20101216Comments.pdf

-\
REef
Idaho Pubic Utilities Commssion
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
ZOW DEC 16 AM 8= 20
To Whom It May Concern:
We are unable to attend either meetig in our area which will discuss Rocky Mounta
Power's proposed rate increase for their Eaern Idaho customers. . A rate increase is
alarming to us.
#l.There was no increase in our Social Securty incomes ths yea, nor wil ther be in
2011. Groceries contiue to rise. (And now electrcity????)
#2. Ths would give Rocky Mounta a 10.6% interest rate. Where ca we go to get tht
rate on our smal savings?
#3. Being retied da farer, we fear for the farers in Idao if they have to pay
higher rates for electrcity. Our food prices will continue to rise if electrcity costs
increase. We feel it wise to be able to grow food here in the U.S and not have to depend
solely on foreign markets.
# 4. It seems that it is a bad time to increase electrc rated in ths ecnomic downtu we
are in.
#5. We ar gråtefulforelectrcity and we tr to conserve on its use. We appreiate the
opprtty to comment and trst tht those on the PUC will consider very cafuly all
aspets of ths proposed increase.
We read in the newspaper tht Rocky Mounta Power wants us to pay more to buy new
widmlls and power lines to move electrcity to Orgon and Calforna. Surly the PUC
would look into ths. Wht is the cost of a new widmll in comparson to a new power
plant?
Sincerely,Jl~tflf~.~
Morrs and Ruth An Gregory
5514 Eat SugatCreekRoad
Preston, Idaho 83263
. D~cenìber 13, 2010
Mr. Jim Kempton, President
ID Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
R£CE
t" M" ß: \ 9
1\\\\\ UEe \ 0
Dear Commissioner Kempton:RE: Case Number PAC-E-IO-07
My name is Chris Leatherman. I moved to Southeastern Idaho five years ago to rear my family. I am employed by
Monsanto as a mining engineer and along with my wife am a parent to two high-school aged children and am fostering
two elementary aged children. I am writing to express my opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's proposed rate
increase.
I am greatly concerned ofthe potential impacts such a rate increase could have on not only my employets ability to
continue operations in the area, but also the impacts to other rate payers and the region's economy as a whole. As well
as being a Monsanto employee, I am a Rocky Mountain power customer (residential rate payer) and am concerned
about increased living costs and potential loss of employment if Monsanto curtails or shuts down operations
As a member of Monsanto's mining staff I have first hand knowledge of how Monsanto's costs to do business wil be
changing with development of a new mine and how new regulatory rules are driving up the cost to do business. I fear
that these issues along with the RMP's sizeable rate increase proposal wil increase Monsanto's costs enough to force
purchase of elemental phosphorus and/or glyphosate from China, thus effectively closing its operations near Soda
Springs. I know of the impact this could have on my family and can only image how devastating closure of Monsanto's
plant could be to Southeast Idaho. A dramatic rate increase could also negatively impact Rocky Mountain Power with
the loss of its largest customer.
Rocky Mountain Power's call for a double digit increase is at such a dramatic level that it threatens the viability of all
manufacturers, not only Monsanto. If approved, it wil have a rippling effect throughout Southeast Idaho that we may
never be able to recover from. In this most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, we have all had to
make do with less. Rocky Mountain Power can, and should, get by with a substantially reduced rate proposaL.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
Sincerely,
~(j¿
Chris Leatherman
1756 Cedar View Road
Soda Springs, ID 83276
-
December 12th, 2010
..~
_, 1',' rs \\fL-~ ¡
R t: tJ c, .,¡ c,. ,.-
flM 8' \ 1
1\ì\t\ GEe \ 6 ¡'In .Mr. Jim Kempton, President ,ri, '--') \ '\,,:.,1,_,\ \1 _ \ .,-=\ '" ~
\IDP-h, 'V t'r)'~'1'jA,;':St\.J\;
U1\i\1\ES c~ ,6"'"ID Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Commissioner Kempton RE: Case Number PAC-E-l0-07
I am writing to you today to express my opposition to Rocky Mountain Powets proposed rate increase.
