20040227Comments.pdf

Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Friday, February 27 2004 11 :39 AM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday, February 27 , 2004
11:39:02 AM
Case: IPC-E-03-
Name: Adam T. Waldron
Street Address: 351 N Buchanan
City: Pocatello
State: ID
ZIP: 83204
Home Telephone: [phone]
E-Mail: waldadam~cob. isu. edu
Company: Idaho Power
mailing list yes no: yes
Comment = description: I don I t have a problem wi the the per/kWh rate increase. But I
strongly disagree with the Service Charge increase. I do everything I can to conserve
power and keep my power consumption down , but an increase in service charge cannot be
negated by any amount of conservation or energy efficiency measures.
Having an electrical connection is a base need for modern living. Increasing the fee for
the priveledge to just be connected to the grid is wrong. There are many poeple who have
a hard time paying their bill as it is.
Charges should be primarily based on consumption. I belei ve it to be the most fair andresponsible.
Transaction ID: 2271139.Referred by: http: / /www. puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 134.50.47.127
User Hostname: 134.50.47.127
Jean Jewell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Howell
Friday, February 27 2004 1 :24 PM
Jean Jewell; Ed Howell; Gene Fadness; Tonya Clark
Comment acknowledgement
WWW Form Submission:
Friday, February 27 , 2004
1:24:29 PM
Case:
Name:
Street Address:City:State:
ZIP:
Home Telephone:
E-Mail:
Company:
Comment description: #29436
My Comment:
I do not agree with the increase nor do I agree with the schedules as outlined.
you will find what I feel the schedules should be:Residential #1 base rate 4.Residential #2 base rate . 10 ----This rate should be for those
retired individuals on fixed income below poverty rate.
Small Commercial #7 base rate 4.
Large Commercial #9 base rate 5.Industrial #19 base rate 4.Irrigation #24 base rate 4.
Following
Idaho Power claims to have increased service area thus they should
be making more because of more hookup and customers. It looks to
me that they were able to pay for increasing size of company without
any negi ti ve affect on income. Most companies would be pleased with
5% return on their money. Why do I have to insure they have 11% or
more return. Again I see no negative effect from growth but rather
well increasing capital investments on the dime of the rate payer.
they have done quite
Do not let them increase the rates as they have requested.
Thank you for your consideration.
Paul Scherer , Idaho
10855 Ashburton DR
Boise , ID 83709
208-376-1635
archer831~aol. com
Resident
Transaction ID: 2271324.Referred by: http: / /www.puc. state. id. us/ scripts/polyform. dIll ipuc
User Address: 164.165.18.
User Hostname: 164.165.18.