| Docket Number | Docket Name | Company |
|---|---|---|
| UE 426 | IDAHO POWER REQUEST FOR A GENERAL RATE REVISION | IDAHO POWER COMPANY |
| Comment Number | Created Date | Email Received Date | Company Name | Comment Type | Source Type | First Name | Last Name | Nearest City | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UE 426-1 | 12/27/2023 12:32:52 AM | 10/4/2023 11:31:25 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Customer wanted to voice his comments as: I want to vote no to the Idaho Power increase, I don’t want any fixed rates and I don’t want any increases. I want Biden to pay for it because they said it was for infrastructure stuff, so charge him for it. I saw it on TV so I don’t want it. Just put my vote as no. Thank you, Carissa M. Spenst Carissa M. Spenst Compliance Specialist Oregon Public Utility Commission Puc.consumer@puc.oregon.gov<mailto:Puc.consumer@puc.oregon.gov> 1-800-522-2404/503-378-6600 503-378-5743 (fax) | |||||
| UE 426-10 | 3/18/2024 9:37:51 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Abby | Apodaca | ONTARIO | Please do not raise rates as consumers are already struggling to afford basic necessities. | ||
| UE 426-11 | 3/18/2024 3:53:35 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | D.A. | Danser | BAKER CITY | I simply wished to state that an almost 24% rate hike makes it very difficult indeed for those of us who live on Social Security income only, or in my case, a widows pension. I can go on and on whining, but that will do nothing. I simply prefer that you take into account those of us on a fixed income. We can't AFFORD that kind of increase! Do I eat, pay a bill, or refill a prescription? Thank you for your time, and the opportunity to comment. | ||
| UE 426-13 | 3/20/2024 12:31:49 AM | 3/18/2024 7:00:17 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | mariaangelamuralles@gmail.com | This is not right some families are barely making it! And am guessing we have no right in voting on this as customers correct ? We just gonna keep paying until we can’t afford ? cid:18e546d450e5088ea382 | ||||
| UE 426-14 | 3/20/2024 12:31:52 AM | 3/18/2024 6:49:38 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | akjscheler@hotmail.com | I am emailing to strongly discourage a rate increase from Idaho Power. I understand that everything is going up, and this can mean increases for a company as well. However, unless the company is in dire need of rate increase please consider not implementing this increase. As a middle class American with a family, I am struggling to make ends meet. Prior to COVID, we lived mostly comfortably with the ability to save, and I made less than I currently do. However, with inflation, food cost, increase in taxes and house insurance and multiple companies raising their rates, we are stretching every penny. Our electric bill is already incredibly high, close to $150-200 per month. We do everything we can to conserve energy, but it is still high. Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion. Kcia Fletcher Get Outlook for iOS | ||||
| UE 426-15 | 3/20/2024 12:31:55 AM | 3/18/2024 3:17:31 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | allikey09@gmail.com | To whom it may concern, I am strongly opposed to the proposed rate hikes slated for this fall and urge the Oregon Public Utility Commission to not accept the proposal made by Idaho Power. I'm sure Idaho Power is no stranger to rising costs. However, so is its entire customer base. This is no small hike in rates. Asking families to pay an extra 26% would harm many families that are barely making ends meet or push families that are scraping by closer to the poverty line. In the 2008 economic crisis, I had to watch my parents choose between paying the electric bill or paying the gas bill. I know there are many families in this historically high inflation economy that are facing the same choices every month. This increase would also put pressure not only on many businesses across our counties but especially harm small businesses trying to stay afloat in our current economic climate. Businesses will then have to pass this higher operation cost onto the consumer. Consumers will be forced to either pay the higher price or find cheaper alternatives. Either choice harms business and the strength of consumer buying power. Again I urge the OPUC to turn down the rate increase proposal. Thanks you, Alli Key | ||||
| UE 426-16 | 3/20/2024 12:31:58 AM | 3/15/2024 6:40:55 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | david@dialegomai.com | With Idaho Power proposing a rate increase, they will be the highest profiting Power Utility in Oregon. Further, the citizens of Idaho make up the largest increase in new customers and yet Idaho Power had a 9% increase in Idaho. It is my position that Idaho Power receives a price increase of 16%. This should provide Idaho Power ample increase to cover the increased costs while providing excellent service to Oregon residents. | ||||
| UE 426-17 | 3/20/2024 2:15:00 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | ONTARIO | I would like to comment on the rate increase for Idaho Power customers. I would like to say I disapprove of the increase due to the hardship it will cause me and my family. I work a full-time job live check to check. I have 3 grandchildren which we need power for heat, water source, entertainment, business and schoolwork. I believe the rate is already why about the standard of living for our area. I see solar panels and wind machines all over and wonder when the power cost is going to go down since we're a nation of saving power. Those are my thoughts on a personal level. On a service provider to the community at larger I know some of our clients who are struggling to keep their power on, that's where we come in and assist. Some of those clients need for medical purposes and/or they have small children who rely on power for a normal life. We should not be putting an unburden stress on people over profits. Human life must live on, and we are all God's children and the power of money is the devil. Please do take in consideration my comment on this matter, PLEASE. | ||||