I am greatly concerned of the impact the proposed rate increase wil have both immediately and in the
future for my family and for my employer. I am also concerned for the region as a whole due to the size and
scope of the planned increase at all levels, for the impact it will have on existing business and the abilty of
the region to attract new business.
RevieWing the size ofthe raises that we have received (and in some cases the lack of them) from our
employers coupled with the fact that for the last two years there have been no social security adjustments
(due to a flat inflation rate) and the proposed federal employee rate freeze for the next two years. We do
,not feel that we can absorb these increases and that the increases themselves are out ofline with the
service being provided to Southeastern Idaho customers. This is partly due to the continued recession that
the country is going through and I feel that this wil be exacerbated by an increase to my employer and feel
that this represents a double hit to me and my family, I do not see how our employers can absorb the
increase in cost that is being requested of them and remain viable as a business let alone give the raises
that would be needed to partially offset the increase that we, their employees will have in order to avert a
major down shift in the standard ofliving throughout the region.
In Mr. Cupparo's testimony on page five lines 5 through 11 he states that the Gateway Transmission
Expansion "will reduce operation cost to customers". Afer reading his testimony among others I suspect he
is referring to customers both South and West of Idaho and that the main benefits of the gateway expansion
is the abilty to transport energy across Idaho from Wyoming to provide the high cost "green" energy from
wind generation that their customers on the west coast have requested along with the abilty to move low
cost hydroelectric power from its generating sources within Idaho to high cost markets on the coast. In the
last few years FMC in Pocatello closed down and while they are not a Rocky Mountain Power customer they
did consume power produced in the "shared" grid which encompasses the low cost hydro electc power
that attacted these large customers in the past and was a large part of the reason for their locating in Idaho
to start with. A large plant like the FMC plant or the Monsanto plant in Soda Springs is said to use the
energy equal to a large metropolitan city like Memphis. I have not seen expansion in the region that would
lead me to believe that the power formerly used by FMC is being consumed locally this leads me to believe
that this porton of the power is being exported via the grid and that we are being asked to subsidize the
energy requirements of the states that Rocky Mountain power servces to the South and West ofIdaho by
paying for the transmission lines needed to transport the power to them not for transmission lines to bring
power into Idaho.
For the reasons noted above I do not feel that we in Southeastern Idaho should be asked to pay for any of
the Gateway Transmission project until it can be shown that the line is used to provide power into Idaho
and then only as a prorated amount based on the value provided to both the utility and to the customers. I
also question why we should be asked to pay for high cost variable "wind" generation when Rocky
Mountain Power dismantled low cost hydro electric power below Grace a few years ago rather than
reinvestng and maintaining the units tnat were there. The primary problem I see with wind generation is
that when the wind does not blow you must have in place either a duplicate unit in an area that the wind is
blowing or the capacity to bring generating capacity on line from either hydroJ gas, coal or nuclear sources
in effect doubling the cost needed for each wind mil turbine. This is a front loaded cost and has no
adjustment for future maintenance of the turbine itself. Since Idaho has no preference in law or policy for
the use of wind generated power and that Idaho's overall energy use appears to have declined over the last
few years (drastically if you include the reduction to Idaho Powers interruptible supply to FMC). I do not
agree that wind generation is a "low cost service with manageable and reasonable risk to customers" (as
stated in Mr. Tallman's testimony on page three lines 4 and 5).
Rocky Mountain Power is seeking a return on equity of 10.6% this is substantially higher than any long
term investment can currently show with most being down around 2%. If you should find that we should
be charged for these services the rate they are seeking is out of line with the current economy.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
Sincerely,0r~~..CQ~
-:o D. ÐO"L G3ö
~oQ&~~\~\'lq~¡ ~ E)O::i~
" December 12th, 2010
Ot;CClîJ¡~~r "\. l. . . t...J v\.~,.
Mr, Jim Kempton, President 20100EC '6 AM 8= 19
ID Public Utilities Commission ID;;lif) PUbL!¡..J
UT!LlTIES COi\jMISS¡ON
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Commissioner Kempton RE: Case Number PAC~E-10-07
I am writing to you today to express my opposition to Rocky Mountain Power's proposed rate increase.
