20160620Transcript Volume I.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILIT]ES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF DIAMOND BAR
ESTATES WATER COMPANYIS
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO
INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR
WATER SERVICE IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO
)
)
)'
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. DIA-W-15-01
PUBLIC HEARING
BEEORE
COMMISSIONER PAUL KJELLANDER (Presiding)
COMMISSIONER KRISTINE RAPER
COMMTSSIONER ERIC ANDERSON
PLACE:Lakel-and High SchooL
7006 West Highway 53
Rathdrum, Idaho
June 7, 20L6DATE:
6
f:Niar fftrr:C)om
<\:Ernso
CNc)
VOLUME f-Pagesl-62
CSB REPORTING
C ertifted S ho rth and Repo rte rs
Post Office Box9774
Boise,Idaho 83707
c sbreportin g@ yahoo. com
Ph: 208-890-5198 Fax: [phone]
Reporter:
Constance Bucy,
CSR
ORIGINAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
o
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
t6
t1
1B
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTTNG
(208 ) 890-s198
APPEARANCES
For the Staff:Daphne Huang, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
472 West WashingtonBoise, ldaho 83720-0074
APPEARANCES
1
)
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
71
1B
79
20
2L
22
23
24
atr1_ -)
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
TNDEX
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
Nate Simmons
( Public )
Bryce Wells
(Publ-ic)
Eric Hallgren
( Public )
Mike Ti-11ery
( PubIic )
Darrel Ramus
( PubIic )
Mary Boettcher
( Public )
Statement
Commissioner
Statement
Commissioner
Commissioner
Statement
Statement
Statement
Statement
Kj ellander
Kj ellander
Raper
3
13
l1
79
20
27
24
26
55
INDEX
1
2
3
4
5
o
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
71
1B
79
20
2I
22
Z5
24
RATHDRUM IDAHO TUESDAY JUNE 1 2016 7:00 P M.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Good evening, ladies
and gentlemen. This is the time and place for a public
hearing in the matter of Diamond Bar Estates Water
Company's application for authority to increase its rates
and charges for water service in the State of ldaho.
It's afso referred to as Case No. DIA-W-15-01. My name
is Paul KjeIIander. I'm the Chaj-rman of this particular
hearing this evening. I'm one of the three
Commissioners. To my right is Kristine Raper, and to my
teft is Commissioner Eric Anderson. Also with us here
from the Commission is our Deputy Attorney General who
represents the Commissi-on Staff, Daphne Huang.
The lntent this evening for this specific
public hearing is for the three Commissioners to take
public testimony to complete the building of the record.
Once the record is completely built and the case is
closed, the three Commissioners will- then deliberate
based on all the evidence and all the matters that are
part of the offlcial record of the case.
We serve as a three-panel judiciary body and
our role, again, thls evening is to help ensure that your
testimony is included appropriately in the record. We
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
COLLOQUY
B
9
r0
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
11
T2
13
74
15
76
7'7
1B
19
20
27
22
ZJ
.AL.+
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
also have a court reporter with us this evening. She may
ask you to sfow down a little bit. Shers very competent,
but there are times in which we need to slow things down
just to make sure that we get everything in the record.
With that, then, the way that we will operate
this evening is that I wiII call your name to come up and
testify. I know that we have you stand up. That's
probably not in my mind the most convenient and friendly
thing to do. Could we lower that and put a chaj-r there
so somebody could slt down just to make it a l-ittl-e less
intimidating?
THE AUD]ENCE:
paperwork on it.
Maybe a second chair to put some
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: While Gene Fadness is
doing that, and I should have noticed that before, f'11
go ahead and explain again what the process wiII be.
We'11- invite you up, call your name, have you come and
sit next to the microphone. The first thing that wil-I
happen is that Commissioner Raper wiII ask you to raise
your hand and she'lf get you sworn in offlcially for the
record, and then the Deputy Attorney General will- ask you
just a few brief questions to get you officially on the
record.
At that point, then, you wilf be asked to
provide your statement or testimony that you would Iike
COLLOQUY
a
1
Z
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
L6
t'7
1B
79
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
to present to us at the Commission, and then once you're
complete with that, there may be an opportunity for us if
we want to ask a few fo11ow-up questj-ons based on what
you've said. ft's official-ly referred to as
cross-examination, but it's not the Perry Mason style
where somebody is trying to trip you up on anything.
There may just be a clarification, so with that, then,
why don't we begin with the first individual- signed up to
testify and that 1s Nate Simmons.
NATE SIMMONS,
appearing as a public witness, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testif ied as fo]lows:
EXAMINATION
BY MS. HUANG:
O. Good evening, Mr. Simmons.
A. HeI1o.
O. Could you please state your name and spell your
last name for the record?
It's Nate Simmons, S-i-m-m-o-n-s.
O. Also, for the record, coul-d you please state
your mailing address?
A. 1655 West Diamond Bar Road, Rathdrum, Idaho,
STMMONSPublic
o
1
aL
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
76
t1
1B
19
)i
2t
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
B3Bs8.
O. Are you a customer of Dlamond Bar?
A. I am
O. Please provide your testlmony.
(Pause in proceedings. )
THE WITNESS: To start wi-th, I'm goi-ng to kind
of read through this and this is just a copy of it for
whoever wants it.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Let's see if we can
get this closer to you.
THE WITNESS: As stated, my name is Nate
Simmons. I've already submitted comments to the original
rate j-ncrease request, dS well as the PUC Staff response.
Just so you understand that I am not just a homeowner who
doesn't want to pay an exorbitant increase no matter the
justification, I want you to know where I am coming from
on this matter. I had a 35-year career in facil-ities at
the Boeing Company. I did many jobs over the years,
including project management, constructj-on management,
managing budgets, identifying and solving problems, and
value engineering. I believe this gj-ves me a good
foundation to evaluate the appropriateness of the
proposed huge rate increase proposed by Diamond Bar
Estates Water District.
Since the Water District filed their request
SIMMONS
Public
for a rate increase last year, there have been several
steps along the way; a public workshop, a chance for the
homeowners to input thelr thoughtsi the posting of the
PUC Staff report with reconimendations; and finally, the
response from the Water District. We homeowners now have
the opportunity to present thoughts and questions
publicly after which the Commission wil-l make a decision
as to how much the water rates wilf be allowed to rise.
Unfortunately, there are still several important issues
to consider before an informed and just decision can be
made by the Commission.
Major areas to discuss include the operations
of the company and whether it has been operated in a
prudent and efficient manner, whether they have provided
good service to customers, whether aII costs and revenues
have been properly accounted for, and whether the PUC
Staff has done a thorough job of i-nvesti-gating the
validity of the rate request. This speci-fica11y includes
several key items already presented by the homeowners but
ignored in the Staff report.
The first area I'd Iike to address is the
Company operations and whether they are prudent and have
been done smartly. To start with, why was a 50
horsepower pump installed originally agalnst the
contractor's recommendation, thus incurring higher
2
3
4
(
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
l4
15
16
71
18
79
)i
27
22
)2
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG(208) 890-s198
SIMMONS
PubIic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
16
71
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
)\
CSB REPORTING(208) B 90-s198
operating costs every time the pump failed?
Why was no action taken when it was stated in
2002 that there was a problem with the efectrical system?
When pump life is expected to be 75-20 years,
why was there never a thorough investigation of the
problem until after six or seven failures in 13 years?
After only two or three failures, there should have been
a thorough root cause analysis done to avoid future
problems. Failure to do so is a failure of proper
management and causes the customers to pay more than they
should.
When Kootenai Electric Cooperative requires all
motors larger than 20 horsepower to have a soft start
lnstalled, why has this never been done?
Why has there been no action to replace the
soft start for the pump slnce the AEI Engineering report
stated it was a requirement? I have talked to AEI
Engineering as welI as an electrical contractor and both
state that it's the most important thing to do to
maximize the pump life. To relate it to a personal
level, operating without the soft start on these motors
is like revving up your car engine to 3000 RPM before
shifting into drive and not expecting any damage to
occur.
Per the documents filed by the Water District
SIMMONS
PubIic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
t6
t1
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
.Az.t
25
and the PUC/ it is clear that the Company is not run
efficiently and effectively. There are clearly i-ssues
wlth the bookkeeping and the annual reports, ds welf as
the consultant that was non-responsive. AII these things
caused more work for the PUC Staffr ds well- as those of
us trying to understand the rate request, and it is not
justified to reward the Company and punish the customers
for thls.
The Company claims that the staff is working
more hours, yet does not present justification why.
Since they are basically serving al-most the same number
of customers, there should not be a reason for allowing
j-ncreased hours worked. Time spent solving problems of
their own making should not be compensated. Any increase
in labor costs shoul-d be limited to cost of living
factors.
