20020510Public Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
1/'
;1, Ai
~~'
);I"
ki j;J
l\\D~
)jV'~
/41 J: ,tn,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, May 06,20023:15 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, May 06, 2002
2: 15: 17
Case: PAC-E-02-
Name: Stanley Searle
Street Address: 6267 So. 55 West
City: Idaho Falls
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83402
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: stansearle0aol. com
Company: PacifiCorp
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment descriptIon: am writing in opposition to Cas No. PAC-E-02-1, PacifiCorp
stipulated agreement and Power Cost Surcharge. First and foremost is that this is a rate
increase which is not in compliance with the offer given Idaho customers in the buy out.
(Case No. PAC-E-99-1, Order No. 2823, Page 6 of 48) All local papers reported and the
commission stated there would be a rate freeze. These two sources are where we get ourreports from. This leads me to the next problem. The public did not get informed about
the rate case until it was too late to testify. Now we have the public meetings and
workshops during one of the busiest times of the year for farmers, our planting season.
We have to take critical time off from work to testify. It's like a doctor during anoperation saying, "ll be back in a couple of hours to finish this operation.We rate
payers need time to study and prepare. The other side has everything in their favor.
Rate payers were never given an opportunity to prove that 25 million is a wrong number.
We are just to take what the company gives us. There is no net power cost study in Idahoto verify these numbers. Idaho Irrigators were given a buy back program to save money for
the company and the farm. Now the company recovers it's losses and the farmer pays forlost revenue and additonal expenses. Rate payers were not a part of the settlement
discussions, just as we were not a part of the merger. Rate payers are being given a
Merger Credit on the Scottish buyout. Now they want to increase the price and deduct thecost of the buyout. It's like buying a car. They say the price is $30,000.00, but we
will give you a $2000.00 rebate. In other words, we will cut profits.
BPA Credit used in the stipulation is the farmers or the rate payer, if they qualify for
the credit. It is not PacifiCorps. Why can they take a percentage of something that isnot theirs?
In terms of the stipulation Order No. 29008, No.8, page 4 -A tune up may be implemented
over a 12 month period, immediately following the 24 month PCS recovery period to reflect
any under or over collection of the total authorized PCS amount.This sounds like we
don t know what the charge is. We don t know how it will be collected. But one thing is
for sure , the company will get what they want! What about the rate payer? Did the rate
payer get a chance to show cost of the power buy back program to them -- The cost of theinterruptable rate farmers have had to deal with? Yet they use the C Rate i~ ~~-
numbersm not the A Rate which is what needs to be used to get a true picture
/J /l f IWho in Idaho has a right to do business --- the farmer or PacifiCorp?
~. ~
OZ-5
/fffl-I
/Iii
A.~
Transaction 10: 561415.
Referred by: http: //www.puc. state. id. us/scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
fov~ ~ ~,;:., :Y. 6\;10
:. ,.,.~..
-..Ci4. L, ,li...J .
/,-
" 0'
. .
:t ~" pO
" ". ~
Have yo~ ~~i ~~~~~P
~~~gy
dffioount ~p A Crewt) on yom el~mcm power bIll the last couple of months?
~ ~ . ~~ ,~ ~
DON'T GET USED TO IT!
May 6th Rigby Senior Citizens Center
391 Community Lane
workshop 6:00pm
Formal Hearing 7:30pm
PacifiCorp (dba Utah Power & Light) has filed an application (Case No. PAC-02-
with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to take most of the BPA credit away from the
residential and small farra power users. TheBP A credit has resulted in a 44% average
reduction hi residential power bills. IfPacifiCorp has their way this 44% will be cut to
about 27% and PacifiCorp will walk away with a nice $22 70Q,OOO.OO (22.7 million
dollars) of Idaho residents and-farmers money. Actually PacifCorp will be taking $25
million as theyare also taking $2.3 million in merger credit that they promised to Idahocustomers.
How can this happen you ask? I suggest you ask the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
and our elected officials this question. I also suggest that you request that the Stipulation
on Case No. P AC-02-1 be stopped. This is the stipulation that grants PacifiCorp .
authority to take your $25 million.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission will be holding public hearings on this case at
Rigby on tbe 6th of May and at Preston on the 7th of May
Hearings:
May 7th .Preston, Robinson Building
290 West 200 North
workshop 6:00pm
,"Formal Hearing 7:30pm
Comments may also be sent to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Mail, PO Box 83720, Boise, ill 83720-0074
Email www.puc.state.id.
Fax, [phone]
f!.e :~ J...
/fiF
LJc55
;11JU
fJft
Jean Jewell
1'1: '
\f Sl
;p
~sV I ~~'I\'
r.
~~ j /
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:56 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, May 02, 2002
4:55:34 PM
Case: PAC-E-02-1
Name: Gilbert Dayley
Street Address: 264 N. 4000
City: Rigby
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83442
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: gi10idahosupreme. com
Company: Utah Power
mailing list yes no: yes
Cornrnent=descriptIon: lease reverse your decision to allow PacifiCorp to take $25,000,000from the Idaho Customers. The Idaho customers are entitled to the full amount of the BPA
credit. When the merger with Scottish power was approved they agreed to a rate freeze for
two years and to a merger credit for the Idaho customers. Please do not let them back out
of these agreements. None of thier Idaho customers were notified of this questionableappropriation of our right full moneys.
Thanks for your help with this problem.
Transaction 10: 521655.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
User Addr~ss: 206.207.97.150
User Hostname: 206.207.97.150
Jean Jewell
/ 1"
~ij
.J" .
if) I tv..., k 5'1~lo
frr"
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Wednesday, May 01 200212:20 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknow~edgement
WWW Form Submission:
Tuesday, April 30, 2002
11 : 20: 06
Case: PAC-E-02-
Name: Brent Hill
Street Address: 1010 South 2nd East
Ci ty: Rexburg
State: 10
ZIP: 83440
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: bhil10senate. state. id. us
Company: PacifiCorp
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment=descriptIon: n 1999, ScottishPower and Utah Power ran a full-page ad entitled,
You deserve to know who you re dealing with." The advertisement was to convince us all
that the proposed merger between Utah Power s parent company PacifiCorp and foreign-owned
ScottishPower would benefit Utah Power s customers. This was after about 135 concerned
rate payers attended an emotional, sometimes confrontational hearing in Rexburg on July
27, 1999. In hearings, press releases, and paid advertisements, we were comforted with
promises of better service and fewer rate increases.
