HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030509_467.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY
DATE:MAY 7, 2003
SUBJECT:CASE NO. GNR-02-3 (Diamond Bar Estates Water Company)
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PC&N AND FOR APPROVAL
OF RELATED RATES AND CHARGES
On November 29 2002, Diamond Bar Estates LLC dba Diamond Bar Estates Water
Company (Diamond Bar; Company) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to serve the Diamond Bar
Estates Subdivision in Kootenai County, Idaho. Reference Application Attachments, legal
description and maps of subdivision and service area; Idaho Code ~ 61-526; Commission Rules
of Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.111. Diamond Bar Estates is more particularly described as a
portion of the North Yz of Section 3 , Township 51 North, Range 4 West Boise-Meridian
Kootenai County, Idaho.
Attached to the Application of Diamond Bar are 1) financial statements for 2000 and
2001 with profit and loss statements, 2) water rates from different water districts, 3) rate
schedule information, 4) names of customers and addresses, 5) legal description, 6) plat map, 7)
request for tariff connection fees, 8) customer notice for discontinuance of service, 9) bill
statement, and 10) rule summary.
The Company indicates that the water system currently provides service to 37
customers. When complete, ultimately, the Company will serve 45 households with water
service. The Company indicates that initial service was started in 1994 by Diamond Bar
Homeowners. On June 3 , 2002, the Homeowners Association elected to turn the water system
DECISION MEMORANDUM
over to Diamond Bar Estates LLc. The Company proposes a 2001 test year and an annual
revenue requirement of$23 123.
The rate structure proposed by Diamond Bar is as follows:
A customer s water usage will be determined by the reading on the meter.
Readings will be taken the first week of each month (April through
November) and the consumption figures will be measured in gallons used.
Diamond Bar Water Company will bill each current customer every month
based on the following rate schedule which, as proposed, will go into effect
January 1 , 2003.
Domestic Service:
0- 7500 gallons
more than 7500 gallons
$21.
85 per thousand
Irrigation Service:75 per thousand for all consumption
During the months of December through March, meters will not be read. The
customers will be charged the base rate of $21.00 per month. In April of each
year customers ' meters will be read and usage will be prorated according to
the number of months since the last reading.
In addition to the commodity charge, the Company proposes implementing
the following non-recurring charges:
A charge of $1 000 for installation of water meter
A charge of $500 for water hookup fee
A fee of$50 will be charged for reconnection during business hours
A fee of $65 will be charged for reconnection after normal business hours and
weekends.
The existing rates of the Company for residential customers are $15 for the first 7500
gallons plus $.95 per 1 000 gallons thereafter. Customers with irrigation service pay a flat fee of
$225 per year for irrigation.
The Commission in Order No. 29177 suspended the Company s proposed January
2003 effective date and determined that the Company shall continue charging existing rates and
charges until such time as the Commission issues an Order accepting, rej ecting or modifying the
Application.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
On January 10, 2003 , the Commission issued a Notice of Application, Public
Workshop and Modified Procedure in Case No. GNR-02-3. Individual copies of the
Commission s Notice were provided to all customers. public workshop conducted by
Commission Staff was held in Rathdrum, Idaho on February 2003 to discuss the Company
Application. The established deadlines for filing written comments were February 18, 2003 for
customers and February 21 , 2003 for Commission Staff. Reply comments were filed by the
Company on March 17, 2003.
On April 29, 2003 , following the initial round of comments, a public hearing was
held in Rathdrum to establish a formal transcript record of customer testimony and oral
comments regarding the Company s Application and the various proposals for revenue
requirement, rate design, and rates and charges. A May 6, 2003 deadline was established for
further written comments. The comments can be summarized as follows:
Customer Comments
Numerous and sometimes multiple written comments were filed with the
Commission by customers of Diamond Bar.All comments were distributed to the
Commissioners and are part of the official case file. Customer comments filed by February 19
2003 were summarized in the following manner by Commission Staff:
The number beside each item shown below reflects the number of customers
who address that particular issue in their comments. If a customer filed
multiple comments on a particular issue, his or her comments are counted
only once. For example, if a customer filed three comments and objected to
the proposed rate design in each comment, his or her comment would only be
counted once as objecting to the rate design. Because customers discussed
multiple issues, the total exceeds ten.
Obj ects to change from flat fee for irrigation water to a metered rate.
