20070403final_order_no_30279.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 3, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF SPIRIT LAKE EAST WATER COMPANY
FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS
RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER
SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NO. SPL-06-
ORDER NO. 30279
On August 14 2006, Spirit Lake East Water Company (Spirit Lake, Company) filed
a general rate case Application requesting authority to increase its rates and charges for water
service, which have not changed in 23 years. The Company requested approval to increase its
rates from $12 to $24 for the first 9 000 gallons of water usage, and from $0.10 to $0.20 for
every 100 gallons of water used by a customer over 9 000 gallons per month. The Company also
requested approval for an increase in the connection fee for new customer service from $1 200 to
500. Spirit Lake proposed an effective date of September 14, 2006 for the new rates.
Pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-622, the Commission suspended the proposed effective date in
Order No. 30119 issued August 29 2006.
On November 30, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure to
process Spirit Lake s Application. The Commission Staff filed its written comments on January
2007 and Spirit Lake, after requesting an extension of time, filed its comments on February
2007, and then filed amended comments on February 26 2007. The Commission convened a
public hearing at Spirit Lake, Idaho on February 28, 2007. In the same order granting Spirit
Lake s Motion for Additional Time, the Commission continued the period for suspension of the
Company s proposed rates until April 15 , 2007. See Order No. 30241 issued February 9 2007.
By this Order, the Commission directs Spirit Lake, based on substantial evidence of
inadequate and unreliable service, to provide a plan of correction to immediately address known
problems with its water delivery system. The Commission also approves a modest rate increase
for Spirit Lake, raising the rate to $12.50 for the first 9 000 gallons of water per month, and to
$0.12 for each 100 gallons after the initial 9 000, and a new customer connection fee of $2 500.
BACKGROUND
Spirit Lake was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (No. 293)
in February 1983 , and the Commission established its rates for consumption in November 1983.
ORDER NO. 30279
Spirit Lake currently provides service to 287 residential customers in Kootenai and Bonner
Counties, Idaho. The Company s office is located in Spokane, Washington, but Spirit Lake has
no direct employees. The water system was installed as part of subdivisions developed by
Hanson Properties, Inc., which later became Hanson Industries, Inc. (Hanson). In 1982 the water
distribution system owned by Hanson was turned over to Spirit Lake, a wholly owned subsidiary.
Hanson remains the majority owner of Spirit Lake.
Hanson financed the construction of the Spirit Lake water system, as well as its
operation since inception. Hanson employees handle all accounts payable and receipts for Spirit
Lake, and provide accounting, billing, customer service, water-operator and maintenance
servIces.Spirit Lake does not have a bank account separate from that of Hanson.The
Company s fiscal year is November I through October 31.
The Company s monthly water rates have not changed since 1983, but the
Commission in June 2004 did approve an increase in the Company s connection fee from $650
to $1 200. The Application in this case states that the proposed $2 500 connection fee is the
actual cost to complete the connection to add a new customer to the water system. The Company
asserts the new service connection fee is needed to cover the amount actually paid to outside
contractors who perform the connection work.
Staffs comments describe the Spirit Lake water system, which depends on a single
well for its water supply. A 100 horsepower pump lifts water approximately 600 feet to a
concrete reservoir. The reservoir is a reinforced concrete, above ground cylinder with a total
capacity of 192 400 gallons. Three booster pumps, housed in a below ground concrete caisson
deliver water from the reservoir to the mains and branches of the system. System control valves
chlorinator and bladder type pressure tanks are housed in a building next to the reservoir. A
small shed next door holds a 55 horsepower, 75 kW diesel generator used as a back-up power
supply.
The Company s service territory covers an area of approximately six square miles.
The system s mains and branches contain 126 585 feet of pipe, most of it PVC pipe, in sizes
varying from 1 inch to 10 inches in diameter. Approximately 527 feet of pipe is galvanized
steel. Because customer stub outs and valves were not installed on the mains and branches when
the system was built, every new customer added to the system requires a tap into a main that is
under pressure. As of December 2006, the system serves 287 active customers in the Spirit Lake
ORDER NO. 30279
East and Treeport subdivisions. There are also 18 dormant customers (meters locked) connected
to the system. The subdivisions are largely built out, with 13 customer hookups in fiscal year
2005 and 3 new hookups in 2006.
