20210426Technical Hearing Transcript Vol II.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF SUEZ WATER IDAHO
rNC. IS APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY
TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES
EOR WATER SERVTCE IN IDAHO
)
)CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
)
) vTDEocoNFERENCTNG/
I TELEPHONIC HEARING
BEFORE
t 'i;
*4
('-'
-*t:..i
_ lt -,'#t'-1.
\ r -.l.-
i::-li-;
siding)tfri5
0n()
4-
r:!
I:I
:,! u *'-i
" i_l l"arr2Jr*) lJcfi lrl*ffir:lt\}
(:)
COMMISSIONER PAUL KJELLANDER (PTe
COMMISSIONER KRISTINE RAPER
COMMISSIONER ERIC ANDERSON
PLACE:Commission Hearing Room
11331 West Chinden B1vd.Building 8, Suite 201-ABoise, Idaho
DATE:April 20, 2021
VOLUME If Pages 42 106
CSB REPORTING
C e rtifwd S h o rth an d Repo rt e rs
Post Office Box9774
Boise,Idaho 83707
c sbreportin gl@yahoo. com
Ph: 208-890-5198 Fur: 1-888-623-6899
Reporter:
Constance Bucy,
csR
ORIGINAL
1
2
3
4
q
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
1_3
L4
15
16
l1
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
APPEARANCES
Eor the Staff:Matt Hunter, Esq.
Dayn Eardie, Esq.
Deputy Attorneys General
11331 West Chinden B1vd.Building 8, Suite 201-A
PO Box 83120
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
REMOTE APPEARANCES
For SUEZ Water Idaho Inc Preston N. Carter
Givens Purlsey LLC
601 West Bannock Street
PO Box 2120
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
For City of Boise:ldary Grant, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
Boise City Attorneyr s Office
105 North Capitol Blvd.
PO Box 500Boise, Idaho 83701-0500
Eor SUEZ Water Customer
Group:
Norman M. Semanko, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATTMER
800 West Main, Suite l-300Boise, fdaho 83102
For the Community Action
Partnership of Idaho:
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
20L9 North 17th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Eor Micron Technology,Inc.:Thorvald A. NeJ.son, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 17th Street, suite 3200
Denver, Colorado 8020225
APPEARANCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
16
L1
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
rNDEX
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
Marshal-I Thompson
(SUEZ Water)
Mr. Carter (Direct)
Prefiled Direct Testimony
Commissioner Raper
Commissioner Kj ellander
47
49
56
65
Donn English
( Staff )
Mr. Hunter (Direct)
Prefiled Direct TestimonyMr. Semanko (Cross)
Commissioner Raper
74
16
91
99
EXHIBITS
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
EOR THE STAEE:
101.Professional Qualificationsof Donn English
Premarked
Admitted 10s
25
INDEX/EXHIBITS
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
76
L7
18
t9
20
2!
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . s198
BOTSE, IDAHO, TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 202L, 1:30 p. M
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Good afternoon.
This is the time and place for a technical hearing in
Case No. SUZ-W-2)-02, further identified as in the matter
of SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.rs application for authority to
increase its rates and charges for water service in the
State of Idaho.
My name is Paul Kjellander. I'11- be the
Chairman of todayrs proceedings, and I'm going to raise
my hand right now so you know it's me. For those of you
who haven't seen me sj-nce this whole pandemic, y€s, this
is a beard and, y€s, it will come off as soon as I can
travel freely in the country again.
To my right 1s Commissioner Eric Anderson
and to my left is Commissioner Kristine Raper. The three
of us comprise the Commission and ultimately, at the
conclusion of this case when it's fuI1y submj-tted, we
will be those who deliberate and render a final Order i-n
rel-ationship to
appearances
Applicant.
of
this rate case.
We'1I begin this afternoon by taking the
the parties and let's begin with the
That woul-d be SUEZ Water.
MR. CARTER: Thank you, Commlssioner25
42 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
6
7
I
9
Kjellander and Commissioners. This is Preston Carter
with Givens Pursley representing SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.,
the Applicant in this matter.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you very
much and if I could just remind people that when they're
not speaking if they cou1d just mute so that we can
ensure that we avoid as much as possible any cross talk
or interference that we may have through open mics.
Thank you very much, Mr. Carter.
Let's move now to 1ega1 counsel
representing Commission Staff .
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chai-rman,
members of the Commission, Matt Hunter, last name spelled
H-u-n-t-e-r.
MR. HARDIE: And Dayn Hardie.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you very
much. Let's move on through our l-ist of parties to the
case. Ada County, do we have any 1ega1 counsel
representing Ada County? Eor the record, we wil-l note
that we do not have any audio that suggests that we have
lega1 counsel- representing Ada County. If we should
discover that Ada County was oD, but had some audj-o
difficulties on that, w€ certainly will make a note of
that.
Let's move on now to the City of Boise,
CSB REPORT]NG
208 .890.5r-98
10
11
L2
13
74
15
t6
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
43 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
1,1
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
1egaI counsel representing the City of Boise.
MS. GRANT: Mary Grant for the City of
Boise.
COMMfSSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you much,
Ms. Grant. We welcome you today. Let's move now to SUEZ
Water Customer Group.
MR. SEMANKO: Good afternoon,
Commissioners. My name is Norman Semanko with Parsons
Behle & Latimer. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER :Thank you for
the list ofyour presence
parties to the
today, and as we move down
case, letts move to the Community Action
also known as CAPAI.Partnership Association of
MR. PURDY:
Idaho,
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brad
Purdy appearing on behal-f of CAPAI, and as I indicated
earlier, also on the line is our expert Jeremy Gunter
should the Commissioners have any questions of him as our
expert witness.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you, and
1et's move, then, to counsel representing Micron
Technology.
MR. NELSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Thor Nelson of the law firm of Holland & Hart appearing
today on behalf of Micron Technology.
COMMfSSIONER K,IELLANDER: Thank you to all25
44 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
!4
15
L6
T7
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. s198
the parties to
aII of you, we
the case and I ' lI l-et you know that
were able to hear you well and for
recognize that
understanding as
witness stand,
too, so that
for
get a
this room.
the ones
YOU,
good.
some
and,
we actually were able to
I realize there may be
of your abiJ-ity to access
many of
see your videosr so that's
some technical problems in
video. We
again, appreciate your patience and
we move through this proceeding today.
What we will sdy, though, is that there
wil-l be
however,
we will
you can
better
very little
when there
view of that witness if they're
and
camera movement around the dais;
are witnesses on the
make sure that it I s broad enough,
see the witness and wil-l- likely try to
l-ive in
I'm fai-rIy certain that you will be able to see
remotely wj-thout any difficulty. We'11-
decent image of the one witness that we
try to give you a
anticipate will
so I think atbe on the witness stand here today,
that point where werre at with this
if there are any prelj-minary matters
process is
that need
just ask
to come
before the Commission before we begin today's
proceedings.
For those of you that can't see the
shaking of no on the heads within the Hearing
see none there and f am checking wlth Adam.
any hands raised, so my assumption is there
Room, we
I donrt see
are no25
45 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
1-4
15
L6
t1
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
preliminary matters that need to come before us today, so
we're ready now to move forward with the proceeding and
so we move, then, to the Applicant to call their
witness.
MR. CARTER: Thank you, Chair Kjellander.
This is Preston Carter representing SUEZ Water Idaho. We
will present Marshall Thompson as the Company's
witness.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Mr. Thompson?
Can you hear me, Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Great, and
Mr. Thompson, I can see you. Mr. Thompson, first, I'm
goJ-ng to swear you in.
MARSHALL THOMPSON,
produced as a witness at the instance of the Applicant
SUEZ lrflater Idaho Inc., having been first duly sworn to
tell the truth, was examj-ned and testified as follows:
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Just for
for the court reporter, if couldpurposes
your full
will make
you
that
the
poi-nt,
record.
j ust
too,
state
wename and spell it and at
sure that we have that on
THE WITNESS: Okay, my name is Marshall25
46 COLLOQUY
Thompson, spelled M-a-r-s-h-a-1-1 T-h-o-m-p-s-o-n. I'm
the vice president and general manager of SUEZ Water
Idaho.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Great, thank you
very much, and so it's up to your attorney now to help
you get your testimony on the record, so I will be quiet
and we will all-ow the proceedings to move forward.