(5 of 10)
Objects to developer selling lots based on flat irrigation fee and then
changing policy when development's CC&R's require landscaping. (5 of
10)
Objects to proposed rate increase. (5 of 10)
. Found a rate plan like one Staff proposed had merit. (3 of 10)
Pump replacement cost covered by insurance; should not be in rate base.
(3 of 10)
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Concerned about water pressure if all properties use irrigation; already
notices lower water pressure during irrigation season. (2 of 10)
Request for either another workshop or a hearing before the Commission
makes its final decision. (2 of 10)
Objects to Staffs failure to provide customers its workpapers so
customers could make meaningful comments at workshop. (2 of 10)
The Company s Application said it had 31 water users when there are 38
users, with a possible 45 when the subdivision is full. (2 of 10)
Mobile generator can work only on the back up well at Rob Turnipseed'
due to size of the generator. Since the generator is mobile and can be
used in multiple locations Diamond Bar customers should not pay for
entire cost of generator. (2 of 10)
Cost of electricity overstated. (2 of 10)
Requests that all customers be required to support the water system
including owners of a vacant lot. (2 of 10)
Objects to unfairness of being billed on a monthly basis when meters
aren t read during winter months. (1 of 10)
Encourages irrigation meters to be read once annually to cut costs.
(loflO)
Questions the potential for meter error and costs associated with
installing and removing irrigation meters each year. (1 of 10)
Customer thought IPUC Staff was condescending, insulting, and
threatening during workshop discussions. (1 of 10)
Request for Commission to reject the Company s Application and refer it
back to the homeowners association for further consideration. (1 of 10)
Customer provided water rate comparisons using three local non-
regulated water systems. (1 of 10)
Meter read costs should be based on 8 months only (no reads during
winter). (1 of 10)
One customer provided an alternate rate design on disk. (1 of 10) See
Staff revised Attachment E.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Public Hearing - April 29, 2003
Two customers testified at the public hearing. Ms. Carol Abelhanz noted that the
Company provides its utility billings to customers by postcard and that the annual postage
expense should be reduced from $172.20 to $137., an annual difference of$34.00.
Mr. Mike Meehan in his testimony (see attached summary) presents an alternative
rate structure that continues a flat irrigation rate of $250/summer, a domestic metered rate of
50/1 000 gallons up to 90 000 gallons and $.70/1 000 gallons for usage exceeding 90 000
gallons. Also proposed is an annual fee of $180 for all lot owners, regardless of whether or not
they are hooked up. As calculated, Mr. Meehan s proposal provides the Company with total
annual revenue of$16 392 (irrigation $5 750; domestic $2 542; customer charge $8 100).
May 6, 2003 Comments
In customer comments filed, the Commission is apprised that customers were
without water for three hours on May 3 , 2003 during a scheduled interruption of electric power
by Kootenai Electric. During this outage, the water company did not engage its emergency back
up generation. The commenting customer contends that the Commission should require the
water company to provide standby power generation capacity that is automatic when the primary
source is lost. Failing same, the customer contends that customers are subjected to serious loss
of property and perhaps life.
Staff Comments
Following some general comments regarding the Diamond Bar Estates water system
and its prior history as a homeowners association system, Staff addresses the following areas in
its comments: financial analysis, rate design, hookup fees and consumer issues. Based on its
investigation and analysis, Staff makes the following recommendations:
1. The Certificate Request: No objection has been received by the
Commission from any party other than the customer comment expressing
a desire to revisit the transfer of the system from the Association to
Diamond Bar Estates, LLC. Staff recommends the Commission express
its intent to issue a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in sixty (60)
days unless it receives positive proof that indeed the Association has
entered into negotiation/litigation to reverse the sale transaction and
return the system to the Association.
2. Staff recommends that the Commission either schedule a public hearing or
provide the company and its customers an opportunity to present written
responses to these Staff Comments.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
3. Revenue Requirement: Staff recommends that the Commission determine
that a revenue requirement of $16 104 is just and reasonable unless the
Company or customers submit compelling evidence that this revenue
requirement is not justified.
4. The Commission should direct the Company to submit documentation
supporting the requested rate case expense amortization and adjust the
revenue requirement to reflect the actual costs.
5. Rate Design: Staff recommends that the Commission establish a single
fixed/variable rate design for all water use with a base rate of $21.00 for
the first 7 500 gallons of consumption and $0.50/1000 gallons for
consumption in excess of the 7 500 gallon base.
