HomeMy WebLinkAboutwater.pdfAnnual Report 2008
P a g e | 44
Idaho Water Utilities
The commission regulates 29 privately held water systems, or only about 1
percent of the approximate 2,100 water systems in the state. The regulated systems
vary in size from companies with about 78,000 customers to companies with as few as
22 customers. These companies provide industrial, commercial and residential
customers throughout the state with drinking water as well as water for irrigation,
recreation and manufacturing. Most of the unregulated systems are operated by
homeowner associations, water districts, co‐ops and cities. The rates listed here
represent only the residential customer class and may not reflect the actual rates paid
by a specific customer.
(bh) = business hours (ah) = after hours (nm) = non‐metered (g) = gallons (cf) = cubic feet
Utility Name Number of New Hook-up Reconnect Residential Monthly Last Rate Sur-
Customers Fee Fee Rates Revision charge
1. Algoma 27 $0.00 $ 25 $ 17.59/mo. nm 7/4/2008
2. Aspen Creek 33 $1,000 $15bh/$25ah $25 up to 15,000 gal 9/25/2002
After 30 days --$75 $ 1 each 1,000 gals over
3. Bar Circle "S" 156 $250 $ 10bh/$15 ah $15 up to 7,500 gal 9/01/05
$0.95 each 1,000 gal over
4. Bitterroot 117 $750 $ 25 bh/ah $21 up to 15,000 gal 2/1/2006 $1.24 BF
$1.73 each 1,000 gal over $2.67 Valve
5. Brian 46 None approved $ 12.50 bh/ah $10.50 up to 4,000 gal 5/1/1999
$1.08 each 1,000 gal over
6. Capitol Water 2,878 None approved $20bh
Varying monthly rates for
metered and non-metered
service depending on size,
starting at $12.10 (nm) and
$7.50 (m). 1/1/2007 $3.35 nm
7. Country Club Hills Utility 144 $500 $14 bh $17 up to 30,000 gal 6/1/2005
$28 ah $0.60 each 1,000 gal over
8. Diamond Bar Estates 43 $310 $ 15 bh $ 29.00→5,500 gal 12/1/2007
$ 30 ah .80 each 1,000 gal over
9. Eagle Water Company 3,337
$845 includes
$100 study
surcharge and
$500 loan
surcharge. $15 bh/ $30 ah
Monthly flat rate starting at
$11.75 (nm); $ 7.84 up to 600
cf. metered and $0.45 for each
add 100 cf 9/30/08
10. Evergreen 36 $600 None approved $ 15 up to 7,500 gal 01/06/95
$0.35 each 1,000 gal over
11. Falls Water 3,622
Minimum $550
depending on
size
$20/bh and $40/ah
$20.17 (nm); $14 up to 01/14/08
12,000 gal and $0.667
Each 1,000 gal over
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 45
Utility Name Number of New Hook-up Reconnect Residential Monthly Last Rate Sur-
Customers Fee Fee Rates Revision charge
12. Grouse Point 23 None approved $20bh/ $40ah $22 up to 8,000 gal 1/4/2004
$0.50 each 1,000 gal over
13. Happy Valley 24 $500 $ 20bh/ah $27.00 up to 20,000 gal 8/3/2001
$0.70 each 1,000 gal over
14. Island Park 334 $200 authorized $20bh/$20ah $280/year 11/05/2008
$1100 unauthzed
15. Kootenai Heights Water 54 None approved $50 $38.50 up to 10,000 gal 6/21/2007
$3.10 each 1000 gal over
16. Mayfield Springs 54 $725 $35bh/$70ah 1” meter $22 up to 10,000 gal
$0.30 each 1,000 gal over 09/01/2008
2” meter $50 up to 20,000 gal
$0.30 each 1,000 gal over
17. Morning View 97 None approved $ 25 bh/-ah ¼ acre-$ 27.41/mo. 9/24/2007 $5 for
½ acre-$ 35.94/mo. Reserve
1 acre-$ 44.48/mo Account
18. Murray 25 $800 None approved $ 26/mo 7/15/2003
19. Pack Saddle Estates 35 $430 $ 25.00 bh/ah $25 if under 45 days 6/3/1996
$130 beyond 45 days
20. Picabo 28 $500 $ 15 involuntary $22/mo residential 7/1/2004
$ 25 voluntary $37/mo commercial
21. Ponderosa 29 $2,500 $ 35 bh/ah Resident: $ 48/mo 7/1/2003
Seasonal: $ 25/mo
22. Resort 396 None approved $ 20 bh/$60ah $ 44.80/mo per 1 ERU 3/15/2005
4X that after 30 days
23. Rickel 33 $6,000 $25 bh/ah $ 30 up to 15,000 gal 5/011997
$1.10 each 1,000 gal over
24. Spirit Lake 309 $2,500 $ 16 bh/ah $12.50 up to 9,000 gal 6/10/2007
$0.12 each 100 gal over
25. Stoneridge 334 $1,200 $18.50bh/$33.50ah $24/mo based on size 7/02/2007
30-days plus varies $0.79/1,000 gal
Per size of service
Does not
26. Sunbeam 22(?) None approved None approved $12 up to 12,000 gal 5/31/1983 File annual
$1.20 each 1,000 gal over report
27. Teton Springs 196
Certificate
issued
6/12/2008
Rates pending
28. Troy Hoffman 144 $458 $10/bh $5.50 up to 3,000 gal 8/01/1996
$0.60 each 1,000 gal over
29. United Water Idaho 83,235 See Tariff $20/ bh Winter: 7/28/2006 separate
$30/ ah $16.21 monthly plus Res flat rate,
$1.21/100 cf. Sprinkler,
Summer: and
