IN THE MATTER OF THE UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT S.B.C. 1980, c. 60, as amended and
IN THE MATTER OF WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED APPLICATION TO AMEND ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND ITS RATE SCHEDULES COMPRISING THE COMPANY'S ELECTRIC TARIFF B.C.U.C. NO. 1
DECISION October 5, 1984
BEFORE: J.D. V. New lands, Deputy Chairman; Kilpatrick, Commissioner; and R.J. Ludgate, Commissioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
APPEARANCES LIST OF EXHIBITS INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL BACKGROUND THE APPLICATION THE ISSUES CHANGES IN TERMS AND NDITIONS Extension Policy Service Connection Charge Revenue Guarantee and Security Deposits Late Payment Street Lighting OTHER ISSUES Future Power Supply Mercury Vapour versus Sodium
Seasonal Rates Majeure Provisions Hearing Costs ORDER NO. G -57- 84 Table 1 Comparison of Highlight of the Extension Pol Table 2 Summary of the Table 3 of Adjustments to Source: Exhibit
4 of Adjustments to Cost Source: Exhibit 4B 5 of Adjustments to Cost of Service- With Adjustment for Princeton Power and Source: Exhibit 4C
(i) (iii) 3 4 12 12 15 17 21 23 25 25
26 27 27 it dltions of Service- 31, 1983
Service- 31, 1983 31, 1983 and Irrigation
APPEARANCES G.K. MACINTOSH J.M.W. WILSON R.J. BAUMAN K.C. MACKENZIE M.M. MOSELEY
K.E. GUSTAFSON R.G. KUHN G. GOULD
R.J. GATHERCOLE Consumers' Association of M. ANDERSON Canada (B.C. Branch) J. HARRY Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization
G. KENYON R. MILES I. ZAHYNACZ MAYOR C. LAKES G. JENKS S. MOULD T.R. CARTER T.D. TUTTI J.P. DOROZ G. HANN J. MENNELL
E.BEALLE Keremeos Irrigation District (i)
West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited B.C. Timber Ltd. City of Kelowna City of Penticton Corporation of the City of Grand Forks Corporation of the District of Summerland
Corporation of the City of Nelson Princeton Light & Power Company, Limited
B.C. Wildlife Federation Sierra Club of Western Canada City of Castlegar City of Trail Town of Rossland B.C. Association of Irrigation Districts Cominco Ltd. B.C. Fruit Growers' Association Fairview Heights Irrigation District
N. SMITH W.H. PRICE
D.A. KNOERR B.C. D. KINNAIRD
D. BATEMAN On His Own Behalf and Customers
W.D. & S.L. BUBAR R.D. DEANE J.O. N ALD R.J. GIBBS* B.J. WALLACE
Commission Staff J. UNAU BROWNELL
Officer Court Reporters D. * R.J. Gibbs was ted to 6, 1983.
ANCES Interior men's
On Their Own Behalf On His Own Behalf On His Own f Commission Counsel
W.R. HARPER N RPRIS Su Court of Columbia on
WITNESSES J.S. MCKAY West Kootenay Power and Light J.S. BROOK Company, Limited S.A. ASH D. ISHERWOOD T.B. GIBBON
WM. EYERS B.C. Timber Ltd. J. BIRT
W.R. SWEENEY
K. KIDD City of Kelowna City of Pen tieton Corporation of the City of Grand Forks Corporation of the District of Summerland
DR. J.P. ACTON Consumers' Association of Canada (B.C. Branch) Federated Anti-Proverty Groups of B.C. B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organlza tion
K.BENTLEY Princeton Light and Power Company, Limited
DR. R.H. SARIK AS British Columbia Utilities Commission Staff
(iii)
--OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No.
ion Order No. Affidavit- Proof of Publication of Notice of Hearing Affidavit of of ments to all Intervenors West and Li Volume 1 June !5, -Com Cost of Revised Terms and Conditions and Rate West and Company, tments to Cost • WKPL - , tments to Cos of Service for Year En 31, 1983 with Light and Customers and Li ising T es timon and tten Volume 2 August 8, t and for Addi tiona! Information 1984 Rate Design, Volume 3 8, I West Power and U lnfor ptember n, West and Li Additional Information 1984 mber , 1983 of 1984 Letter from J.S. Brook West mission Secretary re 1983 with ment to B.C. Timber e of Im of B.
2 3 y, Limited "1984 Rate 4A - of 4B t tments for 4C Limited- Rate Desi 5 y, urmted- y to 6 7 y, Limited - y to t for Design, V me 5 8 9 and Li t to ul y 15, 10 11 mber a Clause
Exhibit No.