| UE 426-18 | 3/20/2024 3:04:06 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Stephanie | Sesker | ONTARIO | I oppose | ||
| UE 426-19 | 3/20/2024 8:25:51 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Roger | Findley | ONTARIO | I am a 3rd generation farmer from Ontario, Oregon. My Grandad and Dad came here from the dust bowl in SE Colorado in 1937, looking for a new start. They homesteaded the farm I am currently farming. The farm consists of 93 acres of irrigated land from the Owyhee Project and 270 acres above the canal irrigated by deep wells. One well has a 100 hp electric motor, the other a 200 hp electric motor. The total electric bill for the 200 hp motor in 2023 was $24,462 which equals $153 per acre. The Owyhee project land was $75 per acre. In 2019, the total electric bill for the 200 hp motor was almost $32,000. To help mitigate Power rate increases in the past I have installed solar (14kW in 2010), installed a variable speed drive on the motor (2013), and put in more solar (2014). In 2019 (with the $32,000 total bill) I decided to expand the 2010 solar array from 14kW to 50kW. Thats what dropped my 2023 total bill down to $24,462. With IP's proposed rate increase for irrigators (35%) I will need to mitigate again but I can't with solar as IP wants to do away with net metering on any expansion of existing solar. They are proposing a new rate schedule to replace net metering which is not beneficial to me. I am between a rock and a hard place. I would like to keep the farm intact for the next generation as it is an economic unit but with the extremely high rate increase, I don't know if that will be possible. I checked wheat prices today and it is down 20% from last year. Corn prices are down 25% from last year. Alfalfa hay prices are less than half what they were last year. Meanwhile fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, repairs, new equipment, and labor are all up 15 to 20 percent over last year. I could be facing a crossroads of keeping the farm if this hugh rate increase is granted. | ||
| UE 426-2 | 1/12/2024 12:31:43 AM | 1/7/2024 3:50:22 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | ott.irene@frontier.com | ott.irene@frontier.com<mailto:ott.irene@frontier.com>. Please include the attached public comments regarding Idaho Power's Request for a Rate Increase to their Oregon Customers. TO: Oregon Public Utilities Commission Date: 1/7/24 FROM: Irene Gilbert/ 2310 Adams Ave./La Grande, Oregon 97850 Email: ott.irene@frontier.com<mailto:ott.irene@frontier.com> Phone: 541-805-8446 Subject: Docket UE-426 Idaho Power Companies Request for General Rate Revision Filed December 15, 2023 Dear Commissioners: The following are significant concerns generated by a cursory review of the request for a Rate Increase for Oregon Electricity Customers: This request is not justified due to the fact that there are multiple discrepancies Between the previous statements made by the company representatives to the Public Utility Commission and the Energy Facility Siting Council and their request for this rate increase. In addition, there is a lack of information which identifies the utilization and benefits of the expenses to the Oregon customers being subjected to the requested rate increases. Basing the need for increased revenue on expenditures and increased needs of Idaho customers does not justify having Oregon customers pay for them. A large percentage of the future expenses being incurred by Idaho Power will result from their investment in the B2H transmission line. Idaho Power has provided conflicting information to the Oregon Department of Energy, the Energy Facility Siting Council and the PUC in previous and current submissions compared to that contained in their request for a rate increase. Objections to this rate increase includes, but are not limited to the following: 1. Oregon Counties subject to the rate increase will not benefit from costs incurred for Wildfire mitigation. Idaho Power describes a “robust” wildfire plan which focuses their expenses on the areas they have identified as highest risk .Most of the funding being spent and proposed to be spent will be directed to addressing wildfire risk in the State of Idaho. The requests from Counties in Oregon for staff and equipment needed to address the wildfire risk resulting from the Idaho Power development of the B2H transmission line were not implemented Wildfire risk in the five counties crossed by the transmission line were determined based upon a comparison of Eastern and Western United States. This resulted in no areas in Oregon containing the transmission Line being rated as “red” zones requiring “robust” mitigation. Only two areas were rated as “yellow” zones requiring a reduced level, and the rest supposedly had little wildfire risk. They failed to consider the site specific evaluations of the areas in the Counties being crossed by their transmission line indicating there are multiple “high risk”” areas which should require “robust mitigation.” 1. Arguments regarding the risks listed as necessitating a greater return on investment than larger utilities is inconsistent with the statements provided to the EFSC and ODOE and which continue to be their testimony in their currently proposed Amendments to the Site Certificate for the only development they are proposing in Oregon counties. Idaho Power continues to state that they are subject to virtually no risks of defaulting or being unable to meet their obligations regarding the B2H transmission line. Due to these assurances, they are not being required to maintain the bond for site restoration that is required of all other utility developments in the state. Their bond amount is currently set at $1.00. The entire risk of default on the part of Idaho Power due to financial problems or any other future events resulting in the company failing to restore their site have been transferred to their customers, Oregon citizens and landowners. 