The Idaho State Journal reported on October 13, 1999, that, "Executives of both utilities
made verbal commitments to legislators the Glasgow-based ScottishPower would not seek a
rate increase from its Idaho customers for three and probably up to five years, said state
Rep. Golden Linford and Sen. Robert Lee, both Rexburg Republicans.Linford went on tosay, "It is my opinion now that, at least for the short term, ScottishPower s offer
probably gives us more rate stability than we would likely have under PacifiCorp.
That "stability" crumbled last year when PacifiCorp tried to take advantage of quick
profits by selling its low-cost power at soaring rates in other states. But when the loss
of one of its Utah generation plants left PacifiCorp unable to honor its contracts, it was
forced to buy high-priced power to satisfy its obligations. In retrospect, it was a poor
business decision-one that the utility now wants us to pay for. PacifiCorp (Utah Power)
wants the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to allow it to recover its losses by
increasing rates to it customers over the next two years. Originally, PacifiCorp requested
$38,000,000 in cost recovery. Negotiations thus far have reduced that amount by 40% to
$22,700,000. Already financially-strapped farmers will be forced to pay millions of
dollars in additional power bills to irrigate their crops. Tight household budgets will
pick up most of the balance in extra charges each month over the next two years.
Idaho statute requires that, "all rules and regulations made by the public utility
affecting or pertaining to its charges or service to the public shall be just andreasonable." Charging Idaho customers for its own poor business decisions does not appear
just and reasonable.
Transaction 10: 4302320.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/scripts/polyform. dll/ipucUser Address: 12.222.156
User Hostname: 12.222.156
'J.;i () tfr'
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, April 29 , 2002 10:44 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, April 29, 2002
9:44:03 AM
Case: PAC-E-02-
Name: Brent Morgan
Street Address: Box 901
City: Moore
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83255
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: BrentTMorgan0Hotmail. com
Company: Utah Power
mailing list yes no: 0es )
Comment descriptIon: ~h Power, better known in Arco as Utah Power&Light Rip-off, has
for many years been gouging us on their rates. The take-over by the new foreign company
was supposed to hold rates on a steady level. It is my understanding they invested in some
things during last years power crisis that caused the loss that they are now trying to
charge back to the customers. It is an investor owned company, the investors should take
the loss. For the first time in my life time in Arco (55 years) we have received
significant rate reduction, now they want us to give back a chunk of it. In my humble
opinion, Utah Power s service area in Arco should be sold to .Lost River Electric which is
a locally run utility that is much more reliable and tuned to the desires of the local
people. Lost River Electric Cooperative has for many years entertained the idea of
purchasing Utah Power s service area in Arco, but for many years, several things have
blocked the sell, most of all probably being political influences. Why we have to continue
making individual investors richer when a local consumer owned utility could run the
service area much more efficiently, I will never understand.
Transaction 10: 429944.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dill ipucUser Address: 12.23.71.173
User Hostname: 12.23.71.173
Jean Jewell
~~, :ffi JA
tAJfl'")tt((1.;
~.
1/%
P;4t-O;;l.- I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Eastlake
Monday, April 15, 2002 9:59 AM
Jean Jewell
FW: Pacific Corp, Proposed Rate Increase
Add this to your pile of comments, if it didn I t also come to you.wish. Let me know.
I will respond if you
-----Original Message-----
From: Reedersj0aol.com (mailto:Reedersj0aol.com)
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3: 53
To: Bill Eastlake
Cc: chair0micron.neti BMDlaw0ida.net
Subj ect: Pacific Corp. Proposed Rate Increase
The move by Pacificorp to raise the cost of power to residential customers isnot acceptable. Those of us in the Idaho region see all of the area power
providers providing power at a reasonable cost. For years UP&L (Pacificorp)
has had their way with the Idaho customers.
The BPA credit has been a welcomed relief from the high cost of power.
power bill is the lowest that it has been since I can remember. The BPA
credit will stimulate the Idaho Economy and allow the elderly apd poor theabili ty to take care of their families.
The high cost of power during the electrical shorage was a direct result of
the power companies trying to increase the rates. By causing a shortage they
could increase the cost of power (supply and Demand). The only problem is
that the public had to conserve to survive and this resulted in an excess
power supply which in turn dropped the prices and backfired on them. The
power companies are no better than OPEC and should be treated as such. Now
they are asking you to bail them and reward them for their ruin of the state
economies.
I hope that as members of the Idaho Public Utilities Commision that you willnot allow this to happen. If you allow this to happen , you will be a direct
cause of our local economy going down hill. I hope that you will listen to
the local people and realize what damage would occurr if you allow this to
happen.
Steven Reeder
722 N 700 E
Firth, Idaho 83236
[phone] Home
[phone] Work
Reedersj 0aol. com E-mail address
Jean Jewell
r I Lt- '. (
\J. -0-LA~i G ft,,~ v
AI'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, May 06, 2002 10:32 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, May 06, 2002
9: 32 : 12
Case: Pac-e-02-1
Name: Bingham County Farm BureauStreet Address: 124 North Oak
City: Blackfoot,
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83221
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: stansearle0aol. com
Company: Pacific Corpmailinglist _yes _no: yes
Comment description: I'm writing in behalf of over 2600 members in the Bingham County Farm
Bureau regarding their concerns with Case No. PAC-E-02-1, PacifiCorp stipulated agreement
and power cost surcharge. The Bingham County Farm Bureau opposes the stipulated agreement
and power cost surcharge agreement for the following reasons. We opposed the merger of
Scottish Power and even in the face of great opposition in that merger the commission gavethe approval. Reasons for that approval was stated in Case No. Pac-E-99-1, Order No.
