20260804Comments_5.pdf

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Betty Wolf
Submission Time: Aug 3 2026 8:11 PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 800 Mogul Hill Rd
Sandpoint , ID 83864
Name of Utility Company: Schweitzer Basin Water
Case ID: SCH-W-26-01
Comment: "Schweitzer Basin Water wants a water rate increase of over 100%. Inflation
runs three to five percent. When a family lives on social security the increase in income is
three percent.
No utility that is a monopoly should be allowed to increase rates more than 100 percent."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PUCWeb Notification <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 9:00 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice:A comment, Joshua Hundeby, was submitted to PUCWeb
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Joshua Hundeby
Submission Time: Aug 4 2026 8:41AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 8102
Schweitzer Mtn. Rd., ID 83864
Name of Utility Company: Northern Lights
Case ID: SCH-W-26-01
Comment: "Subject: Objection to Proposed Schweitzer Basin Water LLC Rate Increase
To the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed water rate increase requested by
Schweitzer Basin Water LLC.
1

While I understand that utilities must occasionally adjust rates to account for inflation,
regulatory requirements, and necessary improvements, I do not believe that a 127%to
134% increase in a single adjustment is reasonable or fair to customers.
Increasing monthly rates from approximately$41 to $93 per month places a substantial
financial burden on homeowners, many of whom have carefully budgeted around the
current rates for years. A rate increase of this magnitude is difficult for many families,
retirees, and seasonal property owners to absorb, particularly when wages and household
incomes have not increased at the same pace.
The notice states that the company has not increased rates since 2012 and has operated at
a negative balance. While that may be true, customers should not bear the entire burden of
more than a decade of deferred rate adjustments through one dramatic increase. A more
reasonable approach would be to phase in increases over several years, allowing
customers time to adjust while still providing the utility with additional revenue.
I also believe the Commission should require greater transparency regarding:
• The specific operating expenses that have increased.
• The capital improvements that are planned.
• Why such a large increase is necessary all at once rather than in stages.
• Whether the utility has explored cost-saving measures before requesting such a
substantial increase.
• Whether the requested rate of return is appropriate and justified.
Water service is an essential utility, and customers have no alternative provider. Because of
this, I respectfully ask the Commission to carefully scrutinize this request and consider
approving a smaller, phased-in increase that balances the financial needs of the utility with
the affordability needs of its customers."
Thank you for considering my comments and for protecting the public interest.
Sincerely,
Joshua Hundeby
Case#: SCH-W-26-01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2

From:Jeff&Courtney<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2026 1:41 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: Case No: SCH-W-26-01 PUBLIC COMMENT/CASE COMMENT Applicant:
Schweitzer Basin Water LLC (SBW)
PUBLIC COMMENT/CASE COMMENT
To: Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC)
Case No: SCH-W-26-01
Applicant: Schweitzer Basin Water LLC (SBW)
Date: August 4, 2026
RE: Objection to Proposed Rate Increase—Case No. SCH-W-26-01
I am writing to formally register my strong objection to the proposed rate increase
submitted by Schweitzer Basin Water LLC (SBW). While I acknowledge that utility rates
require periodic adjustments—especially given that rates have remained unchanged since
2012—the magnitude of the requested increase (127%to 138%for residential units, and
134% in overall revenue) is unreasonable,violates established IPUC regulatory principles,
unjustified by historical inflation metrics and imposes severe rate shock on ratepayers and
Local businesses.
1. Disproportionate Increase Compared to Cumulative Inflation.
In its notice, SBW explicitly states that the proposed rate seeks to "bring the 2012 rate at
par with current monetary values." However, a routine economic evaluation using U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index(CPI) data shows that the proposed rate
far exceeds standard inflation tracking:
Cumulative Inflation (2012-2026): Total cumulative CPI inflation in the United States from
2012 to 2026 is approximately 45.5%.
Inflation-Adjusted Equivalents:
Units under 500 sq ft: Currently$39/month. Adjusted for inflation (45.5%), the rate should
be approximately$56.75/month, yet SBW proposes $93/month (+138%).
Units over 500 sq ft: Currently$41/month. Adjusted for inflation (45.5%), the rate should be
approximately$59.65/month, yet SBW proposes$93/month (+127%).
2012 Rate - Units 500 sq ft or less -$39.00/mo
Inflation-Adjusted Rate (-45.5%) - $56.75/mo
Proposed Rate Notice -$93.00/mo
Proposed % Increase - +138%
3