I am greatly concerned of the impact the proposed rate increase will have both immediately and in the
future for my family and for my employer. I am alo concerned for the region as a whole due to the size and
scope of the planned increase at all levels, for the impact it wil have on existing business and the abilty of
the region to attact new business.
Reviewing the size of the raises that we have received (and in some cases the lack of them) from o\lr
employers coupled with the fact that for the last two years there have been no social security adjustments
(due to a flat inflation rate) and the proposed federal employee rate freeze for the next two years. We do
not feel that we can absorb these increases and that the increases themselves are out of line with the
servce being provided to Southeastern Idaho customers. This is partly due to the continued recession that
the countr is going through and I feel that this wil be exacerbated by an increase to my employer and feel
that this represents a double hit to me and my family, I do not see how our employers can absorb the
increase in cost that is being requested of them and remain viable as a business let alone give the raises
that would be needed to partally offset the increase that we, their employees will have in order to avert a
major down shift in the standard ofliving throughout the region.
In Mr. Cupparo's testimony on page five lines 5 through 11 he states that the Gateway Transmission
Expansion "wil reduce operation cost to customers". After reading his testimony among others I suspect he
is referring to customers both South and West of Idaho and that the main benefits of the gateway expansion
is the abilty to transport energy across Idaho from Wyoming to provide the high cost "green" energy from
wind generation that their customers on the west coast have requested along with the abilty to move low
cost hydroelectric power from its generating sources within Idaho to high cost markets on the coast. In the
last few years FMC in Pocatello closed down and while they are not a Rocky Mountain Power customer they
did consume power produced in the "shared" grid which encompasses the low cost hydro electric power
that attracted these 19lge customers in the past and was a large part of the reason for their locating in Idaho
to start with A large plaiit like the FMC plant or the Monsanto plant in Soda Springs is said to use the
energy equal to a large metropolitan city like Memphis. I have not seen expansion in the region that would
lead me to believe that the power formerly used by FMC is being consumed locally ttlS ieaas me to Deneve
that 'this porton of the power is being exported via the grid and that We are being asked to subsidize the
energy requirements of the states that Rock Mountain power servces to the South and West of Idaho by
paying for the tranmission lines needed to tranport the power to them not for transmission lies to bring
power into Idaho.
For the reasons noted above I do not feel that we in Southeasern Idaho should be asked to pay for any of
the Gateway Transmission project until it can be shown that the line is used to provide power into Idaho
and then only as a prorated amount based on the value provided to both the utility and to the customers. I
also question why we should be asked to pay for high cost variable "wind" generation when Rocky
Mountain Power dimantled low cost hydro ~lectc power below Grace a few year ag rather than
reinvesting and maintainig the units that were there. The primaiy problem i see with wind generation is
that when the wind does not blow you mus have in place either a duplicate unit in an area that the wind is
blowing or the capacity to bring generating capacity on line from either hydro, ga, coal or nuclear sources
in effect doubling the cost needed for each wind min tubine. Thi is a front loaded cost and has no
adjustment for future maintenance of the turbine itself. Since Idaho has no preference in law or policy for
the use of wind generated power and that Idao's overal energy use appear to have declined over the last
few years (dratically if you include the reducton to Idaho Powers interrptible supply to FMC). I do not
agree that wind generation is a "low cost servce with manageable and reasonable risk to customers" (as
stated in Mr. Talman's testiony on page three lies 4 and 5).
