20201028Comments(2).pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:00:04 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Dorey
Submission Time: Oct 28 2020 12:07PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 2904 N Selkirk Dr.
Boise, ID 83702
Name of Utility Company: Suez
Case ID: SUZ-W-20-01
Comment: "“I read with interest, the Statesman article about a 22% proposed rise in water charges. The article stated that it would result in an average residential increase of about $6.00
per month. I’m not sure how they arrived at that but anyone who has to water grass, flowers, vegetable gardens, or trees will pay dramatically more. A 20% plus cost increase should be
stepped over years. At a time when taxes are also rising quickly, making many barely able to afford to stay in their homes, adding on the water increase will potentially contribute to
driving some of us out. Please do not approve this increase. It will be too much at once for many homeowners. It is unfair to consumers. And it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing
massive rate changes without stepping them in over time.”"
------
From:
To:
Jeff Piper <[e-mail]>
Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Public Comment - Idaho PUC Case No. SUZ-W-20-02
Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:27:23 PM
Jan,
We recently received a postcard from Suez informing us of their proposed general
rate hike of over 22%. This is most distressing on a number of levels.
It was only five years ago that Suez asked for an increase of over 13%, but thankfully
was "only" granted 6%. Now Suez comes back with a huge wish of
an increase of 22.3% that they say is "only about $6.61 more per month per
residential customer". For someone receiving Social Security the estimated
monthly increase next year is $20. Suez's requested increase just took 1/3 of that
Social Security increase. Medicare benefits increase is expected to take 100%of that $20 increase. We haven't even added prescription drugs, groceries, fuel,
heating or other items that go into cost of living. Yet Suez believes, falsely, they
earned 22% through their monopoly and 1/3 of a senior's Medicare increase.
Suez is virtually a monopoly here. They have no competition. There is no strain on
them to increase profits to better their competitor. The only other people they
compete
against, which they really do not, are those people who have their own wells. Sueztalks about their 120 employees in Treasure Valley. There are other business in
Treasure
Valley that exceed that number of employees and they are not increasing prices at
22%, or 15%, or 10% or even 5% a year. Many businesses and families are trying tojust
stay afloat. Price gouging is neither a neighborly nor honest thing to do.
If new services are needed there should be impact fees on developers to offset thecost of bringing water to the new res being developed. Why existing homeowners
should pay
they outlandish increases for other areas is beyond me, especially when they are in
other municipalities. It makes sense to pay taxes for roads that we all use. It does notmake
sense for me to pay for water improvements in new home developments is towns far
away from me.
This increase should not be granted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff and Robin Piper
11193 W. Goldenspire Dr.
Boise, ID. 83709