28212, Page 6 of 48 under Rates. (1) Rates will not increas as a result of the merger.
(2) At a minimum, Scottish Power shat not seek general rate increase for it I s Idaho
serivce territory effective prior to January 1, 2002. (3) Scottish Power and PacifiCorp
shall provide guaranteed merger related cost of service reductions for four years through
an annual merger credit.
In 1999 in our protest, we were given these as reasons to go through with the merger. The
commission and local papers published that no rate increas was a big plus. We could atleast be able to budget. Now many of the farmers are told that after being offered a buy-
back program to save money, they now will be charged to recover it. Yet during those same
years the farmers saw the worst commodity prices ever. How can they be given the sameopportunity to recover losses? Some of the rate increases are due to big business not
staying close enough to the actual operation. A fear we expressed due to the merger.
Allowing PacifiCorp to recover deferred cost as requested allows rates to increase based
on an isolated look at wholesale power costs. In the merger PacifiCorp stated that Idaho
was only 4% of it's business. Last year a percentage of that 4% was used in a buy-out tocut cost for the other 96%. Yet the rate increase is being charged across the board.
The BPA Credit the company is using to show irrigaters that their rate would not go up isa joke. (1) BPA Credit is only good if the famer qualifies. And it is the Farmers
credit, not PacifiCorps. What do we do with those farmers who don t qualify? THe rate
structure is flawed. What do we do about those who have expanded business this year.
They will receive the cost of another person s business.
For the past 8 years the rate difference between Idaho Power and PacifiCorp has been a
problem in the farming industry. We are trying to compete on an uneven field, even though
we are across the road. The first year that we may be on the plus side, we allow a rate
increase, yet there has not been a rate case addressing PacifiCorps net power costs. Just
PacifiCorp taking parts of it's business and saying it costs a lot to operate in Idaho.
The Commission is always looking at what the Company needs and if the laws are obeyed. IF
a farmer entered into a contract and add he will not raise rate for two years, then during
those two years spud prices drop to a dollar from an average of four dollars, does he have
the righ to raise the rate due to unforseen circumstances?
If the Commission believes this is not a rate increase, they need to explain that to the
farmer who is paying the bill and has been for over 8 years. Sincerely Yours,
Stanley Searle
Bingham County Farm Bureau
Transaction 10: 56932.
Jean Jewell
~( ~~ '
f)'v\ .
~.
/1d
1/1 J~'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Sunday, May OS, 2002 5:33 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Sunday, May 05, 2002
4: 32: 54
Case: PAC-E-02-
Name: Greg Richey
Street Address: 147 spruce St.
City: Shelley
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83274
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: gregrichey0juno. com
Company: pacificorp Imailinglistyesno:
Comment description: l request that the
they allready have enough of our money.
stipulation on this case PAC-E-02-1 be stopped,
Transaction 10: 551632.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id.us/scripts/polyform.dll/ipucUser Address: 67.250.112.
User Hostname: 67.250.112.
Jean Jewell
A)J, r'
PSr
. ;
rfD \' h fit r~' jfr1" b/&lo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Saturday, May 04 , 2002 11 :28 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Saturday, May 04, 2002
10:28:28 PM
Case: PAC-E-02-1
Name: Robert Welker
Street Address: 1125 E 1250 N
City: Shelley
State: 10
ZIP: 83274
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: btwelker01ds. net
Company: Utah Power
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment descriptIon: I am asking you to stop stipulation on the above case . It would
appear that PacifiCorp is trying to recover funds they agreed to let BPA credit to
residential users. Please help me understand how a contract can be broken so easily at the
burden of the user. Thank you.
Robert Welker
Transaction 10: 542228.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
User Address: 209.197.
User Hostname: 209.197.
03/07/2882 13: 58 j2245'BRYON REED FAR~! )NC ,('..t. PAGE 0'2;..r ,\()11 '
j~' \~\
r~l.PAC-O;)'-
;? ~' ',-';'
2277 N 35 IN
.. . :.:':" :.;
\d8~F.. 'Oe:wcz
. .,_.
Z~:.
~ ;:...~:
0" o. 'Iii ..;.~
. .-.- -.;: ._; : ..~:;
=C:.;;~SS;'J:,;
--.-
Osgaod C8nIII Comp
Mard'll , 2CO2
Id81o Public Utili" Comrnil8lOn
O, Box 83720
Boise, 10 83720-YJT4
To Whom It Me) Concem:
In our annual mtoeting held March 6. 2002 we invited Bob Sme8d from Utah Power and light to infam
uS on the C&.tTeI'It propoaaI ttlat is before the Id8ho Public Utilitiel Commission regarding spec::ifk:8IIy
ilTigators. Mr. S. nead did an excellent Job in explaining the new tanf and we feel th8t we heve 8 goodu~ 0' !he etrects th8t it will ha'A on CU C8n8t and the individual inigatorS
The load isaue .hIt ha5 reeulted from the ABC rates has been 8 burden upon the canal 8"Id has
caused for IUM W8S\d of VI", This rri!NI prcpos8I will dO ftf!J.V wi1tI the forc8d toed cut18i1ment
ffISUlting in bo rrteor a)ntr0i of OS water, FurtnIr more with QS size system 88 well as the siZe farms of
"'-II' imgaten we see a 3UbItantiai rec1Idion in power COlt. I that 1here may be some
oppositia"l to 'hit! feel that it is in the belt interest ~ maiCritY i~ AI a director of our
can. I am ~-oeIlti that !11e Public Utilities CommiMion win be able to WOf1( wIh Ut8h Power on !his
(';ljrrent propoall &old 5I!IQ.o"e tMis new t8I1'f in an expedient manner. It is important to finalize thi81ong
befOre img.""" iePO 1 begins in order to make pI8n8 fer this ccming year,
T1'18nK you for yoJA ~.OeratiOn in hi matter. pleaSe keep us informed of 8I"t'/ crengee
deveIopm8ntJ t!at we 'JUgItt tv be aware
Sincerely,
!cJiZ;jiV
()
W~ne and AnnJ~en
2777 26
Idaho Fails, Idaho 83402
tr~
t---1:G-)c:.1 t..