Rocky Mountan Power is seeking a return on equity of 10.6% this is substantially higher than any long
term investment can currently show with most being down around 2%. If you should find that we should
_be charged for these servces the rate they are seeking is out of line with the current economy.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
Sincerely,~~¿Q.~
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
secretary
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:09 PM
Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
FW: Electricity Rate Increase
From: Chambers, AaronrSMTP:ACHAMBERßiAGRIUM.COMJ
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:08:22 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Electricity Rate Increase
Auto forwarded by a Rule
IPUC,
I oppose the proposed rate increase by Rocky Mountain Power. This will cost jobs in an already tough market. Please
look at this issue from the citizens viewpoint and the impact it wil have on individual familes. Thank you,
Aaron
IMPORTANT NOTICE! This E-Mail transmission and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named above. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents of this E-Mail
by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and is not intended to, in anyway, waive privilege or confidentiality. If you
have received this E-Mail in error please immediately delete it and notify sender at the above E-Mail address. Agrium uses state of the art
anti-virus technology on all incoming and outgoing E-Mail. We encourage and promote the use of safe E-Mail management practices and
recommend you check this, and all other E-Mail and attachments you reeive for the presence of viruses. The sender and Agrium accept no
liability for any damage caused by a virus or otherwise by the transmittl of this E-Mail.
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
giles~icsofidaho.com
Thursday, December 16, 20104:09 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Jerry W Giles follows:
--------- ---- -- ------ - - --- - - ---- - - --
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Jerry W Giles
Address: 90 E Big Springs Rd
City: Soda Springs
State: ID
Zip: 83276
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: giles~icsofidaho.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mtn Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I was in attendance at the IPUC public hearing regarding Rocky Mountain Power' s proposed
rate increase which was held in the Grace~ Idaho American Legion Hall on December 15th~ 2010.
I am in opposistion to the rate increase. I ask Commissioners Kempton~ Smith~ and Redford to
disapprove the current Rocky Mountain Power electrical rate increase. I see the rate increase
as unreasonable. I am in agreement with those who testified during the hearing that: the
planning of the increase is unfounded and proped on a law that does not exist; the increase
is exorbitant; insuring greater than 10% returns to investors is exorbitant; the economic
recessive climate can not afford such a high increase; economic damage in south east Idaho
will be broad spread from the ederly and very limited income people to the more prosperous
people; the impact on local industries and small business will be severe and damage the job
base.
I manage a small trout farm~ the Soda Springs Brood Station~ for Clear Springs Foods~
Inc. in Soda Springs ~ Idaho. There are six employees in the area to be affected by the
electrical rate increase. The increase will effect their personnal lives at home. The
increase will effect the bottom line of their product cost by approximately $3300.00
annually. Increased operation costs exclusive of labor do not allow wage and benefit
maintenance or increases. Company wide we employ over 300 people and are an emplyee owned
company. No employee has had a raise in two years. We operate in a competi ti ve market. If we
were to increase the price of our product at the same rates as Rocky Mtn. Power is proposing
we would drive ourselves out of business.
Thank you!
Jerry W Giles
The form submitted on http://ww.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 216.128.237.252
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
bratgirlav~aol.com
Thursday, December 16, 20106:31 AM.
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Alexis Vaughan follows:
Case Number: PAC-E1e-e7
Name: Alexis Vaughan
Address: 77 N. 1ST West
Ci ty: Preston
State: Idaho
Zip: 83263
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: bratgirlav~aol.com
Name of Utility Company:
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Rocky Mountain Power Persuasive Speech
So I went to the Rocky Mountain Power Presentation in Preston Wednesday night to listen
to what people in our community thought about the ie% raise that Rocky Mountain Power is
asking for from its customers. As I listened to a few speeches, I realized that the lady at
the front table, that was suppose to be paying attention, was looking down at her paper not
really paying much attention. So I said something to my dad. He pointed out that the whole
presentation was just to see what kind of reaction that they are getting from the audience
and customers.
They are only asking for a 1e% raise because they know what they are going to get. They
are only expecting that 6% raise but ask for the 1e % because if they only asked for the six
percent no one will really complain, so pretty much it is just a big business at work.
I still disagree with the 1e % raise though simply because it is taking away from my
education and my future. I am not the only kid that actually cares about their future I
promise but I am one of the few ready to speak up. Why should us kids have to suffer in our
education for Rocky Mountain Power to build wind mills in California and Oregon. I live in
IDAHO!! How is it fair that people in Idaho have to pay for something that is going to help
other state and not our own state.
