20111213Lobb Di, Exhibits Support Stipulation.pdf

BEFORE THE r".r'(".."t:
t~1=:'''v,/ t,",
r"1L)
"f: i Oçr \'~ Plî \: 48ttl l ~ . ,'t¡';,~t.)l ,v
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COM~~~lQlti
\¡TìL\.r'Ii.~:)' C ...~..;¡i':
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR ) CASE NO. UWI-W-11-02
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE )IN IDAHO )
)
)
)
)
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB
IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION
AND SETTLEMENT
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2011
1
3
2 record.
Q.Please state your name and business address for the
A.My name is Randy Lobb and my business address is
5
4 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho.
6
Q.By who are you employed?
A.I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
8
7 Commission as Utilities Division Administrator.
Q.What is your educational and professional
10
9 background?
A.I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in
11 Agricultural Engineering from the University of Idaho in 1980
12 and worked for the Idaho Department of Water Resources from
13 June of 1980 to November of 1987. I received my Idaho
14 license as a registered professional Civil Engineer in 1985
15 and began work at the Idaho Public Utili ties Commission in
16 December of 1987. I have conducted analysis of utility rate
17 applications, rate design, tariff analysis and customer
18 petitions. I have testified in numerous proceedings before
19 the Commission including cases dealing with rate structure,
20 cost of service, power supply, line extensions, regulatory
21 policy and facility acquisitions. My duties at the
22 Commission currently include case management and oversight of
24
23 all technical Staff assigned to Commission filings.
25
Q.What is the purpose of your testimony in this case?
A.The purpose of my testimony is to describe the
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 1
STAFF
1 comprehensive settlement reach by all parties in this case
2 and to explain Staff's support.
3 Q.Please summarize your testimony.
4 A.Staff supports the Stipulated Settlement proposing
5 a two-year rate plan calling for a $3.05 million (7.96%)
6 increase in year one and a $ 950, 000 (2. 48%) increase in year
7 two with a rate moratorium on additional increases through
8 January 1, 2014. Staff believes that the comprehensive
9 multi-year approach to resolving revenue requirement
10 represents a significantly better deal for customers than
11 could be achieved through either a one-year settlement,
12 litigation of the current rate case, or resolution of
13 additional rate filings in 2012.
14 Staff further supports the cost of service (COS)
15 based increase in monthly meter charges with reasonable
16 deferral and amortization of a variety of Company expenses
17 including establishing a depreciable life for the Customer
18 Care and Billing System (CC&B). Staff agrees to support
19 waiver of the COS study requirement in the next general rate
20 case and to meet with the Company to discuss declining water
21 consumption levels. Finally, Staff supports the low income
23
22 customer provision specified in the Stipulation.
24
Q.How is your testimony organized?
A.My testimony is subdivided under the following
25 headings:
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 2
STAFF
1 Stipulation Overview
The Settlement Process
Staff Evaluation
COS and Rate Design
Other Issues
Page 3
Page 4
Page 6
Page 11
Page 13
2
3
4
5 Stipulation Overview
6 Q.Would you please describe the terms of the
7 Stipulation?
8 A.Yes. The Stipulation specifies a two-year rate
9 plan increasing base rates by $3.05 million (7.96%) in year
10 one and $950,000 million (2.48%) in year two. The
11 Stipulation further specifies that new rates become effective
12 February 1, 2012 and February 1, 2013. The Stipulation
13 prohibits any additional rate increases prior to January 1,
14 2014. The stipulated increase of $4 million (10.44%) over
15 two years compares with the Company's original proposal to
16 increase rates by $7.62 million (19.9%) in 2012.
17 While the Stipulation represents a comprehensive
18 settlement, it does not provide agreement or acceptance of
19 specific revenue requirement adjustments, Return on Equity
20 (ROE) level, or cOst of service methodology. However, it
21 does specify an increase in the customer service charges in
22 excess of the overall revenue percentage increase.
23 Other terms specified in the Stipulation include:
24 1) deferral and amortization of a variety of expenses
25 including those for Power supply, rate case processing, tank
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 3
STAFF
1 painting, employee relocation, pensions and redundant power
2 supply. The Stipulation also specifies a 10-year depreciable
3 life for the Customer Care and Billing System (CC&B). In
4 addition, the Stipulation specifies that the Commission Staff
5 and the Company shall meet to discuss revenue and earnings
6 issues associated with declining per capita consumption by
7 United Water's customers.
8 Finally, the Stipulation specifies agreement
9 between the Company and the Consumer Action Partnership
10 Association of Idaho (CAPAI) on low income customer issues.
12
11 The Stipulation is attached as Staff Exhibit No. 101.
Q.How does the annual base revenue requirement
13 increase proposed in the Stipulation compare to the increase
14 originally proposed by United Water Idaho?
15 A.As noted above, the Company proposed to increase
16 annual revenue in 2012 by $7.62 million or 19.9% overall.
17 The Stipulation increases revenue by $3.05 million in 2012 or
18 approximately 40% of the Company's original request. The
19 Company did not propose a base rate increase in 2013 as part
20 of its filing in this case. However, the two-year revenue
21 increase of $4 million represents approximately 52% of the
22 Company's original one-year request and prohibits any
23 additional increases in 2013.
25
24 The Settlement Process
Q.Would you please describe the process leading to
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 4
STAFF
1 the Stipulated Settlement?
2 A.Yes. The Company filed its rate application on
3 August 3, 2011 and the Commission set a September 1, 2011
4 intervention deadline. CAPAI was the only party to intervene
5 in the case.
6 The Commission issued a procedural order on October
7 5, 2011 establishing a schedule for pre-filed direct
8 testimony, pre- filed rebuttal testimony and the dates for the
9 technical hearing.
10 In preparation for filing its direct testimony,
11 Staff thoroughly reviewed the Company's rate filing and
12 conducted onsite audit of Company expenses and investments.
13 Staff also submitted over 200 production and audit requests
14 to the Company to gather information as part of its
15 investigation.
16 Once Staff had sufficiently completed its
17 identification of issues, adjustments and supporting
18 justification, a settlement conference was scheduled and the
19 parties met on November 16, 2011. The timing of settlement
20 negotiations was important to assure that Staff had time to
21 sufficiently develop its case but still had ample time to
22 prepare testimony in the event settlement was not achieved.
