HomeMy WebLinkAboutwater.pdfIdaho Water Utilities
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission regulates 25 privately operated water companies varying
from United Water Idaho with more than 70,000 customers to utilities serving a few homes in residential
subdivisions or mobile home parks. Regulated companies comprise less than 1 percent of about 2,600
systems that supply drinking water to Idahoans. Most of the unregulated systems belong to and are run
without profit by homeowners associations. Many others are municipal systems operated by local
governments.
The rates listed are strictly representative of residential customers and may not reflect actual rates paid by a
specific customer.
Date
Name No. of Hook-up Mo. Residential Rates1 Rates Last
of Utility CustomersFee (unless otherwise noted) Revised
Bar Circle “S” 145 $750 $15/0-7,500 gals. 02/01/90
Water Inc. $0.95/1,000 gals. over 7,500 gals.
Bitterroot 101 $750 $20/0-15,000 gals. 08/12/99
Water Co. $0.75/1,000 gals. over 15,000 gals.
Brian Water Co. 47 $10.50/0-4,000 gals. 05/01/99
$1.08/1,000 gals. over 4,000 gals.
Capitol Water 2,776 $15.82/mo Oct-April 06/01/02
Corp. $27.22/mo May-Sept
Country Club 125 $300 $14.00/0-30,000 gals. 02/23/90
Hills Utilities $0.35/1,000 gals. over 30,000 gals.
Eagle Water 2,600 $845 $7.84/0-600 cf. 03/25/87
Co., Inc. $0.451/100 cf. over 600 cf.
Humpy’s 16 $60+ $3.25/0-6,000 gals. 05/01/63
Water Co. actual cost $0.10/1,000 gals. over 6,000 gals.
Evergreen 34 $600 $15/0-7,500 gals. 11/10/87
Water Co. $0.35/1,000 gals. over 7,500 gals.
Falls Water 2,122 $500 $11.50/0-20,000 gals. 12/15/03
Co., Inc. $0.41/1,000 gals. over 20,000 gals.
Algoma Water 27 $17.59/mo. 09/01/96
Grouse Point
Water Co. 23 $25.00/mo. 09/01/99
Diamond Bar
Estates 45 $21.00 first 7,500 gallons 6/1/03
45 cents per 1,000 gallons over 7,500 gal
--PAGE 57--
Name No. of Hook-up Mo. Residential Rates1 Rates Last
of Utility CustomersFee (unless otherwise noted) Revised
Happy Valley 26 $500 $27.00/0-20,000 gals. 12/15/99
Water System $0.70/1,000 over 20,000 gals.
Island Park 259 $125/yr. 07/01/92
Water Co.
Morning View 57 1/4 acre - $22/mo. 09/1/02
Water Co., Inc. 1/2 acre - $28.45/mo
1 acre - $35.70/mo
Murray Water 33 $125 $26/mo. 11/01/94
Works + labor
Packsaddle Estates 35 $430 $34.24/mo. 06/03/96
Water Co.
Picabo Livestock 29 $500 Summer: $26/mo. 04/27/94
Co. Winter: $14/mo.
Ponderosa $2,500 full time - $48/mo 8/1/02
Terrace Estates part time - $48/mo
service to lot - $25/mo
Rickel Water Co. 20 $6,000 $30/0-15,000 gals. 04/25/97
$1.10/1,000 gals. over 15,000 gals.
Spirit Lake 250 $650 $12/0-9,000 gals. 12/01/83
East Water Co. $1/1,000 gals. over 9,000 gals.
Stoneridge 34 $925 $14 +$0.30/1000 gals. 4/05/02
Water Co. For all consumption
Sunbeam 22 $12/0-12,000 gals. 05/31/83
Water Co. $1.20/1,000 gals. over 12,000 gals.
Troy Hoffman 144 $458 $5.50/0-3,000 gals. 08/01/96
Water Co. $0.60/1,000 gals. over 3,000 gals.
United Water 74,177 Summer: $14.57/bimonthly 09/05/00
Idaho $1.6418/1,000 gals.
Winter: $14.57/bimonthly
$1.3134/1,000 gals.