Written Evidence of B.C. Timber Ltd.- Volume 1 13 Written of B.C. Ti Ltd.- me 2 Filed Evidence of K.H. on Behalf of the Intervenors, City the Cor of e C of d the C of
ce of Paul Acton filed on Consumers Association of C B.C. Poverty Grouos B.C. and Old Testimony of
Rev !8 - EJ
t
Intervention D. on and Power Company, Limited WKPL- Calculation of Rate to the Cost of Serv Study for December 31, ion to B. Utilities C Proposed Pol Witness "A" - ison of Tables for January, and March of WKPL l er West Kootenay Power and Corn ion November 8, including Des 1984 to 1988
f of e Intervenors, the Anti-ization !6 y, Limited R.I. C. !8
t on behalf of Two Cities and
f 20 before ts t Ending 21 g Load/Resource Forecast from y, Limited-- Percen trnents Prel 25
Exhibit No.
to Question Re: Phase and Three Phase 26
don alf of
t and Lie:ht
Witness Aid - WKPL - - Cost of Cal to WKPL January, 1982 t and Power Re: Investment by Customer
WKPL -Residential Rate of Return C WK - Rate of Return Customer Class of Discount for Su ion e Vol w -Anal Transmission Vol
ment in the Premier of tario : Rural 36 - of tieton tlma Return on 31, tribution Investment 38 Sub Kenyon on behalf of B.C. Wildl fe Federation 39 yon to U.C. dated 40 WKPL- dmen t to Q ues c ume 3, Exhibit 6 B.C. Timber Ltd. - Exhibit 4 WE Redistribution of 42
of 27
Au and
on sum 29 t 30 31
32 33 of Power to Customers at 34 to Serv Metered at
Exhibit in Capacity Cost using 28,000 kVa a<> 22,400 kVa
of Increas to C ion t Re: tenance
Reply to Commission Re: Allocation of Net Plant ion Staff WK PL - Rates and C us to mer - Security and tee Depos WK Application pt from
Photocopy of in WKPL Irrigation Cost Com w t ison na+uro.or"\ WKPL - Miscellaneous Outstan Hearing - November, 1983 WK ion in Distr Accounts WKPL - to mer Letters from WKPL to David Bateman Re: Bridesvi!le WK - tive ustomer Class Hi est WKPL Impact on Cost cture of
Base by $1.3,117,090 44 of g
l~6 Re: tiv of Cost 47 ollection of -48 49 Eye" ( 50
in e - J ul y 15 , .51 ' 1983 52 and 54 ties iately 55 ff from 56 tion Rates 57 from to 58 tion of B.C. Ti 59
--- OF ---Exh No.
tes of Resul Revisions - Ou 1983 Cas - Si lfican t 1983 WK - W - November 29, l -Revenue of ff
WKPL - onsideration ion y, Limited Excess Distribution Investment pyof esContract ~+"'"'"'"' Cominco Ltd. Tariff Sheets and rns and Condi 11, !2 and c PL tieton Sub of Mr. an d Mrs. Bubar Sta tics corn tion of cs tistics com tion of B.C. Federation of ture - ost of Produ
w at tin
from Im tation of 60 61 62 te Desi 1984 to 1988 from t 4B 63 31, 64
Li and 65 B.C. rnber Ltd. 66 of Indus Gas 68 on 69 70 I 71 B. Irr 72 Irri 73 ds 7l~ edule 5 - to 92
ts to Mater
INTRODUCTION On y 15, 1983, West 11 ( WKPL", "the Applicant", or "the Utilities Commi Utilities Commission Act(" Rate Order No. l-8'3, issued July , 1983, set the that oublish a N September 20, 1983 in 3,700 of evidence. The hearing concluded 8 and 9, 1983.
