20110812Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
nyteowler~msn.com
Thursday, August 11, 2011 1 :05 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Colleen Patterson follows:
-- - - - - - -- - --- --- - - --- - -- - - ---- - - -- --
Case Number: fÅr-w-II-Or
Name: Colleen Patterson
Address: 7255 W. Lamplighter St.
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83714
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: nyteowler~sn.com
Name of Utility Company : United Water
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
The proposed 28% rate increase by United Water is absolutely unreasonable and unwarranted.
2811 has been one of the best water years in Idaho for a long, long time, and expecting
customers to pay more is absurd and quite frankly, the most blatant attempt of theft by a
utility company of its customers I have EVER seen. When I moved to my current home I was on
Garden City Water, which was both reasonably priced and good quality. I was switched to
United Water approximately a year later without my consent or approval. My water rates
DOUBLED after that change and have done nothing but increase ever since. I realize that
inflation and shortages of a natural resource can induce rate hikes for utili ties, but never
in my life have I encountered a company that wants to raise rates so high just because they
can. We are not in a drought, there are no shortages at this time, if anything our rates
should be going DOWN ! United Water is nothing more than a greedy , self serving utility that
doesn i t care about it' s customers in the least, and this proposed rate hike is unfair,
unjustified and just plain wrong. So many people are struggling right now to keep thier
families fed and roofs over their heads, and a rate increase like this could very well push
more families over the edge with bills they cannot afford to pay. Do the right thing, DO NOT
APPROVE THE UNITED WATER PROPOSED RATE INCREASE!
Thank you for considering my comments,
Colleen M. Patterson
Boise, 10
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 71.289.57.248
- -- - - ------- - - - ------ - - --- - - - - -- - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
feased1 ~aol.com
Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:41 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Deborah D Fease follows:
-- - - - - --- - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --
Case Number: UWI-W-11-82
Name: Deborah D Fease
Address: 1119 Oaklawn Dr
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83789
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: feased1~aol.com
Name of Utility Company: UNITED WATER IDAHO
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I oppose the rate increase United Water is seeking under case #UWI-W-11-82. I followed their
suggestions to reduce my water usage and now I am being charged for taking their advice.
Simply put, I will be paying more for getting less. Has United Water done their due diligence
internally to cut costs? I would recommend and like to see all areas (overhead,
administrative, pay cuts, etc) that United Water has reduced in their operating expenses
before they charge end users to make up the shortfall. Why is ita surprise to United Water
that water consumption is down when they have been campaigning for this very thing? I believe
poor management has a direct impact on United Water not being able to pay their bills. Good
management would have had a strategy in place BEFORE the money was spent for paying the
costs. Why should end users pay for LESS product AND bad management? United Water is owned by
Suez Environment; this is listed on the United Water web site under . about us': Global,
world-class resources targeted at local communities 'United Water, and its parent company,
SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT, participate in global water research and development programs with a
budget of $182 million, the largest in the world.' Why can't United Water pay for the
shortfall by using monies from one of the largest budgets in the world? United Water has
internal resources and ways to cover the shortfall instead of passing it along to the
customer. If United Water can PROVE without a shadow of a doubt this shortfall or large
portion of this shortfall cannot be paid for by their parent company's budget and/or cutting
operating expenses, I would be receptive to a rate hike. I need proof that the rate hike is
j usti fied. At this time, it has not been j usti fied.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuC1/ ipuc . html
IP address is 15.283.233.88
- - -- --- - - - ----- --- - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rsnyder~fiberpipe. net
Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:39 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Rick Snyder follows:
- - -- -- ---- - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --
Case Number: !AtJI-rJ-/I-I);;
Name: Rick Snyder
Address: 7229 Lamplighter
City: Boise
State: Id
Zip: 83714
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: rsnyder~iberpipe.net
Name of Utility Company: United Water
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I am writing this message as an opposition the rate hike of 28% requested by United Water
corp. I can't even imagine what they are thinking. They have spent money over the years to
preach water conservation and the people responded, not as much to help out the utility
company, but because of their outrageous prices they already charge.
I see this as a wave of last resort that they are going to try and survive without cutting
back and being fiscally responsible. It is time for all of the people to stand up against a
company that is mis managing its resources.