East Moreland 16 $3.25/0-600 gallons 1/22/02
$0.10/per 1,000 gallons over 6,000
gallons
Ponderosa 10 full-time $48 per month 8/1/02
Terrace 23 part-time $ 25 per month
--PAGE 58--
Water Utility Case Reviews
Dec. 15, 2003
RATE INCREASE APPROVED FOR FALLS WATER
Case No. FLS-W-03-1, Order No. 29397
Customers of Falls Water Company near Idaho Falls will pay about 24 percent more for water
service.
Falls Water serves about 2,100 residential and business customers east of Idaho Falls and north of
Ammon. The company originally requested a 46 percent increase from the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission and then revised its application downward to 38 percent. The commission ultimately
approved a 24 percent increase in total revenue.
For the average metered residential customer, the increase will be about 17 percent, from about
$162 annually to $190 per year. For residential customers without meters and on a flat rate, the increase
will be about 27 percent, from about $165 annually to $210. The majority of Falls Water customers –
1,500 – are on meters and there are 574 flat-rate customers. Rates for 30 metered commercial customers
will increase by 21 percent. Most of the increase for all customers is in the base charge, which increases
from $10 per month to $11.50 per month.
The commission authorized an $82,241 increase in revenue, based on a rate of return of 12
percent. The company requested $132,745 in increased revenue. Because the utility operates as a non-
profit entity, the commission directed the company to continue to use retained earnings for capital
improvements, repair and replacement of equipment.
In its application submitted last July, Falls Water stated it was operating at a loss. Nine hundred of
1500 meters are in need of replacement over the next 10 years and maintenance on fire hydrants is not
being completed due to lack of funds and manpower, the company stated. Also, about 50 street valves are
in disrepair with an additional 25 that need installing.
Commissioners recognized the economic hardship the increase will cause some customers. “While
not insensitive to the economic circumstances of customers, we note that we also have an obligation to
Falls Water to set rates at a level sufficient to recover its costs of production and service.”
The commission noted that the company offers little incentive to flat-rate customers to conserve
and suggested the company use a bill message or some other method to give flat-rate customers
suggestions on water conservation and the wise use of water.
Dec. 22, 2003
CAPITOL WATER CUSTOMERS WILL PAY LESS
Case No. CAP-W-03-1, Order No. 29401
One of two surcharges assessed the nearly 2,800 customers of Capitol Water goes away next
month while a second surcharge increases slightly. The result is a net decrease of $2.82 per month for flat-
rate customers and 27 percent for metered customers. Capitol Water serves about 2,800 customers in
southwest Boise.
A $400,000 loan the company secured in 1997 is being paid off early resulting in the elimination
of a $3.27 per month surcharge assessed flat-rate customers and an additional 25.2 percent increase
charged to metered customers. The loan account, scheduled to be retired in August 2004, had accrued
surplus funds that will now be used to retire the $63,000 loan balance.
--PAGE 59--
However, flat-rate customers will notice a reduction of only $2.82 to their bills because the
commission’s order authorizing the elimination of the 1997 loan surcharge also approves a 45-cent per
month increase in a surcharge added to customer bills in 2002 for a second loan for $500,000 the
company took out to finance system improvements.
The commission said the company was under-collecting the amount needed to pay off the second
loan because it had not taken into account yearly changes in the electric rates the company pays to Idaho
Power and also did not include income taxes for years 2001 and 2002. “The purpose of including these
items in the calculation it to make Capitol Water whole, neither benefiting nor penalizing the company,”
the commission said. Commission staff expressed concern that potential shortages in the second surcharge
account could cause the company to file a general rate case to recover those costs.
Residential flat-rate customers were paying $3.10 a month on the second loan and metered
customers were paying an additional 23.6 percent. That rate now increases to $3.55 per month for flat-rate
customers and 27 percent for metered customers.
Feb. 2, 2004
UNITED WATER NO LONGER REQUIRED TO SEEK COURT RULING
Case No. UWI-W-03-1, Order No. 29423
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission will no longer require United Water to ask a court to
determine whether a Boise city ordinance allowing an increase in the franchise fee from 3 to 4 percent and
potentially up to 5 percent violates the Legislature’s 3 percent cap imposed on franchise fees in 1995.