The was the first review of an Appl design Expert evidence on studies were presented by the Applicant, several of the Intervenors, and a witness the m HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Kootenay Power and under the provisions of commercial, , street li roughly defined as exten from " ..... ,~+"" in the west to Creston in and from U.S. Boun north to Kelowna and supplies wholesale power to municipal uti! and Power Company, Limited. Since 1916 WKPL subsidiary of Cominco Ltd. ("Cominco") or a was incorporated by an Act of the British Columbia Legislature on May 8, 1897 and is au to radius of 150 miles of and. British Colu
Power Light ity"), ied to the British Columbia pursuant to Section the to and Conditions and t's B.C.U.C. No. . for and of The opened 17 days, 93 ts and tin on
deal rate of rate design, and cost service y, Limited is a utility ides to res cus tamers in an area east Applicant to Princeton Light a wholly-owned company. The util transmit and distribute power w1tnm a
2 Cominco, a industrial organization operations, chemical and fertilizer operations, and a subsidiary company of Canadian Pacific Limited, owns all of the issued common shares and 30 percent of the of WKPL. The balance of the preferred are held Canadian Pacific Limited. T Kimberley use In 1982, following a decision the Minister of Mines and power plants from Cominco located at Upper Bennington (No. 2), South Slocan (No.3) and Carra Linn (No. 4), all on the Kootenay River. was $20 million through the WKPL of 200,000 common value of $100 each. WKPL capacity for its at existing In addi to Plants 2, 3 and Lower Bonnineton, with the primarily from Cominco and B.C. Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") for time in the summer of I
The WKPL/Cominco Plant No. Name MW ! Lower Bennington 4!.4 2 Upper Bennington 59.4 3 South Slocan 5 4 51.2 5 iant* ! 6 Waneta* 373.9
*Cominco Owned Plant
in mining and smelting Ltd., another subsidiary Columbia at t of electric power. ion and pursuant to an Order of m Resources, WKPL acquired three consideration at a par red the right to expand ng of Cominco at Brilliant Waneta. by plant (No. I) at WKPL's requirements purchased A was made from use for the
consists of the following **Energy En (Gwh) Location 329.3 Kootenay River 42 Kootenay River 422.9 Kootenay River 343.2 Kootenay River 853.1+ Kootenay River 5.4 d'Oreille River
3 WI<PL Brilliant and Waneta for Cominco and receives a fee for its services under terms of set out in I , as . under the Sale of Surplus Power British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("B.C. Hydro"), a provincial Crown corporation, owns and River. Hydro is a public utility under Plant • Hydro was to optimize the total Kootenay River Under the Canal Plant I 972, B.C. Hydro Cominco/WKPL to the year LUUI as an on the K River. THE APPLICATION On July 15, 1983 Applicant approval a rate desi f!n rate for WK service area, a and of standard "Terms and Conditions" un c embedded cost of study, and direct testimony. with revenue contribution Appl sought and intra-class revenue not an overall revenue achieved in three pha'>es over a classes which were to be ished over a longer unspecified period. The utility also proposed sign t connection
dated a to surplus power from these two November 21, 1980 as the Canal Plant on the Kootenay Act. The building of the Canal of the entered into in en assurances to ment in exchange water an Application Commission including a postage nu of rates to customers results of an with rate supporting fil describes the Company's each rate class. The but did rate design changes were to be period, for those irrigation to extension pol and new
4 The changes to rates within classes that would occur as a result of the approval of the proposals would increases in certain rates at intervals over the next years. These would only reflect the pol in the present rna tters would not account for costs of for varying classes as they might occur, nor would it allow for any modification as a result of changes in policy.
THE The Application by WKPL has Applicant proposed a widespread modification to rate based, in part, on various methods of allocating costs of service. The inherent difficulties in dealing with the changes were recognized both as to timing and as to the after the initial filing. Some of B.C. Timber, resulted in a delay of six opening in September in Rossland.
A good deal of proposed changes was from an the Applicant with the of Bellevue, Washington. The was very useful in iden ti costs of service of and was However, it was fied in certain data and was challenged by intervenors in summer in the allocation of costs. In addition, the Applicant ied what it termed "overriding the purpose of proposals made in the Application. itself was further which would have widespread consumer impacts. identi by the cost of service study and the
a nu of issues. The and rate forms revenues to classes some of Applicant and t modifications of the proposed were made on a motion by an industrial intervenor, in the heari following the
t as tification for cost of service done and the present ly endorsed by expert because a of of utilization of a considerations" in utilizing the study Application to terms and costs and revenues
5 by the Utility were reflected on ibit 4A July. This exhibit was modified part because of modi to the overriding policy develop the proposed rate design changes in the the justification and of rate design issues which which gives Commission major concerns in reaching a decision on the Application.
As this is the first such application WKPL to be heard by the Commission, the treatment of the various may have an impact much beyond the Appl t and service area. In order to address the issues, the Commission has concluded that it must first examine Application as a whole. This involves a broad examination of the purpose of Application, in particular, the "overriding policy considerations" applied by the Applicant; the quality of the evidence; and the validity of the assumptions util in support of proposed changes.
In addition to the questions concerns ion on which little evidence was are such that the validity and the timing of the proposed changes are put in jeopardy. Specifically, they relate to the present and future source and price of power and the impact of tne uuv::.c:u shifts in revenue classes of customers and on the service area. These matters are of the Applicant that must be chan of nature of those * ibit 4A was amended N 5.
in the initial Application in subsequent changes, in used to Application.* It was overr pol in the most controversy in the hearing and
the Application, are two major concerns on the for electric the Applicant's major significance to the of first in any consideration of e Applicant in this proceeding. and Exhibit filed as Tables 3, 4
6 In respect of the source and of present and future power, the Applicant finds itself in very unusual circumstances. To serve a significant portion of its market WKPL must power from its parent and from B.C. Hydro. This situation has evolved over time in large part reflects the situation which existed prior to 1980 when WKPL acquired Plants No. 2, 3 and 4 from Cominco. Unfortunately, the acquisition of the plants not significantly the abilitv of the Applicant to meet its total load and it must rely on Cominco tor a its power This power is always subject to industrial as a priority with of a base block of 75 AV to 1990. Additional power to meet winter loads mus be from B.C. Hydro or other iers. power is purchased under contracts whi are annually in a situation where WKPL appears to have little room to manoeuvre or bargain.
