27762.docx

(text box: 1)BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF HIDDEN SPRINGS WATER CO., LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC., FOR AUTHORITY TO AMEND AND REVISE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NO. 143.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-W-97-2
CASE NO. UWI-W-97-3
ORDER NO.  27762
On June 16, 1997, United Water Idaho Inc. (United Water; Company) filed an Application in Case No. UWI-W-97-3 with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) requesting authorization to amend and revise its Certificate area service boundaries in Ada County to include the proposed Hidden Springs Community, an area in the Dry Creek Valley in Ada County and contiguous to its present system and certificated territory.  Reference Application Exhibit A, Map of Proposed Boundary Expansion and Exhibit C, Legal Description; Idaho Code 61-526; Commission Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.112.
On November 10, 1997, Hidden Springs Water Co., LLC (Hidden Springs) filed a competing Application in Case No. GNR-W-97-2 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water service to the same area.  Reference Application Exhibits D & E, Maps of Proposed Community and Service Area; Exhibit B, Legal Description; Idaho Code § 61-526; Commission Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.111.  
The Hidden Springs Community, the requested service area in Case Nos. UWI-W-97-3 and GNR-W-97-2, will consist of approximately 915 residential units, a limited amount of commercial development (approximately 100,000 square feet), and public facilities including a school, community center, park, playing fields and fire station.
The Commission consolidated Case Nos. UWI-W-97-3 and GNR-W-97-2 in Order No. 27239 issued November 26, 1997.  Pursuant to notice issued December 19, 1997 a public hearing in consolidated Case Nos. UWI-W-97-3 and GNR-W-97-2 was scheduled for February 24, 1998.  At the request of the parties on February 20, 1998 the scheduled hearing date was vacated.  The Commission was apprised that the parties were negotiating a settlement which they expected to present to the Commission for its consideration and approval.
On June 2, 1998, United Water and Hidden Springs filed a Motion with the Commission requesting approval of a submitted Stipulation and Settlement. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.056 (Motions); .271 (Passive Settlements); .274 (Consideration of Settlements).  As represented, the parties have entered into a Water Infrastructure Extension and Construction Cost Refund Agreement (Agreement).  Among other things the Agreement:
1.Provides that United will, following construction of the domestic water system, be the provider of domestic water service to Hidden Springs community.
2.Provides that Hidden Springs will, subject to the supervision of United, construct the necessary and appropriate water system infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the Hidden Springs community.
3.Establishes a method by which United will refund Hidden Springs a portion of the costs incurred to construct the domestic water system.
Pursuant to Stipulation, the parties represent as follows:
United and Hidden Springs represent to the Commission that the Agreement furthers the public interest, is a fair and equitable resolution of this dispute and that the Agreement will result in service to the Hidden Springs community upon terms that are just and reasonable:
United possesses the technical and managerial expertise to provide water service to the Hidden Springs community thus ensuring that the residents of the area will receive safe and reliable utility service at rates and upon terms subject to control by the Commission.  Further, this Stipulation avoids the possibility an additional water utility would be created in Ada County, with  the associated customer confusion that often accompanies service to customers by adjacent utilities.
The investment necessary for construction of the water system will be borne, in the first instance, by Hidden Springs thereby insulating United’s existing customers from any speculative risk.  Thereafter, United will make refunds to Hidden Springs as customers are connected.  This ensures that United will not be obligated to make refunds until there are revenues to support the investment.  The refunds are calculated based on a formula intended to compensate United for investment in source of supply and are thus consistent with existing Commission policy.
While United believes the Agreement is consistent with the intent and spirit of its existing Line Extension Rules, the existing rules do not specifically provide for materials in lieu of cash; nor do the existing rules specifically identify circumstances in which arrangements similar contained in the Agreement would be made available to other developers.  Accordingly, upon approval hereof, United will file for approval of necessary changes to its existing rules.
Approval of the Agreement furthers the public interest in many respects, not the least of which being that it resolves the issue of service to Hidden Springs development in a timely manner and without protracted and costly litigation.  Such a resolution is obviously beneficial in its own right; however it has also been official in that it will allow the timely completion of an environmentally friendly development, which focuses on quality of life force and habitants,  without the uncertainty which accompanies contested procedures.
The Commission Staff on June 16, 1998 filed an Objection and Related Comments to United Water and Hidden Springs Motion to Approve Stipulation and Settlement.  On September 4, 1998, United Water and Hidden Springs filed a joint Response to Staff’s objection together with related comments.
The filed comments of Staff, United Water and Hidden Springs can be summarized in the following fashion.  Staff contends that the submitted Extension Agreement deviates from the Company’s existing line extension tariff in several significant ways:  (1) it allows “materials” as well as “labor-in-lieu of cash”; (2) it provides for developer refunds of contributed construction costs based on a revenue stream formula; and (3) it provides a waiver of all Company construction overheads associated with a project. Staff notes that the potential problems arising from tariff deviation might be resolved by minor modifications to existing line extension tariffs and clarification within the Extension Agreement.  
Materials in Lieu of Cash
Staff recommends that the Company’s line extension tariffs be modified to allow materials as well as labor in lieu of cash for all developers requesting water service.  The Company has stated in its Stipulation on page 4 that it will file for approval of necessary changes to allow materials in lieu of cash.  The Company on September 4, 1998 proposed amendment to Rule 67 and 73 of its rules and regulations governing water main extensions to allow developers of subdivisions to provide materials necessary for the installation of water facilities.
