A2105017 - Public Comments


This page includes the Public Comments for this proceeding. The CPUC values your input on our proceedings, as public comments help us reach an informed decision.

Tip: You may download these comments as a PDF by clicking the PDF Download button below.
To provide us your thoughts on this proceeding, click on the Add Public Comment button below.

DISCLAIMER: Comments that include inappropriate language, or language that is potentially slanderous, purposefully demeaning of some specific person or persons, or threatening violence may not be posted. Additionally, anonymous comments will not be posted.




Use the Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate link to submit a complaint on Public Comment.
row(s) 1 - 15 of 160Next
Michael Berg South Lake Tahoe, CA96150

Liberty Energy is asking for an OUTRAGEOUS rate increase. I live in a 860sf one bedroom cabin with detached garage in South Lake Tahoe . My bill for September (30 dy billing cycle) was $157.00, my allotted base usage is 435 kWh, "escess usage" for this period was 453 kWh allowing Liberty Energy to charge additional premium$$ . #1. How is a household supposed to get by on 16.4 per day? and #2 This rate increase would be unbelievably punitive on a population of fixed income folks (of which I am one) in their coverage area. I am opposed to their asking for such audacious increases and ask that the CPUC either reject their application outright or limit the increase to NO MORE then 5 to 7.5%. Thank you

Oct 28, 2021 10:58 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Susan Baldwin South Lake Tahoe, CA96150

CPUC, Please vote NO on this proposed rate hike. The proposed rate increase is too high, even if it is over a 3-year period, especially during these unusual times of high unemployment an unaffordable housing. This percent increase is also way outside the industry standard and puts an undue burden on the ratepayers. Any proposed increases need to be stretched out over a 10 to 20 year period. I don't trust that Liberty Utilities will use the rate increase to improve their infrastructure. They haven't even done the underground utility lines in SR 28 that was supposed to have begun at least 5 years ago; and they already have the money to do the project. They just can't get their act together to implement an already planned and funded project. Using the threat of wildfires as a scare tactic for the severe rate increase is a little disingenuous, when the real reason is pay increases, software programs, and to line the pockets of their stockholders.

Sep 28, 2021 11:38 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Shane Johansson Norwalk, CA90650

Regarding App No. A.2107004 (et Al) & proposed rate increase brought forth by Liberty Utilities (Park Water), a subsidiary of Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.(company), a publicly traded, foreign corporation based out of Canada, it is in the interest of the People that THE REQUEST IS DENIED; they have failed to serve the Public. The proposal provides ZERO benefit to any individual aside from the Shareholders & Employees of the company. The sole purpose of the rate increase is to increase Shareholder value by providing increased in corporate growth, revenue, & dividend payments at the expense of the American taxpayer, many of whom are oblivious of the attempt to increase rates by 140% OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS. Additionally, their application includes a proposal to increase "revenues" by increasing the water rates by 24% by the year 2024; this would result in water costs for customer with a 1 inch service meter who currently pays $107.95 increasing to $133.70 by the year 2024...Not including fees, taxes or surcharges or the proposed Meter Service Surcharge increase of 140% through by 2024! INCLUDING FEES, SURCHARGES, & TAXES, THE MONTHLY BILL FOR THE SAME CUSTOMER IS PROJECTED TO EXCEED $250.00, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS! The Increases Affect Everyone, Leaving Them At The Mercy Of The Corporation; Theft. Dividend rates have increased throughout the years without additional Public Benefit as water quality & infrastructure degradation is evident. The dividends must not be paid to Shareholders but returned to the People, for, they are obligated to serve, the Community & Cities to the benefit of the People & Municipality. It is the responsibility of the Municipalities to regain & retain chain of custody & control water distribution, the infrastructure, & rates; The People Shall Become The Shareholder; a model implemented successfully by Cities throughout the USA by which Water & Power utilities are incorporated to exist as a subsidiary of the City. Govt. controlled utility models of these Cities are successful as they are Nurturing, for they provide Public Benefit BY FOSTERING GROWTH THROUGH INTEGRITY. The Company currently pays an annual dividend of $0.682 per share. As of today, this equates to APPROX $421 MILLION PAID TO SHAREHOLDERS ANNUALLY. The dividend is "hidden" from regulators as it is paid to Shareholders of the Common Share (AQN) listed in Canada on the TSE (Toronto Stock Exchange) opposed to the Units (AQNU) in the USA on the NYSE. The dividend payment increases correlate directly with the proposal to raise rates in addition to previous proposals. From Dec. 2016 through Sept. 2021, dividend payment increased by 155%, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT! In total, they've proposed a 140% increase over the next 3 years. For example, a Customer w/ a monthly meter service charge of $50 currently will see it increase to $120.07 by the year 2024 WITHOUT CONSUMING ADDITIONAL WATER & NOT INCLUDING THE PROPOSED WATER RATE INCREASE OF 24% BY 2024. The proposal lacks merit & amounts to THEFT & EXTORTION. Additionally, it is unethical & violates California's ANTI-PRICE GOUGING STATUTE, Penal Code Section 396. The meter service charges imposed by Liberty Utilities & the method meters are serviced/replaced is abusive as the meter service surcharge is determined by meter size. For example, a customer w/ a 1.5" meter pays a monthly surcharge that is MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount paid by those w/ a 1" meter. Customers with a 6" meter PAY 2000 PERCENT MORE THAN THOSE WITH A 1" meter; analogous to paying 20 times more for fuel by having a vehicle w/ a larger tank/inlet. Your voice, power, reason, & knowledge are needed to advocate for Everyone, the People, & the Future. NO BENEFIT EXISTS BY EXPLOITATION OF THE PEOPLE. This issue is not isolated. Return the Power to the People & their Service.

