20250314Comments_11.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Lynn Florea
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 9:43AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 16897 N Wrangler Rd
Rathdrum, ID 83858
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01
Comment: "The new rates requested by Gem State Water are from 53%to 79% higher than their
current rates. They have also applied to decrease the amount of gallons included with a monthly
standard minimum price, which in effect is another rate increase.
There have been no expensive investments such a replacing old pipes, upgrading any treatment
plants, or building new storage tanks made during the past 3 years to justify requesting such a
Large rate increase. Their application states the rate increase requested is to produce an increase
to the company's revenues; consolidate the rates of all individual systems operated by Gem State
to one system and make various additions and revisions to its tariffs.
The rates suggested are far beyond a reasonable and fair increase and certainly cannot be justified
for the reasons stated. If every utility in the State of Idaho requested increased rate fees based on
those requested by Gem State the state would not have to worry about any population increases
as currently projected.
Please do NOT approve the requested outrageous increase to our water rates! Hold Gem
State's water rate to a reasonable and fair increase for the customers they serve. Thank you:'
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lindsey Gibson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 10:27 AM
To: secretary
Subject: GSW-W-24-01
Hello.

I am against Gem State Water request to raise our water bill 79%. I'm in the Troy Hoffman district.
We are a very small district in the middle if cda.We are very small district and since I've lived here
in the last 10 years, 5 house have been built possibly in this area with no more areas to develope.
Since Troy Hoffman sold to Gem state 2 or so years ago they have already had one major increase
in the monthly amount owed and a decrease in the water base.They said last time it was to
upgrade people's out of date systems. This is the same excuse that they're using now. Have they
proved to you what they replaced with the previous increase and what exactly they'll do with this
money like a full break down of what's being replaced to what house and exactly what the parts
cost and labor.A full accounting. That is what should be supplied to you otherwise its just like
what is going on in our federal givernment. They want to almost dbl the amount owed montly from
$35 (which I already pay$45-50)to $62 and reduce it down to 5000 gallon water base to possibly
no base and all. I say NO and I know all of my neighbors feel the same way. Maybe they need to
budget better. Their website says that they sent out a letter in Dec 2024. 1 just got this letter dated
for March not for December like their website says they sent them out. Furthermore, I have
received a letter from them that there could be lead in the water and or some people still may have
Lead pipes. They offer no plans to replace these just to run you water longer before filling up your
cup. They'd love to get more money by not fixing it and by us having to use more water cha Ching
for them.
I would like you to put a stop to this. Do you ever deny requests?Or the utility companies put in the
request and it's just always approved. It seems that way for Avista, Gem State, CDA City sewer and
water.We have a lot of elderly people on our street that are on fixed incomes and with inflation
over the years it seems that all companies are taking advantage of jumping on that train. Prime
example Gem State Water. Please deny this request. Thank you
-------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: James Stover
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 10:17AM
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 32681 N Kelso Drive
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01

Comment: "Dear Commissioner,
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter regarding Gem State Water, as a resident in the
Spirit Lake East neighborhood in North Idaho, I am a concerned home owner. In our rural
community, the water rights have been bought and sold multiple times through the years but
Gems State Water; a wholly owned subsidy by NW Naturals, a publicly traded company on the
NYSE, is taking advantage as the sole owner of water rights in our area. I understand that price
increases are essential to keep up with inflation and companies need to be able to turn a profit,
however just two years ago we went from $25 a month to$35 a month, a 40% rate increase as well
as a decrease in usage. As stated in Case#GSW-W-24-01, Gem State has the intentions on
reducing our usage allocation, or as they call it "free gallons", down to zero gallons included in the
base rate. Larceny is not the Idaho way, please consider the true stakeholders here and not the
money hungry shareholders and Executive bonuses. There are many Veterans and retired couples
here on fixed income and this rate hike and usage reduction will genuinely hurt many community
members.
Thank you for your time,
James Stover
208.561.1776"
--------------------------------------------------------
Name: Lindsey Gibson
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 10:24AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4955 N Anne St
Cda, ID 83815
Name of Utility Company: Gem State
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01
Comment: "Hello. I am against Gem State Water request to raise our water bill 79%. I'm in the Troy
Hoffman district. A very small district in the middle if cda.We are very small district and since I've
Lived here in the last 10 years, 5 house have been built possibly in this area with no more areas to
develope. Since Troy Hoffman sold to Gem state 2 or so years ago they have already had one major
increase in the monthly amount owed and a decrease in the water base. They said last time it was
to upgrade people's out of date systems. This is the same excuse that they're using now. Have they
proved to you what they replaced with the previous increase and what exactly they'll do with this
money like a full break down of what's being replaced to what house and exactly what the parts