MR. CARTER: Great. Thank you, Chairman
Kj e1lander.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CARTER:
O Mr. Thompson, you stated your name and
spelled it for the record. Would you state again just by
whom you're employed and what your positi-on is?
A I am employed by SUEZ Water Idaho
Incorporated, and my position is vice president and
general manager.
O And are you the same Marshal-l Thompson who
submitted prefiled direct testimony in this matter on
March 17th, 2021?
A Yes, I am.
O Do you have any corrections or changes to
that prefiled testimony?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
L6
t7
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
THOMPSON (Di)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
47
A No, Ido
O If I were
set out in your prefiled
the same today?
A Yes, they
not.
to ask you the same questions
testimony, would your answers be
wou1d.
MR. CARTER: Okay, Commissioners, I move
that the prefiled direct testimony of Marshal-I Thompson
be spread upon the record as if read in ful-l-.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: And without
objection, and I'11 pause to see if any Star 3's or
raised hands emerge, I see noner so there being no
objection, we'11 spread the testimony across the record
as if read.
(The following prefiled
of Mr. Marshall Thompson is spread upon
direct testlmony
the record. )
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
72
13
14
15
16
77
r_8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
THoMPSON (Di)
SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
25
48
O. Pl-ease state your name and business address.
A. My name is
President and General
( "suEZ, "
is 8248
"SUEZ Water, "
Marshall Thompson. I am the Vice
Manager of SUEZ l{ater Idaho, fnc.
or "Company"). My business address
Boise Idaho.West Victory Road,
Please describeo your invol-vement in this
proceeding.
A. I have been deeply involved in all aspects of
this proceeding. I filed direct testimony in support of
SUEZ Water's Application. f reviewed and assisted in
responding to the numerous discovery requests filed by
Commission Staff and the intervenors in this case. I
attended and participated in each of the four settlement
conferences, as well as informal phone and video call-s
with various combinations of the parties to this case,
and am familiar with the negotiations, communi-cations,
and agreement reached by the parties.
O. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A. The purpose of my testimony is to descrj-be the
Stipulation and Settlement that was signed by the parties
to the case, and to recommend that the Commission approve
the settlement without change.
0. While maintaining confidentiality, please
descrj-be the process that resulted in the Settlement.
A. Of course, al-l statements made in the course of
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
15
L7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
THOMPSON, DI 1
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
25
49
settl-ement are confidential, and I will respect that
confidentiality. After exchanging extensj-ve discovery,
staff scheduled three settlement conferences. Following
the third conference, the parties agreed to schedule a
fourth conference. To my recollection, every intervenor
in this case attended at least a substantial portion of
each settlement conference. Simply stated, the parties to
/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
1"4
15
76
t7
18
19
2o
2L
22
23
24
THOMPSON, DI 1a
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
25
50
the settlement devoted considerable t.ime, effort, and
resources for the purposes of reaching settlement i-n thj-s
CASC.
a
A
Did al-l- parties join
All intervenors that
the Settlement?
have expressed the intent
have joined the
this case involved a
to remain parties in this proceeding
settl-ement. As the Commission knows,
rel-atively large number of intervenors representing a
number of different perspectives. At the conclusion of
the settlement conferences and what I understand to be
additional- discussions, two intervenors agreed to
withdraw from the case. The remaining partj-es
Commission Staff, Micron Technol-ogies, fnc. ("Micro["),
the City of Boise, Ada County, Community Actlon
Partnership Association of Idaho ("CAPAI"), and the Suez
Water Customer Group ("SWCG") - have joined the
Settlement.
O. Pl-ease describe the Settlement.
A. The Settl-ement contai-ns several components,
each described in the Settl-ement itself. I would like to
briefly describe revenue requirement; rate design and
further study; pubI1c outreach; pubfic workshops; and
l-ow-income assj-stance program.
As can be expected, revenue requirement was
vj-gorously negotiated. The parties eventual-Iy agreed that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
t_ t_
L2
13
L4
15
16
L1
1B
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
THOMPSON, DI 2
SUEZ WATER IDAHO ]NC.
25
51
the Company would be aIlowed to i-mplement revised tariff
schedules designed to recover $3r996r00. This reflects an
overall increase of 8.758', implemented over two years. As
I understand it, based on calculations conducted by the
SUEZ team, for the average residential- customer using
11.36 ccf, the Settlement would result in an increase of
approxlmately $1.05 per month for the first year and an
additj-onal- $1.54 per month beginning in the second year.
The implementation over two years reflects certain tax
amortizations, and confers the greatest benefit to
customers in the first
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
11
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
THOMPSON, Dr 2a
SUEZ VOATER IDAHO INC.
25
52
year, when the benefit may be needed most due to
lingering effects of the pandemic.
would go into effect in the second
The remaining increase
yearr ds described in
the Settl-ement. The Sett]ement describes in detail
severa1 components of revenue requirement. These
components, as well as the overall revenue requirement,
reflect reasonable compromises reached through intensive
negotiations and are consistent with traditional
rate-making principles.
SUEZ also has agreed to undertake a load study,
as described in the Settlement, and to present the
resufts to the Commission in the Company's next rate
case. This commitment is deslgned
evaluate and
customers use
improve its
the water system, and
SUEZ al-so agreed to expand public outreach
efforts to members of the public within its servj-ce area,
and to conduct publi-c workshops that involve the
Company's regulators and members of the public. In the
Company's view, these commitments reflect a creative
resolution to issues presented in this case that may not
have been possible if the case were fu1ly litigated.
Finally, SUEZ agreed to work with CAPAI to
examine and consider opportunities to expand SUEZ's
to ensure that the
Company continues to
understanding of how
how use drives costs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1_0
11
L2
13
!4
15
76
77
1B
19
20
2I
22
23
24
THOMPSON, Dr 3
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
25
53
program
a.
public
A.
for low-income customers.
Do you bel-ieve that the Settlement is j-n the
interest?
Yes, I do . All remaj-ning parties in the case
Settlement, indicating thej-rhave agreed
satisfaction
to the
wlth the outcome. The Settlement addresses a
number of important issues and reflects a reasonable
resolutj-on of the issues currently presented, as
well as a number of issues on a going-forward basis. Erom
SUEZ's perspectj-ve, the Settlement provj-des the Company
with a reasonable opportunity to update its rates to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
\4
t_5
t6
L7
t_8
19
20
21,
22
23
24
THOMPSON, DI 3a
SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC.
25
54
better reflect current costs, to economically flnance new
its Idaho customers. In
a commitment by SUEZ to
investments, and to better serve
addltion,
engage in
parties as
Settlement
could not
the Settlement refl-ects
outreach and other efforts with several of the
well as the public. Accordingly, the
reflects an outcome on a number of i-ssues that
have been achieved if the proceeding were fu1Iy
litigated. Overal-l, I believe the Settlement i-s fair,
a balance between thejust, and reasonable and
interests of the Company,
reflects
the parties, and the public.
your direct testimony?O. Does this conclude
A. Yes it does.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l_1
t2
13
t4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
THOMPSON, Dr 4
SUEZ WATER TDAHO INC.
25
55
(The following proceedings were had in
open hearing. )
MR. CARTER: And at this time I have no
further questions and would present Mr. Thompson for
cross-examination.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: I think the
easiest thing to do at this point is to see if there are
any of the parties who woul-d like to cross-examine, if
you could hit Star 3 or the raj-se hand function. At this
point we don't see any. Now, that doesn't mean that if
the Star 3 or the hand shoul-d somehow emerge in the next
moment or so that given the circumstances that we
wouldn't allow you to chj"me in if we mi.ssed thatr so I
think that brings it to if there
members of the Commission and I
are any questions from
believe that there are
some and so why don't I all-ow Commissioner Raper to kick
it off.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Thank you,
Chairman.