1. Arguments regarding the need for increased rates based upon increased Oregon customers or increased energy use are not supported by facts. Idaho Power’s customers all reside in Malheur or Baker Counties. According to the Oregon Department of Energy report to the legislature, for Oregon as a whole, during the past decade, the number of Oregon citizens has increased, however, the per household use of electricity has decreased resulting in virtually a flat usage for Oregon as a whole. Projections that Idaho Power will have an increase in the number of it’s Oregon customers are also not consistent with the Census reports which show that the number of people in Eastern Oregon has gone down. This is further supported by the Oregon Blue Book data compiled by the Population Research Center of Portland State University, between 2020 and 2022, the population of Malheur and Baker Counties have decreased. Basing their request for a rate increase on increases in population or energy user in another state does not support an increase in rates for Oregon customers. Customers in these financially disadvantaged counties of Eastern Ore | ||||
| UE 426-20 | 3/22/2024 7:40:44 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Clayton | Crowhurst | ONTARIO | As an owner and operator of an affordable housing property in Ontario our organization, Northwest Housing Alternatives, vehemently opposes the proposed rate increase by Idaho Power. Not only will this rate increase mean increased operating costs for our property, diverting funds away from tenant supports and services, but will also have a disparate impact on the low-income families that live at our property and across the region. Due to inflation, below average wage increases, and other regional economic factors many low-income families already struggle to just pay for the bare essentials of their lives. This rate increase is done with no regard to these families and will force many more Oregonians into a position of default and collections with an investor owned utility that has historically shown little to no regard for their lower income customers. Idaho Power has also worked to tamp down on customer solar generation while reducing the amount that they are willing to pay for customer generated power. Coupled with this rate increase it is clear that this rate increase is not about raising revenue for transmission infrastructure improvements. It is being initiated to extract as much capital out of Eastern Oregon as possible and redistribute it to shareholders and executives. Please do not allow this rate increase and hold Idaho Power accountable in delivering power at accessible rates to the customers who are forced to access their services. | ||
| UE 426-21 | 3/15/2024 11:58:50 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Michael | Derrick | ONTARIO | I would like to say that I feel these rate hikes are beyond a reasonable increase rate. I have a property management business and I know many of our tenants are struggling due to the increased cost of everything. As for rent, we have increased rents but not close to the amount allowed by law as we see these hardworking tenants struggling to make ends meet. Our owners need a reasonable return on their investment and costs have increased but not at the rates Idaho Power is requesting. It seems that a 10% adjustment downward on the agricultural and residential customers would be sufficient, The other groups should see about a 5% decrease in the rate increase. Thank you for your time | ||
| UE 426-22 | 3/16/2024 6:13:35 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Jeffrey | Hess | NYSSA | I oppose any rate hikes for Idaho Power. The cost of electricity is already too high. We as consumers have no other options… unless we go solar, which is an expensive upfront cost . Idaho Power should increase incentives for solar power and pay for the cheaper energy sources. | ||
| UE 426-23 | 3/18/2024 2:26:16 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Ron | Benton | BEND | I'm a resident of Boise, Idaho, and I oppose the requested rate increases by Idaho Power to residential customers. The rate increases is well beyond the cost of living adjustments and even inflation over the last twenty-four months. I'm not opposed to a rate increase, but the nearly 27% ask is exorbitant. | ||
| UE 426-24 | 3/19/2024 7:11:07 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Veronica | Routtu | ONTARIO | Already only using and heating 2 rooms in winter, (one at a time) bought motion sensor LED lights for several rooms to minimize electric use, flipped the switch on the fuse box for the furnace to off. During summer I roast because I cannot afford to run the air conditioner anymore. Continuing to look into other options to use the least amount of electricity possible!! | ||
| UE 426-25 | 3/20/2024 5:24:58 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Angie | Martinez | NYSSA | They’re making it hard for people to even afford to live in this economy. They raised it enough, it should not be raised more. My bill went up tremendously. | ||
| UE 426-26 | 3/14/2024 9:45:23 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Jacqueline | Cuevas | NYSSA | We are already pay extra fees for this and that. Making more cost raises only makes those in low income households struggle to pay and then what? You shut off service because they can't pay 200$ a month when they need to keep their family warm and the price keeps increasing. | ||
| UE 426-27 | 3/15/2024 11:48:00 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | R | Haidle | ONTARIO | Is this rate revision in anticipation of breaching the dams? If not, what is the anticipated revision after dams are breached? | ||
| UE 426-28 | 3/25/2024 12:31:57 AM | 3/22/2024 9:31:28 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | sflewis@q.com | As both a residential customer and also an irrigator, these proposed rate increases are outrageous and a financial disaster. How can people be expected to absorb rate increases of 35.67% into their budgets. This is a giant inflation creator. Irrigators will have no choice but to pass along these increases for their crops and food production. As a residential customer and a fixed income retiree, how are we expected to live with a 26.76% increase? Idaho Power thinks by offering discounts for low-income people, that solves the problem. It does not! If you don't qualify, then what? Telling us there are discounts is just an insult! Why aren't the increases following the inflation rate? Steven R. Lewis Frances R. Lewis | ||||
