20150814Comments (2 Total).pdf

Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,August 14,2015 12:53 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fadness
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Case Comment Form:Steve VanZandt
Name:Steve VanZandt
Case Number:IPC-E-15-18
Email:vanzandt(filertel.com
Telephone:[phone]
Address:2335 N.Bird St.
Boise ID,83704
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:
Dear Commissioners,
I would like comment on Idaho Power’s petition IPC-E-15-18 filed on 06/26/2015.The question
comes down to whether this solar development is one project generating 1000 KW (1 MW)or ten
smaller projects,each generating 100 KW.Site Based Energy is asserting the latter in order
to qualify for more favorable contract terms.
Although I am an ardent supporter of solar energy and believe Idaho Power should try to
accommodate these types of projects,I do think the company is justified in claiming that
Site Based Energy is trying to game the system.
I’m not sure if there are statutes pertaining this kind of situation in utility regulatory
law but I know similar cases have come before the US EPA under its stationary source air
quality program.“EPA regulations allow aggregation of multiple pollutant-emitting activities
such that they are considered a single stationary source only if all of the emission units:
(1)are under common control,
(2)“are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties,”and
(3)belong to the same major industrial grouping (i.e.,have the same SIC code).
40 C.F.R.§71.2.”
Source:http://www.braceweilgiuliani.corn/news-publications/updates/sixth-circuit-epa--decades
nsr-aggregationsingle-source-applicability-deter
In this case,if one accepts the premise that the EPA regulations can be used as a guide,I
think it’s pretty obvious that all of the criteria for single source eligibility are met and
that this facility should not be allowed to disaggregate.-Sincerely,Steve VanZandt
Unique Identifier:65.129.8.139
1
Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,August 14,2015 8:15 AM
To:Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fadness
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Case Comment Form:Valerie Praggastis
Name:Valerie Praggastis
Case Number:IPC-E-15-18
Email:lexiepragmail.corn
Telephone:
Address:106 N Cove Lane
Hailey ID,83333
Name of Utility Company:Idaho Power
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:To Whom it May Concern,
One of the things I have enjoyed most about growing up and now making a life in Idaho
is the understanding that each individual can make a difference.It is what makes Idaho so
great.Regardless of political background,Idahoans believe that we each have the right to
have a say in our collective future.We are more comfortable with small government and family
owned businesses.
With this in mind,I am appalled that Idaho Power has petitioned against a local solar
power project run by Site Based Energy.Idaho Power shouldn’t have the right to decide which
solar projects can be built as it is a manipulation of their position as a utility provider
and distributor.This particular solar power project is legally defined as 10 different
projects and should be treated as such.It shouldn’t matter that the solar panels are located
on the same site.They will be owned by ten different people or groups of people.This is no
different than if there was a housing development on one site with each house having a small
solar power panel.
In Idaho,we believe in a free market and in individuals.This is an example of the
market being skewed by Idaho Power and not letting 1ldahoans choose their destiny.This solar
project will not only bring economic development to our community,it will build community
energy resilience.If we learned anything from the Recession,it is that we should be
diversifying and supporting local initiatives rather than relying on the government or big
business (in this case Idaho Power)from charting our future.Backing Idaho Power on this
decision is taking jobs and wages from local Idahoans.Please put the power back in Idahoans
hands.
Thank you for considering this matter,
Valerie Praggastis
Unique Identifier:184.183.117.179
1