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER RAPER:
today. It
a Mr. Thompson, thank you for being with us
l-ooks like someone put you in a tj-me-out in a
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
l1
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ [ilater ldaho Inc.
25
56
very small room. Can you hear me okay?
A I can, thank you.
O I have a couple of questions. One is
rel-ated to the effective date. It looks like the
Stipulation is asking that the first increase become
effective on May l, 202L, and as Irm sure that you are
aware, yesterday at the decision meeting we extended the
suspension of an effective date.
Do you anticipate that even if the
Commlssj-on were to issue an Order after the May 1
deadline that we would retroactively apply that or that
we would issue an Order, dt which time the rates would
become effective upon issuance?
A I believe it was I donrt know that I
have an opinion one way or the other
indicated, the Stipulated Settlement
a May 1st effective date. Ifd have
on thj-s. As you
as written does have
to confer internally
to see if we have a different opini-on on that.
Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the
other.
o
may have an
for a 1ega1
I just want
reqard to the parties that filed
Okay. Eor my next question your lawyer
instinct to object and say that it's calling
conclusion. I donrt want a 1egal conclusion.
any recollection that have. Withyou may
a motion for leave to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1-2
13
74
15
t6
71
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90. 5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
57
withdraw that this Commission granted, within their
motion for their leave to withdraw, they have a sentence
that says, "Intervenors reserve the rlght to apply for
Intervenor funding. " The Stip addresses how intervenor
funding might be recovered. The Stip does not
specifical-Iy talk about whether the parties agreed as to
whether withdrawing parties would be -- will continue to
be eligible to request intervenor funding in this case.
Do you have
because allthe parties
motion for
a recollection as to whether
I have is a reference in a
l-eave to withdraw, but I donrt have any other
parties' representations with regard to
A The Stipulated Settlement
this i-ssue.
was
parties prior
recollection
to their wi-thdrawal and it is
that i-t was offered as written
offered to
my
as though the
parties any
independent of
statements that might have
the Stipulated Settlement
been made
and were made in
their withdrawal motions is not something I
speak to, I don't believe. I don't know the
behind those motions.
can really
intent
OSo
agreed within the
Settlement process
donrt remember
process or the
it just didn't
that the parties
Stipulated
get reduced to
you
MOU
and
writing? It was not addressed?
A To the extent that i-t was addressed in the
l_
2
J
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
T2
13
14
15
1-6
L1
1B
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. s198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
5B
Stipulated Settl-ement, w€
there was no stipulation
Settl-ement, to
O Okay.
A I believe
Stipulated
did dlscuss there was no
for intervenor funding in the
the best of my recol-Iection.
that we just
Commisslon's
considered that it
discretion.would be handl-ed at the
0 Okay, I appreciate that, and one more
open-ended question that Commissioner Kjellander or
Commissioner Anderson may also want to address, but if I
l-ose the mic, I'11 l-et it go to them, so I want to make
sure and get it out there and that is if you aI1 were
paying attention to the public hearing the other day,
there was entirely, actual1y, testimony about brown water
on the Bench and I understand that issue was addressed.
I understand those parties withdrew in
order to enter into the memorandum of understanding, but
I wanted to give you an opportunity on the record to
address the testimony of the public, because they were
looking for answers from us, of course. The publj-c was
directing thei-r questions to us, which we don't answer in
that setting and it was really was a question to the
Company.
Besides the fact that memorandum of
understanding has been entered into, I'm wondering about
thi-ngs l-ike whether the repair of the Taggart wel-l wil-l-
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
L6
1't
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
59
resolve that brown water issue, whether you know,
somebody said there had been brown water for 42 years j-n
their home on the Bench and so those are all things, of
course, that concern us greatly here at the Commj-ssion
and I'm sure concern you as well, and I just wanted to
give you an opportunity to address on the record the
issues that were brought up in t.hat public hearing.
A Well, thank you. I think it should be
stated that the intervenors related to the Bench, as you
indicated, did withdraw and it doesn't necessarily
pertain to the terms of Settlement; however, frm happy to
tal-k about it. Personally, I'm a Bench resident as wel-l-.
I think the intervenors know that through the process and
so I do take this very serj-ousIy.
What the Company has done is maintain an
entirely open and transparent process about all of our
planning and improvement efforts, the engineering studies
that we've conducted for the Bench to understand the
issue in great
ever been done
detail, I think far better detail- than has
in the past, and the memorandum of
understanding that you alluded to a moment ago in your
question between Staff and those withdrawing parties
actually produced its first task force report last week,
whj-ch I think substantially validated most of the good
work that the Company has been doing to resolve these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
t6
l1
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. s198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water'Idaho Inc.
25
60
r-ssues.
Our efforts have three main parts. I
think it's good to understand these. We've been
iterating these back to the community as well through a
variety of means, whether they be town hall meetings or
outreach newsl-etters, in person, and virtual meetings
over the last couple of years, but there's three main
efforts. One is the source water at Taggart. Vfhat I can
tell- you about our improvement efforts there is that the
treatment design that we're putting in place is meant to
el-iminate iron and manganese that is a it's just a
source water mineral component from entering the
distribution system from that well-r so will- the Taggart
proj ect
issues ?iron and manganese
Taggart well andas designed
that's what it's designed to do.
It's not the first such plant that we have
j-n the system. Itrs the fourth, actually. If we think
about the Bench as a wider whoIe, going back to the early
2000s, 2003, 2004 specifically, we buil-t our first two of
these iron and manganese removal plants at different
wells further west of the East First Bench. A third such
plant was built approximately behind the Hillcrest
Library near Orchard in 20L0r so a few years later and,
in and of itsel-f resolve all Bench water quality
It will not. It will remove
from the source water at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1l_
t2
13
L4
15
16
l1
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 - 890.5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
6L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
again, a1l of these areas had been plagued by, you know,
nuisance discol-ored water concerns primarily as a resul-t
of iron and manganese for quite a long time, and aII of
those plants have made a significant difference to the
areas that they were installed for.
The East First Bench, which is the
specific sort of eastern area of the Bench that we're
talking about. in these comments and substantially thatrs
who represents the callers that came into the public
comment session earlier in the week, the East First Bench
does not have one of these plants and they're fairly well-
a self-sustaining site. They get water from a variety of
sources, Taggart being a primary one but others as we1l,
so installing one of these plants at Taggart will reduce
the l-oad of iron and manganese that introduces itself
into the system and we think it wil-l definitely have a
benefit.
We afso have ongoing plans that we've
undertaken over the l-ast four years. Therers a technique
cal-1ed unidirectional- flushing. It is a specifically
engineered, stamped engineered, designed directional
flushing effort. ftrs sort of the equivalent of pressure
washing inside of the mains to reduce any sediment built
up that exists in the plpes themselves, many of which
don't have to be metal- by their nature. This is not
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
10
11
72
13
L4
15
t6
t7
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
25
62
necessarily --
things being a
of concerns, but
has plastic and
I know a l-ot of the comments tal-k about
deterioration of metal- pipes,
a good portj-on of the East
those types
Fi-rst Bench
Itrs not
pr_pes.
a rust issue, so in those cases,
cement
the flushing efforts remove old sediment that might be
residing in those mains and hard to get loose, and then
additionally, we have i-nstituted with the help of a 1ot
of outside experts stabil-ization plans to make sure that
we reduce mixing and increase its own stability in the
East Ej-rst Bench to make sure that water quality from a
variety of wel-ls donrt contribute to the issue by mixing
in ways that they shouldn't, you know, so we have to keep
it very, very stabl-e, so it's sort of a three-front
attack, I guess, if I was to sum it up, and in a1l- of
those efforts, w€ have demonstrated a strong track record
over the last several years of committing ourselves to
them, j-ncreasing the number of sampling locations, the
number of samples taken in that entire area to ensure
water quality, disproportionately to be honest.