| UE 426-29 | 3/18/2024 1:34:36 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Phil | Wreden | HALFWAY | It’s not to say Idaho Power has cost increases to provide electricity to public and businesses but a 26% increase for residential senior customers on fixed income will add to our burden and our financial woes. It’s just going to make it a challenge to stay reasonably comfortable during the winter months especially. Burn more wood, which costs more every year, and adds to pollution. For me personally, summer months are manageable with keeping my house closed up and then opening in the evening when temperatures drop. Then, again, if we’re contending with forest fire smoke in summer, it’ll be tough to open doors and windows, potentially adding to our financial burden by running fans and a/c (if available). If our yearly Social Security COLA increased with the general inflation, a small increase for power might be more easily managed, but that doesn’t happen. My property taxes have increased from about $600 2003 to over $1200 in 2024 because of rising property values. Food costs keep going up. Now electric. Fixed income, not so much. Thank you for your consideration. | ||
| UE 426-3 | 2/5/2024 12:31:46 AM | 2/2/2024 2:39:45 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Ellie.KNOLL@puc.oregon.gov | From: david ayhens <dmayhens@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 1:44 PM To: PUC PUCHearings * PUC <puc.hearings@puc.oregon.gov> Subject: IP general rate case dmayhens@hotmail.com<mailto:dmayhens@hotmail.com>. I have a grievance, there's a few things i would like for you to consider. first, Idaho Power has increased or rates several times one was to get to the national average, overseeing salmon and steel head which we pay for in the Columbia basin charge, and how can a power company purchase not 1 but 2 ranches in Oregon, in-addition they purchase recreational vehicle's, spendy drones, and I'm sure there's more. We continue to have crappie service with power outages. Also, I heard they sell power to California but we dont a kick back from it. it's time to stop the extras and control the companies from greed maybe its time to control the spending and be happy with what they have. Our standard average bill is over $200 when's enough. I 'm sure if you ask a lot more people would have more to say about. Sincerely, David Ayhens | ||||
| UE 426-30 | 3/18/2024 1:34:36 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Phil | Wreden | HALFWAY | It’s not to say Idaho Power has cost increases to provide electricity to public and businesses but a 26% increase for residential senior customers on fixed income will add to our burden and our financial woes. It’s just going to make it a challenge to stay reasonably comfortable during the winter months especially. Burn more wood, which costs more every year, and adds to pollution. For me personally, summer months are manageable with keeping my house closed up and then opening in the evening when temperatures drop. Then, again, if we’re contending with forest fire smoke in summer, it’ll be tough to open doors and windows, potentially adding to our financial burden by running fans and a/c (if available). If our yearly Social Security COLA increased with the general inflation, a small increase for power might be more easily managed, but that doesn’t happen. My property taxes have increased from about $600 2003 to over $1200 in 2024 because of rising property values. Food costs keep going up. Now electric. Fixed income, not so much. Thank you for your consideration. | ||
| UE 426-31 | 3/25/2024 11:13:51 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Chris | Kathriner | ONTARIO | Idaho Power rates are already too high. Now they want more? When does it end? Since 2003, I have seen my power rate double. Consumers, Farmers, Residents cannot continue to pay for Idaho Power to increase its profits. | ||
| UE 426-32 | 4/3/2024 12:31:39 AM | 4/2/2024 10:06:46 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | beefgirl46@yahoo.com | To Whom it May Concern, I am currently an Idaho Power customer and very concerned about the rate increase that has been proposed in rural Oregon. I am a small farmer and have been fortunate enough to make small upgrades around our property to improve productivity. With this came an upgrade to our irrigation system several years ago. We installed wheel lines where there was originally gated pipe and this has increased our hay production by an extra cutting and enough regrowth for grazing in the fall and winter. This upgrade alone has paid for itself. However, if there is a rate increase of 35% for irrigation customers the upgrade will no longer make sense for our operation. I think this would be the case for many farmers in our area. With the amount of pivots being put in, I can understand the need to upgrade the power system in our area, but with a fee increase of a third of what we are already paying, many people may rethink this. Budgets are already tight and margins close in farming and to implement a rate increase this substantial would be detrimental to our bottom dollar as well. Eastern Oregon is a farming area where families rely on the farms and ranches for supporting their families and their livelihood. Increasing power costs will not only effect our irrigating costs, but our homes as well. There is also a proposed rate hike for residential use, commercial use, large power customers, and small power customers. This means that not only will we be paying 35% more for our own irrigation use, but also the trickle down effect of all of the inputs that we use on our farms and ranches. Unfortunately for the farmers and ranchers we do not control the prices we get for our commodities and are left to "take it in the shorts" when input costs increase and our commodity prices don't or even go down. Please take into consideration the people who are paying for electricity and effects this will have on our community where people already have a hard time paying their bills. According to numerous statistics, including the Oregon Health Authority, Malheur county is the poorest county in Oregon with nearly 26% of it's population at or below federal poverty level. A residential rate increase of 26.76% would be detrimental to Malheur county residence off the farm as well. These considerations need to be taken into account before any rate increase in implemented. Thank you for your time and I would appreciate these points, as well as many other valid points, being taken into consideration before electricity rate hikes are implemented in our area. Sincerely, Bethany Flerchinger | ||||
