20230407Comments (1)_1.pdf

1

From: PUCWeb No�fica�on <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Subject: No�ce: A comment was submited to PUCWeb

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Dean Frickey
Submission Time: Apr 7 2023 9:09AM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 660 Amy Lane
Idaho Falls, ID 83406

Name of U�lity Company: Rocky Mountain Power

Case ID: PAC-E-22-15

Comment: "April 7, 2023 Hello, I commented on this case previously, then atended one of the webinars, and would like
to comment again. I re-calculated numbers based on one family using 500kWh/month and another family using
1100kWh/moth. Unfortunately, the informa�on provided by Rocky Mountain Power regarding First Tier and Second Tier
charges could’ve been beter explained, so I’m using the First Tier rates for the first family using 500kWh, and the
Second Tier rates for the full 1100kWh of the second family. I did not take into account the addi�onal charges and
credits that come on my bill because I don’t know how those are calculated, or how they might change. These numbers
are based solely on the service charge and rate charges in the proposal. SUMMER - Cost changes over each of the 5
years. 500kWh user: +2.7%, +2.6%, +2.5%, +2.5%, and +2.4% 1100kWh user: -3.6%, -3.8%, -3.9%, -4.1%, and -4.2%
WINTER - Cost changes over each of the 5 years. 500kWh user: +3.9%, +3.8%, +3.6%, +3.5%, and +3.4% 1100kWh user: -
3.0%, -3.1%, -3.2%, -3.3%, and -3.5% The net result over the 5 years is that the 500kWh user has a price INCREASE of
13.4% in the summer and 19.5% in the winter. The 1100kWh user has a price DECREASE of 18.2% in the summer and
15.2% in the winter. The proposed plan clearly penalizes the first family, those trying to conserve energy, and benefits
those using more energy. 
 I do not believe that this is the way the power company should be opera�ng. Yes, we all
need to help pay for the equipment, which was one of the reasons behind the proposal men�oned in the webinar, but,
those making more use of that equipment should be paying more, not less, which is the result of proposed plan. I hope
you will carefully consider my comments. The proposed plan is not a good one and I hope it will be rejected or modified
based on how it’s penalizing the low-use consumer. Thank you. "

------
[Open in the PUC Intranet applica�on]