20100419Comment.pdf

~¡~~ 4(1'1/10
Jean Jewell
/f; ~-
~ ff
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jepe~foglo.com
Saturday, April 17, 2010 1:19 AM
Jean Jewell; Beverly Barker; Gene Fadness
PUC Comment Form
A Comment from John Peterson follows:
Case Number: IPC-E-10-08
Name: John Peterson
Address: 6353 Lake Elmo Ave N
City: Stillwater
State: MN
Zip: 55082
Daytime Telephone: [phone]
Contact E-Mail: jep~oglo.com
Name of Utility Company: Idaho Power
Add to Mailing List: ~o
Please describe your comment briefly:
Idaho Power has requested a rate increase specifically for the purpose of funding its pension
expenses. I object to this request for the following reasons:
* Pension costs should be part of the overall labor and burden expense of the company, and
customers should not be subjected to an additional rate increase just for this type of
expense.
* Very few private employers provide a defined benefit pension plan anymore, thus electric
rate-payers should not be expected to pick up the tab for what is now a luxury item.
In a brochure mailed to its customers ( including myself), they stated that i pensions help
Idaho Power attract and retain high quality employees. i However, the same is true of salary
and other benefits. I understand that such expenses are part of the cost of doing business
and I expect to pay for them, but I would not expect to see a specific rate increase to fund
every pay and benefit increase that Idaho Power decides to give their employees.
(Note: Even though my mailing address is not in Idaho, I am an Idaho property owner, part-
time resident, and customer of Idaho Power.)
The form submitted on http://www.puc.idaho.gov/forms/ipuc1/ipuc.html
IP address is 71.220.14.16
1