Developer Refunds
The Extension Agreement between United Water and Hidden Springs requires that the developer provide the contractor, obtain all materials and otherwise pay most of the costs associated with the extension of water facilities to the Hidden Springs development.  The facilities consist of four components which include an off-site transmission main, storage and booster facilities, an on-site transmission main and on-site distribution facilities.  Once the facilities are completed, the developer will receive a refund from the Company for each new Hidden Springs customer connected to the system within the 20-year contract period.  The initial refund is $450 and can increase or decrease depending upon the actual annual revenue generated by customers over a 36 month period.
Staff supports the developer advance and subsequent refund for supply, storage and booster facility costs.  Staff does not support refund provisions for any on-site or off-site main lines/distribution facilities (except vested interest refunds) and in no instance Staff contends should refunds exceed the amount advanced for the special facilities.  Staff recommends that the special facilities portion of the Company’s line extension rules be modified to require a developer advance and refund based on the formula proposed for Hidden Springs.  In discussions subsequent to their filed response the Company has agreed to insert language into its proposed UWI-W-98-4 tariff amendment which would provide for individual case by case assessment and review.  Staff also recommends that Extension Agreement be modified to limit total refunds to the actual costs of the special facilities contributed.  This is still an area of contention as the Extension Agreement continues to provide for refund of transmission costs.
Company Overheads
The existing tariffs require that Company overheads for the projects such as engineering review and inspection be contributed by the developer.  However, the Extension Agreement does not explicitly require any such contribution from the Hidden Springs for these fees.  The agreement indicates that the Company overheads are somehow factored into the calculation of the refund amount and therefore should be not collected from the developer.  While Staff does not necessarily oppose incorporating special facility overheads into the refund formula, it does not support a waiver or refund of overhead fees associated with main line/distribution facilities.  The overhead fees, Staff contends, associated with main line/distribution facilities are designed to reimburse the Company for expenses it incurs and are not refundable.  If these costs are not collected from the developer, then the general body of ratepayers, Staff contends, will have to pay.  Staff in its comments recommended that the Extension Agreement be modified to distinguish between Company overheads associated with special facilities and those associated with main line/distribution facilities.  Following their filed response and a meeting with United Water and Hidden Springs, Staff believes that such a distinction is no longer necessary.  Given the relatively limited nature of Company involvement for this project Staff agrees that the costs of Company overheads is less than it would otherwise be.  Staff had recommended that overhead fees associated with main line/distribution facilities be collected from Hidden Springs at the same time they would be collected from any other developer.  Staff now agrees that the Company’s overhead costs in this case are adequately recovered by the proposed refund formula and that no further or additional contribution is required.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed and considered the Applications and filings of record in Case Nos. GNR-W-97-2 and UWI-W-97-3, including the submitted Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the underlying Water Infrastructure Extension and Construction Costs Refund Agreement, and subsequent related filings.  We have also considered the Company’s tariff amendment filing in Case No. UWI-W-98-4.  The Commission has also reviewed and considered the relevant statutory authority (Idaho Code § 61-526) and Commission Rules (IDAPA 31.01.01.112) regarding amendments to Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for existing utilities.  We find that the Company’s filing satisfies the underlying statutory and procedural requirements for certificate applications.
Recognizing that it is United Water that we regulate, we find the Company’s proposal to allow developers to provide materials as well as labor “in lieu of cash” in line extensions to be reasonable, so long as the Company continues to provide oversight to assure use of quality materials and workmanship.
We note that except for identified refund language the Company’s proposal to serve Hidden Springs complies with its existing and proposed line extension tariffs.  In considering the Extension Agreement as a whole, we find the Company’s proposal and formula for refund advances for special facilities to be reasonable.  While Staff recommends that the Extension Agreement language be modified to limit total refunds to the actual costs of the special facilities contributed, we find such an amendment to be unnecessary.  Although we believe that it is inappropriate to refund distribution and transmission facilities costs, we find the potential for refund of such costs in this case to be relatively small.  We further find that the refund formula, tied as it is to customer connections and revenue, protects the Company’s general body of existing ratepayers from harm.
We find that the service area requested is not within the authorized territories of any other public water utility under the Commission’s jurisdiction and will not interfere with the operation of any water utility under the Commission’s jurisdiction.  With approval of the submitted Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and with Hidden Springs agreement to withdraw its certificate application, we find that there are no known public utilities, persons or corporations with whom the expansion is likely to compete.  
We find that the present and future public interest will be served by issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to United Water for the requested area.  
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commission has jurisdiction over United Water Idaho Inc., a water utility, and its Application in Case No. UWI-W-97-3 and as to the issues raised in related Case No. GNR-W-97-2 pursuant to the authority and power granted under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.  
O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described and qualified above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 143 of United Water Idaho Inc. be amended to reflect addition of the particular area described and reflected in UWI-W-97-3 Application Exhibit A, Map of Proposed Boundary Expansion and Exhibit C, Legal Description.  United Water Idaho Inc. is directed to prepare and file an amended Certificate for Commission approval.
As further more particularly described and qualified above, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission hereby approves extension of water service and construction of related facilities to the Hidden Springs community in accordance with the submitted Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and the underlying Water Infrastructure Extension and Construction Costs Refund Agreement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the conclusion of the reconsideration period following this final Order, assuming no reconsideration petitions are filed, the Application in Case No. GNR-W-97-2 will be treated as withdrawn and the case closed.  Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.067.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.  Any person interested in this Order may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order.  Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration.  See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this                  day of October 1998.
                                                                                                                                      DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT
                                                                                           RALPH NELSON, COMMISSIONER

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
bls/O:uwiw973.sw
COMMENTS AND ANNOTATIONS
Text Box 1:
TEXT BOXES
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 20, 1998