20220930Bui Direct with Exhibits.pdf

Preston N. Carter (ISB No. 8462)
Morgan D. Goodin (ISB No. 11184)
Givens Pursley LLP 601 W. Bannock St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF VEOLIA WATER IDAHO, INC. FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ANN T. BUI
SEPTEMBER 2022
Bui, Di 2 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
INTRODUCTION 1
Q. Please state your name, occupation, and business address. 2
A. My name is Ann Bui, and I am a Managing Director with Black & Veatch 3
Management Consulting LLC (“Black & Veatch”), responsible for the firm’s Water 4
Advisory Practice. I am testifying on behalf of Veolia Water Idaho, Inc. (“VWID” 5
or the “Company”) in this case. Black & Veatch is headquartered at 11041 Lamar 6
Avenue, Overland Park, Kansas. 7
Q. Please summarize your educational background and professional experience. 8
A. As detailed in my attached resume (Appendix A), I am a Chemical Engineer by 9
training at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and the University of 10
California at Los Angeles. My Master of Business Administration from the 11
University of California at Davis specializes in Finance and Organization 12
Management. 13
My experience includes helping utilities with organizational effectiveness 14
studies, reducing carbon footprints for energy-intensive activities, addressing 15
affordability and assistance program needs, quantifying the financial impact of 16
deferred asset maintenance, and developing innovative approaches for structuring 17
alternative delivery projects using private and public financing instruments. During 18
my 32-year career, I have worked on more than 450 engagements, providing 19
financial and business planning services for public and investor-owned utilities of 20
all sizes. These services have spanned all aspects of rate filings, from revenue 21
requirements to cost of service and rate design. 22
Bui, Di 3 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Over the past two decades, I have provided expert witness testimony in front 1
of the California Public Utilities Commission, the Indiana Utilities Regulatory 2
Commission, and the Kentucky Public Service Commission. For long-standing 3
clients such as the Philadelphia Water Department and Washington Suburban 4
Sanitary Commission, I have testified before utility rate commissions in numerous 5
rate filings on cost-of-service matters. I have also provided expert witness 6
testimony supporting litigation matters for the City of San Diego, CA, Greater 7
Cincinnati Water Works, the City of Baton Rouge, LA, the City of Atlanta, GA, 8
and the City of Holland, MI. 9
I am a long-standing member of several industry associations that are key 10
to developing and providing guidance to the rate-making community. As an active 11
member of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the National 12
Association of Water Agencies, and the Water Environmental Federation (WEF), I 13
have served in the following leadership positions: 14
● Past Chair of AWWA’s Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls 15
(FAMC) Committee (3 years) 16
● Vice-Chair of FAMC (3 years) 17
● Member of AWWA’s Rates and Charges (R&C) and FAMC committees 18
o Co-Chair of Publications Subcommittee (Joint R&C and FAMC) 19
o Vice-Chair of R&C Rate Design subcommittee 20
o Member of R&C Water Reuse subcommittee 21
o Member of R&C System Development Charges subcommittee 22
o Member of R&C Executive Committee 23
Bui, Di 4 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
o Chair for current revision to AWWA’s M29 Manual, Water Utility 1
Capital Financing 2
In addition to serving on industry committees, I have also contributed as an 3
editor, author, and reviewer for AWWA’s M1-Principles of Water Rates, Fees and 4
Charges (6th and 7th editions, and the currently under development, 8th edition); 5
WEF’s Manual of Practices 27- Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems 6
(3rd and 4th editions), and WEF’s User-Fee-Funded Stormwater Program. 7
Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 8
A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide a cost-of-service overview and describe 9
the methodology and results of the Black & Veatch’s Cost of Service Study (COSS) 10
prepared for this proceeding. 11
Q. Please identify the supporting schedules provided with your testimony. 12
A. Black & Veatch is sponsoring Exhibit 14 with the following schedules: 13
Exhibit 14-1 summarizes the COSS and compares the cost of service, by 14
customer class, with revenues under existing and proposed rates. The schedule 15
also presents the COSS increase by customer class. 16
Exhibit 14-2 summarizes the distribution of test year operation and 17
maintenance (O&M) expenses, depreciation expense, taxes, return, and rate 18
base to the customer classes. 19
Exhibit 14-3 presents the distribution of O&M, depreciation, taxes, return, and 20
rate base to the functional cost components. 21
Exhibit 14-4 illustrates the allocation of demand-related fire service costs to 22
private and public fire customers. 23
Bui, Di 5 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Exhibit 14-5 (a-c) presents the development of charges for the 5/8” meter, billed 1
consumption, and private fire service. 2
Exhibit 14-F presents the allocation factors used in the COSS. 3
COST OF SERVICE OVERVIEW 4
Q. What is the purpose of a Cost-of-Service Study? 5
A. The purpose of a cost-of-service study is to analyze the assignment of cost 6
responsibility to customers serviced and to guide the development of rates in rate 7
cases. As it is neither economically practical nor often possible to determine cost 8
responsibility and applicable rates for each individual customer, rate practitioners 9
conducting a cost-of-service analysis use groups or classes of customers with 10
similar water-use characteristics for cost allocations. Ratemaking endeavors to 11
assign costs to classes of customers in a non-discriminatory, cost-responsive 12
manner so that rates can be designed to meet the cost of providing services to 13
customer classes. 14
Q. Was the Cost-of-Service Study in this proceeding consistent with Generally 15
Accepted Industry Guidelines? 16
A. Yes. The cost-of-service analysis conducted by Black & Veatch utilizes a cost-17
causative approach endorsed by AWWA’s Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and 18
Charges, Manual of Water Supply Practices M1 (M1 Manual). The methodology 19
produces cost of service allocations recognizing the projected customer service 20
requirements for the Company. Proposed rates are designed according to allocated 21
service costs and local policy considerations. Furthermore, the methodology used 22
Bui, Di 6 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
in the COSS is consistent with the approach agreed to by the Company and the 1
Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in prior rate proceedings. 2
Q. Please describe the various components of a COSS. 3
A. Essentially, a COSS consists of three parts that can be summarized as follows: 4
● Revenue and Revenue Requirements. Rates and charges should generate 5
adequate revenues to meet the operating and capital costs and provide for the 6
utility's financial stability. Under this step, we project the Company’s test year 7
revenues under existing rates and compare them to the projected test year 8
operational and capital needs. 9
● Cost of Service. The cost-of-service analysis evaluates the existing utility and 10
the relative load placed on the utility by the different customer classes to 11
allocate costs based on services received fairly. The cost-of-service analyses 12
consider the functional aspects of utility operations and cost components such 13
as base, extra-capacity, meter, customer, and other direct costs. This step 14
provides a means of apportioning costs and the overall return to each customer 15
class. 16
● Rate Design. Under this step, we develop rates and charges that reflect cost-of-17
service principles and the Company’s goals and objectives. 18
COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN 19
Q. Please summarize Black & Veatch’s COSS. 20
A. Black & Veatch’s cost-of-service analysis uses the Base-Extra Capacity method 21
and methodology accepted by the PUC in past proceedings. The M1 Manual 22
Bui, Di 7 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
recognizes the Base-Extra Capacity approach as an acceptable means of 1
determining the costs of service. 2
Under the Base-Extra Capacity method, the identified revenue requirements 3
are allocated to functional cost components. Simply put, functional cost 4
components can be considered activities that drive costs. For the COSS, these 5
functional cost components are Average Daily Use, Maximum Day Use, Maximum 6
Hour Use, Meters, Services, Billing & Collection, and Fire Protection. 7
Next, we identify the billing determinants for each customer class by 8
functional cost component. After this is completed, the functional costs are 9
allocated to the residential, commercial, public authority, and fire protection 10
customer classes based on the number of units calculated in Step 2. Finally, we 11
determine the revenue gap between the cost of service and revenues under existing 12
rates for each class. 13
Q. Does the cost of service by customer class presented in the COSS reflect the 14
actual Test Year and Test Period data presented in the filing? 15
A. Yes. Black & Veatch used the revenue requirements in this proceeding and 16
allocated them to the functional cost components and customer classes using 17
factors and ratios that reflect current operations and requirements. The System 18
maximum day and hour ratios and those for the residential, commercial, and public 19
authority classes are based on Black & Veatch’s Customer Class Load Study (Load 20
Study), which is included in Appendix B. 21
Q. Please describe any major findings of the Load Study. 22
Bui, Di 8 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
A. The Load Study results indicate that the System maximum day ratios are consistent 1
with the Company’s ratios based on correlating the highest annual maximum water 2
production day for the last ten years. Moreover, the Load Study found that although 3
each customer class had distinct maximum day and maximum hour ratios, the 4
system-wide diversity factors are slightly below the typical range cited in the M1 5
Manual of 1.10 to 1.40. In other words, water conservation efforts, commercial 6
irrigation patterns, and storage management have produced a system whereby all 7
customer classes peak at close to the same time (coincident peaking). 8
Consequently, the benefits of non-coincidental peaks provided by different classes 9
are substantially reduced. This observation supports the Company’s belief that 10
having one general service rate for all customers is appropriate. 11
Q. Does the Load Study identify new customer classes, such as those with an 12
alternative irrigation source? 13
A. No. The Black & Veatch study examined over a half billion data points gathered 14
via Advanced Infrastructure Metering (AMI) and non-AMI methods. None of the 15
data provided a means to determine which customer accounts have an alternative 16
irrigation source. Short of separating metering the alternative source, there is no 17
way of knowing when customers use the potable water system versus the 18
alternative source on any given day. Moreover, the reviewed data showed no 19
customer classes or groups exhibiting significantly different usage patterns. 20
Q. Please discuss Exhibit 14-1, which summarizes the results of the COSS. 21
Bui, Di 9 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
A. Exhibit 14-1 shows that for the test year ending March 31, 2023, the total revenue 1
requirement reflects a 23.4% revenue increase. The COSS suggests that the overall 2
average revenue increase by customer class would be: 3
● Residential – an increase of 27.5% 4
● Commercial – an increase of 21.8% 5
● Public Authority – an increase of 2.5% 6
● Private Fire – a decrease of 62.9% 7
Q. How do the proposed rates set forth in Company witness Tim Michaelson’s 8
testimony differ from those calculated in the COSS? 9
A. As noted earlier, the design of rates should also reflect the Company’s goals to 10
propose rates that fairly reflect the cost of providing service while maintaining 11
gradual shifts in rates that minimize the impact on residential and others. 12
For example, the COSS indicates that private fire protection charges should 13
decrease because of a slight change in required fire durations: The COSS based 14
total fire demand on 1 4-hour, 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm) fire, 1 4-hour, 4,000 15
gpm fire, and 1 2-hour 1,500 gpm fire. This is a change from a total system demand 16
for a 10-hour, 10,000 gpm fire. The Company’s proposed fire sprinkler rates reflect 17
a policy of gradualism and no change to the current fire rate schedule. 18
The Company’s approach concerning General Service rates is consistent 19
with the “across the board” methodology accepted in the 2011, 2015, and 2020 rate 20
proceedings. The proposed increase of 24.1% is comparable across the customer 21
classes, which is why the Company proposes the same approach in this rate 22
proceeding. 23
Bui, Di 10 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Q. Please discuss why you believe the proposed revenue increase allocation is fair. 1
A. The Company continues to make substantial infrastructure and operational 2
improvements to the water system. The overall revenue increase reflects the 3
magnitude of these investments and is distributed to all customers in the same, fair 4
manner. 5
Q. Are any changes to the rate structure being proposed in this filing? 6
A. No. 7
Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony? 8
A. Yes, it does. 9
APPENDIX A

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF
ANN T. BUI
BLACK & VEATCH MANAGEMENT CONSULTING LLC.
Bui, Appendix A 2
Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Ann T. Bui
Managing Director
Ms. Bui serves as a Managing Director with Black &Veatch’s Global
Advisory business. In this role, she oversees all rate and financial
planning work for water and wastewater clients. Ann has more than
30 years of experience gained through more than 450 engagements,
providing financial and business planning services for public and
investor-owned utilities of all sizes.
Ann has more than 30 years of experience with clients in North and South America,
Europe, and Asia gained through more than 450 engagements, providing financial
and business planning services for public and investor-owned utilities of all sizes.
Ann’s recent assignments have focused on water scarcity and insecurity;
addressing affordability and assistance program needs; quantifying the financial
impact of deferred asset maintenance; developing innovative approaches for
structuring alternative delivery projects using private and public financing
instruments and preparing financial feasibility reports supporting more than $14
billion of revenue bond sales, $4 billion in state revolving fund loans, and over $1
billion of grant applications. Her work on due diligence efforts have supported the
successful buy-side/sell-side of water and wastewater assets totaling over $12
billion.
Ms. Bui has completed due diligence engagements for entities of many
internationally well-established companies such as KKR, Macquarie Capital, Credit
Suisse, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Merrill
Lynch, Rothschild, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Barclays, Fiera
Infrastructure, Alma Global, and PGGM.
Over the past two decades, Ms. Bui has provided expert witness testimony in front
of the California Public Utilities Commission, the Indiana Utilities Regulatory
Commission, and the Kentucky Public Service Commission. She has served as an
expert witness in front of utility rate commissions for such clients as the
Philadelphia Water Department and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
She has also provided expert witness testimony supporting rate litigation matters
for the City of San Diego, CA, Greater Cincinnati Water Works, City of Baton Rouge,
LA, City of Atlanta, GA, and the City of Holland, MI.
An active proponent of advancing the water industry, Ms. Bui is a long-standing
member of several industry associations. She is a past Chair of the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls

Masters, Business Administration,
Finance, University of California –

Engineering,

Engineering,
British Columbia, 1986, Canada
YEARS EXPERIENCE
32
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
License, Engineer-In-Training,