$16.21 monthly plus Fire hydrant
$1.21 /100cf up to 3cf schedules
$1.51 for each 100 cf over
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 46
January 15, 2008
Case No. FLS‐W‐07‐01, Order No. 30484
Commission approves increase for Falls Water
The commission approved an increase in the monthly bills for metered water customers
from $11.53 to $14. Falls Water, which serves 3,200 households northeast of Idaho
Falls, had requested an increase to $16.47 per month.
That monthly rate is for the first 12,000 gallons of use. A commodity charge of 66.7
cents for every 1,000 gallons above 12,000 gallons was also approved. The company
requested a commodity charge of 73 cents per 1,000 gallons. The previous commodity
charge was 48 cents.
The commission authorized a rate of return of 7.2 percent and a return on equity of 12
percent.
Last July, Falls Water sought authorization to increase its annual revenue by $330,705, a
46.2 percent increase. Following an examination of the company’s application and an
audit by commission staff, the commission approved an annual revenue increase of
$200,060, or 27.9 percent. Commission staff conducted a workshop in Idaho Falls for
customers and a public hearing was also held in December.
Falls Water said the increase was needed to pay for new meters and other system
improvements including four line‐looping projects to improve system reliability,
pressure and service quality.
The commission removed $272,500 from Falls Water’s requested rate base, the dollar
value of the utility’s physical facilities and operating capital used to serve its customers.
The $272,500 represents costs associated with a new well that was intended to be in
service in 2007, but will not be in service until later this year. Of that total, $160,000 is
the cost of purchasing property for the site of the new well and $112,500 was for the
down payment on water rights for the well.
The commission said the cost for the new well and water rights could not yet be
included in rate base because the well is not yet benefiting customers and the company
has not yet demonstrated that the price for the property was reasonable. Further, the
well was purchased from Rockwell Development, an affiliate of Falls Water. The water
rights were purchased from a company whose former vice president is also vice
president of Falls Water.
“For affiliate expenses to be justified, the utility needs to provide compelling evidence of
arm’s length bargaining when incurring costs between the utility and an affiliate,” the
commission said.
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 47
The commission also removed $24,000 in consulting fees paid to RDI West, a subsidiary
of Frontier Property Group, the previous owner of Falls Water Company. An officer of
Frontier Group is also a director for Falls Water Company. “Our Supreme Court has ruled
that transactions between affiliated companies are to be subject to close scrutiny and
the utility has the burden of proving the reasonableness of its affiliated transactions,”
the commission said.
The commission further denied about $24,650 in expenses for renting new office space.
The office is not yet under construction, which, the commission said, makes the rental
expense too speculative to yet be included in rates.
The commission approved the company’s proposed increases in connection charges for
a 1.5‐inch meter from $825 to $930 and from $900 to $1,205 for a 2‐inch meter.
The company last requested an increase of 48.2 percent in 2005. It was ultimately
granted an average 14.4 percent increase. At that time, commissioners expressed
concern about excessive water use and/or leakage particularly in the company’s un‐
metered service area including Mobile Home Estates Subdivision, Monte Vista Estates
and First Street Mobile Park. It was at that time that the commission urged the company
to install meters. The company is in the final stages of converting about 350 remaining
flat‐rate customers to metered service.
________________________________________________________________________
February 1, 2008
Case No. UWI‐W‐07‐04, Order No. 30494
Commission denies United Water monthly billing
The commission denied a request by United Water Idaho to convert from bi‐monthly to
monthly billing and charge residential customers about $1.15 per month to do so.