That smal-l- section of town has had over
1,400 water quality sampJ-es taken in the last
years, which is probably three
a population the
to four times
couple of
the normal
that's justforquantlty
really to
same size, and
demonstrate our commitment to securj-ty and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
L6
L1
l_B
1,9
20
2\
22
23
24
CSB REPORTTNG
208.890. 5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho fnc.
25
63
water quality to the community, but aI1 plans that we
have, whether they're for pipeline replacements,
unldirectional flushing, which is a costly activity in
and of itself, revision of those pIans, the wel-lhead
treatment effort at Taggart, everything remains on track,
if not fast tracked, and, you know, j-n total, if we go
back to the early 2000s when that first wel-Ihead
treatment plant was constructed for the wider Bench, I
think werve spent cl-ose to 8.75 or $9 million total on
continued efforts to improve water quality across the
Bench.
The East First Bench is definitely coming
in l-ater. Their iron and manganese issues were you
know, werre sympathetic to the issues that the customers
have and addressing them, I think, with all the bigger
effort that we can, and that was a very long-winded
answer, somewhat technical in some ways, but I do want to
assure you that we are taking it very seriously, and I
was happy to see that the, you know, independent report
by the Commission Staff, who have been at every public
meeting we've done, have really done a tremendous job in
thej-r response, validated and rea11y kind of attested to
the commitment that the Company has put forward, and our
to be open, transparent, andplan is to
aggressive in our response to the effort and to try to do
continue
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
17
1B
t9
20
27
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
64
what's right for the customers in
as well- every other.
COMMISSIONER RAPER:
that part of the system
appreciate the
you went to to
it's important
are your customers to hear
good to have it as part of
caser so those are the only
No, I
depth that you went to and the detail that
answer the Thank you. I think
for both us
question.
and the people who
think itrsthose thlngs and I
the underlying record
questions that I have.Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you,
EXAMINATION
in this
Commissioner Raper.
BY COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER:
O This
have a fol-low-on to
Commissioner Raper
thatrs targeted for
will we know if the
successful ?
is Commissioner Kjellander and I do
the line of questioning that
had. When we l-ook at the project
the eastern area of the Bench, when
efforts of SUEZ have been
A Thank you for the question. As part of
the design and the implementation effort of that
particular project, an entire test treatment setup has
already been conducted and I believe is on record with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
65
sel-ect the ultimate medla type and
technological implementation that
treatment, sor you know, the proof
been validated in the fie1d.
the Commj-ssion, so sort of a smal-l mobile treatment plant
was deployed, a test quantity of water was brought from
that wel-1 through a variety of treatment technologies to
engineeringj ust
wil-1
of concept has already
That's been certified through a fairly
lengthy review process with the Idaho DEQ as part of the
standard engineering design revi-ew process, and
construction on that wel-lhead treatment facility wil-l-
take pJ-ace
of 2021 with a
l-ate winter to
will kick off later this
goal live date sometime
early spring of 2022.
Sampling results from it
be used for
year in the faII
probably in the
i-n the
term will certainly like al-l- of our wel-l-head
very short
treatment
plants, you can do a pre- and post-treatment lab
assessment to say the wel-l produced a certain quantity of
j-ron and manganese and the water produced
post-treatment has an absence of those same mineral
products and see whether or not that is effective in and
of itsel-f .
The other efforts that I alluded to in
response to Commissioner Raperrs questions on
unidirectional flushing efforts and zone stability, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Vfater ldaho Inc.
25
66
think, already have measurable results that show that
they're making a difference.
di-rectional flushlng effort
can specifically measure and
that's turned over and ensure,
quality the vol-ume of sediment
the main and we're doing that
area,
reach
One of the purposes of that
is that you can
see the volume
I guess, by
that's been
see you
of water
quantity and
removed from
in the spring
peak season of
and the fal-l-, sort of
a year. We do that
before and after the
the year, and, again, have I think we
are on our third or fourth cycle, I believe, of
unidirectional flushing and consistently are showing
improved resul-ts every time we go out.
In addition, one of the other measurabl-e
results that we try to keep track of more specifically is
customer calls, right? Customer caIIs, we both map the
time and place of every call- that comes in, trying to
correlate that with Iocations where we've had known past
histories of higher customer concern and we've seen the
volume of calls drop off substantiatly. We do social
media outreach as well-, specifically asking the the
Boise Bench dwel1ers have a very active Facebook group of
whj-ch f 'm a member, not just from the SUEZ perspective,
but as a resident in the
twice
and so we wil-l- commonly out and ask is
having discolored water concerns and, if sor
and they don't hold back,
anyone
fo1low up
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .890.5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
61
and try to make sure we understand where those are and
start to understand the parameters around those, so I
think in
that it's
every case your question was
improved, we know it's improved
the short answer and every step
how will we know
already, I
that we take
component that
a worthwhile
guess,
moving
we can
effort
l-s
forward has some measurable resu]ts
use to assess whether or not it was
in the end, so that's what I can offer.
0 I appreciate that and unless I misheard
you, and it's always the possibility that I did, is that
construction on the actual project that you've done the
proof of concept for, and I appreciate the fact you're
not just going to throw money at an issue, that you're
actually trying to find the right sol-ution for the right
pIace, but I think I heard you say that it won't start,
the construction for thisr u1tiI the fa1l.
If I heard you correctly, why so far in
the future? I mean, f hate to sound l-ike the rancher who
puts the bul-l- with the cows and expects to see calves
running around the next day, but this problem has been
around now for a while. I'm wondering why we have to
wai-t unti-I the f a1l.
A There are seasonal demand considerations
on any water system where there are ti-mes of the year
where capacity from wells are needed and other times of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
11
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
25
6B
the year where theyrre not,
spring. The hotter weather
and we are currently 1n the
that everybody can see and
increasing demand on the
well- is needed for fire
of town through that
enloy 1n
system to
protection
the community today is
point that the Taggart
capacity in that area
peak season, and we have timed the construction project
so that it can take place as soon as possible when the
wel-l- is not needed for active production for fire
protection in t'he zone.
And, you know, the timing, although we
expedited it greatly for design review with the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, we took what woul-d
typically be a greater, you know, somewhere in the
neighborhood of maybe an eight-month approval process and
tried to condense that down into 1,4 [sic] months to try
to expedite it as quickly as possible, but the timing
just did not line up in time to get that constructed
during the previous low season system, and the wel-I has
always been promised or the well-head treatment project
has always been on track to be built in 202I and the fal-l-
period is the next available time when that weII is going
to be available for this work to be conducted.
O And f appreciate the response about public
health and safety as it relates to fire issues, so thank
you for helping clarify that. The last thing that I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1-2
l_3
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. s198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
69
wanted to raise with this and I just need some
assurances, the residents of the eastern area of the
Bench were kind enough
I have to confess while
A
to send us some water samples that
be within tolerance
drinking water.
have any water
they may well
to consume, I'd be hard-pressed to think that I would
ever open
agai-n that
one of those jars and consume that. TelI me
that water is acceptable
So I donrt think we
short answer is it is. I donrt think that we have any
water in the system that has been sampled more rigorously
than water in the East First Bench. Going back probabJ-y
three years d9o, we had the required number of approved
sampling sites in that zone of town, whlch was, I
bel-ieve, seven to satisfy the Idaho DEQ standards for
water quality sampling, and we doubl-ed that installation
in the time being after that, installing more sampling
stations than any other part of town and then
aggressively sampled the water through every season of
production, pre- and post-flushing, peak season, Iow
season to try to get a comprehensive baseline panel of
what water quality characteristics look Iike in that area
of town throughout the year.
Those test results were continuously
supplied to DEQ, validated. A11 of our test results are
done by a third party outside Iab. We also included
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
16
t7
18
1,9
20
21,
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. s198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
10
copies of those results wj-th local legislator John Gannon
who I think was one of the intervenors as wel-l and the
City of Boise for outside validation, so every detail on
the water quality parameters that has been gathered and
got over this sort of extraordinary sampling period,
they've been reviewed by outside experts and somewhat
openly have been shared with l-ocal- stakehol-ders that have
a concern in this effort.
There real1y is nothing to hide with any
of the resul-ts that we have offered for public review.