Its not our fault that Rocky Mountain Power weren't more responisble with their money
and plans. They should have thought about how much money it would take to build the wind
mills in the California and Oregon before they started building them. We shouldn't have to
pay for their mistakes.
The form submitted on http://www. puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 2e7.1e8.238.37- - ----- - ----------- - - - - - - ---- - - -- - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ekgregory~juno.com
Thursday, December 16,20107:36 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Ellen Gregory follows:
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Ellen Gregory
Address: 427 N. Maple Ridge
City: Preston
State: ID
Zip: 83263
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: ekgregor~juno.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Wow. In the current economic straits, as I' m sure has been mentioned by multiple
commentators, I can hardly believable that Pacificorp has the audacity to petition for a rate
hike, particularly on par with the percentage it angles for. In what alternate business
climate--and universe--are they operating?
I urge the commission to refuse Paci ficorp . s request. Because if the concept of making do
with less doesn' t register with Paci ficorp, we in southeastern Idaho just may end up with
less business.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 207.225.33.166------------- --------- - ---- - ----- - --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
bubba~plmw.com
Thursday, December 16, 20107:41 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from brandon fitzgerald follows:
- ----------- - - ------- -- - --- - - - -- - - --
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: brandon fitzgerald
Address:
Ci ty: preston
State: ID
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: bubba~plmw.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky mtn power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Rocky Mountain Power Company rate increases
Rocky Mountain Power Company wants to raise electricity rates by eighty percent to all its
customers that are only in its jurisdiction. This means that the people targeted by this have
no choice but to pay it or fight it as it is the only energy provider available to them. That
much of an increase is unjust~ especially because Rocky Mountain Power is a single monopoly
in many places.
The main reason this massive increase is wrong is because there is no real need for one
so big. Especially in this low economy where people need all the money they can get. Of
course there may be a need for a small increase because of inflation or higher prices for
materials~ but nothing so extreme.
Secondly but also very importantly ~ they are planning to put a power line from Wyoming
to Utah that passes directly through much of Idaho. This will greatly devalue all properties
that it passes through. Worst of all~ they expect us to pay for it with the rate increase
when we won~t benefit from it positively at all.
Lastly Rocky Mountain uses many coal plants that pollute the earth greatly. If they
expect us to agree to such a rate increase they need to be building the more eco-friendly ~
but much more expensi ve ~ al ternati ve energy generators.
Rocky Mountain Power Company does not need such a large rate increase. There are many
things they need to do~ or not do~ before they will get this ridiculous rate increase without
a fight. Such as not making us pay for someone else~ s power line~ and more renewable energy
stations~ and of course they must stop trying to take advantage of us just because they are
the only power provider around.
The form submitted on http://ww . puc. idaho. gov Iformsl ipucll ipuc . html
IP address is 207.108.238.61------------- - -------- - --- - ----- - - --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
soccer_18~yahooo.com
Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:01 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Regan follows:
--- ---------- -------- - ----- -- --- - - --
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Regan
Address: Preston
Ci ty: Preston
State: Idaho
Zip: 83263
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: soccer18~ahooo.com
Name of Utility Company: RMP
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Rocky Mountain Power
Rocky mountain power is lately trying to higher their prices. This will hurt our
community in many ways. It will also hurt our economy. There are ways to fix this problem,
other solutions. They need to work to keep prices down by lowering operating costs and
improving how they do business. Here are some alternate sources:
Among renewable energy sources, hydropower is one of the most often worldwide and is usually
one of the cheapest sources of power. It is by far the largest source of renewable
electricity. Hydropower has the advantage of being a very stable source of power because of
its storage capacity.
Another alternate source is wind power. The supply of energy from wind has advanced over the
past as the cost of generating electricity from wind has decreased. Wind energy is the
fastest growing power technology in the world. Since the early 1970s, wind power production
has grown at an annual rate of nearly 50. Wind power is likely to grow in coming years, but
there are natural and manmade conditions that place limits on its growth potential.