Even though commission staff and an organization representing low‐income customers
endorsed the plan, the commission said a barrage of about 340 comments from the
company's customers was a factor in persuading the commission to reject the plan.
"It is clear United Water's customers fail to see a benefit, at least one sufficient to justify
the increased cost," the commission said. "The commission rarely receives as many
customer comments as it did in the case."
United Water serves about 215,000 customers in the Boise metropolitan area. Last
September the company sought commission approval to convert to monthly billings for
four reasons: 1) a monthly bill is easier for customers to pay, especially during summer
when consumption is highest, 2) monthly billing can enhance water conservation
because customers would receive four, rather than two, bills during the summer months
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 48
of high use which allows them to more quickly make adjustments, 3) monthly billing
reduces the incidents of high‐bill complaints and 4) monthly billing would double the
number of visits to customers' properties by meter readers, enabling quicker detection
and troubleshooting of leaks or meter problems.
United Water estimated the additional annual cost to convert to monthly billing would
be about $1.12 million, including the cost of new personnel for meter reading,
preparation and mailing of bills on a more frequent basis and increased processing and
administrative expenses. United Water proposed an increase of 3.75 percent in rates or
about $1.15 per month per household. Later, after discussions with commission staff,
United Water agreed to lower that increase to 2.95 percent and seek recovery of the
remaining amount in the company’s next rate case.
Commission staff as well as the Community Action Partnership of Idaho (CAPAI) said the
monthly billing would help households make their payments and alter their
consumption habits more quickly. But the vast majority of written comments received
from the company's customers said the bi‐monthly billing cycle works well enough for
them and that rates are already high enough to send a conservation signal.
The commission said it appreciated the effort United Water put into its application, but
customers overwhelmingly disputed the benefits identified by the company. "Therefore,
the commission cannot find that a rate increase to pay for the program is in the public
interest."
________________________________________________________________________
June 12, 2008
Case No. AWS‐W‐07‐01, Order No. 30567
Rates increase for customers of Bonner County water company
The commission approved an increase in rates to the approximate 30 household and
commercial customers of Algoma Water Company south of Sandpoint.
The commission also approved the sale of the company to Robert Carrier of Las Vegas
for $161,000. The previous owner is Paul Greenwood of Los Angeles. The commission
said the sale price cannot be recovered from customers.
Rates for residential customers will increase to a monthly flat rate of $27. The previous
rate was $17.59 and the company sought an increase to $36. The commercial rate
increases to a flat monthly rate of $44.50 from the current $28.15. Algoma requested an
increase to $54 per month. The new rates are anticipated to become effective within
the next two weeks after the company files its revised tariffs with the commission.
The commission also ordered the repair or replacement of the well house meter. An
investigation by commission staff determined the meter is no longer functioning and
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 49
that more than six months of records are missing from the meter logbook. Further, staff
determined that drawings for the system are inadequate. The drawings are needed to
locate shut‐off valves in case there need to be emergency shut‐offs. The commission
ordered that Algoma report to the commission when it has replaced or repaired the well
house meter and updated system drawings.
Commission staff expressed some concern about the potential for a co‐mingling of
funds with three community sewer systems in Bonner County that are also owned by
Carrier. Commission staff did not find any affiliate transactions between Algoma and the
unregulated sewer systems, but cautioned the company that when purchasing
equipment for maintenance and repairs, that the cost of such equipment be allocated
among all companies receiving a benefit from the purchase.
Algoma falls within the boundaries of the Sagle Valley Water and Sewer District. The
district objected to the sale of Algoma to any entity other than the district. However,
the commission said it does not have the authority to compel the owner of Algoma to
sell to Sagle Valley.
________________________________________________________________________
October 17, 2008
Case No. EAG‐W‐07‐01, Orders No. 30654 and 30667
Commission removes Eagle Water surcharge; denies Petition to Reconsider
A 42.5 percent surcharge on customers of Eagle Water Co. that has been in place since
October 2005 was discontinued by an order of the commission.
The surcharge was implemented to collect legal and engineering fees related to an
engineering report ordered by the commission in 2005 to address chronic low‐pressure
problems in the Eagle Water system and to project water supply needs for the future.
The surcharge increased customers’ commodity charge from 45 cents for every 100
cubic‐feet of water used beyond 600 cubic‐feet (about 4,500 gallons) to 64.2 cents.
Eagle Water Company serves about 3,000 residential customers and 415 business
customers, but is not the same as the City of Eagle Water, a municipal water system.
The commission is allowing the company to withdraw $259,049 from the surcharge fund
to pay for the study and engineering fees. Because the account already has $377,942 in
it, the surcharge has been discontinued. The remaining $118,893 in the account will be
used to pay for commission‐approved costs in the company’s next general rate case.
