20210707Comment(1).pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, July 7, 2021 7:00:06 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Hope
Submission Time: Jul 6 2021 9:42PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 737 W Headwaters Dr
Eagle, ID 83616
Name of Utility Company: Suez Water
Case ID: EAG-W-18-01
Comment: "I previously sent in comments but after doing additional research I would like toadd comments. In summary, I am against approving the purchase of Eagle Water by Suez
Water because of the potential impact of external influence on a valuable resource to theeconomy and well being of Idaho and specifically, Eagle; because of the poor transaction
under which this sale is structured and because of the significant impact on water quality inEagle. Briefly, my career was working as a management and technology consultant in the
utility industry across the world, primarily in the USA, Europe and Central Europe; I am aretired CPA and was after I retired I was The Dean's Executive Professor of Management at a
private University. 1. I do not believe that the PUC should allow an outside organizationacquire significant control over a valuable resource of the local residence. While I do support
reasonable global organization structures, I do not believe it is feasible over the control ofvaluable resource that can significantly affect the economy and lives of local citizens. I would
have been against the acquisition of any water companies by United Water and even morestrongly against The acquisition of United Water by Suez. 2. This transaction is not structured
with an common sense except to reward people who have added no value. I can see no reasonthat given the rate base of Eagle Water that a price of $10.5 Million is justified. If my research
is correct, about $1.5 Million is to pay off the City of Eagle for a breached agreement and $2Million will go to a third party that added no value but tried to create an Company did not
meet the PUC justification of a Water Company. I do not see how the PUS can justifyapproving this transaction. 3. The PUC has put itself in a position of having to control the
water resource quality for the entire State of Idaho. Your decision will be continuouslyevaluated on the effect of water quality and the effect on citizens of Idaho. Recent weather
conditions have just highlighted the potential misuse of water by an entity without local citizenfocus. The growing number of dry wells in the ADA County area show that a water company
will have strong profit motives to move the water for higher profitability. I don't think that thePUC should take on all the responsibility to control the water quality in any area. WHAT
SHOULD THE PUC DO? This case should be dismissed and a better solution for watercompany structured should be developed. I am not sure how this should be structured but a
Commission should be developed to look at the best structure for the City, County and State ofIdaho. I believe that supporting an economically strong structure at a City or County level is
feasible. I hope that the PUC find this useful. I know I have not submitted a complete answerbut this is a difficult decision that will require careful analysis on the long-term effect of any
decision made. Regards, "
------[Open in the PUC Intranet application]