10092001.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
LYNN ANDERSON
DAVE SCHUNKE
RICK STERLING
RANDY LOBB
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
OCTOBER 9, 2001 RE: CASE NO. UWI-W-01-03 (United Water)
AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
NO. 143
NON-CONTIGUOUS AREA—BELMONT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (Canyon County)

On September 28, 2001, United Water Idaho Inc. (United Water; Company) filed an Application in Case No. UWI-W-01-03 with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting authorization to amend and revise its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 143 (as Amended) by enlarging and extending its certificated service area boundaries to include the Canyon County residential subdivision of Belmont Heights, an area non-contiguous to its present system and certificated territory. Reference Application Attachment 6, Legal Description; Idaho Code 61-526; Commission Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.112.
United Water contends that the area requested is not within the authorized service territories of any other public utility water corporation under the jurisdiction of the Commission and will not interfere with the operation of any water utility corporation under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Company further contends that there are no known public utilities, persons or corporations with whom the expansion is likely to compete.
United Water represents that the developer of the Belmont Heights Subdivision has requested that United Water provide service. The owner/developers of the subdivisions have executed a “Non-Contiguous Water System Agreement” reference Application Exhibit B. As represented by the Company, the Agreement is identical to standard form of agreements approved by the Commission in previous cases and is consistent with United Water’s rules and regulations governing non-contiguous expansions. Accordingly, construction of facilities will be pursuant to the Company’s rules and regulations governing non-contiguous expansion (Rules 78-84) and pursuant to Rules 74-77 of the Company’s rules relating to water main extensions (special facilities).
United Water contends that the requested expansion of its certificate and service territory is consistent with the public convenience and necessity. The Company represents that the public interest does not require notice or hearing on the issues presented.
Staff Analysis
Staff has reviewed the Company’s Application and proposed Certificate amendment. Staff represents that the Company’s filing satisfies the statutory and procedural requirements for certificate applications. Staff also represents that the Company’s filing and the related submitted Agreement comports with the Company’s rules and regulations governing water main extensions (Rules 74-77—Special Facilities) and non-contiguous expansion (Rules 78-84).
Staff notes that in response to a Staff inquiry the Company provided a letter dated October 12 confirming that “the cost of both the primary and secondary (backup) wells, as well as all associated pumping and treatment equipment including disinfection (chlorination) equipment for Belmont Heights Subdivision, will be borne by the developer.” The cost for these facilities, the Company contends, were included in the cost estimate given to the developer and described in general terms in paragraph 4 of the Non-contiguous Water System Agreement signed by both parties. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Application for Certificate Amendment and authorize construction of facilities and extension of service to Belmont Heights Subdivision in Canyon County.
Commission Decision
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Company’s Certificate Amendment and authorize extension of service to the Belmont Heights Subdivision. Staff contends that the public interest does not require a hearing and recommends that the matter be processed without further notice. Does the Commission agree with Staff’s recommendations? If not, what is the Commission’s preference?

vld/M:UWI-W-01-03_sw

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3