| UE 426-33 | 4/3/2024 12:25:09 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Kathy | Clarich | VALE | I am in opposition of Idaho Power rate increase. My husband and I own approx 80 acres which we just put pivots on to conserve water as we quite often are in drought. Running the pivot for 36 hours was over $300 in electricity and with the 35% increase it would be over $400 and that is just for 1 1/2 days for 35 acres when the weather is in the hundreds then the water is on everyday. This really puts a burden on us small farmers to try and even break even with all the other costs for crops. I believe that if they need money to build the transmission line from Hemenway then all Idaho power customers should pay equally. We were told at the meetings that the transmission line is to sell power to California, so Idaho Power should not increase our rates to build that line. This is not the time to raise the rates on the Oregon customers. Please help the rural Oregonians and not grant this rate increase. | ||
| UE 426-35 | 4/6/2024 11:46:03 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | irene | Gilbert | LA GRANDE | I just reviewed the CUB comments. 1. It is clear that there needs to be a change in a system that reinforces utilities for construction of new development rather than encouraging them to maintain and upgrade existing facilities. A review of the amount of new construction being proposed compared to the proposals to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure makes it clear that there is no real interest in the latter and there is no financial incentive to focus on this option. 2. Low income customers of this utility are those least able to participate in Oregon programs which provide credits and incentives for weatherization, installing energy efficient heating, changing out light fixtures for more efficient light sources, purchasing energy efficient appliances, insulation, installation of rooftop solar, etc. They lack resources to pay for whatever homeowner or renter payments are required so the disparity between the financially disadvantaged and the rest of the state will continue to increase. They are also the ones who are most significantly impacted by the rate increase proposed. 3. In addition, Idaho Power has transferred their financial risk to their customers. They have told the Energy Facility Siting Council that the Oregon PUC will require their customers pay the costs of site restoration should Idaho Power fail to do so due to bankruptcy, wildfire, or other unforeseen events. Because of this, the Site Certificate requires only a $1.00 bond to pay for restoration in the event that Idaho Power fails to do so. Idaho Power is claiming that they currently have a financial need that requires a revenue increase beyond the ability of many of their customers to assume. At the same time, they have inserted additional risk to their customers related to the B2H construction by arguing successfully to not include Mitigation for impacts to Federally Protected Threatened and Endangered Species, successfully arguing against having the site certificate require that they comply with state Invasive Weed laws. Noise laws or the Forest Practices Act,. as well as assuming Bonneville Power's financial commitment to the project. These risks have been magnified by their insistence that agencies responsible for monitoring their actions and decisions ignore the risk that PaciCorp is adding due to the projected billions of dollars of damage claims against them, their poor record for maintaining their equipment, their huge and increasing dept load, etc. These kinds of actions increase the future financial risk to Idaho Power's customers. Placing the burden of future costs of not addressing these issues in the site certificate on their customers compounded with the current unreasonable rate increases are simply unsustainable. | ||
| UE 426-36 | 4/12/2024 12:31:30 AM | 4/11/2024 10:22:27 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | PUC.PUBLICCOMMENTS@puc.oregon.gov | To: Oregon PUC March 19, 2024 From: Irene Gilbert Subject Idaho Power Request for rate increase for Oregon Customers For several years I have been representing the public in actions regarding access to and costs of electric service through my role as Co-Chair of Stop B2H, a member of the Blue Mountain Alliance, and previously as Legal Research Analyst for Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley. I understand that the public comment period for Idaho Power’s request for a substantial increase in rates is now open. I previously submitted my first look at the request for a rate increase for Oregon Customers. I am resubmitting that request to assure that it is in the public record. In addition, I am including the attached concerns: THE RATE INCREASE UNFAIRLY BURDENS CUSTOMERS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIVE IN IDAHO The request fails to comply with FERC order 1,000 regarding Regional Transmission Cost Allocation. The most egregious problems are: 1. “cost of transmission facilities must be allocated to those in the transmission planning region that benefit from the facilities in a manner that is roughly commensurate with estimated benefits” 5) The method of determining benefits and identify beneficiaries must be transparent. The