Lastly, solar energy could potentially supply 5,000 times as much energy as the world
currently consumes. Capturing the energy contained in sunlight helps out a lot. In 2004,
solar energy accounted for less than one-tenth of 1% of the global energy supply, even after
a three decade span (1971-2004) during which solar energy production rose at nearly a 30%
annual growth rate.
Rocky Mountain power can do other things before they decide to higher prices. These are just
three alternatives. If they don't higher their prices it would help everyone out.
The form submitted on http://www. puc. idaho .gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 207.108.238.72------------- - ------- - - ---- ---- - - - --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
seamons7~gmail.com
Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:02 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Joseph Seamons follows:
-- - --- - --- --- ---- --- - ---- - ---- - -----
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Joseph Seamons
Address: 7124 E. Birch Creek Rd.
Ci ty: Preston
State: Idaho
Zip: 83263
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: seamons7~mail.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Hi, my name is Joseph Seamons I am in 11th grade at Preston High School. We have recently
been studying the Rocky Mountain Power raise increase in our speech class. We have also had
presentation from one of your main managers and also from Senator Bob Geddes. From these two
presentions I have heard both sides of the matter. I have also attended the recent meeting
were they discussed the raise. I overall feel like I have a good view over what is going on.
My opinion on the matter is that there is no need for an increase I will share my reasoning
with you in the rest of the following paper.
First, rates are not as low as you guys try to show. Though the average rate for Idaho
is 6 cents per kilowatt I have found that in talking to several neighbors and my dad that the
rate in Franklan County is much higher. Our average rate per kilowatt is about 10 cents per
kilowatt. My uncles is closer to 12 cents and says that when he was on Idaho Power up in
Boise that it was closer to 6 cents per kilowatt. The rates here are already as high as some
of the rest highest in the country and I would beg you not to go higher.
Secondly, you guys have not been as smart with investing money as you should have. In
the presentation given by one of your main managers he showed how you guys have invested in
coal and put a lot of money into it. He says you guys chose to do this because you have coal
mines down in utah, but are now forced to dig deeper for cleaner coal. I sympathize with you
on this point, but I think that you could invest in other more reliable resources such as
hydro or perhaps nuclear I don't know but coal is not gonna last forever.
My last point I would like to bring up is you guys are shipping most of your power to
California. I know you guys belong to a bigger coorperation known as Pacific Corp, but
according to one of the articles in one of your cases you ship more than 50% of the power
produced here to California. Now I know this seems a bit odd but shouldn't they be the ones
paying the highter rates if they are the ones who are using most the power produced? I also
do not think it is fair that some farmers are forced to shut off their irrigation power to
their pumps because you cannot produce enough power to go around to everyone. If you can't
produce enough power to meet demand then you need to reanalize what your doing.
In conclusion, hope you can see where I am coming from. We need to try to work with you
in order to meet a compromise. Please do not take offence to my paper at all but please
consider some of the ideas I have stated in this paper. I know most the people in this
community will not except the raise and could cause big problems for you guys. Thank you for
taking the time to read my paper and I hope you guys make the best decision.
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
kkidd4~yahoo.com
Thursday, December 16,20108:09 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Alexis Iverson follows:
Case Number: PAC-E-1e-e7
Name: Alexis Iverson
Address:
City: Preston
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: kkidd~ahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Rocky Mountain Power
Persuasive Essay
I have listened to both sides of this situation. I have talked with many people and
have reaserched my subject by reading documents pertaining to this subject. I believe that
over 1e years a 8% to 12% increase would be reasonable.
If you were to put all of your money in the bank right now you may be able to get a 1%
to 2% increase. I would then be able to see a 8 or 12 percent increace total because then it
is still more than they would be getting, yet still a reasonable number. Eighty percent is
just such an outrageous price that it doesn't seem fair to the rest of the buisnesses around
here.
If it is raised 8e% other buisnesses may think that since they were able to get such a huge
raise and so they think they can also. If the power is raised that will affect everything
else. Gas stations have to pay more for their lights and such so they raise their prices.
Then stores have to raise prices to cover shipping and electricity bills and this will just
keep going on until nearly everything else has been doubled and then where would that leave
us?