The price for this power, as in this winter season, can vary An by B.C. at a rate of 30 mills/kWh was reduced y 50 percent to meet an offer of surplus power from the Bonneville Adminstration. le can only have a beneficial effect on WKPL and its customers, there is no certainty that WKPL will be able to negotiate such reductions in the future. This uncertainty only adds to the problems of forecasting electric requirements and prices. Additional comments on this matter are contained under Future Power Supply in "Other Issues".
The second major concern to the Applicant's failure to test many of significant proposed on its customers. discussion of the "overriding considerations" which were modify or the so-called over or under recovery of cost of service on line l of ibits 4(A)(B)(C). made, whether, for exam or remove the under-recovery in Applicant's view of the rna tter
There was extensive ized to it was clear that the modi under-recovery in the Residential irrigation class were based solei y on any discussion customers. A
7 particular was made of B.C. Timber. While it is unreasonable to rate changes, particularly those which would Commission has concluded that the formulation of policy considerations without an assessment of impact on customers and the policy cons wan The to rate structure and on cost considerations "overriding policy considerations". There was no consideration of consumption due to price either in absolute terms or fuels. It was Engineering Services that WKPL would anal of price effects before implementing all of the proposed three phases as outlined in the Appl Dr. Acton, appearing for the Consumers' Assoda tion et al, provided evidence on consumer responsiveness to price changes elasticity studies, of which one-third were C the "behavior cornmonalitv" establ Applicant's customers (TR and rev there was significant (TR 2235-36}. He concluded, however, that conducting a for the WKPL service area not be cost suggested that a conventional cross-sectional and time area representative of the WK service area would The Commission is of the opinion that the rate changes could well result in significantly changed consumption patterns over the three phases, which would affect the ability of the utility to meet revenue requirements. The ion finds that there is a significant lack of information in this respect in the paten tial consumer reaction to the proposed rate
1s by the industrial customer, an endorsement an increase in the the ms to from were ficant for in to Economic and to undertake some quantitative over (TR 2816, 2920-28). a review of 50 price an. Dr. testified that studies would to the er in al of the customer response to rate elasticity study R 2524). Dr. analysis for an sufficient R 3202). impact of the proposed and an assessment of would be in the
8 interest of utility and consumers. Future rate applications must include evidence on the potential im on consumption any proposed rate changes.
Several intervenors testified that the Appl discussion with its customers regarding policy irrigators were particularly disturbed by the lack of communication with the Applicant regarding irrigation matters. conservation study by Applicant was underway, they had not approached by WKPL regarding conservation.
While the issue of customer relations was not explored ln sufficient or detail to confirm or deny these criticisms, the Commission encourages WKPL to inform affected customers well in advance of any major proposed changes with respect to rate design policy. This will allow customers to identi concerns, v objections and to an extent, resolve concerns before the Applicant seeks approval of significant changes in rate design. Commission does appreciate that the t did pursue this process of consultation with respect to the street li!zhtlng oolicv with beneficial results.
A fundamental issue which was raised by some intervenors involves the power of the Commission to adopt the recommendations for changes in rates which did not relate to changes in cost of service but to shifts of responsibility for costs. Rate design based on such shifts were said to be "clearly" discriminatory, without tification, and in some cases, would require the Commission to make assumptions, particularly in respect of wholesale customers, which were unsupportable. There was strong opposition by municipal intervenors to reflecting allocations of the cost of excess investment in distribution ities and revenue as in Exhibit 4-C. intervenors were opposed to the principles underlying the chan and reiterated position of that such chan are both and the authority of the the
t had undertaken very little rate The further although a
9 The mun intervenors did su would be adoption of classes of serv which thought were it was recommended that the costs and revenues into line over time, so that the consumer recognize the costs of new power
An example of the of the Applicant's proposals for rate change is illustrated those proposed for irriga tlon rate customers. The changes to these rate classes were so that the customers would recognize and pay for the costs of the service. Initially the Application proposed very ificant chan in rate to and irrigation customers in Rate Classes 61 62. These ch first instance amoun to increases of up to 92 shown on Exhibit 4B, were to phased-in over an indeterminate period of time in the case of large irrigation customers. This was subsequently significantly reduced to a total increase of approximately l 0.24 percent in three stages.
