20071206Comments.pdf

1~"I,;/o1 110 jf'v ./dd~'
;. 11l
PATRICK M. CASEY, D.C.r
t:~
December 3, 2007 zUln DEC - 5 AM 8=1 3
Idao Public Utilities Commission
To: Commssion
Re: Policies on rate increase
I find it interesting that United Water has sent out an anouncement about a rate increas
proposal, ask for comments and the website does not open! I have called their offces
and they said that the site info was incorrect. They gave me new site info and that new
site doesn't respond either! It looks to me as if there is a big shell game going on about
the new increases and they have blocked a good bit of response from getting to you.
I am very upset about the rate increase. It does not tae a rocket scientist to figue out
that there are no benefits to bi-monthy biling except employing more people. I do not
as a consumer see any great advantae to me to make chages in my irgation practices.
I also do not see any advantage to more frequent visits to my premises. It looks to me
like this may only be advantageous to a select tye of customer (like a farer, or
business), and I do not want to pay for ths demogrphics parcular problems!
I am not in favor of ths rate increase and with what little info has been presented think
that United Water is robbing us all for their ineffciency.
Patrck Casey
1215 E. Washigton St
Boise 83712/~
L-J,C¿fAdC
1215 East Washington Street
Boise, ID 83712
208-571-3502
/~"Io/j
Jean Jewell
If, AJ-~~.1 f:i
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jamesgoodman3(§mac.com
Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:58 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from James L. Goodman follows:
--- -- ---- - ------------------ --- - ----
Case Number:
Name: James L. Goodman
Address: 9425 W. Java Ct.
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83704
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: jamesgoodman3Ømac.com
Name of Utility Compa~ United Water
Add to Mailing List:~
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
converting to monthly billing. This such a waist of time and money, it's all just a ploy
to raise rates and not help the people. In reality were paying 1.15 monthly more than we
are now. I think United Water would look at ways of cutting their own cost of operating
and save us the people that use their water dollars per month. It would be interesting to
see how many leaks the water meter readers really discover. I would say tyhat the larger
percentage would be cutstomer found. Please don't allow this increase.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.33.23.167- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
1
~.¡~
Jean Jewell
I1 ~.
1 fl
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
glorifygod78(§hotmail.com
Thursday, December 06, 2007 1 :44 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from Alan Church follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
Case Number:
Name: Alan Church
Address: 2210 N. Camden
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83704
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: glorifygod78Øhotmail.com
Name of utility Company: United Water
Add to Mailing List: E9
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
Got a letter from United Water about and application to convert to monthly meter readings
rather than bi-monthly. Their reasons for doing so seem pretty lame to me, and this whole
things seems like a way to extract more money out of customers. I for one am not for the
change and don't think it's necessary. Please rej ect their application, there's nothing
wrong with the current system.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 75.92.61.11- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
..
1
~*r-
Jean Jewell
i/( fAA!,~~..' (Æ
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dgrega(§msn.com
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:01 PM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from David G Anderson follows:
Case Number: UWI-W-07-04
Name: David G Anderson
Address: 11397 W Secretariat Ct
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83713
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: dgregaØmsn.com
Name of Utility Compa~ UnitedAdd to Mailing List: ~Water
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the consumer to change to a monthly
billing. The added cost may seem small but it is just another administrative cost that
hits the hardest on those who try to use less and can least afford the increase. Also, the
bimonthly billing fits well with the bimonthly billing for sewer and trash from a
budgeting standpoint. Somehow, this must be a benefit to United Water or they would not be
pursuing it.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 70.58.161.115
1
~¡~ ,'J5)ó7
Jean Jewell
i/i /lJ/~~.:. 1.1j
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
nortocd(§yahoo.com
Wednesday, December 05, 20074:31 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from C. Douglas Norton follows:
Case Number: UWI-W-07-04
Name: C. Douglas Norton
Address: 11937 Jody Dr.
City: Boise, Id
State: Id
Zip: 83713
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: nortocdØyahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: Suez/United Water/United Water Idaho Inc.Add to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I find United Water Idaho Inc. /Suez (hereinafter UNWATID) is disingenuous in several
respects with regard to this application. That casts doubt on its motivation. Further,
UNWATID has failed to meet basic billing needs of its customers and has engaged in
predatory leak insurance practices. From my perspective, the added UNWATID cost is
unnecessary and serves convert a one time investment cost into a long term enhancement to
company profits. Has UNWATID clearly quantified their costs and distinguished short and
long term components. Will improved and past due technological innovations offset the
cost after it has become a permanent part of the basic rate?