23 Direct testimony was scheduled to be filed on December 13,
24 2011.
25 The primary topic discussed at the settlement
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R . ( S tip) 5
STAFF
1 conference was revenue requirement. Issues included
2 methodology to determine normalized annual water consumption,
3 Return on Equity (ROE), salary expense, pension expense,
4 Customer Information System (CIS) investment and some 20
5 other revenue requirement adj ustments. The parties also
6 discussed annual expense trackers, changes to the customer
7 charge, first block water consumption levels and low income
8 assistance. The possibility of a multi-year rate plan was
9 also discussed during the meeting but settlement was not
10 achieved. The parties met again the next day on November 17
11 to continue negotiations. Once again the parties could not
12 reach agreement on revenue requirement and settlement was not
13 achieved. Staff and the Company continued to negotiate over
14 the next week and through compromise by both parties reached
15 tentative agreement on settlement terms.
16 Staff Evaluation
17 Q.How did Commission Staff evaluate the Stipulation
18 to determine that it was reasonable?
19 A.The primary approach taken by Staff to evaluate the
20 merits of the Stipulation was to compare the revenue
21 requirement increase proposed in the Settlement to the
22 revenue requirement increase that could reasonably be
23 achieved through hearing. The ultimate goal is to achieve
24 the best deal possible for customers regardless of process.
25 During the four-month period since the Company's
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 6
STAFF
1 filing, Staff had the opportunity to thoroughly review
2 company expenses and investments. Staff also extensively
3 evaluated water consumption and economic data to determine if
4 the Company's analysis of historic usage trends and
5 forecasted usage declines were valid.
6 Based on its investigation, Staff believed it could
7 reasonably support recommending a $4.4 million reduction in
8 the Company's revenue requirement request. This would result
9 in an increase of approximately $3.2 million or 8.3% if all
10 of the Staff's recommended adjustments were accepted by the
11 Commission. Staff could not expect that the Commission would
12 approve an increase lower than this amount absent additional
13 adjustments and supporting justification provided on the
14 record. Additionally, Staff was made aware through the
15 negotiation process of potential weaknesses in its case that
16 would be exploited by the Company at hearing. The likely
17 outcome of litigation with Company rebuttal of Staff
18 positions and other evidence on the record would be a
19 reduction in revenue requirement adjustments and a larger
20 overall increase than that proposed by the Staff.
21 Consequently, Staff believed the first year
22 stipulated increase of 7.96% was a better outcome than the
23 best case 8.3% increase identified by Staff. Staff also
24 believed that the overall two-year increase of 10.44% could
25 be a better deal for customers than what would ultimately be
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 7
STAFF
1 approved by the Commission based on the record at hearing.
2 This is particularly true when one considers that the Company
3 is prohibited by the Stipulation from any additional
4 increases until January 1 of 2014. Absent the Stipulation,
5 the Company could realistically be awarded an increase in
6 excess of 10.44% in this case and then file another rate case
8
7 next year.
9
Q.What adjustments did Staff identify?
Staff identified over 30 adjustments but theA.
10 majority of the revenue reduction was concentrated in five
11 main areas. They were ROE, normalized water sales, employee
12 compensation, CC&B investment and working capital. Together
13 these categories made up approximately $4 million of the
14 $4.44 million overall reduction identified by Staff. Other
15 areas of adj ustment included rate case expenses, rate base
16 adjustments, R&I Alliance costs, backup generation costs,
17 water right expenses and other miscellaneous expenses.
18 Q.Why was Staff unable to identify sufficient
19 adjustments to eliminate the need for a rate increase?
20 A.The drivers of the Company's revenue request
21 increase in this case were primarily additional Company
22 investment, increases for power, pensions, chemicals and
23 other operational expenses and declining revenues to recover
24 fixed costs. Some expense increases for things like power
25 supply, property taxes, chemicals and cash contributions to
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 8
STAFF
1 pensions are direct pass-through revenue requirements that
2 are subject to limited adjustment. Some new investments for
3 things such as pipelines, filtration and pumping are clearly
4 required for providing adequate service and are also subj ect
5 to limited adjustment. It is these categories of costs that
6 are justified and simply must be paid for, creating an
7 unavoidable revenue requirement increase.
8 Moreover, Company investments and expense levels
9 previously approved for recovery by United Water in prior
10 rate cases require a higher level of justification to be
11 removed as unreasonable in this case. Consequently, Staff
12 focused on those investments and expenses that were
13 questionable, incurred at the discretion of the Company and
14 not previously approved by the Commission.
15 Q.Doesn't reduction in the Company proposed ROE
16 provide significant opportunity to reduce the requested
17 revenue requirement increase?
18 A.Yes it does and the Staff incorporated an ROE in
19 its revenue requirement calculation that was significantly
20 below that recommended by the Company. In fact Staff's
21 suggested ROE was significantly below anything approved by
22 the Commission for an Idaho utility in the last 20 years.
23 Disagreement among the parties over appropriate ROE
24 is the reason it is not specified in the Stipulation. In
25 Staff's opinion, the possibility of a lower Commission
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 9
STAFF
1 ordered ROE as a result of hearing and Staff's agreement to
2 not specify ROE in the Stipulation is one reason why a lower
3 overall revenue requirement could be achieved by Stipulation.
4 Q.The Company has cited declining water sales as one
5 of the reason a rate increase is needed at this time. You
6 also previously mentioned that Staff evaluated water
7 consumption and economic data to determine if the Company's
8 analysis of historic usage trends and forecasted usage
9 declines were valid. How does the Stipulation address this
10 issue?
11 A.Besides ROE, determination of normalized test year
12 water consumption was the most controversial issue addressed
13 during settlement negotiations. Staff did not believe the
14 Company's historic trend analysis and forecast of normalized
15 annual water consumption was valid. Although the conclusions
16 reached regarding consumption levels were significantly
17 different, neither the Staff nor the Company would concede on
18 method of analysis or results. Consequently, the Stipulation
19 does not specifically accept or identify declining water
20 consumption trends.
21 However, Staff believes the stipulated revenue
22 requirement increase captures the effect of Staff's adjusted
23 normalized consumption levels. In other words, much of the
24 Company's proposed rate increase due to reduced water
25 consumption has been removed. To the extent Staff's
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 10
STAFF
1 consumption adjustment is captured in overall revenue
2 requirement, the Company can continue to use its proposed
3 level of consumption to establish commodity rates.
4 To further address this issue, the Stipulation
5 provides for meetings between Staff and the Company to
6 discuss revenue and earnings instability associated with
7 declining per capita consumption by United Water's customers.
8 The rate moratorium period will also allow for further
9 analysis of consumption level trends.
11
10 COS and Rate Design
Q.Has Staff reviewed the Company's cost of service
13
12 study?
14
15
A.Yes, it has.
Q.What terms in the Stipulation pertain to COS?
A.While the COS study is not specifically accepted in
16 the Stipulation, it is used to establish stipulated bi-
17 monthly customer charges.
18
19
Q.Is the Company's COS study used in any other way?
No. Consequently, the parties to the StipulationA.
20 agreed that Commission rules requiring a COS filing with each
21 application for a general rate increase be waived for the
22 Company's next general rate case filing. Staff believes the
23 waiver will reduce rate case costs and improve efficiency of
25
24 case processing without sacrificing necessary information.
Q.Why does Staff support use of the COS for the
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-02
12/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 11
STAFF
1 purpose of establishing customer charges?
2 A.The Company's proposed COS study shows that current
3 bi-monthly customer charges do not cover all fixed costs
4 associated with providing water service. Staff does not
5 dispute the COS findings in this regard. However, Staff
6 maintains, as it has in past cases, that the customer charge
7 should only recover fixed costs associated with meter
8 reading, billing services, and a portion the costs for meters
9 and services. In Staff's opinion, applying the Company's COS
10 for this category of costs justifies the above average
11 increase in customer charges.
12 Q.What does the Stipulation provide in terms of rate
13 design?
14 A.The Stipulation provides for an increase in the bi-
15 monthly customer charge for each meter size based on the
16 Company's original COS based proposal. For example, the
17 Company originally proposed to increase the bimonthly
18 customer charge for a 3/4 inch metered customer from $18.10
19 to $23.20, an increase of 28.18% when the proposed overall
20 revenue increase was 19.9%. Applying the same ratio to a
21 stipulated overall revenue increase in year one of 7.96%
22 produces a bi-monthly increase from $18.10 to $20.10 or
23 approximately 11.1%. Bi-monthly charges for all other meter
24 sizes were then determined based on their ratio to the 3/4
25 inch metered rate.
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 12
STAFF
1 The ratio would also be applied to the year two
2 increase. The bimonthly rate would increase from $20.10 to
3 $20.78 for an approximate 3.48% increase when the overall
4 rate increase in year two is only 2.48%.
5 Commodity rates would all increase uniformly to
6 generate the necessary increase each year. In year one the
7 commodity rate would increase by 6.48% and in year two it
8 would increase by an additional 1.89%. Staff Exhibit No. 102
9 shows how customer charges and commodity rates change over
10 the two-year period.
11 Q.What is the impact of the rate changes on customer
12 bills at various consumption levels?
13 A.Customers with 5/8 or 3/4 inch meters using 10
14 cubic feet (CFT) of water bi-monthly would see their summer
15 bi-monthly bills increase from $33.99 to $37.01 in the first
16 year and to $38.01 in the second year. Non summer bills
17 would increase from $31.62 to $34.48 in year one and to
18 $35.45 in year two.
19 Customers using 100 CFT would see bi-monthly summer
20 bills increase from $186.11 to $198.87 in year one and to
21 $202.80 in year two. Staff Exhibit No. 103 shows how bi-
22 monthly bills will change for residential customers in summer
23 at various consumption levels.
24 Other Issues
25 Q.Could you please explain Staff's support for the
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 13
STAFF
1 expense deferrals specified in the Stipulation?
2 A.Yes. There are six expense deferrals specifically
3 identified in the Stipulation. They are: 1) Power Supply
4 Expense; 2) Rate Case Expense; 3) Tank Painting Expense; 4)
5 Pension Expense; 5) Relocation Expense; and 6) Redundant
6 Power Expense.
7 Two of the expenses identified in the Stipulation
8 for deferral and amortization, Power supply and rate case
9 expenses, constitute a continuation of accounting and cost
10 recovery previously approved by the Commission in Order No.
11 31029 issued in Case No UWI-W-09-01. Staff therefore
12 supports continued amortization over three years of these
13 unamortized costs.
14 Staff further supports a deferral and three-year
15 amortization of the actual rate case expenses associated with
16 this case. While Staff has questions regarding the amount of
17 costs recoverable from customers, it believes the overall
18 stipulated revenue increase incorporates these concerns and
19 allows for near full amortization of this additional expense
20 during the rate moratorium period.
21 Staff also agrees that it is reasonable to allow
22 deferral for amortization of tank painting expense as
23 specified by the Stipulation. Staff believes that expenses
24 associated with painting the Hillcrest Storage reservoir are
25 justified and the accounting treatment is consistent with
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 14
STAFF
1 Commission treatment of similar expenses in the past.
2 Staff has also agreed to the deferral with
3 amortization of relocation and redundant power expenses as
4 specified in the Stipulation. Staff maintains that concerns
5 regarding the level of appropriate cost recovery of these
6 items have been incorporated in the overall stipulated
7 revenue requirement. In addition, Staff believes that any
8 specific recovery of unamortized relocation costs can be
9 addressed in a future rate case. Staff also believes that
10 the 5-year amortization of redundant power supply costs
11 associated with removal of non-salvageable plant is
12 reasonable.
13 Q.Why did Staff agree to deferral and amortization of
14 pension expense?
15 A.Staff agreed to deferral and amortization of
16 pension expense as a compromise in this case and to recognize
17 that pension expense can fluctuate significantly from year to
18 year in much the same way that power supply expense
19 fluctuates. Staff agrees that it is reasonable to allow the
20 Company to defer actual cash contributions to the Company's
21 pension plan in excess of annual amounts included in base
22 rates and request recover in a subsequent rate case. The
23 deferral balance is symmetrical in that it can decrease if
24 actual contributions are less that those embedded in base
25 rates.
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-02
12/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 15
STAFF
1 Q.Why does the Stipulation specify a useful life of
3
2 10 years for the Company's CC&B system?
A.The Stipulation specifies a useful life for the
4 CC&B system in order for the Company to calculate
5 depreciation expense and begin depreciation of the equipment.
6 The Company had originally proposed a seven year life. The
7 Staff proposed ten year depreciable life results in a lower
8 annual depreciation expense and a lower overall revenue
10
9 requirement than would have otherwise occurred.
Q.Would you please explain Staff's support for the
12
11 low income customer provisions in the Stipulation?
A.The low income customer provisions specified in the
13 Stipulation deal with modification of existing United Water
14 programs to: 1) increase the benefit cap United Water
15 provides to each qualified customer; 2) to increase the
16 matching cap for funding provided by United Water through UW
17 Cares; and 3) provide CAPAI with low income customer water
18 use information and additional water conservation devices for
19 distribution to low income customers. Staff believes these
20 recommendations are reasonable and supports all of the modest
21 low income customer program enhancements. Staff also notes
22 that the changes have little or no revenue requirement impact
23 in this case.
24
25
Q.Does that conclude your testimony?
A.Yes, it does.
CASE NO. UWI-W-11-0212/13/11 LOBB, R. (Stip) 16
STAFF
C~
.....¡,\..ll
~,;Lr
Dean J. Miller (ISB No. 1968)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Banock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ìoe(gmcdevitt-miler.com
Attorneys for United Water Idaho Inc.
r 1i'..." ~rii~:: io
Weldon Stutzan (ISB No. 3283)
DEPUTY ATTORNY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
weldon.stutzan(gpuc.idaho.gov
mail to: Attorneys for Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMlSSION
IN TH MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF UNTED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR
AUTHORIY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHAGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN
TH STATE OF IDAHO
)
) CASE NO. UW-W-1l-2
)
) SETTLEMENT STIPULATION
)
)
This Settlement Stipulation (Stipulation) is entered into by and among United Water
Idao Inc., (United Water, Company), the Sta of the Idao Public Utilities Commssion (Sta
and Communty Action Parership Association of Idao (CAPAI, the sole intervenor in ths
cae (collectively, Pares).
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION i
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 1 of 20
INTRODUCTION
The Pares agree the Stipulation represents a fai, just and reasonable compromise of
the issues rased in United Water's Application for an increase in water servce rates, and the
Stipulation is in the public's interest. The Pares believe the Stipulation and its acceptace
by the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion (Commsion) represents a reasonable resolution of
the several issues identified in ths matter. The Pares, therefore, recommend tht the
Commssion, in accordance with Rule of Procedure (R) 274, approve the Stipulation and al
of its terms and conditions without material chage or condition.
BACKGROUN
~
1. On Augut 3,2011, United Water filed an Application seekig authority to increase the
Company's rates for water servce in the State ofIdaho by an average, of 19.89%. If
approved, the Company's revenues would increase by $7,616,015 anualy. The
Company requested the new rates become effective September 2, 2011.
2. On August 18,2011, the Commssion issued Order No. 32333, suspending United
Water's proposed effective date for a period of 30 days plus five (5) months frm
September 2,2011. On the same date, the Commssion issued Order No. 32334, grantig
CAP AI'S Petition for Intervention.
3. On October 5,2011, the Commssion issued Order 32376, establishig a procedural
schedule, includig a techncal hearng to commence on Febru 1, 2011.
4. Afer the filing of the Application, Commssion Sta conducted a thorough audit and
investigation of the Company's Application. Commssion Sta propounded numerous
SETTLEMENT S:rIPULTION 2
Exhibit No, 101
Case No, UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 2 of20
Audit Requests and Production Request, to which United Water provided tiely
responses.
5. On November 16, 17 and 18,2011, representatives of the Pares met to engage in
settement discussions in accordace with RP 272, with a view toward resolvig the
issues in ths case.
6. Based on the settement discussions, as a compromise of the positions in ths case, and
for other considerations as set fort below, the Paries agee to the followig term.
TERMS OF THE STIPULATION
7. Fair Resolution. The settlement is reached as a fair resolution to severa disputed issues
between the pares, recogng that neither par was likely to prevail on every issue at
hearg. The settlement results in a revenue increase tht is reasonable, but without
resolving specific issues which were in dispute between the Company and Staf.
8. Revenue Reguirement. Regarding United Water's revenue requiement, the Pares agree
tht United Water should be allowed to implement revised taff schedules, in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A, to recover $3,050,000 in additional revenue effective
Februar 1,2012, which is an overall increase of 7.96%, and to recovér an additiona
$950,000 effective Febru 1,2013, which is an additional incree of2.48%. The
Pares have agreed to ths phaed-in recovery of the tota agreed increase, to mitigate the
rate impact on customers that would otherwse occur in a single year, and spread the
increase durg the period the Company is precluded from fiing an additiona rate case.
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION 3
Exhibit No, 101
Case No, UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 3 of20
9. Rate Sprea and Rate Design. As reflected by Exhbit A, the Pares agree tht the
additiona revenue requirement should be recovered by implementing tarffs which
increase rates and charges on Febru 1,2012 and Febru 1,2013.
10. Rate Case Moratorium. United Water agrees tht it will not file a general revenue
requiement rate case tht results in an effective date for new rates prior to Janua 1,
2014.
11. Deferrs. The Pares agree tht the Commssion's Final Order in ths matter may also
approve the followig deferrals and amortzation periods.
a) Deferred Power Expense: There remais an unorted balance of deferred Idao
Power Company PCA electrc power expense from the deferral and amorttion
authorized by Order No.3 1029, Case No. UWI-W-09-01 in the amount of $365,570
as of Janua 31,2012, which sha be re-amortized over a period of th-six (36)
months, commencing Februar 1, 2012. It is estimated that the pendig deferred
power balance as of Janua 31, 2012, wi be approxiately $185,000, which
balance shall be amorted over a period of th-six (36) month, commencing
Febru 1,2012. The Company shall contiue to defer for later amortzation all
amounts biled by Idao Power Company under its PCA. The carg chage on the
unortzed balances shall be the interest rate determed by the Commssion as the
interest rate on customer deposits pursuat to Rule 106 of the Commssion's
Customer Relations Rules, IDAPA 31.0,1.21.
b) Rate Case Expense: There remai an unortzed balance of deferred rate case
expense from the deferral and amorttion authoried by Order No. 31029, Case No.
