20150713Comments (2 Total).pdf

July 7,2015
J !C’.L’4 i]
Idaho Public Utilities Commission “
P0 Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074 AVcE—i5-oS,,
/Wa--IS -dt
RE:Request for Annual Electric and Gas Revenue Increases by Avista
Dear Idaho Utilities Commission Members:
lam very concerned about Avista’s recent request for a new system of fixed annual,
automatic increases (electric 5.2%;gas 5.8%)in their charges/revenue.
My family,friends and I all want Avista and their employees to be appropriately
funded,and we greatly appreciate the critical role that Avista plays in its on-going
provision of utilities and emergency repair services.
However,we believe there are significant problems intrinsic to the automatic,
annual increase system they are requesting.We would like to see a different funding
system in place.
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED SYSTEM:
1)Revenue becomes much less related to actual costs which is a problem for
consumers and ultimately,for the company.fixed mandatory payments amount to a
form of taxation without representation —they also reduce accountability and
spuriously increase,or spurious underfund,actual expenses.
2]Human nature
It is very difficult for human beings to “give back”money that has been put into any
person or company’s coffers,no matter their good intentions.
In our experience,the person or company is more likely to look for new reasons
why that money should remain in their possession,e.g.,set asides for other future or
related expenses that were not specifically approved but could be argued for,or
inadvertently allowing over-spending on approved projects in a given year.
Avista’s rates and tariff manager is quoted in the Daily Bee article on 6/21/15:
“If we recover more (monies than needed to cover expenses]we’ll give it all back.”
I appreciate the sentiment but the evidence based on the lifelong experiences of my
family,friends and I is that we have yet to see any company return meaningful funds
to consumers without being forced to do so —as a result of lawsuits.
It is better not to have the extra funds and the temptation there in the first place.
3)Who or what decides that there is,or is not,enough money in any given year,e.g.,
where is the public accounting of what was done,what it all actually cost,what
funds will be returned,or not,to consumers?
4)As consumers on fixed budgets,with an array of monthly obligations and
expenses,none of us receives an automatic 5.5%increase in our annual salaries,
savings,or retirement funds.We are lucky to have a 1-2%return.
Yet we are being asked to support an open-ended agreement whereby Avista will
collect an average of 5.5%more in guaranteed revenue from us each and every year,
with no end in sight We don’t see any proposal for a legally-required reduction to
the percentage taken once new development costs,for example,have been met.
There is also no legally required end-date proposed to the time frame.
That 5.5%will also represent an increasingly larger amount of dollars from each of
us each subsequent year,as it builds on the prior year’s increased base charges -for
example,5.5%of $100 becomes a new charge of $105.50,then it is 5.5%of that new
larger amount that will be charged,etc.
SUMMARY
We want Avista to remain strong and solvent but without implementing the
proposed fixed automatic annual increase system.We propose a different system.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
How about having Avista outline in detail the areas for annual needed revenue (e.g.,
salaries and benefits,infrastructure costs,critical new projects)and the actual
amounts of money required to cover those expenses for the year,based upon past
expenses and careful future projections?
Then have Avista charge us their best estimate of a fair rate,with the understanding
there will be an end of the year surcharge if actual costs incurred in that year aren’t
covered.There will be end of the year reimbursement or credit to our account if
costs are covered.
We prefer to see a strong link among and between Avista’s costs,our usage,and a
full explanation of what more maybe needed to keep the company able to provide
gas and electricity services.An informed public is more likely to be supportive.
I look forward to hearing from you as to next steps we consumers can take in
pursuing a better option for all of the parties concerned.
i1pZg w—
[phone] P0 Box 277
[e-mail] Sandpoint ID 83864
Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Monday,July 13,2015 11:34 AM
To:Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fad ness
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:Case Comment Form:Erik Anderson
Name:Erik Anderson
Case Number:AVU-E-15-05
Email:e anderson16yahoo.com
Telephone:
Address:1003 Colt Road
Moscow ID,83843
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:I am writing to express my opposition to Avista’s proposed two-year rate plan that
includes increases in electric and natural gas rates for 2016 and 2017.I believe the
proposed increases are exorbitant and will have a negative financial impact on many Idaho
citizens,especially low-income wage earners and the elderly who live on fixed incomes.The
average annual cost for the proposed electric and natural gas rates is more than $100 for
2016 and more than $90 for 2017.Many workers have seen stagnant wages for the past several
years and have received only very small pay increases,if any.I think these proposed
increases will cause real hardship for many people who struggle just to make ends meet.I
strongly urge you to either reject the proposed increases or to significantly reduce them to
minimize the financial burden they may create for Idaho citizens.
Unique Identifier:98.145.153.195
1