Sep 09, 2021 11:43 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Kristi Cook south lake tahoe, CA96150

I am writing regarding the proposed rate increase for Liberty Utilities. Liberty is proposing a 64% increase in rates in the Residential Seasonal category. Previously, it appears the Residential Permanent and Residential Seasonal rates were the same. Has Liberty presented a rationale for a differential rate for seasonal residents? Liberty’s mailing to customers affected by the rate increase did not present a rationale for differential rates. A 64% increase in rates, in my opinion, exceeds normal budgeting expectations and should be considered excessive. I urge the CPUC decision makers to question Liberty’s rationale for this steep increase and the differential now being proposed between permanent and seasonal residents. In addition, what are the criteria for judging whether a customer is seasonal or permanent?

Sep 07, 2021 12:29 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Michael Selna South Lake Tahoe, CA96150

I am writing regarding the proposed rate increase for Liberty Utilities. Liberty is proposing a 64% increase in rates in the Residential Seasonal category. Previously, it appears the Residential Permanent and Residential Seasonal rates were the same. Has Liberty presented a rationale for a differential rate for seasonal residents? Liberty’s mailing to customers affected by the rate increase did not present a rationale for differential rates. A 64% increase in rates, in my opinion, exceeds normal budgeting expectations and should be considered excessive. I urge the CPUC decision makers to question Liberty’s rationale for this steep increase and the differential now being proposed between permanent and seasonal residents. In addition, what are the criteria for judging whether a customer is seasonal or permanent?

Sep 05, 2021 11:19 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Jesse Desens Tahoe City, CA96145

The proposed increases are too much and should not be approved. What other business is allowed to raise prices by 40% + and get away with it. Market forces would not stand for this. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to use Liberty. Please deny this rate increase.

Aug 30, 2021 5:01 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Tori Weber South Lake Tahoe, CA96150

I am against Liberty Utilities proposed rate increase. The application suggests capital raised by the increase will go toward AMI and "Customer First" which seams to be an upgrade to Liberty's operational software and billing systems. I am concerned Liberty is asking rate payers to flip the bill for them to run an more efficient operation. In the long term, AMI and Customer First will allow Liberty to increase their operational effectiveness which, in turn, provides a method for them to recuperate costs through operational savings. The balance sheet of Liberty and their parent company Algonquin provides the capital necessary to make these investments for them to operate their business more effectively therefore raising capital for improvements with a 42% rate hike seams unjust. The Customer First implementation may provide better customer service. That said, as a rate payer with automatic billing and payment, I have very little interaction with the customer service department. The little interaction I have had has been smooth and easy. It seams the proposed improvements benefit Liberty more than the customer so customers should not be required to finance the upgrades. It is unclear how software improvements will increase electricity service reliability. The benefits of AMI are tremendous for both the utility and the customer IF Liberty provides the necessary customer education and rate plans (i.e. TOU, net metering for Distributed Generation, compensation for grid services supplied by customer sited energy storage systems, ect.) that allow rate payers to share in the economic benefits of the upgrades. The proposed plan lacks any detail how these programs may be structured or rolled out. Beyond these points, the filing states "While Liberty has few industrial customers, it has large seasonal and highly variable loads associated with ski resorts and hotel operations. Approximately half of the electricity Liberty delivers is to residential customers" If this is the case it seams reasonable to shift the cost burden to Liberty's industrial customers. In general, seasonal and variable loads increase infrastructure costs to ensure reliability. The application points toward residential rate increases and needs to be shifted toward industrial customers who can absorb increases easier than local residents by increasing prices of the services (i.e. lift tickets) or the high profit goods sold at the resort (i.e. expensive fountain sodas and souvenirs).