After the commission’s November order to United Water, the Boise City Council, on Dec. 16, 2003,
repealed the resolution and returned the franchise fee to 3 percent.
The commission ordered United Water to refund its customers the 1 percent franchise fee
collected between Oct. 1 and Dec. 16, which, according to the company, totals about $50,000.
On July 22, 2003, the Boise City Council passed a resolution to increase United Water’s franchise
fees to 4 percent effective Oct. 1, 2003. A 1995 ordinance passed by the City Council makes it possible
for United Water to seek a franchise fee of up to 5 percent after Oct 1, 2005.
Commission staff questioned whether the increased fee violates a law passed by the 1995
Legislature that caps franchise fees at 3 percent and whether it violates the Idaho Constitution.
The commission said the 1995 state legislation makes clear that the Legislature intended franchise
fees not to exceed 3 percent as a general rule. Several municipalities were contemplating implementation
of franchise fees at the time the Legislature passed the 3 percent cap to create a uniform franchise
structure. When the Boise City Council passed its 1995 ordinance allowing up to 5 percent, the council
made it retroactive to November 1994, before the Legislature approved the 3 percent cap.
While the Boise City Council’s repeal of the 1 percent increase negates the need for United Water
to seek a court resolution, commission staff noted that the underlying legality of the city’s 1995 ordinance
is still not addressed.
April 9, 2004
PUC DENIES UNITED WATER LEVEL-PAY PLAN
Case No. UWI-W-04-1, Order No. 29455
Citing conservation and cost issues, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission denied United Water’s
request to implement a budget-billing program that would allow residential customers to volunteer to pay
level monthly payments.
--PAGE 60--
United Water’s 74,000 customers in the Boise metropolitan area now receive six bi-monthly
statements a year, two during the summer months that include rates 25 percent higher than the rest of the
year.
The higher summer rate, when use is at peak demand, sends appropriate pricing signals to
customers and encourages responsible water use, the commission said. “The company’s proposed budget
bill proposal would diminish that water pricing signal and conservation message.”
Unlike electric and natural gas utilities that have level-pay programs, United Water is dependent
on local water supply from the aquifer and surface water, the commission noted. “We must encourage
good stewardship of the potable waters United Water customers rely on and use for discretionary summer
irrigation and sprinklers.”
Level-pay plans take a customer’s previous 12 months’ history of payments, totals them and
spreads them over 12 monthly budget bills.
Commissioners noted that United Water’s estimate of $72,000 for program costs during the first
year is not a one-time expense, but represents the estimated annual cost of running the program assuming
just 15 percent of customers agreed to participate. The actual cost of the program and the amount of
customer participation is not known, the commission said. “In addition to all that uncertainty, we find the
estimated program costs to be costly.”
United Water asked that the $72,000 be deferred for recovery from all customers in a future rate
case. The commission noted comments from some customers who supported the level-pay program, but
only if those who volunteer to participate bear the program costs.
Nov. 10, 2004
COMMISSION APPROVES WATER SYSTEM SALE TO NAMPA
Case No. UWI-W-04-3, Order No. 29625
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has approved the sale of a Nampa subdivision water
system to the City of Nampa from United Water. The order also removes the Carriage Hill subdivision
from United Water’s service territory to Nampa’s municipal water service.
The commission approved the $375,000 sale price, but said a $28,138 risk premium that was to be
paid to United Water’s parent company should be passed on to customers instead in the company’s
upcoming rate case.
The developers of Carriage Hill reached an agreement in 1998 with United Waterworks under
which United Waterworks would loan the developers up to $350,000 to finance a water supply system for
Carriage Hill.
Once the subdivision grew beyond 25 lots, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
required a second source of supply. Carriage Hill developers informed United Water that they did not
have the funds to construct a second well.
United Water proposed to sell the domestic water system to the City of Nampa for $375,000. The
city expressed interest because of its view that multiple water suppliers within or near its boundaries are
not in the best interest of citizens.
The commission, in approving the sale, noted that Carriage Hill is a non-contiguous water system
geographically remote from United Water’s remaining service areas. Further, the commission said, the
city of Nampa, “has the financial, technical, and managerial capacity to serve and provide potable
drinking water to the customers of Carriage Hill, and at rates that are lower than United Water’s.”
--PAGE 61--