The only thing that will not double will be people's wages. Many people are barely scraping
by right now, so what makes you think that people will be just fine in a couple of years when
everything has skyrocketed. This would then send us into inflation and people would begin to
panic. We are recently just coming out of a recession, and especially in this area people
are not making this kind of money. Do you really want to send us back into one?
While I was listening to one of your representatives speak to us in our class they talked of
how bad the enviornmentalists are and how it is nearly impossible to get stuff passed. Most
of the power plants are coal plants. Coal is a pollutant. Don't you think that by polluting
the air and ruining the atmosphere these enviornmentalists will get upset? Not only that,
but into these power plants is where all of our money is going.
After reviewing the information given by both sides I have come to the decision that
compromise is the way to go. Utah and Wyoming both solved their problem this way and we can
to. My vote is that we allow the power company to make a small increase, but not as
significant as they originally asked for. Like I stated before I believe that 8% to 12%
would be a rational increase. tfCompromise, if not the spice of life, is its solidity. It is
what makes nations great and marriages happy. JJ -Unknown
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
pnealy~bearriverpublishing.com
Thursday, December 16,20108:49 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Pat Nealy follows:
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Pat Nealy
Address: 1250 Industrial Park Road
Ci ty: Preston
State: Idaho
Zip: 83263-0152
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: pneal~bearriverpublishing.com Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
This is concerning the proposed rate increase of nearly 14%. My company, Bear River
Publishing, in the Preston Industrial Park currently pays $100,000 annually for power. The
power coming in to my facility is fraught with outages, bumps, brown outs, etc. In the past
year I have replaced press drives, computers and other electrical equipment that have all
failed after these occurrences. I can produce receipts in excess of $40,000 for repairs in
2010 alone. The total damage in the past four years easily exceeds double that and all
attributable to the power events that continually occur.
I have been unable to give raises to employees for two years due to the downturn in the
economy and have reduced my labor force by six to make ends meet. An increase of 14%
($14,000) further reduces my work force and/or negates any possibility of raises in 2011.
Seems odd that the power company thinks that this is acceptable in any way.
Although I have read through the proposal outlining what the increase is for it does not
solve my immediate problem or any of those in the Preston area concerning the poor electrical
infrastructure. in fact, it appears that the expansion you detail will allow you to move
more power to other regions for profit and we get to pay for that expansion and subsequent
profi t increase only to the company.
Until the infrastructure of Preston is specifically addressed we will not support any
increase to expand your capability to carry power to other markets for profit.
The form submitted on http://ww . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 207.225.210.202----- -------- -- ------ ------ ---- - - - --
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
shoppingname~gmail.com
Thursday, December 16,20108:20 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Clair N . Fitch follows:
- ---- ---- ---- -- ------ ----- - - --- - - - --
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Clair N . Fitch
Address: 878 E. Countryside Lane
City: Idaho Falls
State: Idaho
Zip: 83404
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: shoppingnam~mail.com
Name of Utility Company: PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I object to the proposed disproportionate increase in electricity rates for the Residential
Time of Day (TOO) users via Schedule 36. The basis for my objection is that Rocky Mountain
Power ignores the purpose of the Time of Day user in their request, that of shifting a
portion of electrical use from the day or peak usage, to the night where there is excess
capacity. This proposed increase in Sch. 36 rates will have the unintended consequence of
having many TOO users switch to Sch. 1 Residential rates. This will lead to an increase in
the required generating/transmission capacity at peak (day) times. The need for increased
generating/transmission capacity at peak times will lead to a higher rate base which in turn
will result in higher rates per kWh. I have examined much of the testimony and exhibits from
the employees and consultants from Rocky Mountain Power and the IPUC staff members. Nowhere
in the testimony or exhibits did I find an analysis of the benefit of having TOD users. The
only justification for raising the Sch. 36 rates was based on Rocky Mountain applying their
desired return on the full rate base across all customers. Mr. C. Craig Paice has a degree
in Business Management. Mr. Paice and Rocky Mountain Power ignore the economic benefit of
having a load leveling class of customer to take advantage of excess capacity at night.