6. Staff recommends that the rate design be reevaluated after one year to
assess how usage patterns may have changed, what effect the new rates
have had on customers bills, and how effectively the rate design
generates the revenue requirement authorized by the Commission.
7. Staff recommends denial of the $1 000.00 domestic water meter fee and
the $500.00 domestic water hook-up fee. The Company was unable to
provide cost justification for the level of these fees. In addition, these
fees were recovered from each lot owner at the time of purchase.
8. Staff recommends the Company work with Staff to develop an appropriate
line extension tariff for the system and have it in place prior to extension
of any service beyond the subdivision boundary.
9. Staff recommends approval ofthe Company s requested $500.00 one time
meter fee for irrigation meters.
10. Staff recommends that customer reconnection fees (voluntarily
involuntarily disconnected) be set at $15.00 during normal business hours
and $30.00 at all other times. This charge does not apply to the seasonal
installation or removal of irrigation meters.
Attached to this Decision Memo are Staff schedules for calculation of revenue requirement, Staff
adjustment worksheets and alternative rate design proposals.
Company Reply Comments
The Company prefaces its reply comments by stating that it is the reluctant owner of
the water system and would be willing to negotiate a sale of the water system back to
homeowners association.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
As a privately owned system, however, the Company contends that water customers
must pay rates that support a self-sustaining system. How the system was financed when Mr.
Turnipseed, as the developer, operated the system, the Company states, is of no important to the
analysis now before the Commission. The water system became a self-supporting system on the
date of the transfer from the homeowners association to the LLC, June 3 , 2002.
The Company provides the following specific comments regarding Staff proposed
adjustments:
Staff Adjustment (I): Technical Computer Support.
Company Position. The Company agrees that this is a one-time cost, however, this is
a cost that will provide benefits for several years. If Staff does not want this cost to be expensed
then the Company contends it should be capitalized and depreciated over five years as are other
computer expenses.
Staff Position. Staff agrees with the Company s proposal to capitalize and depreciate
technical computer support expense over five years.
Staff Adjustment (J): Backup Generator.
Company Position. The Company is disappointed that the Staff recognizes the need
and usefulness of backup generation but only wants to give credit for one-half of the cost of a
generator. It appears to the Company that Staffs position is based in large part upon comments
made by the Company that the generator would be mounted on a trailer. The Company informs
the Commission of its intent to use the generator full-time as a backup generator for the system
and permanently install and place the generator at the backup well location. The Company
requests that the Commission allow full recovery of the cost of a generator including the related
cost of installing and housing. The estimated cost of installing the generator is $11 838. The
cost break down is as follows: generator $5 500; concrete pad $1,438; electric transfer
switch/hookup $2 500; and building $2,400. Without full recovery ofthe ordinary and necessary
operating costs such as the cost of a backup generator, the Company contends that the water
system cannot operate.
Staff Position. Staff concedes that it discounted the emergency backup generator by
50% due to mobility. Staff notes that the second well, generator and proposed housing are
located outside the subdivision on property belonging to the Turnipseed family and not the water
company. Staff contends that for rate base consideration, the Company should obtain an
DECISION MEMORANDUM
easement from the Turnipseed family for permanent rights of access to the building, well and
generator. Staff notes that the Company has indicated that it is unwilling to grant an easement.
That being the case, should a back up generator at the second well continue to be a reasonable
requirement, Staff suggests that a service contract may be appropriate. No contract price has
been proposed.
Staff Adjustment (L): Irrigation Meters.
Company Position. The Company notes that the meters on hand are presently being
used and are part of the property acquired and transferred to the Company by the homeowners
association. How the purchase of these meters were treated on the prior books, the Company
contends, is of no consequence.Without being able to rate base the meters and expense
replacement meters, the Company contends that there is simply no reasonable method to recover
these costs. Without any manner for recovery, no further investment can be made. Staffs
contention that a one-time connection fee of $500 is sufficient to offset the cost of the meter
investment for rate base purposes is disputed by the Company. Revenue generated from a $500
connection fee, the Company states, would be insufficient.
Staff Position.Staff disagrees with the Company.Staff notes that what the
The first class would beCompany is proposing would result in three classes of meters.
developer contributed meters, the initial 10 contributed prior to 2001. The second class would
be the five meters in dispute acquired during 200112002 for which the Company requested to
rate base $2 951. The third class would be future meters which would be customer contributed.
