20120113Comment.pdf

l/'iU 1,-' il" 8"3~J iü'j .", b
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, 1083720-0074
Stephen Raymond
Boise, 10
raydog(oexprnt.com
United Water Case # UWI-W-LL-02 Rate Increase
To whom it may concern,
1 find it outrageous that United Water has filed a request for rate increases due to lower consumption by
users. United Water has repeatedly tried any number of tactics to find any way to increase its profit
margin without any real upgrade in quality of service or product.
This New Jersey/Paris based company has continually stuffed our mailboxes with every variety of useless
upsell promotion it can think of all printed in jazzy four color brochures in an effort to stretch profits.
Last year it wanted to double our meter readings to justify additional operational overhead. This year it
wants to raise rates based on lower usage and normal end of life replacement costs for existing
equipment in spite of lower operating costs due to lower demands on the system.
A little investigation shows that United Water is unpopular in many other parts of the country for the
same poor service and high costs - see the following excerpt from a report on Untied Water from
foodandwaterwatch.org (Read the full report here.):
Suez Environnement has a poor track record in the United States. From sewage overflows in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
to contaminated drinking water in Gloucester, Massachusetts, serious problems have afficted municipalities across
the country after they turned their water or sewer systems over to Suez-owned United Water.
Under the leadership of Suez, United Water has grown into the second-largest private operator of municipal water
systems in the United States. However, because the company has had a large number of high-profile failures, in
recent years, it has won few new contracts to operate city water systems. As a result, it has focused on taking over
other water companies to eliminate its competition.
Poor performance has cost the company several of its largest contracts. Suez's flagship effort in the United States -
a long-term contract with Atlanta, Georgia - ended i6 years early in 2003 after the city documented numerous
problems from a large maintenance backlog to inadequate bil collection. After issuing 20 notices ofnoncompliance
to United Water, the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, decided against keeping the company when its contract came up
for renewal in 2007. Gloucester, Massachusetts, similarly ended its contract with the company after water quality
violations in 2009.
Expensive service has cost United Water several other deals. From Gary, indiana, to Fairfeld-Suisun, California,
cities across the country have ended contracts with the company, opting to run their water and sewer systems
themselves. For these municipalities, public operation has saved money and improved services.
A quick look at the chart below reveals what might be the real reason behind the continuous request for
rate hikes requested by United Water.
Suez in the United States: Timelin~Qf NI$jor Events and Annual Revenue
$8
$7
Cl(/:0l $6..'l
l!S5.s=2.s $4
g¡....i $3&!
'æi $2:i
$100
0
_ Lyo da Ea el de I'Eda ll li of GeWaWi fr IUIi
Lyo da Ea _pletes ~ of Ge Wa Wi fr II inlGW ~ llhalf of JM ope $e1ro Mi_G' ~memlo IIWa
II Woti an su Ly _ln a jo -. an ¡i 1l re ofJMO¡i$e
su llUaIl Wa
II Wa ll U.S. Wa l_ll an iiUttiIIWallAO O¡Copa_KeSullEaTe--
.~ i I ..~ ; ~
'Re da no av.
Lastly, I thought it worth exhibiting what a real business transaction with United Water looks like. Below
is a copy of my bill from the period of September and October of this year.
Here is how it breaks down:
2 CCF ~ $1.3521
Customer charge
Boise franchise fee
Safe drinking water fee
Total Bil
$02.70
$18.10
$00.62
$00.50
$21.92
So, my total bil is already almost ten times the amount of the actual use of product. How is it possible
that a customer charge can be nearly nine times the usage fee and still not be adequate?
My recommendation would be not to only vehemently deny this request, but also begin an active search
to find another local company to administrate our water supply and waste facilities, or move the
operation of the current one back into the public domain.
UNITED WATER
uSAGE HiS T()t".y
~.-tettf NtP't',t-itt ~...,~, ,,~,~~,~r.~.5i:f~.om To
.
?" '";~~D
Illlll'l,li'IH 'I'lll" 'lhll,¡I¡I'II'hlllilllihl!'Il'ulhl 3;.0~~~~:",Ulc:""5,'O;Gn .83"70& £7~_ T?3:3 512~t~ .
TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES S2' 92
C~,j$tDm¿r
Acccmnt Number
Bchmce Forward S000
CuttÆ;:nt DJe 1./21 !201
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 521.92
;¡t~';:it mtJit P'jJt:t" td UNlT!O WA f£J? HJAHO
Payment Amcwnt Enclosed s _.._________-____....
1111'llill"IIII..llj.IIIIJ.I'II'II¡jI'I'IIlI'I.lllilliill'¡.ii.!
:)2\0.7504