20091030final_order_no_30936.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 30, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF EAGLE WATER
COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT A
CUSTOMER SURCHARGE
) CASE NO. EAG-09-
) ORDER NO. 30936
On January 22, 2009, Eagle Water Company filed an Application to implement an
immediate surcharge on customers' water usage in excess of 600 cubic feet per month.
addition to the surcharge, the Company also requested permission to access existing funds in its
surcharge account. The new surcharge and the balance remaining in the previous surcharge
account would be used by Eagle Water to defray the costs of several capital improvement
projects and expenses totaling about $1.5 million. Application at 3-5. In its Application, the
Company offered that the surcharge will be subject to refund if the requested improvements and
expenses are not ultimately approved by the Commission. Id. at 7. The Company requested that
the Application be processed via Modified Procedure.
On February 23 2009, the Commission granted the Company s request to implement
the requested surcharge, subject to refund. The Commission also set a deadline for intervention;
however, there were no petitions to intervene. Given the lack of intervenors, the Company and
Staff recommended that the case be processed under Modified Procedure. The Commission
agreed and directed that Staff and other interested parties file comments on August 27, 2009.
Order No. 30878 at 4. The Company filed a timely response to the Staffs comments on
September 18 , 2009. After reviewing the record in this case, the Commission issues this Order
granting in part and denying in part the Company s Application.
THE APPLICATION
Eagle Water serves approximately 3,400 customers in and around the City of Eagle.
Its water supply is currently provided from six wells (Well Nos. 1 , 2, 3 , 6 and 7). A seventh
well (Well No.8) has recently been drilled but is not yet operational. Staff Comments at 4.
Many if not most of the capital improvements for which the Company requests recovery were
required to be implemented by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
ORDER NO. 30936
In its Application, Eagle Water sought to recover the costs of constructing several
capital projects that are either complete or under construction. In addition, the Company
requested recovery of its $10 000 per month "tie-" expense with the City of Eagle , $600 in
accounting fees, and approximately $37 500 in legal fees. The costs of the capital improvements
and other expenses are outlined below.
Capital Improvements Completed
Well No.
Floating Feather Pressure Reducing Valve
Tie-In to City of Eagle
Rebuild Well No.
Sub Total
Capital Improvements in Progress
Main Booster Station (Motor & Generator)
Well No.
Sub Total
Expenses
Legal & Accounting Fees
Prior Surcharge Application Legal Fees
Engineering Report Legal Fees
Surcharge Extension Applic. Legal Fees
Surcharge Extension Accounting Fees
Legal & Accounting Fees Sub Total
Eagle City Tie-In Expense ($lO OOO/month)
Sub Total
Cost
$605 988
$ 43 630
$ 22 347
$ 59,755
$731 720
Cost
$175 100
$636,520
$811 620
Cost
$ 6 048
$16 554
$14 906
600
$38 108
$60,000
$98 108
The combined total for the capital improvement projects is $1 543 340 ($731 720 +
$811 620) and the total for expenses is $98, I 08. See Order No. 30878 at 2.
To defray the costs set out above, the Company proposed to borrow $995 500 from
the Idaho Banking Company. According to the proposed terms of the bank loan, Eagle Water
will borrow $995 500 at 6.75% over a term of seven years. Application, Exh. E. To repay the
loan, the Company proposed to implement an immediate surcharge of 48.075% for usage above
600 cubic feet per month.
I In Case No. EAG-08-, the Company agreed to pay the City of Eagle $10 000 per month for interconnection
so that the utility could serve the Floating Feather Mobile Home Park.
2 In Order No. 30734, the Commission authorized the Company to take out the bank loan. However, Staff noted in
its comments that the loan had not been executed. Comments at 18.
ORDER NO. 30936
In addition to the surcharge, the Company also requested permission to access the
available balance in the surcharge account. At the time of the Application, the Company
reported the current balance in the surcharge account was approximately $218 000. Application
at n.3. The Company proposed to use these surcharge account funds to complete work on the
main booster pump and Well No.8. Id. at 6. Completion of Well No.8 will allow the Company
to terminate its tie-in agreement with the City of Eagle, thereby saving $10 000 per month.
Even with the surcharge, Eagle Water asserted that its overall rates "would remain
well below those of the City of Eagle and United Water of Idaho." Application, Exh. H. Eagle
Water maintained that an immediate surcharge (subject to refund) is necessary to ease its cash
flow restrictions "brought about by the need to complete Well No.7 and the City of Eagle tie-
in order to satisfy DEQ regulatory requirements and lift the sanitary restrictions moratorium.