I've seen those water quality samples myself in the past
as well and what's interesting with many of them is that
I like to dig into the story of when and how it was
obtaj-ned, during flushlng and post-flushlng, finding out
a littl-e bit more about the situations that might take
pIace.
I believe there
l-ast week's public session that
concerns at their residence and
those customers is going to
make sure that we understand
was even a caller during
talked about quality
,you know,
fo11ow-up
every one of
from us to
very seriously, but some of
parks, post-master meter.
apartment complexes.
The dynamics
get a
their concerns and take them
those were large trail-er
Some of those were large
of what can happen in large
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
l- l_
t2
13
L4
15
L6
77
1B
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .890. s198
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho fnc.
25
1L
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
facilities like that are varied and each is handl-ed
somewhat differently, so whil-e some of those quality
samples that you might see wil-I raise alarms, I think
when they're brought to our attenti-on, we tend to get
very, very curious and we intend to investigate them very
rigorously and wiII continue to do so and try to do
what's right for aII those customers, that be spot
fJ-ushing, incidental reviews of, you know, maybe plumbing
systems past our meter. A11 of those things are
something that we offer to customers and I think we have
a pretty good track record of demonstrati-ng that
responsibility to the community.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: I thank you for
that and just one last request is that as you do further
investigatj-on on those specific issues that were raised
during the public hearing, and I appreciate the fact that
you were paying attention to that, tf you could just keep
our consumer division apprised of what you discover so at
least we know internally whatfs occurred and what your
perception is of what you've discovered.
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you. I
think that that exhausts the questions that we have from
the dais and so that, then, leaves us to turn you over to
your 1egaI counsel for redirect.
CSB REPORTING
208-890.5198
10
11
72
13
L4
15
76
t7
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
THOMPSON (Com)
SUEZ Water Idaho Inc.
25
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
1-2
13
L4
15
L6
1"7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890. 5198
MR. CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner
Kjellander, I donrt have any further questions.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank your and
Mr. Thompsonr we certainly do appreciate your testimony
today. I don't anticipate that there wiII be any
additional- reason to re-ca11 you, but if you could just
stay availabl-e in case somethj,ng should emerge. Thank
you again for your testimony today in helping us develop
the record.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: At this point,
then, we look to Commission -- 1ega1 counsel representing
Commission Staff to call their wj-tness, and while you're
everybody
witness.
can appropriately focus thelr attention on your
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. At
this time f woul-d like to call Staff's witness Donn
English to the stand.
calling your witness,
information officer to readjust the camera
COMMI SS IONER KJELLANDER :
swear him in if you would, please. Thank
Commj-ssioner Raper.
if we could ask our public
so that
Why don't you
you very much,
25
73 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
IU
12
13
74
11
15
L6
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (Di)
Staff
DONN ENGLISH,
produced as a wj-tness at the instance of the Staff,
having been first duly sworn to tel-l the truth, was
examined and testified as follows:
much for
actualJ-y
hal1way,
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you very
your patience and I hope that that's it does
look like that witness. Irve seen him in the
so we feel confident that thatrs the case. He's
been sworn in, so why don't we move it, then, for 1egaI
further develop the recordcounsel representing Staff to
as it relates to this witness.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
D]RECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HUNTBR:
O Mr. English, could you please state your
name for the record, spelling your last name?
A My name is Donn English, E-n-g-I-i-s-h.
O Are you the same Donn English who
previously filed direct testimony consisting of 14 pages
and one exhibit and an erratum consisting of four pages
and one attachment?
A Yes.25
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
72
13
74
15
t6
77
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (Di)
Staff
O Do you have any changes to your
testimony?
A I do not.
O If I asked you the same questions as
appear in your testimony as modified by your erratum,
woul-d your answers be the same?
A Yes, they would.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you.
the testj-mony of Donn English
witness to cross-examinati-on.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER :
Chalr, I move
the record and
And without
Mr
to spread
open the
on
objection, we'11 spread the testimony and the erratum
across the record as if read. I'1I pause just a moment
to see if there's any objection. No objection noted for
the record.
(The foll-owing prefiled direct testimony
of Mr. Donn English is spread upon the record. )
25
75
a. Pl-ease state your name and business address?
A. My name is Donn English. My business address
is 11331 W. Chinden B1vd., BLDG 8, STE 207-A, Boise,
Idaho 83714.
O. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A. I am employed by the Idaho Public Utilities
Commissj-on as a Program Manager overseeing the Accounting
and Audit Department in the Utilities Division. I am
also the Program Manager overseeing the Technical
Analysis Department, also within the Util-ities Division.
O. Please describe your educational background and
professional experience.
A. My educational-background and professional-
Exhibit No. 101.experiences are shown
O. What is the purpose of your testimony in this
proceeding?
A. The purpose 9f *y testimony is to descrj-be the
SUEZ Water Idaho, Inc. ("SUEZ htrater" or
l_n
Application
"Company" )
service in Idaho, describe
Stipulation and Settlement
partj-es in this case, and
Settlement.
How is your testimony organized?
My testimony is subdivided under the following
of
to increase i-ts rates and charges for water
the proposed comprehensive
("Sett1ement") reached by the
explain Staff's support for the
proposed
o.
A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
L6
1-7
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/1.7 /2L
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 1
STAFT
25
16
headlngs:
Background Page 2
Staff Investigation Page 3
Settlement Evaluation Page 5
Settl-ement Overview Page 6
Background
O. Pl-ease describe SUEZ Waterrs original filing.
A. SUEZ Water made its original filing with the
Idaho Pub1ic Utilities Commj-ssion on September 30, 2020,
requesting authority to increase its revenues by $10.16
milllon, or 22.3%, effective on or after October 31,
2020. The requested increase was based on a test year
ending June 30, 2020, wj-th proforma adjustments through
March 3L, 202L. Rate base was included through March 31,
2027, using the 13-month average method. The Company
proposed using its current capital structure of 54.072
equi-ty and 45.93% debt, and a return on common equity
("ROE") of 1-0.2%. The Company proposed a uniform
increase to all customer classes.
0. How was the case processed after the Company's
filing was received?
A. The Commission issued a combined Notice of
Application
( "Notice" )
and Notice of Intervention Deadline
on October 27, 2020. The Notj-ce suspended the
proposed effective date for thirty days and fj-ve months
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
13
11
1,2
1,4
15
t6
!7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CASE NO. SVZ-W-20-02
03/1.1 /27
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 2
STAFE
25
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
and established an Interventlon Deadline of November lL,
2020. Intervenor status was subsequently granted to Ada
County, Boise City, SUEZ Water Customer Group ("SWCG"),
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
("CAPAI"), Micron Technology, Tnc. ("Micron"),
Intermountain Eair Housing Council, Inc. ("IEHC"), and
four individual- residents of the Boise Bench col-l-ectively
referred to as the Individual Intervenors. The parties
participated in four settlement conferences, and on March
72, 2021, all parties either agreed to the proposed
settlement term sheet or stated their intent to withdraw
as a party from the case. On March L6, 202!, the
Individual Intervenors filed a Moti-on to Wi-thdraw from
the proceeding, and on March 17, 202L, IFHC expressed
their intent to also file to withdraw. A Joint Motion to
Approve the Settl-ement was filed with the Commission on
March 11, 202L. The Settlement was signed by all
remaining parties.
Staff Investigation
O. What type of lnvestigatj-on did Staff conduct to
evaluate the Company's rate increase request?