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
AWWA
- AWWA’s Finance,

- AWWA’s Strategic

– AWWA’s Rates &

RELEVANT EXPERTISE
Financial & Management Consulting
Services; Debt Issuance Support;
Elasticity Studies; Cost of Service &
Rate Design; Institutional &
Organizational Studies; Alternative
Financing; Valuations/M&A
Bui, Appendix A 3
Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
(FAMC) Committee and is involved with AWWA’s Rates and Charges Committee, the National Association
of Clean Water Agency’s (NACWA’s) Utility Management Committee, and with the Water Environment
Federation (WEF).
Ann serves as an author, editor, and peer reviewer for many of the rate-making industry’s manuals of
practice, including AWWA’s M1 – Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, the current update to M1,
the current update of WEF’s Manual of Practice 27, Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems, and
WEF’s User-Fee Funded Stormwater Program. She is the lead author and editor of AWWA’s book
Financial Management for Water Utilities: Principles of Finance, Accounting and Management
Controls. Presently, Ann is the Chair for the update to AWWA’s M29 – Water Utility Capital Financing.
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Philadelphia Water Department; Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Cost of Service
Studies; Pennsylvania; 2003 – 2006; 2017-Present
Project Director. Ms. Bui has worked with the City of Philadelphia since 2003 and currently serves as the
Project Director for Black & Veatch’s multi-utility cost of service work with the Philadelphia Water
Department (PWD). The 2020 Rate Case incorporated program costs for PWD’s long-term control plan,
green infrastructure, public-private grants to incentivize stormwat er improvements, and
restructuring of the City’s assistance programs. The 2020 Rate Case also included development of a
customer assistance rate rider as well as changes in public fire protection cost recovery. Black & Veatch is
currently preparing the rate filing for the customer assistance program petition for increasing rates, and a
separate reconciliation filing the 2020 Rate Case black-box settlement.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate
Study; Laurel, Maryland, United States; 2016-Present
Project Director. Ms. Bui is the project director responsible for Black & Veatch’s engagement with WSSC
Water. Since 2016, we have completed numerous assignments with WSSC Water, including conducting a
comprehensive water and wastewater rate study, analysis and development of a new overhead cost
allocation methodology, creation of miscellaneous fees, and provided litigation support to WSSC on rate-
setting matters in front of the Maryland PSC. For the rate study, we performed an analysis of WSSC's
current rate structure as well as numerous alternative rate structures and conducted extensive public
outreach to a bi-county working group as well as stakeholder groups. Workshops included explanation of
the rate-making process, WSSC priorities and goals for rate setting, and discussion of stakeholder issues
and concerns. The Black & Veatch team continues to advise WSSC on alternative rate structures as
management and the Board consider a new rate structure that better addresses WSSC's goals and
objectives.
Great Lakes Water Authority; System Water Audit and Units of Service for Non-Master Metered Customers – Phase I; Detroit, Michigan, 2017
Project Director. Ms. Bui served as the Project Director for the first phase of Black & Veatch’s engagement
with the Great lakes Water Authority (GLWA). The engagement is entering its 6th year. GLWA provides
water to approximately 3.5 million customers in southeastern Michigan, including the City of Detroit and
Bui, Appendix A 4
Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
over 100 surrounding communities. Under Phase I, Black & Veatch was hired to develop the Units of
Service for communities for which GLWA supplies water, but do not have a master meter.
Water Supplies Department; Water Conservation and Loss Analysis, Hong Kong, China; 2016
Technical Reviewer. Ms. Bui is serving as the lead reviewer and subject matter expert for the regulatory
and infrastructure governance aspect of Black & Veatch’s engagement with the Hong Kong Water
Supplies Department (WSD) as part of a larger Total Water Management program. The WSD supplies
more than 7 million people. Under this part of the engagement, Ms. Bui is reviewing recommendations
made to improvement the organization’s governance and structure to meet current and future regulatory
needs.
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans; Operations Reports, Comprehensive Financial
Planning and Cost of Service Studies and Customer Assistance Program; Louisiana; 2017-
Present
Project Director. Ms. Bui serves as the Project Director for Black & Veatch’s ongoing engagement for the
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans. Our work for the Board has been on a continual basis for
over 45 years. Services provided include the annual report on operations for water, wastewater, and
storm drainage utilities, including evaluation of management, operations, financing and compliance with
bond covenants; engineering bond reports; and the development and implementation of the Board’s first
comprehensive customer assistance program.
Charleston Water Systems; Comprehensive Financial Planning and Cost of Service Studies;
South Carolina; 2015-Present
Project Director. Ms. Bui serves as the Project Director supporting Black & Veatch’s comprehensive
financial services to the Charleston Water Systems. We have provided revenue bond, rate design and
other financial service to the Charleston Water Service for several decades. The comprehensive water
and wastewater rate study and rate schedules were recently updated in 2018. In addition, contracts with
wholesale customers were reviewed and updated. Current work includes asset valuation for specific parts
of the water system that are being considered for purchase by an existing customer.
American Water Company; Automated Metering Infrastructure Rate Case Support and
Water-Budget Rate Setting Expert Witness; California;2016-2019
Project Director. Ms. Bui served as the Project Director for California American Water’s (CAW’s) Rate Case
petition for an Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program in front of the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). CAW retained Black & Veatch to help support the development of an AMI
framework and provide expert witness testimony. As part of the framework, we developed cost estimates
for different AMI configurations and evaluated both tangible and intangible benefits of AMI. The CPUC is
currently reviewing the petition and Black & Veatch is serving as an expert witness. Concurrent with the
work, Ms. Bui served as an expert witness for CAW’s separate CPUC rate petition regarding its water
budget-based rate design for the Monterey service area.
Bui, Appendix A 5
Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.

Midwestern & Eastern US - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Solid Waste & Gas Utility Enterprise
Financial Planning, Rate & Cost-of-Service Studies, System Development Charges, Indirect Cost
Allocations, & Business Planning Activities
 City of Dayton, OH
 Greater Cincinnati Water
Works, OH
 Metropolitan Sewer
District of Hamilton
County, OH
 City of Mason, OH
 City of Columbia, OH
 City of Wyoming, MI
 City of Detroit, MI
 Great Lakes Water
Authority, MI
 City of Grand Rapids, MI
 City of Holland, MI
 City of Rochester Hills, MI
 Philadelphia Water
Department, PA
 Philadelphia Gas Works,
PA
 Alleghany County
Sanitary Authority, PA
 Sewerage and Water
Board of New Orleans, LA
 Baton Rouge, LA
 JEA, FL
 Florida Governmental
Utility Authority, FL
 City of North Miami, FL
 Miami-Dade Water and
Sewer Department, FL
 City of Surfside, FL
 Puerto Rico Aqueduct
and Sewer Authority, PR
 Palmas Del Mar Utilities,
PR
 Northern Kentucky Water
District, KY
 Louisville Water
Company, KY
 Warren County, KY
 Johnson County
Wastewater, KS
 Unified Government of
Wyandotte County, KS
 WaterOne, KS
 Kansas City Board of
Public Utilities, KS
 City of Leavenworth, KS
 City of El Dorado, KS
 City of Topeka, KS
 City of Kansas City, MO
 City of St Louis, Water
Division, MO
 Broken Arrow Municipal
Authority, OK
 Tulsa Municipal Utility
Authority, OK
 City of Jasper, AL
 City of Highland, IL
 City of Aurora, IL
 Thorn Creek Basin
Sanitary District, IL
 City of Bloomington
Department of Utilities,
IN
 New Jersey American
Water, NJ
 Suez Water, NY
 City of High Point, NC
 City of Raleigh, NC
 Town of Clayton, NC
 Johnson County, NC
 City of Columbus, SC
 City of Charleston, SC
 Charleston Water System,
SC
 Beaufort-Jasper Water
and Sewer Authority, SC
 Renewable Water
Resources, SC
 Woodruff Roebuck Water
District, SC
 Gulf Coast Water
Authority, TX
 San Antonio Water
System, TX
 City of Arlington, TX
 North Texas Municipal
Water Authority, TX
 City of Hudson Oaks, TX
 City of Taylor, TX
 Lower Colorado River
Authority, TX
 North Texas Municipal
Water District, TX
 Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission, MD
 City of Norfolk, VA

Bui, Appendix A 6 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Western US - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, & Solid Waste Utility Enterprise Financial Planning,
Rate & Cost-of-Service Studies, Indirect Cost Allocations, Management Audits /Organizational
Assessment Studies, & Business Planning Activities
 City of Glendale, AZ
 City of Phoenix, AZ
 City of Tucson, AZ
 City of Flagstaff, AZ
 City of Scottsdale, AZ
 City of Henderson, NV
 City of Las Vegas, NV
 City of Santa Monica, CA
 Los Angeles Bureau of
Sanitation
 City of Long Beach, CA
 City of Orange, CA
 City of Palo Alto, CA
 City of Napa, CA
 City of South Gate, CA
 City of San Diego, CA
 County of San Diego, CA
 Cambria Community
Services District, CA
 Marin Municipal Water
District, CA
 Helix Water District, CA
 Rancho California Water
District, CA
 Indio Water Authority, CA
 City of San Clemente, CA
 City of Soledad, CA
 San Joaquin County, CA
 City of Port Hueneme, CA
 Santa Ynez River Water
Conservation District, CA
 Guam Waterworks
Authority
 City of Salem, OR
 City of Oxnard, CA
 City of Los Angeles,
Stormwater Division
 City of San Juan
Capistrano, CA
 City of Downey, CA
 Camrosa Water District,
CA
 City of Pico Rivera, CA
 Leucadia Water District,
CA
 City of Orange, CA
 City of Yuba City, CA
 City of Antioch, CA
 Encinitas Wastewater
Authority, CA
 City of Escondido, CA
 Dublin San Ramon Service
District, CA
 Padre Dam Municipal
Water District, CA
 Sweetwater Authority, CA
 Western Municipal Water
District, CA
 Cucamonga Valley Water
District, CA
 City of Patterson, CA
 City of Chino Hills, CA
 Riverside Public Utilities,
CA
 Vallecitos Water District,
CA
 City of Fountain Valley,
CA
 City of Westminster, CA
 City of Santa Ana, CA
 City of Lomita, CA
 Atascadero Mutual Water
Company, CA
 Golden States Water
Company
 California American
Water
 City of Ontario, CA
 City of San Jose, CA
 County of San
Bernardino, CA
 Goleta Water District
 Burbank Water & Power,
CA
 Metropolitan Water
District of Southern
California
 Vallejo Flood Control
District, CA
 Central Contra Costa
Sanitation District, CA
 LA DWP, CA
 City of Santa Clara, CA
 City of Menlo Park, CA
 Olivehain Municipal
Water District, CA
 Port of San Diego, CA
 Simi Valley Sanitation, CA
 City of Banning, CA City of
Tacoma, WA
 Cherry Hills Sanitation
District, CO
 Parker Water and
Sanitation District, CO
 Waste Management Inc.,
CO
 Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy
District, CO
 Las Campanas Water &
Sewer Cooperative, NM
 Suez Water, ID

Bui, Appendix A 7 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
“The Conundrum of Water Affordability. What’s at Stake,” Lead story, Water Finance & Management,
February 2021.
“Customer-centricity for Utilities” Zyprme Webinar, October 29, 2020.
“Can’t Pay; Won’t Pay: COVID Implications for Water Utility Funding” Water Online, September 16, 2020
“How Much is it Worth? An Overview of Valuing Water Utilities” Journal AWWA, August 2020.
“Municipal Water and Privatization” Bank of America Merrill Lynch Water Investors Conference,
December 2019
“Water Reuse Cost Allocations and Pricing” Journal AWWA, November 2019.
“A Smoother Road to AMI: Leveraging applicable lessons from the Power Industry” Journal AWWA,
September 2017.
“What is a World-Class Utility and How Does Yours Become One?” Water Online, July 25, 2017
“Where are We Heading Next? Strategic Directions in the Water Industry”, presented at the Conference
of Infrastructure Financing Agencies, Federal Policy Meeting in Washington, D.C., April 2017.
“What’s in Your Wallet? Ways to Address Aging Infrastructure and Lack of Money.” Annual Utility
Management Conference. June 2016
“No More Sacred Cows”, published in Journal AWWA, January 2016.
“Business Risks to the Capital Financing Process”, published in AWWA’s Opflow magazine, September
2015.
“Securing Solid Revenues Streams for Water Utilities is Crucial for Financial Resilience”, published in
Breaking Energy, September 10, 2015.
“Revenues and Expenses and Ratios, Oh My! A Finance Primer for Non-Finance Professionals”, presented
at the Annual Utility Management Conference in Glendale, Ariz., March 2013.
Bui, Ann T., Editor, Financial Management for Water Utilities: Principles of Finance, Accounting and
Management Controls, 2012, published by AWWA, Denver, Colo.
“Checks and Balances: An Overview of the New Financial Management for Water Utilities Handbook”,
presented at the Annual AWWA Conference in Dallas, Tex., June 2012.
“Introduction to Financial Planning” presented at the Pacific Northwest Section of the Clean Water
Association Winter Short Course University, Portland, Oreg., February 2010.
“Money Makes the World Go ‘Round: An Overview of the New Financial Management for Water Utilities
Handbook,” presented at the Annual AWWA Conference in San Diego, Calif., June 2009.
Bui, Appendix A 8 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
“Key Performance Indicators” presented at the Annual AWWA Conference in San Diego, Calif., June 2009.
“Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Finance Management but were Afraid to Ask: An Overview
of the New Financial Management for Water Utilities Manual”, presented at the Annual AWWA
Conference in Atlanta, Ga., June 2008.
“Alternative Funding Sources” presented at the Regional Water Authority Conference in Rancho Cordova,
Calif., April 2007.
“Financial Benchmarks” presented at the Annual AWWA Conference in San Francisco, Calif., June 2005.
“Maximize Debt Market Options – Minimize Revenue Adjustments” presented at the Kentucky/Tennessee
AWWA/WEF Conference in Nashville, Tenn., August 2004.
“Quantification and Reduction of Risk from Hazardous Air Emissions - Keynote address,” presented at the
AIChE Annual Conference in San Francisco, Calif., November 1994.

VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
Customer Class Load Study
BLACK & VEATCH PROJECT NO. 411087
PREPARED FOR
Veolia Water Idaho Inc.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022

©B
l
a
c
k

&

V
e
a
t
c
h

H
o
l
d
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

2
0
1
2. A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Bui, Appendix B 1 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
~.BLACK&VEATCH
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Legal Notice.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 VWID Customers ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Study Objectives & Approach ............................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Identification of Max Day and Max Hour Timeframe ................................................................. 9
2.1 System Max Day & Max Hour ............................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Determining an Analytical Window ............................................................................................... 10
3.0 Selection of Representative Customer Data ................................................................................ 12
3.1 Methodology to Select Representative Customers .................................................................. 12
3.2 Comparing Billing Data for All Customers and AMI Customers ......................................... 12
3.3 Selecting Representative AMI Meters............................................................................................ 13
3.3.1 Developing MD and MH Estimations .......................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Data Quality ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.0 Development of Peaking Factors ..................................................................................................... 16
4.1 VWID Production Versus System Demand .................................................................................. 16
4.2 Diurnal Demand Trends ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Coincident Peaking Factors ............................................................................................ 19
4.2.2 Non-Coincident Peaking Factors .................................................................................. 19
4.2.3 System Diversity Factors ................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Count of Customers by Meter Reading Method and by Customer Class ...................................... 7
Table 3-1 Descriptive Statistics by Customer Class ................................................................................................ 13
Table 3-2 Descriptive Statistics by Customer Class after AMI Selection ....................................................... 14
Table 3-3 Count of Meters in Representative AMI Subset ................................................................................... 14
Table 4-1 Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet) ....................................................................... 19
Table 4-2 Timing of Non-Coincident Peaks ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 4-3 Non-Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet) ............................................................. 20
Table 4-4 System Diversity Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet) ............................................................................ 20
Bui, Appendix B 2 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 VWID Production Demand 2015-2021 ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-2 VWID System Daily Production Jun-Aug 2021 .................................................................................. 10
Figure 2-3 Daily Usage by Customer Class (from Available AMI meters) Jun-Aug 2021 ....................... 11
Figure 4-1 VWID System Inputs and Demands (Hourly) for Peak Period .................................................... 18
Bui, Appendix B 3 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Legal Notice 3
Legal Notice
This report was prepared for Veolia Water Idaho, Inc (Client) by Black & Veatch Management Consulting,
LLC (Consultant) and is based on information provided by the Client, not within the control of Consultant.
While the information, data, and opinions contained herein are believed to be reliable under the
conditions and subject to the limitations set forth in this report, Consultant does not guarantee the
accuracy thereof. Consultant has assumed that the information provided by others, both verbal and
written, is complete and correct. Any projections set forth in this report are intended as "forward-looking
statements." In formulating projections, Consultant has made certain assumptions with respect to
conditions, events, and circumstances that may occur in the future. While Consultant believes the
assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ materially from those projected, as influenced by
the conditions, events, and circumstances that occur. As such, Consultant does not take responsibility for
the accuracy of data or projections provided by or prepared on behalf of the Client, nor does Consultant
have any responsibility for updating this report for events occurring after the date of this report.
Use of this report or any information contained therein by any party other than the Client shall constitute
a waiver and release by such third party of Consultant from and against all claims and liability, including
but not limited to liability for special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages in connection with
such use. Such use of this report by a third party shall constitute agreement by the third-party user that
its rights, if any, arising from this report shall be subject to the terms of this Report Limitations, and in no
event shall the third party's rights, if any, exceed those of the Client under its contract with B&V. The
benefit of such releases, waivers, or limitations of liability shall extend to the related companies and
subcontractors of any tier of Black & Veatch and the shareholders, directors, officers, partners,
employees, and agents of all released or indemnified parties.

Bui, Appendix B 4 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary 4
Executive Summary
Study Context
Veolia Water Idaho, Inc., ("VWID" or "the Company") agreed to complete a load study to provide calculated
maximum-day (MD) and maximum-hour (MH) factors for the total system as well as by appropriate
customer class. This study leverages the Company’s investment in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
by utilizing AMI meters to provide data in hour increments to inform max-day and max-hour estimations in
a way that will provide more granular data than reliance upon bi-monthly billing data.
The study was guided by principles defined in the American Water Works Association’s (“AWWA”) Manual
M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges (Seventh Edition) and included the following objectives:
▪ Establish a basis for selecting maximum day and maximum hour ratios for each appropriate customer
classification and the total system. Private Fire Protection customers will not be included in the Load
Study.
▪ The ratios will be used for allocating the maximum day and hour extra capacity costs in the next cost
of service allocation study, which will be used as a guide for designing a proposed rate structure.
▪ The Company will consider input on load study components from interested parties, including
customer class definitions, sampling methodologies, and data sources.
Data Requirements & Analysis
The study was data-intensive, utilizing records from system production data, water storage data, customer
billing data, AMI data (for those customers with AMI meters), and Geographical Information System (GIS)
data. Over half a billion data points were managed and available for analysis as part of the study. The data
were used to identify:

▪ The appropriate MD and MH timeframe for the system and customer classifications. June 1st – August
31, 2021, was identified as an appropriate timeframe for the analysis based on a review of historical
data.
▪ Representative AMI meters for each customer class. As not all VWID customers have AMI data, it was
necessary to ensure that AMI meters selected for analysis were representative of the customer
classifications. This was achieved by looking at average annual and seasonal water use metrics and
identifying a total of 14,245 meters for inclusion in the analysis.
Once an appropriate timeframe and representative AMI meters were identified, the analysis was
performed to extrapolate MD and MH peaking factors for each customer class and the system.
Development of Coincident Peaking Factors
Based on production and storage data, the system MD occurred on 7/9/2021 with a system input value of
12,009,565 (cubic feet) CF cumulative volume for the day. The system max hour occurred on 7/19/21 at
5:00 AM, with a system input volume of 968,291 CF for the hour. The coincident demands (i.e., the
demands occurring at the same time as the system peak) are shown in Table 4-1.
Bui, Appendix B 5 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary 5
Table ES1 Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Customer
Class Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour (MH) MH Peaking
Factor
Residential 3,783,854 7,775,536 2.05 157,661 757,375 4.80
Commercial 1,952,834 3,681,223 1.89 81,368 174,798 2.15
Public Auth. 10,892 12,073 1.11 454 2,066 4.55
SYSTEM 5,932,606 12,009,565 2.02 247,192 968,291 3.92

Development of Non-Coincident Peaking Factors
Non-Coincident Peaks are measured for each customer class independently of the overall system peak. The
MD occurs on a different day for each class, and the MH also occurs on a different hour (and different day)
for each class. Each customer class has a unique peaking profile, with class peaks occurring at different
times (see Appendix C). The non-coincident demands are shown in Table ES2.
Table ES2 Non-Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Customer
Class Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour (MH) MH Peaking
Factor
Residential 3,783,854 8,071,659 2.13 157,661 773,287 4.90
Commercial 1,952,834 3,681,223 1.89 81,368 229,733 2.82
Public Auth. 10,892 15,716 1.44 454 2,134 4.70

Development of System Diversity Factors
The relationship of the noncoincident to coincident demands is referred to as the measure of the system
diversity of demand (AWWA Manual M1). Table ES3 shows the system diversity factors for the VWID
system. The values shown represent the combined demands of only the Commercial, Public Authority, and
Residential Class Customers. The system diversity ratio is often in the range of 1.1 to 1.4, though different
system diversity measures may arise. For example, a system that consists almost entirely of residential
customers would have a diversity factor very close to 1.0, because the noncoincident demand of the
residential customer class would be approximately equal to the coincident demand of the system.

Bui, Appendix B 6 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary 6
Table ES3 System Diversity Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Type Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour
(MH)
MH
Peaking
Factor
Coincident 5,747,581 11,468,832 2.00 239,483 934,239 3.90
Noncoincident 5,747,581 11,768,598 2.05 239,483 1,005,154 4.20
System Diversity Factor
(Noncoincident / Coincident) 1.03 1.08

Bui, Appendix B 7 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Background 7
1.0 Background
Veolia Water Idaho Inc. ("VWID" or "The Company") agreed to complete a load study to provide calculated
max-day and max-hour factors for the total system as well as by appropriate customer class. As defined in
Board Order No. 35030, the Company will work with interested parties to take input on load study
components, including customer class definitions, sampling methodologies from those classes, and data
sources (e.g., Advanced Metering Infrastructure ["AMI"], Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
["SCADA"], meters). After taking input from interested parties, the Company will determine how the load
study shall be performed.
1.1 VWID CUSTOMERS
VWID's data and billing systems currently define customers as Residential, Commercial, Public Authority,
or Private Fire Protection. The current tariff includes an Industrial classification; however, no active
customers are in this class. VWID charges customers based on meter size and usage obtained via a mix of
meter reading methods, including AMI and non-AMI (i.e., manual or Automated Meter Reading [AMR]).
Table 1-1 summarizes the split between AMI and non-AMI customers.
Table 1-1 Count of Customers by Meter Reading Method and by Customer Class
Customer Class AMI Customers Non-AMI Customers Total
Commercial 2,552 7,491 10,043
Public Authority 23 45 68
Residential 18,461 73,178 91,639
TOTAL 21,036 80,714 101,750

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES & APPROACH
Black & Veatch understands that the key study objectives include the following:
▪ Establish a basis for selecting maximum day and maximum hour ratios for each appropriate customer
classification and the total system. Private Fire Protection customers will not be included in the Load
Study.
▪ The ratios will be used for allocating the maximum day and hour extra capacity costs in the next cost
of service allocation study, which will be used as a guide for designing a proposed rate structure.
▪ The Company will consider input on load study components from interested parties, including
customer class definitions, sampling methodologies, and data sources.
▪ The selected consultant's scope of services includes preparing exhibits and testimony for presentation
to the Commission in the first general rate case filing after the study's conclusion.
This study was guided by principles defined in the American Water Works Association’s (“AWWA”) Manual
M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges (Seventh Edition), hereinafter referred to as AWWA
Manual M1. AWWA Manual M1 states that “…the determination of appropriate peaking factors by
customer class for use in cost-of-service allocations and/or rate design is a significant challenge in rate-
making. One means for determining peaking factors by customer class is to undertake a formal demand
Bui, Appendix B 8 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Background 8
study. Formal demand studies involve daily and hourly consumption records of samples of customers from
each class of service and are analyzed over a period of weeks or months. With the increasing availability of
automated meter-reading equipment, enhanced billing software, and data processing capabilities, these
formal design studies, although still costly, are not as difficult or costly as they were in the past. However,
they are not without costs, and there are less sophisticated though adequate calculations that may be
employed to estimate customer class peaking factors using readily available data in the utility’s records”.
The VWID Load Study fits the category of formal demand study per AWWA Manual M1 as it leveraged
hourly and daily consumption measurements of VWID customers made possible by the investments in AMI.
Such studies are relatively uncommon within the water utility sector as AMI is not yet prevalent. Still, they
can provide much greater granularity and insights into customer consumption patterns than the use of bi-
monthly billing records.
The study was data-intensive, utilizing records from system production data, water storage data, customer
billing data, AMI data (for those customers with AMI meters), and Geographical Information System (GIS)
data. Over half a billion data points were managed and available for analysis as part of the study.

Bui, Appendix B 9 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Identification of Max Day and Max Hour Timeframe 9
2.0 Identification of Max Day and Max Hour Timeframe
2.1 SYSTEM MAX DAY & MAX HOUR
One of the initial study tasks was to identify the appropriate maximum-day (MD) and maximum-hour MH
periods for the system and customer classifications. AWWA Manual M1 Appendix A1 suggests using system-
wide data to identify the highest system MD to system average-day (AD) demand over a representative
number of recent years.

Figure 2-1 VWID Production Demand 2015-2021
Figure 2-1 shows daily production data for the VWID system and indicates that the highest max day
production value occurred in 2021. Hourly production data from 2019-2021 was also analyzed, confirming
that the 19 highest hourly production volumes during this timeframe occurred in July of 2021. Therefore,
2021 was selected as the focal timeframe for reviewing customer AMI data in detail to establish peaking
factors by customer class. In addition, other factors supporting the selection of 2021 included:
▪ Weather data confirmed 2021 as the hottest summer in the last few years (see Appendix A).
▪ 2021 is less impacted by COVID-19 than 2020.
▪ 2021 is the most recent year available for analysis at the time of the study.
▪ More AMI data is available for analysis in 2021 compared to earlier years due to the ongoing
expansion of AMI coverage throughout the VWID system.

1 Appendix A: Development of Peaking Factors by Customer Class
Bui, Appendix B 10 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
SOM
100K
60M SOK
>-.. > D .. D .,,
C: LL 2 u -;; 60K !:! ~ C:
C: ~ -~ 40M
::, -0 -0 0
0 cl: cl:
40K
20M
20K
OM OK 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Date
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Identification of Max Day and Max Hour Timeframe 10
2.2 DETERMINING AN ANALYTICAL WINDOW
As AMI data is being used to determine customer class-based MD and MH values, it is necessary to identify
a plausible window that will contain the MD and MH periods and then process the raw AMI data to prepare
it for analysis within that analytical window. It would not be feasible and would expend unnecessary effort
to analyze all the raw AMI data for every period due to the validation that needs to be applied to the data.
For example, meter changeouts, rollovers, and other data anomalies that typically occur in raw data and
would adversely impact the analysis need to be screened out. Based on a review of Figure 2-1 and its
supporting data, it was determined that the period of 06/01/2021 – 08/31/2021 would define the analytical
window and would contain the MD and MH values for the system and customer classes (Figure 2-2 shows
a more detailed view of this period with the system peaking the most in early July 2021). Figure 2-3 supports
the selection of this period and confirms that both the system and customer classes peak during this period.
Therefore, AMI data was prepared for this timeframe.
The system data reflects all the water put into the distribution system (from both production sources and
storage) to satisfy system demands. The customer class data shown in Figure 2-3 reflect the summed
volume of the AMI customers only, disaggregated by customer class. As not all customers have AMI meters,
the sum of the customer class totals in Figure 2-3 will not approximate the system total; however, the
profile of the trends lines are similar and indicates that this period contains the peaking periods for the
system and also the individual customer classes based on the available AMI data from over 20,000 AMI
customers.

Figure 2-2 VWID System Daily Production Jun-Aug 2021

40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mi
l
l
i
o
n

G
a
l
l
o
n
s

/

D
a
y
VWID System Production
Bui, Appendix B 11 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
f
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Identification of Max Day and Max Hour Timeframe 11

Figure 2-3 Daily Usage by Customer Class (from Available AMI meters) Jun-Aug 2021

-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
Cu
b
i
c

F
e
e
t

(
P
u
b
l
i
c

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
)
Cu
b
i
c

F
e
e
t

(
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
ResidentialCommercialPublic Authority
Bui, Appendix B 12 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v f f f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
I I + l t
~ t
t t
+ t t +
+ ~ t
I t
~ l t t
~
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Selection of Representative Customer Data 12
3.0 Selection of Representative Customer Data
As discussed in section 2.2, not all VWID customers have AMI meters. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that the AMI data selected for analysis is representative of the customer class as a whole because the AMI
data is used to extrapolate peaking profiles and factors for the customer class as a whole.
3.1 METHODOLOGY TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVE CUSTOMERS
The bi-monthly billing data for the VWID system was reviewed and analyzed to determine if the available
usage data from AMI meters is representative of the customers as a whole. For each customer class
(Residential, Commercial, Public Authority), the approach used can be summarized as follows:
▪ Calculate the average monthly usage per bill and the average seasonal usage per bill for all customers
within the customer class.
▪ Calculate the average monthly usage per bill and the average seasonal usage per bill for customers with
available AMI data within the customer class.
▪ Compare results for all customers against AMI-only customers.
▪ If necessary, revise the selection of AMI customers to match the average and seasonal usage profile of
all customers.
The following sections provide more details and results on the above steps.

3.2 COMPARING BILLING DATA FOR ALL CUSTOMERS AND AMI CUSTOMERS
Billing data for the 2021 calendar year was reviewed to determine the average monthly usage and the
average seasonal usage for each customer class to examine if AMI-only customers were representative of
All Customers for the respective customer classes. As the VWID system uses bi-monthly billing, not all
customers are read at the same time (i.e., every month), so usage characteristics were developed as
follows:
▪ Average monthly usage was calculated as the sum of all billing volume in the year, divided by 12.
▪ Peak Usage was derived from bills with Transaction Months of June through October.
▪ Off-Peak Usage was derived from bills with Transaction Months of January through May and November
through December.
▪ The Seasonal Peaking Factor was the ratio of peak usage to off-peak usage.
Multiple datasets were linked using common identifiers to determine which accounts were billed on AMI
and non-AMI meters. The above metrics were developed, and Table 3-1 shows the results by customer
class.

Bui, Appendix B 13 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Selection of Representative Customer Data 13
Table 3-1 Descriptive Statistics by Customer Class
CUSTOMER
CLASS
AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE CCF SEASONAL PEAKING FACTOR
All
Customers AMI-only %
Difference
All
Customers AMI-only %
Difference
Commercial 59.1 67.3 +13.8% 1.95 2.22 +13.5%
Public Authority 48.7 51.8 +6.4% 4.57 4.14 -9.4%
Residential 12.6 13.2 +4.9% 2.63 3.04 +15.4%

It can be observed that, for each class, the AMI-only customers used more water on average than the All-
Customers group. Seasonal peaking factors were also higher for the AMI-only commercial and residential
customers compared to all customers. For example, for the Commercial class, the AMI-only average
monthly usage for 2021 was 59.1 hundred cubic feet (CCF); for AMI-only customers, it was 67.3 CCF, or
13.8% higher. The seasonal peaking factor was higher for AMI-only customers by 13.5%. This is not a
surprising finding as utilities often deploy AMI meters to high-usage customers who benefit the most from
the near real-time insights that AMI data can provide.
3.3 SELECTING REPRESENTATIVE AMI METERS
Given the results shown in Table 3-1, it is necessary to select a subset of AMI-only customers that more
closely reflect the characteristics of the respective customer class as a whole. Therefore, for each customer
class, the direction of skew in the data was determined. Records were then randomly removed for
customers skewing the data until the AMI-only subset of customers matched the respective customer class
as a whole. For example, AMI meters with higher-than-average usage and higher than average seasonal
peaking factors (compared to the respective customer class average) were identified and then a portion
were randomly removed. This was an iterative process using a randomized and automated analysis applying
thousands of iterations to derive a subset of AMI meters with usage characteristics more representative of
all customers for each customer class. The automated randomized iterations would end once the metrics
for the AMI-only customers matched the metrics for the respective customer class as a whole. The goal
was to match within ±0.25%, which was achieved for commercial and residential customers, but was not
achieved for public authority due to the relatively small number of meters for this class. The public
authority class metrics were matched within ±0.50%.
The usage characteristics for the selected AMI customers (subset) are shown in Table 3 2. The table shows
that the usage characteristic for the selected AMI customers matches the All Customers for each customer
class.

Bui, Appendix B 14 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Selection of Representative Customer Data 14
Table 3-2 Descriptive Statistics by Customer Class after AMI Selection
CUSTOMER
CLASS
AVERAGE MONTHLY USAGE CCF SEASONAL PEAKING FACTOR
All
Customers
Selected
AMI
%
Difference
All
Customers
Selected
AMI
%
Difference
Commercial 59.1 59.1 0.0% 1.95 1.95 -0.1%
Public Authority 48.7 48.5 -0.4% 4.57 4.56 -0.4%
Residential 12.6 12.5 -0.2% 2.63 2.63 0.0%

A total of 14,245 meters are included in the AMI subset and represent meters of all sizes for each customer
class. A summary of the meters is included in Table 3-3. The selected meters represent between 13% and
19% of total meters for each customer class and utilize approximately 69% of the total AMI meters available
within the VWID system.
Table 3-3 Count of Meters in Representative AMI Subset
METER SIZE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL
5/8” 73 1 3,445
3/4” 244 2 5,719
1” 393 5 3,643
1.5” 221 2 72
2” 362 3 40
3” 15 - -
4” 2 - -
6” 2 - -
8” 1 - -
TOTAL 1,313 (13%) 13 (19%) 12,919 (14%)

3.3.1 Developing MD and MH Estimations
The subset of AMI meters was then used to develop estimations of MD and MH for the VWID system. An
average hourly usage profile was developed for each customer class for the timeframe identified in section
2.2. This average usage profile was multiplied by the number of service points to estimate the total water
usage hourly and daily for each customer class.
Bui, Appendix B 15 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Selection of Representative Customer Data 15
3.3.2 Data Quality
Water usage data is derived from meter reading devices that, like other technology, have the potential to
generate erroneous data. With AMI technology, any “bad reads” can be more easily resolved as a new read
and captured without sending a meter reader to the meter location. However, it is possible that bad reads
are still generated, such as when equipment fails or when a meter register rolls over. Black & Veatch worked
with raw, incremental meter readings; therefore, the data for each meter was screened in several ways to
ensure good data quality. Depending on the situation, either a correction to the meter reading was made
(e.g., interpolation between two good reads if minimal data was missing or suspect), or the meter was
excluded from the analysis. The tests are described as follows:
▪ Negative Consumption: Any meter that registered an hourly interval with significant negative
consumption was excluded. One meter was excluded based on this test.
▪ Completeness of record: Any meter that had significant missing data was excluded from the analysis.
0.5% of meters were excluded as they had less than 50% of the hourly interval readings available during
the analytical window. Meter readings can be interpolated if some interval data are missing.
▪ Meter size was considered in evaluating if a meter reading (and corresponding calculated usage) was
plausible. I.e., small meters have lower potential flow rates than larger meters. No meters were
excluded based on this test.
▪ Where necessary, cross-checks were performed to compare the usage calculated directly by Black &
Veatch based on the raw meter read data against the usage billed to the customer. No anomalies were
found in the volume of usage.

Bui, Appendix B 16 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Development of Peaking Factors 16
4.0 Development of Peaking Factors
Following the identification of a suitable timeframe that captures system and customer peaks, and the
identification of a sample of AMI meters that are representative of the respective customer class usage,
the peaking factors were developed for the VWID system.
4.1 VWID PRODUCTION VERSUS SYSTEM DEMAND
Figure 3-1 shows a graphical representation of the hourly VWID system input volumes and system demand
for the MD and MH periods for 2021. The source data used for this study were stored in multiple data
systems and formats. It was necessary to ensure that each data set was correctly converted to Mountain
Time for analysis purposes. Each data series is explained below:
▪ System Input is the volume entering the distribution system. It is the sum of production volumes from
wells and treatment plants plus net storage releases into the distribution system. The VWID system
manages 32 storage reservoirs to help smooth production and meet fire protection requirements.
Storage typically fills in the afternoon and empties in the early morning hours to help meet periods of
high demand.
▪ Commercial is the estimated volume of usage (or demand) from customers in the Commercial class,
based on the subset of representative Commercial meters extrapolated to the full number of
Commercial customers in the VWID system.
▪ Public Authority is the estimated volume of usage (or demand) from customers in the Public Authority
class, based on the subset of representative Public Authority meters extrapolated to the full number of
Public Authority customers in the VWID system. Due to this classification's very small relative size, it is
hard to visualize in Figure 3 1, but it appears between the Commercial and Residential bars.
▪ Residential is the estimated volume of usage (or demand) from customers in the Residential class,
based on the subset of representative Residential meters extrapolated to the full number of Residential
customers in the VWID system.
▪ Non-Revenue Water is another form of ‘demand’ on the system. It is comprised of the three
components of i) real losses (physical leakage), ii) apparent losses (metering inaccuracies, unauthorized
consumption, etc.), and iii) unbilled authorized uses (e.g., Fire Department usage and flushing). This
value was estimated from reports provided by the Company and is held constant as these volumes are
typically unmetered.
The demand components (commercial, public authority, residential, and non-revenue water) are
represented as stacked bar series in Figure 3 1. It is important to note that a perfect alignment between
system input and demand is not to be expected. Hourly data is unavailable for all customers in the VWID
system, and so the customer demand components are developed from an extrapolation of representative
subsets of customers, as explained in section 3.0.
The close alignment between the aggregate demand (top of the blue bars) and the total system input (black
line) through repeated diurnal cycles indicates that the methodology and approach to define a subset of
representative AMI customers and extrapolate to the total system demand is likely reliable and that sound
conclusions can be drawn from interpreting the data.
Bui, Appendix B 17 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Development of Peaking Factors 17
If significant deviations between the system input and aggregate demand lines were observed, it would
indicate that the sampling or extrapolation method was unreliable. As more AMI meters are deployed over
time, the alignment between system input and system demand will likely become closer still, and any future
studies leveraging AMI data for insights on MD and MH demands (and for other operational insights) will
become even more reliable as they will rely on less extrapolation.
4.2 DIURNAL DEMAND TRENDS
Figure 4-1 shows a repetitive diurnal pattern. Demand typically accelerates after midnight through to the
early morning hours with the highest peak of the day around 5-6am which is likely associated with irrigation
systems operating around this time. Demand then falls to a low in the mid-afternoon around 2-3 pm, with
system storage being replenished at this low demand time. Demand then rises with a secondary peak
around 9-10 pm, with demand then falling slightly towards midnight. Appendix B is provided to show this
diurnal pattern in more detail.

Bui, Appendix B 18 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Development of Peaking Factors 18

Figure 4-1 VWID System Inputs and Demands (Hourly) for Peak Period
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
7/
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
CF
/
H
r
.
CF
/
H
r
.
Non-Revenue Water Commercial Public Authority Residential System Input
Bui, Appendix B 19 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
-----
I
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Development of Peaking Factors 19
4.2.1 Coincident Peaking Factors
Based on production and storage data, the system MD occurred on 7/9/2021 with a system input value of
12,009,565 CF cumulative volume for the day. The system max hour occurred on 7/19/21 at 5:00 AM, with
a system input volume of 968,291 CF for the hour. The coincident demands (i.e., the demands occurring at
the same time as the system peak) are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Customer
Class Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour (MH) MH Peaking
Factor
Residential 3,783,854 7,775,536 2.05 157,661 757,375 4.80
Commercial 1,952,834 3,681,223 1.89 81,368 174,798 2.15
Public Auth. 10,892 12,073 1.11 454 2,066 4.55
SYSTEM 5,932,606 12,009,565 2.02 247,192 968,291 3.92

4.2.2 Non-Coincident Peaking Factors
Non-Coincident Peaks are measured for each customer class independently of the overall system peak.
Table 4-2 shows the timing of MD and MH peaks for each of the three customer classes. The MD occurs on
a different day for each class, and the MH also occurs on a different hour (and different day) for each class.
It can be observed that each customer class has a unique peaking profile, with class peaks occurring at
different times (see Appendix C).
Table 4-2 Timing of Non-Coincident Peaks
Customer Class Max. Day (MD) MD Date Max. Hour (MH) MH Date/Time
Residential 8,071,659 7/12/2021 773,287 7/12/21 6:00 AM
Commercial 3,681,223 7/9/2021 229,733 7/11/21 12:00 AM
Public Auth. 15,716 7/14/2021 2,134 7/17/21 5:00 AM

The non-coincident demands are shown in Table 4-3.

Bui, Appendix B 20 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Development of Peaking Factors 20
Table 4-3 Non-Coincident Peaking Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Customer
Class Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour (MH) MH Peaking
Factor
Residential 3,783,854 8,071,659 2.13 157,661 773,287 4.90
Commercial 1,952,834 3,681,223 1.89 81,368 229,733 2.82
Public Auth. 10,892 15,716 1.44 454 2,134 4.70

4.2.3 System Diversity Factors
The relationship of the noncoincident to coincident demands is referred to as the measure of the system
diversity of demand (AWWA Manual M1). Table 4-4 shows the system diversity factors for the VWID
system. The values shown represent the combined demands of only the Commercial, Public Authority, and
Residential Class Customers. The system diversity ratio is often in the range of 1.1 to 1.4, though different
system diversity measures may arise. For example, a system that consists almost entirely of residential
customers would have a diversity factor very close to 1.0, because the noncoincident demand of the
residential customer class would be approximately equal to the coincident demand of the system.

Table 4-4 System Diversity Factors (Volumes in Cubic Feet)
(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (4) (5) (6)=(5)/(4)
Type Avg. Day Max. Day
(MD)
MD
Peaking
Factor
Avg. Hour Max. Hour
(MH)
MH
Peaking
Factor
Coincident 5,747,581 11,468,832 2.00 239,483 934,239 3.90
Noncoincident 5,747,581 11,768,598 2.05 239,483 1,005,154 4.20
System Diversity Factor
(Noncoincident / Coincident) 1.03 1.08

Bui, Appendix B 21 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix A 21
Appendix A
A review also informed the selection of an appropriate year for weather data analysis between 2015 and 2021. July 2021 saw the highest average
monthly high temperature over the past seven years. Although the total rainfall for July 2021 was unusually high, over 90% of the entire volume
recorded for July occurred in one day (July 31st, 2021), meaning it was generally also a typically dry month.

Aug:91.6 Aug:90.6 Jul: 97.3 Jul: 96.2 Aug: 91.9 Aug: 92.0 Jul: 98.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1/
1
/
2
0
1
5
3/
1
/
2
0
1
5
5/
1
/
2
0
1
5
7/
1
/
2
0
1
5
9/
1
/
2
0
1
5
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
1/
1
/
2
0
1
6
3/
1
/
2
0
1
6
5/
1
/
2
0
1
6
7/
1
/
2
0
1
6
9/
1
/
2
0
1
6
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
6
1/
1
/
2
0
1
7
3/
1
/
2
0
1
7
5/
1
/
2
0
1
7
7/
1
/
2
0
1
7
9/
1
/
2
0
1
7
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
7
1/
1
/
2
0
1
8
3/
1
/
2
0
1
8
5/
1
/
2
0
1
8
7/
1
/
2
0
1
8
9/
1
/
2
0
1
8
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
8
1/
1
/
2
0
1
9
3/
1
/
2
0
1
9
5/
1
/
2
0
1
9
7/
1
/
2
0
1
9
9/
1
/
2
0
1
9
11
/
1
/
2
0
1
9
1/
1
/
2
0
2
0
3/
1
/
2
0
2
0
5/
1
/
2
0
2
0
7/
1
/
2
0
2
0
9/
1
/
2
0
2
0
11
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
1/
1
/
2
0
2
1
3/
1
/
2
0
2
1
5/
1
/
2
0
2
1
7/
1
/
2
0
2
1
9/
1
/
2
0
2
1
11
/
1
/
2
0
2
1
In
c
h
e
s

R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
Te
m
p
,

d
e
g
r
e
e
s

F
Location: Boise Air Terminal, Idaho
Total Precip.Avg. Monthly High
Bui, Appendix B 22 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
T TT TT TT TT
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix B 22
Appendix B
Three-day diurnal Trend demonstrating daily water use patterns by customer class

-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
CF
/
H
r
.
CF
/
H
r
.
Non-Revenue Water Commercial Public Authority Residential System Input
Bui, Appendix B 23 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
-----
Customer Class Load Study | VEOLIA WATER IDAHO INC.
BLACK & VEATCH | Appendix C 23
Appendix C
Individual Customer Class Demands (due to scale differences, Public Authority on the right-hand axis)

-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
7/
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
0
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
1
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
2
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
3
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
4
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
5
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
6
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
7
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
8
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

A
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

1
2
:
0
0

P
M
7/
1
9
/
2
1

6
:
0
0

P
M
CF
/
H
r
.

(
P
u
b
l
i
c

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
)
CF
/
H
r
.

(
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
Commercial Residential Public Authority
Bui, Appendix B 24 Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.
+ + + . +
+ +

Preston N. Carter (ISB No. 8462)
Morgan D. Goodin (ISB No. 11184)
Givens Pursley LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Veolia Water Idaho, Inc.

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
VEOLIA WATER IDAHO, INC. FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND
CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

EXHIBIT 14 TO ACCOMPANY THE

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ANN BUI

Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 1 of 40

Customer Classification
(1)
Residential
Commercia l
Public Authority
Private Fire Service
Tota l Sales
Other Revenues
Tota l
Total Revenue Requirements
s
Exhibit 14-1
COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED COST OF SERVICE WITH REVENUES UNDER EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES
FOR TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
Cost of Service Revenues, Present Rates Revenues, Proposed Rates Proposed Increase
Amount Precent Amount Precent
(2) (3) (4) (5)
44,816,162 70.3% 35,139,116 68.0%
18,314,608 28.7% 15,042,723 29.1%
159,553 0.3% 155,695 0.3%
499,143 0.8% 1,344,703 2.6%
63,789,466 100.0% 51,682,238 100.0%
35,620 35,620
63,825,086 s 51,717,858
$63,825,086
Amount Precent
(6) (7)
43,590,762 68.3%
18,660,857 29.3%
193,144 0.3%
1,344,703 2.1%
63,789,466 100.0%
35,620
s 63,825,086
Amount
(8)
8,451,646
3,618,134
37,448
0
12,107,228
0
s 12,107,227
Precent
(9)
24.1%
24.1%
24.1%
0.0%
23.4%
0.00
23.4%
Cost of Service
Percent Increase
(10)
27.5%
21.8%
2.5%
23.4%
23.4%
Exhibit 14-1
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 2 of 40

Exhibit 14-2
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residentia l Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • _abor 2 68,558 44,753 23,624 181 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 2 23,939 15,627 8,249 63 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • fringe Benefits 2 27,060 17,664 9,324 71 0 0
Operation Labor 2 57,703 37,667 19,&8-1 152 0 0
Operation Expenses 2 7,452 4,865 2,568 20 0 0
Operation Fringe Benefits 2 21,873 14,278 7,537 58 0 0
Purchased Water 1 316,694 203,683 111,938 1,073 0 0
M iscellaneous 2 1,119 730 386 3 0 0
Rents 2 3,385 2,210 1,167 9 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSE· OPERATION 527,783 341,476 184,677 1,630 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Labor 2 10,609 6,925 3,656 28 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Other 2 49,301 32,183 16,989 130 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 2 3,181 2,076 1,096 8 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Rivers and lntakt 2 2,559 1,671 882 7 0 0
Maintenance of Wells and Springs • Chemicals 1 6,094 3,919 2,154 21 0 0
Maintenance of Wells and Springs 2 1,129 737 389 3 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSE· MAINTENANCE n ,873 47,511 25,165 197 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSES $ 600,656 $ 388,987 $ 209,842 $ 1,827 $ $
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 3 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10)
PUMPING EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Labor 3 132,841 84,876 44,807 344 560 2,256
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 3 n ,647 46,416 24,504 188 306 1,233
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 3 40,173 25,667 13,550 104 169 682
Fue l or Power Purchase for Pumping • Labor 3 1,291 825 436 3 5 22
Fue l or Power Purchase for Pumping • Other 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fue l or Power Purchase for Pumping • Power Costs 1 2,036,784 1,309,964 719,920 6,900 0 0
Fue l or Power Purchase for Pumping • Amert Power Costs 1 534,778 343,944 189,022 1,812 0 0
Fue l or Power Purchase for Pumping • Fringe Benefits 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pumping Expense • Laoor 3 1,223,332 781,617 412,626 3,164 5,155 20,771
Pumping Expense • Other 3 177,759 113,575 59,958 460 749 3,018
Pumping Expense • Fringe Benefits 3 487,000 311,156 164,263 1,259 2,052 8,269
Miscellaneous Exp:nditures 3 60,830 38,866 20,518 157 256 1,033
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSE· OPERATION 4,767,435 3,056,905 1,649,603 14,391 9,252 37,284
Maintenance Supe-vision and Engineering • Labor 3 2,206 1,409 744 6 9 37
Maintenance Supe-vision and Engineering • Other 3 306 196 103 1 1 5
Maintenance Supe-vision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 3 583 373 197 2 2 10
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Labor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Other 3 215,808 137,885 n ,191 558 909 3,664
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Fringe Benefit 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Po·uer Production Equipment • Labor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Po·uer Production Equipment • Other 3 65,176 41,642 21,984 169 275 1,107
Maintenance of Po·uer Production Equipment • Fringe Benefits 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Pu11ping Equipment • Labor 3 3,631 2,320 1,225 9 15 62
Maintenance of Pu11ping Equipment • Other 3 6,893 4,404 2,325 18 29 117
Maintenance of Pu11ping Equipment • Fringe Benefits 3 1,669 1,066 563 4 7 28
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSES · MAINTENANCE 296,273 189,296 99,932 766 1,248 5,030
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSES $ 5,063,708 $ 3,246,201 $ 1,749,535 $ 15,157 $ 10,501 $ 42,314
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 4 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10)
WATER TREATMENT
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Laoor 2 789,279 515,219 271,975 2,085 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 2 34,541 22,548 11,903 91 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 2 28,048 18,309 9,665 74 0 0
Chemica ls 1 519,783 334,300 1s3,n2 1,761 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Labor 2 73,295 47,845 25,256 194 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Other 2 156,821 102,368 54,039 414 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Lab Testing 2 159,423 104,067 54,935 421 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Fringe Benefits 2 311,750 203,501 107,425 823 0 0
Miscellaneous Exp,enses • Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
M iscellaneous Exp,enses • Other 2 30,285 19,769 10,436 80 0 0
M iscellaneous Exp,enses • Fringe Benefits 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amortization Miscellaneous 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE· OPERATION 2,103,225 1,367,926 n9,356 5,943 0 0
Maintenance Supe rvision and Engineering 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Other 2 61,281 40,002 21,117 162 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Lab Testing 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Fringe Benefit 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Other 2 $3,146 34,692 18,313 140 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Fringe Benefits 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE· MAINTENANCE 114,427 74,695 39,430 302 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE $ 2,217,652 $ 1,442,620 $ 768,786 $ 6,245 $ $
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 5 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (9) (10)
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • _abor 10 47,63S 30,818 16,336 160 64 2S7
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 10 4,334 2,804 1,486 1S 6 23
Operation Supervision and Engineering • fringe Benefits 10 13,319 8,617 4,S68 4S 18 n
Storage Facility Expense s 10,0S9 7,171 2,23S 36 122 494
Mains Expense • Labor 6 4,618 3,089 1,243 14 S4 218
Mains Expense • Other 6 42,199 28,228 11,3S7 131 494 1,989
Mains Expense • Fringe Benefits 6 1,632 1,092 439 s 19 77
Meter Expense • Labor 8 426 278 146 1 0 0
Meter Expense • Other 8 so 33 17 0 0 0
Meter Expense • Fringe Benefits 8 193 126 66 1 0 0
M iscellaneous Expense • Purchased Power 1 455,256 292,800 160,91S 1,S42 0 0
Miscellaneous Expense • Other 10 64,904 41,990 22,2S8 218 87 3S0
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE· OPERATION 644,626 417,046 221,068 2,169 864 3,481
Maintenance Supervision and Engineering 11 49,43S 39,n 3 8,882 101 14S S84
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Labor 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Other 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Fringe Benefit 11 1S,020 12,069 2,699 31 44 178
Maintenance of Distribution Reservoirs and Standpipes s 197,877 141,073 43,974 713 2,409 9,708
Maintenance of T&D Mains • Labor 6 S9S 398 160 2 7 28
Maintenance of T&D Mains • Other 6 33,825 22,626 9,104 10S 396 1,S9S
Maintenance of T&D Mains • Fringe Benefits 6 217 14S S9 1 3 10
Maintenance of Services • Labor 9 1,S4S,679 1,269,297 273,400 2,982 0 0
Maintenance of Services • Other 9 307,427 2S2,4S6 S4,378 S93 0 0
Maintenance of Services • Fringe Benefits 9 607,892 499,19S 107,S24 1,173 0 0
Maintenance of Hydrants • Other 7 2S,960 0 0 0 S,161 20,799
Miscellaneous 11 2,468 1,983 443 s 7 29
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE • MAINTENANCE 2,786,397 2,238,966 S00,623 S,706 8,l n 32,931
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE $ 3,431,023 $ 2,656,011 $ n l,690 $ 7,87S $ 9,036 $ 36,411
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 6 of 40

Account
(1)
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
Supervision • Labor
Supervision • Other
Supervision • Fringe Benefits
Meter Read ing • La:,.or
Meter Read ing • Ot1er
Meter Read ing • Fringe Benefits
Customer Records and Collection • Labor
Customer Records and Collection • Other
Customer Records and Collection • Fringe Benefits
Transportation Costs • Other
Uncollectible Accounts
Misce llaneous Other
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING EXPENSES
Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of
Ref Service Residentia l Commercial
(2) (3) (4) (5)
12 76,463 67,066 7,4n
12 10,649 9,341 1,041
12 29,341 25,735 2,867
13 338,593 278,049 59,890
13 86,715 71,209 15,338
13 130,559 107,214 23,093
12 1,329,401 1,166,027 129,918
12 770,888 676,151 75,336
12 516,452 452,984 50,471
12 0 0 0
12 (683,545) (599,542) (66,801)
12 13,881 12,175 1,357
2,619,397 2,266,409 299,984
Public Fire Protection
Authority Private Public
(6) (9) (10)
77 1,847 0
11 257 0
30 709 0
653 0 0
167 0 0
252 0 0
1,340 32,116 0
777 lS.623 0
521 12,477 0
0 0 0
(689) (16,513) 0
14 335 0
3,153 49,852 0
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 7 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (9) (10)
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES
A&G Labor 14 1,907,210 1,415,011 461,242 4,116 12,S74 14,266
Fringe Benefits Transferred 16 (3,704,510) (2,799,531) (853,481) (7,548) (25,500) (18,450)
Employee Pension Cost 16 623,218 470,9n 143,583 1,270 4,290 3,104
Post Retirement Health Care Accrue 16 (S23,7S6) (395,807) (120,668) (1,067) (3,605) (2,608)
Employee Group Health & life 16 2,103,710 1,589,793 484,673 4,286 14,481 10,477
Employee 401k 16 4S6,431 344,929 10S,1S7 930 3,142 2,273
Other Employee Benefits 16 14,634 11,0S9 3,3n 30 101 73
Other Aw ards 16 22,78S 17,219 S,249 46 1S7 113
Materials and Supply • A&G and Customer Cares 14 932,132 691,S74 225,428 2,012 6,146 6,973
Management Fees • Other 14 4,S66,63S 3,388,111 1,104,401 9,85S 30,108 34,160
Contract Services 14 1S0,202 111,439 36,32S 324 990 1,124
Renta l of Equipment 14 8,938 6,632 2,162 19 S9 67
Transportation Expense 14 238,006 176,583 S7,S60 S14 1,S69 1,780
Insurance • Ge neral liability 14 242,S24 179,93S 58,6S2 S23 1,S99 1,814
Insurance • Workman's Compensation 16 116,207 87,819 26,773 237 800 S79
Advertising 14 227,683 168,924 SS,063 491 1,S01 1,703
Reg Commission Exp (Amortization) 14 401,670 298,010 97,140 867 2,648 3,00S
Bad Debt Write-off 16 988,608 747,100 227,76S 2,014 6,80S 4,924
M isce llaneous Expense 14 (221,568) (164,387) (53,584) (478) (1,461) (1,657)
TOTALA&G EXPENSE 8,SS0,758 6,345,382 2,066,813 18,441 S6,404 63,719
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE $ 22,483,19S $ 16,345,611 $ S,816,6S0 $ S2,698 $ 125,792 $ 142,444
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE $ 10,524,398 $ 7,808,338 $ 2,S4S,23S $ 22,712 $ 69,388 $ 78,n6
(excluding A&G, purchased water, power, and chemicals)
DIRECT LABOR EXPENSE $ 7,613,366 $ S,753,488 $ 1,754,042 $ 1S,S12 $ S2,407 $ 37,917
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 8 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31., 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Fa ctor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (9) (10)
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
Structures and Improvements • Source of Supply 2 194,554 126,999 67,041 514 0 0
Structures and Improvements • Water Treatment 2 379,02S 247,417 130,607 1,001 0 0
Structures and Improvements • Trans. & Oistrib. 6 9S,S97 63,947 zs,n9 296 1,118 4,S07
Structures and Improvements • General Plant 14 174,70S 129,618 42,2S1 377 1,1S2 1,307
Collecting & Impounding Reservoirs • Source of Supply 1 749 482 26S 3 0 0
Lake, River & Other Intakes 2 24,347 1S,893 8,390 64 0 0
Wells &Springs 2 141,814 92,Sn 48,867 37S 0 0
Supply Mains 2 39,3S2 2S,688 13,S60 104 0 0
Power Generation Equipment 3 1S3,188 97,876 S1,670 396 64S 2,601
Pow er Electric/Diesel Pumping Equipment • Source of Supply 2 760,618 496,S10 262,099 2,009 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Water Treatment 2 217,301 141,848 74,879 S74 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Trans. & Oistrib. 3 470,931 300,889 158,844 1,218 1,984 7,996
Water Treatment Equipment 2 973,163 635,253 335,340 2,S70 0 0
Distribution Reservoirs & Standpipes s 364,27S 2S9,703 80,9S2 1,312 4,43S 17,8n
Trans. & Distrib. Mains & Accessories 3 2,626,679 1,678,249 885,970 6,793 11,068 44,598
Services 9 1,667,829 1,369,60S 295,006 3,218 0 0
Meters and Meter Installations 8 1,020,091 666,492 3S0,2S0 3,349 0 0
Hydrants 7 273,666 0 0 0 S4,410 219,256
Office Furniture and Equipment 14 83,330 61,82S 20,lS.3 180 S49 623
Computer Equipme nt 12 90,241 79,1S1 8,819 91 2,180 0
Transportation Equipment 14 140,248 104,0S4 33,918 303 92S 1,049
Stores Equipment 14 10,297 7,640 2,490 22 68 77
Tools, Shop and Garage Equipment 14 108,87S 80,778 26,331 23S 718 814
Laboratory Equipment 2 S,747 3,7S1 1,980 1S 0 0
Pow er Operated Equipment 14 77,063 S7,17S 18,637 166 S08 S76
Communications Equipment 14 320,581 237,848 77,S30 692 2,114 2,398
Miscellaneous Equipment 14 21,107 1S,660 S,10S 46 139 158
Other Tangible Property 14 211,717 1S7,079 S1,202 4S7 1,396 1,584
TOTAL DEPRECIATION EXPENSES 10,647,090 7,154,000 3,077,884 26,380 83,410 305,417
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 9 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (oontinued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residentia l Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10)
Amortization of Utility Plant Acquisition 17 282,585 185,800 82,375 697 2,708 11,004
TOTAL AMORTIZATION 282,585 185,800 82,375 697 2,708 11,004
TAXES OTHER THAN INCOME
Real Estate 18 2,145,032 1,412,224 624,412 5,290 20,447 82,659
Payroll Taxes 16 898,783 679,219 207,070 1,831 6,187 4,476
TOTAL TAXES, OTHER THAN INCOME 3,043,815 2,091,443 831,483 7,121 26,634 87,135
INCOME TAXES 18 5,567,006 3,665,149 1,620,539 13,n8 53,065 214,525
UTILITY INCOME AVAILABLE FOR RETURN 18 21,801,395 14,353,380 6,346,321 53,763 207,814 840,118
TOTAL COST OF SERVICE s 63,825,086 s 43,795,383 s 17,775,251 s 154,386 s 499,422 s 1,600,643
LESS: OTHER WATER RESOURCES
Miscellaneous Service Revenue 19 35,620 24,442 9,920 86 279 893
TOTAL OTHER WATER REVENUES 35,620 24,442 9,920 86 279 893
TOTAL COST OF SERVICE RELATED TO SALES OF WATER s 63,789,466 s 43,770,941 s 17,765,331 s 154,300 s 499,143 s 1,599,750
Reallocation of Public Fire 20 1,045,221 549,276 5,252 0 (1,599,750)
TOTAL s 63,789,466 s 44,816,162 18,314,608 159,553 499,143 0
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 10 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Factor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (9) (10)
RATE BASE
Organization 17 104,530 68,n9 30,471 258 1,002 4,071
Franchise Rights 17 30,079 19,777 8,768 74 288 1,171
Land & Land Rights• Source of Supply 2 2,930,331 1,912,836 1,009,755 7,739 0 0
Water Rights • Source of Supply 2 8,666,083 s,656,9n 2,986,223 22,888 0 0
Land & Land Rights• Water Treatment 2 889,034 580,336 306,350 2,348 0 0
Land & Land Rights• Trans. & Oistrib. 6 9n,360 650,428 261,702 3,014 11,376 45,840
Land & Land Rights· General Plant 14 213,383 158,315 51,605 460 1,407 1,596
Structures and lmp·ovements • Source of Supply 2 6,701,625 4,374,630 2,309,295 17,700 0 0
Structures ana lmp·ovements • Water lreatment l Y,:lb~,Y~~ b,11::1,~ ::l,l.1/,400 l.4,/'j / 0 0
Structures and lmp·ovements • Trans. & Oistrib. 6 2,588,550 1,731,526 696,686 8,024 30,283 122,032
Structures and lmp·ovements • General Plant 14 4,705,847 3,491,396 1,138,068 10,155 31,026 35,201
Collecting & Impounding Reservoirs • Source of Supply 1 42,358 27,242 14,9n 143 0 0
Lake, River & Other Intakes 2 916,500 598,265 315,814 2,421 0 0
Wells & Springs 2 4,767,393 3,112,018 1,642,783 12,591 0 0
Infiltration Galleries & Tunnels 2 (13,853) (9,043) (4,773) (37) 0 0
Supply Mains 2 2,108,262 1,376,214 n6,480 5,568 0 0
Power Generation Equipment 3 1,690,822 1,080,308 570,309 4,373 7,124 28,709
Power Electric/Diesel Pumping Equipment • Source of Supply 2 6,261,1n 4,091,423 2,159,795 16,554 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Water Treatment 2 2,588,051 1,689,406 891,810 6,835 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Trans. & Oistrib. 3 6,705,307 4,284,185 2,261,679 17,341 28,253 113,850
Water Treatment Equipment 2 13,826,487 9,025,537 4,764,433 36,518 0 0
Distribution Resen•oirs &Standpipes 5 16,648,471 11,869,214 3,699,7n 59,966 202,701 816,818
Trans. & Oistrib. Mains & Accessories 3 188,104,746 120,184,n2 63,447,133 486,474 792,580 3,193,836
Services 9 69,649,980 57,195,875 12,319,712 134,394 0 0
Meters and Meter Insta llations 8 17,150,501 11,205,542 5,888,649 56,311 0 0
Hydrants 7 13,289,464 0 0 0 2,642,213 10,647,251
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 11 of 40

Exhibit 14-2 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
f .actor Cost of Public Fire Protection
Account Ref Service Residential Commercial Authority Private Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (9) (10)
Office Furniture and Equipment 14 n1,021 539,397 175,824 1,S69 4,793 S,438
Computer Equipment 12 (4,458,247) (3,910,359) (435,690) (4,495) (107,704) 0
Transportation Equipment 14 1,312,956 974,118 317,527 2,833 8,656 9,821
Stores Equipment 14 203,117 1S0,698 49,122 438 1,339 1,S19
Tools, Shop and Garage Equipment 14 1,336,961 991,928 323,332 2,88S 8,81S 10,001
Laboratory Equipm ent 2 20,n2 13,S27 7,141 ss 0 0
Power Operated Equipment 14 625,068 463,755 1S1,167 1,349 4,121 4,676
Communications Equipment 14 3,927,823 2,914,159 949,910 8,476 2S,896 29,381
Miscellaneous Equipment 14 243,187 180,427 S8,813 S25 1,603 1,819
Other Tangible Property 14 2,744,882 2,036,503 663,826 S,923 18,097 20,533
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 387,593,558 254,843,853 112,985,862 9S6,410 3,713,870 1S,093,S63
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE $ 387,4S8,9S0 $ 254,755,347 $112,946,623 $ 9S6,077 $ 3,712,581 $ 15,088,321
(less Ref 17 items)
OTHER RATE BASE ITEMS
Utility Plant Acquisition Adjustment 17 10,771,089 7,082,021 3,139,837 26,578 103,207 419,445
Customer Advances for Construction 17 (3,797,814) (2,497,073) (1,107,086) (9,371) (36,390) (147,893)
Contributions in Aid of Construction-Net 17 (112,913,n O) (74,241,088) (32,915,031) (278,621) (1,081,924) (4,397,0SS)
Deferred Charges Included in Rate Base 17 4,933,851 3,244,021 1,438,247 12,17S 47,276 192,133
Working Capital Allowance 1S 3,5S2,S71 2,582,771 919,089 8,327 19,876 22,S08
Deferred Income Ta xes 17 (5,307,577) (3,489,747) (1,547,191) (13,097) (50,857) (206,686)
TOTAL OTHER RATE BASE ELEMENTS (102,761,600) (67,319,095) (3o,on ,nsi (254,010) (998,812) (4,117,SSO)
TOTAL ORIGINAL COST MEASURE OF VALUE $ 284,831,9S9 $ 187,S24,7S8 s s2,913,n9 $ 702,400 $ 2,71S,0S8 $ 10,976,013
Exhibit 14-2
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 12 of 40

Exhibit 14-3
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Labor 2 68,558 34,399 34,159 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 2 23,939 12,011 11,928 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 2 27,060 13,577 13,483 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Labor 2 57,703 28,953 28,751 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Expenses 2 7,452 3,739 3,713 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Fringe Benefits 2 21,873 10,975 10,898 0 0 0 0 0
Purchased Water 316,694 316,694 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 2 1,119 561 558 0 0 0 0 0
Rents 2 3,385 1,699 1,687 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSE· OPERATION 527,783 422,608 105,175 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Labor 2 10,609 5,323 5,286 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Other 2 49,301 24,737 24,564 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 2 3,181 1,596 1,585 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Engineering • Rivers. and lntakt 2 2,559 1,284 1,275 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Wells and Springs • Chemicals 6,094 6,094 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Wells and Springs 2 1,129 566 562 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSE· MAINTENANCE TI,873 39,600 33,273 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY EXPENSES s 600,656 s 462,208 s 138,448 s s s s s
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 13 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
PUMPING EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Labor 3 132,841 65,331 64,695 0 0 0 0 2,815
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 3 n ,647 35,n8 35,380 0 0 0 0 1,540
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 3 40,173 19,757 19,565 0 0 0 0 851
Fuel or Power Purchase for Pumping • Labor 3 1,291 635 629 0 0 0 0 27
Fuel or Power Purchase for Pumping • Other 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fuel or Power Purchase for Pumping • Power Costs 2,036,784 2,036,784 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fuel or Power Purchase for Pumping • Amert Power Costs 534,778 534,778 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fuel or Power Purchase for Pumping • Fringe Benefits 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pumping Expense • Labor 3 1,223,332 601,633 595,774 0 0 0 0 25,926
Pumping Expense • Other 3 177,759 87,422 86,570 0 0 0 0 3,767
Pumping Expense • Fringe Benefits 3 487,000 239,506 237,173 0 0 0 0 10,321
Miscellaneous Expenditures 3 60,830 29,916 29,625 0 0 0 0 1,289
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSE· OPERATION 4,767,435 3,651,488 1,069,410 0 0 0 0 46,536
Maintenance Supervision and Engineering • Labor 3 2,206 1,085 1,074 0 0 0 0 47
Maintenance Supervision and Engineering • Other 3 306 151 149 0 0 0 0 6
Maintenance Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 3 sg3 287 284 0 0 0 0 12
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • labsor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Other 3 215,808 106,134 105,101 0 0 0 0 4,574
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Fringe Benefit 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Power Production Equipment • l abor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Power Production Equipment • Other 3 65,176 32,053 31,741 0 0 0 0 1,381
Maintenance of Power Production Equipment • Fringe Benefit~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Pumping Equipment • labor 3 3,631 1,786 1,769 0 0 0 0 77
Maintenance of Pumping Equipment• Other 3 6,893 3,390 3,357 0 0 0 0 146
Maintenance of Pumping Equipment • Fringe Benefits 3 1,669 821 813 0 0 0 0 35
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSES · MAINTENANCE 296,273 145,706 144,288 0 0 0 0 6,279
TOTAL PUMPING EXPENSES $ 5,063,708 $ 3,797,195 $ 1,213,698 $ $ $ $ $ 52,815
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 14 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cc,st of Billing & Fire
Account Re f Service Base Max Dav Mex Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
WATER TREATMENT
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Labor 2 789,279 396,020 393,2S9 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 2 34,S41 17,331 17,210 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 2 28,048 14,073 13,97S 0 0 0 0 0
Chemicals S19,783 S19,783 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Labor 2 73,29S 36,776 36,S19 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Other 2 1S6,821 78,68S 78,136 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Lab Testing 2 1S9,423 79,990 79,433 0 0 0 0 0
Operation Labor and Expenses • Fringe Benefits 2 311,7S0 1S6,420 lSS,330 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Expenses• Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Expenses• Other 2 30,28S 1S,196 1S,090 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Expenses• Fringe Benefits 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amortization Miscellaneous 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE· OPERATION 2,103,22S 1,314,273 788,9S2 0 0 0 0 0
M.=iinrpn;:inn:o .c;ur,.Prvic;_inn .=inr1 Fne inPPrine 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements• Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements• Other 2 61,281 30,748 30,S33 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements• Lab Testing 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements• Fringe Benefit 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Labor 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Other 2 S3,146 26,666 26,480 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance of Water Treatment Equipment • Fringe Benefits 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE· MAINTENANCE 114,427 S7,414 S7,013 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT EXPENSE s 2,217,652 s 1,371,687 s 84S,96S s s s s s
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 15 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Labor 10 47,635 43,937 954 2,361 62 0 0 321
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Other 10 4,334 3,997 87 215 6 0 0 29
Operation Supervision and Engineering • Fringe Benefits 10 13,319 12,285 267 660 17 0 0 90
Storage Facility Expense 10,059 2,409 0 7,034 0 0 0 616
Mains Expense • Labor 6 4,618 1,604 982 1,760 0 0 0 2n
Mains Expense • Other 6 42,199 14,660 8,971 16,085 0 0 0 2,483
Mains Expense • Fringe Benefits 6 1,632 567 347 622 0 0 0 96
Meter Expense • Labor 8 426 0 0 0 426 0 0 0
Meter Expense • Other 8 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 0
Meter Expense • Fringe Benefits 8 193 0 0 0 193 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Expense • Purchased Power 455,256 455,256 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Expense • Other 10 64,904 59,866 1,300 3,217 84 0 0 437
Miscellaneous Expense • Fringe Benefits 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE· OPERATION 644,626 594,582 12,907 31,956 838 0 0 4,344
Maintenance Supervision and Engineering 11 49,435 1,080 134 2,755 0 44,737 0 n9
Maintenance of Structures and Improvements • Fringe Benefit 11 15,020 328 41 837 0 13,593 0 222
Maintenance of Distribution Reservoirs and Standpipes 197,877 47,388 0 138,3n 0 0 0 12,118
Maintenance of T&D Mains• Lab-,r 6 595 207 126 227 0 0 0 35
Maintenance of T&D Mains• Other 6 33,825 11,751 7,191 12,893 0 0 0 1,990
Maintenance of T&D Mains• Fringe Benefits 6 217 )6 46 83 0 0 0 13
Maintenance of Services• Labor 9 1,545,679 0 0 0 0 1,545,679 0 0
Maintenance of Services• Other 9 307,427 0 0 0 0 307,427 0 0
Maintenance of Services• Fringe Benefits 9 607,892 0 0 0 0 607,892 0 0
Maintenance of Hydrants• Other 7 25,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,960
Miscellaneous 11 2,468 54 7 138 0 2,233 0 36
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE • MAINTENANCE 2,786,397 60,883 7,545 155,305 0 2,521,562 0 41,103
TOTAL T&D EXPENSE $ 3,431,023 $ 655,464 $ 20,451 $ 187,260 $ 838 $ 2,521,562 $ $ 45,447
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 16 of 40

