20220808Comments(8)_8.pdf

From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Saturday, August 6, 2022 8:00:07 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: John Balbi
Submission Time: Aug 6 2022 7:58AMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 31772 N. Kelso Dr.
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "08/05/2022 John Balbi Lot 102 Spirit lake East 83869 RE: Gem State Rate Increase Dear Sirs, I am in complete disagreement with the increase presented. May I remind
PUC that the lots in Spirit Lake East are at a minimum of 10 acres Not the .17 acres average size lots in Coeur ‘d Alene 1. Water used for Fire prevention in conjunction with mowing 2.
Family’s use water for to supply food for their family’s 3. Livestock care and feeding 4. Irrigation of plants and vegetation As the notice from Gem State Water states the average
proposed rate is $41.86 This is a mean Number 50% will have much higher number eg higher bill. The lower 50% will be at or below their proposed rate because they do not require the
above items. Let’s talk real numbers Current Rate is $25.55 10 CCF =7480 Gal = $3.43 per 1,000 Gal Proposed Rate $35.00 10 CCF = 7480 Gal = $4.68 per 1000 Gal Base increase
$1.25 per 1000 Gal Current Rate Overage -7480 gallons or 10.7 CCF $2.33 per 1,000 Gal Proposed Rate Overage -7480 gallons or 10.7 CCF $5.10 per 1,000 Gal Overage increase
$2.77 per 1000 Gal As we can see the numbers are telling that this increase is beyond realistic. As for combining water system rates I am opposed. "
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Saturday, August 6, 2022 2:00:07 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Mark Mecord
Submission Time: Aug 6 2022 1:14PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 31562 N Spirit Drive
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water Company
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "I am writing you to express my family’s grave concern/s over the water rate increase proposal by Gem State Water Company for Spirit Lake East (SLE). I believe this rate
increase is very excessive, this proposed increase will go from $25.55/month (w/a base of 8000 gallons) to $35/month (w/a base of 8,000 gallons). This increase constitutes 37%
increase for our household for the base & minimum charge. The commodity charge will go from $2.55 (per 1000 gallons) to $5.10 (per 1000 gallons). The commodity charge is a 100%
increase. Note, these numbers correlate to our 1-inch meter within SLE. After carefully reviewing Gem State Water Company’s application, they are lumping all the separate areas
together for the base charge. This appears to be a convenience for billing, not for actual costs for each individual area. In our case/area the increase comes just 3 years after the last
application. The propose commodity charge for our area (SLE) is significantly more than other area proposals ($2.26, $2.85, and $4.10). Unlike the base charge, Gem State Water Company
is charging far less for other areas than SLE without any justification for the disparity. I cannot find any rationale in the application for what I consider unwarranted increases based on their
simplified spreadsheets. Additionally, they do not state the actual cost of delivering water in each area, thus making it hard to justify their position. Since there has been only one outage
(that I am aware of) in the SLE area that required maintenance in the last year, the cost simply cannot be as high as their proposed rate increases. I would hope that you take my comments
and all those from other residents in SLE into consideration when making any decisions concerning the application. If the PUC cannot make changes to the rates in the application to a
more realistic cost of business, I would request that you deny the application outright."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Sunday, August 7, 2022 7:00:08 AM
The following comments were submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Kim Ward
Submission Time: Aug 6 2022 6:44PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 4989 E. Beargrass Ct
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "Please do not allow this company to raise our water rates by 64%. Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck already. To many this have increased already! Please take this
into consideration. Thank you for your time."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, August 8, 2022 7:00:08 AM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: Chris Lawson
Submission Time: Aug 7 2022 9:40PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 31647 North Priest River Drive
Spirit Lake, ID 83869
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "Why does Gem State really need to add an additional $402k revenue, on top of their existing $543k revenue when they've stated they have no long term debt? Nearly a third
of their realized net operating income deficit was the one-time purchase of an $87k truck. Surely they don't plan on buying a truck every year? This cost should have been amortized out
for the service life of the vehicle, not represented as a yearly expected capital cost. Similarly, one-time capital upgrades on many systems are being represented as typical yearly costs. Why
is Gem State proposing higher minimum monthly rates for larger meters? This is akin to the electric company charging you a higher minimum because you have a larger breaker panel.