EVIDENCE OF INADEQUATE AND UNRELIABLE SERVICE
Idaho Code ~ 61-302 requires every public utility to "furnish, provide and maintain
such service, instrumentalities, equipment and facilities as shall promote the safety, health
comfort and convenience of its patrons, . . . and as shall be in all respects adequate, efficient, just
and reasonable.Considerable evidence provided by Staff and by customers of Spirit Lake
demonstrates that the water delivery system has been unreliable, particularly following power
outages, and inadequate in delivering a dependable supply of water to many customers. The
Commission finds on the record presented that Spirit Lake currently does not meet the standard
of Section 61-302 for service that is in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable.
Staff in its comments identified three maintenance items that affect the water service
Spirit Lake provides to its customers. According to Staff, the largest problem is significant
unidentified leaks in the system; second is the failure of the recently installed generator; and
third is repair of a flat roof that covers the water storage reservoir.
Staff calculated that leakage in the Spirit Lake system is more than one gallon, and
could be as much as one-and-a-half gallons, for every gallon used by customers. Staff described
the leakage problem as severe, well beyond the 10% to 15% that is considered acceptable for
small water systems. Staff also believes that water loss from leaks is increasing faster than
customer usage, indicating that the volume of water leaking from the system as a percent of total
production is increasing.
Given the seriousness of the leakage problem, Staff recommended the Company be
directed to prepare a plan to locate and repair system leaks. For this case, Staff recommended
that the Company s cost of electricity, beyond that which is required to pump water in excess of
the metered usage plus 10%, be disallowed in the Company s revenue requirement. Staff
calculated the pro rata share of electricity for disallowance to be 55% of the test year total
electric bill.
The second maintenance item affecting service is a generator installed in the fall of
2005. The Company installed the 55 horsepower diesel generator to operate the booster pumps
in the event of power outages. Since it was installed, there have been two power outages where
ORDER NO. 30279
the generator was needed, and both times the generator failed. Staff also stated that the generator
is not large enough to provide sufficient electricity to run the well pump and keep the reservoir
filled during an outage, especially considering the amount of water loss in the system. Staff
believes that repair of system leaks must be a priority, and will improve available operating time
of the system during a power outage. Staff recommended the Company investigate acquiring a
larger back-up generator capable of operating the entire system.
The third maintenance issue is a flat roof cover over the water storage reservoir.
Staff stated the roof currently does not leak, but water sitting on the roof presents a potential
water quality issue. Water on the flat surface will freeze and thaw, leading to leaks in the roof
and possible contamination of the reservoir water. Staff recommended the Company be directed
to repair the roof to prevent ponding of surface water to assure a safe, reliable water supply.
In addition to Staffs analysis , significant evidence of inadequate water service was
provided by customers of Spirit Lake. Approximately 45 written comments were filed with the
Commission, not including 38 consumer complaints following an outage on March 15, 2007
which became part of the record in this case and were considered by the Commission.
addition, approximately 80 to 90 customers attended the public hearing in Spirit Lake, Idaho, and
more than 25 signed in to testify. The customers identified several significant problems, and
expressed frustration with the Company s unwillingness or inability to address them.
Staff in its written comments summarized the results of a workshop and the written
comments received by the Commission up to January 19, 2007. Staff hosted a customer
workshop at Timberlake High School Library on November 8, 2006. Thirty-seven customers
attended the workshop, and expressed concerns regarding poor water quality, low system
pressure, inadequate maintenance of the water system, lack of justification for the requested rate
increase, and failure by the Company to provide fire hydrants or fire protection access. A
majority of the attendees were well-informed members of the Spirit Lake East Homeowners
Association and the homeowners from the Treeport Subdivision, which is not represented in the
Spirit Lake East Homeowners Association. Both groups have been in contact with the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality and Hanson Industries during the past several years to
address service and water quality issues with Spirit Lake.
Prior to January 19, 2007, when Staff filed its comments , the Commission had
received 21 written comments and a petition with 56 customer signatures requesting another
ORDER NO. 30279
workshop or hearing. Ten comments were in support of an increase provided that a plan
showing substantial investment to improve water quality and pressure were implemented.
Eleven comments reflected opposition to the proposed rate increase based on past failure of the
Company to adequately maintain and improve the system over the years. A few comments
supported an increase in rates to finance an additional well rather than relying on only the one
currently providing water to the system. Most comments expressed frustration with the
Company s lack of response to water and service quality issues.
