20070514Reply comments.pdf

P A I N E
Ib,
HAM B L E Nee"
, \\: Zb\ I. , \
Janet D. Robnett
. '
' i
' !. (: '
,. I J' i,' \iJ'llU\i ~
May 11 2007
SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Jean Jewell
The Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ill 83702-5983
Re:Application of Stoneridge Water Co. - Case No. SWS-06-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing are the original and seven (7) copies of the Reply of Stoneridge
Recreational Club Condominium Owners Association, Inc. to the Staff Comments dated April
, 2007, in connection with the above-referenced application. A copy of the Reply was also
filed electronically with you, as of this date.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
PAINE HAMB LEN LLP
~' /J b ftL
Ene.
cc:Donovan Walker
Wayne Benner
Joe M.Olmstead
Cindy Thomas
Bob Smith
H:\CDADOCS\24194\OOOO2\ltr\CO146176.DOC
701 E. Front Avenue #101 Coeur d' Alene, Idaho 83814-4914 [phone] www.painehamblen.com
A Limited Liability Partnership with offices in Spokane, Coenr d' Alene and Kennewick.
Janet D. Robnett
Attorney at Law
O. Box "
701 Front Avenue, Suite 101
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
Telephone: [phone]
ISBA # 3268
, '
j) Ii
i "
: / ;'" . ,-"
:i,ii"
U (;l,\! i
i~i"\;3~:;:\
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF STONERIDGE WATER COMPANY FOR
AN INCREASE IN RATES AND CHARGES
CASE NO. SWS-06-
REPLY OF STONERIDGE
RECREATIONAL CLUB
CONDOMINIUM OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INe. TO STAFF
COMMENTS
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Stoneridge Recreational Club
Condominium Owners Association, Inc., dba Stoneridge Resort, in reply to the Comments of the
Commission Staff dated April 27 , 2007 , in connection with the application of CDS Stoneridge
Associates - Land, LC, doing business as Stoneridge Water Company (the "Company ), for a
general rate case establishing new rates and charges for customers in the Company s service area
near Blanchard, Idaho.
REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Stoneridge Resort generally concurs with the staff's analysis with respect to the
Company s revenue requirements. Consideration should still be given to the fact that the system
has excess capacity available to service new developments. Costs that are proposed to be
REPLY OF STONERIDGE RECREATIONAL CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO STAFF COMMENTS-
included in the rate base for charges to existing customers were also incurred for the benefit of
the excess capacity held by the Company for the benefit of new development and should, to
some extent, be absorbed by the developer.
RATE DESIGN
Stoneridge Resort agrees with Staffs conclusion that the physical capacity of the system
to deliver water, as measured by the different meter sizes for different customers, should be
considered when setting varying customer charges. However, the Staff's analysis was limited to
the mathematical comparison of meter sizes, without necessarily taking into consideration the
diversity of customers on the system. Not all customers will be utilizing the full capacity
available to them at the same time, nor is it likely that a customer would require its full available
capacity except under extraordinary circumstances.
In its earlier Objections, Stoneridge Resort had proposed the adoption of a rate structure
based largely upon meter size, but also taking into consideration other factors identified in
Grindstone Butte Mutual Canal Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 102 Idaho 175
179 , 627 P.2d 804 , 808 (1981) and other cases, including the quantity of water used, the time of
use, the pattern of use, the differences in the conditions of service, the costs of service, and the
actual difference in the situation of the consumers for the furnishing of the service. The end
result was a proposal that mirrored that which had been approved in earlier rate cases
particularly United Water
The following is a side-by-side comparison of the Staff proposal with those other system
rate designs:
REPLY OF STONERIDGE RECREA TIONAL CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO STAFF COMMENTS - 2
Comparative Table of Base Rate Price Escalation by Meter Size
United Water Capitol Water Coeur d'Alene Staff Proposal
Meter
Size Rate Ratio %
3/4"$ 16.100.$ 7.100%$6.100%18.100%
21.131.10.140.109.32.177.
34.213.15.205.155.72.40 400.
49.307.27.354.12.207.4%128.711.1 %
201.1111.
91.563.48.635.1 %19.320.289.1600.
145.899.28.461.1 %514.2844.4%
280.1730.47.786.158.40 6400.
The proportional allocation amongst the varying meter sizes as adopted in the United
Water case, which Stoneridge Resort believes should be applied to this case, would result in the
following rate design:
3 /4" Meter Base Rate1" Meter Base Rate
1 Vz" Meter Base Rate2" Meter Base Rate4" Meter Base Rate6" Meter Base Rate
$ 28.
$ 37.
$ 60.
$ 87.
$ 256.22
$ 493.
All Commodity $0.75/ 1000 Gallons
In addition to more accurately reflecting the actual demands on the system from each customer
class , the rate structure proposed by Stoneridge Resort would result in a lower overall monthly
minimum charge, and a higher commodity charge. This would further serve the interests of
conservation by allowing for a larger portion of the revenue requirement increase to be derived
from the commodity rather than the minimum/customer charge. As Staff noted at page 12 of its
Comments:
There is significant concern for both water quality and conservation of the
Rathdrum Prairie aquifer due to growth and increasing use of the aquifer. Recent
Staff recommendations and Commission decisions have addressed these concerns
by focusing on meeting a larger portion of revenue requirement increases from the
REPLY OF STONERIDGE RECREA TIONAL CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO STAFF COMMENTS - 3
commodity rather than the minimum/customer charge. (Citing Bitterroot Water
Case No. BIT-05-, Order No. 29966).
CONCLUSION
Stoneridge Resort supports the Staff's findings as to the Company revenue
requirements, and a rate design that differentiates among the customer classes based largely on
meter sizes, with the modifications described herein.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2007.
PAINE HAMBLEN, LLP
B y J). i?d
/;
ttdf-
JANET D. ROBNETT
Attorneys for Stoneridge Recreational Club
Condominium Owners Association, Inc.
REPLY OF STONERIDGE RECREA TIONAL CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO STAFF COMMENTS - 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of May, 2007, I caused to be served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
Ms. Jean Jewell
The Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983
jean. jewell (g)puc.idaho.~ov
Via Federal Express
-----;T Via E-mail
Via u.S. Mail
Wayne Benner
O. Box 280
Blanchard, ID 83804
wbenner(g) stoneridgeidaho.com
Via Federal Express
---L- Via E-mail
Via u.S. Mail
Joe M.Olmstead
James A. Sewel & Assoc.
600 4th St. West
Newport, W A 99156
jolmstead (g) windwireless.net
Via Federal Express
./' Via E-mail
Via u.S. Mail
&.
ko flLtf-
H:\CDADOCS\24194\OOOO2\plead\CO146137.DOC
REPLY OF STONERIDGE RECREATIONAL CLUB CONDOMINIUM
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TO STAFF COMMENTS - 5
St
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Su
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

