28711.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECOND JOINT APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. AND BARBER WATER CORPORATION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING THE PURCHASE BY UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. OF WATER SERVICE PROPERTIES OWNED BY BARBER WATER CORPORATION; FOR AUTHORITY TO EXPAND UNITED WATER IDAHO’S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR APPROVAL OF RATES AND CHARGES. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. UWI-W-99-4

ORDER NO. 28711

Petition for Clarification
On November 16, 1999, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission issued final Order No. 28205 in Case No. UWI-W-99-4 approving the sale and transfer of the Barber Water Corporation domestic water system to United Water Idaho Inc. On January 12, 2001, the Commission Staff filed a Petition for Clarification of Order No. 28205, Case No. UWI-W-99-4. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.325. Staff requests clarification of the following Commission Order language:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission does hereby approve a transitional six-month phase in of rates for Barber Water residential customers.

Order No. 28205, p. 10.

It is United Water’s contention that the Commission intended that the six-month phase in begin immediately as of the date of the Commission’s Order (11/16/99). It is Staff’s contention that the trigger event for initiating the six-month phase in of rates was completion of master metering (4/18/2000).
Staff notes that the rates for former Barber Water customers on file with the Commission are the rates reflected in United Water’s Schedule No. 1F. The rates set out in that schedule are the Barber Water flat rates. The rates also contain the following language
“these rates [bi-monthly flat charge] will remain in effect for six months or until the system improvements stipulated in Order No. 28205 have been completed, whichever is longer.”

Staff contends that although the tariff language reflects an approval date of January 20, 2000, that the language itself is non-conforming to the Commission’s Order. The Commission’s Order language does not say the transition period was to begin immediately. Staff further notes that United Water failed to submit a replacement tariff when it switched on July 1, 2000, from Barber Water flat rates to the rate calculations set forth in Order No. 28205. Reference Idaho Code § 61-313—Schedule Charges Only Permitted.
Staff contends that the Commission’s Order language is qualified by the ordering preface language, i.e., “In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described and qualified above.” Order No. 28205, p. 9. The relevant preceding language cited by Staff does not appear in the Findings of Fact, but does appear in the summary of the Company’s Application and the comments of parties. The Findings do indicate approval of a six-month transition period.
Company Response
On February 2, 2001, United Water filed a response to Staff’s Petition for Clarification. United Water contends that the operative ordering paragraph of the Commission is plain and conclusive. United Water argues that the “six-month transition” period recommended by the Company and agreed to by Staff (i.e., “for a period of six months following installation of the master meters”) was different from that “approved” by the Commission in Order No. 28205. The Company notes that “persons familiar with the practices of the Commission know it is not uncommon for the Commission, in their exercise of judgment and discretion, to adopt a position in the final Order different than the positions advanced by involved parties.”
The Company argues that the submitted tariff reflected its understanding of the Order. It is undisputed that the tariff was reviewed by a Staff engineer and that the Commission by its Secretary approved the tariff. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.133. It is also undisputed that the Company communicated its intentions to the Barber Water Liaison Committee and the Staff’s Consumer Division. Once approved, the Company contends that it was legally bound to comply with the filed tariff and had no legal authority to do differently. The filed Tariff Schedule No. 1F reads in part as follows:
“These rates [bi-monthly flat charge] will remain in effect for six months or until the system improvements stipulated in Order No. 28205 have been completed, whichever is longer.”

Schedule No. 1F, Tariff approved January 20, 2000, effective January 1, 2000.

United Water disagrees with Staff’s assertion that at the time of the change-over in rates a new tariff should have been filed. The Company contends a new tariff was not necessary because Barber’s unmetered customers began taking service at the Company’s “general tariff rate”—a tariff for metered customers. It is also the Company’s contention that Schedule 1F expired by its terms and formal cancellation would have been merely a clerical act.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Commission has reviewed and considered Staff’s Petition for Clarification, the Company’s Response and the underlying Order No. 28205. What has been requested is clarification as to when the six-month phase-in of rates was to begin. Staff contends that the trigger event was completion of master metering (04/18/2000). Such an interpretation comports with the Company’s request in its Application. It is the Company’s position that the Commission’s Order language can easily be interpreted as approval of a six-month phase-in period beginning as of the date of the Commission’s Order. We find that the Company’s understanding and interpretation of our ordering paragraph is correct. The Commission intended that Barber customers would have at least a six-month transition from the rates in effect at the time of sale to United Water tariff rates. The Company’s implementation of the Commission’s Order is in compliance with the letter and the spirit of our Order. The Company filed a conforming tariff, it was reviewed by Staff and approved by the Commission. We find that the Company in its representations to Barber Water Company’s customers, the liaison team and also to Commission Consumer Staff acted consistently with our Order.
The Barber system customers have been billed at United Water rates since July 2000. The change in rates did not occur until after installation of the master meters and six months from the sale. We further find that the Company was following its approved tariff when it billed Barber Water customers. We find the Company transition from Barber Water flat rates to United Water metered rates occurred in the manner approved in our Order. As the calculation of present metered rates requires a calculation of usage before applying the metered rate, we direct the Company to file a new and separate tariff for Barber Water customers explicitly indicating the formula and method of rate calculation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and United Water Idaho, Inc., a water utility, 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
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission provides the foregoing findings as clarification of its Order No. 28205.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Company is directed to file a new and separate rate tariff for Barber Water customers explicitly indicating the formula and method of rate calculation.
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 April 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/O:UWI-W-99-4_sw

ORDER NO. 28711 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 23, 2001