wrkshop.ntc.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF REQUESTED METERING FOR THE BARBERTON/GOLDEN DAWN SERVICE AREA. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. UWI-W-01-1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP

NOTICE OF COMMENT DEADLINE

On December 27, 2000, a Petition for Installation of Individual Water Meters was filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) by nearly one-half of United Water Idaho’s (UWI) customers in the Barberton/Golden Dawn (Barber) service area (previously served by Barber Water Company). As reflected in their Petition
Per UWI, we are the only individual home sites within UWI’s customer base that don’t have our own water meters. The current master meter average billing method, which replaced Barber Water’s billing, is unjustifiably high when compared to other UWI customer bills. It doesn’t give residents ability to manage/reduce their water usage to minimize financial impact. We believe these meters should have been installed prior to any change in billing calculations. Unjustifiably high master meter billing has placed unreasonable economic burdens on many senior citizens residing within our community. We wish to be responsible for managing water usage at our home sites like all other individual UWI customers. Finally, we believe master meters prevent us from giving support to PUC’s position regarding water conservation.
We request the PUC to correct the above concerns by directing UWI to install individual water meters at each of our home sites for the least possible expense to us.

On January 25, 2001, the Commission initiated a formal docket for investigating the metering request of Barberton/Golden Dawn service area customers. United Water Idaho was directed to file comments and a written reply to its customers’ concerns regarding water usage and master metering in the Barberton/Golden Dawn area, the Company’s billing of said customers since date of acquisition and the ramifications of their request for metering. The Commission directed the Company in its comments to specifically address the projected cost of providing individual meters to Barberton/Golden Dawn service area customers and proposals for cost recovery. Recognizing that only half of the Barberton/Golden Dawn customers have requested metering, the Commission also directed the Company to address the issue of selective metering and its ramifications. The Company was also to detail what efforts the Company has made to identify and curtail abusive watering practices of area customers.
On February 14, 2001, the Company responded to the Barber area customers’ Petition for Metering. Subsequent filings by both Barber area customers and the Company have served to clarify the respective positions. The customers contend that their support of the acquisition was based on a Company estimate of future bills ($38/bi-monthly). That estimate unfortunately bears little resemblance to actuality. The Company’s present bill/revenue analysis projects an annual bill to Barber customers of $410.61 ($68.43 bi-monthly). That compares to a system average of $338.69 ($56.44 bi-monthly) and the current flat rate Tariff 1E of $325.74 ($54.29 bi-monthly).
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No. UWIW-01-1 including the Petition, the Company’s Response and related comments. United Water has offered several alternatives regarding the metering of Barberton/Golden Dawn customers. The Commission Staff has reviewed those options. The following is a description of each of the possible outcomes to this case together with the related pros and cons.
Do not install meters and leave the current billing practice in place. Currently all customers share equally the cost of water for everyone.
Pro: Billing system already in place
Some conservation incentive present
Con: Low-use customers subsidize high-use customers
Switch customers to United Water’s current non-contiguous Flat Rate of $54.29 bi-monthly (Tariff Schedule 1E)
Pro: Rate schedule already in place
Customers know in advance what their water bill will be
Con: No conservation incentive
Inability for customers to reduce their bill through reduced consumption
Install meters on all customer connections
Pro: Customers have control of their water consumption and therefore their bill.
Conservation incentive is present.
Con: Expensive. Total estimated cost is $152,508.

If meters are installed the Commission must determine a reasonable and equitable method of paying for the installation. The Commission is considering three methods:
A. Each customer pays for the cost at the time of the installation. The installation cost per customer is $652 plus a tax gross-up (1.68 times) for a total cost per customer of $1,095. The tax-gross up is applicable only in the instance of customer contributions (i.e., customer contribution advance; company investment—customer surcharge).
Pro: No impact on the other customers of the Company.
Con: The required up-front payment may create a financial hardship.
B. Each customer pays for the cost of installation through a bi-monthly surcharge on their water bill over a period of three (3) years.
Pro: No impact on the other customers of the Company.
Con: Bi-monthly cost to customers is estimated to be between $70 and $90 in addition to each customers bi-monthly water bill.
C. United Water incurs the full cost.
Pro: No up-front cost to customers
Con: Future basic water rates will be higher than they would otherwise be.
All other United Water customers subsidize the cost of installation.

Before the Commission issues an Order in this case, the Commission wants input from the affected customers. The Commission finds it reasonable to schedule a public workshop/informational meeting where the Company, Staff and United Water customers can discuss the metering options identified and the “who will pay?” alternatives. Thereafter, customers will be provided an opportunity to submit written comments to the Commission expressing their views and recommendations regarding the metering of Barberton/Golden Dawn customers and related issues regarding cost.

Accordingly, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a public workshop/ informational meeting in Case No. UWI-W-01-1 to discuss metering options and related issues regarding cost and cost responsibility is scheduled for THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2001 COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE COMMISSION HEARING ROOM, 472 WEST WASHINGTON, BOISE, IDAHO.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing written comments or protests with respect to the Petition in Case No. UWI-W-01-1, metering options for Barberton/Golden Dawn customers and related questions regarding cost of metering and who should pay is Friday, June 8, 2001.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that written comments concerning Case No. UWIW-01-1 should be mailed to the Commission, the Company at the addresses reflected below.

COMMISSION SECRETARY
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W WASHINGTON ST
BOISE, ID 83702-5983 DEAN J. MILLER
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
537 W. BANNOCK, SUITE 215 (83702)
PO BOX 2564
BOISE, ID 83701-2564

Attorneys for United Water Idaho Inc.
All comments should contain the case caption and case number shown on the first page of this document.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Petition in Case No. UWI-W-01-1 and related filings can be reviewed at the Commission’s office and at office of United Water Idaho, 8248 W. Victory Road, Boise, ID (Telephone: [phone]).

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of May 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/N:UWI-W-01-01_sw2

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP
NOTICE OF COMMENT DEADLINE 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 14, 2001