costa nd labor. A full accounting. That is what should be supplied to you otherwise its just likewhat
is going on in our federal give rnment. They want to almost dbl the amount owed montly from $35
to$62 and reduce it down to 5000 gallon water base to possibly no base and all. I say NO and I
know all of my neighbors feel the same way. Maybe they need to budget better. Their website says
that they sent out a letter in Dec 2024. 1 just got this letter dated for March not for December like
their website says they sent them out. Furthermore, I have received a letter from them that there
could be lead in the water and or some people still may have lead pipes. They offer no plans to
replace these just to run you water longer before filling up your cup. They'd love to get more money
by not fixing it and by us having to use more water cha Ching for them.
I would like you to put a stop to this. Do you ever deny requests?Or the utility companies put in the
request and it's just always approved. It seems that way for Avista, Gem State, CDA City sewer and
water.We have a lot of elderly people on our street that are on fixed incomes and with inflation
over the years it seems that all companies are taking advantage of jumping on that train. Prime
example Gem State Water. Please deny this request. Thank you "
-----------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kathy Baker
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 12:14PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 30228 N. Silver Meadows Loop
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: Bitterroot
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01
Comment: "My husband and I nolonger water our yard due to the last rate hike. We could water
our vegetable garden and stay under the minimum gallons. We are on a fixed income and protest
another more than double rate hike, 79%, and half the amount of minimum allowed. This is
outrageous. "
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Shasta Pickens
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 1:11 PM

Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 33207 N Kelso Dr
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: CSW-W-24-01
Comment: "If they want to increase our bill they should at least offer unlimited water usage.
Otherwise, the additional$325.00 plus dollars we spend in the summer months for more water to
keep our green areas green, animals fed, and our children happy while staying cooled off should
more than offset the company's"rising costs".
Furthermore, we have yet to see any proof of"system updates"and "investments"and additional
"maintenance". Perhaps if the company was"local"they wouldn't have to"recover the current
cost of operating and maintaining they[sic]water systems."They should have taken that into
account when they purchased the company. They knew the profits and expenses when they
bought it in 2020, only 5 years ago. This price increase is excessive and greedy. If this passes, we
will be forced to limit our usage even more so, resulting in a dead green areas and an increased fire
hazard to our area, lower quality of life, and overall will negatively impact our community. "
--------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: carol waters
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 1:28PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 1348 W Longhorn Street
RATHDRUM, ID 83858
Name of Utility Company: Gem State water
Case ID: GSW-W-245-0
Comment: "This rate hike is just not right, we just had an increase about a year ago and now they
want another hike of 79%! We were one of the first homes built in the Bar Circle S water district
and now on a fixed income, so this hike will be devastating to us! Why not charge higher rates to

all the new homes being built in this area and fairly adjust the old Bar Circle S customers? Thank
you for listening:'
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Gary Severance
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 2:14PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 26935 N Silver Meadows Loop
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: The Retired Truck parts co.
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01
Comment: "I am opposed to this rate hike. We just had one about 40%just a couple of years ago.
The expansion recently preformed were in anticipation of a new subdivision opening up. The new
subdivision should be charged a per lot Accessment fee to pay for that. Also there is a hidden
price hike in that the montly 10,000 gal base is reduced to 7,000 gallons, increasing the cost even
more.
I'm on a fixed income and at 76 years old can't afford any more inflation this is ridiculous.
Gary Severance"
---------------------------------------------------
Name: John and Denise Novak
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 2:40PM
Email: den [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 27981 N. Silver Meadows Loop
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-24-01
Comment: "Subject: Strong Opposition to Gem State Water's Proposed Rate Increase