Staff Adjustment (M): Rate Case Expense.
Company Position. Staff in its comments recommended that documentation be
submitted supporting this expense item. In preparation of the Application for the workshop, the
Company reports that it has spent $500 in accounting fees and $585 in legal fees. The Company
estimates that it will spend an additional $800 in accounting fees and $900 in legal fees to
perfect its reply comments. Should a formal appeal prove necessary, the Company states that it
is not unreasonable to expect the associated fees to reach and even exceed the $4 000 expense
originally presented by the Company. Therefore, the Company continues to request that $4 000
of rate case expense be provided in the rate base calculation.
Staff Position. The Company has presented documentation consisting of actual and
estimated or projected costs. The actual billed costs are $1 085. Estimated additional costs to
DECISION MEMORANDUM
date are $1 700. Staff contends that the remaining $1 215 for costs of appeal are speculative and
should not be allowed.
Staff Adjustment (N & 0): Depreciation.
Company Position. Should the Company s arguments concerning the inclusion of
irrigation meters and the backup generator in the rate base prevail, the Company requests that the
depreciation expenses addressed in Staff Adjustments N & 0 be recalculated.
Staff Position. Staff tenders for Commission consideration a schedule depicting the
result of Company requested changes to Staff revenue requirement adjustments.
Inflation.
Company Position. The Company included a 3% inflation factor anticipating that
utility suppliers, A vista and Kootenai Electric Coop will receive rate adjustments this year
increasing the cost of electricity to the Company. Given the low snowpack experienced by
northern Idaho this winter, the Company does not believe its request to be arbitrary. The
Company continues to request that a 3% inflation factor be included in the rate base.
Staff Position. Neither Avista nor Kootenai Electric have requested or implemented
a change in rates. The Company s requested inflation factor is speculative and should be denied
as being neither known nor measurable.
Hook-up Fees.
Company Position. Staff recommended a line extension policy in lieu of a hook-up
fee and connection fee. The Company does not have a line extension policy in place. A
sampling of surrounding water companies was completed and submitted as a part of the original
Application. The Company contends that it is customary and typical of small water companies
in northern Idaho to charge a hook-up fee and connection fee. The Company maintains that the
charges presented are reasonable based upon the charges of similar water companies in the area
and appear to be sufficient to reimburse the Company for the costs incurred for such
connections.
Staff Position. Staff notes that regarding those lots in the subdivision, costs have
already been paid. Should the Company choose to extend service outside the subdivision, Staff
contends that the Company would need to request a Certificate amendment. The Company
proposes $1 500 for domestic hook-up ($1 000 for the meter $500 for hook-up fees) and $500
for irrigation hook-ups.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Rate Design.
Company Position. Staff recommends a fixed variable rate design without a separate
rate for irrigation. The Company prefers a separate rate for irrigation. However, knowing
Staffs preference on the issue, and its recommendation for a $21 base charge for the first 7500
gallons and then $.50 per 1000 gallons for each gallon thereafter, the Company tested the
proposed rate against current data for water usage. The Company states that its analysis shows
that the rate design proposed by Staff would be insufficient to meet the revenue needs
established by Staff, $16 104, for the system. The Company respectively requests that the base
rate charge be changed from $21 to $23.50 so that the revenue needs established by Staff can be
met. Additionally, if the Commission should determine to allow any or all of the changes
requested by the Company, the Company requests that the base rate be further increased to allow
coverage for the revenue requirement allowed. The Company includes a survey of water rates
from different water districts in the area.
Staff Position. Staff notes that what the Company is proposing is using actual versus
normalized. Staff notes that a lot of customers have not established their lawns and their storage
usage will increase.
Need for Additional Workshop.
Company Position. If further workshops are required to establish rate base, the
Company states that its costs under comment M should be increased. Further information
required of the Company will be furnished upon request.
COMMISSION DECISION
Diamond Bar Estates Water Company has applied for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and for approval of related rates and charges. Staff recommends that
the Certificate be granted and recommends that the requested rates and charges be adjusted. The
customers have provided their comments and the Company and customers have responded to
Staff s proposed adjustments. A public hearing has been held to provide customers an additional
opportunity to comment.