A. Staff's approach in any general rate case is to
extensively review the Company's Applicatj-on and
associated testimony and workpapers, identify adjustments
to its revenue requirement, and prepare to file testimony
CASE NO. SUZ_W-20_02
03/17 /27
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 3
STAFE
25
78
L
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
for a fully-litigated proceeding. There were 74 Staff
members
/
CASE NO. SUZ-S{-20-02
03/L7 /2L
10
11
1,2
r_3
t4
15
16
17
l_8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 3a
STAFF
25
79
anal-yzing this case consisting of auditors, engineers,
utility analysts, and consumer investigators, along with
supervisors. Staff auditors reviewed the Company's test
year resul-ts of operations, capi,tal budgets, capital
spending trends, operations and maintenance ("O&M")
expenses and trends, and verified al-l- of the
calculations and assumptions with regard to
revenue requirement. Because of the public
emergency due to the COVID-19 virus, Staff
Company' s
the overall
heafth
members were
not able to conduct onsite audits or reviews of the
Companyrs books and records and they did not have
extensive interviews with Company personnel. However,
the auditors reviewed thousands of transactions, selected
samples, and performed transaction testing in accordance
with standard audit practices. Staff reviewed the
Company's l-abor expense, incentj-ve plans, and employee
benefits to ensure the appropriate level of expenditures
are i-ncluded in rates.
Staff reviewed both completed and proposed
Company investments to determine the prudence of capital
additions. Expenditures including pension expense,
salaries, and O&M expenses were also examined.
Additionally, Staff investigated the Company's cost of
capital, capital structure, cost of service, and revenue
normalization. In tota1, Staff submitted over 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
1_0
11
72
13
74
15
16
L1
18
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/71 /21
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) a
STAFF
25
80
production requests and held several virtual- meeti-ngs
with Company personnel as a part of its comprehensive
investigation.
Entering into the settlement negotiations,
Staff had a list of potential revenue requirement
adjustments to present to the parties. Return on Equity
("ROE") is always a major issue in general rate cases.
Cal-culations of ROE ranged from 8.75? to the Company
proposed 10.2% but the partles did not reach a specific
agreement on the appropriate ROE or capital structure.
Based on the success of its investigation, Staff and the
parties were able to negotiate a rate increase total-ing
8.75% over two years as opposed to the one-time 22.3%
requested by the Company.
Sett].enent Evaluation
O. How did Staff determj-ne that the overall
Settl-ement was reasonable?
A. In every settlement
parties must
hearing and
overal-l outcome. Staf f must
examine the risks
determine if the agreement
evaluate each individuaf
and determine the likelihood of the Commission
or rejecting Staff's rationale for the
. Ultimately, Staff's intent in every
conference is to negotiate the best possible
evaluation,
of losing
Staff and other
positions at
a betterl-s
adj ustment
accepting
adj ustment
settlement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
1_0
11
t2
13
1-4
15
t6
1,7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ_W_20-02
03/L] /21,
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 5
STAFE
25
B1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
outcome for customers.
O. Does Staff support the Settlement as
reasonable?
/
cAsE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
a3/L7 /2r
10
11
1,2
13
L4
15
76
1,7
18
19
21
22
20
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 5a
STAFF
25
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A. Yes. After a comprehensive revi-ew of the
Company's Application, thorough audit of the Company's
books and records, and extensive negotlations with the
parties to the case, Staff supports the proposed
Settlement. The Settlement offers a reasonabl-e balance
between the Company's opportunity to earn a reasonable
return on its investment and affordable rates for
customers. The Settlement addresses several of Staff's
primary goals in thj-s proceeding, including a revenue
requirement increase that is more palatable to customers,
adjusting amorti-zation periods to better refl-ect time
periods between rate cases, and the commitment by SUEZ
Water to perform a load study to assist in allocating
costs to different customer classes. Staff beli-eves the
Settlement, supported by all remaining parties to the
case, is in the public interest; fa,,r, just, and
reasonable; and should be approved by the Commission.
Sett].enent Overview
O. Would you please describe the terms of the
Settlement?
A. The proposed Settlement adopts a phase in of
the negotiated revenue j-ncrease. Instead of the
Company's proposed 22.3% increase, customers will see an
increase of 3.55% on May 1, 202L, representing a revenue
increase of $7.62 million for the Company. On May L,
2022, rates will-
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03 /71 /2L
10
l-1
L2
13
74
15
!6
L7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 6
STAPF
25
83
increase by another $2.38
j-ncrease for the Company,
$3.996 million, or 8.75%.
The Settlement
million, or 5.2%. The overall-
phased in over two years, is
does not detail all of the
different components of the revenue requirement
Settl-ement specificallycalculation. However, the
a framework for the treatment of amortizationprovides
expenses,
return of
Jobs Act
depreciation expense,
the remainlng benefits
("TCJA") to customers.
pension expense, and the
from the Tax Cuts and
AdditionalIy, the
Settlement outlj-nes how the parties believe intervenor
fundj-ng, if granted by the Commission, shoul-d be
recovered by the Company.
O. Please explain how the Settlement treats
amortization expenses .
A. In its Applj-cation, the Company requested to
amortize the balance of its deferred pension costs,
deferred power costs, rate case expenses, and deferred
convenience fees over a three-year period. To mitigate
the impact of the rate increase to customers, the parties
agreed to a four-year amortization period. The
Settl-ement also specifies that any remaining balances
associated with deferred pension costs and power costs,
either positive or negative, will be j-ncorporated into
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
t-5
t6
71
18
19
20
27
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/77 /21
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 7
STAEF
25
B4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
L0
Ll_
t2
13
L4
L5
1.5
l7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
the amortj-zation expense ln the Companyrs next general
rate case. Thie
I
/
/
cAsE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
a3/!1 /21
2
ENGLISH, D. (Stip1 7a
STAFF
5
85
treatment ensures that customers will pay, and the
Company will recover, no more and no less than the actuaf
pension contributions and power costs incurred by the
Company. Consistent with Order Nos. 29838 and 32443, the
Company wiII be authorized to accrue a carrying charge on
the bal-ances at the Commission-authorized customer
deposit rate.
Regulatory assets associated with deferred tank
painting costs will be amortized over twenty years as
previously approved by the Commission and as requested in
the Company's Application. Additionally, the
amortization of the Al-lowance for Eunds Used During
Construction ("AEUDC" ) equity wll-l- continue with the
35-year
in the
amortization period approved in Order No. 33436
Company' s
Pfease
l-ast general rate case.
o describe the tax benefits associated
with the TCJA.
A. On January tt, 20!8, the
No. GNR-U-l-8-01 to investigate the
utility costs and ratemaking. The
rates SUEZ Water charges customers in
the reduced j-ncome tax expense at the
tax rate. However, the TCJA required
revalue their deferred tax amounts at
Commission
impact of
Commi-ssion
opened Case
the TCJA on
reduced the
Idaho to reflect
new 21? corporate
companies to
the new corporate
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
L2
t_3
T4
15
16
t1
1B
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ_W_20_02
03 /17 /2L
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) g
STAFF
25
86
1"
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,2
l-3
1,4
15
1-6
!7
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
tax rates (218) which resulted in excess deferred federal
income tax
/
cAsE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
o3/L7 /2t ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 8a
STATF
87
reserve balances. Bal-ances associated with regulated
utility operations resulted j-n a bal-ance sheet
reclassification from deferred tax to a deferred
regulatory
both plant
non-pIant
bal-ances.
asset or liability. This revaluation effected
(protected or permanent tax benefit) and
(unprotected or temporary tax benefit)
Company must amortize
the balance under the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS")
Average
the IRS
Rate Assumption Method ("ARAM"). To comply with
normalization rules, the Company must return the
over the remaining lifeplant-related ADFIT to customers
of the associated assets
the composite remaining
associated amortization
The ARAM serves as a proxy for
of the plant-related ADFIT
provides customers approxi-mately $221,000 per year.
The temporary (one-time) tax benefits
associated with non-pIant ADFIT balances can be returned
to customers in any manner approved by the Commission.
The parties in this case agree to return the entirety of
the approximately $1.6 million unprotected ADFIT to
For plant-related excess
Federal Income Taxes ("ADFIT"), the
Accumulated Deferred
life of the assets. The
beginning on May 7, 202I. After
benefits associated with
customers over one year,
the one-year period, al-I
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
U
9
l_0
11
t2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/L7 /2L
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 9
STAFF
25
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
1,9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
non-plant ADFIT will have been returned to customers and
rates will increase on May 1, 2022.