In addition to the comments filed in this case, Staff summarized the complaints
received by the Commission s Consumer Division regarding Spirit Lake. Nineteen complaints
were made from January 1 2004 to January 8 2007. Six of the complaints concerned extended
water outages in October 2004. Other complaints concerned poor water quality, a billing dispute
and objections to this proposed rate increase. Five complaints were received during a December
2006 power outage, referencing the failure of the back-up generator to adequately handle the
system needs and stating that the Company was not diligent in maintaining the back-up power
supply. Complainants also expressed concern that notices to boil water mailed to customers
during the busy holiday season, in the midst of a major storm, did not reach residents for two or
more days after the system had been flushed with chlorine.
Spirit Lake customers testified to these and other problems at the public hearing on
February 28, 2007. Customers testified to complete failures of the water system, the most
significant occurring in October 2004 when the well pump failed. Most customers were without
water for several days, some had no water for nine or ten days. Tr. pp. 19-, 30, 46 , 63. One
customer described the outages as occurring "routinely, yearly, our water supply has been off."
Tr. p. 63. Inadequate water pressure also is a problem for many customers. Customers testified
to water pressure that may be adequate for a shower, but "you better take it at 5:00 am because
by 7:00 am you ll only be getting a trickle.Tr. p. 41. The water pressure was described as
atrocious" by a customer who complained
, "
it shouldn t take 15 minutes to fill up your sink to
wash your dishes.Tr. p. 71. Some customers testified the pressure problem has been getting
worse in recent months. Tr. pp. 53 , 55-, 61. Customers also testified regarding the taste or
quality of the water. One customer testified that orders to boil potable water happen "almost
every year " and that the water now "has so much chlorine in it my dogs don t even drink (it)".
Tr. p. 30. Another customer testified: "The taste of this water is not to the liking of our family
ORDER NO. 30279
since it's been added-chlorine has been added due to the filth of the patched together reservoir.
As for me and my house, we won t drink it." Tr.p. 40. One customer spends "one (hundred) to
$200 in bottled water a month because I am tired of my child-we ve lived here for 12 years-
ending up sick and having to go to the doctor to find out that it's , you know, something with the
stomach bacteria and things like that." Tr. p. 71.
Finally, the Commission learned, while considering its Order in this case, of another
water outage occurring March 15-, 2007. Numerous Spirit Lake customers contacted the
Commission, and the Company provided information about the cause of the outage and the
Company s response. The outage was caused by failure of the well pump, the same pump that
was replaced after the October 2004 outage. Although the Company in this instance acted
promptly to repair the pump and provided bottled drinking water to customers, the pump
failure is yet another occurrence for customers, some of them long-suffering, where an adequate
water supply was not provided them.
Based on the considerable record presented by Staff and Spirit Lake customers, the
Commission finds that the Company is not providing the water service required by Idaho law. A
water company that has water outages as often as yearly, and leaves customers without water for
up to ten days is not providing service that is adequate or efficient or reasonable. Water
delivered at insufficient pressure to allow showering or lawn watering for many customers is not
adequate or reasonable. Water that is not drinkable, because of bad taste or contamination, is not
promoting "the safety, health, comfort and convenience" of customers. Idaho Code ~ 61-302.
Repairs needed to provide necessary service have been neglected or delayed without
justification, resulting in equipment and facilities inadequate to promote the safety, health
comfort and convenience of its patrons.
The evidence is undisputed that the most pressing needs to improve the water system
are replacement of the inadequate generator and repair of the system leaks. A generator must be
of sufficient size to operate the well pump and keep the reservoir full during power outages.
Repair of leaks will mean more water is delivered to customers at higher levels of pressure. We
direct the Company to address these needs without delay. To assure prompt action is taken, we
direct the Company to provide a written plan to the Commission within fourteen (14) days of the
service date of this Order, explaining the steps the Company will take to install a new generator
and to address the system leaks. We expect the Company to respond promptly and in good faith
ORDER NO. 30279
to address the problems with its water system.
In their comments or testimony, many customers recommended that Spirit Lake be
allowed no rate increase until system improvements are made. Although Spirit Lake has been
deficient in its operation of the water system, the Commission is without authority to disregard or
deny the Company s Application for a rate increase for that reason. The rate request is based on
improvements already made and on higher operating costs, and denying the Application could be
a legally impermissible taking of property from the Company. We thus turn to the specific rate
case Issues.