The second area I want to address is the cost
and revenue issues. As I had presented in the chart that
I had filed before, in 2010, the operations costs
increased by about $18-20,000 over the previous year and
years, and I have not seen a valid explanation from the
Water District or the Staff for this, and with the
service record showlng a pump failure at well- No. 2 that
year, it appears to me that labor and expense was
incorrectly allocated from the private homeowner to the
CSB REPORT]NG(208) 890-s198
S]MMONS
Publ-ic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
l1
1B
t9
)o
21
ZZ
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
Water District, and this cannot be allowed and must be
removed from the base.
From 2008 unt1l 2014, annual revenues were
wit.hin approxj-mately $2,500 each year. However, we know
that the Company received insurance payments of 5,530,
9,500, and 4,110 during these years. Tt is inconceivabfe
that payments like these would not cause greater
fluctuation in the annual revenues in the annual reports,
and thus, we must conclude that the j-nsurance payments
were improperly excluded from the revenues in these
annual reports and this, of course, cannot be allowed.
Why should the Company be granted a guaranteed
L2 percent return when their o\^/n poor decision making
allows them to increase the plant in service values and
thus get a higher return?
f'd l-ike to address the actual customer service
of the Company. I lived for L1 years in Maple Va11ey,
Washington. We had a house out in the woods and a
private water company that supplied our house. It was
significantly larger than this one, but in the 11 years,
I don't recall a single outage in that entire time, yet I
have endured at Ieast four major outages in just four
years here. These outages have ranged from two to t9
days, during which time our lawns and plants were at
risk. This is clearly lnferior and unacceptable service
SIMMONS
PubIic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
76
I1
1B
79
20
27
ZZ
a')
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
The outages incurred by the Company aflowed air
to enter the system, which caused two hot water
recirculation pumps 1n my house to burn out. I requested
to have the Company call me whenever they were aware of
an outage so I could protect the pumps, but they argued
against it and did not care that they caused my pumps to
faif. I was actually hung up on one time when asking why
I did not get a call to alert me. Customer service
appears to be a foreign concept to them. I woul-d like to
have the Commission direct the Company to establish a
group email or texting alert system so they could notify
customers immediately of outages and service
restorations.
The Public Utiliti-es Commission Staff. I was
very disappointed in what the Staff posted in response to
the Diamond Bar Estates Water District and the
homeowners' input. I feel that there are many
significant issues that were raised by myself and other
homeowners that were ignored or just glossed over in the
report. As a result, several of them must be brought up
again at the public hearing, and I understand that while
not every single question or comment needs to be
addressed, there are several issues raised that deserve
an explanation. Of particular concern are the huge
expense jump in 2010 and the treatment of the insurance
SIMMONS
PubI ic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
l6
L1
1B
79
20
2t
aaLL
Z)
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
SIMMONS
PubIic
compensation for the pump failures.
The PUC Staff states they are going against
normal accounting treatment by allowing recovery of costs
for early retirement .of an asset. They state that unique
circumstances exist that justlfies this. However, the
unique circumstance is that improper management of the
system caused the pumps to fail prematurely and thus
allowing recovery of these costs is basically rewarding
management i-ncompetence to the detriment of the customers
and this cannot be allowed.
Miscellaneous thoughts. I was told in a
conversation a year or so ago with Mr. Turnlpseed that
the pump failures were the fauft of Kootenai Electric and
he was trying to get them to compensate him for the
problems that he was having with his pumps and electrical
service. However, at the same time, he refused to take
any responsibility for allowing air to get into the lines
and cause my two recirculation pump failures. AIlowing
the air into the lines caused me to spend over $900 to
replace them.
When reading through the documents in this
case, it's clear that the Water District expects to be
paid for time and money spent to prepare their case.
Wel1, I personalJ-y have spent probably 50-60 hours
working on this case, so who is going to compensate me?
t0
11
72
-1 11J
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
l4
15
l6
t1
1B
t9
20
27
22
23
24
1tr,
Sometimes company owners and execs need to be like exempt
employees; they do not get overt-ime pay and must invest
their own time for the good of the company and to build
up the company va1ue. I dj-d t.hat i-n my career and they
can do it as welI.
f believe that if Diamond Bar Water District is
guaranteed a 12 percent return and the customers are
forced to pay for their poor management, then homeowners
should be guaranteed to get our water supplied without
interruptions in service. In the long term, I believe
the only way to do this is to grant leqaI rights to
access water from the backup No. 2 well when necessary.
Thls wil-l protect the investments in our homes as wel-l as
all-ows us to avoid having to move into motels the next
time the pump fails if there's a new owner of that
property.
In the Water District's response to the PUC
Staff report, the Company tries to justlfy ignoring the
key AEI Engineering recommendation to install a soft
start system to protect the pump. Their justification i-s
that they aren't sure it's needed and they don't have the
money and they think everything is working fine. Well,
everythlng was always working fine in the past right up
until the point when the pumps failed. Cutting corners
and using short-sighted logic like is this a perfect
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
SIMMONS
Public
11
1
2
trJ
6
1
I
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
t6
l1
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG
(2oB ) B9o-5198
t2 SIMMONS
Public
example of the management and operational problems within
this Company.
In the public workshop and in other PUC
documents, prudent is a word that is often used. Given
everything that has been presented to the Public
Util-1ties Commission by the Diamond Bar Estates Water
District customers, it is abundantly clear that the water
system has not been prudently managed. It is imperative
that the Commissj-oners recognize this and refuse to award
the Water District for their shortcomings as a Company.
The Commissioners must ignore the recommendation of the
Staff and take action to adjust the rate downward from
the Staff recommendation to take i-nto account the
problems and issues that we have brought forward.
Thank you for allowing me to present my
thoughts to you today and for your careful consj-deration
and implementation of them as ;ustified. I also urge you
to carefully consider the concerns submitted previously
by other homeowners and myself to the PUC website. Thank
you -
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you, Mr.
S j-mmons. Let's see if we have any questions. Are there
questions from the Commission?
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER:
O. I just have a couple of quick fo1Iow-ups and if
you don't have answers to them, that's fine, but you
mentioned the soft start for the pumps. In the course of
your investigation, were you ever quoted or did you ever
run across what the range of costs might be for a soft
start assoclated wlth the pumps that you described?
A. I think he may have mentioned, like, $8,000 and
I talked to an electrlcal contractor and just kind of
wlth the information that I forwarded to him and without
any site survey or anything, he suggested it might run in
the nej-ghborhood of $12,000, but I suspect he was
probably, you know, giving a cushion there, you know, and
I told him, I sai-d, "H.y, this is just baII parking the
thing and you can't be hel-d to it or anything like that
without doing a site survey and understanding what's
there, " but somewhere in that range, but, again, that was
the key item identified, you know, by Kootenal Electric,
by the contractor, by the engineering firm, and even
$8-12,000, that's less than one pump replacement.
O. Thank you, and I won't hold you to those
numbers and you clarifled where they came from and I
appreciate that. The other question that I had is you
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
76
71
1B
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
13 SIMMONS (Com)
Public
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
76
t1
1B
79
20
27
aaLZ
)?
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
SIMMONS (Com)
Public
mentioned some outages that ranged anywhere from two to
79 days and when you started to look at some of those
outages as a customer, how did you deal with water durj-ng
that time frame?
A. Wel-I, when their pump fails or something
happens and we lose water pressure, ds far as I
understand, in the past they have switched over to what's
referred to as well No. 2, whj-ch is a wel-l on Mr.
Turnipseed's property, and he has referred to that to me
in conversations. f've had some conversations with him
in the four years that f've been here when we have
outages and stuff. I was never I never understood
that it was not a part of the Water Distrlct until- we
started looking into this and so, you know, he stated, I
think it was in his first responses, there was, like, 35
questions or something that he responded to and he had a
response in there that says basically, "Okay, you guys
have no right to that and, you know, it goes with the
property, " but given the history of what's gone on here,
I have some grave concerns over what happens.
You know, as he stated in one of his things,
he's 84 years old, you know, so how much tlme does he
have left, what happens to his property, and Lf, you
know, you start getting into more pump fai-lures and
outages and stuff, if that property goes to someone else
t4
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
76
l1
1B
t9
20
27
))
ZJ
.AL.)
25
CSB REPORT]NG(208) 890-s198
SIMMONS (Com)
Public
and they have no need to help supply us with water, you
know, and if you have a two-week outage, you know, what'
that going to do for your lawns, for your plants and alf
of that.
You know, f mean, you can't f l-ush your toilet.