Application at 7. The current constriction of the Company s cash flow severely limits Eagle
Water s "ability to meet current demands for payment of other capital improvements that are
underway.Id.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Commission Staff convened a public workshop concerning the Application on
August 26, 2009. No customers attended this workshop. In addition to the workshop, the
Commission received three written comments regarding the proposed surcharge.All three
customers opposed the surcharge. However, one customer thought it was an increase to base
rates and another customer thought the proposed surcharge was in addition to the previous
surcharge. 3 The three comments were filed shortly after the Company filed its Application and
before the workshop.
UNDISPUTED ISSUES
system.
A. Connection to the City's Water System
In July 2008, Eagle Water interconnected its system with the City of Eagle s water
This interconnection was a recommendation of the Company s Final Engineering
Report and endorsed by DEQ. Interconnection satisfied system pressure and flow requirements
in the event that Eagle Water lost its largest (and most critical) supply source. In its Intertie
3 In Order No. 30667 issued November 5, 2008, the Commission ordered the Company to terminate its previous rate
surcharge. See also Order No. 30734 at 1.
ORDER NO. 30936
Agreement with the City, Eagle Water was obligated to pay $10 000 per month commencing on
the date the interconnection was completed and approved by DEQ.
In its comments, Staff noted that the interconnection was a short-term solution to the
source of supply problem. Staff suggested that the long-term solution is the development of
another well that would satisfy Eagle Water s system pressure and flow requirements. Staff
Comments at 10. In response, the Company is developing a new well (Well No.8 discussed
below) that will eliminate the interconnection requirement with the City of Eagle. Id.
Staff recommended that the Company be allowed to recover its capital costs for the
interconnection of $22 805 and the monthly charge to the City of Eagle. As indicated in
Attachment 4 to Staff comments, Staff recommended that the Company recover $110 000 (11
months) for its tie-in expenses with the City of Eagle.
In its reply comments, Eagle Water did not address or object to Staffs
recommendation to recover $22 805 in capital costs and $110 000 in tie-in expenses.
Commission Finding: The Commission adopts Staff s recommendation and finds the
Company s reasonable capital costs are $22 805. The Commission further finds that the
reasonable tie-in expenses are $110 000 for the 11 months that Eagle Water was connected with
the City s system.
B. Pressure Reducing/Sustaining Valve
The Final Engineering Report identified that Eagle Water should install an automatic
pressure reducing/sustaining valve (PRSV) as required by DEQ. Staff Comments at 10. In
compliance with the Engineering Report, the Company installed the PSRV to provide a more
consistent hydraulic grade line in the upper pressure zone of Eagle Water s system. Construction
ofthe PRSV was completed in the summer of 2008.
Staff determined that the Company s proposed cost in installing the PRSV was
reasonable and recommended that the Company recover $43 765 through the surcharge. The
Company did not object to Staffs recommendation.
Commission Finding: The Commission finds it reasonable for the Company to
recover $43 765 from the surcharge account for installing the PRSV.
C. Main Booster Pump Modification
The Engineering Report also recommended that the Company modify its Well No.
booster station to provide pumping redundancy. Engineering Report at 12. The Company
ORDER NO. 30936
installed a 100-hp pump in parallel with the existing 60-hp pump. The new pump is currently in
operation. The new pump cost $99,400. Application at 4.
In addition to the new pump, the Company also planned to install a flow recorder.
Staff agreed that a flow recorder was appropriate. The parties agreed that a flow recorder should
cost approximately $8 000. Consequently, Staff recommended the total project cost for pump
installation, flow meter installation, and engineering is $107 400. Comments at 12. The
Company did not object to Staffs recommendation.
Commission Finding: The Commission finds that it is appropriate for the Company
to recover $107,400 from the surcharge for improvements to the main booster pump for Well
No.
D. Accounting Fees
The Company has requested and Staff agreed that the Company should recover a total
of $1 200 in accounting fees for this case and its accounting expenses in Case No. EAG-07-
01. The parties asserted the accounting fees were reasonable and recommended that $1 200 be
recovered from the surcharge fund.
Commission Finding: Given our review of the Application and the agreement of the
parties, the Commission finds it appropriate for Eagle Water to recover $1 200 in accounting
fees.