Account
(1)
CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
Supervision • Labor
Supervision • Other
Supervision • Fringe Benefits
Meter Reading • Labor
Meter Reading • Other
Meter Reading • Fringe Benefits
Customer Records and Collection • Labor
Customer Records and Collection • Other
Customer Records and Collection • Fringe Benefits
Transportation Costs • Other
Uncollectible Accounts
Miscellaneous Other
TOTAL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTING EXPENSES
Factor
Ref
(2)
12
12
12
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
Exhibit 14-3 (oontinue<I)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Cost of
Service Base Max Dav Max Hour
(3) (4) (S) (6)
76,463 0 0 0
10,649 0 0 0
29,341 0 0 0
338,S93 0 0 0
86,71S 0 0 0
130,559 0 0 0
1,329,401 0 0 0
770,888 0 0 0
S16,4S2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
(683,S4S) 0 0 0
13,881 0 0 0
2,619,397 0 0 0
Billing & Fire
Meters Services Meters Services
(7) (8) (9) (10)
0 0 74,616 1,847
0 0 10,392 2S7
0 0 28,632 709
0 0 338,S93 0
0 0 86,71S 0
0 0 130,559 0
0 0 1,297,28S 32,116
0 0 7S2,26S 18,623
0 0 S03,97S 12,477
0 0 0 0
0 0 (667,032) (16,513)
0 0 13,S4S 33S
0 0 2,S69,S46 49,8S2
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 17 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 3L 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Day Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES
A&G Labor 14 1,907,210 S21,639 402,043 33,93S 1S2 4S6,9S2 46S,648 26,841
Fringe Benefits Transferred 16 (3, 704,S10) (846,321) (761,994) (18,628) (311) (974,440) (1,058,866) (43,9S0)
Employee Pension Cost 16 623,218 142,378 128,192 3,134 52 163,932 178,136 7,394
Post Retirement Health Care Accrue 16 (S23,7S6) (119,6S6) (107,733) (2,634) (44) (137,770) (149,706) (6,214)
Employee Group Health & life 16 2,103,710 480,607 432,n O 10,S78 177 SS3,363 601,307 24,9S8
Employee 401k 16 4S6,431 104,27S 93,88S 2,29S 38 120,060 130,462 S,41S
Other Employee Benefits 16 14,634 3,343 3,010 74 3,849 4,183 174
Other Awards 16 22,78S S,20S 4,687 11S 2 S,993 6,S13 270
Materials and Supply• A&G and Customer Cares 14 932,132 254,946 196,49S 16,S8S 74 223,331 227,S81 13,118
Management Fees • Other 14 4,S66,63S 1,249,01S 962,6SS 81,2S4 364 1,094,129 1,il14,9SO 64,268
Contract Services 14 1S0,202 41,081 31,663 2,673 12 3S,987 36,6n 2,114
Rental of Equipment 14 8,938 2,44S 1,884 1S9 2,142 2,182 126
Transportation Expense 14 238,006 6S,097 so,1n 4,23S 19 S7,024 S8,109 3,3S0
Insurance • General liability 14 242,S24 66,333 S1,12S 4,31S 19 S8,107 S9,213 3,413
Insurance • Workman's Compensation 16 116,207 26,S48 23,903 S84 10 30,S67 33,216 1,379
Advertising 14 227,683 62,273 47,996 4,0S1 18 S4,SSl SS,S89 3,204
Reg Commission Exp (Amortization) 14 401,670 109,860 84,673 7,147 32 96,237 98,068 S,6S3
Bad Debt Write-off 16 988,608 22S,8S4 203,3SO 4,971 83 260,04S 282,S76 11,n9
Miscellaneous Expense 14 (221,568) (60,601) (46,707) (3,942) (18) (S3,086) (S4,096) (3,118)
TOTALA&G EXPENSE 8,SS0,7S8 2,334,322 1,802,019 1S0,901 682 2,0S0,976 2,091,736 120,123
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE s 22,483,19S s 8,620,876 s 4,020,S81 s 338,162 s 1,S20 s 4,Sn,538 s 4,561,282 s 268,236
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE s 10,S24,398 s 2,878,S1S s 2,218,S63 s 187,260 s 838 s 2,S21,S62 s 2,569,546 s 148,114
(excluding A&G, purchased water, power, and chemicals)
DIRECT LABOR EXPENSE s 7,613,366 s 1,739,326 s 1,S66,020 s 38,283 s 640 s 2,002,632 s 2,176,142 s 90,324
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 18 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
Structures and Improvements • Source of Supply 2 194,554 97,61.7 96,937 0 0 0 0 0
Structures and Improvements• Water Treatment 2 379,025 190,175 188,850 0 0 0 0 0
Structures and Improvements • Trans. & Oistrib. 6 95,597 33,21.0 20,323 36,439 0 0 0 5,625
Structures and Improvements• General Plant 14 174,705 47,783 36,828 3,109 14 41,858 42,654 2,459
Collecting & Impounding Reservoirs • Source of Supply 1 749 749 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lake, River & Other Intakes 2 24,347 12,21.6 12,131 0 0 0 0 0
Wells & Springs 2 141,814 71,156 70,659 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Mains 2 39,352 19,745 19,607 0 0 0 0 0
Power Generation Equipment 3 153,188 75,33,8 74,604 0 0 0 0 3,246
Power Electric/Diesel Pumping Equipment• Source of Supply 2 760,618 381,639 378,979 0 0 0 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Water Treatment 2 217,301 109,03-0 108,270 0 0 0 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Trans. & Oistrib. 3 470,931 231,603 229,348 0 0 0 0 9,980
Water Treatment Equipment 2 973,163 488,283 484,880 0 0 0 0 0
Distribution Reservoirs & Standpipes 5 364,275 87,237 0 254,731 0 0 0 22,307
Trans. & Oistrib. Mains & Accessories 3 2,626,679 1,291,7% 1,279,217 0 0 0 0 55,666
Services 9 1,667,829 0 0 0 0 1,667,829 0 0
Meters and Meter Installations 8 1,020,091 0 0 0 1,020,091 0 0 0
Hydrants 7 273,666 0 0 0 0 0 0 273,666
Office Furniture and Equipment 14 83,330 22,791 17,566 1,483 7 19,965 20,345 1,173
Computer Equipment 12 90,241 0 0 0 0 0 88,061 2,180
Transportation Equipment 14 140,248 38,3S.9 29,565 2,495 11 33,602 34,242 1,974
Stores Equipment 14 10,297 2,81.6 2,171 183 2,467 2,514 145
Tools, Shop and Garage Equipment 14 108,875 29,778 22,951 1,937 9 26,086 26,582 1,532
Laboratory Equipment 2 5,747 2,883 2,863 0 0 0 0 0
Power Operated Equipment 14 77,063 21,077 16,245 1,371 6 18,464 18,815 1,085
Communications Equipment 14 320,581 87,682 67,579 5,704 26 76,809 78,270 4,512
Miscellaneous Equipment 14 21,107 5,773 4,449 376 2 5,057 5,153 297
Other Tangible Property 14 211,717 57,906 44,630 3,767 17 so,n6 51,691 2,980
TOTAL DEPRECIATION EXPENSES 10,647,090 3,406,644 3,208,651 311,595 1,020,182 1,942,863 368,328 388,826
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 19 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Amortization of Utility Plant Acquisition 17 282,SSS 99,125 94,266 9,689 12,509 53,601 (317) 13,712
TOTAL AMORTIZATION 282,SSS 99,125 94,266 9,689 12,509 53,601 (317) 13,712
TAXES OTHER THAN INCOME
Real Estate 18 2,145,032 753,307 711,407 73,031 93,1n 407,235 3,l n 103,106
Payroll Taxes 16 898,783 205,333 184,874 4,519 76 236,417 256,901 10,663
TOTAL TAXES, OTHER THAN INCOME 3,043,815 958,641 896,281 77,551 93,848 643,653 260,073 113,769
INCOME TAXES 18 5,567,006 1,955,060 1,846,317 189,538 243,368 1,056,899 8,233 267,590
UTILITY INCOME AVAILABLE FOR RETURN 18 $21,801,395 7,656,367 7,230,510 742,266 953,071 4,139,006 32,243 1,047,932
TOTAL COST OF SERVICE s 63,825,086 s 22,696,714 S 17,296,607 s 1,668,800 s 2,324,498 S 12,408,559 s 5,329,842 s 2,100,066
LESS: OTHER WATER RESOURCES
Miscellaneous Service Revenue 19 35,620 12,667 9,653 931 1,297 6,925 2,975 1,l n
TOTAL OTHER WATER REVENUES 35,620 12,667 9,653 931 1,297 6,925 2,975 1,l n
TOTAL COST OF SERVICE RELATED TO SALES OF WATER s 63,789,466 s 22,684,047 S 17,286,954 s 1,667,869 s 2,323,201 S 12,401,634 s 5,326,868 s 2,098,894
Reallocation of Public Fire 20 s s s s 1,599,750 s s s (1,599,750)
TOTAL s 63,789,466 s 22,684,047 S 17,286,954 s 1,667,869 s 3,922,951 S 12,401,634 s 5,326,868 s 499,143
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 20 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
RATE BASE
Organization 17 104,S30 36,667 34,869 3,584 4,627 19,827 (117) s,on
Franchise Rights 17 30,079 10,SSl 10,034 1,031 1,331. S,70S (34) 1,460
Land & Land Rights • Source of Supply 2 2,930,331 1,470,290 1,460,041 0 0 0 0 0
Water Rights • Source of Supply 2 8,666,083 4,348,197 4,317,886 0 0 0 0 0
Land & Land Rights • Water Treatment 2 889,034 446,on 442,962 0 0 0 0 0
Land & Land Rights • Trans. & Oistrib. 6 9n,360 337,790 206,71S 370,639 0 0 0 S7,216
Land & Land Rights • General Plant 14 213,383 58,362 44,982 3,797 17 S1,12S S2,098 3,003
Structures and Improvements • Source of Supply 2 6,701,62S 3,362,533 3,339,093 0 0 0 0 0
Structures and Improvements • Water Treatment 2 9,36S,98S 4,699,3n 4,666,613 0 0 0 0 0
Structures and Improvements • Trans. & Oistrib. 6 2,S88,SSO 899,242 SS0,302 986,691 0 0 0 1S2,31S
Structures and Improvements• General Plant 14 4,705,847 1,287,090 992,001 83,731 37S 1,127,483 1,148,939 66,227
Collecting & Impounding Reservoirs • Source of Supply 1 42,358 42,358 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lake, River & Other Intakes 2 916,SOO 4S9,8S3 4S6,647 0 0 0 0 0
Wells & Springs 2 4,767,393 2,392,034 2,37S,3S9 0 0 0 0 0
Infiltration Galleries & Tunnels 2 (13,853) (6,951) (6,902) 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Mains 2 2,108,262 1,057,818 1,050,444 0 0 0 0 0
Power Generation Equipment 3 1,690,822 831,S43 823,446 0 0 0 0 3S,833
Power Electric/Diesel Pumping Equipment • Source of Supply 2 6,261,1n 3,144,848 3,122,92S 0 0 0 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Water Treatment 2 2,S88,0S1 1,298,552 1,289,499 0 0 0 0 0
Power Pumping Equipment • Trans. & Oistrib. 3 6,705,307 3,297,658 3,26S,S46 0 0 0 0 142,102
Water Treatment Equipment 2 13,826,487 6,937,424 6,889,063 0 0 0 0 0
Distribution Reservoirs & Standpipes 16,648,471 3,986,978 0 11,641,974 0 0 0 1,019,519
Trans. & Oistrib. Mains & Accessories 3 188,104,746 92,509,589 91,608,741 0 0 0 0 3,986,416
Services 9 69,649,980 0 0 0 0 69,649,980 0 0
Meters and Meter Installations 8 17,1SO,S01 0 0 0 17,1SO,S01 0 0 0
Hydrants 7 13,289,464 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,289,464
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 21 of 40

Exhibit 14-3 (continued)
COST OF SERVICE FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2023
ALLOCATED TO COST FUNCTIONS
Factor Cost of Billing & Fire
Account Ref Service Base Max Dav Max Hour Meters Services Meters Services
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Office Furniture and Equipment 14 n1,021 198,847 153,257 12,936 58 174,189 177,503 10,232
Computer Equipment 12 (4,458,247) 0 0 0 0 0 (4,350,543) (107,704)
Transportation Equipment 14 1,312,956 359,105 276,774 23,361 105 314,574 320,560 18,478
Stores Equipment 14 203,117 55,554 42,817 3,614 16 48,665 49,591 2,859
Tools, Shop and Garage Equipment 14 1,336,961 365,670 281,834 23,789 107 320,325 326,421 18,816
Laboratory Equipment 2 20,n2 10,397 10,325 0 0 0 0 0
Power Operated Equipment 14 625,068 170,962 131,766 11,122 50 149,761 152,611 8,797
Communications Equipment 14 3,927,823 1,074,294 827,992 69,888 313 941,075 958,983 55,278
Miscellaneous Equipment 14 243,187 66,514 51,264 4,327 19 58,266 59,374 3,422
Other Tangible Property 14 2,744,882 750,749 578,626 48,840 219 657,652 670,167 38,630
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT IN SERVICE 387,593,558 135,959,962 129,294,921 13,289,323 17,157,738 73,518,627 (434,447) 18,807,434
OTHER RATE BASE ITEMS
Utility Plant Acquisition Adjustment 17 10,771,089 3,778,280 3,593,060 369,306 476,808 2,043,057 (12,073) 522,652
Customer Advances for Construction 17 (3,797,814) (1,332,196) (1,266,889) (130,215) (168,119) in o,368) 4,257 (184,284)
Contributions in Aid of Construction-Net 17 (112,913,n O) (39,607,844) (37,666,185) (3,871,444) (4,998,391) (21,417,440) 126,563 (5,478,980)
Deferred Charges Included in Rate Base 17 4,933,851 1,730,695 1,645,853 169,166 218,408 935,851 (5,530) 239,408
Working Capital Allowance 15 3,552,571 1,362,185 635,292 53,433 240 n2,501 736,529 42,384
Deferred Income Taxes 17 (5,307,577) (1,861,790) (1,770,521) (181,980) (234,952) (1,006,740) 5,949 (257,543)
TOTAL OTHER RATE BASE ELEMENTS (102,761,600) (35,930,670) (34,829,390) (3,591,734) (4,706,006) (19,443,132) 855,695 (5,116,362)
TOTAL ORIGINAL COST MEASURE OF VALUE s 284,831,959 s 100,029,292 S 94,465,531 s 9,697,589 S 12,451,732 S 54,075,495 s 421,248 s 13,691,on
Exhibit 14-3
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 22 of 40

Exhibit 14-4
BASIS FOR ALLOCATING DEMAND RELATED COSTS OF FIRE SERVICE
TO PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATIONS
Number of
Relative Flow Equiva lent Hydrants or
Capacity Hydrant Fire Equivalent
Description Factor Ratio Connections Hydrant
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION
Fire lines
3" 18.0 0.26 903 235
4" 38.3 0.56 688 385
6" 111.3 1.62 584 946
8" 237.2 3.44 186 640
10'' 426.6 6.19 11 68
12" 689.0 10.00 6 60
Private Hydrants 68.9 1.00 160 160
Total Private Fire Protection 2,538 2,494
PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION
Public Hydrants 68.9 1.00 10,050 10,050
Total Public Fire Protection 10,050 10,050
TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION 12,588 12,544
• Demand Factors based on nominal size of connection raised to the 2.63 power.
Source: AWWA M l M anual, Chapter IV.8.
Allocation
Factor
(6)
0.1988
0.80 12
1.0000
Exhibit 14-4
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 23 of 40

Exhibit 14-5A
CALCULATION OF B1-MONTHL Y CUSTOMER COST FOR 5/8-INCH METER
Cost per
Cost per 5/8-inch
Cost of Total 5/8-inch Meter
Cost Function Service Un its Meter Bi-Monthly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (1)
M eters 2,323,201 201,378 5/8" Meter Equ iv. 11.54 1.92
Services 12,401,634 123,059 3/4" Service Equiv. 100.78 16.80
Billing and Collections 5,326,868 102,518 Customers 51.96 8.66
Subtota l Customer Costs $ 20,05 1,702 27.38
Unrecovered Public Fire 1,599,750 201,378 5/8"-inch Equiv. 7.94 1.32
Total Customer Costs and Public Fire $ 2 1,651,453 $ 28.70
Exhibit 14-5A
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 24 of 40

Cost Function
(1)
Base
Max Day
Max Hour
Tota l Volume Costs
W inter Volume
Summer Volume -Tier 1
Summer Volume -Tier 2
Exhibit 14-5B
CALCULATION OF VOLUME UNIT CHARGE
Cost of Total Tier
Service Units Ratio
(2) (3) (4)
22,696,714
17,296,607
1,668,800
$41,662,121 18,803,987
6,723,221 1.00
562,325 1.00
11,518,441 1.25
Cost per Tier Cost per
CCF Ratio CCF
(5) (6) (7)
$2.2156 $2.2156
$1.9214 1.00 $1.6961
$1.9214 1.00 $1.6961
$2.4017 1.50 $2.5442
Exhibit 14-5B
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 25 of 40

Cost Function
(1)
Private Fire Service
Total Private Costs
Exhibit 14-SC
CALCULATION OF B1-MONTHL Y CUSTOMER COST FOR FIRE SERVICE
Cost of Tota l
Service Un its
(2) (3)
499,143 2,494 Equiv. Hydrants
$499,143
Cost per
Cost per Equ iv.
Equiv. Hydrants
Hydrants Bi-Monthly
(4) (5)
200.14 33.36
$33.36
Exhibit 14-5C
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 26 of 40
EXHIBIT 14-F
FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING COST OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMER
CLASSIFICATIONS
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 27 of 40

FACTOR I, ALLOCATION OF COSTS THAT VARY VITH THE AMOUNT OF YATER CONSUMED
Factor are based on the pro for ma test gear average daily consumption for each customer classification.
Customer Classification
(I)
Residential
Commercial
Public Authority
Private Fire Service
Public Fire Service
Total
Average Daily
Ccnsumption
:CFlda9
(2)
33,134
18,209
175
51.518
Allocation
Factor
(3)
0.6432
0.3535
0.0034
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 28 of 40

