20251027Comments_2.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Abbie Mashaal
Submission Time: Oct 26 2025 11:50AM
Email: abbie dzoneskydiving.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 4034 N 3329 E
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-16
Comment: "I understand the cost of labor and materials have increased and and as such
Idaho Power needs to increase revenue to compensate for this. In addition to being an
Idaho resident, I am a business owner, with a 400amp commercial service.
My comment here revolves around the percentage change proposed impacting Residential
service, by percentage, more than any other segment of electrical user.
At a glance, an observer might notice that it appears residential, small general, and
irrigation are seeing roughly equal increases (with Residential being technically the highest)
and that might seem "fair". I would like to show, logically, why it helps all Idahoans to pass
the increase onto commercial services only, or at least the majority of the percentage
increase:
When a resident pays their electric bill its done with 'post-tax' money.This means that
every$1/hr we earn, we keep only about$0.75 to use towards an increased electrical bill
(with the bulk of the tax headed to the Federal government, which right now is still paying
congressman while shut-down); this doesn't even consider the employer side taxes and
work comp expenses. As a business, we at least have the opportunity to reduce taxable
income when costs increase. So, if my employees need $20 more a month to off-set their
cost-of-living increase, the business has to pay$30, with $10 going to taxes, so that our
employees can maintain their standard of living. Conversely if only my business is charged
the same additional$20, we pay it pre-tax. This translates into savings for the consumer
because Idaho businesses would have to increase prices only to make up for the actual
electrical cost rise, rather than an additional 40% or more needed to include both employer
taxes, employee taxes, work comp, 401 k matching, etc. Remember that while $1 taxed at
25% leaves $0.75, it is now an increase of 33%for$0.75 to reach back to$1.00. 1 state 40%
because employers then pay for worker's compensation, and other expenses, based on
employee wage.
Again, I am a business owner myself. I believe businesses are better equipped to find
efficiencies in electrical usage and otherwise. Thee average Idahoan is already stressed out
enough and can use a break from an inflationary spiral of costs.
1

If Idaho Power and the IPUC believe all users should paythe same increase, then please
address why Large Power and Large General Service increase are being subsidized by
smaller users in the proposal."
Thank you for your time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Michael Wendler
Submission Time: Oct 27 2025 4:06PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 2036 Blue Sky Ln
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Case ID: IPC-E-25-16
Comment: "I vehemently oppose this rate hike. We are on the same path as California 40
years ago. I do not agree with supporting other states with our power resources and/or land
unless and until they pay the same rate as any of our residential customers. While we have
money going to this end, and Idaho Power is profitable, I do not support any rate hike. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2