proposed rate increases to Oregon customers are to reflect the services they receive. There is nothing in the application that provides that the developer met these requirements to base the request to the Oregon PUC. No assessment of the benefits to Oregon customers compared to the costs, Idaho Power’s request for a rate increase for Oregon customers in no way reflects the costs for services they are providing to them. The entire document identifying costs makes no effort to break down the amount of the projected costs which actually should be assumed by the 20,004 (3.2%) of their customers. Any rate increase needs to be either based upon actual costs or reflect 3.2% of their total costs. Idaho Power has 602,956 (96.8%) of their customers in Idaho and 20,004 (3.2%) of their customers in Oregon. Idaho PUC approved a rate increase for January 1, 2024 of 54.7 million which included a 4.90% increase in the rates for residential customers. Idaho Power is using virtually the same information which applies to the companies entire costs to require it’s 20,004 Oregon customers to pay for 10.7 million of their projected costs. The 54.7 million increase for their 602.956 customers living in Idaho amounts to having each customer pay for $90.72. In the event that the Oregon PUC were to approve the requested rate increase, the 10.7 million dollars divided by the 20,004 customers living in Oregon means the average amount each Oregon customer would be paying is $534.89. In other words, 3.2% of their customers are supposed to assume the responsibility for 16.4% of their total stated budget. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered commensurate with estimated benefits. The other method of determining a fair and equitable cost vs benefits calculation would be to break down what part of the costs being projected would actually be spent for Oregon customers If this were the approach, in order for the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to meet their mandate of protecting citizens and agencies in Oregon, they need to require Idaho Power to provide figures for Oregon customers. Most of the stated costs will be used to providing for Idaho customers. Example One: The wildfire mitigation is focused on “red” hazard areas and Idaho Power claims there are no “red” zones in the entire length of the B2H transmission line going through Oregon. They only identify a few miles of “yellow” zone areas in Oregon, and they do not appear to even be in the counties containing their Oregon customers. Example Two: They state that since 2011 their customers have increased by 23% or 120,000 customers. The census figures for all of Baker county show that the total number of citizens in the county has only increased 534 between April 1, 2010 and April 1, 2020. That is a 3.3% increase, and not all of them live alone or are electricity customers. In Malheur County where most of Idaho Power’s customers live, the increase between 2010 and 2020 was 258 people which is less than 1% over the 10 year period if every one of those citizens purchased power from Idaho Power as separate customers. Using figures from over 600,000 customers in Idaho and applying them to the 20,004 customers in Oregon has absolutely no validity. It is abundantly clear that using an increase in customers to support the increase does not apply to rate increases requested for their Oregon customer base. The PUC needs to either base any increase on having Oregon customers assuming the same $90.72 per customer rate that is being allowed in Idaho for a total increase of 1.8 million dollars or require Idaho Power to submit an applicat | ||||
| UE 426-37 | 4/12/2024 12:31:32 AM | 4/11/2024 9:39:25 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | PUC.PUBLICCOMMENTS@puc.oregon.gov | TO: Oregon Public Utilities Commission Date: 3/26/24 FROM: Irene Gilbert/ 2310 Adams Ave./La Grande, Oregon 97850 Email: ott.irene@frontier.com<mailto:ott.irene@frontier.com> Phone: 541-805-8446 Subject: Docket UE-426 Idaho Power Companies Request for General Rate Revision Filed December 15, 2023 THESE COMMENTS ATTEMPT TO INCORPORATE COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ON 1/7/24 WITH ADDITIONAL CONCERNS IDENTIFIED AFTER THAT SUBMISSION Dear Commissioners: For several years I have been representing the public in actions regarding access to and costs of electric service through my role as Co-Chair of Stop B2H, a member of the Blue Mountain Alliance, and previously as Legal Research Analyst for Friends of the Grande Ronde Valley. I have also been participating in actions of the Oregon Department of Energy and Energy Facility Siting council for over a dozen years including serving on Advisory Committees, submitting public testimony, filing actions as a pro se petitioner, etc. I previously submitted my first look at the request for a rate increase for Oregon Customers. My comments are being submitted to the public record on behalf of myself as an individual and the public interest. 1. THE RATE INCREASE UNFAIRLY BURDENS CUSTOMERS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIVE IN IDAHO The request fails to comply with FERC order 1,000 regarding Regional Transmission Cost Allocation. The most egregious problems are: 1. “cost of transmission facilities must be allocated to those in the transmission planning region that benefit from the facilities in a manner that is roughly commensurate with estimated benefits” 5) The method of determining benefits and identifying beneficiaries must be transparent. The proposed rate increases to Oregon customers are to reflect the services they receive. There is nothing in the application that provides that the developer met these requirements to base the request to the Oregon PUC. There is no disclosure or assessment of the costs and benefits to Oregon customers compared to the costs they are being asked to assume. 