20201005Comment.pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Saturday, October 3, 2020 2:00:04 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Thomas Cantrell
Submission Time: Oct 3 2020 1:17PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 4510 N Waterfront Way
Boise, ID 83703
Name of Utility Company: Suez
Case ID: SUZ-W-20-02
Comment: "I have been a resident of Boise all of my life (71 years) and have always beenhappy to pay my fair share to enjoy the lifestyle we appreciate her in our beautiful valley.
After reading the notice from Suez about a $115 million upgrade in our water system, I haveto ask, "Why have improvements not been made as were necessary through the years rather
than force a 22.3% increase when things could not be worse financially for our country and it'scitizens?" When I read that the rate of return for Suez is expected to be around 8%, I actually
gasped. I sure would like to be able to get that rate of return on my investments instead of lessthan 1%. I am not sure whether the administration has been lax in responding to needed
repairs or have been too busy adding new customers to our growing community, but in eithercase I feel that yearly repairs and upgrades would be a more prudent way to conduct business
rather than sticking it to us all at once during a recession. I might be more sympathetic to Suezif they had been more sympathetic to me. I had a leak last year after I turned my water on for
the yard, which was the day we left for a month vacation. When we returned there was severewater leak and the plumber actually clocked how much had been leaking and for how long. I
reported the loss to Suez and they told me it didn't amount to enough for them to adjust mybill. $50 might not mean much to some people, but I am retired and on a limited income and
that does mean something. So does the $33 increase that would be on my summer bills forwatering my lawn. Does putting in an up to date meter reader eliminate jobs for the meter
readers? If so, we could save $7.5 million right there. We don't need less jobs at this point andtime. I think a reexamination of the overall project should be done and only the most pressing
problems should be addressed at this time. None of them seemed that pressing to me. But I amconfident I cannot support $115 million for a little more pressure in my line. Thank you for
your consideration of my opinion."
------[Open in the PUC Intranet application]