Aug 23, 2021 10:17 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Kerry Roeser Coleville, CA96107

I am writing to oppose the Liberty Utilities rate increase. My family and I are victims of the Mountain View Fire, and lost everything directly due to Liberty's negligence in the handling of a high wind event. This dangerous wind event was predicted and the power should have been turned off to ensure the safety of the community, but instead, a downed power line destroyed 90+ homes. My family is lucky that we escaped with our lives, and our close friend and neighbor lost her life. We are traumatized and trying to rebuild our lives. Needless to say, the news of this planned rate increase is deeply upsetting, especially since we cannot afford this new expense on top of the cost of rebuilding. To almost double our electric bill after this egregious negligence is adding insult to injury. Or rather, adding further injury to injury. Many people in the Walker/Coleville area will not be able to afford this increase, and have no alternative company to turn to for utilities. This is going to cause direct harm to our already devastated community. I ask the CPUC to prevent the implementation of the proposed rate increase. Thank you for your immediate attention to this concern.

Aug 21, 2021 1:46 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Mark Wetzell Lathrop, CA95330

I am a Liberty Utilities customer in Kings Beach. I have two major areas of concern with Liberty’s General Rate Case application (A.21-05-017). First, I am alarmed by Liberty’s request for a revenue increase of 30.9% over currently authorized revenues. I implore the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission to conduct a comprehensive, account-by-account analysis of Liberty’s request. It is incumbent upon Liberty to prove that each element of its request is justified. Second, I oppose Liberty’s request to divide residential customers into sub-categories of “Permanent” and “Seasonal” and to raise Seasonal Customer rates by 64% while raising Permanent Customer rates by 30.1%. I submit that the proposed division of customers is arbitrary, unfair, and punitive. No marginal cost study can justify this outcome. A marginal cost study can quantify cost allocations based on underlying assumptions, but it cannot validate those assumptions. The assumption that permanent customers have a first right to lower cost energy is just that—an assumption and nothing more. In Liberty’s last rate case the Commission was apparently influenced by a subset of residential customers, speaking at public participation hearings, who felt that the rate increase then at issue was needed because of the existence of seasonal customers (Decision 20-08-030 at p. 80). Liberty’s divisive proposal may have been motivated by the Commission’s discussion of the issue in that decision. But the specter of one set of customers asking the Commission to impose costs on another set of customers is reminiscent of NIMBYism. Neither Liberty nor the Commission should buy into those customers’ efforts to punish other customers.

Aug 20, 2021 5:36 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Enrique Espinosa Coleville, CA96107

Hello I'm against the increase due to I'm a retired disabled person living on a fixed income! I moved to Coleville Ca Oct 2020 and was here during the Mountain View fire and the blizzard during the same winter! As it is now I can barely keep myself at a comfortable warmth level during the winter due to utility costs! I'm originally from San Diego and SDGE raised prices similar to this but was implemented over a five year period more or less!If this price implemented I will be forced to leave the area and relocate to a lower cost location!

Aug 20, 2021 4:57 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Sally Rosen Coleville , CA96107

I am against the rate increase. I am a business owner and have residential properties, and lost my home in the Mountain View Fire. The proposed rate increase is not only very high, it is also not stretched over enough time. Liberty has not demonstrated their competence in managing these funds to begin with, and now they are saying they need more money to be effective. We have endured a great deal of stress, heartbreak, and physical and financial hardships at the hands of Liberty. Most recently we have had to deal with unreliable electricity with zero communication and/or mixed messages from Liberty regarding power shut offs and restoration times. We have lost thousands of dollars in food, business, and generator expenses, all while continuing to work through the night to try to save the small amount we could. This, in addition to the massive expenses we have incurred due to the fire, feels like we are being extorted. We can't simply go to a different source for our energy needs like you can with other products that get priced too high. It is the responsibility of the PUC to protect the interest of the people from unfair practices and rate hikes such as this. This increase will negatively impact an already struggling community, while having failed to live up to their responsibilities as a public utility. Please do not approve this increase.

Aug 19, 2021 4:25 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Sharon Ponder Woodbridge, CA95258

Please vote No on these proposed rate increases. In my opinion, our politicians' policies have caused electricity to become more and more expensive. When they mandate that renewables account for 60% of state electricity by 2030, there is less money to invest in maintenance and repair of power lines and management of vegetation along those lines. Natural gas and nuclear plants that can provide power 24/7 have been shut down, including a gas plant that was only 10 years old. Californians already pay twice as much for electricity as Washingtonians and a third more than Nevada. Increasing rates hurts the poor and middle class who can hardly afford California rates now. We need our politicians to help us by revising their focus until solar and wind are more reliable. Why hurt citizens now? Vote No on rate increase and we, the people, can write to our legislators.