R
a
t
e

D
e
s
i
g
n
Wi
t
h

S
t
a
f
f

R
e
v
e
n
u
e

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
(A
)
(B
)
(C
)
(D
)
(E
)
(F
)
(G
)
An
n
u
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
To
t
a
l
Fr
o
m
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f
Fr
o
m
Co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
o
d
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
An
n
u
a
l
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
Ba
s
e

R
a
t
e
(O
O
O
'
s
o
f

G
a
l
)

C
h
a
r
g
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Bi
l
l
/
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

B
i
l
l
/
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
10
1
$
3
4
54
2
.
09
2
81
8
.
36
0
.
40
9
.
34
,
1
H
a
p
p
y

Va
l
l
e
y

R
a
n
c
h
o
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
St
o
n
e
r
i
d
g
e

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
3
F
a
i
r
w
a
y

Me
a
d
o
w
s

C
o
n
d
o
s
4
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
T
i
m
e
s
h
a
r
e

Re
s
o
r
t

C
o
n
d
o
s
)
5
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
T
i
m
e
s
h
a
r
e

Re
s
o
r
t

R
e
c

C
e
n
t
e
r
)
6
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
T
i
m
e
s
h
a
r
e

Re
s
o
r
t

P
a
r
k
)
7
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
P
O
A

R
e
c

ce
n
t
e
r
)
8
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
C
D
S

P
r
o

Sh
o
p
,

G
r
i
l
l

&

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
9
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
C
D
S

Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
)
10

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
C
D
S

R
e
c

Ce
n
t
e
r
)
11

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(S
a
l
e
s

O
f
f
i
c
e
)
12

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
C
D
S

E
v
e
n
t
s

Ce
n
t
e
r
)
13

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(
M
o
t
o
r

Co
a
c
h

V
i
l
l
a
g
e
)
14

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

(G
o
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e

I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
)
To
t
a
l
10
0
$
3
4
20
0
.
17
9
38
4
,
27

$
39
,
58
4
,
27

$
39
5
.
84

$
32
.
$
2
18
5
,
26

$
19
.
5
5
20
4
,
73
4
,
61
.
$
4
21
3
,
77
2

$
82
8
,
04
2
,
$
1
76
0
.
14
6
,
$
1
05
3
,
86
5

$
64
8
.
70
2
.
$
1
70
2
,
14
1

.
$
1
05
3
.
48
5
36
3
,
41
7
.
$
1
,
4
1
7
,
11
8
.
72
8
.
4
6
46
.
77
5
.
4
3

$
77
5
.
4
3

$
64
.
44
8
.
50
0
37
5
,
00

$
82
3
.
02

$
82
3
,
68
,
34
2
,
10
0
75
.
00

$
41
7
,
00

$
41
7
.
00

$
34
,
$
1
05
3
,
10
0

$
75
,
12
8
.
$
1
12
8
.
36

$
94
.
34
2
.
24
4

$
18
2
,
52
4
,
96

$
52
4
.
43
,
34
2
.
97

$
72
.
57

$
41
4
.
57

$
41
4
,
57

$
34
.
$
1
05
3
.
11
5
86
.
03

$
13
9
.
$
1
13
9
,
94
,
43
8
,
00
0

$

3
3
,
75
0
,
18
8
,
90

$

3
4
18
8
.
90

$

2
84
9
.
$
8
1
99
5
,
63
7

$

5
0
72
7
.
4
7

$
13
2
72
3
,
62
%
38
%
10
0
%
21
8