20250310Comments_4.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lynda Fioravanti
Submission Time: Mar 7 2025 8:01 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address:664 Meadow Creek Rd
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Case ID:AVU-E25-01
Comment: "Dear Avista,
I just read your notice of price increases for the next two years. I understand that any expense that
you incur can be part of your base figures to charge the consumer. Because of that, maybe you can
afford to increase your employee's salaries by 20%, but the average worker that does not work for a
utility, does not have the perk.Therefore, increasing electric power by 19.6%is detrimental to the
consumer, both heat and A/C.The people are struggling to make ends meet as it is. Please do not
increase the rate so drastically.
As a real estate agent, I see how hard it is for people to afford to get into a home of their own. Most
are squeezing in if they even qualify for a home of their own. Rents have skyrocketed as well. Give
us a break and lower your increase.
Thank you for your consideration.
Wishing you the best,
Lynda Fioravanti"
-------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lynda Fioravanti
Submission Time: Mar 7 2025 8:09PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 664 Meadow Creek Rd
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Case ID:AVU-G25-01

Comment: "Dear Avista,
First of all,thank you for your amazing service of coming out to people's home when they smell a
gas leak. I was at a listing appointment and smelled natural gas in his basement. I told the client to
call you and Avista was out that day and found the leak. I am very grateful to you for this service!
The notice in my gas bill is proposing increasing gas by 11.3% over the next two years. Even though
this is not as egregious as the proposed electric increase, it's still is significant. Most people I know
had their income go down this year, so another 11% increase hits them hard.
ask that you reconsider the amount of the gas increase.
Thank you for your consideration.
Wishing you the best,
Lynda Fioravanti"
------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Karen Paul
Submission Time: Mar 8 2025 1:17PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 18322 W Palomar Dr
Hauser, ID 83854
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Case ID:AVU-E-25-01
Comment: "I've reviewed Avista's general rate case to try to understand the basis for the request for
rate increases over the next two years. In general, it was difficult to identify the bases of changes in
costs and revenues provided in Ms. Schultz's direct testimony and exhibits. Ms. Schultz relied on
adjustments to the revenue requirement in part provided by Ms.Andrews. I was unable to find Ms.
Andrews direct testimony to try to understand the specific adjustments.
A couple of specific items noted are: 1.the inclusion of"incentive compensation included in this
case directly benefits customers either in cost containment and efficiencies, operationally via the
reliability index and response time metrics or customer satisfaction as measured via the Voice of
the Customer Survey, and customer and community impact as measured by the Senior Leader STIP
Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity Scorecard". The words sound fancy(corporate gibberish), but
evidence is missing, so how are customers actually benefiting from this, and why should this be a

component of costs associated with compensation?
2. Included in cost is$165,000 related to the Montana Riverbed lease settlement, in which the
Company agreed to pay the State of Montana$4.0 million annually beginning in 2007. Why would
this be included in the Idaho cost of service/revenue requirement? This leads to a question of how
costs are apportioned between states that Avista serves and what is in place to prevent, or clearly
justify, subsidy of costs incurred outside of Idaho.
Bottom line,the bases for changes in costs are not transparent or adequately explained and thus,
as submitted, not supportable.
-----------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Karen Paul
Submission Time: Mar 8 2025 4:49PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 18322 W Palomar Dr
Hauser, ID 83854
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Case ID:AVU-E-25-01
Comment: "Update- I was able to find Ms.Andrews direct testimony. Not sure why it showed up
now and not before.
I've reviewed Avista's general rate case to try to understand the basis for the request for rate
increases over the next two years. In general, it was difficult to identify the bases of changes in
costs and revenues provided in Ms. Schultz's direct testimony and exhibits. Ms. Schultz relied on
adjustments to the revenue requirement in part provided by Ms.Andrews. Unfortunately, Exhibit 5
of Ms.Andrews testimony is marked confidential so unable to see details of cost adjustments.
A few specific items noted are: 1.the inclusion of"incentive compensation included in this case
directly benefits customers either in cost containment and efficiencies, operationally via the
reliability index and response time metrics or customer satisfaction as measured via the Voice of
the Customer Survey, and customer and community impact as measured by the Senior Leader STIP
Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity Scorecard". The words sound fancy(corporate gibberish), but
evidence is missing, so how are customers actually benefiting from this, and why should this be a
component of costs associated with compensation?
2. Included in cost is$165,000 related to the Montana Riverbed lease settlement, in which the
Company agreed to pay the State of Montana $4.0 million annually beginning in 2007. Whywould
this be included in the Idaho cost of service/revenue requirement? This leads to a question of how
costs are apportioned between states that Avista serves and what is in place to prevent, or clearly
justify, subsidy of costs incurred outside of Idaho.

3. Ms.Andrews discusses pro-forma adjustments to "certain" O&M and A&G costs and
applies a 5.28%escalation based on the average increase in expenses for the years 2019- 2024
(excluding 2022), instead of limiting adjustments to those items that are known and
measurable. This approach does not encourage Avista to look for cost savings, as it's an escalation
of prior costs.
Bottom line,the bases for changes in Idaho costs are not transparent or adequately explained and
thus, as submitted, not supportable.
-------------------------------------------------------