E. Legal Fees
1. Fees for the Engineering Report and Prior Surcharge. As part of its Application
the Company sought to recover its legal fees for preparation of the Final Engineering Report and
the surcharge extension application in the prior case. These fees totaled $31 477.
Staff recommended that the Company be allowed to recover its actual legal fees for
Case Nos. EAG-05-02 and EAG-07-01 in the amount of$30 306. The difference between
Staffs recommendation and the Company s request is attributable to Staffs removal of late
charges in the amount of $1 171. In its comments, Staff noted that it is "a long-standing policy
of the Commission that expenses such as late payment fees and penalty fees not be recovered
from customers. See , Order No. 30667 at 3." Staff Comments at 15. Staff insisted that the
Company has control of when and how its expenses are paid and that it appears that there were
sufficient funds in the surcharge account to defray these legal expenses. Id. at 16.
ORDER NO. 30936
In its reply, Eagle Water did not address Staffs recommendation to remove the late
payment charge from the legal fees for the two prior cases.
Commission Finding: With the exception of late payment fees, the Commission
agrees with the parties that the legal fees for the two prior cases should be recovered from the
surcharge account. After removing $1 171 in late/penalty fees, we find that the Company should
recover its legal fees for the two prior cases in the amount of $30 306. Ratepayers should not
required to pay late fees or interest on past due balances when it is the utility that controls how
and when its expenses are paid.
2. Legal Fees for this Case. The Company also requested that it be authorized to
recover its legal fees to process this case in the amount of approximately $15 000. As of August
2009, Staff noted that the legal billings for this case totaled $12 062. Staff Comments at 16.
Staff also recognized that this amount does not include any legal fees for the preparation of the
Company s reply or supplementing discovery. Consequently, Staff believed that the Company
request to recover its actual legal fees for this case not to exceed $15 000 is reasonable.
However, legal fees incurred above this amount should not be recovered from the surcharge and
should be deferred for subsequent review and recovery. Id. at 16.
Commission Finding:Based upon our review, we find it reasonable for the
Company to recover its actual legal fees for this case not to exceed $15 000. The Company shall
report its actual legal fees for this case within 14 days of the service date ofthis Order.
DISPUTED ISSUES
A. Generator Cost for Well No.
1. Eagle Water.Eagle Water was required to bring on Well No.7 as additional water
supply to meet DEQ service requirements as set out in the Engineering Report. Because Well
No.7 is a new water source, DEQ requires that it be equipped with a standby power supply.
Consequently, the Company installed a 365-kW diesel-powered generating unit. Well No.7 was
brought online serving customers on August 8 , 2006. The Company initially requested to
recover a total cost of $605 988 for construction of Well No.
2. Staff Comments. Following discussions with the Company, the parties agreed that
the cost of Well No.7 totaled $576 653. Staff Comments, Atch. 1. With one exception noted
below, Staff found that the costs incurred by the Company to complete and install Well No.
were reasonable compared to other jobs of similar size and scope. Id. at 7. Even though an
ORDER NO. 30936
affiliate company was used to provide the equipment and labor to complete Well No., Staff
found that Eagle Water spent considerably less money than it would have spent had it hired an
independent third-party contractor to complete project construction. Id.
Staff did take one exception to the cost of the standby power generator. Staff
complained that the Company "oversized" the backup generator for Well No.7. Although Staff
does not disagree with the Company s decision to purchase a used generator, it disagreed with
the size of the purchased generating unit. Consequently, Staff proposed an adjustment of
$10 356 ($28 000/365 kW x 135 kW) to the total cost of Well No.7. Id. Staff recommended
that $351 297 be added to rate base and $215 000 be recovered by the surcharge. Staff
Comments at 8.
3. Eagle Water Response. Eagle Water objected to Staffs cost adjustment for the
backup generating unit. While it is true that a smaller pump could have been used, the Company
asserted that Staff "ignores the real world fact that a new standby generator would have cost the
Company a minimum of $45 000 up to a maximum of $75 000, while the current unit costs a
mere $28 000." Eagle Water Reply Comments at 1. In its reply, Eagle Water provided quotes
from an electric supplier that showed the costs for a new generator as between $45 000 and
$75 000. Exhibit J. Consequently, the Company maintained that its purchase of the used unit
represented a cost savings to its customers of between $17 000 and $47 000.
Eagle Water s outside engineer also disputed Staffs adjustment for Well No.7. In
particular, MTC indicated that Staffs adjustment does not reflect the considerably larger cost in
purchasing a new - but smaller - standby generator. Exhibit K. It is difficult "to believe that
less is more when the generator is for standby purposes and will probably only be started for test
purposes (not) more than one time per week." Id.