Take a page out of the United States postal service, (another that we are forced to use) cut
back just like the rest of the business and companies have to do in times like these. It's
time for an all -out blitz of Facebook and twitter to be heard.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 71.289.7.41
- --- - - - -- --- - - - - - ---- - - -- - - --- - - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
anoonan~ctcweb. net
Tuesday, August 09,2011 9:59 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Aimée Noonan follows:
-- - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - --
Case Number: UWI-W-11-82
Name: Aimée Noonan
Address:
City: Boise
State: 10
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: anoonan~ctcweb.net
Name of Utility Company: United Water Id
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
It is possible that an increase is needed to protect your profit, which is the real reason
for your request, but an increase of 19.9 percent is unconscionable. One of the executives
interviewed suggested the size of the increase was to force consumers to cut usage, but it
was also stated that usage is down. Can't have it both ways. Please elimiate the request or,
at least, reduce it.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 66.232.81.47
- - ------ - -- - - - - ---- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
dakrull~hotmail.com
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:43 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Don Krull follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case Number: uwi-w-11-82
Name: Don Krull
Address: 5371 W. Hidden Springs Dr
City: Boise
State: 10
Zip: 83714
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: dakrull~hotmail.com
Name of Utility Company: United Water Idaho
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I wish to register a negative vote for the proposed 19+% increase that United Water Idaho
has requested. Part of their justification is that there is lower water useage resulting in
less income. We all have heard the stories about water shortages and many of us have acted
to conserve as much water as possible. Now as a result we are potentially penalized for our
actions. This is not fair. In addition the need for updating and replacing old water lines
is understood and supported. But it seems that better budgeting for these items rather than
just raising rates significantly at one time would be a more appropriate financial decision.
Hasn' t UWI been budgeting for these updates all along. Also, we are in a high water year and
it is recognized that there are no guarantees that this will occur again; but, requestinghigher rates when ample water is available does not seem to be the way to go. We all have
encountered higher costs of living following the difficult last few years. But 19% increase
is just too much.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc . html
IP address is 66.232.81.188
- ---- --- ---- - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
chiwah4~ctcweb. net
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1 :59 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from ARTURO FRAGA follows:
- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - --
Case Number: UWI-W-11-82
Name: ARTURO FRAGA
Address: 12723 N. 9TH AVE
City: BOISE
State: 10
Zip: 83714
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: chiwah~ctcweb.net
Name of Utility Company: UNITED WATER IDAHO
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
The reported requested increase of 19.9% for residential customers is excessive considering
the current economic condition we are in. Current rates should not be used to pay for the
full cost of capital improvements; as was reported for the Hill Rd water line . United should
better budget capital improvement costs over a period of years . United has ads on the TV
pushing water conservation, yet it was reported that declining water usage was part of the
reason for the rate increase. The Commission should consider only a more reasonable rate, and
only grant any increase based on proper management planning and supported costs.
The form submitted on http://www. puc. idaho .gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 66.232.81.238
- - - - - - - --- - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jmarcotte~cableone. net
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:40 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Jon Marcotte follows:
- ---- - -- --- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case Number: MWI.-w,I!-OJ-
Name: Jon Marcotte
Address: 2811 W Jefferson Street
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip: 83782
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: jmarcotte~cableone.net
Name of Utility Company : United Water Idaho
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
I strongly oppose allowing Uni ted Water Idaho to raise their water rates. Like many people,
my first thought was of how strongly they encourage us to conserve water and how odd it is
that we are now to be punished by doing so. In our current economy any increase is painful
and this one is unwarranted.
I recently heard that the company who owns United Water Idaho has been recognized in other
states as pulling this same stunt and they are no longer managing water in those states. It
would be worth the Public Utility Commission's time to investigate this.
Thank you for asking for public comment. Again, I encourage you to vote . no' .
Jon Marcotte
Boise
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 63.227.241.129
-- - - - - - --- --- - -- - - - -- -- - - - ---- - - -- --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cjverhalen~yahoo.com
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:31 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from CJ Ensign follows:
- -------- -- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case Number: . ULJL -iJ-/ / ' cJ ¡:
Name: CJ Ensign
Address: 3881 E. Pecan Street
City: Boise
State: 10
Zip: 83716
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: cjverhalen~yahoo.com
Name of Utility Company : United Water
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
A 19% rate increase is unfair and will create great hardship in a suffering economy.
Appropriate 'cost of living' increases year to year might be tolerable.
Obviously, the problem with essential resources like water is the monopoly. Where do we go
and what do we do if we cannot afford the increase? Please consider carefully the businesses
that will be adversely affected and the impact on employment as well as personal well being.
Thank you for considering my comments.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 178.135.241.46
-- ------ --- --- -- --- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - --
i
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mcneillkp~yahoo.com
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 12: 1 0 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Kevin McNeill follows:
- - - ---- --- - -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ---
Case Number: UW¡:-w-!l-tJEJ
Name: Kevin McNeill
Address:
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: mcneillkp~yahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: United Water
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
Thankfully, the Idaho Public Utility Commission is accepting public comments on the United
Water Company's request for a 28% increase in water rates; therefore, I respectfully submit
the following items for the Commission's consideration.