Dear Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Gem State Water's proposal for yet another rate
increase. While the company claims the increase is necessaryfor equipment upgrades, they have
failed to provide any transparency or specific details on the improvements that have been made.
This lack of clarity raises serious concerns about the true rationale behind such a significant price
hike.
Just two years ago, the IPUC approved a rate increase that boosted Gem State Water's revenue by
$402K(69%). If this new request is approved, in just two years, it would result in a total increase of
155% in the base charge, while drastically reducing the allotted gallons by 67% and raising the
overage charge by 160%. This would generate an additional$602K(78.8%) in revenue, resulting in
a new base price of$53.50, with a reduced allowance of just 5,000 gallons per month and an
overage charge of$4.50 per 1,000 gallons. These increases are not only excessive but seem
unjustified, especially considering the lack of transparency regarding any meaningful service
improvements that would benefit customers.
To put this into perspective, during the peak summer months, our family uses approximately
45,000 gallons for our garden and yard—not including excessive water use like pools. Under the
current rates, our water bill for this usage is $138.25. However, if the proposed rate hikes are
approved, our bill would increase to $233.50 for the exact same usage—an additional$100 per
month.This represents a significant financial burden for families, especially those like ours, who
rely on water for essential purposes like irrigation.
The proposed rate hike would place an unsustainable strain on many families, particularly those
with larger properties. If Gem State Water continues this trend of requesting rate hikes every two
years, in just four years, families with 5-acre properties could find themselves receiving only 1,250
gallons of water per month—far less than what is needed to meet basic irrigation needs.
Additionally, the company has indicated that their ultimate goal is to eliminate the minimum
allowed gallons entirely. How are families expected to afford paying per gallon for their water
usage? Under such a model, our summer bills would become outrageously expensive.
I strongly urge the IPUC to carefully assess whether this rate increase is truly necessary and if it
serves the best interests of residents.The lack of transparency and clear justification for these
increases is concerning, especially considering the substantial hikes we've already seen in the
past few years. It is critical that Gem State Water provide a detailed explanation of how this
additional revenue will directly benefit customers, if at all.

Furthermore, I would appreciate knowing if the IPUC has ever denied a rate increase request from
any utility company in the past, and if there will be an in-person meeting to allow the public to
voice their concerns about this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
John and Denise Novak
Athol, ID"
-------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Colin Webber
Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 2:34PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 5110 N 4th St.
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W24-01
Comment: "To whom it may concern.
I would like to state my objection to the proposed increase in water charges by Gem State
Water. The Companytook over our small water system just about 3 years ago and immediately
increased the monthly charge from $27.50 (every other month)to $35.00 per month! Now they are
proposing to increase the cost to 62.65 monthly. This is an unconscionable increase for such a
short period of time. After doing an online search I find that average monthly cost of water in Idaho
is $49.00, however the price of water in Coeur d'Alene is a lot lower than that. Why should we
have to pay so much more than our neighbors?
The purpose of the Utilities Commission is to control the size of these or any increases for the
publics services and I hope that this time you will look into their unrealistic demand.
Thanks in advance for considering this objections,

Colin Webber"
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 5:00 PM
To: ConsumerComplaintsWeb
Subject: Notice: A complaint was submitted to PUCWeb
The following complaint was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Donna Barnett
Submission Time: Mar 13 2025 4:18PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 527 W Dolan Rd.
Rathdrum, ID 83858
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Contacted Utility: No
Comment: "Gem State is asking for a 79% increase in our water usage base rate from $35 to
$62.65. On February 28, 2025 is the first notice we received of the Amended Application. We have
pasture and livestock on our property which need constant irrigation. In 2024 alone, we incurred
$895.00 in excess usage charges. A 79% increase seems excessive for any household to
absorb. In our case, it is not merely a choice of not watering our lawn, but a matter of choosing to
water our animals or the pastures they feed upon."