Outside of the initial installation, for which they charge significantly more for the larger meter, neither actually incurs a higher cost to the PUC. Gem State also does not have accurate
records of what size meters are installed, and many customers received larger meters due to a lack of 1" meters years ago. Personally, I don't know what size mine is and I'm concerned I
might suddenly be paying 4x as much under the new rate plan for the exact same amount of water. It's only been 3-years since the last major rate increase in Spirit Lake East. Gem Water
used the previous system repairs and upgrades within Spirit Lake East as justification for the prior rate increase. Under this proposal, Spirit Lake East will have the highest per month
dollar increase of all the systems, despite our system having the least need for future capital investment It's also concerning that Gem State is proposing more than doubling the rate for in
excess usage of the minimum charge. Exhibit 5 calculates the percent increase for excess in a deceptive manner. Excess charges going from $2.33 to $5.10 is shown as a %119 increase,
and in reality the new cost is %219 percent of the original cost. Similarly, exhibit 6 sent to the customers presents the percent increase with a figure like %102 when in reality it's over twice
the previous cost."
------
From:PUCWeb Notification
To:Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Notice: A comment was submitted to PUCWeb
Date:Monday, August 8, 2022 3:00:07 PM
The following comment was submitted via PUCWeb:
Name: James Gerecke
Submission Time: Aug 8 2022 2:52PMEmail: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]Address: 28170 N. Silver Meadows Loop
Athol, ID 83801
Name of Utility Company: Gem State Water
Case ID: GSW-W-22-01
Comment: "Re: Gem State Water proposed rate increase as to Bitterroot Water. We are customers and ratepayers of Gem State Water in the (former) Bitterroot Water district in
Athol, ID. We object to the proposed rate increase and to the proposed combining of Bitterroot with other water districts owned by Gem State Water as presently filed. The application does
not provide sufficient detail for ratepayers to evaluate and comment on the proposed rate increase or the combining of districts. In fact, the notice filed does not even detail all proposed
changes to the rate structure, and is silent as to proposed district consolidation. No information is provided as to the nature of the claimed operating income deficiency; i.e., is this a one-time
shortfall, or is it recurring? Further, one-time expenses should to be spread over a number of periods (years) so as to accumulate funds for large outlays. Doing so avoids a windfall to the
district. No detail is provided to enable evaluation of the alleged benefits of combining Bitterroot with other districts. Merely because combining districts may be of benefit to Gem
State Water, it does not necessarily follow that combining will benefit the rate payer. Gem State Water suggests that “consolidating rates” will be beneficial to the customer. However, in
doing so, Gem State Water appears to intend to use revenues from the combined districts to pay costs of operating presently individual districts. In other words, revenues from one
currently individual district may in the future be utilized for expenses of another district. This seems unfair to ratepayers of a given district. There remain operational issues with Gem State
Water as regards Bitterroot as well. Gem State Water is slow to respond to unplanned system (power) outages, more so than was the prior owner. With the frequency of unplanned outages
at Bitterroot, Gem State Water should have in place an automatic backup power supply-it does not. Gem State Water has taken no steps to notify its Bitterroot customers of planned service
outages. Further, Gem State Water does nothing to notify its Bitterroot customers of complete loss of pressure events, and how to respond in such events. While a modest rate increase may
be appropriate, sufficient detail should be provided the ratepayers to adequately evaluate the proposal. As filed, the information provided in the Gem State Water rate increase proposal is
more superficial than it is helpful. We oppose the Gem State Water proposed rate increase as to Bitterroot, and we oppose the proposed combining of Bitterroot with other districts. Jim
Gerecke Valerie DeValeria "
------