VY\ ~Ul1(t
16 f---.s
Vf1 05 $
A-hol~
Jean Jewell r4C-E- 0;)..-1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Saturday, March 09, 20024:41 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Saturday, March 09, 2002
4:40:58 PM
Case: PAC-E-02-1
Name: Bryon L Reed
Street Address: 2277 N 35 W
City: Idaho Falls
State: 10
ZIP: 83402
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: reedfarm0hotmail. com
Company: Utah Power - Pacific Corp
mailing list yes no ryes-;,
Comment -descriptIon ~have been informed of the new tariff that is before the PUC
regarding rate changes for irrigators. I am very much in favor of the change as I
understand it. It will be a great savings of water if Utah Power cancels the load
management as it currently exists. During the time that we are off the water goes right
down the canal and it is wasted. Further more that saving that will result will beexcellent. Please pass there current proposal as quickly as possible so that we can make
crop plans for the upcoming season.
Thank You,
Bryon L Reed
Transaction 10: 391640.Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
User Address: 12.222.
User Hostname: 12.222.
Jean Jewell
J..Jv ,T . ,jury f
(, ~Y I\AP
V la g.P
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, March 11 , 2002 11 :18 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, March 11, 2002
11:17:50 AM
Case: PAC-E-02-1
Name: Osgood Canal Company
Street Address: 2277 N 35 W
City: Idaho Falls
State: 10
ZIP: 83402
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: osgoodcana10yahoo. com
Company: Utah Power
mailing list yes no:
Comment description: I am the secretary for the Osgood Canal Company which is a
irrigatIon canal west of Idaho Falls that irrigates 6500 acres. We are very interested in
the recent proposed tariff from Pacific Corp. We are very much in favor of eliminating
the mandatory load management that has been in effect and utilized by Utah Power lastyear. It has been to expensive to be on the A rate, we have been on B rate because we
cannot have the canal shutting off three different times during the week. We have been
using B rate so we can plan for a one day a week shutdown. When this day occurs we waste
alot of water during the filling and draining of the canal. We have been informed off the
changes that Utah Power has ask for and we are very much in favor of those changes. We
urge you to accept the change and do it in a timely manner to allow implimentation beforethe irrigation season begins. Thank you for your time in this matter. Please keep us
informed of the progress.
Bryon Reed
Secretary - Osgood Canal
Transaction 10: 3111117.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ipuc
User Address: 12.219.
User Hostname: 12.219.
. "--,, --..- --, ---- -,-_. ..."...._......,--,---_..... 1141
U/tJ I(
IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
O. Box 167.500 W. Washington Street
Bol.., Idaho 83701-0167 . [phone]
FAX [phone]JWle 28, 2002
Paul Kjellander, President
Marsha Smith, Commissioner
Dennis Hansen, Commissioner
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re: Case No. PAC-E-02-, PacifiCorp Stipulated Agreement and Cost
Surcharge Order No. 29034
Dear Commissioners Kjellander, Smith, and Hansen:
I am writing on behalf of the 52,700 member families of the Idaho Fann
Bw-eau Federation (IFBF) regarding Case No. PAC-02-, PacifiCorp
Stipulated Agreement and Power Cost Surcharge and Commission Order
No. 29034.
The Idaho Fann Bureau Federation supports the Public Utilities
Commission s decision to impose a hefty fine on PacifiCorp relating to the
utility's violation of Rule 102. The Commission s Order notes compliance
with Rule 102 can be accomplished with a bill stuffer or additional comment
page. It is IFBF's opinion that this is a fairly inexpensive and easy task to
accomplish since PacifiCorp filed this case January 2002. The
Commission s Order further notes that "Failure to provide the required
individual notice potentially limits public participation in our
proceedings..." Commissioner Hansen notes similar concerns in his opinion
saying "the public was not given proper notice of these proposed settlement
negotiations. .
. .
most of the public had little time to properly prepare and
study the effect it may have on them. In my judgment this violation
warranted a larger credit"
We agree with Commissioner Hansen that a larger fine to offset the credi e;;
;:?
should be implemented because of the public s limited input. Over the 10
/11.(
tenD, this rate case may have considerably more impact on customers' bi1 f)D~55
Home Office: P.O. Box 4848. 1001 N. 7th Avenue. Pocatello, Idaho 83205-4848 . (208) I.. A
. "w-,' vw"- --, _vv- _.-- . n.
than the $20.00 credit. Furthermore, if the Company was unwilling or
unable to provide customer notification, it could have worked with the
various agricultural or conswner groups to provide a mailing list or labels so
that individual notice went out to members of the public impacted by this
settlement.
Frank Priestley
President
Cc:
Speaker Newcomb
Senator Geddes
Rick Keller
Greg Nelson
Kendall Keller
Stan Searle
Lynn Tominaga
lFBF
IFBF
IFBF
IFBF
IWPG
j~
~I i~lo'" Av
ftECEIVEr.I~J
;--. ~- --
eJQJ. S a I
Agrium
?uf'?"'~ii'l~ '.ou,.."ti0~ fir!.; I v Ht1:3: f 0
U T i~:~Sd~j~f~~l~s 1 Gf'J
Agrium Conda Phosphate Operations
3010 Conda Road
Soda Springs, ill 83276
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
May , 2002, 2002
File No: PM-02-008
Paul Kjellander
President
472 West Washington St.
PO 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Subject: PacifiCorp s Prospective Power Rate Surcharge to Nu-West Industries Inc.(Nu-West"
Idaho Public Service Commission Case No.:PAC-02-
Dear Mr. Kjellander:
With respect to the above-mentioned matter, although some oral evidence has been presented to
you already, I would like to add a few comments from my perspective as Manager of the Nu-
West Conda plant. As you may already be aware, Agrium had a very difficult 200 I-year which
resulted in an operating loss. The fertilizer industry is very competitive and is currently in a
difficult part of the Fertilizer industry cycle. As a result of the competitive environment, the
pricing of our product is based on our expected operating costs at the time. Nu- West is unable to
retroactively pass through to our customers of last year, a power cost surcharge, which may now
. be imposed on Nu- West. Nu- West believed we had a fixed price power deal when we made
operating decisions at our facilities and when we developed our selling prices for 2001.
