20110208Comments.pdf

~eb 08 1110'28.R~an Asher-af't 208 662 5428 p. 1
February 8, 2011 flU-!= -!I-(J~
Ryan Ashcraft
Hamer Id, 83425
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
To Whom It May Concern:
The load contrl program was sold as a way to reward local farmers for conserving while giving the
utility an avenue of increased revenue by sellng the conserved power to an outside market at
higher margins. It was a "win-winD situation. The propoed changes sound like the utility wants to
change it to a "win more-elective limited gain" program. The curtailment comes during the
hottest, driest part of the season which makes management critical in order for the program to
work. Rocky Mountain Power has done a good job in making the program flexible and workable.
However, with reduced incentives, the return will not justify the nsk in cash crops.
I don't understand why the program needs to be limited unless the capacity doesn't exist
logistically. Why would you want to limit partcipation in a beneficial program?
Allowing the company to select partcipants is a bad idea. A better approac would be to set
certain parameters in which the program wors most effectively and then open it up for anyone
wishing to participate. Perhaps that is the case with the 50 hp limit. If the power diverted from a
small motor doe not return enough to cover the coslof implementing the program then that would
make sense.
As I understand it, when a grower opts out he/she foreges the incentive for that opt out. I put
much effort into not opting out, adding an additional penalty is just a sort of slap in the face to boot.
$5 is insignifiant compared to what I am losing if I am forced to opt out.
As is, i think the program is very workable. I even enroll potato fields in the program. Water
scheduling does become a problem sometimes and has to be managed carefully. The abilty to opt
out is critical when a pump or circle goes down. I appreciate Rocky Mountain Powets wilingnes
to facilitate this program which helps to curb the high cost of power. This seems like a good fi if it
can use energy more effciently rather than increasing productin so that capacty is far greater
than need in spring, fall, and winter.
Sincerely yours,
Ryan Ashcraft
r
r:
tDriFfS -7 PM 2: 24
(JA-C-F-I/-O(P
Feb 3, 2011
To whom it may concern:
As an irrigator who has participated in the Rocky Mountain Power Load Control Program I wish
to express how beneficial it has been for us as irrigators. It has reduced our power costs by a
large percent. I have been told ( by power company employees) that the program worked so well
that they were going to decrease those that could participant and lower the incentive. As we are
facing HIGHER cost for fuel and fertilizer it seem totally unfair to increase our power cost just
because the program worked. It would raise our cost by over 22%.
Thank You,
Carl M. Ball
Hamer Farm LC
PO Box 69
Lewisvile, Id 83431
208-754-4651
/06/ 11 1 0 : 25 PM Page 1
PIrC-£-// -O~
Diamond Milliron Ranch, Inc.
4503 North Little Lost River Highway
P.O. Box 10
Howe, Idoho 83244
208-767-3124
208M767-3136 fox
Send to:
.') ,.1" /1.- ..? / l¿,-;.:
Cl Urgent
1: Reply ASAP
o Please comment
~ Please Review
;î for your Inlorma"on
Tolal pages. including cover
Comments:
Ld(~. i 1'--. V' r'1(,Lf-ot,~1 (.~ 1'.' .fh.i' 7.) ¡ ¿L. rn () /' .Il. f AI t /1/ I"'l/A/ (~~.:¿~j
. t1'i 0-,.. ('.l' líDl'~(l.. LV eLL, . JllLr/ tl 0 C~..r (t) L ) ¿./~_q.:t~1 () ¡-
lAJDtti Le:.\~?' rrLl) tk./.'.tJ Ý.ï ¿t jJtio r-el-- C.f () f) i
~'Vtth.. p¡r-Iú:'..lj()t) -¡Iu r-ic~'t:. U...t¿, r~¿'lt¡ l.Îf./:
.-tha;ç.':~ ii\/c.en-fi (/(':.':;" &L/ t.. -L.U C!LLf! ti. (¿'t. A/O
¿;..f Dl..fU¡ e,,, "'ili..a. :-'I/¿, ij(; ll_ ~
"
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
secretary
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:18 AM
Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
FW: PAC-E-11-06 COMMENT
From: bradysbeeftWgmail.com on behalf of John BradyrSMTP:JOHNtWBRADYSBEEF.COMl
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8: 17:27 AM
To: secretary
Subject: PAC-E-11-06 COMMENT
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Secretary,
I am opposed to the restructuing of Rocky Mountain Power's load control rates. We have taken advantage of
this program as an option to reduce our irrigation costs and help manage peak loads which is a very real issue.
It is very inconvenient to paricipate and at a lower rate of payback we will probably not do it. We have been
in the program since the beginnng of it, and by their own admission in the petition before you, the program was
quite succes~ful in the beginning. Now that they have too many applicants and canot manage the load, we
who joined them early are just getting lumped in with the whole group to be cut down to size. I object. Those
of us who helped out in the early stage of the program should be allowed to stay on at the curent rate--or
higher. Those that came on board later should be the ones down sized or compensated less.
Please be fair about this.
Thans,
John Brady
3975 E. Virginia Rd.
Downey, ID 83234
1
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
secretary
Saturday, February OS, 2011 1 :25 PM
Barb Barrows; Jean Jewell
FW: Be wise say no to utilty company's load control reduction.
fA-C--l'.II-ot
~- - - - - - -- - --- --- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
From: mrspud~iglide. net (SMTP: MRSPU~IGLIDE. NET)
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1: 22: 57 PM
To: secretary
Subject: Be wise say no to utility company' s load control reduction.
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Bryan Searle
538 E. 1250 N.
Shelley, ID 83274- 5023
February 5, 2011
Public Utilities Commissioners
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Dear Public Utilities Commissioners:
I wish to comment on the Rocky Mountain Power Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program,
case number PAC-E-11-06. I have participated in the load control program the past few years.
It was not an easy decisi9n to make as we could face the potential of a yield and quality
loss due to hot weather from a lack of water. It is a huge risk we have taken but have done
so because of the savings in growing of a crop. Trying to lower our input costs to be
profitable and yet not loosing the full potential. By allowing Rockymountain Power to cut
back will make that decision an easier one that of not participating in the program. This in
turn will have them back to you to allow them to build more power generation raising the over
all price for power. The peak time is a very short one and one we can work with if we are
compensated as promised for particpation in the program. All the equipment is intstalled on
all our systems no matter the horse power and would be of little or no cost to continue the
program as promised in the beginning. I feel we should be compensated even at a higher
amount for the risk and inconvenience of the power being turned off. I need a program I can
count on year after year and power to be supplied at a reasonable cost. The program is
there, we are trying to make it work please do not allow the proposed changes. Thank-you,
for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Bryan Searle
208-521-5636
i