28744.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. 28744

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 requested 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.

The Commission by way of clarification issued in Order No. 28711 the following 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 (4/18/2000). 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.…
Petition for Reconsideration
On May 4, 2001, John H. Fleischer, Monica Chapman, and Roy Homsher, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission’s Order No. 28711. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.331. The Petitioners contend that the deciding factor as to when Golden Dawn/Barberton residents would transition to full United Water rates should be the language contained in United Water Tariff Schedule No. 1F: i.e.,
These rates will remain in effect for six months or until all the system improvements stipulated in Order No. 28205 have been completed.

Petitioners contend that the maintenance stipulated in Order No. 28205 has never been fully completed to the storage reservoir as stipulated, i.e., that the Company has failed to expend the full $35,454 estimated cost of repairs to the storage reservoir.
Petitioners note that the Commission in subsequent Case No. UWI-W-00-4 (Harris Ranch—Backbone Plant Agreement), Order No. 28588, authorized United Water to minimize their reservoir expense and only apply $14,174 to reservoir repair instead of the $35,454 stipulated and agreed to in Order No. 28205. The Petitioners contend that no reference regarding the modification to the United Water/Barber Water Order of required repairs to the Barber Water system appears in the Notice of Application in that case. Therefore, the Petitioners state they did not participate in that case and expressed no comment.
Petitioners contend that the difference between $35,454 and $14,174 should be used to resolve Golden Dawn/Barberton problems rather than being transferred to Harris Ranch activities.
The Petitioners contend that the Commission’s intent as reflected in Order No. 28711 may be one way to interpret the Commission’s earlier language regarding the start date for the six month transition period, but the Petitioners do not see it as a true reflection of what has been written. The water usage estimates presented by the Company to the Golden Dawn/Barberton residents and the liaison team, the Petitioners state, have proven to be inaccurate and understated. The Company’s billing estimates, the Petitioners state, led their community to a false sense of acceptance. The Petitioners contend that they should remain on Barber Water billing rates until excessively high billings, water usage, and water loss issues are resolved.
United Water Response
On May 15, 2001, United Water filed a Response to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Company contends that the Petition is defective and that it does not “set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the Petitioner contends that the Order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the Petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Reference Commission Rules of Procedure 331.01. At most, the Company contends that the Petitioner’s filing sets forth a generalized disagreement with the Commission’s decision in Order No. 28711, but does not offer either compelling logic or evidence that should cause the Commission to rethink its decision.
Should the Commission, however, in its discretion to treat the letter as a Petition for Reconsideration, the Company contends that it should be denied.
United Water contends that the Petitioners filing contains factual inaccuracies. The capital improvements to upgrades and improvements to the Barber Water System as required in Commission Order No. 28205, the Company contends, have been completed and were accomplished prior to any change in water rates to the Golden Dawn/Barberton customers. Although the original estimate of the reservoir of work was $35,000 for installation of a reservoir liner, the Company states that it accomplished the work at a cost of $14,174 by sealing leaks using the services of a contract diver. Simply because the work was accomplished for less than estimated, the Company states, does not mean that it has not been completed.
Regarding Petitioner reference to Case No. UWI-W-00-4, Harris Ranch—Backbone Plant Agreement, the Company states that in response to a Staff production request in that case, the Company responded that the supply main, booster station and storage reservoir investment would benefit Barber Water customers by providing additional fire protection capacity, a redundant source of supply and standby power in the case of a power outage. In final Order No. 28588 issued in the Backbone Plant case, the Company notes that the Commission found that “United Water’s total investment for the benefit of Barber Water customers will be $33,454, i.e., $14,174 for repairs to the old reservoir plus $19,280 for the Barber Water customers’ share of the new reservoir.”
The Petitioners’ filing, the Company states, raises issues of excessive water consumption. The issue of excessive water consumption, the Company states, is irrelevant to the issues in Case No. UWI-W-99-4 and is more appropriately addressed in Case No. UWI-W-01-1 In The Matter of the Investigation of Requested Metering for the Barberton/Golden Dawn Service Area.
To allow Golden Dawn/Barberton customers to “remain on the former Barber Water billing rates until excessively high billings, water usage, and water loss issues are resolved”, the Company states, would be counter to all that the Commission has already decided in Case No. UWI-W-99-4. United Water requests that the Commission deny Petitioner’s request for reconsideration of Order No. 28711.

COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed the filings of record in Case No. UWI-W-99-4 including our final Order No. 28205 approving the underlying sale and transfer of the Barber Water Corporation domestic water system to United Water Idaho, Inc. We have also reviewed Staff’s Petition for Clarification of Order No. 28205, the Company’s related filing, our Order of Clarification, Order No. 28711, the Petition for Reconsideration and the Company’s response.
The Petitioners contend that the system improvements, which were to be completed before the switch to United Water rates, have not been performed. Reference Order No. 28205. Specifically, the Petitioners contend that the full Company estimated expenditure for reservoir repair (i.e., $35,454) has not been expended; instead the Company has only spent $14,174.
In Case No. UWI-W-00-4, the Commission took notice of the Company’s intention to construct a new reservoir and abandon the existing reservoir. This information was presented in Staff comments in that case. In Order No. 28588, the Commission acknowledged the amount expended by the Company for repairs on the old reservoir and found the proposed method of allocating customer benefit/responsibility for the proposed storage reservoir to be reasonable. The Commission remains satisfied that the required repairs were performed prior to any switch in rates.
The Petitioners have not offered to provide any additional evidence in this case. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. We therefore find the Petitioners have not provided any basis for the Commission to re-examine its prior decision. We accordingly find it reasonable to deny the Petition for Reconsideration and to affirm Order No. 28711.
The Commission notes that the Petitioners raised an issue regarding the inaccuracy of the Company’s earlier water usage estimates. The Petitioners contend that they should remain on Barber Water’s billing rates until excessively high billings, water usage and water loss issues are resolved. The Commission finds that this was not an issue raised by Staff in its Petition for Clarification or addressed in our Clarification Order No. 28711. We therefore find that this is not an issue appropriately addressed on reconsideration. Reference Idaho Code § 61-626(1). Instead, we find that it is an issue that should be addressed in the Golden Dawn/Barberton metering case, UWI-W-01-1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over United Water Idaho Inc., a water utility, and the issues presented in this case pursuant to the authority granted the Commission in Idaho Code, Title 61 and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.

O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby deny the Petition for Reconsideration filed by John H. Fleischer, Monica Chapman and Roy Homsher.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any Party aggrieved by this Order may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this _______ day of May 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/O: UWI-W-99-4_sw2

ORDER NO. 28744 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 1, 2001