Certificate
Does the Commission believe that a Certificate should be issued to Diamond Bar?
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Revenue Requirement
Should an emergency generator be required for back up at the second well site?
, should it be rate based or expensed under a service contract? Other Staff, customer
Company adjustments? What revenue requirement is appropriate?
Rate DesignlNon-Recurring Charges
Staff has proposed an all-metered rate for domestic and irrigation water.Mr.
Meehan proposes a flat rate for irrigation, a metered domestic rate and an annual customer
charge for all lot owners, regardless of usage.
appropriate?
What charges, rates and rate design are
Scott Woodbury
bls/M:GNRWO203 sw3
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Diamond Bar Estates
Revenue Requirement
Year Ended 12/31/2001
(A)(B)
As Filed
Com
(C)
Staff
Adjustments
(D) (E)Staff Adj.
Recommendation Ref.
Expenses:
1 Meter Statements 560.(560.00) $(I)
2 Water Testing 500.250.750.(C)
3 Meter Reading 350.(22.00)328.(B)
4 Regulatory Fees (DEQ)120.135.255.(D)
5 Meter Repair & Maint 500.(522.55)977.45 (G)
6 Well Repair & Maint 400.400.
7 Elec & Gas 500.(342.03)157.(F)
8 Maint & Repair 900.158.75)741.(H)
9 Auto Expense 300.12.312.(E)
10 Casual Labor 330.330.
11 Depreciation Exp 994.(771.10)222.(N)
12 Rate Case Expense Amortization 800.BOO.
13 Insurance 300.300.
14 Postage & Delivery 415.(188.80)226.(A)
15 Bookkeeping/Customer Billing 800.1 ,BOO.
16 Legal Fees 228.228.
17 Management Fees 2,400.2,400.
18 Property Taxes 120.120.
19 Income Taxes 50.(50.00)(P)
20 Total Expenses 18,567.217.58) $349.42
21 Rate Base
As Filed Staff Staff
by Company Adjustments Recommendation
22 Investment in System
23 Generator 500.750.00) $750.(J)
24 New Pump 14,482.(11 982.00)500.(K)
25 Irrigation Meters 951.951.00)(L)
26 Rate Case Expense 000.000.00)(M)
27 Total 26,933.(21,683.00) $250.
. Note: Appl had incorrect total of 23 933
28 Less Accumulated Depreciation
29 Generator
30 New Pump
31 Irrigation Meters
32 Net Rate Base
34 Rate of Return
35 Net Operating Income Requirement
36 Gross-up Factor for Income Tax
37 Pre-Tax Revenue Requirement
38 Add Expenses
39 Gross Revenue Requirement
40 Inflation Factor Gross-up
41 Revenue Requirement
196.(98.00)98.(0)
$ 27 731.00 $ 5,152.
. Note: Co. Rate Base Total does not compute
$ 3 882.34
882.
567.
. 22 449.
23,122.
618.
754.
349.42
16,103.
(P)
103.
Attaclnnent C
Case No. GNR-02-
Staff Conunents
02/21/03
Diamond Bar Estates Water Co.
PUC Staff Adjustments Worksheet
Assumes 41 Lots Improved and Taking Service
(A)Cust Billing Cost Estimate (Excluding Labor)
No. Cust
Mo. Postage
Materials
Cust Billing Cost / Mo.14.
Annual Billing Cost 172.20
NP & Correspondence (Excluding Labor)
Cks(correspondence) / Mo.
Postage
Materials
Cost / Mo
Annual Cost 54.
Total Postage & Supplies $226.
(B)Meter Reading
Cost per Lot per Read
Number of Lots
Number of Reads per Year
Annual Cost $328.
(C)Water Testing (6 year cycle Normalized)750.
Expense Included in Application 500.
Adjustment $250.
(0)Regulatory Fees
DEQ ($5/ Customer)205.
PUC (Statutory Minimum)50.
Total $255.
(E)Auto Expense
Round Trip Mileage to Coeur d'Alene
Trips per Year
Total miles 480
1 mile per day to monitor system 365
Total Annual Miles 845
Mileage allowance per Mile
Total Annual Cost $312.
Attachment D
Case No. GNR-O2-
Staff Comments
02/21/03 Page 1 of 4
Diamond Bar Estates Water Co.
