Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250317Comments_3.pdf The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb: Name: Gabriel lacoboni Submission Time: Mar 14 2025 3:55PM Email: IACOBON104@GMAIL.COM Telephone: 208-755-9246 Address:418 Vista Avenue Lewiston, ID 83501 Name of Utility Company:Avista Utilities Case ID:AVU-G-25-01 Comment: "Hello, am writing in regards to Case AVU-G-25-01,Avista's request for a general rate increase. As a resident of Lewiston who resides in Avista's service area, I stand opposed to the request as it stands. An increase in rates is understandable. A cumulative 10% increase in electrical rates combined with a new, larger base, minimum rate and 5% increase in gas rates is not. Z Avista enjoys a monopoly in this area due to being a publicly regulated utility. This means as long as they convince the Commission the costs are justified they can do whatever they like. While I do not fault Avista for asking for an increase I do not believe they have contemplated how much of a financial burden their substantial request would put on residents less fortunate than my family. Lewiston has a median income of$71,000, meaning the average is likely far lower. Additionally, Nez Perce County is substantially lower at $37,859. These socioeconomic demographics indicate Avista's request would be a substantial burden on the families they serve. Further, many homes in their service area are older and less efficient. This means homes will need to use more power due to poor insulation and design leading to even more costs. I urge the Commission to consider an alternative increase phased in over two years which can more easily be absorbed by residents of modest means. Lastly, I hope the Commission considers the downstream impacts of Avista's request. Avista's increase means the costs for businesses and local governments would rise as their rates rise, leading to a higher price on goods or new/higher fees and taxes. Avista does not have seemed to. Personally, I think Avista shouldn't just consider their needs but also the needs of their residents. A 10% increase in electrical rates does not pass that test and I hope the Commission reminds them of this fact. " The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb: Name: Paul Banducci Submission Time: Mar 17 2025 5:53PM Email: pmbanducci@gmail.com Telephone: 208-755-6642 Address: 227 E. Mountain View Rd. Clark Fork, ID 83811 Name of Utility Company:Avista Case ID: AVU-G-25-01 Comment: "Regarding Avista's request for Natural Gas rate hikes: We ask that the requests be denied. Rate hikes are occurring with blistering frequency, and putting pressure on households, in a region which endures colder than average temperatures, 6 months of the year. Additionally, as of March 2025, natural gas costs in Idaho are actually DOWN 1.5%year over year. Back-end costs decreasing while Avista attempts to increase costs to the consumer is inappropriate. Thank you for your time and consideration. " ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb: Name: Paul Banducci Submission Time: Mar 17 2025 5:46PM Email: pmbanducci@gmail.com Telephone: 208-755-6642 Address: 227 E. Mountain View Rd. Clark Fork, ID 83811 Name of Utility Company:Avista Case ID: AVU-E-25-01 Comment: "Regarding Avista's request to raise electric rates: We are a residential account and oppose the rate hikes. We understand maintaining the grid, and all which that entails, requires significant capital. However, the Avista rate hikes are becoming an annual occurrence, and it seems they should be able to operate on current revenues. Perhaps investing their revenues into more than just infrastructure might improve their ROI? Furthermore, the requested hike of the "basic monthly charge"from $20 to $25 is inappropriate.The MBC is already unethical, and too high. Charging more $for more energy usage makes sense. Charging more $, regardless of usage is offensive and insulting to accounts such as ours, which actively monitor and restrain our energy usage. The Basic Monthly charge is a dirty tactic, which penalizes accounts which conserve energy, and ought to be denied. Thank you for your time and consideration. " ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1