20030729Comment.pdf

:Ltc 0;1.-/:J-
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to the PUC request for input about automated meters.
As I understand it, the concern is about readers entering the
customer s property. First, remote reading will not end the need
for utilities to enter the customer s property for many reasons.
Damaged meters, malfunctioning meters, energy theft, meter tests
turning power on and off, will still require access to the property.
If entering the customer s property is a problem, I suggest the PUC
go to these locations and show the customer how the meter can be
located off the property to a location satisfactory to both parties.
That can be done in most cases.
As I remember, the first estimate given by the PUC was 72 million
to complete the job, with a savings of2 million dollars a year. Not
considering interest to be paid, computer problems or bid
underestimates, it would take 35 years to payout this system. My
understanding is that most systems don t last more than 5 to 10
years. Sounds like a sure thing that will raise the rates. It doesn
seem to me that this is likely to hold my costs down.
I believe the PUC's job is to protect utilities from over charging
customers. Idaho power has one of the lowest rates in the nation.
My fear is that if the PUC begins to micro-manage the utility
companies, we will be moving toward government ran utilities.
God forbid.
- ........""-
\..0 0('oJ
:;fC .-I.::c -
, ,(::)
(1'\ c
: :.
L.!,N -, J)
:::-~ .--~ --;
c:::
- :--, '::' '" - _
c ._. u --C--\ ::J
730 I.$~ ;LtJ ? J 7t:J 't-