29046_hrg.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER PONDEROSA TERRACE ESTATES WATER SYSTEM, INC. IS A PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-W-01-1

NOTICE OF SCHEDULE AND
TECHNICAL HEARING

NOTICE OF INTERVENTION
DEADLINE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE OF EXTENDED PUBLIC
COMMENT DEADLINE

ORDER NO. 29046

On May 14, 2002, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Increase in Rates, Modified Procedure and Comment/Protest Deadline proposing to adopt rates that collect an annual revenue requirement for Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water System, Inc. (Ponderosa; Company) in the amount of $25,282.41. Order No. 29024 at 6. If approved, these rates would allocate all costs based on the impact the customer has on the system. Based upon customer comment and further analysis, the Commission finds it reasonable in this Order to adopt interim rates effective June 1, 2002 pending the results of the technical and public hearings scheduled for June 20, 2002 in Sandpoint.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2001, the Commission issued Order No. 28845 finding that Ponderosa was operating in such manner as to fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. See Idaho Code §§ 61-124; 61-125; and 61-129.
Robaer Cobott, owner of Ponderosa, operates a water system located south of Sandpoint and southeast of the community of Sagle in Bonner County, Idaho. There are approximately 20 full-time customers connected to the system and a total of approximately 87 lots within the area served by the water system.
On November 28, 2001, the Commission issued Order No. 28903 establishing a $20 per month interim rate based upon the statewide average rate for small flat-rate water systems. That Order also scheduled a Show Cause hearing for December 17, 2001 in Sandpoint. The purpose of the hearing was to permit Mr. Cobott to show cause (if any) why the $20 per month flat month rate established by Order No. 28903 was not reasonable and to take public comment from customers regarding the water service. When it became known that Mr. Cobott would likely be unable to attend the hearing, the Commission vacated the Show Cause hearing. Order No. 28917. In its Order vacating the hearing the Commission issued Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 393 to the Company and reiterated the findings and directives of its prior Orders.
On May 7, 2002, the Commission received a letter from Mr. Cobott stating that the Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water Company is going to have to go out of business because the rates set by this Commission were too low. He stated that revenues are down 90 to 95%. He had not and would not mail bills to customers with the $20 per month charge approved by the Commission. He did not agree with that rate and would not send a bill that makes it appear he accepts the Commission’s authorized rates. Because they did not receive bills, we understand that some customers have not paid for service from November 2001 through May 2002.
INTERIM RATES
In response to the Notice of Proposed Increase in Rates (Order No. 29024), the Commission received comments from the Commission Staff, Ponderosa, and several Ponderosa customers regarding what rates should be implemented for water service. These comments are discussed in greater detail below.
A. Commission Staff Comments
After reviewing the comments received from both the Company and its customers, Staff stood by its comments contained in its May 10, 2002 Decision Memorandum. However, Staff made minor modifications to the total revenue requirement and offered additional rate design options based upon updated customer information. Staff Comments at 2.
1. Revenue Requirement: Staff offered two modifications to Ponderosa’s revenue requirement. First, Staff suggested increasing the water testing expense from $314.78 to $1,500 per year to reflect the normalized annual water testing cost, which is estimated at $750 for each of the two wells. Second, Staff recommended that the labor allowance for Daily Water Testing performed by Mr. Fairfax be reduced from $3,600 to $1,800 to reflect the free electricity Mr. Fairfax was receiving from Ponderosa as compensation valued at $150 per month. These two modifications reduce the total annual revenue requirement by $614.78 from $25,282.41 to $24,667.63.
2. Definitions: To devise customer classes for the rate design, Staff recommended based on input from Ponderosa and its customers that the following definitions be used by the Commission:
▪ Permanent Residence – Staff proposed using the same definition as provided by Idaho Code for “primary dwelling place.” Idaho Code § 63-701(9)(a). For purposes of this case, the primary dwelling place is the single place which the customer has his true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever the individual is absent he has the intention of returning. The primary dwelling place is where the claimant resides on January 1 and:
At least six (6) months during the prior year; or

The majority of the time the customer owned the dwelling if owned by the customer more than one (1) year; or

(iii) The majority of the time after customer first occupied the dwelling if occupied by the customer for less than one (1) year.