The Company also noted that the unit is only a "standby power source " not the
primary power source for Well No.7. Id. at 2. In addition, Eagle Water argued that Staff did not
provide any factual documentation to support its adjustment of$10 356 from the bargain price of
$28 000. Id.
Commission Finding: The Commission finds that the Staff-proposed adjustment of
$10 356 to the total cost of Well No.7 is not appropriate. We find that Eagle Water has
adequately addressed Staffs proposed adjustment. We find that the Company acted reasonably
when it purchased a used generator for Well No.7. Although the standby generator may be
ORDER NO. 30936
larger than needed, customers are well served by the lower-cost, used generator. Consequently,
we find the reasonable total cost for Well No.7 is $576 653. We approve an increase in the
Company s rate base of $361 653 for Well No.7 and allow the Company to also recover
$215 000 from the surcharge.
B. Rebuilding Well No.
1. Eagle Water.Well No.4 is currently the largest well in Eagle Water s system and
its "rebuilding" was completed in the summer of 2008. The original purpose for rebuilding Well
No.4 was to improve the capacity of the system to comply with the Company s Final
Engineering Report and DEQ requirements. Staff Comments at 8. The improvements to Well
No.4 included the installation of a larger 300-hp pump motor.
2. Staff Comments. Staff believed that the 300-hp motor was larger than necessary.
Staff indicated that the preferred solution to the drop in pump capacity in 2006 would have been
to "retain the existing motor and replace the inefficient pump with a new pump operating at the
original pumping characteristics (i., 2 800 to 3 000 gpm).Id. at 8. Instead, the Company
decided to add an additional bowl and replace the original motor (250-hp) with the 300-
motor. Staff believed that this action resulted in a less efficient pumping system with higher
operational costs in the future. Id. at 9. Consequently, Staff recommended that the Commission
adjust the cost for the pump motor by $4 078 ($24 470/300-hp x 50-hp). Consequently, Staff
recommended the Company be allowed to recover $56 660 for the rehabilitation of Well No.
3. Eagle Water Response. Eagle Water disagreed with Staffs proposed adjustment
to the cost of the 300-hp motor. In response, the Company submitted a letter from its outside
engineer, MTC Engineering. MTC stated that its calculations show that this well required a
motor with 324.75 horsepower because an "electric motor can be 10% over-rated power for a
short period of timer. ... Therefore ) we suggested a 300 horsepower motor be installed when
we were not getting enough water at the booster pump. 300 x 10% = 330.This minor
calculation was all that was needed to determine (the pump size) for Well No.4. In addition
MTC also disputed whether a detailed report, as Staff recommended, would have yielded a
different answer. The engineering company noted that the detailed report would have been
prepared at considerably more cost to demonstrate "the minor losses etc." Exhibit K.
Commission Finding: The Commission is not convinced that Staff s proposed
adjustment of $4 078 should be adopted. As noted above, there is not a single method to address
ORDER NO. 30936
the lack of capacity of Well No.4. Based upon the facts presented here, we reject Staffs
proposed offset. Consequently, we allow the Company to recover $60 738 from the surcharge
for rebuilding Well No.
C. Development of Well No.
1. Staff Comments.Staff noted in its comments, that the Final Engineering Report
recommended the development of a new well that would allow Eagle Water to discontinue its
interconnection with the City of Eagle. The Company anticipates that the development of Well
No.8 will eliminate the need for the interconnection and satisfy system demand for future
growth through 2010. Staff Comments at 13.
Well No.8 has been constructed and tested; however, the well is temporarily capped
because the pump house has not been constructed. More specifically, Staff commented that the
City of Eagle has issued a stop work order. The Company estimates that its cost to complete
Well No.8 will be $637 535. Of this amount, the land costs are $63 150 and the well drilling
costs are $148 350. Staff Comments at 13.
Because Well No.8 is partially complete but is not yet used and useful in serving
customers, Staff recommended that recovery of the well costs from the surcharge be denied at
this time. However, Staff recommended the costs for the land ($63 150) and well drilling costs
($148 350) be classified as "plant held for future use." This would allow the Company to earn a
carrying charge on these costs until the well is placed into service. Staff Comments at 13-14.
These two components total $211 500.
