20031027Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Front
Monday, October 27 200312:11 PM
Jean Jewell
FW: Complaint acknowledgement
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Howell
Sent: Monday, October 27 , 2003 10:11 AM
To: Front; Beverly Barker; Ed Howell; Tonya
Subj ect: Complaint acknowledgement
Clark
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, October 27 , 2003
10:11:27 AM
Name: AMBER MATTIAS
Street Address: POST OFFICE BOX 1733
City: HAILEY
State: IDAHO
ZIP: 83333
Home Telephone: [phone]
Work Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail:
Business Name:
Business Street Address:
Business Phone:
Complaint Company: IDAHO POWER
Local Provider:
Contacted utility: No
Complaint description: IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE AND PROLIFIC SERVICE CHARGE
INCREASED PROPOSED TO THE COMMISION BY IDAHO POWER, AND SPECIFICALLY THE "SUMMER USAGE"
INCREASE - WE ARE AVERAGE USERS , WE DO NOT HAVE AIR CONDITIONING , WE LIVE ON A BELLEVUE
CITY LOT AND HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 1981. OUR USAGE OF WATER AND POWER HAVE NOT INCREASED
BY MUCH OVER THE YEARS. YET WE ARE NOW FACED WITH CLOSE TO A 75% SERVICE CHARGE INCREASE
AND "SUMMER USAGE" INCREASES FOR COVERAGE OF INCREASED WATER PRODUCTION FOR IRRIGATION AND
AIR CONDITIONING.
WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE IPUC WILL REJECT THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE BY IDAHO POWER AND
WILL APPLY A MORE FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSIDERATION ON BEHALF OF THE AVERAGE TAX-PAYING
CITIZENS OF IDAHO.
THANK YOU - AMBER MATTIAS
Transaction ID: 10271011.Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dIll cons
User Address: 68.105.217.
User Hostname: 68.105.217.
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, October 27 200312:00 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, October 27 , 2003
12: 00: 06
Case:
Name: Michael Sanders
Street Address: 6723 W Overland Rd Apt 201
City: Boise
State: ID
ZIP: 83709
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: ms425~cableone. net
Company: Idaho Powermailinglistyesno: no
Comment description: I find this rate hike a little disturbing. First of all I agree with
a rate hike. As far as the amount and distribution of burden I disagree. Why shouldn I t
rates increase proportionally across the board? I would think the reason they are not
equal in the first place is because of volume discount. That is fine and understandable
but for there rates not to increase the same as residential is just plain dumb. The other
hike that I think is crazy is the customer charge from 2.50 to 10 dollars. I fill that is
unreasonable to place the burden of growth on those that are not the one causing it. Those
that are building new houses or the ones buying them should recieve the bill for this. I
fill the rate increase should not be approved by the commission.
Transaction ID: 10271200.Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 24.117.181
User Hostname: 24.117.181
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Monday, October 27 20036:41 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Monday, October 27 , 2003
6:40:49 AM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Lucian J. Armstrong
Street Address: 360 Jefferson
City: American Falls
State: Idaho
ZIP: 83211
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: luarmstg~dcdi. net
Company: Idaho Power Companymailinglistyesno: no
Comment description: In reviewing Idaho Powers proposal on the rate increase I for one
would like to know where the 19% increase plus the $10.00 flat fee is to come from for
those on fixed incomes. Where does Idaho Power expect those people to get there increase
to cover there power bill?
I would hope that the $10.00 would be cut in half giving them $5.00 instead of $10.00 and
gi ve them no more than a 10% increase in power costs.
Transaction ID: 1027640.Referred by: http: I Iwww.puc. state. id. usl scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 12.160.225.174
User Hostname: 12.160.225.174
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Sunday, October 26 2003 11 :32 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Sunday, October 26 , 2003
11:32:01 AM
Case: Idaho Power proposer rate increase
Name: Jeff Taylor
Street Address: 3809 W Camas
City: Boise
State: ID
ZIP: 83705-2138
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: j effreyt~rmci. net
Company: Idaho Powermailinglistyesno: no
Comment description: I have read Idao Powers notificatio for an application to increaserates.
I strongly disagree with the principle of increasing rates of customers to recoup the
costs of the company investing in the ability to increase it I s customer base - creating
more customers.
If as a company it is required for me to spend a little so that customers can buy from me
their business with me is the cost recovery! Why should I pay extra so that Idaho power
can collect from a greater customer base?