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
Staff in its comments provided an analysis and calculation for Spirit Lake s revenue
requirement. After making several adjustments to rate base, Staff recommended a rate base for
Spirit Lake in the amount of $156 038. The Company requested, and Staff supported, a return on
equity of 12%. After making adjustments to test year revenues and expenses, Staff concluded
Spirit Lake s annual income deficiency is $10 673. After applying the net income to gross
revenue multiplier for income taxes, Staff initially recommended a total revenue increase in the
amount of$13 751.
Staffs initially proposed revenue increase of$13 751 , or 28.71%, is significantly less
than the Company s request for an increase of $47 866 , or nearly 100%. The Company revised
its request, however, in its Amended Reply Comments filed February 26, 2007. Spirit Lake
identified several Staff adjustments to revenues, expenses and rate base, identified at page six of
the Company s Reply Comments, to which the Company did not object. After providing
additional information to Staff, the Company also identified additional rate base, revenue and
expense adjustments that Staff was willing to support. With agreement on additional items, Staff
revised its recommended revenue increase to be $19 640, or approximately 37%, and Spirit
Lake s revised request is for additional annual revenue of $27 961 , or an increase of
approximately 53%.
We accept and approve most of the rate base, revenue and expense adjustments
agreed upon by Staff and the Company. The final accounting amounts approved by the
Commission are set forth in Attachment A, Column D, to this Order. We will summarize the
rate case components, and decide those remaining items about which Staff and the Company did
ORDER NO. 30279
not agree. We decline to accept Staffs recommended return on equity, and instead approve a
lower return, and will discuss that issue as well.
Revenues, Expenses and Rate Base
The Company proposed using the actual test year data from its 2005 fiscal year.
Revenues and expenses are based upon the actual recorded performance of the Company for
2005 and are comparable to the 2005 annual report filed with the Commission, with some
adjustments. The primary source of revenue for Spirit Lake is the sale of water to residential
customers and in fiscal year 2005 revenue totaled almost $48 000. In addition, the Company
billed $18 000 of revenue for hook-up fees. The Company in its Application removed new
customer hook-up costs and revenues from its operating revenues and expenses. Staff and the
Company were able to agree on adjustments to revenues, and thus agreed on test year revenues
in the amount of $52 789. Based on the record presented, we find the appropriate amount of test
year revenue to be $52 789.
The Company reported total expenses of $96 833 in its 2005 report to the
Commission, but appropriately removed hook-up costs of $30 075 from its operating expenses.
The Company agreed with many of the expense adjustments proposed by Staff, and Staff also
accepted some of the Company s adjustments set forth in its reply comments. As a result, Staff
calculated test year expenses to be $47 477, and the Company proposed expenses of $52 319.
The primary difference results from the amount of rate case expense to include in the test year.
The Company originally proposed rate case expenses of $5,000, but increased that amount to
$22 280 in its reply comments. Staff recommended disallowing approximately $16 000 of the
Company s rate case expense amount, and recommended a three-year amortization for recovery
of the allowed amount. The Company agreed with the three-year amortization period, but not
with Staff s reduction of the expense amount.
We find Staffs adjustments to the rate case expenses to be reasonable and
appropriate. Some of the adjustments result from eliminating legal expenses related to Spirit
Lake s past and ongoing dealings with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Staff
recommended not including the rate case expense added after November as it is excessive for a
small water company case. We find that Staff appropriately reviewed available billing invoices
to remove costs not directly necessitated by the rate case, or that were excessive. Accordingly,
we approve Staffs adjustments to the rate case expenses to include in the test year, and find the
ORDER NO. 30279
test year expenses to be $47 250. The difference between Staffs test year expenses ($47 477)
and the Commission s expense amount is from removing the depreciation expense for the
generator we are removing from rate base.
The Company in its Application requested a rate base amount of $160 529, and
Staffs initial rate base calculation was $156 038. Spirit Lake s projected rate base set forth in its
reply comments was $184 773 , and Staff adjusted its proposed rate base amount to $171 302.
The difference between the two is over the amount to include for the existing generator and
related installation costs, as well as some tank repair and cleaning expenses. The Company
included in its Application approximately $5 000 in rate base for generator installation costs, but
did not include the cost of the generator itself, or the additional installation costs and tank repair
costs. Staff agreed with the installation costs submitted with the Company s Application, and
asserted in its comments that no cost for the generator should be included in rate base because
the Company was unable to provide a cost basis for it. The generator had been purchased by
Hanson Industries for its use as part of a larger transaction and was already used when Hanson
Industries placed it in service for Spirit Lake s water system. After Staff filed its comments
Spirit Lake provided additional cost information and proposed approximately $23 000 more in
rate base relating to the generator and over $3 000 in tank repair items omitted in its Application.
