20230330Comments_6.pdf

1
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 9:00 AM
To: ConsumerComplaintsWeb
Subject: No�ce: A complaint was submited to PUCWeb - Aaron Reese
The following complaint was submited via PUCWeb:
Name: Aaron Reese
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 8:41AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 3119 N NETWORK LN
BOISE, ID 83704-6043
Name of U�lity Company: Veolia VEO-W-22-02
Contacted U�lity: Yes
Comment: "I am running due to the 24% increase proposed by Viola water. They do not deserve the
24% increase the water quality is not very good compared to the prior water company. They are
overpriced as it is for water and I do not believe they should be en�tled to a 24% increase on our rates.
We need to keep Idaho, Idaho and not let it fall to the surrounding states or California."
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
---------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb
The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:
Name: Daisy Lewis
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 3:12PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2971 South Quercus Avenue
Boise, ID 83709
Name of U�lity Company: Veolia
Case ID: VEO-W-22-02
Comment: "I would like to comment about the 24.1% proposed rate hike Veolia has requested. I live in a
por�on of the county where irriga�on services are not available. We live on a third of an acre and try to
2
grow as much of our own food as we can. This results in $200 water bills in the summer. To suggest that
we'll only see an increase equal to a cup of coffee a month is way out of touch with reality. Our
neighborhood is full of homeowners on fixed income. They are already dealing with huge increases in
property tax, groceries, fuel; this is a lot to hit them with."
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
-------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 7:01 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb
The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:
Name: Jill Trimble
Submission Time: Mar 29 2023 9:57PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5750 W Dalcross Drive
Boise, ID 83714
Name of U�lity Company: Veola
Case ID: VEO-W-22-02
Comment: "I am wri�ng in opposi�on to the proposed 24% increase to our water rates. How can you
jus�fy this?"
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
----------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb
The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:
Name: Kathy Dzuck
Submission Time: Mar 30 2023 9:03AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1569 Independence St.
3
Boise, ID 83706
Name of U�lity Company: Veolia Water
Case ID: VEO-W-22-02
Comment: "As a widowed Sr. ci�zen struggling to get by, I plead with you to say no to Veolia's request
for the huge rate hike. I have cut way back on my usage, launder only large loads and even changed the
way I bathe...and s�ll my latest level pay bill has almost doubled. I can't do anything more to cut back. It
looks like we have lots of snow which is promising for our water year. Thankful I'm on canal water. Most
of us are struggling right now...please help curb greedy rate hikes. Thank you. Kathy Dzuck"
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
---------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:00 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb
The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:
Name: Sharon Wulbrecht
Submission Time: Mar 30 2023 12:48PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 18442 N Burnt Car Pl
Boise, ID 83714
Name of U�lity Company: Veolia
Case ID: VEO-W-22-02
Comment: "I am opposed to this rate hike. I am on a FIXED income!! This is a ridicuously high percentage
to do to people."
------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]
---------------------------------------------------------------
March 27,2023
30 AM 9:37TestimonyofScottMcDougall
4455 N Mackenzie Lane si i
Boise, ID 83703
Re:Case No.VEO-W-22-02,Veolia rate increase
First, it is stated in Veolia's September 30,2023 application to the Idaho PUC,that
"...a copy of the (Veolia's)Application and Applicant's present and proposed rate
schedulesare available for public inspection at its office at 8248 West Victory
Road,Boise,Idaho at any time during office hours."I would like to note that
Veolia has no office hours availableto the public at that address.The sign on the
door says as much,and advisesto make an appointment by phone.Further,8248
West Victory is the addressprovided on Veolia's website to which the public is
invited to send mail.I did so,and the mail was returned (attached).When I
inquired as to why my mail was returned, when it was sent to the address
provided both on the rate increase application and on the website, the reply was
"Your guess is as good as mine".
Secondly,regardingthe online bill:to see anything other than an amount due and
lots of buttons to click to "Pay Now",or "Sign up for auto pay",or "Sign up for
Paperlessbilling",you have to sign into your account.The catch-22 is that you
have to know your account number, which is not immediately available unless
you've saved a mailed paper bill.After you go to your account,it shows how
much is due and how much water was used. To get a better picture,you have to
click "View Details".That shows the base charge,consumption charge, and tax.
And it shows a "Bill Amount"that may be different than the "Due Amount".You
haveto go back to the first screen to see the "Previous Balance"from a prior bill,
which is not really the "previous"balance,but rather the 'current'balance,aka
the 'balance due' from a prior bill.Very confusing.And then you can select the
"View Statement"button,which you can't actually view on a PC without first
savingit to "downloads"and then opening. There you get what your mail
statement would have looked like,with your account number,and nowhere does
it show the same number as the "Bill Amount"shown online.Very user non-
1
friendly,and very difficult to piece together a continuous accounting.Both for the
customer and apparently,by evidence of experience,Veolia as well.
But those are outward-facing,customer service issues.If Veolia had requested a
small rate increase to improve their customer interfaces and usage/accounting
transparency,I would strongly recommend approval.But the requested rate
increase is not for anything useful for customers.
From the Idaho Statesman,March 25,2023:"Madeline Wyatt,a spokespersonfor
Veolia,told the Idaho Statesman by phone:"The 24%sounds like a huge amount
of money..".Yes,it does.And it is.
The article goes on to note that:"Veolia acquired Suez,...in a $15.4 billion merger
in early 2022",and that Veolia spent roughly $70 million on improvements which
it hopes to recoup via this rate increase at the rate of about $12 million per year
over the next 6 or so years.
Consider that.They spent $70 million on improvements in just one year.So,in
just twelve months they sent out their engineers to look at the entire system,
identified all the improvements that were needed,budgeted the work,bid the
work,negotiated final terms of the projects,obtained the permits,scheduled the
work,and completed the work.In twelve months,from scratch.That is highly,
highly unlikely.Much more likely is that at the time of the purchaseVeolia knew
about the improvements that were "needed"(and I put 'needed'in quotes.Suez
apparently didn't think they were needed.If the improvements were simply to
create greater efficiencies,let those efficiencies pay for the improvements over
time).So,that expense would have been part of the due diligence Veolia did prior
to the purchase,and it would have been part of the negotiations.It would have
been factored into,and reduced,the purchase price.So,to grant the requested
rate increase would be to compensate Veolia twice:first when they reduced the
offer price by the cost of improvements needed,and again with a rate increase
for those same improvements.
In the unlikely case that Veolia did not conduct thorough due diligence and was in
fact surprised to find that they needed to spend the $70 million on
improvements,that is entirely on them.If they did a poor job of evaluating Suez
2
operations in Idaho,that is on them.It is not for the ratepayers to pay for their
mistake.
Thankyou.
Scott McDougall
Former Chair,Idaho Chapter
American Societyfor Quality
attachments
3
THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL