20150521Herbert Direct.pdf

ORIOINAL
Dean J. Miller (lSB 1968)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, lD 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ioe@mcdevitt-m i I ler. com
Attorneys for Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR
AUTHORIry TO INCREASE ITS MTES
AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
?il-lf A.r il nrr a,, ,,, :-j3l
t,;i
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. UWI-W-I5-01
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PAUL R. HERBERT
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF
PAUL R. HERBERT
ON BEHALF OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CONCERNING
REVENUES UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
CASE NO. UWI.W-I5-01
MAY, 2015
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Line
No.
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T2
13
1.4
15
16
t7
18
t9
o.
A.
o.
A.
o.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
CASE NO. UWI-W-15-01
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PAUL R. HERBERT
Please state your name and address.
My name is Paul R. Herbert. My business address is 207 Senate Avenue,
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
By whom are you employed?
I am employed by Gannett Fleming, Valuation and Rate Consultants, LLC.
Please describe your position with Gannett Fleming Valuation and Rate
Consultants, LLC, and briefly state your general duties and
responsibilities.
I am President. My duties and responsibilities include the preparation of
accounting and financial data for revenue requirement and cash working
capital claims, the allocation of cost of service to customer classifications,
and the design of customer rates in support of public utility rate filings.
Have you presented testimony in rate proceedings before a regulatory
agency?
Yes. I have testified before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,
the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Kentucky Public
Service Commission, the lowa State Utilities Board, the Virginia State
Corporation Commission, the Missouri Public Service Commission, the New
Herbert, Direct 1
United Water ldaho lnc.
A.
o.
A.
o.
A.
Mexico Public Regulation Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, the lllinois Commerce Commission, the Delaware Public
Service Commission, the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Connecticut
Department of Public Utility Control, the Tennessee Regulatory Authority,
and the ldaho Public Utility Commission concerning revenue requirements,
cost of service allocation, rate design and cash working capital claims. A list
of cases in which I have testified is attached to my testimony.
What is your educational background?
I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Finance from the Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Would you please describe your professional affiliations?
I am a member of the American Water Works Association and served as a
member of the Management Committee for the Pennsylvania Section. I am
also a member of the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association. ln
1998, I became a member of the National Association of Water Companies
as a member of its Rates and Revenue Committee.
Briefly describe your work experience.
I joined the Valuation Division of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter,
lnc., predecessor to Gannett Fleming, lnc., in September 1977, as a Junior
Rate Analyst. Since then, I advanced through several positions and was
assigned the position of Manager of Rate Studies on July 1, 1990. On June
1, 1994, lwas promoted to Vice President and Senior Vice President in
Herbert, Direcl 2
United Water ldaho lnc.
o.
A.
10
11
t2
13
L4
o.
A.
16
t7
18
22
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
L9
20
2t
22
o.
A.
o.
A.
November 2003. On July 1, 2007, I was promoted to my current position as
President.
While attending Penn State, I was employed during the summers of
1972,1973 and 1974 by the United Telephone System - Eastern Group in its
accounting department. Upon graduation from college in 1975, I was
employed by Herbert Associates, lnc., Consulting Engineers (now Herbert
Rowland and Grubic, lnc.), as a field office manager until September 1977.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
My testimony is in support of the proof of revenue under present and
proposed rates and the development of pro forma revenues prepared under
my direction and supervision for United Water ldaho lnc. (the "Company").
Have you prepared exhibits presenting the results of your study?
Yes. Exhibit No. 5 presents the proof of revenue including the application of
present and proposed rates to consumption analysis for the twelve months
ended November 30, 2015, and pro forma revenue under present and
proposed rates, including adjustments to revenue.
PROOF OF REVENUE - EXHIBIT NO. 5
Have you prepared proof of revenue schedules under present and
proposed rates?
Yes. Schedules 1 through 9 in Exhibit 5 set forth the proof of revenues from
the application of present and proposed rates to the customer consumption
Herbert, Direct 3
United Water ldaho lnc.
o.
A.
1
2
J
7
8
9
10
o.
analysis. Pages 1 through 3 of Exhibit 5 provide an explanation of the
schedules.
Did you prepare the adjustments as shown in Schedules 4 through
Schedule 4D of Exhibit 5?
Yes. The billing determinants associated with four revenue adjustments are
summarized in Schedule 4. The pro forma changes to revenues associated
with the four revenue adjustments are set forth in Schedules 44, 48, 4C, and
4D.
Adjustment R1, shown on Schedule 4A, adjusts revenues by
annualizing for the gain or loss of customers during the test year ended
December 31, 2014. Adjustment R2, shown on Schedule 48, adjusts
revenues for the projected increase in the average number of customers
through November 30, 2015. Adjustment R3, shown on Schedule 4C,
adjusts revenues due to the projected decline in customer usage for
residential and commercial customers. Adjustment R4, shown on Schedule
4D, adjusts revenues to remove customer leak adjustments. Customer leak
adjustments are recorded as revenue but not billed, so an offsetting entry is
charged to uncollectible accounts, which is also removed for ratemaking
purposes.
How did you determine the projected decline in customer usage for
residential customers shown in Adjustment R3?
Using billed consumption records from January 2005 through December
2O14, our analysis of residential water usage proceeded in three main steps.
Herbert, Direct 4
United Water ldaho lnc.
4
sA.
6
11
12
13
t4
15
16
T7
18
t9
20 o.
2t
zz A.
23
o.
A.
Step one was to determine the level of baseline indoor usage, which is not
sensitive to weather variations. Step two examines seasonal irrigation
usage and determines its relationship to weather variations and its trend
over time. Step three combines the projected indoor usage with projected
irrigation usage to yield projected total consumption per residential customer.
The procedures in each step will be described below. The input and output
data are shown in Schedules 5 through 8.
Please detail your steps 1 through 3.
ln Step 1, I examined the month to month variation in billed consumption for
the last seven-year period. I determined that the billed consumption per
customer data for December through April consistently remained well below
the other months' values. Also, the values across years for each month fell
in a much tighter cluster than values for the other months, suggesting
invariance to weather conditions. I reasoned that data for these months
could therefore be used as representative of an indoor rate of consumption.
That is, the consumption for those winter months did not contain a significant
outdoor use component that is dependent on variations in weather. lt
should be noted that the values for each month reflect a lag in billing due to
bi-monthly billing and thus, roughly represent consumption spanning late
October through March.
I annualized this winter consumption in Schedule 5 of Exhibit No. 5,
by multiplying the gallons per customer per day (column 3) by 365 to yield an
estimate of the total indoor usage per customer per year (column 4). I used
Herbert, Direct 5
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
t2
13
L4
t6
t7
18
L9
20
23
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
t6
l7
linear regression to fit a trendline of this resulting annual indoor consumption
(column 5). The resulting trend equation showed a very good fit, with an
adjusted R-squared of 0.9329. This value can be interpreted as the
percentage of the year to year variation in indoor consumption that can be
explained as a trend over time. The associated F-statistic with this R-
squared indicates that the trendline fits the data to a significance level that is
below one one-thousandth of one percent (less than 0.001%). The slope of
the resulting trendline is negative 1,072, meaning that annual indoor use is
projected to decline by 1,072 gallons per customer per year, or about 1.43
ccf.
ln Step 2, I calculated the irrigation use (column 6) as the difference
between total billed consumption per customer per year (column 8) and the
annualized winter (i.e., indoor) usage (column 4). I performed a regression
analysis to fit the irrigation consumption to year and to a weather variable,
the Palmer Z index for the Boise, ldaho area. This index is a short-term
(monthly) measure of soil moisture. I used the average Z-index for the 7-
month period of April through October. The irrigation consumption showed a
very good fit to the year and weather variables, with an adjusted R-squared
of 0.903. Like the indoor trendline, this equation had an associated F-
statistic that indicates that the equation fits the data to a significance level
that is below two one-hundredth of one percent (less than O.02y"). The test
statistics for the coefficients on the year and weather variables were each
very strong, with significance levels well below one percent.
Herbert, Direct 6
United Water ldaho lnc.
L9
21
23
10
11
t2
t3
14
l5
t6
fl
Using this equation, I fit a trendline of irrigation usage over time
(column 7) by setting the value of the weather variable equal to the 1S-year
average of the Palmer Z index. The 15-year average is negative 0.43,
indicating that this level of moderately dry conditions has been "normal" for
the Boise area for the April-October period. The resulting trendline is thus
"normalized" for weather. This normalized irrigation trendline has a slope of
negative 1,119, indicating that, for weather held constant, irrigation use is
projected to decline by 1,119 gallons per customer per year or about 1.50
ccf.
ln Step 3, I calculated a total consumption trendline as the sum of the
indoor and irrigation trendlines in column 9 (sum of columns 5 and 7) of
Schedule 5. The slope of the resulting total consumption trendline is
negative 2,190 indicating that total consumption, normalized for weather, is
projected to decline by 2,190 gallons per customer per year. (Note that this
slope is the sum of the indoor and irrigation slopes.) This annual decline
corresponds to a decrease of 2.93 ccf per customer per year or 6 gallons per
day.
Schedule 6 is a graph of the total billed consumption and estimated
consumption lines. The weather-normalized trendline, where the drought
index is fixed at the 1S-year average, is shown along with the results of fitting
the irrigation consumption to the year and to the actual drought index
simultaneously (dotted line). The dotted line is included to show the close
tracking of this line with actual billed consumption for the regression analysis
Herbert, Direct 7
United Water ldaho lnc.
L9
27
23
1
2
period (2005-2014), which demonstrates the high explanatory power of the
time and weather variables in the regression equations.
How was the adjustment to usage determined in Schedule 4 tor
residential customers?
Itook the projected 2015 average projected annual consumption of 153.2
ccf (114,597 gallons) per residential customer and multiplied it by the
number of residential customers in the test year of 77,879 which equals
1 1,931,391 ccf and subtracted from that the test year residential
consumption of 12,521,573, resulting in a decrease in annual usage of
590,182 ccf .
Please elaborate on what the weather variable means in your irrigation
equation.
The coefficient on the weather variable is negative 5,177. This means that,
for every point of increase in the drought index, residential consumption is
expected to decrease by 5,'177 gallons (6.92 ccf) per year, all else being
equal. For example, if we apply this coefficient to the drought index values
in 2010 (1.35) and 2013 (-1.34), the difference in drought indexfrom 2010 to
2013 is 2.69, and the equation predicts there to be 13,926 (=2.69 x5,177)
more gallons per customer usage in 2013 than in 2010, all other things being
equal. This difference amounts to over ten percent of total residential
usage. The weather coefficient captures in a statistical form what is already
very well known-that United Water ldaho faces great variability and
Herbert, Direct 8
United Water ldaho lnc.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
o.
A.
o.
L2
13 A.
t4
15
L6
t7
18
t9
z0
27
22
o.
A.
unpredictability in residential consumption owing to the variability and
unpredictability of the weather.
The change in the drought index value from the actual observation of
-O.77 in 2014 to the 15 year average (-.43), accounts for 1,760 gallons (2.35
ccf) per customer per day of the projected decline in usage.
Please explain your choice of the Palmer Z index to measure weather
conditions.
The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) compiles various indices to measure drought for
each climatic district in the United States. The various Palmer indices use
temperature data in estimating evapotranspiration combined with
precipitation data in equations designed to measure the level of drought (soil
moisture levels) existing in the given month. The Z index, also referred to as
the "moisture anomaly index", is calibrated such that 0.00 is neutral while
negative represents relatively low soil moisture (drought). For example, the
April-October average index tor 2002, the third driest year on record in terms
of precipitation, is -2.07. An alternative index, the Palmer Drought Severity
lndex (PDSI) is a measure of long-term drought conditions that is sometimes
used in fitting water demand. The PDSI includes the Z index in its
intermediate calculations. I reasoned that the Palmer Z index had fewer of
the shortcomings sometimes attributed to the Drought Severity lndex and
also that domestic watering would be dependent on immediate temperature
Herbert, Direct 9
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
-1.7
18
t9
2T
o.
A.
and precipitation conditions that would be adequately captured by an index
oriented to short term (monthly) measures, as the Z-index does.
How did you determine the projected decline in customer usage for
commercial customers?
The commercial data table is shown in Schedule 7. First it must be noted
that a change in the customer billing software at the end of 2011 resulted in
a change in the way commercial customers were counted. As a result our
analysis was limited to billing data up to the year 2011.
For commercial customers, I began by proceeding with the type of
analysis conducted for residentialwater usage as described above but in this
case, using data for the ten-year period from 2002 -2011. I catculated a
base, indoor usage from winter consumption and calculated an irrigation use
as the difference between total billed consumption and indoor consumption.
However, when I developed regressions of irrigation use on time and
weather, I found that, in contrast to the residential results, the drought index
variable was not significant in explaining the variation in commercial irrigation
consumption. I reasoned that it makes some sense that commercial
seasonal water use is less weather dependent than residential, as such
customers may be on fixed schedules for watering and there are other
seasonal uses (e.9., car washes, laundries, construction) that are relatively
independent of weather. Also, it is noteworthy that the value of the weather
variable did not experience the amount of variation over this particular 10-
Herbert, Direct 10
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
12
L3
L4
16
t7
i8
t9
2l
8
9
10
11
12
13
L4
i5
16
L7
18
19
20
21.
year period than it typically does, which makes it less likely for a regression
to pick up a relationship to that variable.
Since the irrigation consumption regression results showed no reason
to treat irrigation differently than indoor use, I performed a regression
analysis of total billed commercial consumption per customer per year and
found the resulting trend line to yield a very good fit to the consumption data,
with an adjusted R-squared of 0.788 and an associated F-statistic that
indicates that the equation fits the data to a significance level that is below
onetenth of one percent (0.10%).
The resulting trendline slope of negative 15,864 indicates that
commercial consumption can be projected to decline by 15,864 gallons per
customer per year on average, based on customer counts up to 2011. This
decline represents a 3.O% decrease in commercial consumption between
2010 and 2011 or 21.2 ccf per customer per year and 43 gallons per
customer per day. See Schedule 7 and the graph on Schedule 8.
The change in the customer count from 2011 to 2012 means that the
data related to number of customers would not be comparable. This lack of
data was adjusted for by taking the 3 percent decline that occurs when
moving along the trendline from 2010 to 2011 and applying this percentage
decline to the consumption in 2014. This approach roughly corresponds to
shifting the trendline up to meet the billed consumption in 2014. This shift is
shown as the dotted line segment in Schedule 8. Projecting a three percent
decline from the 2014 consumption per customer of 569,279 gallons results
Herbert, Direct 11
United Water ldaho lnc.
23
o.
A.
in a projected decline of 17,178 gallons per customer. Year 2015
consumption is thus projected as 552,201 gallons per commercial customer
per year.
Do your commercial irrigation regression results therefore indicate that
weather does not affect commercial consumption?
Not at all. The test statistics associated with our regression equations only
state that I cannot with confidence reject the hypothesis that weather does
not atfect commercial irrigation consumption. This is not the same as saying
definitively that weather does not affect consumption. ln fact, our regression
of irrigation on year and weather estimated a coefficient on the weather
variable of negative 12,651. The p-value on this coefficient was 27Y" (for a
two-tailed test, i.e., a test that weather has neither positive nor negative
effect). This p-value means that, if weather indeed truly has no effect, then
the chance of seeing the irrigation usage that was measured for the past ten
years is approximalely 27 percent. Considering that I could rule out weather
having a positive effect, then the p-value could be halved, to approximately
14 percent. Because analysts typically use a threshold of 5 percent or lower
for a p-value, I could not reject the hypothesis that weather has no effect.
How was the adjustment to usage determined in Schedule 4 tor
commercial customers?
I took the average projected annual consumption of 738.2 ccf per
commercial customer and multiplied it by the number of commercial
customers in the test year of 8,586 which equals 6,338,185 ccf and
Herbert, Direct 12
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
t2
o.
t4
15
16
L7
18
79
A.21,
23
o.
A.
subtracted from that the test year commercial consumption of 6,582,68b,
resulting in a decrease in usage of 244,501 ccf.
What is the significance of the findings of your consumption
proiections?
The past fifteen years of billing data shows a pronounced declining trend in
consumption, particularly when controlling for varying weather conditions.
This trend is to be expected in light of measures aimed to reduce water
demand, such as the federal energy standards for household fixtures and
appliances, United Water ldaho's programs to promote water conservation,
and the requirement that new developments connect to non-potable
irrigation water sources if they are available. The trend is being experienced
and studied in water systems across the country. Because the fixtures and
appliances are gradually and continually being replaced, federal standards
are being tightened, consumer awareness continues to grow, and new
developments continue to be added, this trend of decreasing usage can be
expected to continue.
While a decline of 2,190 gallons per residential customer per year (6
gallons per day) appears large, it is well within reason. lt is true that studies
for water companies in the eastern and mid-western U.S. are also finding a
declining use, just not to this extent, but they do not serye as a good basis
for comparison because usage in these areas is much lower due largely to
the lower use for outdoor watering. Available study data for arid areas
includes Phoenix, where annual residential water use per customer declined
Herbert, Direct 13
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
t6
t7
18
L9
27
23
6
7
by nearly 20,000 gallons (averaging a 5,000 gallon decline each year) from
2002-2006, a decrease of over 2.8 percent per year. lt also helps to put the
decline in the context of potential reductions in a hypothetical household.
For example, for a household that flushes the toilet 10 times per day,
replacing the old standard 3.5 gallons per flush toilet with the current 1.6
gallons per flush model would reduce the household's water consumption by
19 gallons per day.
It is crucial to United Water ldaho to be forward rather than backward
looking in estimating its expected water consumption levels in order to insure
that rates are set properly for a sufficient revenue stream. That is, the
Company needs to account for these declining trends, rather than apply
rates that are based on consumption from previous years as if such
consumption levels will continue to hold true.
Could it be argued that consumption is declining over time due to
economic conditions?
One of the reasons for using data back to 2005 and 2OO2 is to incorporate a
variety of economic conditions. The decline is also evident for the period
before the economic downturn began in 2008. That is, water use per
customer was on a declining trend even when the economy was growing.
This is also the case in 2010, when the ldaho gross domestic product grew
at an inflation-adjusted rate of two percent while water use per customer
continued its decline.
Herbert, Direct 14
United Water ldaho lnc.
8
9
10
11
72
t3
t4 o.
15
16 A.
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
o.
A.
Would a five-year average be a reasonable basis to insure sufficient
revenue for the Company, considering that it incorporates the Iow
usage of the two wet years of 2010 and 2011?
This approach would have its shortcomings. The first is with respect to the
weather-invariant components of demand. lndoor residential consumption is
not dependent on these weather variations, yet shows a pronounced
declining trend. See my previous statement about the very strong
regression results fitting a time trend to this data. Likewise, commercial
consumption shows an unmistakable downward trend over time. With a
downward time trend, the five-year (or any fixed length) average over the
previous period will be higher than the average in the subsequent years.
Furthermore, the fact that the residential five year average happens to
equal the 2014 usage per customer (119,242 gallons) actually argues
against rather than in favor of using a five year average. The reason for this
is because 2014 was drier than normal, with a drought index of -0.77, which
is notably drier than the l5-year average of -0.43 used in my trendline.
Apart from considerations of declining time trend, this difference between
actual and average weather projects a decline of 1,720 gallons per
residential customer, as noted in an answer to a previous question. The
company is subject to declining consumption during years of relatively wet
summers, as evidenced by consumption in Years 2010 and 2011. These
years were wetter than normal and had consumption below the five year
Herbert, Direct 15
United Water ldaho lnc.
10
11
12
13
l4
15
L6
t7
18
19
2l
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
o.
A.
o.
average, with consumption per customer of 116,702 and 114,864 gallons,
respectively.
What are the Company's options if it is required to use outdated
historical consumption data rather than projected future usage to set
rates?
ln my opinion, if the Company is required to use multi-year average usage
data to set rates, they should explore alternative methods to propose
revenue reconciliation or decoupling mechanisms in order to ensure its
revenue stream and avoid the erosion of their rate of return.
How do your methods and results for projecting consumption per
customer compare to what was done in the 2011 case?
Our methods are substantialty the same as the previous study. ln both
studies I used ten years of billing data for the regression analysis, I
estimated separate projections of indoor and irrigation usage for residential
customers, and I estimated a time trend of total usage for commercial
customers.
The slight difference in our method for the residential estimates was
that I took the conservative (i.e., projecting higher usage) approach to
selecting the average value of the drought index, using the 1S-year average
of -0.43. ln the prior study, we used a 30-year index. The 30-year average
index value is currently -0.31. lt was -0.16 in the previous study. The 15
year index was nearly the lowest average that could be used. A 16-year
average of -0.44 was the only lower average. ln terms of comparing results,
Herbert, Direct 16
United Water ldaho lnc.
11
12 A.
L3
T4
15
L6
77
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
o.
A.
o.
A.
the regression results for the current study show slightly flatter trendlines for
both indoor and irrigation usage than those of the prior study.
How did you develop proposed rates?
Yes. The proposed rates are an across-the-board increase of 13.20/" applied
to both customer charges and volumetric charges. A comparison of present
and proposed rates is shown on Schedule 9 of Exhibit No. 5.
Does this complete your testimony at this time?
Yes, it does.
Herbert, Direct 17
United Water ldaho lnc.
LIST OF CASES IN WHICH PAUL R. HERBERT TESTIFIED
8.
L
10.
11.
12.
't3.
14.
15.
't6.
17.
'18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
Year
1 983
1 989
1 991
1 992
1 992
1 994
1 994
1 994
1 994
1 994
1 995
't995
1 995
1 996
1 997
1 998
1 998
't999
1 999
1 999
2000
2000
2000
2001
200't
2001
2001
2001
200'l
2001
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2005
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
42. 2005
43. 200s
44. 2006
45. 2006
46. 2006
47. 2006
Jurisdiction
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
WV PSC
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Ohio PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
WV PSC
Ky. PSC
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
la. St Util Bd
Va. St. CC
WV PSC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Va.St.CC
Pa. PUC
Tn Reg Auth
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
Mo. PSC
Va.St.CC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
WV PSC
WV PSC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
Pa. PUC
NJ BPU
Pa. PUC
Docket No.
R-832399
R-891208
91-106-W-MA
R-922276
wR920s0532J
R-9430s3
R-943124
R-943177
R-94324s
wR94070325
R-953300
R-953378
R-953379
R-963619
R-973972
e8-178-WS-AlR
R-984375
R-994605
R-994868
99-1570-W-MA
2000-120
R-00005277
wR00080575
RPU-o1-4
PUE01 031 2
01-0326-W-427
R-0161 14
R-016236
B-016339
R-0'16750
PUE-2002-0375
R-027975
03-
R-038304
wR03070511
wR-2003-0s00
PUE-200 -
R-038805
Fl-049165
wRo4091064
04-1024-S-MA
04-102s-w-MA
R-051030
R-051 178
R-061322
wFl-06030257
R-061398
ClienVUtilitv
T. W. Phillips Gas and OilCo.
Pennsylvanla-American Water Company
Clarksburg Water Board
North Penn Gas Company
The Atlantic City Sewerage Company
The York Water Company
City of Bethlehem
Roaring Creek Water Company
North Penn Gas Company
The Atlantic City Sewerage Company
Citizens Utilities Water Company of
Pennsylvania
Apollo Gas Company
Carnegie Natural Gas Company
The York Water Company
Consumers Pennsylvania Water Company
Shenango Valley Division
Citizens Utilities Company of Ohio
City of Bethlehem - Bureau of Water
The York Water Company
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company
Clarksburg Water Board
Kentucky-American Water Company
PPL Gas Utilities
Atlantic City Sewerage Company
lowa-American Water Company
Virginia-American Water Company
West-Virginia American Water Company
City of Lancaster
The York Water Company
Pennsylvan ia-American Water Company
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company
Virginia-American Water Company
The York Water Company
Tennessee-American Water Company
Pennsylvania-American Water Company
New Jersey-American Water Company
Missouri-American Water Company
Virginia-American Water Company
Pennsylvania Suburban Water Company
The York Water Company
The Atlantic City Sewerage Company
Morgantown Utility Board
Morgantown Utility Board
Aqua Pennsylvania, lnc.
T. W. Phillips Gas and OilCo.
The York Water Company
New Jersey American Water Company
PPL Gas Utilities, lnc.
Subject
Pro Forma Revenues
Bill Analysis and Rate Application
Revenue Requirements (Rule 42)
Cash Working Capital
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Revenue Requirements, Cost
Allocation, Rate Design and
Cash Working Capital
Cash Working Capital
Cash Working Capital
Cost Allocation and Flate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Rev. Requirements and Rate Design
Rev. Requirements and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cash Working Capital
Water and Wastewater Cost
Allocation and Rate Design
Revenue Bequirement, Cost
Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Revenue Requirements (Rule a2),
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cash Working Capital
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation And Rate Design
Tapping Fee Study
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Year Jurisdiction
2006 NM PRC
2006 Tn Reg Auth
2007 Ca. PUC
2007 Ca. PUC
2OO7 Pa. PUC
2007 Ky. PSC
2OO7 MO. PSC
2007 0h. PUC
2007 ll. cc
2Oo7 Pa. PUC
2OO7 NJ BPU
2OO7 Pa. PUC
2OO7 WV PSC
2OO7 WV PSC
2OO8 NJ BPU
2008 Va St CC
2008 Tn.Reg.Auth.
2008 Mo PSC2008 De PSC
2008 Pa PUC
2OO8 AZ CC.
2008 Pa PUC
2OO8 WV PSC
2008 Ky PSC2008 Ky PSC
2OO9 PA PUC
2009 Pa PUC
2009 Pa PUC
2009 la St Util Bd2009 llcc2009 0h PUc
2009 Pa PUC
2009 Va St CC
2009 Mo PSC2010 VaSt CorpCom
2010 Ky PSC
2O1O NJ BPU
2010 Pa PUC2010 Pa PUC
2010 Pa PUC
2o1o Ky PSC
2O1O WV PSC2010 Tn Reg Auth2010 Ct PU RgAth
2010 Pa PUC
2011 Pa PUC2011 Pa PUC
2011 Pa PUC
2011 Pa PUC
2011 Pa PUC2011 Mo PSC
Docket No.
06-00208-uT
06-00290
u-339-W
u-I68-W
R-00072229
2007-00143
wR-2007-0216
07-11 12-WS-lR
07-0507
R-O0072711
wR07110866
R-O0072492
07-0541-W-MA
07-0998-W-427
wR08010020
PUE-2008-0009
08-00039
wR-2008-0311
08-96
R-2008-2032689
w-013034-08-0227
sw-01303A-08-0227
R-2008-2023067
08-0900-w-427
2008-00250
2008-00427
2008-2079660
2008-2079675
2009-2097323
FIPU-09-
09-031 I
09-391-WS-AIR
R-2009-21 3201 I
PUE-2009-0059
wR-2010-0131
PUE-201 0-00001
201 0-00036
wR10040260
2010-2167797
2010-2166212
R-2010-2157140
201 0-00094
10-0920-w-427
1 0-001 89
10-09-08
R-2010-2'l 791 03
R-2010-2214415
R-2011-2232359
R-2011-2232243
R-2011-2232985
R-2011-2244756
wR-201 1-0337-338
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost of Service Allocation
Cost of Service Allocation
Cost Allocation and Flate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation (only)
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Rev Rqmts, Cst Alloc/Rate Design
Cost Allocation
Revenue Requirement
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Demand Study, COS/Rate Design
Rev. Rqmts/COS/Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
LIST OF CASES IN WHICH PAUL R. HERBERT TESTIFIED
ClienUUtility Subiect
New Mexico American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Tennessee American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Suburban Water Systems Water Conservation Rate Design
San Jose Water Company Water Conservation Rate Design
Pennsylvania American Water Company Cost Allocation and Flate Design
Kentucky American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Missouri American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Ohio American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
lllinois American Water Company Customer Class Demand Study
Aqua Pennsylvania, inc. Cost Allocation and Rate Design
The Atlantic City Sewerage Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
City of Bethlehem - Bureau of Water Revenue Reqmts, Cost Alloc.
Clarksburg Water Board Cost Allocation and Rate Design
West Virginia American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
New Jersey American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Virginia American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Tennessee American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Missouri American Water Company Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Artesian Water Company, Inc. Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Penna. American Water Co. - Coatesville Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Wastewater
Arizona American Water Co. - Water
- Wastewater
The York Water Company
West Virginia American Water Company
Frankfort Electric and Water Plant Board
Kentucky American Water Company
UGI - Penn Natural Gas
UGI - Central Penn Gas
Pennsylvania American Water Co.
lowa-American Water Company
lllinois-American Water Company
Ohio-American Water Company
Aqua Pennsylvania, lnc.
Aqua Virginia, lnc.
Missouri American Water Company
Virginia American Water Company
Kentucky American Water Company
New Jersey American Water Company
T.W. Phillips Gas and OilCo.
Pennsylvania American Water Co.
- Wastewater
The York Water Company
Northern Kentucky Water District
West Virginia American Water Co.
Tennessee American Water Company
United Water Connecticut
City of Lancaster-Bureau of Water
UGI Central Penn Gas, lnc.
The Newtown Artesian Water Co.
Pennsylvania-American Water Co.
United Water Pennsylvania lnc.
City of Bethlehem-Bureau of Water
Missouri American Water Company
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
LIST OF CASES IN WHICH PAUL R. HERBERT TESTIFIED
99.
1 00.
101 .
't02
1 03.
104.
1 05.
1 06.
107.
1 08.
1 09.
Year
2011
201 1
2011
2011
2011
2011
201 1
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
201 3
201 3
2013
201 3
201 3
2014
2014
10.
11.
12.
13.
11 4.
'I 15.
116.
117.
Jurisdiction
Oh PUC
NJ BPU
Id PUC
IICC
Pa PUC
VaStCom
VaStCom
TnRegAuth
Ky PSC
Pa PUC
Ky PSC
WV PSC
la St Util Bd
Pa PUC
Pa PUC
Pa PUC
Pa PUC
Pa PUC
Pa PUC
Docket No.
'11-4161-WS-AIR
wR11070460
uwt-w-11-02
11-0767
R-201 1 -2267958
201 1 -00099
2011-00127
1 2-00049
2012-00072
R-20 1 2-231 0366
2012-00520
12-1649-W-427
RPU-2013-000_
R-201 3-2355276
R-20'12-2336379
R-2013-2350509
R-2013-2390244
R-2014-2418872
R-2014-2428304
ClienVUtility
Ohio American Water Company
New Jersey American Water Company
United Water ldaho lnc.
lllinois-American Water Company
Aqua Pennsylvania, lnc,
Aqua Virginia, lnc.
Virginia American Water Company
Tennessee American Water Company
Northern Kentucky Water District
Lancaster, City of - Sewer Fund
Kentucky American Water Co.
West Virginia American Water Co.
lowa American Water Company
Pennsylvania American Water Co.
The York Water Company
City of DuBois - Bureau of Water
City of Bethlehem - Bureau of Water
City of Lancaster - Bureau of Water
Borough oI Hanover
Subject
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Cost Allocation and Rate Design
Dean J. Miller (lSB 1968)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 25il-83701
Boise, lD 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ioe@ mcd evitt-m i I le r. com
Attorneys for Appl icant
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR
AUTHORIry TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE
!N THE STATE OF IDAHO
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EXHIBIT TO ACCOMPANY THE
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PAUL R. HERBERT
Exhibit No. 5
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Witness: P. R. Herbert
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
BOISE, IDAHO
APPLICATION OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
TO CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS FOR THE
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2015
AND PRO FORMA REVENUE
UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
GANNETT FLEMING VALUATION AND RATE CONSULTANTS, LLC
Harrisburg, Pen nsylvania
059998
CONTENTS
Paoe
lntroduction .............. 1
Present Rate Application 1
Proposed Rate Application 2
Usage Adjustment............... 3
Schedule 1. Summary of Proforma Revenues Under Proposed Rates
for the Twelve Months Ended November 30, 2015 and the
Calculation of the Revenue lncrease Under Proposed Rates
Schedule 2. Summary of Revenue Under Present Rates and Pro Forma
Revenues Under Present Rates for the Twelve Months Ended
November 30,2015
Schedule 3. Application of Present Rates and Proposed Rates to
Consumption Analysis - Year Ended December 31,2014
Schedule 4. Summary of Billing Determinants for Revenue Adjustments
Schedule 4-A. R1 - Application of Present Rates and Proposed Rates to
Number of Customers Added in Test Year - Year Ended December 31, 2014
Schedule 4-B. R2 - Application of Present Rates and Proposed Rates to
Number of Customers Added in Future Year - Year Ended November 30, 2015
Schedule 4-C. R3 - Application of Present Rates and Proposed Rates to Usage
Adjustments - Year Ended November 30, 2015
Schedule 4-D. R4 - Application of Present Rates and Proposed Rates to Leak
Adjustment - Year Ended November 30, 2015
Schedule 5. Residential Consumption Trends, 2000-2018 (gallons per customer)
Schedule 6. Residential Consumption per Customer Trends 2001-2018
Schedule 7. Commercial Consumption Trends, 2001-2018 (gallons per customer)
Schedule 8. Commercial Consumption per Customer Trends 2001-2018
Schedule 9. Comparison of Present and Proposed Rates
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
BOISE, IDAHO
APPLICATION OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
TO CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS FOR THE
TWELVE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBEFI 30,2015
AND PRO FORMA REVENUE
UNDER PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
INTRODUCTION
This report is organized into nine schedules. Schedule 1 summarizes the
application of proposed rates to the consumption analysis for the twelve months ended
November 30, 3015, and the pro forma revenues under proposed rates for the twelve
months ended November 30, 2015. Schedule 2 summarizes the application of present
rates to the consumption analysis and the pro forma revenues under present rates for the
twelve months ended November 30, 2015. Schedules 3 and 4 set forth the application of
present and proposed rates to the detailed consumption analysis and billing
determinants. Schedules 5 through 8 describe the usage adjustment in Schedule 4C.
PRESENT RATE APPLICATION
Schedule 2 summarizes the pro forma revenues under present rates. Column 2
presents the revenues per books. Columns 3 and 4 present the removal of unbilled
revenue accrued. Column 5 presents the revenues from the application of present rates
to the detailed consumption analysis for the twelve months ended December 31,2014.
The application of rates and customer classifications presented are from the application
of present rates in Schedule 3. The adjustment factor in column 6 is calculated by
dividing column 4 by column 5.
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Page 1
P. Herbert
Column 7 of Schedule 2 is the result of applying the adjustment factor in column 6
to the revenues in column 5. The application of present base rates to the pro forma test
year adjustments of number of bills and consumption shown in Schedule 4 is presented in
Schedules 4A, 48,4C AND 4D, column 5 and brought fonruard to columns 8, 9 and 10 of
Schedule 2.
PROPOSED RATE APPLICATION
Schedule 1 summarizes the pro forma revenues under proposed rates for the
twelve months ended November 30,2015, and determines the revenue increase by
customer classification under proposed rates. A comparison of present and proposed
rates is presented in Schedule 9. Column 2 of Schedule 1 sets forth the pro forma
revenues under present rates brought forward from colum n 12 of Schedule 2. Column 3
is the result of applying proposed rates to the detailed consumption analysis presented in
Schedule 3. The adjustment factor is applied to the revenues in column 3 to determine
the proposed revenues in column 5. Columns 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the results of applying
proposed rates to the pro forma adjustments brought forward from columnT of Schedules
4A, 48,4C and 4D. Column 10 of Schedule 1 is the sum of columns 5,6,7,8 and 9 and
is the total pro forma revenues under proposed rates. The proposed increase in
revenues is shown in column 11 by subtracting the pro forma revenues under present
rates in column 2from the pro forma revenues under proposed rates in column 10. The
percent increase is shown in column 12.
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No.5
Page 2
P. Herbert
USAGE ADJUSTMENT
Schedules 6 through 8 demonstrate the decline in annual usage for residential and
commercial customers when normalized for weather. These charts were used to
determine the projected average annual customer's usage of 153.2ccf for residential
customers and738.2ccf for commercial customers. See Schedule 4, adjustment R3 for
related consumption adjustments.
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No.5
Page 3
P. Herbert
>s* :s * * ;eNN N N O Fcict ai ai o ai
:l** sfuNN NO siciai ai
6' -ool o
= OFFI
^ F66to d ci o'l .\i! FFNI Oil ON I F
=+Jld-ot@ I
Eslodtool88t-l
B$l-=l
- E *#l
EEEEI-El
l:.l.l:lfl
gr,gEl"i
s€*Esl sx
gEp EEI- :E
"g $;t o
:qflElEl
8$E$li:11i1fl
:.ll:1fl
:.11:11
88
oi oiNO
|i.11:lll
o
o@@Nao-,6N6-
s:qflE*lEI
s:11i1fl.l aEEt*g
uEl'H*E*EfluF;*gE
o5N
c;
ccUao
=U
ozdAilU9kfiteflCa,oAC
=PuclcrUUz2'lci Hu2 =Oe s$< uod aZ; s;u <=)t- dz< _u3 il;a qftH 8s
= P+- tbuz
2P)<aJ5d
g5UUac-4F50tZo<LoEILo
E
=l6
o6gB
gE;;
l:1li1fl
gEE*fl'
gei=fl"
sElc gfil
$ El8 B3-l
= J BR&eoEl^ BEFEH.rls 988
g;Eai[q
rEEd.lsl
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 1
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
iEli:11i1fl1fl
t:1311
t:13|fl
o
*-
* , Ela?Eidtrla66 'i P ElL.="sE$lodGl-
*-tEd E.9l
E5*E€l=EE o q EIF
;rs
- x=gl-
o:lEE.EEI
EEE"qEb
FEt Hsl-
=i rtEielEORRI^o E 6:E19.U A EQoIF : ON;I< E; - -lG <ra Ir 06 IZE,ulO =c- Iu 106 IE =€-orlL E.N'EI.E BE:81=16 |@-ER 3 -IEB ! *loEr eg96
3 EE g=El5
E EE = lo
E fir EEIE
E 3e I
= iY a^l- pr EaEEI"ff= =&1-Al3fr -el
U7slil Eisl.; =EEIE E. e I' iE,eel'
E; E"I
sE$TEl.
o
t-
^^ I
d;^i I:l
:-1:.11:llll
t-lt11:llll
seel i s=l s,l * I $l €l El
:*-l: :-l-1: l3-1fl
ooddN o@FOF O@
66N OO600 00606 00666 00<i-; ;;
i:11i1l1fl
i:11i1fl1fl
:ll:1111
---t
dd;o1
-l
*--l
o_ o- +l
@+Ft
:- |
^t
--o- I-h I
-=l
e--*too-il
:-l fl1fl
o *-l -l .@- o-ol oJ ah Fol ol @N Fil Ol Otsololq3 ll9--ll*
l.gI r,E,;
E
'El'H,cugfl't;*gi*,E Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 2
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED RATES TO CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2014
Rate Block
CCFT-
Customer Charge
5t8
314
'|
't 112
2
3
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Subtotal
Flat Rate
Total Class
Customer Charge
5/8
314
1
1 1t2
2
3
4
6
8
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Number
Of Bills
(2)
94,077
322,368
45,397
1,455
6't9
3
463,919
0
0
0
-o-463,919
'148
464,067
Present
Rate
(4)(s)
$ 1,956,802
6,705,254
1,207,560
66,203
43,701
ProposedRevenue Rate
Proposed
Revenue
(7)(6)
Residential - Bi-Monthlv
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,179,084
573,480
7,769,009
12,521,573
12,521,573
12,52'.t,573
$ 20.80
20.80
26.60
45.50
70.60
137.70
$ 20.80
20.80
26.60
45.50
70.60
137.70
256.90
428.90
561.10
413
9,979,933
1 .4647 6,1 21 ,1 04
1.4647 839,976
1.83 t0 14,225,055
2't,186,136
79.89
31 ,'t66,069
11,824
$31 ,177,893
23.55 $ 2,215,51323.55 7,591,76630.10 1,366,45051.50 74,93379.90 49,458155.80 467
11,298,587
1.6576 6,927,250
1.6576 950,6002.0720 16,097,387
23,975,237
35,273,824
$ so.+t 13,381
$ 35,287,205
Commercial - Bi-Monthlv
52,195 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,528,661
62J12
3,991,913
6,582,686
6,582,686
$ 59,322
255,653
384,397
468,832
795,521
106,855
58,830
10,294
0
2,139,704
2,852
12,291
14,451
10,304
11,268
776
229
24
0
23.55
23.55
30.10
51.50
79.90
't55.80
290.70
485.40
635.00
1.4647 3,703,730
1.4647 90,975
1 .8310 7,309,193
11,103,898
67,165
289,453
434,975
530,656
900,313
120,901
66,570
11,650
0
1.6576
2,42't,683
4,191 ,508
1.6576 102,9572.0720 8,271,244
12,565,709
$14,987,392
0
0
0
0
52,195
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 3
Page 1 of 2
P.R. Herbert
$13.243.602
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED RATES TO CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2014
Rate Block
CCF
Number Total Present
Of Bills Consumption Rate Revenue(2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Public Authoritv - Bi-Monthlv
Proposed
Rate
(6)
$ 23.55
23.55
30.10
51.50
79.90
155.80
290.70
Proposed
Revenue
(1)
Customer Charge
5/8
314
1
1 1t2
2
3
4
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Sublotal
Total Class
Fire Line Size
3" and smaller
4"
6"
8'
10"
12"
Hydrants
Sprinkler
Total Private Fire
170460184 0107 0223 060
6589 0
17,633
872
67,215
85,720
85,720
1.4647 25,827
1.4647 1,2771.8310 123,071
150,'175
$179,360
$ esa
957
4,894
4,869
15,744
826
1,541
29,185
$ 96,725
175,362
413,471
200,143
19,1 10
19,082
2't,684
3,335
$ s+a,gt g
$45,549,767
1.6576 29,228
1.6576 1,4452.0720 't39,269
169,943
$202,972
(7t
$ 400
1,083
5,538
5,51'l
17,818
935
1,744
33,029
109,436
198,450
467,902
226,498
21,625
21,594
24,531
$ 20.80
20.80
26.60
45.50
70.60
137.70
256.90
0
0
0
0
589
Private Fire Lines - Bi-Monthlv
2,637
3,154
2,994
882
54
36
975
6
10,738
527,589
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ 36.68
55.60
138.10
226.92
353.88
530.06
22.24
555.80
$ 41.50
62.92
156.28
256.80
400.46
599.84
25.16
628.98
0
19,189,979
3,774
1,073,809
51,551,378
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 3
Page2ol2
P.R. Herbert
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
SUMMARY OF BILLING OETERMINANTS FOR REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
ADJUSTMENT R1 ANNUALIZATION OFTEST YEAR GROWTH
112 ol
Number
of
Usage
AverageUsage Adiustment
Residential
Commercial
Private Fire
Residential
Commercial
Private Fire
Residential
Commercial
77,879
8,586
1,800
1,234
141
98
3,702
423
294
(5e0,510)
(244,50't)
25.53
123.03
94,512
52.043
ADJUSTMENT R3 WEATHER AND OTHER USAGE ADJUSTMENT
Pro Forma TotalTestYear Annual Usage Pro FormaCusjgrne6 Per Customer Usage - CCF
Weighted Projected
1213112014 Cust. 11/30/2015
77,879 78,275
8,586 8,644
1,800 1,813
77,879
8,586
Number ol Bi-
Gain/Loss MonthlvBills
396 2,376
58 348
'13 78
Test Pro Forma
Year Usage UsageCCF Adiustment - CCF
153.20 1 1 ,931,063
738.20 6,338,185
12,521,573
6,582,686
ADJUSTMENTR4 LEAKADJUSTMENT
Residential
Test Year
customers
Total Test Pro Forma
Pro Forma Year Usage Usage
Usase - CCF CCF Adiustment - CCF
(s6,710)0 (56,710)
Pro Forma
Annual Usage
Per Customer
Number of Customers1213112013 1213112014 Gain/Loss Growth Bi-Monthlv Bills Per bill - CCF CCF
76,645
8,445
't,702
ADJUSTMENT R2 WEIGHTED CUSTOMEB GROWTH THROUGH 11ISOI2O15
Number of Customers
617
70.5
49
Usage
AverageUsage Adjustment
Per Bill - CCF CCF
25.53 60,659
123.03 42,816
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 4
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
R1 . APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED RATES TO NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS ADDED IN TEST YEAR
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2014
Total Present ProposedConsumption Rate Revenue Rate
Proposed
Revenue
(1)
Customer Charge
314
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Sublotal
Total Class
Customer Charge
1
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Fire Line Size
4"
Total Private Fire
Total
0 20.80 $$ 23.s5 $ 87,182
87,'t82
Rate Block
CCF
Number
Of Bills
(2)
3,702
3,702
0
3,702
(3) (4) (5)
Residential - Bi-Monthly
(7)(6)
0
0
0
0
31,548
4,329
58,648
94,524
94,524
1.4647 46,208
't.4647 6,3411.8310 107,384
159,933
$ 236,935
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
52,293
7,176
121,518
423
423
0
0
0
0
423
0
0
19,992
491
31,560
52,043
52,043
26.60 11,252 $
11,252
1.4647 29,282
1.4647 7191.8310 57,787
87,788
99,040
$ 16,346
$ 352,321
Commercial - Bi-Monthly
180,987
268,169
30.10 12,732
12,732
33,138
814
112,078
18,498
398,745
Private Fire Lines - Bi-Monthly
55.60 16,346 $ 62.92 1 8,498
294
4,419
0
r 46,568
uw-w-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 4-A
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
Case No
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
R2. APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED RATES TO NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS ADDED IN FUTURE YEAB
YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2015
Rate Block
ccF
(1)
Customer Charge
314
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Customer Charge
1
Subtotal
Winter Usage
Summer Usage
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Fire Line Size
4"
Total Private Fire
Total
2,376 02,376 0
0 20,244
o 2,7800 37,6360 60,659
2.376 60,659
1.4647
't.4647
1 .8310
Commercial - Bi-Monthlv
49,421
29,651
4,072
68,911
102,634
$ 152,055
55,955
33,556
4,608
77,981
1 16,145
$ 172,100
Number Total Present Proposed Proposed
Of Bills Consumption Rate Revenue Rate Revenue(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Residential - Bi-Monthlv
20.80$49,421 $23.s5$55,955
348
348
0
0
0
26.60
1.4647
1.4647
1 .8310
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
Private Fire Lines - Bi-Monthlv
780$ss.604,337
$ 30.10 10,475
10,475
27,263
670
53,798
81,731
$ 92,206
$ 62.92 4,908
$ 4,908
269,213
0
348
0
0
16,447
404
25,964
42,816
42,816
9,257
9,257
24,090
592
47,541
72,223
$ 81,480
$ 4,337
$ 237,8712,802
0
103,475
uw-w-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 4-B
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
Case No
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
R3 - APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED RATES TO USAGE ADJUSTMENTS
YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2015
Rate Block
CCF
(1)
Customer Gharge
Winter Usage
Winter Usage
Summer
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Customer Charge
Winter Usage
Summer
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Total
Number
Of Bills
(2)
0
0
0
0
0
(197,083)
(27,045)
(366,382)
(s90,510)
(590,510)
(288,668)
(3e,613)
(670,845)
(see,126)
(gee,1 26)
Total Present
Consumption Rate
(4)
ProposedRevenue Rate(5) (6)
Proposed
Revenue
1.6576
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
$
(326,68s)
(44,830)
(7?e,144\
(1,130,658)
(1,130,658)
$
1.6576 (1ss,68s)
1.6576 (3,824)2.0720 (307,219)
(466,728)
(466,728)
$ (1,597,387)
(7)(3)
0
0
Residential - Bi-Monthlv
0$
1.4647
1.4647
1.46/.7
1 .83'10
Commercial - Bi-Monthlv
0$
0 (93,922)
0 (2,307)0 (148,27210 (244,501)
0 (244,501)
0 (835,011)
1.4647 (137,568)
1.4647 (3,379)1.8310 (27',t,485)
(412,432)
(412,432)
$ (1,411,558)
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 4-C
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
R4 - APPLICATION OF PRESENT RATES AND PROPOSED BATES TO LEAK ADJUSTMENT
YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30,2015
Total PresentConsumption Rate(3) (4)(1)
Customer Charge
Winter Usage
Winter Usage
Summer
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Subtotal
Total Class
Rate Block
ccF
Number
Of Bills
Proposed
Rate
(6)
Proposed
Revenue
$
(23,501)
(23,501)
(58t75?:\
(105,7s3)
(1 05,7s3)
(7)
Revenue
(5)(2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Residential - Bi-Monthlv
0$
1.4647(14,1781 '.t.4647
- 1.6576(20,766) 1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
(14,1 78)
(28,355)
(56,710)
(56,710)
1.4647 (20,766)
1 .831 0 (51 ,918)
(93,450)
(93,4s0)
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 4-D
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
I6odePEEf
€ E, j
E gI
\iuEPE6-ooq i'so'-^EEEg-_ob(EoN9.I=
-EQ8:*qo-odEENe*q
-ecN-_io.-d',€ea6.9qg bEeo;.ir=E- F}E
EXo69OYESiE:H
E?stqOo.=/lr)
E €' =s,€ F
-Eo'-;E E €ELI
i = h eeEo-E6,k q H s'E= 3 >.E dz.R bEhS s c =J,;€ERH;3
$ e gE*E e6 P 6 !E.E 5: dEEEcE
E * ;E:Ec
EE=EEEEE:€83E8;gEEaEe
EEgxilEe
E ! HH:E,8,
N i E gEEEE
E = E g E:". H EtE*EEEEn
E$EEEEEEFOFZ,tol)OEO
o?qN(O
I(E^l
= olE-lcol
Tpl
= 6lEEIi"l
Ht $;
Hl ds
lol ro*
Hl ;P
.tl <o -Fl e:
tol r.- *
Fl s:
Hl rs
6Ea,3r8.ELCooc,oo=ii .)gI
oocLcrrPO(Eoo
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 5
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
S :s S S ae :R s:e tse tse }e >see tseS ;e}eEec! b q r \ 6r b q q c? q + r cqq o? o? qq ci I I "P <'i.i I I I 5 d ? qf 5 T q
al
-=l6 :l^or ul-; Fl=ol>tErtro-l
s El9c Elv(g<lctol
9* 998r $ $e€Es s8gAAA() ro F.- + o o) @ @ =F -9gSlers!,--:-
I
9l C - - F o o oO) or(Do)@ @o r'- FN <o<r,<),El - 6 6 t- ao cl, o o F (\t 6/, !f ro (o F 69, o - 6l-l- + a N o co (o tr) (o F o) t- lo (v) F o) l'-lo t N o
^Ll-- N 6 o o @ (o !t N (D F to cD - o @t N ooEl :, $ t{ !t(7)(.)(o(7)srNNNNFe- -eoFl I F-
I
.lel (r i- o o c7, (o ., 6 o., c. ... s $t o oI
- clJ o NO)lr)Ct -O)N(O6O(OF.(Y)t;ii El^ o - F No rrooCDF F ot-(lrAt
= 519 ^i r{Fj*jc.i Jrrl 6, otc.r@ +c.isio,6 ql (o 6rr)r)$(,)(.)coNN-FNolF
btol
-Jol6l r Nrrn<rrNoro-oto<c)oooNosEl^ F CD l.- tf) (r) - Ol O (O t N O O (o ri d) - o) F.
=lL- N lr) t co N r o)€oF- (o ra) !t (\l F oo, o(orr)Pl- Fj d6 +c.t^ido, odFj@ ds c., Aid otdr.j
El F. t-t- F-F-F-F-(o(()(o(o(o(o(o@(o |r)1r)rr,
Fl
IEl 3 o ..., .,oFo(r6K).o q)sNoEl^ : 6 6 rr) cO @ \f !t rt t- t o N o co Go
SJSO_ ^ lr)_ @- @_ +- rr)- (f)- - 6- S- (')- (\l- -- -- O- l--.=1- o 6 (o ro o, N (o 6l @ cD $ l'- @ (o (o $Sl Y o OOt-F-(ot-F-(o(ororo(o(o(o
I
Iat
X o o)F.rrtNFo)o.osc.rFo€(DnoNYl + (o(DNtOOr(O(OCDNlOOF(.)(0 OrNIO.=li;- N @ 6 ro rf (v) (')6lr oo cD co o F-(o roro tEl- o 6 F (O r()t(.)At-OO) F-@rr)tlCO NrO
El @ @(o(o(r)(o(o(o(o(orr)1r)rolr)r)6 ()o()
FI
I
I
-l 3 ^ -Nro..)ro.,ooo.,oooNAl o 6 -c/r(c)FF-torr,(.)cD(f)(ot(oEIC- x t N- ro^ N- t- o- \t- q $- N- !t- \ (o- 'o. $,tl-g P RFSEBBSESEBEEs
I
!,o.N(5
cc
N N (O GO @ O + r (O O (') F (t rO Cr,o cD (D (D CD t- F_ N (O (O (O (O rr) rr) rtNe-f1 d"
l'l
I
eil-ol
Fl.
Q E:EE8{{trEsqfiEqqqqg s5?9d?r9o--?r?????
o F N (') $ () (o ts co (') o - $t 6D st() (o F @ooooOOOOOOFo ooooooooooooooooooN NN6INN(\INN(\TNN(\I (\1 (\,IN(\|NN
c.o
CL
E
oco()
EoF
c.9
(E
.g):
c.9
o.
E
6coO
ooE'c
.I'
cl6tooo(\tut^eE bsE5=ts6gE6
.E'E hB 3BE=u,.edF
:O(EJog
E
op
al,otr
G!,Eo
EIo)eotr
-9G
CDq(o
t'oo
Eo
EIIAu s#
9t-o,tr E dE=b> a u
! B(E () ot.sz(,)oL o.EE i8. eE* I o 5d 6-TE Et1\ X= E)68.,i S Itot(Yrt F5=p5 o.ic{ .;.Eqo.=OEoc'dE
(L ct)c
-9G
q
9.ts9.ubEE- r-3o(E Y s
-d, E c:i>' o<54 -s P
E TS 9 H;5 i8. =eE8.o 6
o- cD* k q)Enr Qi i6f t v o LgN-a o) EXd)CDF- =^,'(-lr)N CrJ--d) tr+oE!'H*ooo'=
co(L
%
%
"4
%
"4
%
%
%,
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
4,
%
6Eco
o
Eo
O lriE=o(,3koL XF{o -ctEE$>.=d>t=cr
E FREArbI
t!.:,copoool
oooooooo60000006000000ddddddd
dF{H
ooooooooa(, todH
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 6
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert
coF6
.99
!T'o
.E
+
ooE'c
t,c,!c0,F
o
,t
,
a
t
it
I,
6,
,
?t
or\tr
-9(!
h0No)rn^
<i tJH(JHN
ll tyirn !ndd
N
EoE'EoF
leal rad ratuolsnl rad suollet
3Ijc gE.= b15E E*s ire +;s 6PE EEE E,g--c5oE E!Hd :89.o o lo€ ! EEo E ts:L (l, --L(l):r{)_E &sE.Y o C{=3 lt aHvcl.Lfc o .q.g 3e8c t O.-q E E6t .e, AF,E i Eg€ sE;
N .4 oq)
-lb -.=Q! R pi
-X a qG
HB B HEc-r N AoE: E;Eao-s = -=o o, lY(,(E (a .= ;6€xE ffieFe e 5 g
frE B ilEg,pEiIo
L L e lt(s (r, C E_.c-= o
e+ E AE8= aEgu, .- rtoX a 6 6
EB fi E F3R E xE(Ja(Ltio
^E ^ ^=o= -o ollv9 v vlY
Case No. UWI-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 7
Page I of 1
P.R. Herbert
lr)l N Cr)
Hl p 5
:l r I
Rl e 3
(U
Ge
$E
8.ELEooE.Ao=6o
Egooo-c
r.r- -9C)ooo
fssSss;eSSsieSS;eSSS:Sf\rbL\qo?+\clqqqqqqsdgs-oPqgcj=9?9q99(o
coogoL
c3o
E
o
(Uo
o
J.o
o)
(L
EoL
o)oco-co
F* O (r) tr) N (O c/) F- @ (f) (q lif @ @ @ O, t*O @ t- $ (o or l- O) N @ O, @ lO l- (O (O @N r- O) (O O (O @ lO F- O) @ $ N O tf) O lO
@lI) @t-odF-JJo-NF-@@lr)@ r (Y) N r lO () (r) @ --r r F F
OTFIOl(,O)NOcr)(Ol-N- q (o_ rr_ o_cDNroo)c)(Ol0OrO|ololr)rolo
,al.c -1
= lrl^:l (l,l$
(t):tsl
tr61
^J-olLgo -l o o, ro o (o N o rt o) to s ls (r) @
-l-l slI--l()@NI()CDN(OO0.)NOX}.I^ O-Ostrr()N@O)rN\trf)@Oocll\a cD(f)i= rroCD(f) t-N @OS@C{c^r.l F*(Ot(f)ro)@|(oro(f)No@I-E 8l (o (o (o (o (o to rr) ro ro ro to ro \t $FolNI
I
.lolEl lo@oo(ol-cao(f)ro@-No,o g{ $tot-loo(o(oo)o)(oNN(f)NOFI- @ONN(o(O(f)$O__OI{,N
= =lS, @od.o<o<oqor-oc.ic"r;os) 9l (f)ul)(O(y)CDN(f)i.-$rrl:N(Obl t- (o @ (o to (o (o ro to rr) ro rr) to ro
(Jl
I
ro
Lo
Eoo
=o
o)o-co
o-
Efocoo
(U
oF
- N (f) sf l() @ l'- O O) O - N Cr) S lO (O t\ COoOOOOOOOOTFF rr-5- 6ooooooooooooooooo
^INNNNNNNNNNNNNNc\INN
L(Uo
oo6tI
oo$t
^S-:tr!U(Ef!t,Fgi'c 49.9 6EEb>trcLa5oE 8_hsqg
.go
o
E
Eoo
(u,. E9bEP6dlL FOE .Eh> o85. dc 0t g.9oi59
= C >rB!*O u 4,
; E*EEEx B 8,Oi(orcorooiciErl()d)"-OlOls-6t
Eooo'E'
o-
(!E
Lo)iioEELLLorB =EE i
Jvoog O-H g&e 9.8EOss,o= o) c'E o O-6o. cD* =EeBE(aNFO
.EE6E-vtoNF$oNt,*m
IoI
iii1i
lii
itiiiiiii
iiiiii
:l
i,
tt
,
Ilt
I'l
I
i,
a
o!tco
o
Eo
t r.,9boL (Lrlo-c,6ts+}EE?Ets.EE
lo I
.E'6
o,
E
EoU
gEEgHe
teal .rad Jauolsnf, rad suo;;et
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 8
Page'l of 1
P.R. Herbert
UNITED WATEH IDAHO INC.
COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES
Bi-Monthly
Customer
Charge
s/8'
314"
1u
't-112"
2"
3u
4"
o
8"
10'
Co"sumption Cftarge
Winter Rates
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
Summer Rates
Up to 3 CCF
Over 3 CCF
-ffiFlat Rate
Present
Rates
Proposed
Rates
Percentage
lncrease
20.80
20.80
26.60
45.50
70.60
137.70
256.90
428.90
561 .10
807.40
Present
Rates*
23.55
23.55
30.10
51.50
79.90
155.80
290.70
485.40
635.00
913.70
Proposed
Rates*
13.2%
13.2%
13.2%
13.2%
13.2y"
't3.1%
't3.2%
13.2%
13.20/"
13.2y"
Percentage
lncrease
1.46470
1.46470
1.46470
1.83100
79.89
Private Fire
1.6576
1.6576
1.6576
2.0720
90.41
13.2%
13.2%
13.2%
13.2%
13.2%
Percentage
lncrease
13.1%
13.2%
13.2%
13.20/"
13.2/o
13.2%
13.2%
13.1%
$
$
$
$
Monthly MonthlyPresent ProposedSize Rates Rates
-tranasm-Aier -S- 1fu4-'- -$--Zd75-
4"
o
8',
10.
12"
Sprinkler
Hydrant
27.80
69.05
1 13.46
't76.94
265.03
277.90
11.12
31.46
78.14
128.40
200.23
299.92
314.49
12.58
Case No. UW-W-15-01
Exhibit No. 5
Schedule 9
Page 1 of 1
P.R. Herbert