Background
The media reports of United Water Company's intention to increase water rates do little to
enlighten consumers as to the Company's actual funding situation. A review of the voluminous
supporting documentation prepared by the Company and their New Jersey-based financial
consultants adds little clarification. This is due to the fact that much of what is presented
is generic data that could support a standard utility request for a rate hike.
Concerns
The lack of succinct, relevant information that is understandable to the layman (such as a
simplified summary of the situation) raises these concerns:
1. The actual % drop in revenue that Company experienced over the past year should be
specified.
The actual drop in revenue ( if any) is never clearly presented in any of the media reports.
It is difficult to consider the magnitude of a rate hike without having any idea of how much
that revenue has actually decreased.
2. Likewise, the actual % drop in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs that the Company
experienced over the same time period should be specified.
A decrease in water demand will result in a corresponding decrease in water production, which
will lead to a corresponding decrease in O&M costs. Decreasing O&M costs should offset
decreases in revenue. For example, decreased production results in less chemicals for
treating less water, less chemical sludge for disposal, decreased costs for less
disinfectant, decreased power costs for pumping less water, decreased fuel for and
maintenance for the vehicle fleet etc.
3. In addition to the proposed rate hike, the cost-cutting measures that have been proposed
by the Company should be clearly specified.
Instead of raising the cost to consumers, United Water Company should be finding imaginative
ways to cut costs e.g. mothballing under-used facilities and unit treatment processes while
optimizing production at key locations in the distribution system; postponing non-essential
capital projects and confining spending to projects that are absolutely necessary; reducing
i
personnel costs by decreasing overtime, reducing travel and training costs etc. No clear
evidence is presented that the Company is doing anything of this nature to decrease costs.
4. The Company should present and explain the other financial means of debt retirement
(besides raising the cost of their water product) that the Company has explored.
For example, the Company should discuss options such as retiring capital project debt using
available federal grants and low-interest loans, possibly with some principal forgiveness
(such as from state revolving loan funds); re-negotiating the terms of existing indebtedness
with borrowers; scheduling the installation of essential projects to take advantage of the
time value of money; or use of available maintenance reserve funds.
5. Raising the cost of water in these difficult financial times is most counterproductive.
Signi ficantly raising the water rate - especially at a time of extreme financial uncertainty
- will only encourage more conservative water use on the part of domestic consumers, thus
leading to even less revenue.
6. Raising the cost of water may have the greatest impact on the commercial sector - the
largest water consumers.
If any significant rate hike is approved this may potentially drive the largest water-
consuming commercial users either to relocate to another City or to go out of business
altogether, especially in the current extremely competitive commercial climate. This will
again result in even less revenue, leading United Water to request additional rate hikes
etc., etc.
7. The Company should clearly specify the options available to retire short-term debt other
than long-term rate hikes.
An Assessment of ratepayers to pay down existing indebtedness would be preferable to a long-
term dramatic increase in rates which never come down again once they are raised. This option
should be developed and presented by the Company, in conjunction with other available
mechanisms (grants, low-interest loans etc.) to reduce the Assessment.
Conclusion
The only difference between private enterprise and the United Water Company situation is that
the Water Utility has a monopoly on providing Boise citizens with an essential product.
Faced with decreasing demand for their product, the Company is attempting to justify a 28%
rate increase in order to maintain an apparent 8.43% return on investment.
The only way that there is any sense in this application for a 28% rate increase is if the
Water Company hopes to gain approval for a lower increase that the Company might otherwise
not have been granted in light of the decreasing demand for water.
In these times of economic uncertainly, high unemployment, and belt-tightening, it is
completely disingenuous that the United Water Company can request a rate hike based on the
reasoning that revenue has declined due to their customers' good water conservation
practices. The Company should explore a more creative solution that is - in the long run _
both in the Company's and the public's best interests.
The form submitted on http://www. puc. idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 24.116.137.225
--- - - - --- ---- - - -- - --- - - --- - - - - - - - - --
2
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
zoozatska~yahoo. com
Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:59 PM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Linda Johnson follows:
- - - ------- - -- - ---- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - --
Case Number: àWi:-w-/ /-Od-
Name: Linda Johnson
Address:
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Zip:
Daytime Telephone:
Contact E-Mail: zoozatska~yahoo.com
Name of Utility Company: United Water Boise
Acknowledge: acknowledge
Please describe your comment briefly:
You know why I don' t use more water? I can' t afford it. It has nothing to do with
conservation and I'm getting real tired of big companies spending money they don't have and
then sticking it to the poor, and getting poorer by the day, American citizen. I don' t
recall any announcement to the people of Boise j usti fying the need for these improvements.
If they want to raise rates on Boise' s public, then I think it only fair that ALL their
financial expenditures, and justifications for them, be made public. I just love it --- use
less, get charged more. Now that is the new American way - - - the way that is killing this
once fine country.
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 97.121.25.67
- --- - ---- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --
i