▪ Full Time Customer – The water service is to the customer’s permanent residence.
▪ Part Time Customer – The water service is provided to an improved lot with a dwelling and the dwelling is not considered the customer’s permanent residence.
▪ Dwelling – Any structure that can provide shelter and is located on a lot or parcel for more than 15 days per month or 6 months per year.
▪ Inactive Service – Water service is provided to the lot or parcel but is not readily accessible (the service is underground).
▪ Active Service – Water service is provided to the lot or parcel and readily accessible (active service provides above ground access to water).
▪ Former Customer – Water service is not currently or has never been provided to the lot or parcel, even though the facilities may have been provided at one time.
▪ Combined Lot – Multiple lots were considered as one when the lots were considered legally combined by Bonner County.
3. Rate Design: Based on the above definitions, Staff performed a customer inventory, which is summarized below:
Customer Class Number of Customers
Full Time Customers 19
Part Time Customers 11
Inactive Service Customers 18
Active Service Customers 33
Former Customers 6
Total Number of Customers 87

Staff continued to believe that rate Option 3 (Available Service Resort Rate Methodology) is the most appropriate rate option for the Company because it is fairly simple to apply, collects the suggested revenue requirement ($24,667.63) and sends the appropriate price signal to customers. Staff preferred this method to Options 1 (Historical PUC Rate Methodology) and 2 (Full Service Resort Rate Methodology) previously proposed. Staff Comments at 5.
Based on the new information obtained from the Company and customers, Staff submitted two additional rate design options for the Commission’s consideration. Staff Option 4 (Multiple Customer Class Resort Rate Methodology) expanded upon Staff’s recommended Option 3 to develop rates reflective of the many different customer classes on the system. Staff found the calculations to be cumbersome but reflective of the additional information gained by Staff’s continued investigation. Staff/Customer Option 5 (Compromised Customer Class Rate Methodology) was Staff’s attempt to provide the Commission with a compromise between the customers’ stated desire for rates and Staff’s Option 4. While noting that this option is somewhat arbitrary, Staff stated that it would collect the revenue requirement and is based fundamentally on Staff’s recommended Option 3 and the expanded Option 4.
While Staff’s five rate design options are discussed in greater detail in its comments and its May 10, 2002 Decision Memorandum, the following table is a summary of Staff’s rate option calculations and the rates proposed by customer petition.

Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water System Summary of Monthly Rates     Staff Rate Options Staff/Customer Customer Rate Options Customer Class Number of Customers Staff #1 Staff #2 Recommended
Staff #3 Staff #4 Compromise Option #5 Customer
Option #1 Customer
Option #2 Full Time Customer 19 $ 108.00 $ 28.00 $ 56.50 $ 58.00 $ 49.00 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 Part Time Customer 11 $ - $ 28.00 $ 56.50 $ 29.00 $ 29.00 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 Active Service Customer 33 $ - $ 21.50 $ 6.50 $ 14.00 $ 19.00 $ 20.00 $ 15.00 Inactive Service Customer 18 $ - $ 21.50 $ 6.50 $ 7.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 Former Customer 6 $ - $ 21.50 $ 6.50 $ 7.00 $ - $ - $ -   87               Total Revenue   $ 24,624 $ 24,786 $ 24,786 $ 24,612 $ 24,684 $ 24,480 $ 18,900 Over (Under) Recovery   $ (43.63) $ 118.37 $ 118.37 $ (55.63) $ 16.37 $ (187.63) $ (5,767.63)
4. Consumer Issues. Staff restated the need for the Company to adopt and implement the Commission’s Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR), the Commission’s Utility Customer Information Rules (UCIR), and an accounting system consistent with the information required by the Commission’s annual report for small water companies. Once rates have been set by the Commission, the Company must file tariffs or schedules of those rates and charges. Staff indicated its willingness to assist the Company in preparing the necessary tariffs.
5. Former Customers. Staff believes that former customers that were either removed from the system or chose to leave from the system may wish to once again become customers if Ponderosa is now regulated. Staff recommended that the Company be directed to provide a grace period for all former customers to become members of some customer class. Staff further recommended that the Company be directed to post and justify the rates for any services that are offered so that the former customers can make educated decisions whether to take service from Ponderosa.
If a customer who has left the system either by choice or by not choosing to rejoin the system wishes to reconnect to the system in the future, Staff recommended that the customer be required to pay a hook-up fee. Because the customer would not have paid anything to maintain the system, Staff suggested that a hook-up fee for new customers be established in the amount of $2,500 for any customer wishing to reconnect after the grace period.
6. Disconnecting Customers from the System. Staff believes the Company should be allowed to terminate service (physically disconnect) to customers if the following two conditions are met: 1) the Company has provided proper notice for each billing cycle and an absolute final notice of removal from the system 60 days prior; and 2) the customer is delinquent in payment for at least 12 consecutive months. After these two conditions are met, Staff believes the Company should be allowed to terminate a customer’s service by physically disconnecting them from the system. The customer would then be subject to a new hook-up fee of $2,500 if they wished to connect to the system at any time in the future.
7. Reconnection Fee. When a customer voluntarily shuts off service or is temporarily disconnected for a period not more than twelve (12) months, Staff recommended that a nominal reconnection fee of $25.00 be established for the Ponderosa Estates Water System.
8. Connection Restrictions. In Order No. 28845, the Commission restricted all new connections to the system. Staff previously provided an analysis indicating that system capacity was limited to 37 customers. However, less than 37 full-time and part-time customers are currently on the system. Thus, Staff recommended lifting the restriction and allowing a maximum of 37 full-time and part-time customers to connect to the system. If the Company wishes to connect more than the 37 full-time and part-time customers, it should provide either an additional source of water or an analysis by a Registered Engineer indicating that more than 37 full-time and part-time customers can be adequately served by the system.
B. Ponderosa Comments
On May 21, 2002, the Commission received a letter from Robaer Cobott labeled “Protest.” While demanding a hearing in front of a Judge that is not affiliated with the Commission, Mr. Cobott noted his objections to several items discussed in Order No. 29024.
First, he objected to the proposed $80/week salary and stated that he will accept nothing less than $1,000/month. Second, Mr. Cobott did not accept the 12% allowed return on his investment and wanted “a return of 20% or no deal.” More specifically, he wanted his investment paid back and a $300/month profit on that investment. Third, Mr. Cobott demanded the monthly maintenance fee paid to Larry Fairfax be increased to $3,600/year. In his words, “allow this or forget this system.”
Mr. Cobott also wants the water test expenses increased from $314.78 to $1,500 per year. As discussed above, Staff agreed that this is necessary. Because he had to mortgage his house to get the money to put in a second well as required by DEQ, Mr. Cobott demanded the $5,520 mortgage expense. Furthermore, Mr. Cobott stated that the excavator located on the property is owned by him personally but only used for the water system. Thus, he wants $100/month rent for its use and that the utility be responsible for all maintenance and repair costs.
Because Staff believes the Ponderosa system could accommodate 37 full time residents, Mr. Cobott wants the Commission’s approval for 37 full time residents. He also noted that the land on which the water system is located belongs to him personally. Because he has to pay for property taxes and maintenance, Mr. Cobott requests $300/month rent to be paid by Ponderosa to him personally.
Finally, Mr. Cobott’s May 21 letter took exception to the manner in which the Commission “talks about myself and my company” in Order No. 29024. He stated that “you will adjust your finding in my behalf or you will have to find another option to solve the problems with this system.” Offended by the $80/week salary for an estimated four (4) hours of work, Mr. Cobott stated that there will be no system operator after the 4 hours per week are expended and customers will have to go without. In his words, “I will not work for nothing and I’m going to get mine first, I’m not going without anymore.”
Two days later, the Commission received a faxed letter listing a number of questions posed by Mr. Cobott. He requested information on how to collect back bills owed by customers prior to the assertion of jurisdiction by the Commission on November 28, 2001. Mr. Cobott also wanted to know how he could collect from customers that have not paid since that date. Furthermore, he wished to know if he could turn off their water when the new program starts.
On May 27, Mr. Cobott on behalf of Ponderosa sent two additional letters by facsimile. While reiterating his previous concerns, he demanded that “this Case No. GNR-W-01-1 go before a Judge and Jury.” He disagreed with the water rates previously ordered and the different conditions for disconnections and hook-ups. Mr. Cobott also indicated that he would not allow a customer with a past-due bill of over 30 days to receive water service. The second FAX informed the Commission that Mr. Larry Fairfax (the maintenance person) had quit and would no longer maintain the system. To maintain the system in place of Mr. Fairfax, Mr. Cobott stated that his salary must be increased to $3,000 per month with additional money to pay for car mileage and insurance since he lives 60 miles round trip from the water system.
C. Customer Comments
1. Joint Letter. On May 20, 2002, the Commission received a letter signed by 23 customers that detailed a proposal for the Commission’s consideration. They would like the water rates divided into four categories that would recover $14,621.30 in annual operating costs plus $1,754.56 for a 12% rate of return. The table below summarizes their proposed rates and classes versus what was proposed by the Commission Staff:

CLASS STAFF
PROPOSED RATES RESIDENT
PROPOSED RATES Full Time Users $40.00/month $30.00/month Live Hydrant $20.00/month $15.00/month No Water Pipe above Ground $10.00/month $10.00/month No Water Service $0.00/month $0.00/month
These residents also suggest the Commission decrease allowances for the following expenses:
▪ Phone: Should be reduced from Staff-proposed $420/annually to $146.16 because Mr. Cobott’s phone number covers two businesses plus his home phone.

▪ Power: Should be reduced from Staff-proposed $1,997.58 annually to $1,500.00 because Larry Fairfax’s numbers “do not add up.”

▪ System Repair: The $2,601.58 suggested by the Staff should be eliminated entirely since it is a duplication of the $2,400.00 Maintenance Reserve.

▪ Home Office Rent: The $1,200.00 suggested by the Staff should be reduced to $600.00 since Mr. Cobott is running two businesses out of the same facility (his home).

▪ Mr. Cobott’s Management Fee: The residents suggest reducing this $4,160 expense to $3,000 because Mr. Cobott has spent little time on the business except for the current two years and dealing with the IPUC and EPA. They note that Mr. Cobott has often skipped billing cycles and doesn’t return their phone calls.

▪ Daily Water Testing/Monthly Maintenance: While the Staff suggested $3,600 and $1,200 for these expenses respectively, the residents recommend a combined expense of $2,280. This amount includes Larry Fairfax’s $150.00 monthly retainer and free water equaling approximately $40.00 per month. The residents question whether water testing is done daily since a high variance of chlorine exists in the water and Ponderosa has run out of chlorine at least once.