Current Sch. 36 customers are already paying a premium ( $13.93 per month and 21% more per
kWh in the winter day ) over Sch. 1 customers. Mr. Paice or whomever prepared his testimony
and exhibits should be required by the IPUC to take into account the economic benefit of
having a load-leveling class of customer to take advantage of excess capacity. I suspect RMP
did such an analysis when they first proposed the TOD customer class. Maybe Mr. Paice could
update the original TOD analysis. Many Sch. 36 customers have made a significant economic
investment and changed their lifestyle to conserve power during peak consumption hours and to
delay using power until off-peak hours. They should not be punished with disproportional
higher rates.
Mr. Keith D. Hessing, an IPUC engineer, in his testimony speaks of moving to "full cost of
service" . He appears to buy into the concept that Rocky Mountain Power is portraying, that
is, there is no benefit to load-leveling and that all customers should be charged the same
for peak generating and transmission capacity whether they are using power at peak times or
not. I totally disagree with this part of his testimony.
Mr. Bryan Lanspery, an IPUC rate analyst, has a degree in Economic and appears to understand
the concept of fixed and variable costs and the benefit of load-leveling better than Mr.
Hessing. He advocates treating the Sch. 36 customers the same as the Sch. 1 customers.
This, in my opinion, is closer to what is appropriate. It is just my opinion because the
details of Mr. Paice' s exhibits, especially Exhibit 47, do not facilitate the appropriate
1
fixed cost vs. variable cost analysis or the taking into account the benefit to all customers
of a separate load-leveling customer class .
For this reason, I ask that the IPUC require Rocky Mountain Power to evaluate and to take
into account the benefit of load-leveling customers. RMP should not base the Sch. 36 rates
on the full peak capacity rate of return because Sch. 36 customers use a lower
disproportionate share of the peak generating/transmission capacity.
Thank you, Clair Fitch
The form submitted on http://ww . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc . html
IP address is 174.126.77.34--- -- ---- ------------ ---------- - ----
2
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dean.wellng~gmail.com
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1 :01 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Dean Welling follows:
Case Number: PAC-E-10-07
Name: Dean Welling
Address: 5368 Country Club Dr
Ci ty: Pocatello
State: Id
Zip: 83204
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: dean.wellin~mail.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
My Name is Dean Welling, I have lived and worked in Idaho for almost 30 years. For the last
5 years I worked for Monsanto in Louisiana and this last October transferred back to the
Soda Springs where I had spent the first 25 years of my career.
Today 12/15/10 I attended the rate case hearing in Grace Idaho. I would like to formally echo
the many comments expressed such as the lack of Rocky Mountain Power justification for 10.6%
return on capital, the lack of supportive economics to invest in wind generation, and the
inequity of Idaho rate payers liability to the transmission infrastructure project.
If the proposed rate increase is approved it will be very difficult for Monsanto to remain
competitive. As mentioned by several testimonies this will threaten many good Idaho jobs and
businesses. One thing that the commission should also be aware of is the effect outside the
boarders of Idaho. By that I mean that Monsanto' s phosphourus is sent to Louisiana where the
direct plant employs over 1000 people, plus contractors plus countless other business that
support the area. The Louisiana plant produces Roundup herbicide. As you may be aware there
is fierce competition from China with Gyphosate which is the main ingredient of Roundup.
Monsanto has worked tirelessly to reduce manufacturing costs and has also dropped the price
of Roundup so as to help our customers, the farmer, control their costs as well. If the
proposed rate increase is approved it either has to be passed through Monsanto to their
customers and ultimately the end consumer or the other option is that as a matter of survival
the farmers will be forced to buy lower cost China material. With the last option so goes
many United States jobs to China as well . Neither of the options is healthy for our people
and our country.
I would urge the commission to not only consider the direct effects on Idaho of the rate
increase but also those effects that extend to other parts of the country and reject the
proposed increase.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.209.55.244- ------------ - ----- - - -- - ----- ---- ---
1