20250714Comments_2.pdf

The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Randy k Rannow
Submission Time: Jul 14 2025 11:52AM
Email: 3.1415boson(cbgmaiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: S Caddis Pl
Boise, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: IGC
Case ID: INT-G-25-02
Comment: "IGC's proposed 11.46% increase in residential rates is not only excessive, it is
fundamentally unfair. Idaho's families are already grappling with rising costs in every corner
of their lives, from groceries to housing. To increase gas bills by nearly$5 per month for
every household, simply because of population growth and infrastructure upgrades, puts
the burden on the very people driving Idaho's thriving economy, its residents.
- More customers should lower costs:With an expanding customer base, basic economics
tells us that per-user costs should decrease through economies of scale. Instead, this
increase suggests mismanagement or a failure to adapt efficiently to growth.
- Inflation and wages aren't an excuse: Every business faces inflation. Shifting all those
costs onto consumers without exploring internal cost-saving measures is lazy and
regressive.
- Unfair burden on low-income families: This increase disproportionately affects
households already on the edge, forcing tough choices between heating and other
essentials.
- Lack of transparency and public input: Have users been provided with a breakdown of
how increased revenue will be spent? Infrastructure upgrades should be planned years
ahead—sudden large increases imply poor planning.
IGC has other paths forward:
- Implement tiered usage pricing: Households with higher gas usage could shoulder more
of the cost, protecting lower-income, low-usage families.
- Explore renewable energy investments: Shift toward biogas and methane capture to
diversify supply and reduce costs long-term.
- Public-private partnerships for infrastructure: Collaborate with municipalities or federal
programs to upgrade pipelines without saddling consumers.
- Operational efficiency reviews: Hire third-party consultants to identify waste and
streamline operations, passing savings on to customers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

Name: R Rannow
Submission Time: Jul 14 2025 11:57AM
Email: 3.1415boson(cbgmaiL.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: S Caddis Pl
Boise, ID 83716
Name of Utility Company: IGC
Case ID: INT-G-25-02
Comment: "Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to voice strong opposition to the proposed 11.46% residential rate increase by
Intermountain Gas Company.This rate hike, which would raise monthly gas bills by nearly
$4.69, comes at a time when most Idaho families are already facing mounting financial
pressure due to inflation, housing costs, and stagnant wages.
More concerning, the justification provided by IGC (population growth, infrastructure
investment, and labor costs) appears to reflect a lack of proactive planning and efficiency
on the part of IGC. As more households join the customer base, the very principles of
economies-of-scale should lead to a reduction in per-unit costs. If operational expenses
are rising, those burdens should not be passed on indiscriminately to consumers,
especially low-income Idaho families who are disproportionately impacted by utility hikes.
More troubling, and perhaps more compelling, is a troubling lack of transparency regarding
how the additional revenue would be used, and whether alternative funding sources (e.g.,
public-private infrastructure partnerships or renewable energy investments), have been
seriously considered, or properly vetted.
I urge the Commission to:
- Reject or significantly reduce the proposed rate hike
- Encourage Intermountain Gas to explore tiered pricing models that protect vulnerable
households
- Mandate an efficiency audit of the company's operations to identify savings before turning
to consumers
- Require a more robust long-term planning strategy to manage population and
infrastructure challenges without sudden rate shocks
The people of Idaho deserve a responsible, affordable utility service, not reactionary rate
increases that strain household budgets in Idaho, AND erodes public trust."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2