Eagle Water sought to recover more from the surcharge account, but the commission
denied $12,600 in legal and accounting fees. It also denied another $10,588 in
engineering fees because the company could not provide a satisfactory explanation to a
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 50
discrepancy in billing between Eagle Water and the two engineering firms hired to
conduct the study, MTC Inc. and Ward Engineering.
The commission allowed $85,477 in total engineering fees. Eagle Water requested
almost three times that amount, but the commission denied it because it was far in
excess of the company’s original estimate of $79,895.
The commission was critical of the cost overruns and the fact that Eagle Water did not
provide a written contract between MTC and Ward Engineering after the latter firm
took over the work when the MTC engineer left the firm. “The surcharge account is not
a blank check for the recovery of engineering fees,” the commission said. “The company
has a responsibility to its ratepayers to control expenses and ensure that only
reasonable and prudent expenses are incurred.”
Eagle Water later petitioned the commission to reconsider its 7 decision and on Nov. 10
(Order No. 30667), the commission denied the company’s petition.
Eagle Water petitioned that the surcharge be continued to pay for capital
improvements, including the ability to take out a $500,000 bank loan for a new well. In
denying the company’s request, the commission said the surcharge was intended to be
a temporary, short‐term measure to pay for an engineering study and its associated
costs. The commission said the bank loan is a new issue that was not a part of the
original case and, therefore, could not be considered in a petition for reconsideration.
Eagle Water said the surcharge needed to remain in place so it could secure financing
for new capital projects and to begin making capital improvements immediately. The
commission said it will expeditiously consider an application to recover costs for capital
improvements in a separate filing, but could not allow the surcharge to be used for new
expenses without commission review. “In essence, Eagle Water wants the commission
to allow the company to recover its projected costs before the company files an
application and before the commission reviews the costs,” the commission said. Further,
the commission said, the company has available to it about $120,000 remaining in the
former surcharge account, which, the commission said in its original order, can be used
to defray commission‐approved costs in the company’s next rate case.
________________________________________________________________________
July 3, 2008
Case No. EAG‐W‐08‐01, Order No. 30595
Eagle Water has until July 18 to serve mobile home park residents
The commission gave Eagle Water Company until July 18 to initiate water service to the
74 mobile homes inside Floating Feather Mobile Home Park. If not, residents may
request service from Boise‐based United Water of Idaho.
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 51
The mobile home park, at 1060 Horseshoe Bend Road (Old Highway 55), falls within the
service territory of Eagle Water Company, but the residents are served by a private well
that has been recently determined by the state Department of Environmental Quality to
be contaminated with uranium.
To address the contamination issue, the mobile home park’s owner, Rick Felix, has been
attempting to connect the mobile home park residents to Eagle Water’s system. Felix
filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that attempts since February to connect
to Eagle Water have been repeatedly delayed, despite continued assurances from the
company’s owners that connection was forthcoming.
Felix notes that United Water has a mainline on Horseshoe Bend Road adjacent to the
park. Utilities are prohibited by state law from offering services inside the certificated
area of another regulated utility without commission approval.
Eagle Water Company has not been able to add the mobile home park customers
because it is under a DEQ consent order forbidding it from adding new customers until it
addresses its lack of back‐up infrastructure within its existing system.
At a hearing before the commission, representatives of Eagle Water said they have
worked out a draft agreement with the City of Eagle that would permit Eagle Water to
interconnect with the city’s water system during times of emergency, such as a fire,
when Eagle Water’s capacity may be short. The agreement, which has yet to be
approved by the Eagle City Council, will satisfy DEQ’s concerns and lift the moratorium,
according to Eagle Water Company officials. However, DEQ officials were not present at
the hearing to verify Eagle Water’s contention.
The commission’s order says that by July 18, Eagle Water Company must notify the
commission in writing that the agreement with the city, which is for 18 months at a cost
of $4,000 per month to Eagle Water Company, is final and that the DEQ consent order
has been lifted. If not, the mobile home park residents may petition to be served by
United Water.
“We find no excuse for the company’s failure to address and remedy its system
deficiencies in a timely manner,” the commission said. “Floating Feather’s situation is a
health issue requiring immediate and prompt action. If the company were ready to
serve, it would not be subject to DEQ’s moratorium service conditions. We expect the
company to be proactive with service requests within its certificated area and not await
commission direction.”
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 52
October 17, 2008
Case No. UWI‐W‐08‐02, Order No. 30651
PUC approves sale of United Water systems to City of Nampa
The commission approved an application by United Water Idaho Inc. to sell water
systems serving some Nampa subdivisions to the City of Nampa’s municipal water
system.
