20080109Comments.pdf

i~ lliqlóß?Jean Jewell
,/10 Ai.t/£~z H
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
juliewrites(Çyahoo.com
Monday, January 07,200812:49 PM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from Julie Fanselow follows:
- - ------------------- --- - - - -- - - -----
Case Number: UWI-W-07-04
Name: Julie Fanselow
Address: 1504 Columbus St.
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83705
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: juliewrites~yahoo.com
Name of Utili ty compa~. United Water
Add to Mailing List: C!s.J
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
As you consider United Water's plea to convert to monthly billing AND raise service
charges by 3. 75 percent, please know:
Unlike Intermountain Gas and Idaho Power, United Water charges a $3 'convenience fee' for
people who want to pay their bill online. Many other utili ties and companies allow
customers to pay their bills at no charge. I pay about a dozen bills online each month at
no charge. United Water is the ONLY creditor I have that wants to charge me for theservice.
Uni ted Water also charges a $3 'convenience fee' for people who want to pay their bills by
phone.
If the Idaho PUC approves United Water's request,it also ought to require that thecompany to set up a free online bill paying system for its customers.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 66.233.148.122-- ----- ------- --- ---- - ---- - ---- -----
1
~¡t1~ ,fto ~
Jean Jewell
¡/ fa A.i./1a ~.
; H
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jckeifer(Çq. com
Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:51 AM
Tonya Clark; Jean Jewell; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment/Inquiry Form
A Comment from John Keifer follows:
Case Number: UWI-W-07-04
Name: John Keifer
Address: 3355 N Five Mile Rd #335
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 83713
Home Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: jckeifer~q.com
Name of Utility Compa~United Water CompanyAdd to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your question or comment briefly:
I am stating my obj ection to United Water's proposal to convert to monthly meter readings
from the current bi-monthly program. I read previous comments from the Company to the
effect that customers want the change, I don't believe that is the case. There has been
considerable discussion among my friends and neighbors about this and none of them are in
favor of a change. In this day and age when evryone is concerned about cost management,
allocating an additional $1.5 million to overhead by raising customer expenses, is not a
good business decision. I cannot support an increase to my bill that provides no benefit
to me. Finally, there is nothing in Company's proposal that discusses the value of the
monies received by reducing the billing cycle from 60 to 30 days, and moving a significant
amount money from the receivables column to the cash side of the ledger. If they are
convinced this is such a good deal, then they should pay the additional expense for
monthly billing from the intrest received as a result of the improved cash flow and not by
increasing our costs for water service.Sincerely
John C Keifer
The form submited on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.209.42.224- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
1