Power say “great and irreparable harm”?They sound so desperate to
continue to have record profits.They can only pass through PURPA costs and not get a rate of
return like the new gas plant that was just built.It is very possible that the pass through PURPA
costs will be less than the costs ratepayers will be paying for the new gas plant when the cost of
fuel goes up in the future.Great and irreparable harm sounds like what they are doing by
continuing to run their coal generation.If they are honestly concerned for their ratepayers they
would plan for and encourage a renewable energy future.
Regards,
John Weber
7855 WHummelDr
Boise,Idaho 83709
2