2. Eagle Water Reply Rather than classify the land and well drilling costs
($211 500) as "plant held for future use " Eagle Water requested in its reply that it be allowed to
recover this amount from the surcharge funds now. The Company maintained that it
experiencing a significant cash flow shortage and has difficulty in borrowing the necessary funds
to payoff the capital improvements. Eagle Water Reply Comments at 2-3. Consequently, the
Company requested permission to "borrow" the well drilling and land costs (i., recover these
amounts from the surcharge "in order to free up enough capital reserve to self-finance the
completion of Well # 8 before" the Company seeks recovery of these costs. Id. at 3. "Eagle
Water cannot borrow the funds to pay for the well site expense and the drilling expense
however, without authorization from the Commission to recover those costs from the proposed
surcharge. "
ORDER NO. 30936
The Company also reported in its reply comments that the City finally issued a
building permit for the well house for Well No.8 during the week of September 18, 2009.
Consequently, the Company is ready to proceed with completion of Well No., funds
permitting. Id.
Commission Finding: Staff recommended that the well drilling ($148 350) and the
land cost ($63 150) be classified as plant held for future use because Well No.8 is not yet in
operation. For its part, the Company requested that it be allowed to recover these costs from the
surcharge. However, the Company does not provide any compelling legal basis for allowing
recovery of property not "used and useful" other than simply referring to its cash flow difficulty.
We find that Well No.8 is not currently used and useful and therefore the costs are
not recoverable from customers at this time. We further find that the costs of the land and well
drilling are appropriately classified as "plant held for future use." When Well No.8 is placed
into service, the Company may then seek to recover these costs. While we appreciate the
Company s "cash flow" position, we have previously approved the Company s request to take
out the bank loan in Order No. 30734. The loan was intended to provide the Company with
access to revenue.
D. Legal Fees for the 05-02 Case
1. Eagle Water.In the Company s current Application it requested additional legal
fees in the amount of $6 047 that it incurred in Case No. EAG- W -05-02. As explained in a
footnote, the Company conceded that it had not requested these fees in the prior case because it
made a clerical error in calculating the amount of fees billed as of August 6 2007 for EAG-
05-02." Staff Comments at 14 citing Application at 5. In its present Application, the Company
insisted that its "Exhibit A" in the August 2007 application shows the correct amount billed for
legal services associated with the 2005 Surcharge Case was $16 933 - which included the $6 048
amount requested now. Application at 5, n.2.
2. Staff Comments Staff recommended that the Commission disallow the new
request for legal fees "because the time for requesting these legal fees was in October 2008 via a
Petition for Reconsideration." Staff Comments at 14. Staff set out the sequence of events in the
prior 05-02 case.
In its 2007 application, Eagle Water sought to recover fees for the original surcharge
application (Case No. EAG-05-02) in the amount of $10 945; and the legal fees for the
ORDER NO. 30936
preparation of the Company s Engineering Report in the amount of $16 232. Staff concurred
and recommended that the Company be allowed to recover legal fees for these two proceedings
in the amount of $27 177. Based upon the comments of the parties, the Commission found the
legal fees to be reasonable. Order No. 30654 at 4, 9. Eagle Water then filed a timely Petition for
Reconsideration on October 16, 2008. Conspicuously absent from that Petition for
Reconsideration was any request for the $6 048 in "missing" legal fees.
Staff asserted that allowing the Company to recover its past legal fees would
constitute retroactive ratemaking. Staff noted that the Commission has stated many times that
the purpose for reconsideration is to provide timely opportunity for a party to bring to the
Commission s attention any issue previously determined so that the Commission can rectify any
mistake or admission. Staff Comments at 15 citing Order No. 30667 at 4. Eagle Water did not
avail itself of this timely review. Consequently, Staff recommended that the Commission
disallow recovery of $6 048 from Eagle Water s customers. Id.
Staff also argued that "Exhibit A" does not reveal the "$16 933" amount on either
page of the two-page exhibit. Id. Entries on these pages also show the Company was assessed
late fees that should not be recovered from ratepayers. Id.
Eagle Water Reply The Company did not discuss this issue in its reply
comments.
Commission Finding: We decline the Company s request to recover these legal fees
for several reasons. First, we find that Eagle Water s request is untimely - the time to have
raised and addressed this issue was in October 2008. We also agree that this request constitutes
retroactive ratemaking. Finally, we are not persuaded that Eagle Water s reference to "Exhibit
A" preserves this issue. Our examination of Exhibit A does not reveal any specific reference to
$16 933." Consequently, we do not allow the Company to recover the $6 047 in legal fees from
ratepayers.