UNWATID issues and considerations:
1. The reasons given in the application differ from reasons given in the letter sent to
UNWATID customers. Thåt is, customers were not told that the application noted that there
would be a reduction in the number of high bill complaints. That item was conspicuously
absent from the letter to customers.
2. Bean counters look to increasing payments to a monthly basis to increase company
cash flow on a short term basis and to garner the theoretical added interest from the
higher cash position. Of course, the flip side is that customers have a one time decrease
in their cash post ion and some may be forced to pay high interest rates to cover thatshortage.
3. There is little merit in the assertion that more visits will enable quicker
detection and trouble shooting of customer leaks or meter problems. The increased
workload will allow less time at each meter. However, the proof in the padding so to
speak is to ask UNWATID how many leaks they find on each monthly visit. The benefit of
this to customers could easily be quantified and certainly would be less than the $13.80
per year added cost to each UNWATID customer.
4. UNWATID provided customers with an invalid URL for comments on the IPUC website.
5. On its website UNWAITD claim, "We were founded in 1890" It was not founded then; its
predecessor was founded then. UNWATED obscures the fact that it is now part United Water
Resources, which serves 7 million customers and is a subsidiary of Suez, a French
conglomerate. Suez boasts an increase of 18.7% growth in income and a 7.8% increase in
cash flow from 2006 to 2007. In that same period, Net income increased from one billion
Euros to 6.97 billion Euros and in increase in assets from 36.6 billion to 48.6 billion
Euros. The only dim spot on the financials was not income within the United States, but
in income from the United States. Devaluation of the dollar has reduced their profits.
Is this rate increase an attempt by desperate managers to increase their bonuses and to
secure their employment?
6. This increase appears to be a sham to increase long-term revenues and profits by
creating revenue enhancements based on short term costs. Once the transition is complete
and the rates are secured, look for UNWATID to cut their meter reading costs dramatically
by instating efficient electronic meter reading and by reducing their, "additional
personnel, billing, and collections" costs attributable to this conversion to levels well
below the pre conversion costs.
1
7. UNWATI has failed to provide user-friendly billing options to its customers. With
most customers able to pay on line, UNWATID has not yet provided procedures, which are
economical to UNWATID or to its customers. A couple of years ago UNWATID changed its
billing system, at that time account numbers were changed and many customers including
myself were not credited properly for automated checks mailed to them. More recently,
UNWATID has not been able to take electronic transfers from my bank nor most others. More
egregious, the bills could easily be paid with automated statement by bill service
providers as is done with other vendors by reading for bill payment purposes. That could
work automatically on a monthly or bi-monthly basis (with this option there would be no
need to change the billing period and costs for UNWATID would decease - look for the
decrease after the implementation of the long term rate increase based on short termcosts.
8. UNWATID has failed to offer level pay options. There may be reasons such as keeping
customers apprised of the need to conserve in the summer, but that option would certainly
help with budgeting. This suggests that UNWATID has a long-term disingenuous agenda aimed
at profit enhancement.
9. With foreign ownership, costs that in the past were clear and now foggy. Overhead
costs are easily construed to be higher through French GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles). How much has overhead increased since the acquisition in the mid nineties?
Does Idaho benefit from Suez profits generated in other parts of the world; does that
benefi t reach the customer?
10. Customers are bombarded with fear mongering on a near monthly basis with leak
protection insurance offers from UNWATID. Is UNWATID willing to disclose the profits
associated with this protection racket?
11. I could offer more but my wife told me to quit complaining and get productive; that
same advise may be appropriate for UNWATID.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 75.63.17.94
2
¡~~~ltÇJo1'~
Jean Jewell
v~~.~ ~
I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jean Jewell
Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11 :30 AM
Jean Jewell
FW: PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
-----Original Message-----From: bhgreenwoodØcableone. net (mail to: bhgreenwoodØcableone. net J
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2: 36 AM
To: Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
Subject: PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from BH GREENWOOD follows:
Case Number:
Name: BH GREENWOOD
Address: 2126 N. HAMPTON RD.