You can't take a shower. You can't wash dishes. You
can't cook. You know, all of your normal functj-ons
cannot be done without the water, you know, and if you
had something like that happen, you know, we probably a1l
wou1d have to move to motels for that time, and so for
that reason, I'm thinking that there shoul-d be some
rights granted, not like full time or anything, but in
the event of a failure, you know, that maybe thatts
something that can be used to bring somethinq of value to
homeowners, you know, as a compensatj-on for some of the
rate increase that we're going to incur, which ffm
convinced has been the faul-t of poor management and not
keeping the system up as it shoul-d be. As I sa j-d,
expected lifetime on a pump l-ike this is 75-20 years.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Wel1, thank you. Let
me see if there are any questions from our Deputy
Attorney General-.
MS. HUANG: No questions.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Mr. Simmons, thank
you very much for your testimony today. I certainly do
15
1
2
3
4
trJ
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
76
t1
1B
19
)n
27
))
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
appreciate it and it certainly looks as if you've put in
a tremendous amount of tlme into that testimony and I'11
l-ook forward to seeing the transcript, too, and rereading
that, so thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: You' re wel-come.
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: We'1I call now Bryce
We11s.
MR. WELLS: I'm
person. I didn't realize
some questions.
going to yield to the next
it was testimony. I just had
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: One thing that we can
do is at the break or before we leave, Lf you would like,
we have in the back our public j-nformation officer who
might be abl-e to address some of your questions or at
l-east point you to some individuals with Staff that might
be abfe to assist you as wel-}. I don't want you to think
that there won't be a way to try to get you some answers
to your questions. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: AIso, Mr. Simmons is
clearly very eloquent in the way he put his testimony
together. Therers no expectation that I don't want
anyone to be intimidated by the fevel at which he
partlcipated in the public hearing. If you just want to
come up and have a few things to say and get a l_ittle off
!6 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
t1
1B
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
LJ
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 8e0-s198
WELLS
PubIic
your chest, that is what this opportunity is for as we11,
so when we have eloquent speakers come first, some people
become intimidated.
MR. WELLS: I will.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Irm never going to
let her talk again. You're more than wefcome to if you'd
fike.
BRYCE WELLS,
appearing as a public witness, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testif ied as f oIl-ows:
EXAMINAT]ON
BY MS. HUANG:
O. Good evening.
A. Hi.
O. Could you please state your name and spell your
Iast name for the record?
A. Bryce WeIls, W-e-l--1-s.
O. What is your malling address?
A. 3691 CJ Court, Rathdrum, Idaho.
a. Are you a customer of Dj-amond Bar?
A. Yes.
O. Please provide your testimony.
L1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
!2
13
t4
15
76
t1
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
WELLS
Public
A. Okay. Wel-l, several- concerns . First of al-l-,
we're retired on social- security and three out of the
l-ast seven years we got a zero raise and, you know, my
bill in the summertime runs as much as 130 just so I can
water my yard and stuff, and last year I believe it was
Mrs. Iinaudible] showed up at my doorstep after I paid
that hiqh bill and said, "Our pump is out, you can't
water. " Okay, nobody ever came back and told me I could
water. My lawn died.
Nobody ever notified me that it was okay to
start watering again. They just notified me that I
couldn't water, which I thought was, you know, pretty
rude, because my lawn died, basically, and anyway if it
gets too much of an increase, I guess we're just golng to
have to put rocks out there or something, because we
can't afford that, not on a fixed income like that, but
my other concern was f read in one of the last reports
there that he wasn't going to file a claim, because they
were going to cance.l- the insurance. WeII, if they're
going to cancel you 1f you file a c1aim, go ahead and
file the claim. At some polnt you're going to file a
claim anyway, so go ahead and file it and get the thing
fixed.
You know, you don't even have insurance, then,
if they're going to cancel you if you file another claim,
1B
so find another company, then, to insure you, but we
shoul-dn't be expected to pay for that, and then there
have been severaf notices that we got that there was some
slight contamlnation, too, and has that been addressed
each time? What's causing the contamination? That's
basically aJ-1 I have.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. We'll- see
if there are some questlons from members of the
Commisslon.
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER:
O. There is an issue that you brought up that was
also referenced by Mr. Simmons and that was you weren't
aware of when you could begin using water for watering
the property. Do you have a ce1l phone?
A. Yes -
0. So if there was some type of group text to
customers that coul-d notify you, even though it might not
get everybody, but a group text that might be set up that
could send that out to say
A. Wefl, dt the time I was the only home in that
part of the subdivision.
O. But if there was an outage, there woul-d be a
3
4
trJ
6
1
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
t6
71
18
79
20
2t
22
z3
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG(208) 890-5198
WELLS (Com)
Public
79
1
2
?
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
1/)LZ
13
14
15
76
71
1B
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
WELLS (Com)
PubIic
way for them to contact you?
A. Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. Are there
other questions?
THE WITNESS: But they do have my phone number
and stuff.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Just one quick question.
EXAMINAT]ON
BY COMMISS]ONER RAPER:
O. Contaminations of the water system --
A. We were notified over the past f've been
there five years, you know, they got it cleared up right
away or somethi-ng, but it was, Iike, a slight
contamination of something was the notice.
O. How did they notify you of that?
A. By mai}.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Which I would have preferred by
phone, so I could have the choice of whether I want to
use the water.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Of course. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Are there any further
questions? If not, we'II go to the Deputy Attorney
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
76
71
1B
T9
)n
2t
22
ZJ
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
27 HALLGREN
Public
General, dny ques Hallgren.
ERIC HALLGREN,
appearing as a public witness, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as fol-Iows:
EXAMINATION
BY MS. HUANG:
A. Good evening. Could you please state your name
and spe1l your last name for the record?
A. Sure, Eric Ha1lgren, H-a-1-I-g-r-e-n.
O. What is your maillng address?
A. 74052 North Rodeo Road, Rathdrum, Idaho,
83858.
O. Are you a customer of Diamond Bar?
A. I am.
O. Pl-ease provide your testimony.
A. I'11 just ditto everything that Nate said.
He's going to cover most of what I was going to talk
about. I've been a customer for 18 years. Irve lived in
the development from pretty much around the start of it.
The concern I have over I'm trying to think of this as
an overview. I submitted comments as part of the
homeowner's association committee that we formed. I
1
2
3
4
tr
6
1
B
9
10
11
l2
13
l4
1tr.IJ
76
t1
1B
19
20
21,
22
ZJ
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 890-s198
HALLGREN
Public
think there's a problem when you have eight pumps,
starting with the first one, over 22 years you have eight
water pumps that have been replaced. I think there's a
problem here and I know that starting in 2075 or last
year when they had the engineer come in, there's finally
been some realization that there's el-ectrical- problems
and some other things that were never addressed, and I
guess it's irritating to a lot of us that the rate base
and everything that the Staff relies on 1s based on this
historical history of afI these pump faj-fures, so it's
kind of hard if you don't have something that reaIly
worked right to begin with, how do you establish a proper
rate base for the customers.
I guess part of my comments, f'ff kind of
reinforce what I sent in, from thelr own response to
your f have it listed here as Request No. tl, Reply to
the Second Production Request of Staff, from 2002
forward, Mr. Turnipseed stated that they knew there was
poor power comlng from Kootenai Electricr so this was
many, many years ago from the start that they knew there
was a problem, but I don't see in any of the record here
up until- thls AEI Engineering report that anyone was
brought in to finally Sdy, "What do we need to do here to
establish a good sound systemr " so everything that stems
from that and all the and most of what f see in the
22
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
11
72
l-3
I4
15
L6
t1
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
HALLGREN
PubIic
rate case, and I'm not an accountant, but it seems l-ike
itrs all based on these pump failures, because thatrs the
bul-k of the cost of the water system, and I don't know if
there's an easy answer for you guys.
f dread your jobs, because you have to come up
with a balanclng act here, but I rea1Iy think
historically you have to also look that Mr. Turnipseed
was the developer of this 1and, too, so he started this
whole project, these five-acre tracts of land, and I know
it was turned over to him. I was at that meeting when we
turned the water system over to him, but from that polnt
forward, I just don't understand why we've had this
number of failures.
It just seems if an 18-year amortizatj-on is
normal on a pump, why do we have eight fail-ures in 22
years? That's a pump fallure every two or three years on
average, so that's pretty much it. I'l-I rely on the
comments that I submitted already and if you have any
questions.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Let's see if we have
any questions. Any questions from the members of the
Commission? Ms. Huang?
MS. HUANG: No questions.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: I certainly
appreci-ate your testj-mony and thank you very much.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
76
t1
1B
79
)n
2t
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 890-5198
TILLERY
Public
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(The witness l-eft the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: We will call_ now Mike
Ti1 1ery.
