Idaho
Public Utilities Commission
Case No.
FLS-W-12-01. Order No. 32663
Case No.
CCH-W-12-01, Order No. 32662
October 16,
2010
Contact:
Gene Fadness (208) 334-0339, 890-2712
Website: www.puc.idaho.gov
Commission OKs increases
for two Idaho Falls area water companies
The Idaho
Public Utilities Commission has granted rate increases for customers of two
Idaho Falls area water companies.
Falls Water Company
Rates for
the approximate 3,900 customers of Falls Water will increase from about $20.76
per month to $23 effective Oct. 16. The commission granted the company an
additional $144,547 in annual revenue, about a 10.8 percent increase. When
Falls Water filed its application in January, it asked for $295,059 in new revenue,
about a 26.5 percent increase. The total
annual revenue requirement is now $1.257 million. The company sought $1.4
million. Falls Water serves an area
north of Ammon and northeast of Idaho Falls.
For the vast
majority of customers who use a ¾-inch or smaller meter, the new monthly
minimum charge is $17.75, up from $16.10 per month, for the first 12,000
gallons. A commodity charge of 69 cents for every 1,000 gallons used above the
12,000 gallons is added. The commodity charge was 61 cents for every 1,000
gallons above 12,000 gallons.
Much of the
increase to annual revenue requirement – about $675,000 – is due to an
automated meter reading project that allows the company to read meters year
round. Currently, meters are read only
in April through October, but not during the winter when meters are difficult to
access.
Falls Water received
commission approval following its last rate case in 2009 to replace 600
manually read meters with “touch-read” meters. The expense for that project was
about $126,300. Falls Water also installed MXU (meter transceiver unit) radio
transmitters on about 3,300 other meters at an expense of about $675,000. The MXUs
allow the company to read the meters on a hand-held device or from a vehicle
without having to access the property.
Falls Water did not receive prior approval from the commission to make
that investment.
At public
workshops and hearings, customers said Falls Water should have gradually
updated its infrastructure and should not have spent so much on meters without
receiving prior input from customers and the commission. Commission staff, which operates separately
from the commission, recommended that the $675,000 investment in radio
transmitters be denied. Staff claimed
the meter conversion is not economically justifiable, noting that the $8,315
per year estimated savings from reduced fuel and labor expense would take the
company almost 86 years to recover.
The
commission approved most of the radio transmitter investment because
disapproval of such a large investment for a small water company “could
jeopardize the company’s financial integrity and ability to provide safe and
reliable service to customers,” the commission said.
“We are
deeply troubled that the company abruptly invested so much money in MXU
transmitters without obtaining prior input from customers, staff or the
commission,” the commission said. Had it done so, the company likely would have
received direction to invest in other needed improvements such as replacing old
water lines and making improvements to trunk lines, storage and booster tank
stations. “While a regulated public utility must spend enough on its system to
ensure that its customers receive safe and reliable service, it may not engage
in gold-plating at ratepayer expense,” the commission said. “We would wholly
disallow the company’s MXU investment if the company were a larger
utility.”
However, the
commission did disallow about $40,000 in MXU-related financing charges and
temporary office labor. And it directed the company set aside its projected
annual savings as a result of MXU installation – about $8,300 per year – in a
plant reserve fund that may be used only to finance infrastructure projects and
repairs. The company must maintain the
plant reserve fund in a separate account that may be audited by commission
staff.
Falls Water argued
that year-round meter reading will enable it to detect leaks sooner and
conserve water. The company also noted that customers would be able to pay for
excess water used during the winter as overages incur instead of waiting to be billed
in the spring. Customers who experience
excess water use during the winter due to leaks are not pleased with their
corresponding April water bills, the company claimed.
The
commission also denied about $12,000 of $54,000 in building rental expense and
about $11,500 of $31,400 in equipment rental expense because the company rents
its office building, backhoe and dump truck from the company owner.
In Falls
Water’s 2009 rate case, the commission advised the company that it must prove
that a related-party transaction such as renting from the company owner is
reasonable and a product of arms-length bargaining. “The company has not, for
example, demonstrated what a comparable empty building would rent for in this
poor economic climate,” the commission said, and it did not obtain a
third-party analysis of the equipment rental expense.
Country Club Hills Water
Average
monthly bills for customers for Country Club Hills Water increased from about
$28.10 per month to $35.46 effective Oct. 12.
The company serves about 150 households southeast of
Idaho Falls. The increase is about 21.7
percent. The company requested 32 percent to offset yearly operating losses and
to pay for system deficiencies and water service problems.
The
monthly minimum charge is $17, which does not change. However the commodity
charge increases to 71 cents for every 1,000 gallons above 15,000 gallons. The company previously charged 60 cents for
every gallon above 30,000 gallons per month.
Country Club Hills proposed to increase the monthly minimum from $17 to
$25 and charge 60 cents for every 1,000 gallons above 15,000 gallons and 70
cents for every 1,000 gallons above 25,000 gallons.
The
company also wanted to create a capital replacement fund, which it said is
required by the state Department of Environmental Quality. The fund would be used for emergency expenses.
The commission declined to allow the company to create the fund saying an
additional increase above the allowed 21.7 percent would be “unduly burdensome
for the company’s small customer base.” Further, the commission said, state DEQ
rules specifically exclude regulated water utilities in cases where DEQ
requirements are in conflict with IPUC rules.
“Additionally,
the commission finds that Country Club Hills Utilities has failed to
demonstrate an adequate level of expertise and sophistication in its accounting
and recordkeeping methods. As evidence of this, the commission notes that the
company’s application was woefully incomplete and failed to provide even the
most basic calculations regarding the company’s current financial structure and
position,” the commission said. “When
the company demonstrates that is has rectified its accounting and recordkeeping
deficiencies, the commission will entertain an application by the company for
the establishment of a fund to reimburse the company for emergency repairs to
its water system.”
Petitions for
reconsideration
The
commission’s orders, along with other documents related to this case, are available
on the commission’s Web site at www.puc.idaho.gov.
Click on “File Room” and then on “Water Cases” and scroll down to the above
case numbers.
Interested parties may petition the
commission for reconsideration by no later than Nov. 2. Petitions for
reconsideration must set forth specifically why the petitioner contends that
the order is unreasonable, unlawful or erroneous. Petitions should include a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence the petitioner will offer if
reconsideration is granted.
Petitions can be delivered
to the commission at 472 W. Washington St. in Boise, mailed to P.O. Box 83720,
Boise, ID, 83720-0074, or faxed to 208-334-3762.
###