PUC Staff Adjustments Worksheet
Assumes 41 Lots Improved and Taking Service
(F)ElectricPower
Recalculate for 41 Users
Billing Pumphouse Electric
Date Vendor Gas Heat Pumping Total
Aug-01 Avista
Kootenai 236.236.
Sep-01 Avista
Kootenai 429.429.
Oct-01 Kootenai 360.360.
Nov-O1 Avista 29.29.
Kootenai 323.323.
Dec-01 Avista 75.75.
Kootenai 116.116.
Jan-02 Kootenai 79.79.
Avista 114.114.
Feb-02 Kootenai 72.72.
Avista 129.129.
Mar-02 Kootenai 70.70.43
Avista 115.47 115.47
Apr-02 Kootenai 67.67.
Avista 69.69.
May-02 Avista 35.35.
Kootenai 78.43 7B.43
Jun-02 Avista 76.76.
Kootenai 86.86.
Jul-02 Avista
200.200.
$656.124.780.
Actual Consumption (Gallons)939 320
Pump Power Cost 000 Gal
Annualized Consumption (41 Customers) (000 GaL)737
Annualized Pumping System Elec Cost 501.
Add Pumphouse Gas Heat 656.
Total Annualized Power Cost 157.
Attachment D
Case No. GNR-O2-
Staff Comments
02/21/03 Page 2 of 4
Diamond Bar Estates Water Co.
PUG Staff Adjustments Worksheet
Assumes 41 Lots Improved and Taking Service
(G)Meter Repair and Maintenance
As Booked by Company 1,493.
Eliminate Irrigation meter purchase (516.29)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total 977.
(H)Maintenance Exp.
As Booked by Company 900.
Remove Dev. Co. Costs 158.75)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total 741.
(I)Meter Statements Expense
As proposed by Company $560.
Reverse and Remove (560.00)
$0.
(J)Generator Investment
As Proposed by Company 500.
Eliminate 1/2 750.00)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total 750.
(K)New Pump Investment
As Proposed by Company 14,482.
Eliminate Insurance Paid Portion (11 982.00)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total 500.
(L)Meters Investment
As Proposed by Company 951.
Reverse to Remove 951.00)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total
(M)Unamortized Rate Case Expense
As Proposed by Company 000.
Eliminate From Rate Base 000.00)
PUC Staff Adjusted Total
(N)Depreciation Expense
1 Meters As Proposed by Company 74.
Reverse to Remove (74.00)
2 New Pump As Proposed by Company 724.
Eliminate Depreciation on portion
Paid by Insurance ($11 982/20 Years)(599.10)
3 Generator As Proposed by Company 196.
Eliminate 1/2 (98.00)
PUC Staff Adjustment (771.10)
Attachment D
Case No. GNR-02-
Staff Comments
02/21/03 page3 of
Diamond Bar Estates Water Co.
PUC Staff Adjustments Worksheet
Assumes 41 Lots Improved and Taking Service
(0)Accumulated Depreciation
Generator Proposed by Company 196.
Eliminate 1/2 (98.00)
PUG Staff Adjusted Total 98.
(P)Eliminate Tax Included by Company (50.00)
Substitute Tax Gross-up Calculation
Taxable 100.
State Rate
Subject to Fed Tax 96.4%
Fed Effective Rate ~ 15%14.
After Tax Net Residual 81.
Net to Gross Multiplier 220405175
Attachment D
Case No. GNR-02-
Staff Comments
02/21/03 Page 4 of 4
Di
a
m
o
n
d
B
a
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ra
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
16
,
10
4
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
s
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ch
a
r
g
e
Av
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
La
r
g
e
s
t
4
.
La
r
g
e
s
t
4
.
Av
e
Av
e
To
t
a
l
OV
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
Ba
s
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
Ch
a
r
g
e
p
e
r
Pe
r
1
0
0
0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
I
o
n
Cu
s
t
A
v
e
Cu
s
t
A
v
e
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
'
s
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
a
r
a
e
In
B
a
s
e
10
0
0
G
a
l
Fl
a
t
R
a
t
e
Ga
l
Ch
a
r
a
e
An
n
I
r
r
B
i
l
l
An
n
u
a
l
B
i
l
l
An
n
u
a
l
B
i
l
l
Mo
n
t
h
l
v
B
i
l
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
a
u
l
r
e
m
e
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
o
R
a
t
e
s
15
.
50
0
$
2
2
5
.
22
5
.