MIKE TTLLERY,
appearing as a public witness, having been first duty
sworn, testif ied as fol-lows:
EXAM]NAT]ON
BY MS. HUANG:
O. Good evening.
A. Good evening.
O. Please state your name and spell your last name
for the record.
A. Michael- Tillery. Last name is gpelled
T-i-l-t-e-r-y.
O. What j-s your mailing address?
A. 2961 West Diamond Bar Road, Rathdrum, Tdaho,
B3B5B.
O. You are a customer of Diamond Bar Estates?
A. I am.
O. Pl-ease provide your testimony.
A. I only want to add to the previous testimony
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
1)AJ
t4
15
15
l1
1B
t9
20
21
22
11
.A
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
TILLERY
Publ ic
that one of my concerns is in the final response by
Diamond Bar Estates Water that was submitted on May 21th,
to me it reflected somewhat of a casual attitude
towards the in the final paragraph, I bel-ieve, what
I'm gettinq to is that they said that the soft start
system, which had been recommended by the consultant that
they hired, may or may not solve the problem they have.
I manaqed a multi-mlLIion doIIar data center
for a Fortune 100 company and when I reached a point
where I needed somebody to come in and help me, because I
wasn't expected know everything, I was expected to find
the answers to what the problems were, whether it was
electrical or air conditioning or server configurations,
but when I hlred a consultant, I hired somebody that I
trusted, and when they gave me advice, I usually followed
it, and I think that there is plenty of evidence that a
soft start system is necessary in order to eliminate
those possibilities for failure in the future, which is
one of the big concerns that aII of the homeowners have.
I happen to also be one of the directors in the
HOA, so f woul-d like to see something more forceful from
the Commission in guiding the Company to take actj-on on
those things that have been recoflimended that would
eliminate these failures in the future. There are a lot
of different concerns that have been brought up, but
25
1
2
J
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
71
1B
79
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) B9o-5198
RAMUS
Public
certainly, we shoul-d resolve the problems that have been
identified and if there are contj-nued failures, then you
have taken out those variables and you could move forward
from there. That's really all I wanted to add at this
point.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. Letrs
see if we have any questions from the Commissioners, and
Ms. Huang?
MS. HUANG: No questions.
THE WITNESS: Thank you all.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you very much,
Mr. TiIlery.
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: And now we caIl
Darrel- Ramus.
DARREL RAMUS,
appeari-ng as a pubJ-ic witness, having been first duly
sworn, testi-f ied as follows:
EXAM]NATION
BY MS. HUANG:
O. Good evening.
A. Good even j-ng .
26
1
2
3
.l
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
7'7
1B
19
20
27
22
l3
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
o.
l-ast name
A
O.
A
the rest.
O.
Estates ?
A.
A.
Could you please state your name and spell your
for the record?
fLrs Darrel- Ramus and thatrs R-a-m-u-s.
What is your mailing address?
14126 North Rodeo Road, and you probably know
And you are a customer of Dlamond Bar
I am.
Please provide your testimony.
Thank you; so first of all, I woul-d l-ike to
start by saying and reiterating what the other comments
have been, I think mine wil-l- be klnd of an overview, I
guess, of this, because I have a lot of the same comments
and concerns, but I did want to step through a couple of
what I think are the key issues that the board has to
make a decisi-on on. I am also one of the directors of
the homeowner's association.
We did appreciate the Staff that came out
during the workshop, but I think a l-ot of us after that
fel-t many of our questions were not answered and maybe
they were not that was not the proper forum to answer
those questions, and we were hoping that they would be
covered by the time we get to this step. After that
workshop, a lot of homeowners came to the directors and
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
o
10
11
t2
13
\4
15
l6
l1
1B
79
20
21
22
23
24
atr/ -)
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
they said, "You guys need to do something about this and
get involved, " and thatrs what we did. We put a lot of
time and effort lnto researching the facts. We tried to
formulate what we found and submit that to the PUC Staff,
actually prior to their report so that would aII be on
the table and available for everybody to look at.
So ki-nd of going back and just a quick
overview, one of the documents -- we actually formed a
committee to look at this. One of the documents that was
submitted addressed primarily the pump issues, which I
think is really probably the crux of the costs that we're
facing here, and I think it goes back to the letter that
we submitted, it's dated May l2th here, I think it was
submitted -- it was from Eric Hallgren who spoke earlier,
but to reiterate what he said, ln 2002, and this is based
on Response No. 11 of the current case number, So this is
a quote apparently from the Company, "Erom 2002 forward,
Diamond Bar Estates has been at the receiving end of
inconsistent, unbalanced as weII as underpowered service
from Kootenai Electric Co-op, " and, you know, So at that
polnt I think there was also a pump replacement and
that's when really, I think, the clock starts.
The cfock starts in 2002 with a new pump and
the knowledge that power is inadequate, and not to hop
around too much here, but I want to go to the Staff
2B
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
I2
13
74
15
t6
L1
18
19
20
2L
22
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Pubfic
report, which I think, by the way I think, the Staff did
a good job of collecting the facts and I think that they
tried to be fair maybe across the board, maybe, I think,
a 11ttle too fair, but I think the outcome of the facts,
I think, are not that they're rewarding, I think we're
kind of seeing a trend here, a fevel of incompetence.
There's basj-ca11y a l-evel of which Pumps, I
think, actually border on negligence, which I'l-1 go over
here shortly, and as far as the way the Company
operations go, I think Lhere's a lot of inconsistency if
you start looking at the records and the numbers and the
customers, this is no surprise that this aII turns out to
be what we're facing today, so going back to that comment
in 2002, out of the Staff report, they put a portion here
from the Kootenai Electric Cooperative, their guidelines
on when, amongst other things, when motors are j-nstalled,
and one of the things down there that was actually
highlighted, IEEE Standard 519-L992, says, "Variable
frequency drives must meet the industry standard for
harmonics. "
f'm not an electrical engineer. I do work for
a civil- engineering company, so I understand a littl-e bit
about the engineering aspects of this, but, you know, I
think that rlght there, there's a stated standard that
has to be met and there's a question of whether that was
29
1
2
3
4
5
5
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
-LJ
76
71
1B
79
20
2T
)a
23
24
25
met. There's also this is, I guess, Exhibit C from
the same Staff report, these are from the National
Electric Code Handbook and it talks about grounding
systems and we haven't really talked about the grounding
issues, but I think that was actual-1y one of the large
issues that was also faced in reading that current
engineering report that was done in 2075. There was a
l-ot of concern about the grounding, how lightning strikes
degrade that, and how the system was probably
grandfathered in, so it's probably Iega1, but I donrt
think it's meeting the standard that needs to be met, and
sor you know, please, I urge you to look at those
requiremenLs, because that is not a surprise and anyone
that's in, you know, engineering, construction,
development, and Mr. Turnipseed is a developer, he's put
a lot of infrastructure in p1ace, these things should not
be a surprise, and I think any time you put in
infrastructure, \f I'm going to put an aj-r condi-tj-oner in
my house, there are certain requirements that have to be
met or you're not going to have the life span of that
investment, and I think that's exactly what has happened
here, so just to reiterate, I think, what Eric actually
put in his about the known electrical problems, this is
not a surprise and it's not an excuse, and I can see one
pump failure in the life span of these pumps, maybe we
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUSPublic30
coul-d even say two, and in fact we did, because in 2002
and 2004, there were two pump replacements that I think
were probably already recaptured during the last hearing
in 2007, so in my view, we've already paid for two pumps
and everything that we're facing now is, I think,
bordering on negligence.
Moving or, you know, the pump slzing, I think,
was another issue. It was stated that there was let's
see, Request No. 11 talking about the Company was
instal-ling one of the pumps, they were saying that a 25
horsepower pump was required and a 50 horse would be
excessive, and that somewhere in 2004 we magically went
not only from a 50 horsepower, we went to a 60 horsepower
pump, so, again, I am not an electri-cal- engineer. I
don't know what kind of loads that's putting on the
el-ectricaf system that was probably i-nadequate. I think
newer pumps, Ilke a lot of things, the good news 1s
they're more efficient, but the way they're more
efficient, they probably have tighter windings, more
electronics, you know, more components that require
certain parameters in order to be effective and meet
their life span of about that 18
believe, in the Staff report.
I independently called
as well- and heard the range 15'20
years that was quoted,
some service providers
years is a t.ypical life
2
3
4
5
6
'7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
t6
L7
1B
t9
IU
27
22
z3
.AL.t
25
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 890-s198
31 RAMUSPublic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
t6
t1
1B
t9
20
27
))
23
aA
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
span of these types of pumps, so that's on the pumps and
then what our committee this is primarily through
Nate, he covered that pretty eloquently, but I do think
that what Nate uncovered really goes to show just the
lack of, you know, how to manage a business when you have
annual reports where the end of the year doesn't match
the beginning of t.he year, and then in these annual
reports, he hiqhlighted where there was one, two, three,
four, fi-ve, six, seven, seven numbers that were exactly
15,917 that showed up al-l over in these reports from 2008
to 2074.