2. In order for the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to meet their mandate of protecting citizens and agencies in Oregon, they need to require Idaho Power to provide figures for their Oregon customers. Idaho Power chose to compare their request to increase their rates with the ones provided Pacific Power and Portland General Electric rather than compare their rate request to those requested and approved for Idaho Power customers they serve in Idaho. There is no comparison between the operating costs or customers of Idaho Power and Pacific Power or Portland General Electric. 3. This request for a rate increase for Oregon customers fails to be based upon the costs for services they are providing to them. The document makes no effort to break down the amount of the projected costs which actually should be assumed by the 20,004 (3.2%) of their customers who live in Oregon. Any rate increase needs to be either based upon actual costs or reflect 3.2% of their total costs. Idaho Power has 602,956 (96.8%) of their customers in Idaho. Idaho PUC approved a rate increase for January 1, 2024 of $54.7 million which included a 4.90% increase in the rates for residential customers. Idaho Power is using virtually the same information which applies to the companies entire stated need to require it’s 20,004 Oregon customers to pay for 10.7 million of their projected costs. The 54.7 million increase for their 602.956 customers living in Idaho amounts to having each customer pay for $90.72. In the event that the Oregon PUC were to approve the requested rate increase, the 10.7 million dollars divided by the 20,004 customers living in Oregon means the average amount each Oregon customer would be assuming is $534.89. In other words, 3.2% of their customers are supposed to assume the responsibility for 16.4% of Idaho Power’s stated total need. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered commensurate with their benefits. The Oregon PUC needs to establish that Idaho Power is not placing Oregon ratepayers in the position of subsidizing Idaho customers. This can only be done by requiring Idaho Power to provide information which identifies the utilization and benefits of the expenses to the Oregon customers being subjected to the requested rate increases. That information is not provided in the application. Basing the need for increased revenue on expenditures and increased needs of Idaho customers does not justify having Oregon customers pay for them. 4. It needs to be clear if any part of this request is intended to pay for expenses related to the Boardman to H | ||||
| UE 426-38 | 4/15/2024 5:01:07 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | General Comment | Web | Brandon | Culley | JOHN DAY | I support rate hikes, commensurate with putting fish ladders on the Hells Canyon Complex allowing anadromous fish to be reintroduced into historical habitats destroyed by Idaho Power and this three dam complex. | ||
| UE 426-39 | 5/6/2024 1:48:46 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Rusti | Lattin | RICHLAND | I would like to state that a rate increase of this magnitude will impact Idaho Power's Oregon Customer base adversely. The customer base is small and lives in some of the most rural and thus lower income parts of the state. A $31.77 a month increase in our power bills will greatly impact us. We are already suffering due to inflation and extremely high grocery and fuel prices, our property taxes are on the rise as well. Many people who live in Eastern Oregon are on a very fixed income. I am sure the PUC and Idaho Power are both aware of this, however it needs to be driven home that this is utterly unacceptable proposal to Idaho Power's customer base in Oregon. Please reconsider the consequences of such a high increase. Our social security and retirement savings are not going up, they are fixed and unalterable. Forcing a $400.00 a year increase in our power costs is unacceptable. | ||
| UE 426-4 | 2/16/2024 1:37:39 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | NYSSA | Note: Letter typed verbatim by commission staff; enclosures not included, described below. (dr) Received Feb 06 2024 P.U.C. January 27, 2024 Oregon Public Utility Commission 201 High St. SE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-3398 I call your attention to the Idaho Power proposed rate increase we received yesterday in our bill. This is ridiculous, and a real hardship to those of us on limited incomes in this poor area. Please see what you can do to stop this exorbitant request. I am writing also all of my state and federal representatives. Idaho Power has a monopoly in this area so we have no other source for our electricity. Sincerely, /s/ encl: 2 (IPC bill insert announcing the rate request) | ||||
| UE 426-40 | 5/10/2024 5:09:41 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Mike | Castro-Schrader | ONTARIO | Voice mail messages transcribed by Consumer Services staff - kr MESSAGE #1: Hi, this is Mike Castro-Schrader. I'm calling from Ontario, OR. My address is 1140 Pine, like a tree, Pine Place Ontario, OR 97914. My phone number is 541-213-6523 and my e-mail address is mkschradershrader1@gmail.com. I'm calling just to leave you a comment to give you some feedback in reference to Idaho power requesting approval for a rate increase. I do understand it's their first rate increase since 2011, which is kind of surprising it's been that long since there's been a great increase for Oregon customers. I do realize they do need an annual revenue to maintain and improve their power grid. Unfortunately for a lot of residential folks on a fixed income like me, or the poor and working folks, adding about an average 32% monthly increase in their power bill for residential customers, this is in Malheur County, all at once could be a hardship. I'd recommend maybe Oregon public utility Commission maybe as an alternative make these rate increases in stages over reasonable period of time. in the future also maybe don't wait so long between power rate increases. Also, I read in the local Vale Mail enterprise newspaper an excellent article on this and I will follow up with another phone call concerning… (Message reached time limit) MESSAGE #2: Yeah, hi it's Wednesday April 3rd I just left a phone message. Unfortunately, I got cut off so I'm following up on that. My name is Mike Castro-Schrader, I live in