2. Individual Letters. The Commission also received several individual letters. One customer agreed with Staff Rate Option No. 3 and found it to be “very reasonable.” However, she stressed the need for protection from Mr. Cobott’s threatened actions to disconnect customers, place liens on their property and charge $1,500 in reconnection fees. She also wished to know if customers could pay rates through the court to prevent him from taking their property.
Another customer requested definition words like “full time occupancy” and “developed” before the Commission issues another Order. Moreover, he would like an explanation for why the maximum number of customers that can be served is only 37. This customer was also concerned that at least four customers are using the system who are not part of the platted subdivision. He prefers Rate Option No. 2 with full time users having a water use meter and pay an additional fee if they use more than 200 gallons/day to be put in escrow to fund an additional well.
Although she had the community water to her residence shut off two years ago when faced with significant concerns about water quality, availability and customer service, a third resident supported a 4-tiered rate scale proposed by the residents in their meeting with the Staff. She also believes that residents there would be best served by creation of a water district/home owners association that could hire Larry Fairfax to build and maintain the system. Finally, this customer requested that the Commission offer Mr. Cobott some specific instruction as to how to carry out his billing and customer service responsibilities.
A fourth customer stated that he believed an excellent first improvement to the system would be the installation of water meters to build water conservation into the fee schedule and allowed for tiered rates based on season and usage. This customer did not support the tiered schedule proposed and supported by the customer petition. He found the proposal to be complex and would benefit high consumptive users at the expense of other users and the owner.
A fifth customer voiced her frustration over being held “hostage” by Ponderosa when “we all would have been satisfied with $45.00” a month. In short, she does not blame some of her neighbors for putting in their own wells.
D. Commission Findings
Upon reviewing the record and the comments received thus far from Staff, the Company and customers, the Commission finds that a technical and public hearing are necessary to fully develop the record. Although the specifics of the hearings are set out below, the Commission wishes to specifically address two issues: 1) what rates shall be collected pending a final Order issued after the hearing; and 2) billing and disconnection issues.
1. Interim Rates: The financial information received thus far by the Commission indicates that Ponderosa should be allowed to collect rates greater than the $20 interim rate previously set by Order No. 28903. The Commission finds that Rate Design Option No. 3 will appropriately allocate interim costs based on the impact the customer has on the system. Until a final Order is issued in this case, full-time and part-time customers (as defined above) shall pay a flat rate of $56.50 per month. Ponderosa shall also charge active service, inactive service and former customers (as defined above) $6.50 per month. The Commission further finds it reasonable to adopt these interim rates effective June 1, 2002 pending the results of the technical and public hearings scheduled for June 20, 2002 in Sandpoint.
2. Billing and Disconnection for Service Since September 2001. On September 13, 2001, the Commission found that Ponderosa was providing utility service that falls within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Order No. 28845. As such, the Commission’s Customer Relations Rules are applicable to both the Company and customers. IDAPA 31.21.01.
Although Commission Rule 201 states that bills shall be issued on a regular basis, it is the Commission’s understanding that Ponderosa did not bill customers for water service for the 6 months between November 2001 and April 2002. IDAPA 31.21.01.201. The Commission’s Order No. 28903 established an interim rate of $20 per month and customers may still owe Ponderosa $20 per month for each of these 6 months. Rule 204.03 provides that customers who have not been billed shall be given the opportunity to make payment arrangements over the telephone, by mail, or in person under Rule 313 on the amount due. At the customer’s option, the term of the payment arrangement may extend for the length of time (six months) that the customer was not billed. IDAPA 31.21.01.204.03. For example, residential customers who did not pay Ponderosa for water service for those 6 months shall pay $56.50 for June 2002 water service plus $20 toward the previously unbilled amount ($120) owed to Ponderosa. Customers may have up to 6 months to repay the full $120.
If the customer fails to pay the current month owed and/or the arrearage portion ($20 per month for each of the next 6 months) then due, Ponderosa may disconnect the customer under Rule 302 for failure to pay an undisputed delinquent bill. If the utility intends to terminate service under Rule 302, the utility shall mail a written notice of termination to the customer at least seven (7) calendar days before the proposed date of termination. IDAPA 31.21.01.304.01. Furthermore, this written termination notice must contain the information required by Rule 305. At least twenty-four (24) hours before actual termination, the utility must diligently attempt to contact the customer affected, either in person or by telephone, to advise the customer of the proposed action and steps the customer may take to avoid or delay termination. IDAPA 31.21.01.304.02. This oral notice must contain the same information required by Rule 305.
The Commission would also note that because regulated utilities like Ponderosa can use disconnection as a collection tool, regulated utilities are generally prohibited from filing liens against property to secure the amounts owed.
3. Billing and Disconnection for Service Prior to September 2001. The Commission understands that some customers have arrearages for unpaid bills issued before September 2001. We encourage the Company and its customers to reach an agreement regarding charges for water prior to September 2001. To prevent any misunderstanding on the customer’s account, any amounts owing prior to September 2001 should not be included in the current bill. Of course, Ponderosa may seek collection by other means – including small claims court. Because the Company has judicial remedies available, Ponderosa shall not disconnect for non-payment of amounts owed prior to the Commission asserting jurisdiction over the Company.
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION DEADLINE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that persons desiring to intervene in these matters for the purpose of presenting evidence or cross-examining witnesses at hearing must file a Petition to Intervene with the Commission pursuant to this Commission's Rules of Procedure 72 and 73, IDAPA 31.01.01.072 and -.073. Persons intending to participate at the hearings must file a Petition to Intervene on or before June 12, 2002. Persons seeking intervenor status shall also provide the Commission Secretary with their electronic mail address to facilitate future communication in these matters.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that persons desiring to present their views without parties’ rights of participation and cross-examination are not required to intervene and may present their comments without prior notification to the Commission or the parties.
NOTICE OF SCHEDULE AND TECHNICAL HEARING
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission specifically seeks testimony that addresses the following issues:
Rate designs that recover Ponderosa’s reasonable expenses from defined customer classes;

The dollar amount necessary to appropriately compensate Ponderosa for the administration, maintenance and operation of its water company;

The appropriate rate of return to be earned by Ponderosa;

What amount Ponderosa should pay Mr. Cobott for mortgaging his home to finance a second well as required by the Department of Environmental Quality;

Whether the restriction on new hook-ups should be lifted and how many future hook-ups should be allowed given limited system capacity;

The appropriate dollar amount necessary for water testing;

What amount Ponderosa should pay Mr. Cobott for the property taxes and maintenance expenses he pays for the land on which the water system is located;

What amount Ponderosa should pay Mr. Cobott for use of his personal equipment and maintenance thereof; and

What fees are appropriate for Ponderosa to charge customers who hook-up to the system, or who voluntarily disconnect or are disconnected for non-payment.