That's pretty coincidental-, and so I think
there's a pretty high l-evef of maybe some sloppy
recordkeeping here and we really can't make heads or
tails out of this. I really trust and hope that the PUC
Staff did. f'm not an accountant. I don't understand
necessarily all the detalls, but I'm going to trust the
Staff to do their job and due dili-gence on that. As
homeowners, we kind of want answers as to why are these
numbers the way they are, why do we have surges of
numbers, where is the money that's paid from insurance
costs. AI1 those kinds of things put us into a real
questioning mode to try to understand whatrs going on
here.
I'm kind of going in chronol-oglcal order, So
32
those are two documents that are on the public record.
Hopefully, in fact, I encourage if you have not read
through each one of those, f think they outline some of
our key issues that we have and maybe worth kind of
rereading those again after the hearing here, and then
moving on to the comments from Staff, f'm sure you guys
have all- and gals have a1f looked at these and understand
everything you've seen here, but one thing that really
did stand out in my mind here is, you know, since the
last rate case, the Company has made significant
investments in the water system and they did. I mean, to
be fair, they did invest, you know, booster pumps, gate
valves, a lot of accessory stuff that was put in there,
but down here under kind of the investment paragraph is
the part that I really have concern with, and that's the
Company replaced the main welI pump repeatedi-y 2070,
2072,2014, and twice in 2015, and if we're talking about
the life span of these pumps, well, you know, it looks
like the failure rates are accelerating, you know, and
think that somewhere alonq the line from 2002 untiL 20
where there was finally something done about that, you
know, I think a prudent businessman or an engineer or
I
15
developer or a contractor or name almost any other
discipline, I think that someone would sdy, even a
homeowner would sdy, "Whatrs going on here? This is not
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
L2
13
l4
1trt_J
t6
\1
1B
t9
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
75
t1
1B
79
20
2I
ZZ
23
24
LJ
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubIic
normal. This is way beyond the norm, " and I think this
is where the negllgence really comes lnto play here is
this was just allowed to happen, and I think whatever
j-nsurance reimbursements the Company received, they
shoul-d probably consider that a gift, because I'm shocked
that the insurance company didn't drop the insurance
before they did.
My understanding now as far as getting weII
insurance, we don't have any coverage right now, and
that's a big concern of ours. I think that the pump
failures from 2070 to 2015, those shoul-d not be in our
rate base. Okay, we paid for the 2002. We paid for the
2004. One of those should have lasted somewhere around
18 years. This is all just money that should not be
spent by the ratepayers. This is someone that doesn't
understand how to install- and follow directions, and so
that's, I think, to kind of separate that out from the
rest of my conversation, that is one of my requests and
that's somethlng that we've talked about within our
committee is we do not want to pay for those pump
fail-ures. That is not fair and that is not prudent to
have the ratepayers cover that.
Now, we do appreciate that it. was spread over
18 years and I think it's ludicrous beyond that to say
they want to have a recovery in four years, but f'm
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
\2
13
l4
1trt_J
76
11
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) B9o-s198
RAMUS
Public
saying I don't think any of those should be included,
because that's the count, I bel1eve, is at seven pump
fa j-lures since 2002, so I know it's a hard deci-sion, but
I think that's kind of a key element that, I think, needs
to be looked at.
I'm not as militant as Nate on my organizattort,
so please bear wi-th me, so, yeah, the other thing f was
trying to find here -- well, two comments. The AEI
report, which was helpful in 2075, I just want to
emphasj-ze that should not be a surprise. That was the
end game of a series of things that should have been
obvj-ous to al-most anybody, and so I don't think if there
is an excuse to sdy, "WelI, we didn't know about this
until- 2015," that is not correct, because if you look at
the requirements, which I'11 go over here a tittle bit
more, there's other requirements that were just flat out
ignored. The AEI Engineering report only reiterated the
obvious, what is already in writing.
If they woufd have after one or two pump
faj-Iures talked to Kootenai Electric, followed the
Nationaf Electric Code, pump manufacturers, therers
plenty of evidence and guidance to show what should have
been insta1led to eliminate aII those pump failures, so
the part that rea1ly bothers me in the Staff report,
though, it's on page 6, "Under normal accounting
35
treatment upon the early retirement of an asset, the
remaining book vafue would be written off as an
extraordinary loss and would not be recoverable in rates.
Staff's proposed treatment recognizes the unique
circumstances that regui-re muJ-tiple replacement and books
the undepreciated book balance in a regulatory account to
be amortized over the remainder of the depreciable life
of the asset. "
That's all- on page 6, and I think what this is
saying is that the Staff recogni-zes the unique
circumstances. Okay, wel-f, to me the unique
circumstances is seven pump fail-ures and the fact that we
shoul-d not be paying for thatr so, again, f 'm seeking a
reversal of paying for all- those pumps. Whether it's
amortized over 18 or four years, that is not something
that should be recoverable by the rate base, and
continuing on with the Staff report on page J, it does
here iterate, and this basically coincides with my
personal findings when I catted a few places up, the
average remaining life span of the pumps is 18 years and
that's because they were just put in, but basi-cally the
Staff is agreeing with our findings that the life of a
pump should be about 18 years and even if you had a freak
fail-ure in there, So maybe you have two of them in an
18-year period, but not six or seven or whatever the
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
L6
71
1B
t9
20
27
22
23
.ALA
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-5198
RAMUS
Public
36
number is becoming here.
Some of these things, I think, are pretty
minor. As far as some of the l-abor issues, f thlnk that
they probably pale in compari-son to the pumps, so I might
pass over that here in the j-nterest of time. The other
little thing I hlqhlighted was the guaranteed rate of
well-, it's not guaranteed -- the rate of return of 72
percent, the expected rate of return. I mean, I think
for a cleanly operatj-ng, efficient company, absolutely,
but if every time you make a mistake or you lose
something or you're incompetent or yourre negligent, then
the expectation should not be for the insurance to pay
for it or the ratepayers to pay for it or somebody else
to pay for it, and right now I think that's where we're
dL.
I think if that money was not recoverable by
somebody else, I think there would probably be a lot more
detail in al-l- those pump failures and they'd solve their
a lot earl-ier than what happened, so I don't think we
should be supporting this 1evel of incompetence at the
expense of the ratepayers. I don't have a problem with
the rate of return, but not on top of all these losses
that we're expected to cover.
The other comment that I had, and I think this
was covered a little bit by Nate as we11", after, you
2
3
4
trJ
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
t1
18
L9
20
2l
22
ZJ
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubIic
3t
know, we went to the workshop and al-l- of us submitted, a
Iot of people submitted, comments, a lot of them very
detailed, very researched comments, and we basically got
one paragraph in here where we were acknowl-edged. A
couple of people talked about, you know, they're on fixed
incomes and then it said, "The Diamond Bar Homeowner's
Association and several- customers express concern about
the Company's operations and maintenance costs over the
years, ds related to previous pump failures, and whether
the Company properly reported changes in plant in service
in its annuaf reports. Customers also express concern
about the outages caused by the pump failures and
continued access to the back-up water source," and that's
it, f mean, rea1ly.
I mean, I understand other things are lnherent
in the analysis of the Staff, but that does not really
begin to say our response. Our response is much greater
than that and much more detailed than that, and, again, I
encourage everyone to look at some of those l-ater
responses that we produced, and I think that also brings
up you know, I mean, this is bolling down to the cost
i-ssue. We certainly don't want to pay for the levels of
incompetence here, but we afso want to have some
assurance in the future that wiII the pump fall again,
and if it does, wil-f we have a backup pump, and so I
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
T6
l1
1B
19
)n
2t
ZZ
2?
z4
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
3B
1
2
)J
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
71
1B
79
20
2t
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public
think another thing that we're asking is, and this has
been mentioned on other testimony, is, you know, all of
the recommendations from the el-ectrlcal engj-neer given
the fact that we have this just crazy number of pump
failures, I think that they should immediately find a way
to go and fix all the problems, not just a soft start.
I think there's a grounding issue. Maybe it's
been resolved, maybe not. f've kind of heard that the
ground issue, it was probably grandfathered in and it may
not be adequate for the next series of lightning strj-kes.
