20250310Comments_3.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 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. 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 clearlyjustify, 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:'