The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About960228.docxSUSAN HAMLIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET PO BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074 (208) 334-0300 Street Address for Express Mail: 472 W WASHINGTON BOISE ID 83702-5983 Attorney for the Commission Staff BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION) INTO WHETHER PACKSADDLE)CASE NO. GNR-W-95-1 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS A ) PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO )COMMISSION STAFF'S COMMISSION REGULATION)RESPONSE TO )THE FIRST PRODUCTION )REQUEST OF SUSAN PATLA )AND DON LINGLE ____________________________________) The Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its attorney of record, Susan Hamlin, Deputy Attorney General, provides the following documents and information, pursuant to Commission Rules of Procedure 225-229, IDAPA 31.01.01225-229. Request No. 1:You enclosed three bar charts showing monthly rates for regulated water companies having usage rates rather than flat rates. These charts showed monthly comparisons for 5,000; 45,000; and 75,000 gallons of usage. What type of customer falls within these different categories? What is an average monthly consumption rate for domestic customers? Answer No. 1:The quantities of 5,000, 45,000 and 75,000 gallons as shown in the bar charts were not meant to represent any particular type of customer. The lower number represents a typical monthly Winter usage. The middle number represents typical Spring usage for one month and the larger number represents usage for a Summer month. A customer with this kind of typical seasonal usage would have a lawn with flowers and shrubs to water and a lot size of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. Response prepared by Don Oliason. Request No. 2:If possible, we would like to receive the rate designs set by the PUC for the Picabo Water Co., and the Murray Water Works. These are the two systems most similar in size to Packsaddle Water Co. Request No. 2a:Same information requested by telephone for Capital Water and Warm Springs Mesa. Answer Nos. 2 : and 2a :Attached are Rate Schedule pages for these companies and correspondence to Susan Patla from Susan Hamlin, IPUC attorney, dated February 2, 1996 with attachments. Response prepared by Rose Schulte. Request No. 3:Rose Schulte stated at the PUC information meeting held in Driggs last year that she could (and would) require the Packsaddle Water Company to submit a log of maintenance trips. Is such a log being required? If so, could we obtain a copy of any records submitted to date? Answer No. 3:In an effort to help the Company begin accumulating appropriate records for future review, the Staff has directed the Company to begin maintaining log sheets for time spent on maintenance and repair of the system. Staff has not directed the Company to submit any of these log sheets to the Commission and therefore have none in their possession. Such logs were non-existent at the time Staff performed its review of the Company. Intervenors may request copies of these log sheets directly from the Company. Response prepared by Rose Schulte and Bob Smith. Request No. 4:We would also like a summary of electricity expenses for the Packsaddle Water Co. for the entire year of 1995. Does the PUC require the Company to submit copies of actual bills for their record? Answer No. 4:Attached is an audit schedule prepared from the Company’s actual power bills for the years 1993, 1994 and 2 months of 1995. This was all of the data available at the time of the Staff audit performed in early 1995. The PUC does not require companies to file copies of actual bills on a routine basis. Such a requirement would inundate the Commission offices with carloads of paper on a monthly basis. During the course of an audit, copies of selected documents are routinely accumulated if an on-site review of expenditures is not possible. Companies are required to file an annual report with the Commission by April 15 of each year. Analysis of these reports is performed which may lead to an investigation by the Commission if unusual items are discovered. The Commission Staff attempts to perform a routine compliance audit of each regulated company every three years. Response prepared by Bob Smith. Request No. 5:The staff report submitted by Smith et al on “Alternative Rate Structure Development” states that “Labor costs for maintenance and administration are my own estimates of reasonable levels required to monitor and perform routine maintenance of the system...” (Attachment Page 1). We would like to know specifically how the estimate of 3 maintenance trips/week were developed? Was this based on systems of similar size? What specific maintenance activities are considered normal and reasonable for a system? Answer No. 5:No two small water systems are alike. The estimated maintenance trips per week were simply that, an estimate. The Packsaddle Estates subdivision is located on a side hill with significant elevation differentials between the well/reservoir location and the lowest lot within the subdivision. Staff is not aware of any other small water systems similarly situated. Leaks on this system have the potential of causing severe erosion of the side hill and significant damage to the property of residents exposing the Company to liability. The maintenance estimate is all inclusive. No separate allowance has been included to cover the cost of moving heavy equipment or additional manpower to the location to perform repairs that may be necessary, nor is there a separate allowance for contract maintenance or repair of pumps, tanks, valves or electrical controls. The estimate assumes that at times the Company may not visit the subdivision three times in a week but recognizes that at other times Company employees or outside contract labor will spend an entire day or possibly more making repairs to the system. Response prepared by Bob Smith. Request No. 6:As new houses are added or taken off the system, how soon does the PUC require that the rate base be adjusted for all water purchasers? Answer No. 6:As indicated above, in the response to No. 4, the annual reports of all utility companies under the Commission's jurisdiction are reviewed annually. When it appears that a company may be realizing earnings in excess of a reasonable level, the Commission may order an earnings investigation to determine the reasonableness of the company’s rates. Response prepared by Bob Smith. FOLLOWING ARE ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE REQUESTS Request No. 7: Provide copies of the Commission Staff’s prefiled testimony. Answer No. 7: Attached are copies of the prefiled testimony of Staff Witnesses Robert Smith, Donald Oliason and Rose Schulte. Response prepared by Bob Smith. Request No. 8: Provide Commission's Rules No. 266-267 for the preparation of testimony. Answer No. 8: Attached are copies of pages 62 and 63 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (IDAPA 31.01.01) Rule Numbers 266 and 267. Response prepared by Susan Hamlin. Request No. 9: Provide copies of the discussion that took place at the September 6, 1995 hearing in Driggs concerning the agreement to sell the water system to the customers. Answer No. 9: Attached are copies of pages 2 through 14 of the transcript from that hearing and a copy of the preliminary agreement submitted to the Commission at that hearing. Copies of the complete transcript may be obtained from Hedrick Court Reporting, P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701. Response prepared by Bob Smith. DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of February 1996. _____________________________________ Susan Hamlin Deputy Attorney General res/rsgdk/gnrw951r.1sh/umisc\pr