/
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/L7 /21
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 9a
STAFF
89
regulatory
rates from
The last component of the TCJA is the
liability associated with the reduced tax
January t, 2018 through May 31, 2018, prior to
the Commi-ssion on June !, 2078the rate rel-ief offered by
to account for the reduction in the corporate tax rate.
The parties in this case agree that $712,504 represents
the correct calculation of the regulatory liability and
customers will receive this benefit over one year,
similar to the treatment of the non-pIant ADFIT.
On May 7, 2022, customer rates wil-l- increase by
$2.38 million, or 5.202 to refl-ect the depletion of these
tax benefits.
O. Why does Staff support returning the benefj-ts
of the non-plant ADFIT and regulatory liability
associated with the reduced tax rate from January t, 2078
through May 3!, 20tB to customers in one year.
on theA. The Commission has discretion tj-mi-ng and
Themethod to return these benefits to customers.
parties agree that returning these benefits to customers
in one year is a practj-caI approach to mitigate any rate
increase granted during a time that many customers may
stil1 be recovering from diminished employment
opportunities and other financial difficulties. This
approach essentially creates a two-year phase in of the
stipulated revenue requirement increase.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
t6
71
18
t9
20
27
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ_W_20_02
03 /71 /21,
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 10
STAFF
25
90
O. How does the Settlement address other revenue
requirement issues?
A. The Settl-ement specj-ficalJ-y addresses the
contrj-butions to its pensionrecovery of the
plan and updates
O. Please
Company's
the Company's depreciation
discuss the recovery of the
rates.
Companyr s
pension contributions.
A. Consistent with
Commission in Order Nos.
settl-ements approved by the
32443 and 33436 (Case Nos.
UWI-W-11-02 and UWI-W-15-01, respectively), a base 1eve1
of pension expense
will be authorized
recovery
to record
the difference between the
is established. The Company
a deferred asset or
actual cash
level- included i-n
agree that
for pension
Iiability for
contributions
rates. In this
each year and
Settlement, the
the basel_n
parties
$1,372,595 is the approprlate base l-evel
recovery.
O. Please discuss the Company's depreciation
expense and how it is reflected in the Settlement.
A. Prior to the filing of its Application, the
Company hired Alliance Consul-ting Group to conduct a
depreciation study of the Company's depreclable assets
as of December 31, 201,9. This was the Company's first
comprehensive depreciation study and it established
the proposed deprecJ-ation rates included in the testimony
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
1,2
13
T4
15
16
71
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/77 /2L
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 11
STAFF
25
9L
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
and exhibits sponsored by r-,ritness Dane A. Watson on
behalf of
/
/
I
cAsE NO. SVZ-W-20-02
03/t7 /21
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
L7
r-8
19
2A
22
21
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Srip) 11a
STAFF
25
92
the Company.
Settlement are
The depreciation rates
included in Exhibit C
agreed to in the
of the Settl-ement
These updated
proposed
and reflect updates proposed by Staff.
reduce the Companyrsratesdepreciation
depreciat j-on
O. How
expense and revenue
does the Settlement
requirement.
propose the
recover intervenor funding if granted by the
Company
Commission?
A. The revenue requirement agreed to in the
Settl-ement does not include an amount to recover
intervenor funding. As allowed by statute and by
Commission's procedural rules, parties may request and
the Commission may award intervenor funding to be paid by
the Company. If the Commission awards intervenor funding
in this case, the parties agree that the Company should
be al-lowed to recover the intervenor funding as an
incremental- addition to the first-year revenue
requirement. The second-year revenue requirement will
decrease by the amount of intervenor fundlng awarded by
the Commission, so the Company wil-l- not continue to
recover intervenor funding after April 30, 2022.
O. Are there any other provisions in the
Settl-ement that you would l-ike to address?
A. Yes. The Settlement requires the Company to
complete a load study to provide max-day and max-hour
factors for each customer class and the water system as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
t4
15
76
77
1B
19
20
27
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-42
03/17 /27
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 72
STAEF
25
93
who1e. The Company will convene a
with interested parties to receive
discussion process
input on the different
be filed in thewiIIstudy components. The study
Company's next general rate
to determine the approprlate
assigned or allocated to the
case and wil-1 all-ow parties
leve1 of costs to be
different customer classes.
The Company will also broaden its pubJ-ic
outreach efforts and host annual workshops for all
interested parties. Commission Staff, the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality, and the Idaho
Department of Water Resources wil-l participate in the
discussion on a range of topics related to water
conservation and resource planning.
Additionally, the Company has agreed to meet
with representatives of CAPAI to examine the current
status of SUEZ Waterrs low-income assistance program, the
Ievel of participation and effectiveness of the program,
and to identify and consider opportunities to improve the
program for low-income customers.
O. Do you have any other comments on the
Settlement?
A. Yes. Staff has examined Exhibits A - C and
verified they are consistent with the Settlement and
reasonably recover the proposed revenue requirement. As
implied in this testimony, the Settlement represents a
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
t_1
\2
13
74
t-5
t6
L1
18
1,9
20
2L
22
23
24
CASE NO. SUZ_W_20_02
03 /17 /2L
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 13
STAFF
25
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
fair, just, and reasonable compromise of the positions
put forth by all parties and is in the public interest.
CASE NO. SUZ-W-20-02
03/17 /2t
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
1.1
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 13a
STAFF
25
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Therefore, Staff recommends the Commj-ssj-on approve the
Settlement without material changes or modifications.
O. Please explain concerns you are aware of
related to water quality.
A. Customers in the Boise Bench area continue to
have complai-nts about water quality. Staff has
investigated complaints and attended town hall- style
meetings held by SUEZ Water with customers. Although
SUEZ Water has made some improvements, customer concerns
still- exj-st. Staf f wil-1 continue to investigate these
concerns. Staff will also monitor and track the Company's
ongoing pJ-ans to replace pipe, flush lines, and make
improvements to the Taggart well as approved by the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality. Staff wil-1 al-so
evaluate delayed or accelerated timelines for
improvements and provide additional customer
communications.
O. Does this conclude your testimony?
A. Yes, it does.
CASE NO. SUZ_W-20_02
03 /77 /2L
10
t2
13
L4
15
L6
1-'7
18
19
20
2L
22
11
23
24
ENGLISH, D. (Stip) 14
STAFF
25
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
t2
13
74
15
16
L1
18
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (X)
Staff
open hearing. )
now make this witness available
If you'd like to cross-examine
the hand function raise hand or
customers
you know,
proposed
increase,
middle of
I'd like
you recap
(The following proceedings were had in
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: And so we will
for cross-examination.
the wj-tness, either press
the Star 3.
Do we have someone who is ready, Adam?
MR. RUSH: Norm Semanko.
MR. SEMANKO: Great, thank you. Mr
Semanko.
MR. SEMANKO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SEMANKO:
O Mr. English, I appreciate your assistance
throughout this. As you know, I'm counsel for what we
call the SUEZ Water Customer Group, which is a group of
of Idaho SUEZ Water Idaho who, of course as
were very interested in both the size of the
rate increase and the timing of the rate
the 22.3 percent proposal, and comj-ng in the
the pandemic as it did last year. Coul-d you --
to have on the oral record, if we could, could
under the Settl-ement agreement, which the25
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
11
72
13
L4
15
16
11
1B
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (X)
Staff
Applicant has
increase will
May 1st, what percent
in the first year and
share that with us on
A Yes.
just testified
be?
Commissioner
in favor of, what the rate
Raper asked about effective
increase wilI that rate increase be
in the second year? Cou1d you
the record here?
The Stipulation calls for a rate
in year one. Thatrs
is that. someone thatrs real?
increase of 3.55 percent
approximately $1.62 miI1ion. In year two, an additional
increase of three 2.37 6 million, which woul-d be 5.2
percent for a tot.al- of 8.75 percent.
MR. SEMANKO: Thank you. That's the only
question I had. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you,
Mr. Semanko. I bel-i-eve we have another hand raised and
I'm guessing that that would be from CAPAI, I think.
