20041203Rate Case of 1982.pdf

...-' ..-~-'~~,'---';" -"",\, ,~-"'\'--",..'~::! ( -(....
J-............_-
, --.----...- ,....- "
'1/-L/l. f,
~, "
MINUTE ENTRY
Wednesday;July 1982 Commissioners Perry Swisher"
, '
Conley Ward Jr.and ,Richard approved s taff recommendati on the
Ea~le Ranch Water Company general rate case No.1116-said l'"'eeommendat ion
was that
, . "
Tile filed tariff the Company be allowed into, effect wi thout
suspension Staff reviewed -the application 'and the attached rev-:ised
company an d r ecommend th e r at es be, approved.Said rates will show
and 'approval date of 7-28--82,.
",.....',..-..",. ""'--"'_""""'-'-"'-',...".. --,.. ..",.., .. . .,......,.......,., ,.."...... ~ .-.
"OC..
. .
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISS lONER SWISHER
COMMISSIONER WARD
COMMISSIONER HIGH
MYRNA WALTERS
JACK McMAHON
TRUEMAN HENDERSON
JOHN McFADDEN
JON DUKEFROM:
DATE:JULY 28 j 1982
EAGLE RANCH WATER COMPANY -- U-1116-4 -- GENERAL RATE
CASE
RE:
On July 1, 1982, the Commission received an Application
from Eagle Ranch Water Company (Company) requesting authority to
increase its water rates.Company stated that rate relief is
extremely cri tical and asked that the Commission act on the rate
request as soon as possible.
As directed from last week's decision meeting, Trueman
reviewed the books of the Company and made suggested changes in
the Company f s proposed rate base , resul ts of operations and
revenue requi remen t .His memo to Archie is attached.Trueman
made the following adjustments:
1. Reduced rate base by $4824 to, correct for working
capi tal and accumulated depreciation.
Reduced O&M and admistrative expenses from a 10%
increase to 5%.
Increased underestimated purchased power by $1590.
Took $2500 out of expenses to amortize over three
years.This is to recognize one-time costs in getting the Company
books up to snuf f .
Increased property taxes from $3500 to $4392 to
recognize actual tax assessment and added $268 for Idaho income
tax assessed against the Company.
As you can see , the adjustments for purchased power and
taxes are in the Company f s favor.The total effect of the Staff
adjustments is a reduction from the $5 rate increase requested to
an increase of $4.75.
The Company has amended its Application to reflect the
changes proposed by the Staff, and has filed revised tariffs
reflecting an increase of $4.75.
The suspension period for the original Application ends
on July 31.Wi th the amended Application and revised tariff
conforming to the Staff t s proposed adjustments , I recommend that
the filed tariff of the Company be allowed to go into effect
without suspension.
vk3r