UW-W-09-0l, which balance shall be re-amortzed over a perod of th-six (36)
SETTLEMENT STIPULTION 4
Exhibit No. 101
Case No, UWI-W-11-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 4 of 20
month. The Company shal defer and amorte its actu rate cae expense incured
in ths proceeding over a period of th-six (36) month, commencing Febru 1,
2012.
c) Tan Paitings: Expense incured by the Company for the paitig and rehabiltation
of the Hilcrest water storae reservoir amountig to $230,134 may be deferred and
amortzed over a twenty (20) year period begig Febru 1,2012.
d) Pension Expense: The actu cash contrbutions to the Company's ERISA pension
plan for the plan year 2010 was $1,300,769. In subsequent plan years, should the
actu cash contrbutions exceed, or be less th the 2010 plan year contrbution, the
Company is authoried to record a deferred asset or liabilty for the difference
between the actual cash contrbution in each of the subsequent year and the 2010
plan year amount. Such amounts so deferred will be presented by the Company for
amorttion in its next genera rate proceedg and, if prudently made as determed
by examation by the Commssion, United Water can expect, in the ordiar course
of events, to amortze the deferred asset or liabilty over a period not to exceed thee
(3) years in its next general rate fi1ing. The Company is also authorized to apply the
Commssion authoried interest rate on customer deposits, pursuat to Rule 106 of
the Commssion's Customer Relations Rules, IDAPA 31.01.21, as a caring
chage/accrued interest to the deferred asset or liabilty until such tie as the deferr
is incorporated into the revenue requiement of the general rate case.
e) Relocation Expense: The Company may defer the actu expenses incured up to the
$125,000 included in ths case relate to the item labeled relocation expense in
Adjustment 11 in Exhbit No.1 1, accompanyig the Direct Testiony of Jarla
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION 5
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 5 of20
Car. The deferred amount sha not be subject to a carg chage. Such amounts
so deferred will be amortized over sixty (60) month beginng the later of the month
afr the deferral is booked or Febru 1,2012. The unortzed amount may be
presented by the Company for inclusion in its next genera rate proceedig and, if
prudently made as determed by examtion by the Commssion, United Water can
expect, in the ordi course of events, to include the anua amorttion in its next
genera rate filing.
f) Redundat Power: The Company may defer and amortze over a penod of five (5)
years begig Febru 1,2012, the $74,272 expense item labeled redundat
power expense, in Adjusent No. 16 in Exhbit 11, accompanyig the Direct
Testony of Jarla Car.
g) Other Deferrs: Except as modified by ths Stipulation, the Company may continue
to amortze other deferrals previously authoried in Case No. UW-W-04-04, Case
No. UWI-W-06-02 and Case No. UWI-09-01.
12. Depreciable Life of Customer Care and Biling System (CC&B). For the purose of
calculatig book depreciation expense on the CC&B system, the usefu life of the system
shall be considered to be a penod often (10) years, commencing November 1,2011.
13. Per Meter Charges and Cost of Serce Study. The adjustments to the Company's Bi-
Monthy Per Meter Chage as shown on Exhbit A does not reflect a unform percentage
increase to al rate elements. Intead the adjustments reflect a movement toward
recoverig appropnate customer costs in the Per Meter Chage, as supported by the Cost
of Service Study sponsored by Company witness Herbert. In its next general rate
proceedig, the Company will not seek fuer adjustment to the Per Mete Chage,
SETTLEMENT STIPULTION 6
Exhibit No, 101
Case No, UWI-W-ll-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 6 of20
except on a unform percentage increase basis. Accordiy, with respect to its next
genera rate proceedig, the provision ofRP 121 (Ol)(e), requing tht a cost of servce
stdy be submitted with an Application for a chage of rates, may be waived.
14. Issues for Furer Discussion. With a reasonable tie afer the entr of a Fin Order in
ths matter, the Commission Staf and the Company shal convene a conference, or series
of conferences, to discuss potential rate makg mechasms aied at addressing revenue
and eargs intabilty associated with the observed trend of decling per capita
consumption by United Water's customers.
15. Low Income Issues. United Water and CAPAI have agreed on the followig mattrs
with respect to low income cusomers:
a) The curent anua per customer cap of $50 for receipt of benefits under the UW
Cares Program shall be increased to $65 per customer, per year, for quaified
customers;
b) The anual "matching cap" of $20,000 contrbuted by United Water to the UW Cares
shall be removed;
c) With a reasonable time, United Water wil provide to CAP AI an anysis of water
consumption patterns of a representative sample of customers who have received
benefits from the UW Cares Program;
d) With a reasonable tie, United Water will provide to CAPAI the other inormation
requested in CAPAI's First Production Requests to United Water, filed in ths cae;
e) In order to enhance water conservation opportties for low income customers,
United Water will make available to requestg CAP AI agencies residential water
conservation devices for distrbution to low income cusomer. With a reasonable
SETTLEMENT STIULATION 7
Exhibit No, 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 7 of20
tie United Water and CAP AI wil meet and confer with a view toward developing
protocols for inurg kits are delivered only to United Water customers and
appropriate record keeping is maitaed.
16. Just and Reasonable: Best Efforts. The Paries agree tht ths Stipulation is in the
public's interest and tht all of its term and conditions are fai, just and reasonable. The
Pares agree to use their best effort to obta Commssion approval of the Stipulation in
order to have new rates implemented by Febru 1, 2012.
17. No Acknowledgement. No Par shal be bound, benefited or prejudiced by any position
asserted in the negotiation of ths Stipulation, except to the extent expressly stated herein
nor shal ths Stipulation be constred as a waiver of the rights of any Par uness such
rights are expressly waived herein. Execution of ths Stipulation shal not be deemed to
constitute an acknowledgement by any Par of the validity or invalidity of any parcular
method, theory or priciple of reguation or cost recovery. No Par shal be deemed to
have agreed that any method, theory or principle of reguation or cost recovery employed
in arvig at ths Stipulation is appropriate for resolving any issues in any other
proceeding in the futue. No fmdigs of fact or conclusion of law other than those stated
herein shall be deemed to be implicit in ths Stipulation.
18. Commission Approval. The obligations of the Pares under ths Stipulation are subject
to the Commssion's approval of ths Stipulation in accordace with its term and
conditions.
19. Confdentiality. The Pares agree tht ths Stipulation represents a compromise of the
positions of the Pares. Therefore, other th any testiony flled in support of the
approval of ths Stipulation, and except to the extent necessar for a Par to explai
SETTLEMENT STIPULTION 8
Exhibit No, 101
Case No, UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 8of20
before the Commssion its own statements and positions with respect to the Stipulation,
as diected by RP 272, all sttements mae and positions taen in negotiations relatig to
ths Stipulation shal be confdential and will not be adissible in evidence in ths or any
other proceedig.
20. Best Effort. The Pares submit ths Stipulation to the Commssion and recommend
approval in its entiety. Pares shal support ths Stipulation before the Commssion, and
no Par shal appeal a Commission Order approving the Stipulation or an issue resolved
by the Stipulation. If ths Stipulation is chalenged by any person not a par to the
Stipulation, the Pares to ths Stipulation reserve the right to file testiony, cross-
exame witnesses, and put on such case as they deem appropriate to respond fuy to the
issues presented, including the right to raise issues tht are incorporated in the settements
embodied in ths Stipulation. Notwthstdig ths reservation of rights, the Pares to ths
Stipulation agee that they will contiue to support the Commssion's adoption of the
terms of ths Stipulation.
21. Right to Withdraw. If the Commssion rejects any par or all of ths Stipulation, or
imposes any additiona material conditions on approval of ths Stipulation, each Par
reserves the right, upon wrtten notice to the Commssion and the other Pares to ths
proceedig, with foureen (14) days of the date of such action by the Commssion, to
withdrw from ths Stipulation. In such case, no Par shal be bound or prejudiced by the
terms of ths Stipulation, and each Par shall be entitled to seek reconsideraton of the
Commssion's Order, file testiony as it chooses, cross-exame witnesses, and do all
other thgs necessa to put on such case as it deems appropriate.
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION 9
Exhibit No, 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 9 of 20
22. Counterpar. Ths Stipulation may be executed in counterpar and each signed
counterpar shal constute an origi document.
.,~
Respectfly submitted ths 1- day of December, 2011.
By 1
WeldonB. S an
Deput Art mey General
Attorney for Commission Sta
Brad Purdy Law Ofce
B
SETTLMENT STIULTION
Association of
10
Exhibit No, 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 10 of20
Sheet NO.3
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.1
GENERAL METERED SERVICE
Availabilty: To all metered customers not served under a sepa.rate schedule.
Customer Charges:Bi-Monthly Bi-Monthly
Per Meter Per Meter
Meter Size Charge Charge
5/8"-3/4 $~$20.10
1"$23 $25.70
1-1/4" and 1-1/2"$38.55 $44.00
2" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $55.65 $68.20
3" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $102.23 $133.10
4" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $162.71 $248.20
6" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $313.15 $414.50
8" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $472.39 $542.20
10" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $660.37 $780.30
Volume Charge:Winter Winter
Rates Rates
For all water used less than 3CCF (100 cubic $1.3521 $1.4388
Feet) (CCF)(1 CCF=748 gallons):
For all water used greater than 3CCF $1.3521 $1.4388
Volume Charge:Summer Summer
Rates Rates
For all water used less than 3CCF (100 cubic $1.3521 $1.4388
Feet) (CCF)(1 CCF=748 gallons):
For all water used greater than 3CCF $1.6902 $1.7985
Conditions of Contract:
The customer shall pay the total of the customer charge plus the volume charge. The
volume charge is based on all metered water for the billng period. Consumption is
expressed in hundred cubic foot units or thousand gallon units as determined by the
meter installed by the Company. The customer charge wil be prorated whenever the
customer has not been a customer for the entire biling period.
Summer Period:
The summer rate wil apply to water consumed between May 1 and September 30.
Meter readings straddling these dates wil be prorated. '
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective -February 1, 2012 through
Januar 31,2013.
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 10
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt, Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, ID
Exhibit No, 101
Case No, UWI-W-11-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 11 of20
Sheet NO.5
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.1 B
FLAT RATE SERVICE
Availabilty:
To non-metered residential customers pursuant to Residential or Multi-Family
Housing Non-Contiguous Water Systems Agreement Paragraph 11 (a) addressing
flat rate systems.
Customer Charges:
Based on United Water Idaho residential consumption for the year ending June
1998 of 208.75 ccf, the average residential bil, assuming a %" meter and 65% I
35% summerlwinte~ split, is $434.16/ $468.90. Biled bi-monthly, equals $72.36/
$78.15.
Bi-Monthly Charge:$ 72.36 $78.15
Conditions of Contract:
The monthly charge wil be prorated whenever the customer has not been a
customer for the entire billng period. The Company or the customer may convert
to metered service pursuant to Subparagraphs (b) or (c) of Paragraph 11 as
follows:
(b) If Company should determine that a flat rate customer is using water in
excess of the average residential customer, the Company wil provide a
meter setting and meter. Customer wil then pay Company's metered tariff
rates as approved by the IPUC, which rates may be amended from time to
time.
(c) If a customer prefers to pay Company's approved metered tariff rates, the
customer shall pay the installation and material costs associated with the
installation of a meter setting.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2012 through
January 31,2013.
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 OF 10
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt, Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWl-W-11-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 12 of20
Sheet NO.3
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.2
PUBLIC HYDRANTS AND STREET SPRINKLING
Availabilty:
To the City of Boise and Ada County Highway District.
Rates:
Street Sprinkling Service
Flat Charge $239.9SlMonth $268.78/Month
Miscellaneous:
Bils wil be rendered monthly, bi-monthly, or at other intervals upon mutual
agreement of the Company and the customer.
Hydrants and service pipes from the fitting on the Company main to the hydrants
are to be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the City of Boise or
Ada County Highway District.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2012 through
January 31,2013.