We would greatly appreciate it if you would consider the above in reaching a decision with
respect to this matter.
Sincerely,
~Ovv H~~
Charles H. Ross
General Manger e~:j
(IlF pt-S
rrtlS
* A Registered Name ofNu- West Industries, Inc.
~\"~
(lot.
VII tfV I 1; 1) I I ,j/~v /1d
?:E.eE~VED
F~.
t. ED
~"P" r., . .. ,3 iit O. LLiOl f'1i;Y ; J r:\fj :J' ,May 8, 2002
378 Yale Ave
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
. . . . .
~.' i
,~~;.~~:;
::~:U;
("'
Idaho Public UtilitIes COIl11l1lSSlOti ! jU i j ::), L ,) htW.: ,:, ill i~
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re:Pacific Corp. Rate Increase
I am writing to testify about the recent public meeting held in Rigby, Idaho on May 6
2002. I want this to be included in all reviews of the hearing on the "Rate Increase for
Pacific Corp,
First, I must comment that it appeared that Idaho Public Utilities Commission had
already made a decision to OK the rate increase prior to the public meeting held in Rigby,
Idaho. If this is true I feel that this is disingenuous on the part of the Commission to
approve a rate increase with out a full hearing by the public,
I feel that the rate increase must not be approved for the following reasons:
The $38 million cost over run by Pacific Corp,:was dueto its contractual
commitments to various wholesale accounts and not to meet the needs of the retail
customers in Idaho. I asked the Commission s presenter at the meeting if the
commission knew how much of the $38 millibnwas for wholesale and retail
demands. He stated that the commission did not know. This is the crux of the
matter. The stockholders of Pacific Corp. must be held accountable for their
management s lack offore sight on not being able to live up to its contracts to
other wholesales. The fact that the Hunter plant went down is once again the
company s problem not the customers in Idaho and should not be factored in
Pacific Corp,s need to buy power and incur cost over runs.
Also, both the presenters from the Public Utilities Commission and Pacific Corp.
kept saying that the rate increase was only a 4% over the 2000 rate. Only by
careful analysis was a person able to determine that the current BP A credit to the
customer was going to be cut by 8%, A total of 12% was the actual rate increase.
In summary I find that the Idaho PUblic Utilities Commission should and must not
approve any rate increase to Pacific Corp.
' -. ', '
~1l~tJ ~1'C\J?
:'.
l-L:J Ot~J2\(J.
'. .
b~~glasAJt~nCey. .
.. : .. ,, '"
au If +JrJ
;t~
~ r~~ 0'1/
j I~,~IIE,1 f.)l'
71(If-
-1-,Vt i,-
,-_.
Zflli2lim't F\,. L
, .
t'f1 '1. '0,.... v'
..::.
1 ';j
UTiL;l!::~s r ~~.1t
tI Se cf )l
( -)!-
,(j/i'it;~/1iJN
(; '"\~
ru,1r.
..,-
~it
~~~:
1!E D
c; 1v1-l11 ;l~
C f
&y
0'\. ( e.
live! 4-J6
1/1-
a."v
;J-
O"'l..
(fl
.y~
("l (~irC'
a~.f"1-
~(
vM
~(..~
vi k'w -ti~
i"
6"
1'.:...
... ~ ,
--r-
('
Co 'iiI
Jt1 ('h. (1"", ~
-(1-,f(. t! r f II
1-t 6:
;;;1.r' r ft'
1 ;"j f"H'~'if(lTl'
\J1
J-~ -f (It. (r"'-
11( J (Jvv rt
J' w""t;ij (;~Ili
k";l hJ2
'C.r-r \N. :)
(",
F,oJ
f1 . rfJ.
("y-"
J:I-
\/..( ~ .
01. '\y'
h (v r~ h)Jr
r-('( .,-r'\J.
""-11 \4, f,,( 1,tf.Ptf11f" J);f.. LeV
C) J.
bd1"i
j ,(.
~""-:i(4~ &~/' 7 u
;",,~..,r
'1",1, f'vt C'","I r ",,-'II"') -r
.....,
c:JII AlF I
~!
c?~~lL (h-l~. -'116 f,v-- ~ /11 ~'dcr Co-
JI (1-... C "IV
/j ;
" 01
't
. . -y
-r ~-/re'h,
~~V '
IDAHO
jl!Y 4~ ~
~~-
PUB Lie LfTlttrl'tlL1 E S iTI
/( 0
COMMlssil'ON'.t
,...,'"
v.
ZtiUL i:'hr; -
;"' ~
I ublicWorkshop & Hearing
Gase No. PAC-O2-
- May 7 2002
'T"
;~~:,) )~;~,
H~i1:~';::jm'~U j iL- WHAT' Db~YO'U THINK?
If you cannot or do not want to testify in person at this hearing but want your opinion noted
please use the space below to write your comments. Add extra sheets as needed. You
may either hand this sheet to a commission staff member or mail it to:
IPUG , PO Box 83720 , Boise , 1083720-0074.
You may also post comments on our WebSite.
www.puc.state.id.
click on "comments & questions.
Sf\1I~~r ~e.YI'?Uhl'1lL f: "re
u.. f'Xf'd, IVlC--oYY1f' a vyu Sr~ "VI tJur l7IJU)p'rJ7;/1 1A.J(1LLld mt1~
thlVl14 WlIJV"T' dl ff/Lirt t:"c,V' lAc" ,Qf1A VVlaVl)/ ~f'hr
~y..~
JJ1 OL!-y, 5/t-("a ~Y11 T -ti;i~'K. (?/Ar W70j/lt
)/
sh()LtJd ~t
~/.
jJJlth 05 hPrE )11 fLi5tl"Y"n rJt:t hlJ a/i1d Yt/)-t.