In addition to wanting to charge more for the base rate , they want to increase the
customer charge " from 2.51 to 10.00 per month! What is it exactly am I getting for the120 per year for this customer charge? Nothing! I am paying to be a customer - that I sit. This is a fee designed to pad profits of a company with overpaid executives and
overcharged customers. Idaho Power says it is designed to recover costs that don I t
fluctuate with the amount of power used (like installing a new meter or an arial drop to a
new house.) Well , they should recover those cost when installing a new meter or adding
new service to a location - not by charging existing customers $120.00 a year to remain
low-maintenance customers.
Basically, Idaho Power doesn I t think that anyone will notice the extra charge on thierbill. Consumers are smarter than that! If I normally pay an annual amount of 900 dollar
to Idaho Power , and you allow the increase of the base rate so that the annual amount goes
up to 1053 - I am going to notice. I also am going to notice that they are charhing an
additional 89.88 per year just so I have the priveledge of padding those executivewallets.
Lets see... I used to pay 900 annually, now Idaho Power wants an increase of base rate so
that the same usage would cost 1053 per year. Also , since their salaries are so small
they need to charge me an additional 89.88 per year to read my meter. (They could charge
annually and only come out once - Oh wait - they already do with level pay!) Hmmm. That
means that I will be paying 1142.88 per year instead of 900. Even my bad math says that
is almost a 27% increase!
Fixed costs do not justify the increase in customer charge , nor does increasing their
customer base justify charging me more for the same electricity!
I hope that the PUC understands that not everyone in Idaho makes enough money to not
notice the proposed 27% increase in the electric bill. Some of us barely make enough to
survive , much less help Idaho Power create a larger customer base from which to charge.
The could cut everyday costs by setting up annual payments and only having 1 trip for the
meter reader. Level pay is good for the community and the company as well.
They cite postage as an increased expenditure as well as computer equipment.
expendi tures cancells out the other one! Email bills to customers houses and
electronic payments (without a 2.95 fee!) to save postage AND printing. As a
would be the first to set up that way!
One 0 f the
take
customer , I
In fact Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas are the only regualr monthly bills that I have
to write a check to since they currently CHARGE to take my money electronically. Every
other company knows that they more than recover the cost of electronic payment by not
having to print a real paper bill in color with advertisements and the cost of postage to
mail it to me and the cost of the employees to process the payments , etc.
I am certain that Idaho Power could maintain profi tabili ty without an increases at all if
they would take the time to review the WASTE that is common in the company, as well as not
buying into unneeded computer upgrades , postage and print waste , unnecessary overtime for
employees when the job could be done on regular time , and charging NEW cus tomers the cos
of setting up new service instead of charging existing customers that cost.
They could recover their costs for
customers for the electricity they
allowed to raise everybody I s rates
absolutely appalling!
the capitol expenditures by - well , charging the new
will be using! The idea that Idaho Power should be
so that Idaho Power can increase thier customer base is
Do not allow this increase without a reiew of how else the company could cut operating
costs. Much like everyhousehold in Idaho will have to do if Idaho Power is allowed a 27%increase overall.
Jeff Taylor
Transaction ID: 10261132.Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 216.222.
User Hostname: 216.222.
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Friday, October 24 , 2003 10:02 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday, October 24 , 2003
9:01:37 PM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Steve Rostron
Street Address: 2510 Inglewood
City: Boise
State: ID
ZIP: 83705
Home Telephone: [phone]E-Mail: steverostron~qwest. net
Company: Idaho Powermailinglistyesno: yes
Comment description: The story printed in the Idaho Statesman regarding the proposed
General Rate increase by Idaho Power stated that the main reason for the increase is to
recover costs for the 100 000 new customers for power.
If we were dealing with a retail business that wanted to expand
company would not go to its past and current customers to ask for
new store. The company would take money from its profits to build
would decrease its cash temporarily but the company would recover
more when the new store is adding dollars to its bottom line.
Are these 100 000 new power customers not paying customers? Are they not the same as you
and me -- adding money to the company I s bottom line on a monthly basis?
Idaho Power has a distinct advantage over the retail company in that it KNOWS how much
money it has coming in on a monthly basis , whereas the retailer can only do its best and
HOPE people buy its products. Idaho Power can therefore depend on monthly income whereas
most any other business cannot.
its business , that
more money to build a
the store. Yes , this
tha t expenditure pI
Please do not allow this increase based the 100 000 customer figure.
Transaction ID: 10242101.Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 67.23.
User Hostname: 67.23.