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 OF 10
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No, UWI-W-LL-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 13 of20
.
Sheet NO.4
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.3
PRIVATE FIRE SPRINKLER AND SERVICE
Availabilty:
To all customers who have sprinkler systems and/or inside hose connections for
fire fighting purposes.
Rate:
For service through a separate line for fire fighting purposes.
For 3" service or smaller, per month
For 4" service per month
For 6" service per month
For 8" service per month
For 10" service per month
For 12" service per month
$16.84
$24.01
$69.63
$97.98
$162.80
$228.87
$17.74
$26.89
$66.79
$109.74
$171.14
$256.33
Miscellaneous:
Provided that if the installation of a private fire service shall require an extension of
the existing mains of the company, the cost of such extension shall be borne by the
customer.
All private fire services shall be equipped with sealed gate valves or thermal
automatic openings.
Meters may be placed on fire services by the utilty at any time; however, metered
rates wil not apply unless improper use of water is disclosed, and if such be the
case, usage wil be biled to the consumer under Rate Schedule NO.1.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effectve - February 1,2012 through
January 31,2013.
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 4 OF 10
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt, Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-LL-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 14 of20
.
Sheet NO.5
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.4
PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT SERVICE
Availabilty:
To all customers having private fire hydrant installations.
Rate:
For fire hydrants installed and maintained by the customer at customets
expense:
Each fire hydrant, per month $Q $10.75/Month
Miscellaneous:
Service pipe from the fitting on the company water main to the fire hydrant is to be
installed and maintained by the customer.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2012 through
January 31, 2013.
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 5 OF 10
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt, Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 15 of20
,
Sheet NO.3
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.1
GENERAL METERED SERVICE
Availabilty: To all metered customers not served under a separate schedule.
Customer Charges:Bi-Monthly Bi-Monthly
Per Meter Per Meter
Meter Size Charge Charge
5/8"-3/4 $20.10 $20.80
1"$2&$26.60
1-1/4" and 1-1/2"$44 $45.50
2" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $68.20 $70.60
3" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $133.10 $137.70
4" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $248.20 $256.90
6" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $414.50 $428.90
8" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $542.20 $561.10
10" or multiple meters of equivalent capacity $780.30 $807.40
Volume Charge:Winter Winter
Rates Rates
For all water used less than 3CCF (100 cubic $1.4388 $1.4647
Feet) (CCF)(1 CCF=748 gallons):
For all water used greater than 3CCF $1.4388 $1.4647
Volume Charge:Summer Summer'
Rates Rates
For all water used less than 3CCF (100 cubic $1.4388 $1.4647
Feet) (CCF)(1 CCF=748 gallons):
For all water used greater than 3CCF $1.7Q85 $1.8310
Conditions of Contract:
The customer shall pay the total of the customer charge plus the volume charge. The
volume charge is based on all metered water for the biling period. Consumption is
expressed in hundred cubic foot units or thousand gallon units as determined by the
meter installed by the Company. The customer charge wil be prorated whenever the
customer has not been a customer for the entire biling period.
Summer Period:
The summer rate wil apply to water consumed between May 1 and September 30.
Meter readings straddling these dates wil be prorated.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2013
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC, Exhibit No 101
Gregory P, Wyatt, Vice Pres~dent Case No. UWI-W-11-02
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10 R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 16 of20
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 6 OF 10
li
/
Sheet NO.5
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.1 B
FLAT RATE SERVICE
Availabilty:
To non-metered residential customers pursuant to Residential or Multi-Family
Housing Non-Contiguous Water Systems Agreement Paragraph 11 (a) addressing
flat rate systems.
Customer Charges:
Based on United Water Idaho residential consumption for the year ending June
1998 of 208.75 ccf, the average residential bil, assuming a %" meter and 65% /
35% summer/winter split, is $468.90 l$479.34. Biled bi-monthly, equals $78.15l
$79.89.
Bi-Monthly Charge:+&$79.89
Conditions of Contract:
The monthly charge wil be prorated whenever the customer has not been a
customer for the entire biling period. The Company or the customer may convert
to metered service pursuant to Subparagraphs (b) or (c) of Paragraph 11 as
follows:
(b) If Company should determine that a flat rate customer is using water in
excess of the average residential customer, the Company wil provide a
meter setting and meter. Customer wil then pay Company's metered tariff
rates as approved by the IPUC, which rates may be amended from time to
time.
(c) If a customer prefers to pay Company's approved metered tariff rates, the
customer shall pay the installation and material costs associated with the
installation of a meter setting.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2013
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 7 OF 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No, UWI-W-LL-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page17of20
l
\
Sheet NO.8
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.2
PUBLIC HYDRANTS AND STREET SPRINKLING
Availabilty:
To the City of Boise and Ada County Highway District.
Rates:
Street Sprinkling Service
Flat Charge $268.78!Month $277.90/Month
Miscellaneous:
Bills wil be rendered monthly, bi-monthly, or at other intervals upon mutual
agreement of the Company and the customer.
Hydrants and service pipes from the fitting on the Company main to the hydrants
are to be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the City of Boise or
Ada County Highway District.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2013
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt; Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, ID
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 8 OF 10
Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 18 of20
..
"Sheet NO.9
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.3
PRIVATE FIRE SPRINKLER AND SERVICE
Availabilty:
To all customers who have sprinkler systems and/or inside hose connections for
fire fighting purposes.
Rate:
For service through a separate line for fire fighting purposes.
For 3" service or smaller, per month
For 4" service per month
For 6" service per month
For 8" service per month
For 10" service per month
For 12" service per month
$17.74
$26.89
$66.79
$109.74
$171.14
$256.33
$18.34
$27.80
$69.05
$113.46
$176.94
$265.03
Miscellaneous:
Provided that if the installation of a private fire service shall require an extension of
the existing mains of the company, the cost of such extension shall be borne by the
customer.
All private fire services shall be equipped with sealed gate valves or thermal
automatic openings.
Meters may be placed on fire services by the utilty at any time; however, metered
rates wil not apply unless improper use of water is disclosed, and if such be the
case, usage wil be biled to the consumer under Rate Schedule NO.1.