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission adopts the following procedural schedule:

June 7, 2002

June 12, 2002

June 17, 2002

June 20, 2002
Deadline for Commission Staff to prefile direct testimony. Staff shall serve its testimony on Ponderosa via overnight delivery no later than this date.

Deadline for filing intervention.

Deadline for Ponderosa and intervenors to prefile direct testimony. The Commission must receive testimony by standard or electronic mail, or via overnight delivery on this date.

Technical hearing at 1:00 p.m. at the Edgewater Resort, located at 56 Bridge Street in Sandpoint. Staff may offer “live” rebuttal testimony, if necessary.
The prepared testimony and exhibits must conform to the requirements of Rules 266 and 267 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. IDAPA 31.01.01.266-.267.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in these case will be held pursuant to the Commission’s jurisdiction under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and that the Commission may enter any final Order consistent with its authority under Title 61 and specifically Idaho Code §§ 61-129, 61-301, 61-305, 61-501, 61-1503 and 61-1504.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this matter will be conducted pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has scheduled a public hearing regarding the issues in Case No. GNR-W-01-1 on THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002, 1:00 P.M. AT THE EDGEWATER RESORT, LOCATED AT 56 BRIDGE STREET IN SANDPOINT. The public hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.
The Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding customer comments, concerns and recommendations. Customers, local government leaders, and other interested persons are encouraged to testify.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings and public workshops in this matter will be held in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons needing the help of a sign language interpreter or other assistance in order to participate in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing may ask the Commission to provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance at the hearing. The request for assistance must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing by contacting the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (FAX)
E-Mail: [e-mail]

NOTICE OF EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINE
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that in addition to the public hearing, the Commission extends the comment deadline to solicit further written comments regarding customer comments, concerns and recommendations. Any person desiring to state a position on the items at issue in this case may file a written comment in support or opposition with the Commission on or before Friday, June 21, 2002. The Commission has extended the comment period beyond the time previously provided in Order No. 29024 to give the public additional time to provide written comment. IDAPA 31.01.01.202.02.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the comment must contain a statement of reasons supporting the comment. Written comments concerning the issues in Case No. GNR-W-01-1 shall be mailed to the Commission and to Ponderosa Terrace Estates Water Company at the addresses reflected below:
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
E-mail: [e-mail]

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983 Robaer Cobott
2626 Wrenco Loop Road
Sandpoint, ID 83864

All comments should contain the case caption and case number shown on the first page of this document. Persons desiring to submit comments via e-mail may do so by accessing the Commission's home page located at www.puc.state.id.us under the “File Room” icon. Once at the “File Room” page, select “File a Comment,” fill in the case number as it appears on the front of this document, and enter your comments.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the filings in Case No. GNR-W-01-1 can be reviewed during regular business hours at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 472 W. Washington Street, Boise, Idaho. In addition, relevant filings may be viewed by accessing the Commission’s website at www.puc.state.id.us under the “File Room” icon and selecting the appropriate topic heading.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that until a final Order is issued in this case, full-time and part-time customers (as defined above) shall pay a flat rate of $56.50 per month. Ponderosa shall also charge active service, inactive service and former customers (as defined above) $6.50 per month. These interim rates are effective June 1, 2002.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission adopts the scheduling, hearing and public comment dates set out above. Parties shall adhere to the schedule set out above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that persons desiring to intervene in these cases for the purpose of presenting evidence or cross-examination at hearing shall file a Petition to Intervene with the Commission no later than June 12, 2002.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company comply with the rules for disconnection of customers with past due bills as set forth above in this Order and in the Commission’s Rules.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of June 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:GNRW0101_ln

The Commission Staff may participate as an independent party in any proceeding. IDAPA 31.01.01.37-38. The Staff should not be confused with the Commission. The Commission’s duty is to regulate every utility and set rates that are reasonable to both the utility and customers. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 and 61-502.

NOTICE OF SCHEDULE AND TECHNICAL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF INTERVENTION DEADLINE
NOTICE OF EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINE
ORDER NO. 29046 6

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 6, 2002