The Company researched replacement costs for a similar used generator and proposed a value of
$12 360 for the generator. The Company sought additional generator installation costs of
$10 649 and tank repair costs of approximately $3 000. Staff agreed with $7 690 of these items
($7 188 generator and $502 tank repair) and a $6 000 value for the generator. The Staff and
Company did not dispute approximately $1 700 costs related to a distribution pump.
We accept the adjustments Staff made to the proposed additional rate base cost items
relating to the generator installation and tank repair costs. Transactions between affiliate
companies must be carefully scrutinized to assure ratepayers that only necessary and reasonable
expenses are included for recovery in rates. Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities
Commission 97 Idaho 832, 555 P.2d 163 (1976). Staff eliminated expenses that appeared to
duplicate previous efforts or were not clearly identifiable as necessary. For example, Spirit Lake
repaired the generator starter on two occasions, both of which proved to be unsuccessful, and the
Company ultimately replaced the starter. Staff included one repair cost and the replacement cost
in rate base, rejecting only one starter repair cost. We find that the adjustments Staff made to the
ORDER NO. 30279
generator installation and tank repair costs are just, reasonable and fair. Accordingly,
approve the Staff recommended amount of $7 690 for inclusion in rate base, along with the
114 amount for generator installation costs included in the Company s Application.
We find it is not appropriate, however, to include a cost for the generator in rate base.
It is undisputed that Spirit Lake could not provide a cost basis for the generator because
originally was part of a larger purchase by Hanson Industries. Especially in an affiliate
transaction, the burden is on the utility to provide clear evidence of the cost of an item to include
it in rate base. See, e.General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Idaho Public Utilities
Commission 109 Idaho 942, 712 P.2d 643 (1986) (Commission properly concluded that in
affiliate transaction the burden of proving the reasonableness of charges fell upon the utility).
Spirit Lake only provided evidence of a possible market cost of a similar generator. We find the
Company s evidence insufficient to place a value on the generator to include in the Company
rate base. Accepting Staffs adjustments to rate base, but eliminating a cost for the used
generator, results in a rate base amount of$165,452.
We approve a rate base of$165 452 comprised of the following components: Utility
plant in service ($949 053) less contributions in aid of construction ($70 050) and accumulated
depreciation ($721 337); plus a working capital component ($4 732) and an inventory of spare
parts ($3 055). Spirit Lake s rate base is comprised of improvements and repairs made to the
system. The original cost of the developer installed system including the- well and distribution
system are considered contributed property under Commission Rule 103 , Policies and
Presumptions for Small Water Companies.
Capital Structure and Return on Equity
The Company s capital structure is 100% common equity. The Company requested
return on equity of 12%, and Staff recommended approval of that rate of return, noting it is the
rate recently approved by the Commission for another small water company. If Spirit Lake were
providing an adequate, reliable water supply to its customers, the Commission would approve a
return on equity of 12%. We find it reasonable and appropriate, however, to adjust the
Company s return on equity until such time as the improvements are made to the system to solve
the problems identified by Staff and customers. We therefore in this case approve a return on
equity of 6%.
ORDER NO. 30279
The Commission expects Spirit Lake to promptly address the leakage and generator
problems, and the Commission will respond as quickly as possible if the Company requests
recovery of the costs in rates after making the necessary improvements. If the repairs are made
quickly, it is possible recovery of the costs could occur without a full-scale rate case. A tracker
filing could be used, requiring only that the Company provide proof of the necessary
expenditures. Once service improves to an acceptable level the Commission will consider the
Company s request for recovery of the improvement costs and the rate of return on equity may
be reset to 12%.
Summary of Revenue Requirement Calculation and New Tariff Rates
With a test year rate base of $165 452 and a return on equity of 6%, and after
adjustments to test year expenses and revenues, the resulting annual revenue requirement for
Spirit Lake is $58 442. The annual revenue deficiency amount is $5 653 , requiring an increase
in rates of 10.71 %. The revenue requirement calculation is as follows:
Rate Base
Return on Rate Base
Income Requirement
Income Realized (Pro forma)
Income Deficiency
Gross-up
Revenue Deficiency
Test Year Revenue Realized
Gross Revenue Requirement
Increase Percentage Required
$ 165,452
$ 9 927
5.540
$ 4 387
128.84%
$ 5 653
$ 52.789
58.442
10.71 %
In order to recover the identified revenue deficiency, the Commission approves an
increase in Spirit Lake s minimum monthly charge from $12 to $12., which includes the first
000 gallons of use, and an increase in the commodity charge from $0.10 to $0.12. The
commodity charge applies to each 100 gallons in excess of 9 000 gallons. These rates should
produce annual revenue in the amount of approximately $58 820.
