20050728Comment.pdf

;I~~/o$v~ A.I/.vfa
~ /1
. !:
I ~J\cLr:.IV - U
. ,
C""i ,L_~
(::'1
-"~
26294 Silver Meadows Loop Road
Athol, ID 838012iJOSJUL 21 AM I:fjl
)!Jl~IJO PUBL IC
UTILiTIES COr'1HISSION
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
July 25, 2005
Re:Case No. BIT-05-
Dear Commissioners:
It has come to my attention that my domestic water supplier, Bitterroot Water Company,
Inc. (Bitterroot) has filed an application with the Idaho Public Utilities Conuriission
(IPUC) to increase the metered base rate for water from $20.00 per month to $45.00 per
month. This application came to my attention from a neighbor who just happened to see
this application while glancing at the legal notices in a newspaper. To date, this
application for rate increase has not been provided to us by Bitterroot via our monthly
water bill. Unless each of the 116 customers of Bitterroot are avid readers of the legal
notices, it is doubtful whether a significant number of Bitterroot' s customers are aware of
this application.
It is certainly understandable that public utilities must periodically pass onto their
customers their increased costs for the services provided. The following is quoted from
the Notice of Application
, "
The increased operating expenses, the Company contends, are
largely out of its control. Rising power costs play the biggest role in recent operating
expense increases." Using Bitterroot's own figures , the Company incurred an 11 %
increase in pumping costs from 2002 to 2003 and a 6% increase from 2003 to 2004.
request to increase the base rate from $20.00 per month to $45.00 per month, a 125%
increase, seems excessive based on Bitterroot's own pumping cost figures.
In my review of Bitterroot's balance sheets , a couple of items stood out. The
Owner/Manager took a charge for his labor of $6324.50 only in year 2004 that inflated
that year s costs above the previous years. Additionally, there is a charge in year 2003
under Operating Expenses, Line 19 for $27 164.08 that was annotated for explanation in
Schedule 5. However, upon inspection of Schedule 5, that explanation is missing.
Without proper explanation, it is unclear what this charge is for. This one-time charge
inflates costs for year 2003.
In reviewing the balance sheets, I would argue that the operating costs are rising not from
out of control energy costs" but rather from a significant labor charge and a rather
significant increase in insurance costs. There are some apparent irregularities in
Bitterroot's application. The Company has misrepresented it's case for a rate increase.
Again, a modest base rate increase due to rising energy and insurance costs can be made
by Bitterroot.
I look forward to a local public workshop in the Athol/Coeur d' Alene area sponsored by
IPUC. Please let me know when the workshop will be scheduled.
Kurt Pavlat