This modification was done, presumab1 y, because of opposition from the affected class and some significant changes in overriding policy considerations. The considerations which resul in this were not specifically dealt with, to and are unacceptable in the circumstances. Histor ly, the irrigation rates were established to capture that specific load and encourage "off consumption. is no evidence that the irrigation load creates demands. If new rates are required consideration should be given to incorporating power and transmission costs appropriate to "off peak" use of . This should be done to reflect prev market requirements and the historic relationship costs and rates in these classes. The Commission has taken into account, as the Applicant should, the significance any increase on the fragile competitive position of ture and of the agricultural land use in the area. The Commission is aware of the Applicant's concern over the complexity of the irrigation rate schedules particularly that of Schedule The Comm ion generally the Applicant's intention to have
that a useful result from the hearing which involved tariff changes ly supported. In addition, ion indicate intent to bring residential d y
10 the irrigation rates more close! y , however, that this time that they must be, at evidence, and partly because of the lack of it, the Com that the existing irrigation The Applicant's proposal to close Rate Schedule 60 to new customers is approved.
One other element which was injected into the consideration of the Applicant's proposal was the utilization of marginal cost studies to determine rate structures. The application of margina.l cost studies to rate design was not advanced by the Applicant. As Mr. Saleba testified, however, the embedded cost of service study did reflect some marginal cost principles with respect to generation costs. marginal cost analysis as prepared by incremental cost study prepared Dr. Sarikas are important considerations and valuable in matters ng rate of practical cons tlons which prevent the full rates based on marginal cost WKPL such studies are better suited to economic efficiency over time.
One of the t ms in costs is determin incremental costs to WKPL of both generation and transmission capacity. Questions of capacity, both the Cominco and B.C. Hydro purchase the results of the current WK study on supply ternatives, must be assessed in order to obtain a measure of future costs. In addition, the Applicant requires a more thorough study of the winter versus summer peaking characteristics of the transmission system. The completion of studies in these two areas will put Applicant ln a much more defensible position in respect of the implementation of rates reflecting, at least ln part, marginal costs.
use. The Commission has proposed are such significance at delayed in tation. On the ion has concluded 61 and 62 should be maintained.
cular1y Commission acknowledges that both the Dr. Acton and the long range . There are, however, a number implementation ples. In the present circumstances of plann and maximizing
!I The Commission has carefully considered the Applicant's proposals, the evidence in the record and intervenors' positions on the issues. The record has been thoroughly examined and reviewed. After this consideration the Commission has concluded that many of the specific proposals of the Applicant are premature and unsupported. This is not entirely the fault of the Applicant as in some cases are attributable to the Applicant's present inability to accurately forecast future source and the price of electric power. As an exam one of the specific proposals - that of the introduction of "pos stamp" rates, depends heavily on the contribution of (and therefore increased costs to) wholesale customers. Quite naturally there is significant opposition from municipal customers to this proposal.
The Commission concludes that, whatever the merits structure, it is difficult to apply to a service area homogenous and broken by municipal systems at various points. matters are raised on] y as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with some of the proposals of the Applicant.
The Commission has concluded that it must reject those parts of the Application which to modify rate structure forms proposed by the Applicant with the exception of chan in terms and conditions wh can be separately dealt with. The Commission finds that the proposed (and rejected) modifications were a signi ich was not supported by the evidence nor justified the "overriding policy considerations". There are, no doubt, many changes which could be made to the rates of WKPL but the Commission cannot find sufficient justification in the present record and has concluded that the existing rates should n in place at this time. The Commission considers that the proceeding as a whole was a useful process and, in fact, provided support for the existing rates. When can be produced whi shows that the "historic" rates do not properly reflect costs service, the matter of rate can be addressed At such time,
a postage stamp rate is far from specific
12 however, the Applicant must have better appreciation of demands on its transmission system and its sources of power. The Commission also expects that future chan of the nature of proposed in this proceeding would take more specific account of the impact of those on the utility's earnings and its customers.
The foregoing conclusions of the Commission eliminate any necessity of answering questions of precedent or statutory authority in dealing with the proposals of WKPL on rate changes and those questions will not be addressed.
NGES IN TERMS AND NDITIONS In addition to the proposed rate changes, the Applicant proposed certain tariff changes affecting extension policy, connection charges, security deposits, payment charges, street lighting and revenue guarantee deposits. The Commission's on matters follow: Extension A~nn-lic_an, t's_ P_os_ it l,o_n The Applicant proposes to close the current extension policy, Schedule 72 (Exhibit 22), and it with Schedule 73. Schedule 72, in since 1978, was on the basis of the Rural Assistance (REA) program which was eliminated in March 1983.