City: BOISE
State: ID
Zip: 83704
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: bhgreenwoodØcableone.net
Name of Utility Company: United Water
Add to Mailing List:
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
RE: Sept. 17, 2007 application to convert to a monthly meter reading, along with an price
INCREASE of 3.75% due to the costs of the additional 6 readings per calender year- This
makes no sense. Should we be encouraging the use of expensive fuel and valuable time t9
double up on the meter reading? To ask that we pay an additional cost to facilitate better
cash flow for the water company is absurd.
This will only facilitate the escalation of water rates in the future due to the price
points made available by monthly billing.
Why complicate things and double up on the amount of work and resources spent on billing?
Billing every other month is more convenient, LESS expensive and less time consuming. I
would strongly urge the IPUC to deny the company's request and help hold the actual cost
of water down.
Respectfully, B.H. Greenwood
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipucl/ipuc.html
IP address is 24.117.90.15
1
/1d~.
t
Page 1 of I
Jean Jewell
From: Jean Jewell
Sent: Wednesday, December 05,20071:43 PM
To: Jean Jewell
Subject: FW: Customer Comment - UWI-W-07 -04
From: AobattgliaC§aol.com (mailto:AobattgliaC§aol.com)
se. nesday, December OS, 2007 10:00 AM
0: UWID
. e: biling proposal
Some feedback re: Recent letter sent to homeowners for a proposal to convert to monthly biling & the
proposed increase in rates.
As far as I am concerned, the quarterly billngs worked fine for me. (Especially, if it reduces costs). The current
every 2 months biling is very confusing as it does not correlate to other bils that come either quarterly or
monthly. (Very diffcult to keep track of). For instance, it would be much easier to remember if it were every
other month on even months.
I am absolutely opposed to any increase in costs in an effort to bil month. United Water is one of few, (if not
the only one) that does ""not"" offer free on-line bill pay. Thus, you have left no option to do so other than thru
one's local banks. I would much prefer that the on-line bil pay be through your offce. Anything to make it as
easy, & cost effective to the consumer would make good sense.
i want to believe that most other consumers would want & expect that you do everything in your power to keep
costs down, and hopefully, to offer as many options (such as on-line bil pay) to make it as easy & cost effective
to the consumer. That is what would make sense to me.
Anna Battaglia
[phone]
12/5/2007
.; ßv ~sltl~vii~'
J
Jean Jewell
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1 :24 PM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from Debbie Browning follows:
Case Number:
Name: Debbie Browning
Address: 12490 W Stillwater Dr
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83713
Home Telephone:Contact E-Mail:
Name of Utility Company: United Water
Add to Mailing List: no
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I received the letter stating that United Water will go to a monthly billing. The meager
benefits to not appear to out weigh the downside, which is the increased cost to
customers. If you think we WANT more frequent readings and billings, why not ask US? You
are increasing rates to cover costs you can avoid. I know it is a small increase, but it
seems unnecessary and pointless. It actually saves time to pay 6 times a year, rather
than 12, which some of us would rather not change, especially if we have to pay for it.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 65.101.79.78
1
I~ßi~110'1
Jean Jewell
iI~ /tV I~~.~ Mi
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
biker1 (§cableone. net
Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:03 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC CommenUlnquiry Form
A Comment from DON LONGSTRETH follows:
--- ---- ---- ---- - ---- - - --- -- --- - -----
Case Number: UWI-W-07-04
Name: DON LONGSTRETH
Address: 2626 E GLOUCESTER ST
City: BOISE
State: ID
Zip: 83706
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: biker1Øcableone.netName of Utility Compa~United WaterAdd to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I find the rationale for a rate increase is not compelling. In fact, all of the reasons
stated by UW could be used to make a case for going to quarterly billing! Paying more
money to get bills every month doesn't make budgeting or paying easier. It just makes it
different. Ditto for their argument for conservation. And ditto for 'quicker detection and
troubleshooting of customer leaks or meter problems.' That's an individual homeowner's
responsibili ty--why charge everyone more for the few with leaks? I don't believe Boise
residents have trouble with their trash/sewer bills, which are also billed bi-monthly.
UW's customer letter fails to quantify any of their claims, except how much it would cost
consumers. Please deny this request for a rate increase. Thank you.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 69.92.151.125~ - - - ~ - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --
1