20100318Comment.pdf

(~,~. ~I i/íOf4-~ i i
Jean Jewell
~ kV'vito I!(ù ~
."
I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jetski333~msn.com
Wednesday, March 17,20107:44 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from Dominick Testa follows:
-- - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - -- - - --- - --- - - - - ---
Case Number: IPC-E-1e-e7
Name: Dominick Testa
Address: 6969 Ustick Rd
City: Boise
State: ID
Zip: 837e4
Daytime Telephone: 2e8-577-7326
Contact E-Mail: jetski333~msn.com
Name of Utili ty Compa~Idaho PowerAdd to Mailing List: ~
Please describe your comment briefly:
Why, when asked to voluntarily enact energy saving and efficiency procedures, such as
reduced wattage light bulbs, we are then to be penalized because the utility company is now
selling us less electricity? They are asking for a rate increase to recover not · costs' to
them, but a decrease in profit to themselves. The actual cost of these measures has already
been paid by us. These devices are not inexpensive. I estimate at least $3. ee a light bulb
times 2e sockets. Where is my incentive? Do we as rate payers have any other incentive for
going along with this other than saving money? And now they desire to take our savings away
from us.
And so? The more we save, the less they have to produce; followed by subsequent rate
increase requests to keep the money flowing in at the same level. Should I/we reduce our
consumption by fifty percent, rest assured they would be back to ask for substantial rate
increases based upon loss of income.
I have tried to be very cordial in this comment, and I hope that I have succeeded. But this
is criminal, in my estimation. There is no incentive for the ratepayer other than increased
savings. Take these away and we are left with nothing but anger. Most sincerely, Dominick
Testa
The form submitted on http://www . puc. idaho. gov /forms/ipuc1/ipuc. html
IP address is 71. 22e .152 .162
--- - - - ------- - - - - ---- ---- - -- -- - - - - --
i