der the proposed 73 Applicant has assigned to those customers a greater share of the cost of providing electricity to future customers located remote areas, on the basis that customers prior rights to the existing fixed assets and should from the costs of the attachment of new cus tamers. For res tial, general serv and industrial customers, WKPL proposes to contribute the first $1,000 and the customer any remaining amount. A would to the first customers on the line,
!3 provided additional customers are attached within five years (TR 103-04). A comparison of the existing policy and Intervenors' Position The Consumers' Association of Canada, took the position that the policy was consistent with the of marginal cost pricing and identifiable incremental costs (TR 2256-2257). Dr. Sarikas agreed th existing customers should enjoy almost com and Exhibit 17), the proposed costs of attaching new customers . Commission Conclusions The Commission concludes that the unduly restrictive. The Applicant cost pricing which in WKPL's circumstances is tantamount to extendin£ proprietary rights to the higher costs of new extensions. Although this philosophy may have merit in certain circumstances, the Commission notes that in WKPL's case, the program could result a restriction of system economic growth in the area.
The Commission further concludes that there within reason. To be just and with considerations of into account.
The Commission ieves that a rate base account order of $2.50,000 per year, which new, manent customers located within one kilometre of distribution system. This would result in service being a nominal cost while, at the same time, within the service area.
proposed policy is shown in Table I. if it were assumed that propr rights R 3908 could justified since the the cost of the pol may appl a on customers them from and a reduction in
ould be un ity of serv an extension policy should be clothed equity taking changed
d in the be available to provide assistance to e existing at economic development
14 'l'able 1
SCHEDULE 73 (Proposed) SCHEDULE 72 A. EX'I'ENSIONS OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY Applicant will pay for that Applicant will pay for that part of the extension beyond part of the extension beyond 30 metres. 90 metres. B. CON~'RIBll'l'IONS 'ID COST OF FACILITIES Along !badways Published in the B.C. Gazette
General Service and Custorrer will contribute the Industrial Customers full extension cost i.n excess of $1,000. Irrigation and Drainage customer will contribute the full extension cost of pro- vldinq service.
Subdivisions Developer will contribute full cost of extension.
Developer pays a line facilitiy charge.
Residential Customer will con tribute full extension c'Ost in excess of $1,000 for each permanent res idenc..-e ..
- REA con tr i-up maximum set by !JCUC. Company contributes 25% of REA up to $1 ,000.
1€ funds !€funds to old customers in relation to new customers attached. Auxilliary Charges l>bnthly extension charge based on length of extension.
Paid by customer l. Paid by company -7 .6,6/nVmo. - single j:hase 9 .5¢/m/mo. - three p1ase 5¢/rnjmo. - single j:hase 6.3,6/nVno. -three p1ase 2. Paid by Customer -2.5¢/rnjmo. - underbuilt 1.7¢/nVmc. -single j:hase 2.1,6/nVno. - three Fhase
Customer will contribute the full extension cost in excess of $6,000. Customer con tributes full cost.
Developer contributes when increase in total number of cus torrer s is daub tful.
_Rural Areas - (under REA) company contributes first .$1,000 after REA 50% and Company 50% up to next $5,000. Above $11,000 Company may contribute funds.
Refund depending on conditions of service for future custo-mers. Line facil i.ty charge based on lenqth of extension and method of fin an ci.ng (REA, Company or Customer) .
15 A major new extension might require the establishment of a new rate zone. In order that a new extension policy may be in place the 1985 construction season, the Commission directs Applicant to develop and submit tariffs reflecting this concept 31, 1984 for consideration. Service Connection Position The Appl t proposes to y the proposed Charge" to customers requiring a new (drop or an of an existing serv costs are currently being carried by all existing customers through the energy charge. The intention is to recover at least part of the excess of current costs over costs from the customer by way of this special charge (Exhibit 5, page 16). The proposed recovers part of the cost of the following facilities (Exhibit 4A, 197): (a) Drop service up to 30 m. over private property (b) The first $!,000 of roadway extensions (c) Distribution transformers to serve customer. The Applicant provided following analysis in support of the service connection charge for 200 amp ce: Estimate of the current cost for a single phase service connection (Exhibit 4A, page 209) based on multiple use of transformation and pole facilities.
Drop Service Pole Total Current Cost
$152.74 $358.97 $326.12 $837.83
16 The $837.83 reflects the minimum additional costs the Applicant incurs to supply a customer with minimum facilities for a 200 amp service. The Applicant's accounting records show a 2 to l relationship between current costs and average historic costs, so that total average cost is about $419.
It is proposed to recover about half or $200 of the excess of current costs over average costs, by way of the proposed service connection charge (Exhibit 4A, Schedule 82). The Applicant that this was necessary in order to reflect both the need for a transition and the principle that not all costs should be recovered by way of an up-front
Intervenors' Position The Consumers' Association et al, questioned the justification for a service connection charge. The evidence indicated that the overall average cost for the Company's distribution system was $834 per customer, based on the cost of distribution facilities in 26 communities (Exhibit 4A, page lO),and that the current costs (an average between rural and urban customers) are $668.09 and $837.83 per customer for 100 amp and 200 amp service respectively. The Association took the position that when current costs or marginal costs were equal to the average cost there was no justification for the proposed service connection charge.
