Integrated Program Review 2 (IPR 2)
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
BPA held a public process, the Integrated Program Review, from May through Aug. 2008. The purpose of that process was to: Present all BPA’s costs, Power, Transmission and Agency Services, both expense and capital, in one forum, consistent with the structure developed coming out of the Regional Dialogue. The process also allowed customers, other stakeholders and interested parties an opportunity to review, ask questions about, and comment on any changes since the Close-Out Report from Nov. 2008 to BPA’s proposed spending levels for FY 2010-2011 and proposed capital investment levels for FY 2009-2013.
BPA is holding a second round of this process, called the IPR 2. It is intended to provide participants with: BPA’s current forecasts of costs for the FY 2010-2011 period; reasons for any changes from the forecasts in the 2008 IPR process and provide an opportunity to comment on these forecasts and to suggest changes. Given the current circumstances, BPA is expanding the scope of IPR-2 to include discussion of risk mitigation and liquidity tools in addition to program level costs.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after you submit it, please contact us at (800) 622-4519.
For More Information:
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/Finance/IBR/IPR/
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
Close of comment: 5/4/2009
- IP2090001 -
Dawsey/Benton Rural Electric Association
- IP2090002 -
Morrison/Rate payerWe live in Arizona, but have a store that we can't sell in Eastern Oregon (on the market nearly two years)and won't make any profit if it ever does sell. The building's electric bill this month is $24.67 -- for NOT having a business! A 9.4% increase in rates is unconsciounable. Our income is from Social Security and a pension (nothing from the former business). People are losing their jobs and homes all over the country and even more-so in economically depressed Eastern Oregon. There are many Micro-Miniscule businesses in E.O. that pay a "Monthly Consumer Charge" of $19.00, compared to a residential rate of $10.00. Our Micro-Miniscule business has been gouged by utilities for years; it does not cost $9 extra to service an account, and a 9.4% increase is going to see more businesses go under. No! No! No! to a rate increase of any kind! Tighten your belts like we had to, and tighten it even more so rates don't have to be raised a single nickle. Anyone at BPA including board members and Chairman of the Board and CEO who are making more than $65,000 a year should have their wages decreased by 20% and anyone making more than $100,000 decreased by 25%. Anyone who serves as a "volunteer" should not be paid at all.
- IP2090005 -
CovingtonGarry
Our community’s businesses and citizens are hurting because of these tough economic times. I’m writing to let you know that BPA’s proposal to provide tens of millions of dollars to Alcoa, Inc. and Glencore/CFAC at our expense is poor public policy. Increasing the power rates we pay will lead to further job losses and difficulties for our region, and is not justified by BPA’s desire to subsidize a company it chooses to prefer over us.
Our community and its jobs are just as important as those that BPA is targeting. It is harmful for BPA to make the rest of the region pay more so that a couple of large corporations can pay less than their real cost of power. BPA should be reviewing all costs and expenses at this time to avoid a rate increase, and should not be giving away money from our community to subsidize these companies.
- IP2090006 -
McClure/Nespelem Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Our community’s businesses and citizens are hurting because of these tough economic times. I’m writing to let you know that BPA’s proposal to provide tens of millions of dollars to Alcoa, Inc. and Glencore/CFAC at our expense is poor public policy. Increasing the power rates we pay will lead to further job losses and difficulties for our region, and is not justified by BPA’s desire to subsidize a company it chooses to prefer over us.
Our community and its jobs are just as important as those that BPA is targeting. It is harmful for BPA to make the rest of the region pay more so that a couple of large corporations can pay less than their real cost of power. BPA should be reviewing all costs and expenses at this time to avoid a rate increase, and should not be giving away money from our community to subsidize these companies.
- IP2090007 -
Farver
- IP2090008 -
Stacy
- IP2090009 -
Kibbery
- IP2090010 -
Croteau
- IP2090011 -
Evers
- IP2090012 -
Nielsen
- IP2090013 -
McMillan
- IP2090014 -
Bit
- IP2090015 -
Davies/Central Lincoln PUD
- IP2090016 -
Turner
- IP2090017 -
Crutchfield
- IP2090018 -
Pritchard
- IP2090019 -
Bass
- IP2090020 -
Branden
- IP2090021 -
Bremner
- IP2090022 -
Takacs
- IP2090023 -
Jensen
- IP2090024 -
No comment attached.