22
5
.
42
3
.
34
6
.
28
.
14
2
0
0
90
4
CO
m
n
a
n
v
P
r
o
M
s
e
d
21
.
50
0
33
9
.
42
4
.
69
3
.
6
2
47
1
.
39
.
19
,
34
6
24
2
St
a
f
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
21
.
50
0
22
6
.
28
3
.
54
5
.
39
5
.
32
.
16
,
19
6
Fla
t
R
a
t
e
0
0
1
.
32
.
39
2
.
39
2
.
32
.
16
,
10
3
.
N
o
t
e
:
L
a
r
g
e
s
t
F
o
u
r
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
T
o
t
a
l
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
Oc
r
:
o
:
;
:
.
tV
.
-
"
'
::
l
:
-
N
~
~
~
::
:
:
:
oZ
S
0
0
...
.
.
'-
"
g
6
...
.
g
~
,
.
,
vr
~
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
E
Diamond Bar Estates Case No. GNR-02-
Effect of Company response to Staff Comments on Revenue Requirement
(I) Technical Computer Support
Initial Amount
Return
Net Operating Income Requirement
Gro.ss-up Factor
Revenue Requirement
Add 5 Yr Amortization
Total Additional Revenue Requirement
(J) Backup Generator
Co. Proposed original Investment Amount
Included by Staff
Additional I nitiall nvestment(0) Addl Accumulated Depreciation
Additional Net Investment
Return
Net Operating Income Requirement
Gross-up Factor
Revenue Requirement
(J) New Investment (Borrowed Funds)(0) Additional Accumulated Depreciation
Net Additional Investment
Return (Debt Service Cost)
Net Operating Income Requirement
Gross-up Factor
Revenue Requirement
(N) Add Depreciation Expense
Bldg & Concrete Pad (40 Yr Life)
Elec Trans/Switching (25 Yr Life)
Addl1/2 Generator (25 Yr Life)
Additional Revenue Requirement
Total Additional Revenue Requirement
(L) Irrigation Meters
Total Investment
Return
Net Operating Income Requirement
Gross-up Factor
Revenue Requirement
(N) Add Depreciation Expense (40 Yr Life)
Total Additional Revenue Requirement
(M) Rate Case Expense (5 Yr Amortization)
Accounting Expenditures (unsupported)
Legal Expendatures (unsupported)
Additional Accounting Estimate (unsupported)
Additiona Legal Estimate (unsupported)
Appeal Contingency
Total Additional Revenue Requirement
Inflation Adjustment at 3%
Not Quantified by Co. But if applied to
All Operating Expense
Elec & Gas Only
CORRECTED 1/10/03
Avg Monthly Cost
Per Customer
560.
12%
67.
81.
112.
193.
$ 5,500.
750.00)
$ 2 750.
(98.00)
$ 2 652.
12.00%
318.
388.
$ 6,388.
$ 6,388.
75%Note: Prime rate 4.25% effective 11/07/02 + 1/2%
303.43N/A Note: Debt interest is tax deductable
303.43 $
$ 3,838.
500.
750.
95.
100
110
$ 609.38 $
$ 1,301.06 $
$ 2 951.
12%
$ 354.$ 1.
432.
73.
505.
$ 500.
585.
800.
900.
215.
$ 4 000.
100 $
117
160
180
243
800 $
0.49
15349.42
4157.
460.4826 $
124.7391 $
Di
a
m
o
n
d
B
a
r
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Ra
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
St
a
f
f
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
v
R
q
m
t
Co
m
p
a
n
y
R
e
p
l
y
R
e
v
R
q
m
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
16
,
10
4
19
,
36
5
.
-
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Do
m
e
s
t
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
To
t
a
l
s
lo
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
ov
e
r
IC
h
a
n
g
e
I
n
St
a
f
f
(U
n
d
e
r
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
Ch
a
r
g
e
Av
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Av
e
Av
e
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Co
m
p
a
n
y
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
'
s
Ba
s
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
Ch
a
r
g
e
p
e
r
Pe
r
1
0
0
0
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
p
l
y
R
e
v
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
De
s
c
r
l
D
t
i
o
n
Ch
a
r
l
i
e
In
B
a
s
e
10
0
0
G
a
l
Fl
a
t
R
a
t
e
Ga
l
Ch
a
r
l
I
e
An
n
u
a
l
B
i
l
l
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
B
i
l
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Ra
m
t
Bil
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
a
R
a
t
e
s
15
.