Commission Conclusions The Commission has considered the implications of the Applicant's proposal with respect to a service connection Section 33(1) provides that "a public utility shall supply ... service to premises ... within 90 m ... or such prescribes ... on being requested the owner or occupier ..." .
against the background of Act. distance ... as mission
17 The Applicant's proposal to conflict with the "universality" of the right of a customer to service from an existing supply line under the provisions of Section 33. The Commission cannot conclude that the proposal, as framed, is consistent with the intent of the Act or the policy of the Commission in this matter, and must therefore reject it.
Revenue Guarantee and t's Position The Applicant proposed that a revenue guarantee deposit be required from a non-residential customer when installation costs exceed $1,000, in order to provide assurance that the Utility would recover the facilities. The Applicant outlin the circumstances currently require security and revenue guarantee deposits. t of a formal set of for a security it was 70-71. Under the Applicant proposed an amended item (e) giving WKPL authority to require a security deposit
" ... the Applicant is a general serv customer with demand in excess of 4 kW who has not established or maintained credit satisfactory to the C y." (Exhibit 56) With this the Applicant that the final form of conditions (a) to (g) requiring a security deposit as (a) the applicant an unpaid overdue bill with any British Columbia utility within the four years; or (b) service is (for than one year); or (c) the customer's service has been disconnected for inadequate payment of bill for service: or
lation costs of the 48, in policy memorandum, m was as a for A list of (a) to (g) and set out in Exhibit 4A, by the Consumers' Association et al,
18 (d) the applicant or customer receiver-manager has been appointed: or
(e) the applicant is a general service customer with a demand in excess of 4 kW who has not established or maintained credit satisfactory to the company (Exhibit 56 amended); or
(f) the customer's account is in arrears for more than two consecutive billing periods; or
(g) the customer's demand 200 kVa. In Exhibit 4A pages 70 and 71, the Company also proposed implementation of certain conditions in the event that a security deposit is required. A summary of the security deposit conditions is shown in Table 2 on the following
In evidence the Applicant amended certain conditions that applied to security and revenue guarantee deposits. It was proposed that security deposits be held for two years instead of one year, as is currently the practice. The Applicant argued that the present bi-monthly billing format did not provide sufficient information uoon which to assess ability customer to pay his bill (TR 1332). At t time the Appl t pays no on either security or revenue tee deposits, but to provide interest on all cash security deposits held for one calendar year or more (TR 14-30, Exhibit 4A, page 7!).
is bankrupt or a receiver or
19 2 A Sum ditions Customer Class A_m,o__ of Interest Interest unt T --im " e - -H e ld - -T erm - -R a te - R e tur ne d (Demand Cash equal Review Simple Bank of Applied to 200 kVa) to customer's two or more interest Montreal customer's bi! for a 3 years and beginning average account if month period when with daily less than or $25.00 receipt of interest $100.00 and whichever is payment funds savings returned greater record ( • 56) account to the rate customer if greater
(Demand (3 month bill) 200 kVa) cash, surety, bond (or other) " 3 mo. plus a 6 x minimum monthly charge under appropriate rate schedule (P7l, Ex. 4A)
Refunded where !I " customers established a payment record satisfactory to the Co.
20 During cross-examination the Applicant introduced CIa use 11.3 of Exhibit 56 which it proposed to apply to all security and revenue guarantee deposits. Clause I 1.3 states that:
"When interest is to be applied to the refund of certain customer payments as provided in terms and conditions, it shall be calculated as fol : The Company wll! pay simple interest at the average interest rate quoted by the Bank of Montreal for daily interest savings accounts, commencing with the date the fun were received by the pany.
The interest will to the customers with the refund, or when a deposit is held for more than one year. interest will be applied to the customer's account in January of the following year. If the customer's account is in excess of $!00 and is not in arrears, interest will be refunded to the customer."
Intervenors' Position The Consumers' Association et al, argued that Section 33 (1) of the Utilities Commission Act authorizes security for the repayment of the costs of making the connection, and not as security for payment of a utility bill. The decision in the case of Chastain et al vs B.C. Hydro was cited as the basis for this interpretation (TR 3616). The Commission will make no decision on the vailidity of security deposits as applied by the Applicant. issue, while raised by the Consumers' Association, was not pursued nor responded to by the Applicant. y the interpretation of Section 33( 1) taken by the Consumers' Association would restrict application of the security deposit. Such action would have widespread impact on utility tariffs in British Columbia and action on such a matter should not be taken on a piecemeal basis.