The Company also requested an increase in its fee to connect new customers from
200 to $2 500. In 2004, when the Company requested an increase in the connection fee, the
Commission approved an increase from $650 to $1 200 for new connections. Staff reviewed the
contractor invoices provided by the Company in this case for connecting new customers. In the
test year there are 11 invoices for connecting new customers for a flat charge of $2 500, but Staff
ORDER NO. 30279
noted the invoices do not provide specific cost information. Because the Company did not
submit data about equipment, labor or material costs for the fixed rate, Staff initially
recommended a connection fee of $1 600. After the Company provided additional information
however, Staff agreed that a connection fee of $2 500 is appropriate.
We find on the record presented that the current connection fee of $1 200 is
insufficient and unjust, and that a connection fee of $2 500 is reasonable and appropriate. We
therefore approve an increase in the connection fee from $1 200 to $2 500.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Spirit Lake is a water corporation providing service to the public within the State of
Idaho, is operating as a public utility, and is subject to the Commission s regulation under the
Idaho Public Utilities Law. Idaho Code ~~ 61-124, 61-125, 61-129.
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter as authorized by Title 61 of the
Idaho Code, and more particularly, Idaho Code ~~ 61-302, 61-501 , 61-502, 61-508 , 61-520, 61-
523.
Spirit Lake is not currently maintaining the facilities necessary to "promote the
safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons, employees and the public, and as shall be
in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable " as required by Idaho law. Idaho Code
61-302. The Commission is authorized to order that improvements and repairs be made to Spirit
Lake s facilities to provide adequate service to its customers. Idaho Code ~ 61-508.
The Company s present rates are insufficient and unreasonable. The rates we
approve as set forth in this Order, based on the record in this case, are fair, just and reasonable.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Spirit Lake East Water Company provide a written
plan to the Commission within 14 days of the service date of this Order, explaining its plan to
install a new generator and to address the system leaks.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Spirit Lake is authorized to increase its montWy
rates from $12 to $12.50 for the first 9 000 gallons of water, and from $0.10 to $0.12 for each
100 gallons in excess of 9 000 gallons, and to increase its new customer connection fee to
500. The Company may file tariffs in conformance with this Order, which shall be effective
for service rendered on and after three days after filing with the Commission.
ORDER NO. 30279
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ~fLJ.-
day of April 2007.
11'/~-v
, PRESIDENT
Ji~
SHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~~v.!
Barbara Barrows
Assistant Commission Secretary
bls/O:SPL-06-01 ws4
ORDER NO. 30279
Spirit lake East Water Co.
2005 Test Year with Proforma Adjustments
Commission Decision on Rate Base and Results of Operations
Staff's Company
Agreed On Amended Commission
Adjusted Reply Comments Decision
Total Total Total
(A)(B)(C)(D)
Total Plant in Service 955 053 967 519 949 053
Accumulated Depreciation (721,487)(721 164)(721 337)
Net Plant in Service 233 566 246 355 227 716
Materials & Supplies Inventories 055 055 055
Contributions in Aid of Construction (70 050)(70 050)(70 050)
Working Capital 732 413 732
Total Rate Base 171 302 184 773 165,452
Operating Revenues 52,789 52,789 789
Operating Expenses
labor- Operation & Maintenance 236 236 236
labor- Administrative & General 200 200 200
Purchased Power & Fuel for Power 734 734 734
Chemicals 224 224 224
Materials & Supplies - Oper & Maint 940 940 940
Materials & Supplies- Admin & Gen 988 988 988
Contract Services- Professional 618 618 618
Contract Services - Water Testing 886 886 886
Transportation Expense 589 589 589
Insurance 121 121 121
Rate Case Amortization 977 427 977
Miscellaneous Expenses 339 339 339
Total Operating Expenses 852 301 852
Depreciation Expense 680 618 380
Regulatory Fees (IPUC)162 162 162
DEQ Fees 092 092 092
Property Taxes 291 291 291
Federal Income Tax 959 (76)008
State Income Tax 441 (70)465
Total Expenses 477 52,319 250
Net Income 312 471 540
Attachment A
Case No. SPl-06-
Order No. 30279