OTHER ISSUES
1. The Surcharge Amount.Staff recommended that the surcharge percentage remain
at 48.075%. Staff recognized that if the Commission does not accept all the Staff-proposed
adjustments, then the estimated length of the surcharge would extend beyond the four years
calculated by Staff.
ORDER NO. 30936
Commission Finding: Based upon our findings set out above, we find no reason to
adjust the surcharge amount. For the present, we find that it is appropriate for the surcharge to
remain at 48.075%.
2. Revenue Recovery. Eagle Water requested authority to recover capital costs and
expenses totaling approximately $1.54 million. Supra at p. 2. Staff recommended that the
Company recover capital costs in the amount of $796 928 , and expenses of $156 506, totaling
$953,434. Staff Atch. 4.
Commission Finding: Based upon our findings above, we conclude that $811 363 in
capital costs have been prudently incurred by the Company. Of this amount, the Company
proposed and the Staff agreed that $215 000 in costs for Well No.7 be recovered from surcharge
funds and the balance ($361 653) of capital costs be attributed to the Company s rate base.
Adding the $449 710 in capital costs and the approved expenses of $156 506, results in
surcharge recovery of $606 216. See the Appendix to this Order.
Subtracting the available surcharge (as of August 24, 2009) leaves a balance of
$469 177. When this amount is grossed'-up (using a factor of 127.88%), the new surcharge
amount for recovery is $599 983. Id. Based upon projected surcharge revenue, it will take
between four and five years to recover this amount.
We also note that Eagle Water has now received a City permit to build its well house
for Well No.8. Consequently, we anticipate that the Company will, in short order, file another
case seeking to recover the costs for completing Well No.8. Rather than continuing to rely upon
surcharges, we believe the Company s next case should include redesigned base rates. As the
Company noted in its Application, its base rates are well below those of the City of Eagle and
United Water. While the surcharge has the effect in summer of promoting water conservation
(because of the higher rates), we believe the Company s next case may and should provide an
opportunity to move away from reliance upon surcharge revenues.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Eagle Water s Application to recover additional
surcharge revenues is granted in part and denied in part as set out in greater detail above. Based
upon the findings in this Order, the Company is authorized to recover $599 983 in additional
surcharge revenue.
ORDER NO. 30936
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the existing surcharge of 48.075% on water usage
in excess of 600 cubic feet per month shall remain the same.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company report the costs of its legal fees for
this case within 14 days of the service date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that when the Company files its next application
seeking additional revenues, that Eagle Water submit redesigned base rates, or advise the
Commission why new base rates are inappropriate.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. EAG- W -09-
0 I may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code 9 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this JO++-
day of October 2009.
Q/.~. KEMPT , P .SIDENT
J~~
~~.
f\RSHA H. SMITH COMMISSIONER
ISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:EAG-O9-01 dh3
ORDER NO. 30936
EAGLE WATER COMPANY
CASE NO. EAG-09-
SURCHARGE REVENUE REQUIREMENT CALCULATION
Caoitalltems
Well No.
Well No.7 Costs Transfered to Rate Base
Well No.7 Costs Recovered from Surcharge
Rebuilding Well No.
Tie-in to Eagle City Water System
Pressure Regulating/Sustaining Valve (PRSV)
Main Booster Pump Modification
Well No.
Total-Capital Project Costs
$576 652.
$361 652.
Expense Items
Legal Fees
Accounting Fees
Tie-in to Eagle City Water System
Total-Expenses
Commission Decision
Less Previous Surcharge Balance
Commission Surcharge Decision
Gross-up Factor
New Surcharge (48.075%)
Estimated yearly recovery
Approximate number of Years
* Estimated yearly recovery calculationSurcharge Revenues 2006 $130 805.Surcharge Revenues 2007 $138 758.
Surcharge average for 2 full years at 42.5% $134 781.76
Estimate for yearly surcharge at 48.075% $152,461.95
(2 year average divided by 42.5%, then multiplied by 48.075%)
Surcharge
Recovery
Amount
$215,000.
$60 738.
$22 805.
$43 765.
$107,400.
$0.
$449,709.
Amount
$45,305.
200.
$110,000.
$156,505.
$606,215.
$137 039
$469,176.
127.88%
$599,983
$150 000
APPENDIX
ORDER NO. 30936
CASE NO. EAG-09-