Aug 19, 2021 1:30 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Suzi Gibbons Tahoe City, CA96145

CPUC, Please vote NO on this proposed rate hike. The proposed rate increase is too high, even if it is over a 3-year period, especially during these unusual times of high unemployment an unaffordable housing. This percent increase is also way outside the industry standard and puts an undue burden on the ratepayers. Any proposed increases need to be stretched out over a 10 to 20 year period. I don't trust that Liberty Utilities will use the rate increase to improve their infrastructure. They haven't even done the underground utility lines in SR 28 that was supposed to have begun at least 5 years ago; and they already have the money to do the project. They just can't get their act together to implement an already planned and funded project. Using the threat of wildfires as a scare tactic for the severe rate increase is a little disingenuous, when the real reason is pay increases, software programs, and to line the pockets of their stockholders.

Aug 18, 2021 10:45 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Rebecca Holden Coleville , CA96107

Thank you Judi Allen. I am going to share yours.. I am against Liberty Utilities proposed rate increase. The application suggests capital raised by the increase will go toward AMI and "Customer First" which seams to be an upgrade to Liberty's operational software and billing systems. I am concerned Liberty is asking rate payers to flip the bill for them to run an more efficient operation. In the long term, AMI and Customer First will allow Liberty to increase their operational effectiveness which, in turn, provides a method for them to recuperate costs through operational savings. The balance sheet of Liberty and their parent company Algonquin provides the capital necessary to make these investments for them to operate their business more effectively therefore raising capital for improvements with a 42% rate hike seams unjust. The Customer First implementation may provide better customer service. That said, as a rate payer with automatic billing and payment, I have very little interaction with the customer service department. The little interaction I have had has been smooth and easy. It seams the proposed improvements benefit Liberty more than the customer so customers should not be required to finance the upgrades. It is unclear how software improvements will increase electricity service reliability. The benefits of AMI are tremendous for both the utility and the customer IF Liberty provides the necessary customer education and rate plans (i.e. TOU, net metering for Distributed Generation, compensation for grid services supplied by customer sited energy storage systems, ect.) that allow rate payers to share in the economic benefits of the upgrades. The proposed plan lacks any detail how these programs may be structured or rolled out. Beyond these points, the filing states "While Liberty has few industrial customers, it has large seasonal and highly variable loads associated with ski resorts and hotel operations. Approximately half of the electricity Liberty delivers is to residential customers" If this is the case it seams reasonable to shift the cost burden to Liberty's industrial customers. In general, seasonal and variable loads increase infrastructure costs to ensure reliability. The application points toward residential rate increases and needs to be shifted toward industrial customers who can absorb increases easier than local residents by increasing prices of the services (i.e. lift tickets) or the high profit goods sold at the resort (i.e. expensive fountain sodas and souvenirs).

Aug 17, 2021 3:55 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Andrew Lambert South Lake Tahoe, CA96150

I am concerned Liberty is asking rate payers to flip the bill for them to run an more efficient operation. In the long term, AMI and Customer First will allow Liberty to increase their operational effectiveness which, in turn, provides a method for them to recuperate costs through operational savings. The balance sheet of Liberty and their parent company Algonquin provides the capital necessary to make these investments for them to operate their business more effectively therefore raising capital for improvements with a 42% rate hike seams unjust. The Customer First implementation may provide better customer service. That said, as a rate payer with automatic billing and payment, I have very little interaction with the customer service department. The little interaction I have had has been smooth and easy. It seams the proposed improvements benefit Liberty more than the customer so customers should not be required to finance the upgrades. It is unclear how software improvements will increase electricity service reliability. The benefits of AMI are tremendous for both the utility and the customer IF Liberty provides the necessary customer education and rate plans (i.e. TOU, net metering for Distributed Generation, compensation for grid services supplied by customer sited energy storage systems, ect.) that allow rate payers to share in the economic benefits of the upgrades. The proposed plan lacks any detail how these programs may be structured or rolled out. Beyond these points, the filing states "While Liberty has few industrial customers, it has large seasonal and highly variable loads associated with ski resorts and hotel operations. Approximately half of the electricity Liberty delivers is to residential customers" If this is the case it seams reasonable to shift the cost burden to Liberty's industrial customers. In general, seasonal and variable loads increase infrastructure costs to ensure reliability. The application points toward residential rate increases and needs to be shifted toward industrial customers who can absorb increases easier than local residents by increasing prices of the services (i.e. lift tickets) or the high profit goods sold at the resort (i.e. expensive fountain sodas and souvenirs).

Aug 17, 2021 3:00 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
row(s) 1 - 15 of 160Next