Apparently, lightning strikes degrade that system. It's
not properly all tied together. Maybe that's been
solved, I don't know, but I think it would be instead
of;ust focusing on the soft start, I guess I'd ask the
board to sdy, "You guys need to go t.hrough the report
systematically item by item of the reconimendations and
make sure you have those things covered, " because it's
not just a soft start or just one thing that led to this.
It's everything that has been neglected on the
system and we see the outcome, and llke a lot of times I
try to teII my kids, "If you do the same thing, do you
expect a different outcomer " and in this case, I mean,
seriously, my fear is we're going to get our rate and
you're going to go off into the sunset and that pump is
going to break again or the property is going to seIl,
39
and if that pump breaks again, we don't
water this timer so we're not asking to
or something like that, but we need to
assurance that that's going to be tied
a future failure at some level-.
have any backup
own the property
have some
to the system for
Looking now at the Company response, again,
this has been covered a little bit already, but f think
there's, you know, really probably three things that I
would kind of highlight here. One comes down to the
pumps, that there's just flo, you know there's not even
a possibility of accepting maybe some responsibility
here. ft's all whether I get my money back in four years
or 18 years, and I just donrt think that's even a proper
question. The proper question is how do we get to the
poi-nt we're having so many pump f ail-ures and is it even
prudent to be asking the ratepayers to cover that, and I
think the answer is no.
On the salary expense, you know, f know
everyone can say we've had, you know, a rough couple of
years. f'm not on a fixed income, but I like to telf
people I haven't got a raise in eight years, so f don't
know if that's fixed or not, but it's sure looking that
way, and then I did look up some statistics on the
Consumer Price Index, rf I can find it here briefly.
Over this period of tlme from 2001 until current, the
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
l4
15
76
l1
18
79
20
2t
22
23
.AZ+
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public40
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
IJ
74
15
t6
71
18
79
20
27
22
23
24
25
Consumer Price fndex inflation was 15 percent, and I
understand that's nationwide, thlngs can vary, but
generally speaking, 15 percent is an inflation
calculator, you know, so that would be everything,
including labor, materials, pumps, things like that, and
so I certainly wouldn't see anythlng greater than 15
percent.
Idaho stands out if you l-ook at the median
household income over that same period of years from 2007
to 2016 was a total of two percent, not per year, a total-
of two percent, so I think we're dealing with some pretty
small numbers here, and frm not asking everyone just to
not have rates, but I think it needs to be justified
rates and, again, 1et's not reward inefficiencies. Maybe
Iet's look for ways to be more efficient. How do we
contact our customers quicker. You know, maybe there's
phones. There's emaif. f think there's a fot of other
things that can be done, a lot of paper, you know, kind
of stuff that comes in the mail that might be automated
and I believe these same people run several companies or
certainl-y water districts, so I think there's a little
bit of a potential gain if we donrt util-ize whatever they
approve for other associated businesses as well, So
that's really all I have, I think, primarily on labor
rates.
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
Public47
1a
Z
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
16
t1
ao-LO
79
20
2l
22
23
.ALA
ZJ
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubIic
Then going towards the last page of the Company
response, that Iast paragraph, I think, that Mlke Tillery
had mentloned really hit me wrong, f guess, and I think,
if anything, that one paragraph realIy shows what we're
facing as customers here, and, you know, we're talking
about an $8,000 investment, maybe 72, I've heard I
think I heard the $12,000 number may have included some
improvements to the grounding system, f don't know that
for sure, but I think werre somewhere in the $B-12r000
range would put in a soft start and maybe some other
improvements that have not been done per the engineering
report, but the Company response to alI that is, "This
device 1s relatively expensive, at a cost of $8,000, and
may or may not reduce costs in the future. The Company
does not have the funds to lnstall this device and is not
sure it is needed because the system seems to be working
we1l," and f don't know if you can put a pause in what
you're typing there, but that's what I did when I read
thls. I basically said, "What are you talking about,"
because it is not working well.
We have looked at the history, the pump failure
after pump fail-ure. I live across from the pump and I
can't count the number of times f've seen cranes and
trucks suppliers, engineers. f mean, it's been a circus,
f mean, quite literally over there, and I think we all
A1
4
6
1
know the answer now, but, again, I'm going back to what a
prudent company would do in a circumstance. I think any
company, any organization, would you really have gone
this far for this many years and then turn around and ask
somebody else to pay for your mistakes, and that's the
way I see it and I just don't think it's even reasonable,
so, again, it goes back to the same theme, I don't think
that those pumps should be put on our rate base.
Kind of methodically moving ahead, the other
thing we did was not only did we talk to engineers and
suppliers and do our own research, we contacted an
attorney and we asked for at least a legal opinion of
what they thought we were facing. The attorney's name is
Susan Weeks. I forget the company she works with. She
provided, though, some lega1 research and she gave us a
legal opinion. We didn't think it was necessary to bring
her here tonight, but she did glve us some guidance and
so f want to step through this, because I think it
reiterates what we're talking about.
She developed two questions or issues. One is
do the requested increases to rates charged to customers
for water service by publlc utilities have to be
reasonable? The second question is, is an increase is
a requested increase in rates charged to the customers of
approximately BO percent a reasonable increase? So her
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
RAMUS
Publ ic
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t5
t1
1U
10LJ
20
27
22
23
24
25
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
l2
13
t4
15
76
l1
18
L9
20
2\
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
44 RAMUS
Public
brief answer to No. 1 as far as does the Public Utilities
Commission have to basically promote a reasonab1e rate
and her answer is yes. Under Idaho Code 61-301, charges
demanded by a public utility must be "just and
reasonable. "
It goes on to sdy, "Additionally, the Public
Utilities Commi-ssion has the authority to approve,
reject, oy modify a rate or charge proposed to ensure
that such charges are just, fair, and reasonable." Those
are in quotes, and we tal-ked about the word prudent comes
up. I think thls is a very similar thing. That's
actually in the Idaho Code.
The answer to the second questi-on is, is the
current 80 percent request reasonable, and the answer is
like1y no. A requested increase of approximately B0
percent in rates charged to customers is not a reasonable
increase based upon prior administrative orders issued by
the Commission, because the Water Company has not
experienced significant growth in its customer base, nor
has it made significant capital improvements to its water
systems. Additionally, much of the increase is coming as
a resul-t of increased maintenance costs for replacement
of defective water pumps, which are arguably the result
of negli-gence in installation or operation.
That's a brief outline of what we received and
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
15
71
1B
79
20
27
))
)')
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubIlc
it backs up you know, I didn't see this until just
recently and it's basically the same conclusion that
we I ve come to ourselves. It goes through a statement of
facts and some analyses. Some of the analyses, I think,
here goes on to iterate how requested increases to rates
charged by the PUC for water servj-ce provided to
customers must be just and reasonable, a determination
made by the Commission on a case-by-case basis, and I
think what she's pointing out here is that obviously the
Commission and the Staff, you've done a lot of your
research and it is case by case.
You guys are not trylng to blanket, you know,
one number across the entire State of fdaho, but I think
in this case, the detaj-l-s, you know, are in those pump
failures and in the lack of following the guidelines to
j-nstall those, so anyway she goes on to say under Idaho
Code we stated that one before, but there's another
one here, Tdaho Code oh, I'm sorry, it's the same
thing. A reasonable charge varies from case to case, and
so I think I've already summarized that. You guys have
obviously the authority. I don't need to reiterate this
for the record, you know, to judge us on a case-by-case
basis.
And then another item she covered here is
whether the requested increase is reasonabl-e and it
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
I2
13
74
15
76
'1 '1
1B
79
20
27
aaLL
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-5198
46 RAMUS
PubIic
basically says the Commissi-on has rarely approved a rate
increase case as hiqh as B0 percent and I hope that we're
to at least down to what the Staff requested, but I think
there's pressure to kind of go back up and I hope we
don't;ust have this, Iike, just divide it in half and
call it a day, because I think that both of these are too
high for the reasons I'm talking about. I don't think
somewhere between what the Staff recommended and what the
Company wants is where we should be. I think it needs to
be below what the Staff requested, because we're paying
for seven pumps and thatrs not right.
f won't quote al-l- those cases there, so an
analysi-s of the above orders and other orders issued by
the PUC leads to the concfusion the PUC consi-ders each
case on an lndividual basis. Without much reference to
prior cases or decisions, we could not conclude,
therefore, that an B0 percent increase in the customer
rate charge is, per S€, unreasonabl-e. However, the best
indicator whether an B0 percent increase woul-d be
unreasonable is to look at the pri-or decision of the PUC
in regards to the specific Company at issue, which is
Diamond Bar Estates Water Company.
ln 2001, the Diamond Bar Estates Water Company
filed an applicatj-on to increase its rates by 81 percent
l-ast time. Similar to now, the Company argued its
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
o
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
l6
l1
1B
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
increase was necessary because it operated at a loss for
several years prior and an increase would help cover its
operating costs. The Commission ultimately granted a 59
percent increase, and the reason I want to read this is
it leads to some of the fabor and this is from the last
2001 case. The Commission rejected the Company's
requested increase in bookkeeping services as
unreasonable due to the fact that the Company cou.Id
outsource the bookkeeping to a different company that
wou1d charge much less than projected. In doing so, the
Commission stated transactions with unregulated affil-iate
companies must receive a greater degree of scrutiny, and
the Company has the burden to come forward with
substantial evidence establishing the increases in
amounts paid are 1ust., reasonable transactions, so
additlonally, the Commission rejected the Company's
requested increase of the watermaster salary, because the
system had not undergone any changes to justify the
additional time or expertise, so I think we're back at
that same place today.
