20150715Comments (2 Total).pdf

n”!I\!P i’
Julie Dalsaso
?flZ J I743FairmontLp.I ti l
Coeur d’Alene,ID 83$14 :1E.
To:Public Utilities Commission
P.O.Box $3720
83720-0074
To whom it may concern regarding the proposed Avista rate hikes:
I vote NO on the rate hikes,as they are coming way too frequently.The Stock holders have
consistently been showing profits.I read in the paper that Wa.has already approved a rate
system to account for Avista losses when people use less heat and electricity due to warming
trends.Every rate hike talks about the justification due to aging infrastructure.I believe in
planning ahead.No one is going to pay ahead on my aging home,as it’s up to me to put funds
aside over the years to plan for the inevitable maintenance inherent to being a property owner.
No-for proposed rate increases,no matter how small and broken down the schedules appear.
They accumulate incrementally.Avista needs to back off on scheduling new and creative rate
hikes.It would be interesting to see a chart on the number of rate hikes imposed over the past
5-10 years;enough already!
Thanks for considering my comments in your decision making on this important issue.I feel the
stock holders shouldn’t be so greedy,plus other forms of consolidation of infrastructure can be
realistically made.
Jean Jewell
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Wednesday,July 15,2015 11:44 AM
To:Beverly Barker;Jean Jewell;Gene Fadness
Cc:judithaf48@livecom
Subject:Case Comment Form:Judith Farrey
Name:Judith Farrey
Case Number:ave u 15 05
Email:jcidithaf48(live.coni
Telephone:[phone]
Address:10864 N Maple St
Hayden ID,83835
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Acknowledge public record:True
Comment:My comment is re:“The request also includes a proposed Fixed Cost Adjustment (FCA)
mechanism.The FCA is a mechanism designed to break the link between a utility’s revenues and
a consumer’s energy usage.The company’s actual revenue,based on kilowaft-hour and therm
sales,will vary,up or down,from the level set by the Commission.This could be due to
changes in conservation,weather or the economy.Under the proposed ECA mechanism,the
company’s electric and natural gas revenues would be adjusted each month to reflect revenues
based on the number of customers,rather than kilowatt-hour and therm sales.The difference
between revenues based on sales and revenues based on the number of customers will result in
either surcharges or rebates to customers in the following year.”
If I understand this correctly based on the article in the CdA Press,after all these years
of being responsible to moderate our power usage and buy energy efficient appliances,now we
could be surcharged because we are responsible,conservative energy users.In addition,
Avista’s customers would have no way of managing our power bill budgets because we’d have no
idea until after the fact what Avista would surcharge or rebate.This makes no sense to many
of us,especially those of us on fixed incomes,and seems highly unfair to now face
punishment for following the rules.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Unique Identifier:70.199.176.223
1