'30
-to
)11 rJ-ih t: r- ~t() if aVl rL aVl off; t" r- ~tJ fA V1 ~V, I l,t)fj'; 0 VI ~t;,
-th e. 50 I p of tria f?, vJ-r it ih y; fJK v/ttc/f' a i1 ri/JV7
-ih/VlK -Chlf' Clffpf7/f~ VoJ.t'~e w~~ 5ti'i/lf'"tfJ/) J~ ih'e....
matt'PV' (AVld 0111'-(311
;11 T. doM h('/eif)~ uh) (lY"f ber
//St'fV1~J i;o j t'J1iS Y11/1ttf'Y'- -e.;tht' r~ Ie /S a5 ihaLL
uS hC:Y'--e On --/;hI S bl:dC' oFih-e sf,oh /1 !Va f't"OYn ~J5f'
IJ. II (' Vl 0 s~v Ct 'fA) h tJ u.) CJ u r- s;ta -6 e
- !
Yu YI , )/c;u a r'f' )1fJt
6 Yl Ltta h PtJ uJp
('
50 t: cIt, F'C7F1
/;
rna-t.i;p V' i::.o /Vou
.l. hCJll) YYlt(t!-
Oil
poultV' bill ~tJt5
f'
Pac.i ii - Cor-
.p
"5hoIA lei honor- their a1reeWfen(
Name !-a./Va/p. G/ffIJr
Address 3q I bdz.-S-AI
j-h q3:1.3~
05/10/2002 11: 09 2088521 plQ4 FRANKLIN CO CLFDK
~IIS\"~.,I
;Y'
PAGE 01
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Boise, ill 83263
Dear Commissioners
I would like to thank you for holding the hearing in Preston this week.
appreciate that you would take the time to listen to the concerns of the people
Southeastern Idaho. Sometimes we feel that we are left out by the rest of the state.
I did not testify that night but would like to share my feelings about the rate
increase. I feel this should not even be an issue to be looked at. Scottish Power had
an agreement with the people of Idaho and that agreement should be honored.
I am a home owner 10 miles north of Preston. The power company will not
allow my home to be on "time of day" rates because I have a bam near my house.
We have a few horses that we raise for our enjoyment. And we seldom use any
power in the barn. I have understood that I did not meet all of the requirements for
the "time of day" rate. And I accepted this. My power bill has been over $100.00 a
month since I have moved into this house 18 years ago. Last month was the first
time that it had dropped below $100.00. I use about 1 500 KWH a month (about 50
KWH /d:ay.Last swnmer when the power company asked us to conserve power, I
unplugged my dryer, hung out all of my clothes and dropped my KWH to 36 /day.
know of other neighbors who were willing to sacrifice and conserve for the good of
all.
Most of the people in Franklin County are working hard to make ends meet.
Weare basically agricultural and agriculture has taken quite a hit the past few years.
Franklin County has one of the lowest income per capita in the State of Idaho.
These people don t try to seek compensation fTom somewhere else, they tighten
their belts and work a little harder. When the farms are hurting, the businesses are
hurtmg and the whole COWlty feels the crunch.
The dairies have been regulated to death. One example is the waste ponds
that every dairy was required to put in. And now there is talk of odor "sniffers
The grain prices have plununeted and the cost of machinery and fertilizers have
skyrocketed. Most farmers are working hard to stay on top of things.
One way that the fanners have to earn a little extra money is to develop some
of their land. But in Franklin County Scottish Power owns all of the ground water.
They will not allow their water to be used for developments. I have been a member
of the Franklin Co Plannillg and Zoning for 6 years. This has been a great concern
and the Power Company is not even willing to discuss the matter. Instead of being
able to cluster groups of homes together, they must be built on 1 acre or larger
parcels. Our fann ground is being chopped up and individual wells are being
05/10/2002 11:09 2088521 VlQ4 FRANKLIN CO CLFRK PAGE 02
punched into the ground through out the county.
I am telling you all of this not because I think that you can fix these problems.
I want you to have a better understanding of the good people of Franklin County. I
want you to understand what they are feeling. And I want you to know that more
money out of our pockets IS a rate increase however it is labeled. I want you to
know that many more people would have been at the hearing that night but there
was a school band concert, a civil defense mock disaster, and numerous youth
church groups meeting that night. We go on working hard and giving service
trusting that the people we have elected will take care of our interests, protect us
ITom injustices and work to uphold the contracts that were made. I am sure that a
rate increase in the future is inevitable, but to ask for retro money is absurd and
would never be allowed in any other business. I would hope that you will see the
injustice if Scottish Powers request and deny their request.
If you have any questions about this letter please feel free to call me. Again
thank you for taking the time to listen. I am counting on your good judgement.
Sincerely,
Shauna Geddes
7555 No FoxHollow
Preston, ID 83263
[phone]
[phone] days
/~ 1~~ll~lo
'V
;YJ' liJ
III:
P5:~~:\'
i:;; Lc!
AH FARM UREA ';~;ATI O,,:p'-""'L1".,'-t) .','~i"r'-
'.!'
o. Box 167.500 W. Washington Street. ....
. ~ ,", -
,- Uti
Boise, Idaho 83701-0167 . (208) 342-2~Bft,.,_
,,-
::J/~':~~
FAX [phone] j .L'~ i it ,t~!Y'!i~:~_;,J
.. "-
-- ~- '1 d ," ,-0'; '- ,~
Ms. Marsha Smith, Chairman
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
May 6, 2002
Re: Case No. PAC-02-1, PacifiCorp Stipulated Agreement and Cost Surcharge
U~ar Cpinmissioner Smith
I am writing on behalf of the 52 700 member famUies of the Idaho Farm Bureau
Federation (IFBF) regarding Case No. PAC-02-, PacifiCorp Stipulated Agreement and
Power Cost Surcharge.