Nothing realJ-y has changed in the operation of
the Company. There really has not been any significant
expansion, except for tying in the one subdivision. I
think that had actually already occurred by 2001, but the
only improvements have been putting broken pumps back in
RAMUS
PubI i c
1
2
3
4
5
o
1
B
9
10
11
L2
13
l4
15
t6
71
1B
19
20
2l
1')
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
RAMUS
Public
the ground. Other than that, there rea1Iy has not been
improvements to the system, so considering the
Commission's previous Order, the requested increase with
bookkeepi-ng and watermaster expenses may be unreasonable
unless the Company can show the amounts paid for such
services are reasonable.
You know, so I didn't see anywhere in the Staff
report or the Company responses what a cost would be if
they were to outsource that to maybe a more effj-cient
operation. As for the increased maintenance of water
pumps, the Commission 1ikeIy would not aflow the Company
to include the maintenance charges in its rate base. A
simil-ar situation regardi-ng placement of meters happened
1n the Bitterroot Water Company in 2006. That's Case
No. BIT-W-05-1, and I don't know if that sets a
precedent, but I think it goes to show at some point
and we're talking water meters in thls case. We're not
talking expensive pumps that with the labor and crane and
everything necessary are pushing $15,000 every time that
thing fails, so I think we have a much greater problem
than what they faced in that case.
If the Diamond Bar Estates Homeowner's
Assoclation could show the cost of the replacement of the
water pumps has i-ncreased as a result of negligence in
installation and maintenance or the like, it would be
4B
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
t1
1B
19
20
2t
))
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) B9o-s198
49 RAMUS
Public
appropriat.e for the Commission to incl-ude that charge in
the rate it woul-d be inappropriate, sorry, to include
that in the rate base calculations. An increase in rate
base charges to compensate for water pump replacement in
that situation woul-d be unreasonable, again, reiterating,
I think, our findlngs.
The last thing from the orders is that the
Commission makes findings based on specific evidence in
question. It strongly takes into account the opinions of
the Company's customers and the findings of its own
Staff. Requested i-ncreases for rising electrlcity costs
are certainfy considered reasonable. Requested increases
for rising adminj-strative cosLs, such as salaries and
bookkeeping, may be consldered reasonabl-e based on the
situation, but in the past, it's been considered
unreasonable, again, if it could be done more efficlently
by outsourcing.
Requested j-ncreases for maintenance and repair
may be considered unreasonable j-f repairs are needed as a
result of negligence or lmproper maintenance. Ultimately
what is reasonabl-e must be determined by the Commissj-on,
obviously, so I guess we're just urging you, you know,
don't just look over the Staff reports necessarily.
Let's look at the details on thls and let's understand
what we're paying for are broken pumps, six or seven of
them since the l-ast tlme that we were before the
Commission.
We have a string of pumps that I thlnk are
probably going to l-ead to another failure if we don't get
the soft start included in that as wel1, and I did tal-k
to an el-ectrical engineer on the soft start. Itrs
basicall-y beating t.he motor up. ft's siamming it on and
slamming if off and over time with smaller windings and
electronics, it's going to beat that pump up and I don't
think it's going to last 18 years, unfortunately, so in
order for t.he public utility to justify increased rates
charged to the customers, a public utility must show its
proposed rates are reasonabfe and I think 80 percent is
certainl-y unreasonable by a long shot, and I think that
what the Staff recommended is unreasonabl-e as weII,
because all we're doj-ng is buying broken pumps. We're
not getting improvement in the system, and I wanted to go
back after reading that legal opinion, I just want to
step back into the Staf f report f or a mj-nute.
I think there's several places that would
have from 2002, w€ already talked about the pump
manufacturer said you don't even need to go to a large
pump, that 25 is adequate, but if you choose to go to a
50 or, magically or mysteriously I should sdy, a 50 l-ater
oDr the Kootenai Electric Cooperative, and this is on
3
4
5
6
B
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
76
1,1
1B
19
ZU
27
22
ZJ
-Aztt
25
CSB REPORT]NG(208) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubI ic
50
1
2
3
4
tr
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
75
L'l
1B
19
20
2t
ZZ
LJ
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
RAMUS
Public
Attachment C of the Staff report, aII motors 20
horsepower or larger shal-I have soft start. It says
shal-I. It doesn't say should, may. Itrs saying you
shall have soft start and, you know, so from 2002 oD,
maybe even before, ds soon as that 50 horsepower pump
all those 60s that failed, that alone right there is a
failure to read the instructions, a slmple instruction
Kootenai Electric Cooperative that anybody in this
business should adhere to, and then, again, I talked
about you have to have basically clean power, I think,
what it is talking about on the harmonics.
and
and
by
AS
Kootenai Electric did step up and they put the
transformer in and I think it cost them 18 grand or
somethinq like that. They did not charge that. I don't
know if that displays guilt or just they want to get it
past where theyrre dt, but I think that part has been
sol-ved. I think we're all- fortunate that's not part df
our rate base, and then still, again, ily concern is with
the National Electric Code and that's the grounding and
that's why I think the Commission really should go back
and sdy, you know, all the recoflrmendations by the
engineering firm given your failure rate needs to be
implemented, and then I guess so then what wj-Il-
happen, of course, is somebody has to pay for it and I'm
certainly not asking to have more put on our rate base,
51
1
2
3
4
trJ
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
t6
7'l
1B
79
/lt
2L
aaL'
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
RAMUS
PubIic
but f think there's an exchange that woul-d be reasonabl-e
and that's 1ike, you know, we can pay for improvements to
the system, but only if we're going to subtract the l-ast
six or seven pump failures since the last time the
Commission was here.
We can't pay for both. That is unreasonable
and to leave it at the status quo now, we're going to be
doing that, we're going to buy the six or seven broken
pumps I think it's five actually si-nce the last 2007
and our system wil-l still be lingering out there wlth no
teeth telJ-ing somebody they need to go out and get
fj-ttings, so I think it's going to be an embarrassing
problem for everybody down the road here if we get
another pump failure and after all this we haven't solved
anythlng.
Anyway, I guess I'm just asking, you know, if
we're going to put if we're going to add more to what
the Staff recommends, we need to subtract something,
because for me, that's, 1ike, the highest amount that
makes any sense. Thatrs only if we're fixing something,
so, again, I would subtract out the five pumps and say
that's on your own negligence and take some money that
you otherwise would have gotten and let's go fix the
system and be done with it, and beyond that, I think just
the concern is if we don't get that system fixed, then we
52
1
aL
3
4
5
6
7
B
o
10
11
72
1-)J.J
74
15
L6
L1
1B
79
20
27
22
)?
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
RAMUS
PubIic
need to have access to that second pump, because it's
goi-ng to happen again, and I'Il- conclude there.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. Let's see
if we have any questions.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: I just have one
cfarification to make and maybe several of you who have
already testlfied feel a Ilttle bit better, Staff's role
and responsibilities is sometj-mes mj-sunderstood. Staff
comes to the workshop and presents to you the case so
that i-t's not adversarial between you and your utility,
so that's why they were there and to answer questions
and, you know, they've already looked over the record and
they're there to be he1pful. As far as the detail within
Staff 's comments goes, Staff is a party to an.. case
period, so 1t is our three decision to fully weigh alt of
the evidencer So I appreciate in looking at it from your
perspective that a paragraph at the end of many other
pages of analyses is not adequate in your opinion, but I
can tefl- you with every assurance that that is not the
end of the story by any means.
Staff threw that j-n because they were part of
the workshop and because they sensed everyone's
discontent about what was going ofl, but it is the
Commissioners' responsibility to weigh all- of the
evidence, including your testimony agai-nst Staff's
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
L6
11
18
79
ZU
2L
22
LJ
.ALA
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
RAMUS
PubIic
testimony, against the application that was origlnally
fiIed, so I just want to assure you that if there was
anythlng that you think was missed in Staff's testimony
that wasn't adequately covered, which you went into
detail on, that those arenrt missed. Everything that
you've said tonight will al-so be part of the record and
it wil-l- all be consj-dered by the three of us when we make
our flnal decision on the case.
