20111209Comment.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Verl(§Soderquist.net
Friday, December 09, 2011 2:43 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from VerI Soderquist follows:
-- - - - - - -- - --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case Number: PAC-E-11-12
Name: VerI Soderquist
Address: 882 Parks ide Dr.
City: Rexburg
State: Idaho
Zip: 83440
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: Verl~Soderquist.net
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Power
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
09 December 2011
To: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Fm: VerI Soderquist (Rexburg, 10 83440)
Re: Case Number PAC-E-11-12 Public Hearing
Honorable Commission:
I attended the public hearing for the rate increase for Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) in St.
Anthony, 10 last evening (08 Dec 2011).
From my attendance at that meeting, I have some comments about the meeting and about the rate
increase itself. This is the first meeting of this type that I have attended, therefore, I
would expect that most meeting of this type are similar in nature and format.
I first learned of this meeting from a flier that I received in the mail. Considering the
area served by RMP, Downey and St. Anthony did not seem like very ttcentral" places to hold
these meetings. While I admittedly do not know the details of the selection of these two
towns, they seem a Ii ttleout of the way for most of RMP's customers. This was referenced byseveral of the speakers in the meeting. Was the selection of these locations to discourage
attendance?
As you know by now, the venue was too small for the number of people attending. I am a
proponent of small venues and small meetings. I believe there needs to be more of these
meetings, in more locations, on more dates.
As I entered the meeting I was invited to sign up for the opportunity to address the
Commission. This being my first meeting, I was a little hesitant to sign up for something
with which I was unfamiliar. The person offering the invitation did state that I would have
the opportunity to address the Commission later in the meeting if I so chose. I chose to
listen and speak later. I appreciate that opportunity and invitation.
The first speaker to offer testimony indicated that he would keep his comments to three or
four minutes I expected that that would be the approximate time of each comment. This
speaker did not contain his comments to his own time limit. The second speaker rambled on
for most of an hour. As reported in the news (Local News 8) later in the evening, tt35
minutes into the meeting only two speakers had addressed the Commission." When the reporter
left the meeting, the second speaker had used about half of the time he eventually used and
1
then he had to be stopped by a member of the audience. An hour into the meeting, only two
people had spoken!
The meeting started at 7:00 PM and by 9:00 PM (when I had to leave) apparently about half of
the persons who signed up to speak at the beginning and had the opportunity to speak. Due to
the lack of control over the meeting I was not afforded the opportunity to speak that was
offered earlier.
Again according the news reporter, 23 people had signed up to speak. I believe a 5 minute
limit on each speaker would have allowed adequate time to state a position and then allow
some time for the Commission and its guests to ask questions.
My comment here: Commissioner Kjellander, take control of your meetings! This is a meeting
for public comment - not a platform for a group (either for or against) to monopolize the
meeting (filibuster).
After looking over the figures presented to the audience as we came into the meeting, I
believe RMP should give their negotiators a significant bonus. They came to the Commission
asking for a 15% rate increase. That amount was "reduced" to a mere 15.6% under the
disguise of a 7.8% increase in 2012 and a 7.2% increase in 2013 with no further increases
allowed until 2014. This guarantees that RMP will be granted a rate increase in each of the
next two years and my guess is that RMP is already working on the 2014 rate increase.
The 15.6% increase comes from the following:
RMP will receive $1.078 in 2012 for each $1.00 in 2011.
RMP will receive $1.072 in 2013 for each $1.00 in 2012.
These two together will have its customers paying $1.00 * 1.078 * 1.072 = $1.156 at the
beginning of 2013. The total payments in 2012 and 2013 for each $1.00 paid in 2011 will be
$1.078*12 + $1.156*12 = $25.53.
Had the 15% increase been approved as proposed by RMP, the total payments for 2012 and 2013
would have been $26.60.
The hidden tt secret" here is that the 2014 rate hike will now be based on 1.156 of the 2011
rate instead of the 1.150 rate that RMP requested. Compounding works for rate increases too!
So while the ttnegotiated" settlement costs RMP a little now, it has negotiated its 2014 base
position 0.5% higher than it requested. One half percent does not look very large but if
you add it to one's mortgage payment it suddenly becomes significant. RMP came out OK. If I
were RMP, I i d take this negotiated settlement any day!
I believe the Commission's statement that they had ttreduced" the settlement from 15% to 7 .8%
and 7 .2% to be (at best) misleading if not down-right false. The short term cost may be
smaller but in the long term the result will a higher increase than RMP requested, not lower.
One of speakers was speaking of his rates as an irrigation customer. He mentioned that he
had lost the SPA credits. The RMP spokeswoman responded that the SPA credit was to resume at
the end of this year. My State Senator (seated near me) muttered that the resumption was
only for residential customers. If the Senator is correct, the Commissioners should have
made that clear for the audience and of course it should have been entered into the written
record. Again, I am disappointed in the Commission's control over their own (invited) panel
in the meeting.
I do commend the Commission on letting the RMP spokeswoman know that we in the audience were
not to be expected to know all the details of every part of RMP' s dealing with the
Commission.
In the end, it seemed to me that this meeting is just a formality to meet a requirement of
the law. It appears to me that the ttnegotiations" have already taken place; that to a large
degree the speaking points have already been prepared; and we the public are just an
annoyance that has to be dealt with.
Regards,
VerI Soderquist
882 Parks ide Dr.
Rexburg, 10 83440
208- 356-8443
Verl~Soderquist. net
2