20170731Comments (3).PDF

Diane Halt
To:Name for mailing list for case no.AVU-E-17-04 and AVU-G-17-03
Subject:FW:Case Comment Form:Pamela Bates
-----Original Message--—-
From:[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Monday,July 31,2017 9:48 AM
To:Beverly Barker <Beverly.Ba [e-mail]>;Diane Holt <[e-mail]>;Matthew Evans
<[e-mail]>
Subject:Case Comment Form:Pamela Bates
Name:Pamela Bates
Case Number:AVU-E-17-04
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:1726 West Dartmouth Circle
Coeur d Alene Ida ho,83815
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Comment:Do not agree with the increase as we has conserved until we hardly heat our home in the winter and you
want us to pay more for you lack of good budgeting and judgement???
Plus:Selling to a foregn government.???Really???Just who’s laws will they have to follow???The United States or
their governments.???And can they increase our rates until we cannot pay at all????NOT COOL Mr.Morris.NOT
COOL.By the way,how much do you get paid for not budgeting very well.I live off of $1,170 a month!!!!!!!!H!!
Unique Identifier:98.146.183.229
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 8:49 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:james rowland
Name:James rowland
Case Number:AVU —170Y QAVUC 173
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:
Address:
sandpoint idaho,83864
Name of Utility Company:avista
Comment:I do not approve of a Vista’s request for a surcharge to cover their shortfall from our mild 2016-2017 winter.
The legislation allowing this is not okay with me and should not be allowed to continue.I am very frustrated and will
hold you accountable if you approve this.
Unique Identifier:24.223.87.39
1
Diane Holt
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday,July 28,2017 4:58 PM
To:Beverly Barker;Diane Holt;Matthew Evans
Subject:Case Comment Form:Tony Stagner
Name:Tony Stagner
Case Number:AVU-E-17-04 and AVU-G-17-03
Email:[e-mail]
Telephone:[phone]
Address:6903 N RUDE ST
DALTON GARDENS ID,83815
Name of Utility Company:Avista
Comment:This surcharge is in no way in the customers best interest and takes much of the risk out of the equation that
share holders should have to bear.It punishes account holders for conservation or savings from favorable weather
conditions.This agreement should never have been approved by the IPUC.Furthermore the shareholders who were
supposedly harmed by the miscalculation of consumption will no longer be the benefactor as they will no longer exist
under the merger.
Unique Identifier:24.160.51.231
1