MR. PURDY: Commissioner, this is Brad
Purdy. I
got that
do not have a question. I rm not sure how you
impression.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Oh,I'm sorry, I
fivejust see a hand
something. Ad.am
raised. It says cal-I-in user
MR. RUSH: Brad, can you press Star 3 to
lower the hand icon?
MR. PURDY: Oh,sure.
,
25
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
17
1B
1,9
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (Com)
Staff
MR. RUSH: Thank you, appreciate it.
MR. PURDY: Is that better?
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: It is much
better. We're very fortunate that there is no
flip-the-bird icon on these virtual meetings.
Is there anyone else who would like to
cross-examine this witness who are parties to the case?
I don't see any others hands up.
Are there any questions from members of
the Commission? We have a question or two from
Commissioner Raper.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Thank you,
Chairman.
EXAMINATION
BY COMMISSIONER RAPER:
O I have
for Mr. Thompson, but
you as wel-I based on
first question I want
some of the same questions I had
I have an additional one or two for
what your testimony
to make sure that
is. One is the
I heard
correctly, did you say that the May of 2022 rate
increase Lo 2.37 mj-1Iion, because your testimony
2 -38?
A Itrs 2.316, so it may be rounded to
you
wiII
says
25
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
1,6
L7
1B
79
20
27
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (Com)
Staff
2-38.
testimony
testimony,and wlth regard to
understand
O Okay, f just wanted to make sure that your
live was consistent with
that
your written
rate increase, I just
want to make sure I
On page 10 of your testimony,
see where it starts, actually.
the tax benefits. Ultimately,
because there was there were
ways that you
the rates and
included that
your testimony correct.
it talks about Iet me
It was a question about
my question was the
a couple of different
addressed how the tax benefits would impact
I wanted to make sure with everything
the 2022 increase is a total- of 5.2 percent
of an increase wi-th all of the tax benefits and
everything else calculated, because there was a benefit
to be gained through the first year that was going to be
removed because it woul-d have been consumed in that first
year.
I know Irm not doing this in accounting
terms, my apologies. Ifm not an accountant, Irm a
lawyer, but I wanted to make sure that that included
everything. It will be a 5.2 percent increase in 2022 if
approved?
A That is correct. f t does i-ncl-ude al-l- of
the temporary tax benefits that will harie expired after
the first year.25
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
O Okay, and so then to the questions that I
asked Mr. Thompson and I just want a little clarity for
the record, the reference that the withdrawi-ng parties
made to their our consi-deration of them in an
intervenor funding context, that is part of their request
to withdraw. It is not part of the MOU or the
Settl-ement. Do you recall that that was an understanding
of the parties?
A I do not recal-l any conversation as to
whom or who may not apply for intervenor funding. The
conversation around the Stipulation was based on when
recovery of the intervenor funding will occur and so I
woul-d defer to Iegal counseL as to who is eligible for
intervenor funding
0 Or the Commission?
A Or the Commission, yeah.
O Okay, and then last question, same one I
asked Mr. Thompson, the May 1 effective date, it was just
my assumption that that was contemplated based on when
everyone was hoping that these things woul-d be fu11y
deliberated and a final Order issued by the Commission.
Was that May 1 effectj-ve date, is that a hard date or now
that the now that we have created an extension of the
suspension of the proposed effective date, is there an
understanding of the parties that that would be upon
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5198
ENGLISH (Com)
Staff
10
11
L2
1_3
L4
15
L6
t7
1-8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
g
10
11
1,2
l-3
1,4
15
16
L1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
ENGLISH (Com)
Staff
issuance of a
A
effective May
to extend the
Commission decided
final Order by the Commission?
II
1st,
time
was always our intent to have the rate
but the Commission does have authority
frame to issue an Order, and if the
that it needed more time to fulIy
evaluate the record in this case, then f would defer to
you to j-ssue the Order as soon as you can.
O Okay, does that impact the date, the
effective date, of the new rates in
A It would. I believe
would be the date of the Commisslon
your mind?
the effective date
Order.It was always
it done by Mayour intent to move expeditiously and have
1st.
0 OkaY,
stipulations,
and therein lies my
and this one hol-ds
concern, because
all the sameusually
normal
terms of the settlement,
so I guess
You, too?
Irm just tryj-ng to reconcile that
A I would say that the Staff and the parties
had set a schedule realizing that it was time
constrained, but we all had made our best efforts to
language, whi-ch is if we substantially
then every party can
change the
withdraw,
i-n my head.
stick to the time frame, and we
1st effecti-ve date, recognj-zing
are anticipating a May
that the Commission does
have authority to extend for good cause.25
t02
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
0 And you can only speak to Staffrs
position, I understand, but j-t would be Staf f 's posit j-on
that that term change within the context of the
Stipulation and Settlement agreement would not impact
Staff's adoption of the Stipulation?
A Staff would continue to support the
Stipulation.
COMMISSIONER RAPER: Perfect, thank you.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Are there any
other questions from members of the Commissj-on? , """
noner so we will allow for redirect.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have
no redirect.
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: Thank you, and
so you are excused, Mr. Eng1ish.
(The witness left the stand. )
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER: And that
exhausts our witness l-ist for this specific hearing and I
will ask if there yes, Adam, if you'd like to come up
and change this video so at least they can see that
there's not an empty chair talking to them. I know they
think therers an empty suit talking to them, but at l-east
l-et it not be an empty chair. Good.
Are there any other items or issues or
motions that need to come before the Commission at this
ENGLISH (Com)
Staff
10
11
12
13
1-4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208 .890.5198
25
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
77
1B
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
time? T don't see anybody bringing anything to our
attention. Well, since we have moved to the exorcist
camera vaew,
excitement of
we will just consider al-l the fun and
a virtual video hearing having been
experienced today.
What I want to do is
that
apply
this point as we conclude this hearj-ng today, the record
will be considered fully submitted and the Commission
will- have an opportunity to request expeditiously from
Fortunatefy, this has
Rule 764 does all-ow for 74 days
for funding as is spelled out
to just reference
for i-ntervenors to
in that rul-e, and at
our court reporter the transcript
not been a lengthy meeting, so I
to get that in a reasonabl-e time
think we shoul-d be able
I sure would rather see you all in
you all feel the same way. I look
the new normaf is and hope that the
frame and I'm hopeful
that that occurs so that we can qet an Order out as soon
as is reasonable.
f want
pati-ence. I recogni-ze
circumstances. Quite
to thank everybody, a1so, for their
that these are not the most ideal
honestly, I can't believe Irm
saying this, but
I knowperson.
forward
that
to whatever
j-dea of having
proceedings are
year.
to conduct these types of virtual
eliminated as we move further into this
25
104 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
Thanks again for all your efforts. Thanks
again for helping us develop the record. We certainly do
appreciate all your efforts in bringing this case in for
this specj-fic component, which is the technical hearing,
and since there are no other matters that need to come
before us today, we are adjourned.
(A11 exhibits previously marked for
identif ication were admitted j-nto evi-dence. )
(The Hearing adjourned at 2229 p.m. )
CSB REPORTING
208 .8 90 . 5l_98
10
11
t2
13
t4
1-5
16
L7
18
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
105 COLLOQUY
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
L2
13
74
15
t6
!7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
CSB REPORTING
208.890.5198
AUTHENTICATION
This is to certi-fy that the foregoing
videoconferencing/telephonic proceedings held in the
matter of SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. for authority to increase
its rates and charges for water service in the State of
Idaho, contmencing at 1:30 p.il, on Tuesday, April 20,
2027, dt the Commission Hearj-ng Room, 11331 W. Chinden
Bl-vd., Building 8, Suite 201,-A, Boise, Idaho, is a true
and correct transcript of said proceedings and the
original thereof for the file of the Commi-ssion.
Accuracy of all prefiled testimony as
originally submitted to the Reporter and incorporated
herein at the direction of the Commission is the sol-e
responsibility of the submitting parties.
CONSTANCE
Certified
S. BUCY
Shorthand Reporter 7
BUCYsCON$TANCE r0M0OFSTATEPUBLICNOTARY29951NUMBERCOMMISSION9+2024EXPIRESMYCOMMISSION
25
106 COLLOQUY