The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation opposes the stipulated agreement 'and Power Cost
Surcharge agreement for the following reasons:
If the commission approves this stipulated agreement, then the commission has
circumvented the two 'Year rate freeze it placed on Scottish Power and the benefit
provided to rate payers who had the expectation of no rate increase for two years.
Granting PacifiCorp the opportunity to recover the deferred costs incurred during that
time frame undermines the benefits of the merger agreement to ratepayers and the
commission s staff.
PacifiCorp claims it is not asking for a rate increase, but instead asking ratepayers to
reimburse it for the cost of doing business during that time. What good is a rate
moratorium if PacifiCorp is reimbursed for the cost of doing business during the same
time period? Neither the ratepayers nor the commission staff would have supported
the merger if they had known PacifiCorp could petition the commission for cost
reimbursements under the rate freeze.
Allowing PacifiCorp to recover deferred costs as requested allows rates to increase
based on an isolated look at wholesale power costs while ignoring its revenue and
responsibilities, aU of which is further magnified by the fact that it's been 12 years since
the last Idaho rate case addressing PadfiCorps net power costs.
The stipulated agreement also includes a Rate Mitigation Adjustment (RMA) intended to
assu re that . no 'customer class will receive an increase during the 2 year period of the
surcharge. The RMA will be implemented as a line item charge on customers' bills. If
Home Office: P.O. Box 4848.1001 N. 7th Avenue - Pocatello, Idaho 8320?-4848 - [phone]
the commission approves the excess power costs now then how can ratepayers trust
the commission that the RMA will be honored?
And lastly, the rate payer should receive the full 44% rate decrease provided through
the BPA credit instead of the 27% provided in the stipulated agreement.
cc:Commission Dennis Hansen
Commission Kjellander
Rick Keller, IFBF
Greg Nelson, IFBF
Lynn Tominaga, IWPG
Rep. Bruce Newcomb, Speaker
Sen. Bob Geddes, Pro Tern
Sen. Joe Stiegner
Rep. Bert Stevenson
Sen. Sheila Sorensen
Rep. Bill Diehl
05/10/2002 11: 08 20BB52J - ~FRANKLIN CO Cl ~~I PAGE 01
""-'
A'"
"~t'J;~f~
" ,
,t:.\, \(. ~:r~
" "
/4.
,," ~~"
~(J~~
.-""'-:::::':: .
~1~\ 1
~lo
'1; tA
I)'
;r j 10
BRAD K. SMITH
Chllinnan
2977 EAST HIGHWAY 36
PRESTON. IDAHO 83263
[phone]
Franklin County Commissioners
May 1 O 2002
Franklin County
39 West Oneida
Preston. Idaho 83263
[phone]
Fa,; [phone]
email: franklin (g) gemstate.net
PA UL F. CAl'vIPBELL
297 EAST DEPOT Idaho Public Utilities Commission
WESTON. IDAHO 83286 472 Vv', Washington
(20\:!) 747-3465 Boise, Idaho 83702-5983
ALAN S. CARTER
306 MAPLE CREEK ROAD
FRANKLIN. IDAHO 83237
(208) 64fi~Jl Commissioners;
We would like you to know our concerns for the proposed rate increase by Scottish Power. We
are very concerned and upset about their request for this rate increase to be retroactive to a prior
date.
It was not very long ago when public hearings were held for the approved merger of Utah Power
(Pacificorp) and Scottish Power. We were very much opposed to this merger since we already
had higher rates than Idaho Power customers and our neighbors in Utah who were customers of
Utah Power. We were wined and dined by Scottish Power exec1J.tives who assured us that we
would be treated fairly. We were skeptical at that time that the interests of southeastern Idaho
could be served from a company based "abroad:' We are even more skeptical now and plead for "
your support in our behalf
As you well know the economy of aU ofIdaho is suffering! As we tighten our belts and try to
make ends meet, they should do the same also, When times are tough this seems like the most
inopportune for them to ask to bailed out by their customers. They asked for us~ we did not ask
for them! They should be made to keep their promises and then some. Their employees are the
highest paid in the area. In county government if we cannot make ends meet we have to freeze
wages and lay people off. They should exercise similar measures.
Your support of interests of the citizens of Franklin County would be greatly appreciated! If you
have any questions, don t hesitate to call.
SinC~1::~
Franklin County Commissioners
Brad Smith Chainnan
246 W 3rd N.Ri~y ID 83442-1107
6 2002
j fir' \~./,(\ aV:
W" t, 1-'
I,
~ ;/2-1'
FIECEEVED r:n
...:~,~.~
FILED
Ida Bublic Utilties Comma
P . 0 . 'Box 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
zau:?
y -
ilfJ 9: if)
Ladies & Gentlemen:und1 iESJ ddi~,
~/~
fSifJH
1 would like to request that t he Stipulation on Case No. PAC-O2-be stoPDed. (Scottish PoWe~) ~
i ~':
:::"
c:~ ~m
;~ t _Of big co mp an i os are g ot ing gr ~.od ~ider a
fiso . I would like to make a compaint due to power line noise at my J.Y(location. I operate an Amateur Radio Station , and the line behind my
~~~
seems t o be a r ea!RF generator. On the reeei vin . sea e of my
~ \ ~
radio equipment , 1 to 10 , this noise is 8. Even with some noise
f ~~ :figf v ~lt W:~ :~s:h :~~ i ;~
10
~:
;~\:d 1: i
:f n~~;: e in:: r
; ~:
:"'mJ:"ed" oin
I have asked
" '
the Power co people a few times in the past but it seems that they are not interested much.' For the price we have to pay for power , we should be getting noise free as much as possible. ,
..'
lhank You
- -----' /- .
yours 1;:;HvJ
Kei~h B ~~s;:)7 Very truly
l,.