Excess Above Inflation - +92.5% above CPI
2012 Rate - Units 500 sq ft. or greater- $41.00/mo
Inflation-Adjusted Rate (-45.5%) - $59.65/mo
Proposed Rate Notice -$93.00/mo
Proposed % Increase - +127%
Excess Above Inflation - +81.5% above CPI
The company's assertion that a 130%+ rate hike is necessary merely to bring rates "at par
with current monetary values" is mathematically inaccurate.The proposed rates are nearly
three times the rate of cumulative inflation over the same 14-year period.
2. Violation of Core IPUC Regulatory Principles (Idaho Code Title 61)
The application conflicts directly with fundamental utility ratemaking standards governed
by the Commission:
A. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof(Idaho Code § 61-502):
Under Idaho law, utility rates must be "just and reasonable:' SBW bears the strict burden of
proving that every requested dollar is necessary for ongoing operations. SBW has failed to
provide sufficient public documentation justifying why baseline revenue must leap by
134% in a single step.
B. Violation of Gradualism &Avoidance of Rate Shock:
Regulatory precedent mandates that rate adjustments be implemented incrementally.
Shifting 14 years of uncollected rate adjustments onto consumers overnight directly
violates the doctrine of gradualism. Operational deficits and system improvements must
be audited to separate past deferred upkeep from legitimate forward-looking operational
costs. Management's 14-year delay in seeking incremental adjustments should not be
corrected by subjecting current ratepayers to severe rate shock.
C. Prohibition Against Retroactive Recovery:
SBW cites annual operating deficits since 2012 as justification.While future rates must
cover legitimate ongoing expenses, regulatory rules prohibit using current rate cases to
retroactively recover past uncollected revenues or historical operating losses.
3. Local Economic Hardship &Compounded Financial Pressures
An abrupt**127%to 138% rate hike** does not occur in an economic vacuum. Over the
past several years, Bonner County residents and Schweitzer mountain property owners
have absorbed unprecedented cost increases across fixed housing and living expenses:
4

A. Escalating Fixed Overhead:
Rapidly increasing property valuations in the Sandpoint/Schweitzer area over the past 5
years have triggered significantly higher property taxes, escalating resort HOA dues, and
record-high local homeowners' insurance premiums.
B. Broader Cost-of-Living Strain:
Essential household expenses—including fuel, electricity, and groceries—have
experienced compounding inflation. Adding an extra $52 to$54 per month ($156 to $162
per quarter) per unit severely exacerbates pre-existing financial strain on owners and local
residents.
4.Adverse Economic Impact on Short-Term Rentals (STRs) & Mountain Businesses
Schweitzer Mountain's economy relies heavily on a delicate balance of local residents,
seasonal visitors, and small-business short-term rental(STR) operators who host mountain
guests:
A. Compressed Operating Margins:
STR operators are facing shrinking net margins due to elevated lodging taxes, rising HOA
fees, higher maintenance costs, and seasonal occupancy fluctuations.
B. Inability to Pass-Through Fixed Costs:
Unlike variable expenses tied to guest consumption,fixed utility rate hikes cannot easily be
passed on through higher night rates without pricing Schweitzer properties out of market
competitiveness against regional alternatives (such as downtown Sandpoint or neighboring
resort areas).
C. Harm to the Broader Resort Ecosystem:
STR properties generate critical resort tax revenues, sustain hospitality employment, and
drive visitor traffic to mountain contractors, ski services, and local restaurants. Imposing
excessive fixed utility hikes risks driving local micro-businesses out of profitability, harming
the broader Schweitzer/Bonner County resort economy.
5. Specific Requests to the Commission
I respectfully request that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
1. Reject the Application as Filed: Disallow the proposed flat rate of$93/month and the
single-step 134% revenue increase.
2. Cap Rate Adjustments to Real Economic Metrics: Limit baseline operational
adjustments to realistic historical CPI metrics (-45.5%) unless an independent IPUC Staff
audit demonstrates explicit operational necessity.
5

3. Mandate a Phased-In Approach: Require any approved capital improvement or
regulatory compliance expenses to be phased in over a 3 to 5-year period to uphold
regulatory principles of gradualism and protect ratepayers from rate shock.
This balanced approach ensures SBW receives necessary operational revenue while
protecting mountain residents, property owners, and local STIR small businesses from
sudden economic distress.
Thank you for considering this public feedback on Case No. SCH-W-26-01.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Schmitt
Property Owner:
100 Marmot Circle
94 Marmot Circle
70 Marmot Circle
Phone: [phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: JEFF Schmitt
Submission Time: Aug 4 2026 1:38PM
Email: sst45jegmaiLcom
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 100 Marmot Circle
Sandpoint, ID 83864
Name of Utility Company: Schweitzer Basin Water
Case ID: SCH-W-26-01
Comment: "I am writing to formally register my strong objection to the proposed rate
increase submitted by Schweitzer Basin Water LLC (SBW).While I acknowledge that utility
rates require periodic adjustments—especially given that rates have remained unchanged
since 2012—the magnitude of the requested increase (127%to 138%for residential units,
and 134% in overall revenue) is unreasonable,violates established IPUC regulatory
principles, unjustified by historical inflation metrics and imposes severe rate shock on
ratepayers and local businesses.
1. Disproportionate Increase Compared to Cumulative Inflation.
In its notice, SBW explicitly states that the proposed rate seeks to "bring the 2012 rate at
par with current monetary values." However, a routine economic evaluation using U.S.
6

Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index(CPI) data shows that the proposed rate
far exceeds standard inflation tracking:
Cumulative Inflation (2012-2026): Total cumulative CPI inflation in the United States from
2012 to 2026 is approximately 45.5% Inflation-Adjusted Equivalents:
Units under 500 sq ft: Currently$39/month. Adjusted for inflation (45.5%), the rate should
be approximately$56.75/month, yet SBW proposes $93/month (+138%).
Units over 500 sq ft: Currently$41/month. Adjusted for inflation (45.5%), the rate should be
approximately$59.65/month, yet SBW proposes$93/month (+127%).
2012 Rate - Units 500 sq ft or less - $39.00/mo Inflation-Adjusted Rate (-45.5%)—
$56.75/mo Proposed Rate Notice - $93.00/mo Proposed % Increase - +138% Excess Above
Inflation - +92.5% above CPI
2012 Rate - Units 500 sq ft. or greater- $41.00/mo Inflation-Adjusted Rate (-45.5%) -
$59.65/mo Proposed Rate Notice - $93.00/mo Proposed % Increase - +127% Excess Above
Inflation - +81.5% above CPI The company's assertion that a 130%+ rate hike is necessary
merelyto bring rates "at par with current monetary values" is mathematically inaccurate.
The proposed rates are nearly three times the rate of cumulative inflation over the same 14-
year period.
2. Violation of Core IPUC Regulatory Principles (Idaho Code Title 61)The application
conflicts directly with fundamental utility ratemaking standards governed by the
Commission:
A. Failure to Meet Burden of Proof(Idaho Code § 61-502):
Under Idaho law, utility rates must be "just and reasonable:' SBW bears the strict burden of
proving that every requested dollar is necessary for ongoing operations. SBW has failed to
provide sufficient public documentation justifying why baseline revenue must leap by
134% in a single step.
B. Violation of Gradualism &amp; Avoidance of Rate Shock:
Regulatory precedent mandates that rate adjustments be implemented incrementally.
Shifting 14 years of uncollected rate adjustments onto consumers overnight directly
violates the doctrine of gradualism. Operational deficits and system improvements must
be audited to separate past deferred upkeep from legitimate forward-looking operational
7

costs. Management's 14-year delay in seeking incremental adjustments should not be
corrected by subjecting current ratepayers to severe rate shock.
C. Prohibition Against Retroactive Recovery:
SBW cites annual operating deficits since 2012 as justification.While future rates must
cover legitimate ongoing expenses, regulatory rules prohibit using current rate cases to
retroactively recover past uncollected revenues or historical operating losses.
3. Local Economic Hardship &amp; Compounded Financial Pressures An abrupt**127%to
138% rate hike** does not occur in an economic vacuum. Over the past several years,
Bonner County residents and Schweitzer mountain property owners have absorbed
unprecedented cost increases across fixed housing and living expenses:
A. Escalating Fixed Overhead:
Rapidly increasing property valuations in the Sandpoint/Schweitzer area over the past 5
years have triggered significantly higher property taxes, escalating resort HOA dues, and
record-high local homeowners' insurance premiums.
B. Broader Cost-of-Living Strain:
Essential household expenses—including fuel, electricity, and groceries—have
experienced compounding inflation. Adding an extra $52 to$54 per month ($156 to $162
per quarter) per unit severely exacerbates pre-existing financial strain on owners and local
residents.
5. Specific Requests to the Commission
I respectfully request that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
1. Reject the Application as Filed: Disallow the proposed flat rate of$93/month and the
single-step 134% revenue increase.
2. Cap Rate Adjustments to Real Economic Metrics: Limit baseline operational
adjustments to realistic historical CPI metrics (-45.5%) unless an independent IPUC Staff
audit demonstrates explicit operational necessity.
3. Mandate a Phased-In Approach: Require any approved capital improvement or
regulatory compliance expenses to be phased in over a 3 to 5-year period to uphold
regulatory principles of gradualism and protect ratepayers from rate shock.
This balanced approach "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8

The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name:Thomas Scott Jones
Submission Time: Aug 4 2026 3:49PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 64 Marmot Cir
Sand Point , ID83864
Name of Utility Company: Schweitzer water basin llc
Case ID: SCH-W-26-01
Comment: "It has come to our attention that their plans to be 134% rate increase in our
water utility bill. This is no doubt at least partially a result of the data center water usage
happening throughout the state and apparently a method of distributing public water costs
used by large corporations to the public. Idaho has not seen this level of a rate increase
before, and it is inappropriate to put it on individuals as opposed to the companies that are
using it. I respectfully request review of this rate increase and reduction in its amount.
134% is quite a lot and brings an unnecessary burden on local residents. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9