20080925Comment.pdf

j~/;'IO¡.,10 AV.,/i,~.s tI
i
Jean Jewell J-..: 1JL J(~f) art:.. 01' -- Utlv hte.~roc// d..d l:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jakentfam~yahoo.com
Thursday, September 25, 20084:51 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Amber Kent follows:
Case Number: ROC-W-08-0i
Name: Amber Kent
Address: 3889 E. Ash Lane
City: Rigby
State: Idaho
Zip: 83442
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: jakentfa~yahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: Rocky Mountain Utility Add to Mailing List ~
Please describe your comment briefly:
First, I would like to make the commission aware that my family, as property owners in the
Pepperwood Crossing subdivision, did not receive the notices of Application or Public
Workshop from the Commission. We did receive a notice from the utility company about their
application, but no more contact was made. I. am wondering if they considered us a customer
enough to send us their own notice, why were we not included on their list provided to you as
a Commission to receive the official 'ñõtices of the meetings and such that we should have
6èen able to participate in? I know several other families that we built with are in the same
position. This of course is a rhetorical question to provoke thought as to why they sent
notices to some but not all of their either current or future customers. In my opinion, they
should be required to notify all property owners, whether or not they are currently residing
there, as we all will be paying these utility costs and should have a say, or at least know
that rates are changing.
Second, I am wondering if the price being debated is being figured only on the current number
of customers, will the rate be dropped after the subdivision reaches capacity? It seems very
unfair that those who live here currently have to make up for those who do not yet live here.
Third, I am wondering if we who actually occupy our lots and are paying the difference for
all the empty lots, shouldn't the owner of the subdivision be responsible for the lots not
yet sold to anyone? When a person buys a lot, they figure in utility expenses, but it seems
rather ridiculous that we would have to figure in higher costs because not all the lots are
occupied. That is not fair to us, the consumers.
I am sure that I could have received actual answers to these questions had I known about the
Public Workshop that was held, but now I hope that these questions provoke some serious
thought into the rates we will be asked to pay for a basic necessity. Are we paying because
the owner truly needs that high rate, or because he feels justified in asking a price that he
would like right now because he still has empty lots to account for?
Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter.
Amber Kent
i