|
Public Comment for August 28, 2023
<br />Board of Public Utilities Meeting
<br />Prepared by the City Clerk's Office at 4:35 p.m. on August 28, 2023
<br />City J Arts & Innovation
<br />Page 1 of 4
<br />Position
<br />Comments
<br />1. To comment on any matters within the jurisdiction of the Board
<br />of Public Utilities, you are invited to participate via telephone at
<br />(669) 900-6833 and enter Meeting ID: 926 9699 1265. Press *9 to
<br />be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be
<br />prompted to unmute by pressing `6 when you are ready to speak.
<br />Don Bardo
<br />Oppose
<br />Absurd to impose such a significant increase over such a short period of time. Just like the city
<br />To participate via ZOOM, use the following link:
<br />https://zoom.us/j/92696991265, select the "raise hand" function to
<br />request to speak. An on-screen message will prompt you to
<br />"unmute" and speak.
<br />RPU, I received the multiple snail mail letters, one for each utility electrical, water, trash outlining the proposed rate increases. What
<br />1. To comment on any matters within the jurisdiction of the Board
<br />reason for sending separate mailings, so you can make it look like it's a smaller increase than if you collect them together which overall
<br />of Public Utilities, you are invited to participate via telephone at
<br />amount to nearly 15% annually. This rate increase is disastrous for most people who are currently struggling financially to house families
<br />(669) 900-6833 and enter Meeting ID: 926 9699 1265. Press '9 to
<br />and now you try to convince your customers with disingenuous justification. If you have no business plan to project your cost of doing
<br />be placed in the queue to speak. Individuals in the queue will be
<br />business you are a dysfunctional organization and are trying to make exorbitant profits off of tax paying hard working people. This being
<br />prompted to unmute by pressing `6 when you are ready to speak.
<br />James
<br />Oppose
<br />done making claims that it's the increasing, projection based on fabrication, inflation that's responsible for your need to make your
<br />Baylor
<br />trusting customers pay more than is reasonable. In fact the trends have seen drastic decreases of inflation; one year ago inflation was
<br />To participate via ZOOM, use the following link:
<br />measured and reported to be over 8%. Thanks to sensible legislation in DC and the Anti-inflation Act, it is now 3.2%. Your basic premise
<br />https://zoom.us/j/92696991265, select the "raise hand" function to
<br />to cover paying your executive level personnel non -transparent bonuses and salary increases is predatory business practice. You
<br />request to speak. An on-screen message will prompt you to
<br />should be lowering rates for the benefit of the customers who are the ones who deserve the financial break. If your executives are not
<br />"unmute" and speak.
<br />capable of projecting your cost of doing business, maintaining and/or replacing your older equipment you need to fire those executives
<br />and hire people who understand the reality on a full spectrum of the community you serve.
<br />I OPPOSE the proposed 5 year rate increase plan. While I appreciate that RPU has lower electric rates than most, we should not use
<br />the rate comparisons from other utilities as part of the campaign to justify rate increases this high in Riverside. I tried to decipher
<br />NewGens 361 page COSA analysis to get a better understanding. I've concluded that this large of an increase, particularly for
<br />residential customers, is excessive in comparison to other classes, such as Industrial TOU and Commercial Demand. For example, In
<br />reviewing COSA P.23 Table 1-4 for test existing rate revenue, test year revenue requirements and the difference, the residential
<br />"difference" is only approx. 17.5% more needed (way less than our proposed 5ys increase of average 25+%), whereas Industrial
<br />2. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive public input related to
<br />"difference" is approx. 27%, which is in line with the 5 yr increase they're getting. The math doesn't add up for residential increases
<br />electric utility five-year rate plan proposal - Adopt a resolution
<br />according to this table. We are getting the brunt of the increases. Additionally, that same table shows that Commercial Demand
<br />establishing the electric utility five-year rate proposal -
<br />customers were only slightly over the test requirement revenue. I don't think that "slightly" justifies rewarding them with absolutely no
<br />Recommend City Council conduct a public hearing to receive
<br />increases for five years, to include no NAC increase. That seems unfair considering all customers should bear the increasing cost of
<br />input related to electric utility five-year rate plan proposal, adopt a
<br />maintaining RPU's distribution system for the next 5 years.. The extra revenue commercial demand was paying was very small per the
<br />resolution approving the electric utility five-year rate plan
<br />test revenue table. This small overage difference definitely doesn't justify them not having to pay any inflationary increases for FIVE
<br />proposal, and approve changes to Sharing Households Assist
<br />Laura
<br />years!
<br />Riverside Energy Program - A Resolution of the Board of Public
<br />Sandidge
<br />Oppose
<br />Utilities of the City of Riverside, California, (1) establishing the FY
<br />I'd also like the Board to consider the totality of both utility increases combined, and to keep in mind our huge proposed trash increase
<br />2023/24 - 2027/28 Electric Rates by amending Electric Rate
<br />(even though this isn't your issue), and the burden it will place on the average low/middle class Riverside resident. My retirement is
<br />Schedules A, D, D-TOU, EV, LS -1, LS -2, OL, PA, PW -1, S, TC
<br />CalPers and my COLA is only 2%. My 83 year old father is at poverty level and social security is estimated to be a 3% COLA for 2024.
<br />and TOU; creating new Electric Rate Schedule SMEVC; to be
<br />Please consider changing the rates to be more in line with the average persons COLA or raises they would possibly get from their
<br />effective January 1, 2024 and upon Council approval; (2) making
<br />employer... It's not the 13.5+% (electric+water) increase you're proposing in just the 1st year. That's an average of about $15 more a
<br />related findings of fact; and (3) recommending City Council
<br />month in just the 1st year, not including the trash increase. $15 extra/mo is alot for elderly low income residents like my Dad, even with
<br />approval thereof - Waive further reading
<br />the small SHARE allowance.
<br />Lastly, the Board should take in to account the excessive 11.5% GFT, which is about 40 MILLION a year loss for RPU. It's time to put
<br />that money back to keeping the RPU on budget with minimal rate increases passed to customers. We already approved Measure Z to
<br />pay for what they claim they need the GTF for. This rate increase is being pushed through too fast and the Board/ City Council need to
<br />take a step back and come up with a smaller % increase for residential. It's clear the public has been left out of the loop. Thank you for
<br />listening.
<br />Page 1 of 4
<br />
|