FACTOR 2, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH FACILITIES SERVING BASE AND
MAXIMUM DAY EXTRA CAPACITY FUNCTION
Factors are based on the weighting of the factors for average daily consumption and the
factors derived from maximum day eicua capacity demand for each customer class, as follows:
Customer Classification
(1)
Residential
Commercial
Public Authority
Private Fire Service
Public Fire Service
Total
Average Oailg Consumption
Allocation Weighted
Factor Factor
(2) (3)
0.6432 0.3227
0.3535 0.1773
0.0034 0.0017
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
1.0000 0.5017
Maximum Dag Exua Capacitg
Allocation Weighted
Factor Factor
(4) (5)
0.6625
0.3357
0.0019
1.0000
0.3301
0.1672
0.0009
0.4983
Th!> derivation of the maximum day eicua capacity factors in Column 4 and the basis for
Column 3 and 5 weightings are presented here:
Customer Classification
(1)
Residential
Commercial
Public Authority
Private Fire Service
Public Fire Service
Total
Average Daily
Consumption
CCFldag
(2)
33,134
18,209
175
51.518
Factor
(3)
2.05
1.89
1.11
Total MaicOay
CCFlda1 Eicua Caeacih
(4) (5)
67,924 34,791
34,416 16,206
194 19
0 0
0 0
102,534 51.016
Tl'e weighting of the factors is based on the maximum day ratio of 1.99 for the system based on review
of10-years of maximum day ratios.
Average Day
Maximum Day Extra Capacity"
Maximum Day
Rauo
1.00
0.99
1.99
"Ratio of maximum day to average minus 1.0.
Weight
0.5017
0.4983
1.0000
Allocation
Factor
(6)
0.6528
0.3446
0.0026
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Allocation
Factor
(6)
0.6625
0.3357
0.0019
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 29 of 40

FACTOR 3, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH FACILITIES SERVING BASE. MAXIMUM
DAY EXTRA CAPACITY AND FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS
The weighting of the factors is based on the potential demand of general and fire protection ser1Jice.
The bases for the potential demand of general service are the maximum day ratio of 1.99 and the average daily system send out for
test year of 51,518 CCFlday. The system demand for fire protection is consists of three concurrent fires with demands of
4,500 gpm for 4 hours. 4,000 gpm for 4 hours and 1,500 gpm for 2 hours.
Maximum Day Total Maic Day
Ratio ccfldag Weight
Average Day 1.00 51.518 0.4918
Maximum Day Eicua Capacity 0.99 51,016 0.4870
Subtotal 1.99 102,534 0.9788
Fire Protection 2,220 0.0212
Total 104,754 1.0000
The public and private fire protection allocation factors in Column 6 on are based on the relative
potential demands.
Average Dail! Consumetion Maximum Da1 Exua Caeacit1 Fire Protection
Allocation Weighted Allocation Weighted Allocation Weighted
Customer Classification Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Residential 0.6432 0.3163 0.6625 0.3226
Commercial 0.3535 0.1738 0.3357 0.1635
Public Authority 0.0034 0.0017 0.0019 0.0009
Private Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1988 0.0042
Public Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8012 0.0170
Total 1.0000 0.4918 1.0000 0.4870 1.0000 0.0212
Allocation
Factor
(8)
0.6389
0.3373
0.0026
0.0042
0.0170
1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 30 of 40

FACTOR 4, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH FACILITIES SERVING BASE AND MAXIMUM HOUR
EXTRA CAPACITY FUNCTIONS
The weighting of the factors is based on the potential demand of general and fire protection service.
The bases for the potential demand of general service are the maximum day ratio of 3.92 and the average daily system send out for
test year of 51,518 CCFlday. The system demand for fire protection consists of three concuuent fires with demands of 4,500 gpm, 4,000 gpm, and 1,500 gpm.
Maximum Hour Total Flow
Ratio ccfldag Weight
Average Day 1.00 51.518 0.2355
Maximum Hour Eictra Capacity" 2.92 147,971 0.6765
Subtotal 3.92 199,488 0.9120
Fire Protection 19,251 0.0880
Total 218,739 1.0000
"Ratio of maximum hour to average minus 1.0.
The maximum hour elCtra capacity factors in Column 5 are determined as follows:
Average Daily Maximum Hour Extra Caeacitg
Consumption Rate of Flow Extra Capacity Allocation
Customer Classification CCFIDai Factor CCFIDai Flow Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Residential 33,134 4.80 159,042 91,118 0.7993
Commercial 18,209 2.15 39,150 4,734 0.1967
Public Authority 175 4.55 794 600 0.0040
Total 51.518 198,987 96,453 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 31 of 40

FACTOR 4, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH FACILITIES SERVING BASE ANO MAXIMUM HOUR
EXTRA CAPACITY FUNCTIONS (CONTINUED)
The public and private protection factors in Column 5 are based on the relative potential demands.
Average Dail! Consumetion Maximum Hour Extra Caeacit1 Fire Protection
Allocation Weighted Allocation Weighted Allocation Weighted
Customer Classification Factor Faotor Factor Factor Factor Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Residential 0.6432 0.1515 0.7993 0.5407
Commercial 0.3535 0.0832 0.1967 0.1331
Public Authority 0.0034 0.0008 0.0040 0.0027
Private Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1988 0.0175
Public Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8012 0.0705
Total 1.0000 0.2355 1.0000 0.6765 1.0000 0.0880
Allocation
Factor
(8)
0.6922
0.2163
0.0035
0.0175
0.0705
1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 32 of 40

FACTOR 5, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH STORAGE FACILITIES
The weighting of the factors is based on the r~tio of the capacity required for 2, 4-hour demands and a 2-hour demand of fire flow, as related to tctal storage capacity.
Fire Protection \./eight:
General Service \./eight: 1.0000 · 0.0612
The weighting of the average hourly consum~ion and maximum hour demand for general services is
based on the maximum hour ratio, as follows:
Maximum Hour
=iatio
Averaqe Oaq 1.00
Maximum Hour Eicua Capacity• ___ __,2~.9~2~
3.92
"Ratio of maximum day to average minus 1.0.
Percent
25.5X
74.5¾
100.0X
Ao.er age Dail! Consumetion
Albcation Weighted
Customer Classification Factor Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 0.6432 0.1540
Commercial 0.3535 0.0846
Public Authority 0.0034 0.0008
Private Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000
Public Fire Service 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0000 0.2395
Weight
0.2395
0.6993
0.9388
Maximum Hour Exu a Caeacit1
Allocation Weighted
Factor Factor
(4) (5)
0.7993 0.5589
0.1967 0.1376
0.0040 0.0028
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
1.0000 0.6993
The public and private fire protection allocation factors in Column 6 are based on the relative potential demands.
0.0612
0.9,88
Fire Protection
Allocation Weighted Allocation
Factor Factor Factor
(6) (7) (8)
0.7129
0.2222
0.0036
0.1988 0.0122 0.0122
0.8012 0.0481 0.0491
1.0000 0.0612 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 33 of 40

FACTOR 6, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAINS
Factors are based on the weighting of the maximum daily consumption with fire, Factor 3,
and the maximum hour.
Maximum Daill Consumetion wlFire Maximum Hou,11 Consumetion
Allocation Weighted Allocation Weighted
Customer Classification Factor Factor Factor Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Residential 0.6389 0.2789 0.6922 0.3900
Commercial 0.3373 0.1472 0.2163 0.1219
Public Authority 0.0026 0.0011 0.0035 0.0020
Private Fire Service 0.0042 0.0018 0.0175 0.0099
Public Fire Service 0.0170 0.0074 0.0705 0.0397
Total 1.0000 0.4365 1.0000 0.5635
The weighted of the factors is based on the total footage of mains, designated as either transmission
mains or distribution mains, as follows:
Total In-Feet
of Mains Weight
Transmission Mains 29,910,220 0.4365
Distribution Mains 38,608,964 0.5635
Total 68,519,184 1.0000
FACTOR 7, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH FIRE HYDRANTS
Costs are allocated between Private and Public Fire Hydrants
Customer Classification
(1)
Private Fire Service
Public Fire Service
Allocation
Factor
(2)
0.1988
0.8012
Allocation
Factor
(6)
0.6689
0.2691
0.0031
0.0117
0.0471
1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 34 of 40

FACTOR 8: ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED V ITH METERS
Factors are based on the relative cost of met HS bJ sire and customec-classification, as developed below.
5/S"Me<H Alocadon
Customer Classification E~..-.:S F ac<ot
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 131.574 o.m<
Commercial 6$,143 1).3434
Public Authorltg 661 o.0033
20l378 lOOOO
R<ddffldll Commt,0111 Public Autho1iti
en--ol Numbtr of Numbtrof
MtttrSizt E9!!!::WW MtttfS V!!9hti29 Mt lt ll \./tlS1hUn9 Mt ttll \./ tl51htin51
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
518" lO 2$.329 2$,32$ 639 639 6 6
314" l5 57.227 85,841 2,121 3,181 13 19
1" l9 9.224 17,525 2,576 4,894 26 49
1-112" 6.0 2$1 1.506 2,182 13,090 22 130
2" 1l9 115 1.373 2,439 29.020 38 457
3" 5U 0 260 13,288 0
4" 94.1 0 45 4,216 0
6" 13<.0 0 6 815 0
8" 180.0 0 0 0
Total 92,14$ 131,574 10,267 69,143 105 661
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 35 of 40

FACTOR 9, ALLOCATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED VITH SERVICES
Factors are based on the relative cost of servic~s by size and customer classification, as developed below.
314" Service Allocation
Customer Classification Eguiv.alents Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 101,055 0.8212
Commercial 21,767 0.1769
Public Authority 237 0.0019
123,059 1.0000
Residential Commercial Public Authorit1 Total
314" Service Number of Number of Number of Number of
Meter Size Eguiv.alents Meters Weighting Meters Weighting Meters Weighting Meters Weighting
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
518" 1.0 25,329 25,329 639 639 6 6 25,974 25,974
314" 1.0 57,227 57,227 2,121 2,121 13 13 59,360 59,360
1" 1.9 9,224 17,525 2,576 4,894 26 49 11,825 22,468
1-112" 2.5 251 628 2,182 5,454 22 54 2,454 6,136
2" 3.0 115 346 2,439 7,316 38 115 2,592 7,777
3" 3.5 0 260 910 0 260 910
4" 8.5 0 45 381 0 45 381
6" 8.5 0 6 52 0 6 52
8" 8.5 0 0 0 0 0
Total 92,146 101,055 10,267 21.767 105 237 102,518 123,059
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 36 of 40
FACTOR 10, ALLOCATION OF TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OPERATION SUPERVISION
AND ENGINEERING AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
Factors are based on transmission and distribution operation expenses other than those being
allocated, as follows:
Transmission
& Distribution
Operating Allocation
Customer Classification Exeenses Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 332,817 0.6470
Commercial 176,419 0.3429
Public Authority 1,731 0.0034
Private Fire Service 689 0.0013
Public Firo Soruieo 2,779 0.0054
$514,434 1.0000
FACTOR 11, ALLOCATION OF TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OPERATION SUPERVISION
AND ENGINEERING. STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS. AND OTHER EXPENSES
Factors are based on transmission and distribution maintenance expenses other than those being
allocated, as follows:
Transmission
& Distribution
Maintenance Allocation
Customer Classification Exeenses Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 2,185,190 0.8035
Commercial 488,599 0.1797
Public Authority 5,569 0.0020
Private Fire Service 7,976 0.0029
Public Fire Service 32,140 0.0118
$2,719,473 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 37 of 40
FACTOR 12, ALLOCATION OF BILLING AND COLLECTION COSTS
Factors are based on the total number of customers.
Total Allocation
Customer Classification Customers Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 92,146 0.8771
Commercial 10,267 0.0977
Public Authority 106 0.0010
Private Fire Service 2,538 0.0242
Public Fire Service 0 0.0000
105,057 1.0000
FACTOR 13, ALLOCATION OF METER READING COSTS
Factors are based on the total equivalent meters.
Total Equiv. Allocation
Customer Classification Meters Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 101.055 0.8212
Commercial 21,767 0.1769
Public Authority 237 0.0019
123,059 1.0000
FACTOR 14, ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRA TIYE AND GENERAL EXPENSES
Factors are based on the allocation of all other operation and maintenance expenses
excluding G&A, purchased water, power and chemicals.
Operation&
Maintenance Allocation
Customer Classification Exeense Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 7,808,338 0.7419
Commercial 2,545,235 0.2418
Public Authority 22,712 0.0022
Private Fire Service 69,388 0.0066
Public Fire Service 78,726 0.0075
$10,524,398 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 38 of 40

FACTOR 15, ALLOCATION OF CASH VORKING CAPITAL
Factors are based on the allocation of all other operation and maintenance expenses
including purchased water, power and chemicals.
Operation&
Maintenance Allocation
Customer Classification Exeense Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 16,345,611 0.7270
Commercial 5,816,650 0.2587
Public Authority 52,698 0.0023
Private Fire Service 125,792 0.0056
Public Fire Service 142,444 0.0063
$22,483,195 1.0000
FACTOR 16, ALLOCATION OF LABOR RELATED TAXES AND BENEFITS
Factors are based on the allocation of direct labor expense.
Direct Labor Allocation
Customer Classification E112enst Faotor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 5,753,488 0.7557
Commercial 1,754,042 0.2304
Public Authority 15,512 0.0020
Private Fire Service 52,407 0.0069
Public Fire Service 37,917 0.0050
$7,613,366 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 39 of 40

FACTOR 17, ALLOCATION OF ORGANIZATION. FRANCHISES AND CONSENTS.
MISCELLANEOUS INTANGIBLE PLANT AND OTHER RATE BASE ELEMENTS
Factors are based on the allocation of the original cost less depreciation other than those
items being allocation, as follows:
Original
Costless Allocation
Customer Classification Deereciation Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 254.755,347 0.6575
Commercial 112,946,623 0.2915
Public Authority 956,077 0.0025
Private Fire Service 3,712,581 0.0096
Public Fire Service 15,088,321 0.0389
$387,458,950 1.0000
FACTOR 18, ALLOCATION OF INCOME TAXES AND INCOME AVAILABLE FOR RETURN
Factors are based on the allocation of the original cost measure of value rate base as hown below.
Original
Cost Measure Allocation
Customer Classification of Value Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 187,524,758 0.6584
Commercial 82,913,729 0.2911
Public Authority 702.400 0.0025
Private Fire Service 2,715,058 0.0095
Public Fire Service 10,976,013 0.0385
$284,831.959 1.0000
FACTOR 19, ALLOCATION OF REGULATORY COMMISSION EXPENSES. ASSESSMENTS. AND
OTHER VATER REVENUE
Factors are based on the allocation of the total cost of service, excluding those items being allocated.
Total Cost Allocation
Customer Classification of Service Factor
(1) (2) (3)
Residential 43,795,383 0.6862
Commercial 17,775,251 0.2785
Public Authority 154,386 0.0024
Private Fire Service 499,422 0.0078
Public Fire Service 1,600,643 0.0251
63,825,086 1.0000
Exhibit 14-F
Case No. VEO-W-22-02

A. Bui
Page 40 of 40

FACTOR 20, ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FIRE
Factors are based on the relative cost of meters by size and customer classification
518" Dollar Allocation
Customer Classification Eguivalents Factor
llJ l2J l>J
Residential 131,574 0.6534
Commercial 69,143 0.3434
Public Authority 661 0.0033
Private Fire Service 0 0.0000
Total 201.378 1.0000
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAILY SEND OUT AND MAXIMUM DAILY USAGES FOR
THE YEARS OF 2012-2021
Average Daily
Send Out Maximum Dail! Use
Year MGD MGD Ratio to Average
(1) (2)
2012 40.495 84.000 2.07
2013 42.126 82.000 1.95
20H .U.G62 9'1.000 2.02
2015 43.128 85.467 1.98
2016 42.927 81.662 1.90
2017 41.637 83.729 2.01
2018 43.512 86.680 1.99
2019 41.103 82.539 2.01
2020 41.699 83.528 2.00
2021 44.376 88.506 1.99
Average 1.99
Source: A.1 Accounts and water sales volume by custoner class for the past 10 years.xlsx
and Black. & Veatch Customer Class Load Study
Exhibit 14-F