THE WITNESS: We11, thank you, I appreciate
that.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. Are there
any other questions? And from the Deputy Attorney
General ?
MS. HUANG: No.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Mr. Ramus, thank you
very much for your testimony.
THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you.
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMfSSIONER KJELLANDER: And we wil-1 call Mary
Boettcher?
MS. BOETTCHER: Boettcher.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Oh, I'm so far off.
MS . BOETTCHER: That ' s okay. I ' l-l- answer to
anything.
54
1
)
3
4
trJ
6
7
B
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
15
T1
18
79
20
a1LL
))
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
BOETTCHER
Public
MARY BOETTCHER,
appearlng as a public witness, havj-ng been first duly
sworn, testified as follows:
EXAM]NATION
BY MS. HUANG:
O. P1ease state your name and spell your l-ast name
for the record.
A. Mary Boettcher. It's spelled
B-o-e-t-t-c-h-e-r.
O. What is your mailing address?
A. 193'7 West Diamond Bar Road.
O. You are a customer of Diamond Bar?
A. We are, yes.
O. Please provide your testimony.
A. WeI1, I really don't have a lot to share. f've
been pretty impressed with the research t.hat has gone
into thls clalm by our neighbors. The committee for our
homeowner's association, I just want to teIl them thank
you for all their detail-s, but the one thing I wanted to
address was property values. When my husband and I
bought our piece of property, what attracted us to the
piece was that there was a flat rate for irrigation, and
there very few, if doy, trees on our 1ot, so we planted
tr.tr
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
76
l1
1B
t9
20
2L
.)aLL
23
24
25
CSB REPORT]NG
(208 ) 890-s198
BOETTCHER
Public
over 100 trees, and we keep adding to that every yearr So
in 2001 when the rate changed for that irrigation amount,
it affected us significantly, but we understood that
probably in all reality a flat rate for irrigation is
something thatfs going to be kind of a thing in the past,
so we swal-lowed it, but when we got this notice of an B0
percent increase, it was like whoa, that definitely
caught our attention, so if it was like if I can't afford
to pay to water my trees and take care of yard, my yard
is not going to look as ni-ce and the property value of my
home will- decrease, and I thlnk it is true for everyone
else, and so just for an example, my husband and I broke
down what we pay now versus what the new rate would be,
and in July of last year, it was our highest dollar
amount, it was for $222.56, and with the proposed
increase, if our water gallons were to stay the same, 1t
would be $400.43, so that's a 1ot, and I know Irm not
alone in this, and so if my neighbors, maybe I can afford
t.o pay my water biII, but what if my nelghbors cannot and
so that's definitely going to affect the resafe of my
home and maybe that's not important to other people, but
it is important to me.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. Let's see
if we have any questions. Any from Ms. Huang?
MS. HUANG: No questions.
56
2
)J
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: That exhausts the
llst that we had of people who had signed up. Is there
anyone who woul-d like to be signed up? If you'd like to,
now is the time for that. Additionally, what I want to
say is as we prepare to wrap up this portion of the
process, that being the public hearing, is that we still
will allow for written comments to come in, and in an
earlier conversation wi-th the Deputy Attorney General, we
were looking at this Friday, June 10th, for additional
written comments if you would Iike to submit those, so
please feel free to do so.
You can either do it through our website, just
reference this case number, or if you would like, you can
al-so send in a hard copy, and so if there is no one else
who like to testify tonight, what I would also l-ike to do
is thank you very much for the time you took to come out
and participate in this process. I can tell you that
oftentimes we will- hol-d public hearlngs for much Iarger
utilities and the rate increases that are there have some
similar impacts that you're experiencing and we don't
have much in the way of public testimony showing up.
Having you show up really does assist us in the
process. It gives us an opportunity to put faces to the
reality of what the rate increases are and it also helps
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
76
71
18
79
20
2t
22
ZJ
24
25
51 COLLOQUY
us get some additional- insight into what yourre seeing as
customers and so we certainl-y do appreciate the time and
effort that you put into reviewing the testimony,
participating in the workshops and doing due diligence as
it rel-ates to, again, providing us additional information
to consider.
With that, then, just again a reminder that
this Eriday, the 10th, wil-l- be the extended day in which
we will allow additional written comments and for is
it a question related to the case? Mr. Simmons, you've
already been sworn in, so why don't you go ahead and just
ask your question.
MR. SIMMONS: Comment and question. Darrel
referenced the Kootenai Electric cost for the
transformer. When I talked to the engineer, he said it's
actually $25,000, not 18, so that's something that was a
benefit to the Water District that they didn't have to
pay for. f wanted to point that out. The other thing is
you tal-ked about trying to assure us that everything will
be considered, you know, just because it wasn't in the
Staff report there, so what I'm wondering is what do we
expect to see from you? Is there going to be some
explanation of some of these major key issues we've
identifled or do we just get a note that says, "Okay,
effective July 7, the new rate is"?
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
76
L1
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
5B COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
B
9
10
11
T2
13
T4
15
76
71
18
79
20
27
))
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-5198
COMM]SSIONER KJELLANDER :As far as the process
and procedure, whJ-ch is a perfect question to ask in
rel-ationship to procedure, once we get the official-
record closed in which the finaf written comments will
help us get to that point of closure, we then have an
opportunity as Commlssioners to begin to more thoroughly
del-ve into the specifics of the case and even begin the
deliberation process, which could last several weeks. We
may have a multitude of questions that we raise to
parties in the case, specifically to Staff and 1ega1
counsel associated with that, and once we have finally
come to the conclusion of what we feel- is fair, just, and
reasonable, we then will issue a final Order, and that
fi-nal Order typically can run anywhere from 10-30 pages
or longer depending on the case itself.
What we try to do is delve in not just to the
issues that were presented, but also the justificatj-on
and any related statutory responsibilities and
obligations that we arrlve at to help us come to that
general conclusion, and with that, then, it's call-ed the
final Order. However, what you are al-l-owed to do, then,
is request for reconsideration directly to the Commission
and then that can begin a process in which we wi11,
again, look at any new informatlon that may be presented
to see if perhaps maybe there might need to be some
59 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
tt
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
1,4
15
76
t7
1B
19
ZU
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
adjustments based on information that's provi-ded or a
different interpretation of that information.
After a period of reconsideration, if it's requested,
then it woul-d all-ow a party to take that final Order
directly to the state Supreme Court if they wanted to
appeal that decision, so even though we call it a final-
Order, there is still is a process for reconsideration
and appeal, but you will very rarely see orders on any
type of rate case that is much less than 10 pages. It
often goes further than that, because there's so many
movj-ng issues with that and an opportunity, too, for us
to opine, and sometimes we just like to see what we
really think on paper, So it can go out even further than
10 pagesr So thatrs what we can anticipate. As far as a
tj-mefine, I don't know that there's a specific deadl-ine
with regards to when the final- Order has to be issued.
MS. HUANG: The effective date has been
suspended until JuIy 1.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: So we have plenty of
time, then, as a Commj-ssion to dellberate on that, but
certainly we'11 have an Order out before July 1st so that
whatever j-ncrease, if there is an increase, that is
included in the Order will- give ample time for the
utillty to put that in place for the effective date, so
what Ir11 do at this point, because f can see we're going
60 COLLOQUY
to kind of turn this into a Q&A piece, what I'l-1 do is
I'll cl-ose down this section of the public hearing and
then we can just ta1k, so with there being no further
witnesses that we will calI thj-s evening, we, again,
appreciate all- the testimony that was provlded and wlth
that, then, thls aspect of the case comes to a close and
we wil-1 adjourn this public hearing.
(The Hearing adjourned at 8:30 p.m. )
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
72
13
14
15
15
l1
18
19
20
27
tz
24
25
CSB REPORTING(208) 890-s198
67 COLLOQUY
AUTHENTICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing
proceedings held in the matter of Diamond Bar Estates
Water Company's application for authority to increase its
rates and charges for water service in the State of
Idaho, commencing at 7:00 p.m., oD Tuesday, June 1, 2016,
at Lakeland High School, 7006 West Highway 53, Rathdrum,
fdaho, is a true and correct transcript of said
proceedings and the original thereof for the file of the
Commi-ssion.
CONSTANCE S. BUCY
Certified Shorthand Reporter
.:$I[+ili";:,
.,'F..-:$*
A;#;ft?
{.,}f:!
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
76
77
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
(208 ) 890-s198
62 AUTHENTICATION