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No,
Effective - February 1, 2013
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, ID
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 9 OF 10 Exhibit No. 101
Case No. UWI-W-11-02
R, Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 19 of20
Sheet No. 10
Replacing all Previous Sheets
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SCHEDULE NO.4
PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT SERVICE
Availabilty:
To all customers having private fire hydrant installations.
Rate:
For fire hydrants installed and maintained by the customer at customets
expense:
Each fire hydrant, per month $10.75 $11.12/Month
Miscellaneous:
Serviæ pipe from the fitting on the company water main to the fire hydrant is to be
installed and maintained by the customer.
,.
"
UNITED
Issued Per IPUC Order No.
Effective - February 1, 2013
Issued by UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
Gregory P. Wyatt, Vice President
8248 West Victory Road, Boise, 10
STIPULATION EXHIBIT A PAGE 10 OF 10 Exhibit No. 101
Case No, UWI-W-11-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11 Page 20 of 20
United Water Idaho Inc.
Stipulation Bi-Monthly Rates
UWI.W-11.02
Present Percent Percent
Rate Increase Increase
2011
Bi.Monthly
Customer Charge
5/8 - 3/4 18.10 11.05%3.48%
1 23.79 8.03%3.50%
1 1/2 38.55 14.14%3.41%
2 55.65 22.55%3.52%
3 102.23 30.20%3.46%
4 162.71 52.54%3.51%
6 313.15 32.36%3.47%
8 472.39 14.78%3.49%
10 660.37 18.16%3.47%
Winter Rates
Usage up to 3 CCF 1.3521 6.41%1.80%
Greater than 3 CCF 1.3521 6.41%1.80%
Summer Rates
Usage up to 3 CCF 1.3521 6.41%1.80%
Greater than 3 CCF 1.6902 6.41%1.81%
Flat Rate 72,36 8.00%2.23%
Private Fire. Monthly
3" and smaller 15.84 11.99%3.38%
4"24.01 12.00%3.38%
6"59.63 12.01%3.39%
8"97.98 12.00%3.39%
10"152.80 12.00%3.39%
12"228.87 12.00%3.39%
Sprinkler 239,98 12.00%3.39%
Hydrant 9,60 11.98%3.42%
Exhibit No. 102
Case No. UWI-W-ll-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11
~foIIV!:ii.eu
E
E:iII
V!:i0.¡:
!:..II
~N00eui
E .e '1II'10:2 ==..V!i.:i eu iu..3:i.IIeu3::i..eu 'a Ö:æ eu Z...e .e euuV!c :i II.i U~N)iiu.a.~i.
.E
V!..UIIQ.
.5
ii
ol..'1 '*'*'*'*'*'*'*c ~Neui O'N N 00 0 oq N)U )-i..-".-O'O'00 00i.)-eu !Ê m N N ,.,.,.,.i:Q
O'.-Lt 0 0 0 0.-0 N 00 O'N "
ii eu Lt OÔ ,.N Lt Lt cie.N m .-0 00 m Lt..II .-N m O'00~.e .-'U
'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
)-O'.-Lt 0 0 0 0.~m N oq 0 .-oq O''a eu .."ci N ui ..cr0e..-O'00 1..-N
E II .-m O'00
V!E .e .-'
eu u..0IIU 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'Ia:Ni.i.0 0 0 0 0 0 0IIeueu00000000000000
~E e.ci ci ci 0 ci ci ci0IINNNNNNN..V!.e:i UU 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
ol..'1 ..'*'*'*'*'*'*'*C i C
eu i.eu 0 00 m 1.oq .-1.U )-V!N 00 N 00 1.Lt oqi.eu cieu!Ê i.oô "i.i.i.i.i:i:.-
Q
N .-Lt "N "N
eu oq 0 O'00 "N Ltiiti.."OÔ OÔ OÔ OÔ "..i.N m 0 O'".-.-
~II '1 .-m O'00.e ..U 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
)-N .-Lt "N "N.~m O'00 "1..-oq'a eu ..i.OÔ OÔ OÔ OÔ "0 e..-00 "Lt O'O'E II .-m 00 "
V!E .e .-eu u..0IIU 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'Ia:
'1i.i.0 0 0 0 0 0 0IIeueu.-.-.-.-.-'1 .-
eu E e.ci ci ci ci ci ci ci)-0 N N N N N N N..II
V!.e:i uu 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
1.O'0 .-m O'O'
~
.-O'1..-.-.-NiiNiv,.i.ui N "..N m 0 00 Lt 1.00II.-.-m 00 "l-.e ..u 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
)-1.O'0 .-m O'O'..0 00 LI 0 0 0 .-=e eu ..ui oô "..cr0e.m.-00 1.m oq 00EII.-m 00 1.
eu E .e .-'..UII0a:u 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I..C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0eui.V!eu eu .-.-.-.-.-.-.-
~E e.oô oô oô oô oô oô oôi:0 .-.-.-.-.-.-.-..II
V!.e:i UU 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I 'I
)-:0II::V!..:i N 0 0 0 0Ci.~0 0 00euum.-Lt 0 0 0 0EEu.-N Lt .-i Eii:iII
cim..eu.J
E
QJ..C.QJVl'ai:rt.-;:rt
:æ
i:
QJ
QJ~..QJ.J
"C
QJ
E::IIi:0u..QJ..rt~0..;:e.c.rtII
QJ ....rt (J..(J'a 'li:urt:eQJ:itlurtII0::0....QJ
E II
E u.
::U~UN
Exhibit No. 103
Case No, UWI-W-LL-02
R. Lobb, Staff
12/13/11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011,
SERVED THE FOREGOING DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB IN
SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT, IN CASE NO.
UWI-W-II-02 BY MAILING A COpy THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE
FOLLOWING:
KEVIN H. DOHERTY
UNITED WATER MANAGEMENT AND
SERVICES COMPANY
200 OLD HOOK ROAD
HARRGTON PARK, NJ 07640
E-MAIL: Kevin.doherty(ßunitedwater.com
DEAN J MILLER
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
PO BOX 2564
BOISE ID 83701
E-MAIL: joe(ßmcdevitt-miler.com
heather(ßmcdevitt-miller .com
BRAD MPURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2019 N 17TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: bmpurdy(ghotmail.com
~~SECRETAR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE