20201123Comment(1).pdf

From:PUC Consumer Comments
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, November 23, 2020 3:00:21 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: J Alan Smith
Submission Time: Nov 23 2020 2:54PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 10675 W HICKORY DR
BOISE, ID 83713
Name of Utility Company: Suez Water
Case ID: SUZ-W-20-02
Comment: "I think this 22% increase proposal by Suez Water needs to be scrutinized closely by the PUC for the following reasons. 1) $115,000,000 divided by the 230,000 people served
by Suez here in Ada County comes out to $500 per person served in increased cost for this upgrade. First, is all of this upgrade necessary? This excessive raise, if it is really all
necessary, needs to be spread over many more years to reduce the sticker shock I am currently feeling. 2) This is really poor timing by Suez for any increase, let alone a huge one. Right now
people are struggling with work, finding work, kids needing supervision when not in school, and increased stress and anxiety mostly caused by the virus. Really Suez Water this is the best
you can do??? 3) The PUC needs to dig deep into Suez's finances and see if this government sponsored monopoly has costs and profits that line up with the private industry. Are the
salaries they pay reasonable when compared to private industry? What is their employee turnover rate? What is their 401k (or other retirement plan) match or cost? Are they inflating
costs by buying new equipment too often when compared to private industry? How many people and their salaries did it cost to put this proposal and price increase together? And so on.
When the public has no legal alternative but to buy a product from a government sponsored monopoly, the PUC must go above and beyond normal efforts to reign in costs. The PUC must
act as a free market replacement, otherwise the public can be "raked over the coals" by a weak PUC and a less than competitively priced product it is required by law to purchase. Thanks for
your time and consideration, J. Smith "
------