50
0
$
2
2
5
.
22
5
.
34
6
.
28
.
14
,
20
0
90
4
16
5
Co
m
D
a
n
v
P
r
o
D
o
s
e
d
21
.
50
0
33
9
.
47
1
.
39
.
19
,
34
6
24
2
/1
9
13
6
%
St
a
f
f
P
r
o
D
o
s
a
l
21
.
50
0
22
6
.
39
5
.
32
.
16
,
19
6
/3
,
16
9
11
4
%
Fla
t
R
a
t
e
O
D
t
32
.
39
2
.
32
.
16
,
10
3
26
2
11
3
%
Es
t
o
f
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
P
r
o
D
o
s
e
d
R
a
t
e
O
o
t
i
o
n
15
.
$0
.
70
-
$
0
.
$
2
5
0
.
25
0
.
41
9
.
34
.
20
2
09
8
16
3
12
1
%
St
a
f
f
P
r
o
D
o
s
a
l
w
i
t
h
C
o
R
e
D
l
Y
R
e
v
R
a
m
t
27
.
50
0
22
6
.
47
3
.
39
.
4
2
19
,
39
4
29
0
'
$
13
7
%
Fl
a
t
R
a
t
e
O
a
t
.
W
i
t
h
C
o
.
R
e
D
l
Y
R
e
v
R
a
m
t
39
.
46
8
.
39
.
19
,
18
6
06
4
/1
7
7
13
5
%
Co
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
(
0
4
/
1
0
/
0
3
)
Re
v
i
s
e
d
(
0
4
/
0
1
/
0
3
)
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
E
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
WY'"\\kn ~rl\e"~ Sl.\h'Y1 ~"'i"Z.in ~ -tes-h'iYlOY1 a--
YY1 i K~ ~ha.11 . kpn l 2..~) Zoo s.
Diamond Bar Water
Basis of proposal
During 12 month period 11/1/2001 to 10/31/2002 there were 34 homes on the system for
the entire period.
17 used less than 90 000 gallons (7500 x 12) during the period, the remainder used over
000 gallons, In at least 1 case the homeowner was charged for using over 7500
gallons in a month, even though the total usage was 55 000 gallons.
During the swnmer of 2002 there were 19 homes on the irrigation system.
Currently there are 41 homes on the system.
Proposal for new rates:
Irrigation to be a flat rate of $250/summer. Assuming the 19 from last year renew plus
the 4 others know to be planning on using irrigation this produces $5750.
Assuming the usage of the 34 does not change and the 7 new homes use the average of
the 17 who used less than 90k gals. (52256) the base usage of all amounts up to 90k
gallons would be 2 740 092 gals. and the excess would be 1 674 310 gals.. At the rate of
50/1000 up to 90k and 0,711000 above this generates $2 542.
All lot owners benefit from the system, regardless of whether or not they are hooked up,
Therefore all 45 lots should pay an annual fee of $180, to maintain the system. This
produces $8100. (If the PUC feels they receive no economic benefit from having the
system available, and thus they can t be billed the remaining 41 homes would have to
pick up that share of the cost ((180 x 4)/41) = $17.56/year) 197.56.
Total revenue to the water co. $16 392.
Why the new proposal?
Development was sold on the premise of flat rate irrigation!
II.It is not fair for some lot owners to escape responsibility for basic system maintenance,
in as much as the system is there for their future use or to enhance the future selling price,
III.It is not fair to charge homeowners for water they do not use, thus the charges based on a
12 month period. If someone currently uses over 7500 gals in a swnmer month they are
charged an excess rate (the same holds true in the Staff proposal) but, if one month during
the period Nov, - Mar. they go over 7500 but if the average for the 5 months is less than
7500 there is no excess fee,
Mike Meehan Comment Summary
of Oral Testimony at Public Hearing
held April 29, 2003
Page 1 of 2
IV.The annual fee would be billed upon approval by the PUC of the new structure, Usage
could be billed on a bi-monthly, quarterly, or other basis to avoid billing for small
amounts, i.e. 7000 gallons would produce a bill of$3,50,
M. R. Meehan
2003/04/29
Mike Meehan Comment Summary
of Oral Testimony at Public Hearing
held April 29, 2003
Page 2 of 2