20060320Comments.pdf

(~
'3/1))10(,
Jean Jewell
.;10 AJJ-/10
- ~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
secretary
Monday, March 20, 20069:55 AM
Barb Barrows; Ed Howell; Jean Jewell
FW: water rate request
:;:.----------
:;:'From: James Mary Davis (SMTP: ~~JMARY0 EARTHLINK. NET:;:'Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9: 55: 58
-.'
:;:'To: secretary
:;:'Subj ect: water rate request
:;:'Auto forwarded by a Rule
:;:.
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720--0074
The rate increase application notice sent to United Water customers on
February 13 appears to be deliberately misleading. It attempts to portray
United Water as a strictly local company that has to produce money for
expansion from local users.
Actually the money that we pay for our water service goes to a gigantic
for profit company, Suez Lyonnaise Des Faux in Hamington Park, N. J. This
holding company that owns our Boise system has operations in many other U. S.
cities and several foreign countries
When AT&T has to expand service in a growing area like Boise, they donot raise local telephone rates to pay for the cost of getting new
customers and increasing revenue. When Union Pacific Railroad builds a new
siding to provide freight service to a growing industrial area, they do not
raise freight ratess to the local customers to cover the cost. Big national
corporations spread the cost of expansion over their entire system, so why
not Suez Lyonnaise Des Faux?
What United Water in Boise is doing now to increase capacity should
have been done ten years ago. They ignored the growth trend, that was so
obvious to everyone else, and used their monopoly status to create an
unnecessary shortage so they could demand higher summer rates and price
water so high that many people are unable to water their lawns.
For every thousand new customers, Suez gets increased revenue of
$327 000 every year and they try to make it appear as a great financial
strain. They do not own the water. It is a natural resource, like air, that
belongs to everybody.
Assuming the PUC is acting in the interests of Idaho citizens, I think
it should refuse the rate increase and tell Suez to fund expansion from the
entire company. If they do not want to serve Boise at a reasonable cost
they should give up their franchise and let Boise City or another locally
responsible entity take over the water company.
Sincerely,
James W. Davis
Boise, 10
/~
'J/zpiD&
Jean Jewell
/(. AJ /1o
~ ~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, March 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, March 20, 2006
10:43:58 AM
Case:
Name: Crandall Copp
Street Address: 3100 Ridgeway Dr
City: Boise
State: Id
ZIP: 83702
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: zodiacpsych00yahoo. com
Company: United Water Idahomailinglistyesno:
Comment description: I am strongly objecting to any rate increasearea.. The property taxes are insane now also.. Do all this with
everybody pays their way.. Not just the propery owners.. thanks
Transaction 10: 3201043.Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ ipuc
User Address: 24.117.26.105
User Hostname: 24.117.26.105
by any utility in this
a sales tax increase so
I~ ~JpID0
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Saturday, March 18 20069:54 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Saturday, March 18, 2006
9:54:28 PM
Case: UWI-W-06-
Name: D. Parliman
Street Address: 1708 N. 14th
City: Boise
State: 10
ZIP: 83702
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: dparliman0yahoo. com
Company: United Water Idaho
mailing list yes no: no
Comment=descriptIon: recently received a Notice of Application to Increase Rates fromUWI, proposing a 17.9% increase in rates. The letter states that this nearly 18% increase
in NECESSARY so UWI will ' have an opportunity to earn a return on its investments in waterfacilites. An increase in rates to cover inflation expenses is understandable. An 18%
increase seems excessive-- gouging customers for a necessary service? The individual water
customer can t know if this is a NECESSARY increase, but the PUC has the information and
expertise to separate NECESSARY from UNnecessary. Or maybe this is the game where asking
for 18% makes a smaller (but still relatively large) percentage seem more reasonable?
Transaction 10: 3182154.
Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dll/ ipuc
User Address: 71.209.36.
User Hostname: 71.209.36.