20260306Comment_1.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Joseph Hydzik
Submission Time: Mar 6 2026 12:35PM
Email:joe jhydzik.com
Telephone: [phone]
Address: PO BOX 66
Saint Maries, ID 83861
Name of Utility Company: Avista
Case ID: AVU-E-26-01
Comment: "I am writing to express my strong opposition to Avista's proposed rate increase
intended to fund energy efficiency programs. As a resident of Idaho, I believe these
programs place an unfair financial burden on consumers while offering questionable
returns on investment.
My objections are based on the following points:
1. Negative Return on Investment (ROI)
The reality of many government-mandated efficiency programs is "net negative"for the
consumer. For example, if a homeowner spends $10,000 on new windows and receives a
$3,000 rebate (funded by other ratepayers), they are still out$7,000. Over a 10-year period,
the actual savings on their heating bill rarely covers that$7,000 gap, let alone the full
$10,000 cost. Most residents would be financially better off keeping their existing
infrastructure.
2. Economic Burden and Rate Hikes
Idahoans are already struggling with the rising cost of living. If you examine Avista's rate
hikes and service fee increases over the last seven years, it is clear that we cannot afford
further increases. Forcing the general public to subsidize "socialized" efficiency upgrades
for a select few is fundamentally unfair.
3. Discrepancies in Utility Pricing
To illustrate the disconnect between cost and value: Avista currently charges
approximately$12 per month to maintain a single LED yard light. According to my
calculations, a 100-watt equivalent LED bulb running 24/7 would use significantly less than
$12 worth of energy per month. I personally had my light removed because the utility's
pricing simply does not align with the actual cost of energy.
4. Flawed "Energy Star" Metrics
The metrics used to justify these programs are often misleading. For instance, my Energy
Star dishwasher uses roughly 200 watts whether it runs on a 1-hour cycle or a 3-hour cycle.
Only the 3-hour cycle receives the Energy Star rating, despite the total power consumption
1

being nearly identical. This suggests that the "magic numbers" used for government E-
ratings on insulation, windows, and appliances are inflated and do not reflect real-world
benefits.
Conclusion
We should not be forced to subsidize the energy efficiency of others through increased
rates. It is neither affordable nor logical. I urge you to reject Avista's request for a rate
increase."
Sincerely,
Joseph Hydzik
Idaho constituent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2