The affected subdivisions are Coventry Place, M&M Mountain View Acres and Belmont
Heights. Included in the Belmont Heights territory are the Lexington Meadows and
Brittania Heights subdivisions and Nampa Charter School.
The purchase price for the water systems is $245,000. United Water proposed a sharing
of the sale proceeds between the company’s shareholders and ratepayers. The portion
going to United Water ratepayers will be reduced from the company’s rate base when it
files its next general rate case.
United Water said the sale of the water systems is in the public interest because the
growth of Nampa subdivisions is resulting in the city being served by multiple water
suppliers in close proximity. Further, United Water states, the City of Nampa is a
dependable municipal supplier and interconnection of the Belmont system with the city
will solve an existing water quality issue involving elevated levels of uranium in Belmont
Heights.
All customers other than those in the M&M Mountain View subdivision will experience
an increase in rates for water service of about 12 percent. The subdivisions fall outside
Nampa city limits and those customers pay a higher rate than those inside the city.
The commission said it has no authority over the city’s rates, but did agree that an
increase is justified because of the benefits of the sale to customers. The water quality
problems in Belmont will be resolved as a result of the sale at a lower cost than would
have been required had Belmont remained in United Water’s territory. Further, the
commission said, customers in both Belmont and Coventry will have improved fire‐
protection flows and improved access to the City of Nampa and its water services
administrative offices. Once the subdivisions are annexed, customer rates will be
reduced.
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 53
November 7, 2008
Case No. ISL‐W‐08‐01, Final Order
Rates approved for Island Park Water
State regulators granted a request by Island Park Water Company to increase rates from
$125 per year to $280 per year, but are also expecting a number of improvements to
the water system and to customer service.
Island Park Water Company asked for the increase last March, maintaining it was
necessary to meet increased operating expenses, including the higher cost of electricity,
lab fees for testing water and for labor and materials to repair and maintain pumps and
water lines. Rates have not been adjusted since the company’s last rate case in 1992.
The regulated water utility serves about 334 customers in five subdivisions of Island
Park. The service territory includes seven separate water systems on 13 wells.
Initially developed for summer use in the 1970s, the company’s service area is
increasing in year‐round occupancy and year‐round recreational weekend use, putting
increased strain on capacity. The systems are also compromised by the freezing of
mainline water pipes, some of which are buried less that the minimal depth required for
frost protection. Commission staff also reported that the water systems are poorly
maintained, with many of the wells not equipped with flow meters to monitor use, shut‐
off valves to make it possible to show down part of the system without shutting off the
entire system and no flushing hydrants.
Customers also complain about water quality, about not being notified when there are
service interruptions and an inability to contact the company’s office in Idaho Falls
because it did not have a dedicated phone line.
The commission expressed hope that new management will alleviate customer
complaints. “We are encouraged by the reorganizational changes of the company and
hope that the new management ushers in an era of better service and communication
for the customers of Island Park,” the commission said.
There is little that can be done immediately to re‐engineer the physical plant in the
ground, which was installed many years before the company was regulated. However,
the commission is requiring an engineering study to explore the costs of upgrading the
individual water systems to better serve a year‐round utility.
The commission also directed the company to do the following:
‐‐ Provide a timeline for installation of flow meters at all well‐heads.
Annual Report 2008
P a g e | 54
‐‐ Provide a timeline for installation of 2‐inch flush valves at the end of its distribution
lines.
‐‐ Implement a schedule to regularly flush all main and distribution lines.
‐‐ Develop a 5‐year engineering plan and cost estimate to ensure all mainlines are
buried below the frost line. The study should also include costs of installation of meter
bases, individual customer meters and shut‐off valves. (Currently, customers are not
metered and are assessed a flat fee.)
‐‐ Develop a formal interconnection policy for developers and individuals who want to
connect to the system and require that those connecting notify the company and allow
the company to inspect the connection. Commission staff found that new service
connection and mainline extensions are often made without prior notification to the
company.
‐‐ Install signs with contact information and notice at well‐heads regarding new
connection requirements. The company has also installed alarm systems at some of the
wells to address the problem of forced entry by some to well‐head cisterns.
‐‐ Require shut‐off valves and meter bases for all new service connections.
‐‐ Install shut‐off valves and meter bases for existing customers during periods of system
maintenance and excavations.
‐‐ Install a dedicated phone line with answering and message service and a system for
timely response to customer requests.
‐‐ Develop a protocol for scheduled service interruptions and a plan for customer
notification in the event of service interruptions.
‐‐ Establish and maintain a record of complaints and a call log.