20091127UWI to Staff 134, 138, 141.pdf

McDevitt & Miller LLP
Lawyers
Rr.f"r.I\Ir:n'\t: v L. ~ ':1 ~-" .,."
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)
420 W. Bannock Street , - ~ 2. c: 2
P.o. Box 2564-837&609 MOl 2 ~ P i I ...'
Boise, Idaho 83702 ID,G.l'OY:
UT\t ¡1 \":.S c:November 25,2009" .'
Chas. F. McDevitt
Dean J. (Joe) Miler
Vïa Hand Delivery
Jean Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utities Commssion
472 W. Washigton St.
Boise, Idaho 83720
Re: Case No. UWI-W-09-01
General Rate Case Fil
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for fig, please fid thee (3) copies of United Water Idaho's Objection and Answers to
Staff Production Requests 134, 138 and 141.
Kidly retu a fie staped copy to me.
Very Truy Yours,
'SV¡PDean J. Mier
DJM/hh
Encl
I,
Dean J. Miler (ISB No. 1968)
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Banock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
joe(ßmcdevitt-miler .com
REGEl\!
2009 NOV 25 Pr1 2: 52
Attorneys for United Water Idaho Inc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC., FOR )
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND ~
CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN THE )
STATE OF IDAHO )
)
CASE NO. UW-W-09-01
OBJCTION AND ANSWERS TO
STAFF PRODUCTION
REQUESTS 134, 138 AND 141.
Preparers:
Dean J . Miler
Gregory P. Wyatt
United Water objects to Stas Production Requests Nos. 134, 138 and 141, on the
grounds that each of these Requests seek information that is beyond the scope of that required by
Order No. 30305, and the errata thereto, In the Matter of the Application of United Water Idaho
for Approval of its Water Conservation Plan, Case No UWI-W-06-05 (2005).
Requests Nos. 134, 138 and 141 seek, in varous ways, quantifications of savings
attributable to conservation efforts.
Request No. 134 asks: "Please assess and quatify the impact of United Water's water
conservation program on system peak hourly, system peak daily, and system anua consumption
for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009".
OBJECTION AND ANSWERS TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUESTS 134, 138 AND 141- 1
~"-'
'\,
Request No. 138 asks: "Please identify the estimated water savigs achieved in each year
for the years 2006-2009, by program, for each of the four conservation programs authorized in
Commission Order No. 29871 ,,1.
Request No. 141 asks: "Has the Company completed studies to differentiate water
consumption declines associated with changes in usage habits vs. those savings attbutable to
water saving devices? If yes, please explain how and provide the corresponding analysis in
electronic executable format. If not, explain why not".
In Case No. UWI-W-06-05, program evaluation and the showing that would be required
in subsequent rate cases was an issue before the Commission. There, Sta acknowledged in its
Comments that quantification of savings from water conservation programs is not realistically
possible, especially with respect to educational programs. Sta said:
"Estimating savings from a conservation program is a diffcult and imprecise process
under the best of conditions but especially so for educational and public information
programs. It is diffcult to determine the number of real customers exposed to the
information, the number of customers that actuly implement a parcular conservation
measure, and the amounts of water actully saved..." (Emphasis added). (Staf
Comments, Pg. 7).
Staf went on to say:
"The most reliable estimates of educational programs are based on sureys of customers
who receive promotional materials and a control group to estimate the percentage of
paricipants that actually tae the actions being promoted. Signficant concerns about
these estimates include the accuracy of the surey responses, and the persistence of the
savings from measures that rely upon customer actions rather than hardware. In most
cases, the cost of such an evaluation signifcantly exceeds the amount spent for theprogram... " (Emphais added). (Sta Comments, Pg. 7).
Requests Nos. 134, 138 and 141 seek information ofa tye that Stahas acknowledged
is nearly impossible to obtain, at least with respect to educational programs.
i United Water does not understand the reference to Order No. 29871, which was the Final Order on
Reconsideration in United Water's 2004 general rate case. That Order authorized preparation of a new conservation
plan, but did not approve any specific programs.
OBJECTION AND ANSWERS TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUESTS 134, 138 AN 141- 2
"
The Final Order in Case No. UWI-W-06-05 originally provided:
"The Commission does not believe fuer evaluation of the specific program is
necessar at this point, as effciency of implementation and prudency of the program will
be evaluated to establish the recovery level and amortization period when the Company
seeks recovery of the new conservation costs. A cost!enefit analysis for each program
should be provided to show the ongoing benefits to customers".
In response, United Water filed a Petition for Reconsideration. There, United Water
observed:
"As Staff acknowledged, it is diffcult, if not impossible, to quantify water savings in a
short-term retrospective analysis. In any given year, or small number of years, it is
impossible to know if changes in water consumption are due to successful conservation
efforts, difference in weather from year to year, customer response to price signals or a
varety of other factors. It is thus unikely that a short term retrospective analysis that
attempted to compare savings to program costs would produce meanngful information".
(Petition Pg. 4)
United Water also pointed out that the approved conservation plan did not include a
budget component for evaluation of the type suggested by Requests Nos. 134, 138 and 141.
Thereafter, the Commission issued an Errata to Order No. 30305, strkig the last
sentence quoted above such that the Order now reads:
"The Commission does not believe fuher evaluation of the specific program is
necessar at this point, as effciency of implementation and prudency of the program will
be evaluated to establish the recovery level and amortization period when the Company
seeks recovery of the new conservation costs",
By amending Order No. 30305, though the vehicle of an errata, the Commission
eliminated any requirement that United Water provide a quantification of savings of the tye
now requested by Requests Nos. 134, 138 and 141. Based on the assertions in its
Reconsideration Petition and the Commission's responsive amendment to the Order, United
Water reasonably believed it was not required to perform the analysis requested by Requests No.
134, 138 and 141.
OBJCTION AND ANSWERS TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUESTS 134, 138 AN 141- 3
'-.
Without waving the foregoing objection, United Water responds to the Requests as
follows:
Request No. 134: See Direct Testimony of Gregory P. Wyatt, Pgs. 20, 21 and 31 in
which decline in demand is documented, a portion of which is likely due to conservation efforts
although it canot be quatified with precision.
Request No. 138. See Answer to Request No. 134.
Request No 141: See Answer to Request No. 134.
DATED this ~day of November, 2009.
UNITED WATER IDAHO INC.
By:
ean J. Miler
McDevitt & Miler LLP
420 West Banock
Boise, Idaho 83702
P: 208.343.7500
F: 208.336.6912
Attorney for United Water
OBJECTION AND ANSWERS TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUESTS 134,138 AND 141- 4
"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the deay of November, 2009, I caused to be served, via the
method(s) indicated below, tre and correct copies of the foregoing document, upon:
Jean Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
j i ewell ($uc. state. id. us
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Pax
Fed. Express
Email
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th Street
Boise, ID 83702
bmpurdy(ßhotmail.com
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Fax
Fed. Express
Email
~'-
,.'-
,.'-
,.'-
~'-
,.'-
,.'-
OBJCTION AND ANSWERS TO STAFF PRODUCTION REQUESTS 134, 138 AN 141- 5