Ontario, OR phone number 541-213-6523. I did leave the other information you requested on my previous phone call. It's in reference to public comment concerning Idaho powers requesting an approval rate hike. Like I said I just got done calling in and left a pretty long message concerning my comments. The only other point I'd like to make is I had read in our local Vale mail enterprise newspaper, there's an article on this subject and they advise that the state of Idaho permits other cost recovery mechanisms that allow utility companies to recover costs more frequently. Maybe it's time the state of Oregon do this also if that can be done and is reasonable. This might help reduce large price increases all at once for power customers here in in Oregon. So that might be something else where the public utility Commission to look into and see or find out what Idaho does concerning trying to spread out the commerce. Thank you. | ||
| UE 426-5 | 3/8/2024 8:49:38 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Julie | Spencer | NYSSA | Typed verbatim by Consumer Services staff - dr RECEIVED FEB 06 2024 P.U.C. JANUARY 27, 2024 Oregon Public Utility Commission 201 High St. SE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-3398 I call your attention to the Idaho Power proposed rate increase we received yesterday in our bill. This is ridiculous, and a real hardship to those of us on limited incomes in this poor area. Please see what you can do to stop this exorbitant request. I am writing also all of my state and federal representatives. Idaho Power has a monopoly in this area so we have no other source for our electricity. Sincerely, /s/ Julie D. Spencer Julie D. Spencer [address redacted] Email: [redacted] encl: 2 (bill insert/general rate case notification) | ||
| UE 426-6 | 3/9/2024 3:20:10 PM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Rick | Meis | HALFWAY | Please accept this comment on the Idaho Power rate case UE 426. As an Idaho Power customer I wish to testify against Idaho Power's proposed nearly 27% rate increase for residential customers in Eastern Oregon. Baker County is not an affluent area, especially the Pine and Eagle valleys that Idaho Power serves. There are many people, including friends, who could see an increase of $30 per month for their households. This significant increase could create difficult choices for many families who may not have an extra $30 in their budget. And, as you all know, the costs of other basic needs have been rising substantially, like food and health care. I did call Idaho Power to ask some questions as the information they sent in the bill which was a very weak presentation with no real justification. I was instructed to go to the company website; which is no better for providing substantive information. I asked the woman I spoke with if the company could put another notice in the next bill that would actually draw attention to the fact that it is important customer information and not just another junk piece of filler in the envelope. They did not. A whole lot of people probably just threw the notice away since it appeared to be just another junk blow-in added to the bill. The first two neighbors I asked never saw it before they tossed it. That is a bad job on the part of Idaho Power. The cost of living is running pretty high right now. I do understand that a lot of it from poor decision-making in this time of an ever-worsening climate crisis. I might suggest that you add sidebars to any approved rate increases that utility companies must promote and educate on the reduction of consumption by consumers. An old friend and guest instructor at Montana State University worked for the Northwest Power Planning Council (now called the Northwest Power and Conservation Council). He got me involved in following the Councils' work. At that time, power companies were actually talking about using less energy as the best way to make more power available. Even (some) politicians echoed that. Not anymore. That is a significant societal mistake that is costing us dearly at every level. Do note, as a former business owner who dealt with 'standards' like Energy Star, I know that most things rated Energy Star efficient are not all that efficient. It is a lowest common denominator rating system, like Green Star and Green Seal and so forth. We sure ought to be able to do better. The Oregon Public Utility Commissioners could use the widespread raft of rate increase proposals to again raise the issue of reduction of consumption as the best way to both save money and free up energy already in place for other increasing needs. Again, I oppose the Idaho Power rate increase at that overly large level. Thank you. | ||
| UE 426-7 | 3/15/2024 10:35:26 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | D | Bourasa | VALE | We allow them to do this then when is it going to stop. I have gone to the seminars and learned how to help with power usage. I have altered my farming practices to try and help with power usage with no benefits. Still pay the high rates. As a farmer and rancher in this day and age and the way the government is putting restrictions on farming and the cost of farming, is just another slap in the face. Vote no on this. | ||
| UE 426-8 | 3/15/2024 11:06:41 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | Donna | Carter | HALFWAY | I don't mind allowing IDP a realistic rate increase but a 26.76% is excessive. I could support a 5 or 6% increase. | ||
| UE 426-9 | 3/18/2024 8:14:44 AM | IDAHO POWER COMPANY | Oppose Docket | Web | ONTARIO | I am oppose to a 26.76% increase as a resident of Malheur county. I cannot afford a 26.76% increase to my monthly bill. I am struggling to make the necessary monthly payments currently. I am in support of a 5-10% increase for this year and then another increase next year of 5-10%. Increasing the monthly bill annually in smaller increments helps when I get a cost of living increase yearly to help offset the increase from Idaho power. If you increase it now by 26.76%, that will not give me any time to make the financial adjustments needed to help offset the increase. |