MAY-88-82 WED 89: 48 TOM KENNELL ~
au jjA
.f /,. 6""2 368 8523
f!(lA-
/II5IO
~ ;ra
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~
Tho~a$ A. Kennelly
259 Ne: P.re! Avenue
Rexburg. Iwo 63440
Tel. (206) 656~811
Fax (208) 6S5-903~
F A X 208...334,..3762
~U:U~V~~VMay 8, 2002
Mr. Paul Kjellander
Ms. Marsha Sroi
Mr. Dennis Hansen
Dear Members of the Public UtiUty Comr.nission:
Having followed comme~ta~y i~ the. newspapers, and television, I can no
longer fail to vocalize my angst over the qa1l of PacifiCorp ' s request
to raise the electrica~ rates they pharg~.
I am a seventy year 91d, politically conservative, previously self-employed
cororoercia~ mortgage banke~ f~r 43 ye~rs ' who disdains governmental control
over business endeavors, hoWG\(e~ I, ha-ve finally changed my attitude. When
it cornea to the very essentials of life, electrical power, water, gasoline
fuel oil, which affect every citizen of Idaho I am coming to believe that
the rates charged must be control1ed by elected or appointed citizenry.
for no other reason than tG stop the abuse that is now being perpetratedPacifiCorp.
In all my many years of business, which was transacted in many states, I
was never guaranteed a protit. Never did I have any kind of subsidy which
would level out my fluctuating income. Never did I offer any kind of guar-
antee to my stockholders that there would be profits to be distributed in
anyone year. If mistakes were made, we took 'our lumps. If we were wise
and made good business decisions 'we profited---such is the business world.
To think that PacifiCorp would utilize their facilities to take advantage
of "quick profits " by selling power that 'was of minimal cost to them to
states which were suffering with ri~in9 ' power rates, without recognizing
that power woes could also afflict their own customers was a gross mistake
in business judgment. They, obviously, had to purchase higher priced
power to augment their own supp~y to meet customer needs which of course
diminished their profits. These are the vicissitudes of doing business.
Now they come to you, the Idaho pub1ic Uti1ity Commission to tearfully
plead for a rate increase to please their stockholders, and their customersbe damned.
The obvious question com~s to mind. If indeed they had made millions in
the sale of power to other states, would they have shared those blessings
wi th their customers ,by reducing,rates? The, answer is a resounding "
and yet they now expect their ,customers to cover their poor decisions by
petitioning a rate increase. I sinc~rely encourage you, as a Commission,
to have the fortitude and courase to tell the~ to drop dead on this request.
~~~Q)
Jean Jewell
fy-Jv Jo~J d'. ;10 f
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ellen Andrews
Thursday, May 09, 2002 11:42 AM
Jean Jewell
Beverly Barker
FW: Complaint acknowledgement
I am forwarding this to you only.
working on the case of UP&L.
I am not aware of anyone on the consumer side who is
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Howell
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:28 PM
To: Ellen Andrews; Beverly Barker; Ed
Subj ect: Complaint acknowledgement
Howell; Tonya Clark
WWW Form Submission:
Thursday, May 09, 2002
11:27:50 AM
Name: Ed Conn
Street Address:City:State:
ZIP:
Home Telephone:
Work Telephone:E-Mail:
Business Name: Basic American FoodsBusinessStreet Address: 245 West 1000 North, Rexburg 10 83440BusinessPhone: -208-359- 6820
Complaint Company: UP&LContactedutili ty:
Complaint description: I have serious concerns over the proposed electric utility rate
pike proposed by UP&L. First of all, I feel that the retroactive component of the
proposal is illegal and a breech of contract. Second, according to ABC News, the Federal
Government is looking into the pricing of electric utilities and I would suggest that the
UP&L proposal should be shelved, at least until the results of the investigation are madepublic.
Ed Conn
Rexburg Plant Manager
Basic American Foods
Transaction 10:. 591127.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/scripts/polyform. dll/consUser Address: 63.228.182.239
User Hostname: 63.228.182.239
Jean Jewell
f~,
\j .
f cJi i;?
;!(a yJ:j;y;;;\I~\'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Friday, May 10, 2002 6:14 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday, May 10, 2002
5: 13 : 41
Case: PAC-E-02-
Name: Robert Searcy, Idaho Pacific Corp.
Street Address: P.O. Box 478
City: Ririe
State: 10
ZIP: 83443
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: searcy0idahopacific. com
Company: PacificCorp
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment=descriptIon: As CFO for Idaho Pacific Corp., I attended the May 6th workshop inRigby on PacificCorp ' s proposed rate increases. We have two points to make:
1. We are in agreement with Commissioner Dennis S. Hansen s dissenting opinion that the
requested surcharge is in effect a deferred rate increase on the period prior to January
1, 2002 in which there was a rate increase moratorium agreed upon between the IPUC andScottish Power.
My training and career has been in accounting and finance. In real businesses we cannot
incur operating costs in one year and defer calling them expenses to a future year so that
they can be reimbursed. It reminds me of one word--ENRON.
2. We have further argument if the IPUC concludes to go ahead with the $25 million
surcharge.
Effective January 1, 2002, residentials received a net rate decrease of 47%, and
irrigators received a net rate decrease of 78% due to the $170+ million BPA credit. As
evidenced by other utilities ' failed attempts to get similar credits, it's obvious that
the credit obtained by PacificCorp was a windfall of almost pure luck. However,
commercial users don t get any BPA credits.
It was represented by the IPUC staff that the same energy environment that produced the
high electricity costs from May 2000 to Oct 2001 was the same energy environment that
produced the $170+ million BPA credit for residentials and irrigators. It is our strong
opinion that those who reap the windfalls of the period should also pay the costs, Gi ving
residentials a 28% net decrease and irrigators a net 19% decrease while giving commercials
a 4% increase is abusive.
It may be argued by some that the BPA credl t is an entitlement that can t be taken
This is rebutted by the fact that the IPUC staff took this opportunity to mitigate
subsidies that the irrigators have been getting based on a cost of service basis.was admitted to by a IPUC staff member. Additionally, this BPA credit is so large
extraordinary that it goes beyond any reasonable entitlement.
away.
This
and so
As a commercial user, we request that any surcharges be allocated to the recipients of the
BPA credit.
Thank you.
Robert Searcy
CFO, Idaho Pacific Corporation