20091021Comments.pdf

,/J.~. ~J ilo6(~ If) J;
Jean Jewell
v~ A.V./1u~.oS lli
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
john(§johnblakeslee.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:06 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from John Blakeslee follows:
- - - ------- --- ------ -- - - --- - - - -- - -- --
Case Number : United Water 15.21% increase
Name: John Blakeslee
Address: 2545 E. Ustick Rd.
City: Meridian
State: Idaho
Zip: 83646
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: john~johnblakeslee.com
Name of Utili ty compa~uni ted WaterAdd to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your comment briefly:
I am opposed to granting United Water an increase at this time because of the economic
climate. Just like all of us (except the irrational federal government), United Water should
pull in their horns and postpone expansion until it i s customers are in a better financial
position to absorb increased costs. Yes, this would mean that they would have to cut back on
some of their profit and overhead just like the rest of us! Please sincerely consider this
input.
Respectfully,
John and Julie Blakeslee
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 208.187.191.2- ------------ - - - ----- - --- - - - -- - --- --
1
~ii\ottf'i ,0 i"
Jean Jewell
/10 rr
í
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RJR1(§Q.COM
Monday, October 19, 2009 8:50 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from ROB RINGEN follows:
Case Number: UWi:~W-O'l-O/
Name: ROB RINGEN
Address: 12291 W TEVOIT ST
City: BOISE
State: ID
Zip: 83709
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: RJR1~.COM
Name of Utility Company: UNITED WATER
Add to Mailing List: ll
Please describe your comment briefly:
I am against any increase in water rates. I also feel the proposed increase is too high.
The service level hasn i t went up that I have noticed. My water is still considered Hard
Water so I dont think any increase is deserved.
Thanks,
Rob Ringen
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov Iforms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 71.38.92.22
- - - -- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
1
¡r~~. J,;i/oq
i fd~ 1°/'
Jean Jewell
iI~ A.v,.110 ~.
~ H
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
feased 1 (§aol.com
Monday, October 19,20097:06 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Deb Fease follows:
- - -------- - -- - - ----- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - --
Case Number: UWIW 09 01
Name: Deb Fease
Address: 1119 Oaklawn Dr
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83709
Daytime Telephone: [phone]Contact E-Mail: feased1~aol.com ~~
Name of Utility Company : United Water of Idaho Add to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your comment briefly:
Upon reviewing the information concerning this rate increase, I would like the PUC to vote
NO on the 15.21% increase. I believe this to be excessive. I would not object to an increase,
but not one that is this high. I believe during these financial hard times , United Water
should be maintaining a water system and putting any upgades that are not CRUCIAL to the
system on the back burner. From what I researched there are projects that are upgrades and
addi tions that could be pushed out and not done right away. The company I work for has
reduced wages and cut back on benefits across the board. Has United Water done anything
internally to reduce costs? Like reduce overtime? Have salaried managers pick up the
additional work that is going to hourly employees? Has anyone at United Water Idaho had their
wages lowered or a benefit cut? The bad thing about a utility that also is a monopoly,
without competition, the utility has the power to raise rates and the consumer has no other
choice but to use the monopoly utility. The public looks to the PUC to keep the monopoly
within reason. Before the PUC approves this request, I HOPE it has documentation that every
project United Water proposes is CRITICAL to the water system, the PUC has been given the
COST CUTTING processes United Water has started to use to lessen the burden on the consumer,
and United Water has sacrificed a little like all the other companies have had to do in order
to survive. I would not be against a 7% increase but I truly believe 15.21% increase is
excessi ve and has fat builtin. Looks like a raise has been built into those figures for
those who realize they hold the power to the water. Thank you for you time.
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 15.203.233.77
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
1
/fr ß¡"¡"
Jean Jewell
,/f: !r)/.,/~~'
¡If
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Itfeet(§msn.com
Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:58 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness; Ed Howell
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Kitty Lightfoot follows:
Case Number: tAr -W-09-0/
Name : Kitty Lightfoot
Address: 900 N. Balsam
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83706
Daytime Telephone: [phone]Contact E-Mail: ltfeet~msn.com/.~
Name of Utility Company : United Water Idaho Add to Mailing List:~
Please describe your comment briefly:
I strongly object to this requested rate increase. It is a smart and fiscally responsible
business which forecasts for need to replace aging infrastructure and improvements. I as a
consumer pay for companies that structure their rates to force conservation when it is to
their best interests to increase rates, cut consumers use and then gripe and complain for
rate relief. I think they should be audited to insure they are both smart and responsible and
not just increasing their own wallet. If you always get relief then it is always smart to
spend more!!!! Duh! Has anyone looked at our wallets lately? And where did they get the
average user rates? Everyone I have talked to don i t fit their stats.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 70.101.147.197
1