View Attachment
- IP2090025 -
Pruitt
- IP2090026 -
Cordera
- IP2090027 -
Harvey/Cowlitz Wahkiakum Council of Governments
- IP2090028 -
Weiss/NW Energy CoalitionComments of the NW Energy Coalition on BPA’s Integrated Program Review 2 May 4, 2009 The NW Energy Coalition (“Coalition”) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the IPR 2. Our comments at this time are limited to the issue of conservation funding levels. We are concerned that the funding level for energy efficiency will not be robust enough to meet the conservation targets that will be set by the Power Council’s new 6th Plan, to be released in June. The proposed IPR 2 budget for energy efficiency is actually slightly lower than it was in the previous year, reflecting the removal of the renewables portion of the rate credit, offset in part by an anticipated increase in NEEA support. However, this status quo position is not justified given two important new circumstances. First, as BPA notes, this budget level reflects only an “anticipated 35 to 40 percent increase in public power’s share of the region’s conservation target in the FY 2010-2011 period (i.e., 70 average megawatts per year).” However, at the Council’s meeting in Skamania last month, their staff estimated that the targets in the 6th Plan are likely to be more like twice those in the 5th Plan, or even higher. Bonneville must be ready to fund the needed expansion of programs and ramp up of infrastructure that will be required to meet those cost-effective targets. Second, BPA’s budget is based on an assumption that future conservation savings can be acquired at the same low cost as been the case in recent years. But those years relied heavily on CFLs, a mature and very inexpensive measure that will largely be unavailable due to their incorporation into new federal lighting standards. Thus Bonneville must be prepared to switch gears and pursue other cost-effective, but somewhat more costly, opportunities. This effort will require more upfront funding in early years as the region readjusts to different technologies. Together these two factors call for a much higher funding level than IPR 2 anticipates. Our recommendation is that BPA fund energy efficiency at a level at least 30% higher than the $86 million 2010 budget and 50% higher for 2011, or about $112 M and $130 M respectively. We note two factors that will reduce the consumer impact of such a budget increase. First, if BPA can meet the Council’s new targets at a lower cost than we have estimated, then of course there is no need to spend the full budget amounts. Second, BPA’s accounting for conservation spending is misleading. That is because it calculates only the costs of the programs, but not the financial benefits to either customers, due to increased surplus sales, or consumers, due to bill savings. In the prior IPR exercise, the Coalition requested that Bonneville present net rate impacts rather than just cost impacts when discussing the conservation (and renewables) budgets. That information was provided at one point and showed that customers’ rates were pretty much uncha
- IP2090029 -
Weiss/NW Energy coalition
- IP2090030 -
Brawley/PNGC Power
- IP2090031 -
Eldrige/Umatilla Electric
- IP2090032 -
Nelson/Springfield Utility Board
- IP2090033 -
O'Meara/Public Power CouncilPublic Power Council's comments on BPA's IPR-2 process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
View Attachment
- IP2090034 -
Rodewald/Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority
- IP2090035 -
Toulson/Snohomish County PUD
- IP2090036 -
McFarlane
It is despicable that BPA shouldbe supporting two companies that would not produce product for this country and instead sought financial relief for not doing so. Alcoa cost thousands of jobs in Washington State so why should our rates be increased to cover their ineptitude.
Additionally, our community’s businesses and citizens are hurting because of these tough economic times. I’m writing to let you know that BPA’s proposal to provide tens of millions of dollars to Alcoa, Inc. and Glencore/CFAC at our expense is poor public policy. Increasing the power rates we pay will lead to further job losses and difficulties for our region, and is not justified by BPA’s desire to subsidize a company it chooses to prefer over us.
Our community and its jobs are just as important as those that BPA is targeting. It is harmful for BPA to make the rest of the region pay more so that a couple of large corporations can pay less than their real cost of power. BPA should be reviewing all costs and expenses at this time to avoid a rate increase, and should not be giving away money from our community to subsidize these companies.
|
|
|
Finance & Rates