It was further argued that the prescribed conditions were too vague and that extent of Utility's discretion regarding security deposit requirements was excessive. Subject, however, to the difference of opinion regarding interpretation of Section 33( 1) , and the length of time security deposits could be h the Consumers' Association et al, indicated acceptance of the amen filed the Applicant (TR l 1325).
2! With respect to the length of time for holding security deposits, it was suggested that one year, and not the proposed two years, was adequate for establishin2: a good credit rating (TR 1331).
Commission Conclusions The Commission concludes that the prescribed conditions security deposits are acceptable as amended, but that the maximum time for holding a security deposit should be one year. The Commission further concludes nonpayment of a charge by a utility for other than its basic service should not result in the requirement for a security deposit. The Commission acceptable all other proposals regarding revenue guarantee security deposits, including the revised interest t policy. Latepayment Charge Applicant's ~ositjon The Applicant proposed that the current 10 percent discount for prompt payment of bills be replaced by a monthly late payment charge of 5 percent for all customers (Exhibit 5, 2, 7). The Applicant testified that there are significant administrative costs associated with processing the 10 percent discount (Exhibit 4A, 89). The utility argued that the net effect of the discount on the rate diluted the intended price signal, since the existing residential trailing block rate of 2.506f:./kWh discoun by 10 percent was lower than the proposed trailing rate of 2.41¢/kWh. The Applicant argued that this result contradicts the intent of the trailing block rate to reflect higher marginal costs (TR 626).
WKPL testified that it based the interest charge of 5 percent on judgment and the practices of other Canadian utili ties (TR 1307). The evidence indicated that the ch was intended to not cover the cost of money and the h cost of following up on delinquent accounts, but also to provide a meaningful tive to on time (TR 824).
The evidence shows that the late payment charge would not be compounded more than once, since the service disconnection policy would take effect prior to the next billing. The bill would compound up to the time account was sent to a collection The Applicant acknowledged that proposed ms and Conditions did not all procedural aspects or options to be undertaken before discontinuation service. The Utility argued, however, that f customers knew all procedural aspects service discontinuation, opportunities would exist to take advantage of the situation by delaying billing payment until the account was on the verge of being disconnected (TR 1437-1442).
Intervenors' Position The Consumers' Association et al, that the proposed 5 percent interest charge was excessive and should be in the same range suppliers charge the Applicant. A more equitable treatment, that has precedence in federally regulated telephone companies, would be to charge interest on overdue accounts at the same rate as the Applicant pays in security deposits, currently between 1.5 to 1.75 percent per month. It was also suggested that the proposed monthly charge of 5 percent compounded was greater than 60 percent annually which is the maximum limit under Section 305 of the Criminal Code.
Commission Conclusions The Commission acknowledges that the late payment penalty may be less costly to administer than the discount policy, but finds the Applicant's proposed 5 percent monthly charge excessive and unacceptable. The Commission accordingly, in the absence of any opposition, will accept the change from a discount system to that proposed, but directs the Applicant to charge 1.50 percent per month which, when compounded, is equivalent to an annual rate of 19.56 percent.
23 Street Lighting t's Position The Applicant proposed a revised tariff, Schedule 50, requiring all future street ligh equipment to be customer-owned and utility-approved, with the cost of maintenance to be built into the rate schedule. The Applicant that the lower municipal interest rates provide an to a municipality to own its own future street lighting facilities (TR 1293), and the approval of this tariff would be a step in continued negotiations that would ultimately result in ownership by mun lei palities of all street lighting (TR 1293-1294 ). WKPL maintained that the overall effect would be to make those responsible for planning street lighting aware of the true cost, so that appropriate cost/benefit decisions would be made by the municipalities (TR 1469). proposed tariff also provides that t would high pressure sodium vapour lights, which have the lowest life-cycle costs (TR 1455).
The Applicant had circulated proposed Schedule 50 to the affected customers on December 31, 1982 in order to obtain customers' views. Eight customers replied and the Applicant summarized these concerns in a letter to the Commission dated February 25, 1983. The Applicant testified that in most cases the customers were satisfied with the proposed tariff and had agreed to future installation of high pressure sodium lamps.
Intervenors' Position Mr. Igor Zahynacz, Engineer for The City of Castlegar, suggested that a municipality should not be forced to absorb the full cost of service since street lighting benefits rural as well as urban residents (TR 1177-1179), and that any proposed subsidy should reflect this benefit to rural customers.
Mr. Zahynacz also testified that the proposed method of billing, (monthly rate x number of lights) made no for street l that were not operating, resulting in munici ities being over-charged (TR ll51). The Applicant that it no statistics on street and had not to a factor the rate charge reflecting those lam that were actually out of R 98-1399). The Mayor of T , Mr. C. Lakes, proposed that the Applicant consider purchasing street in bulk and them at cost olus a handling ch to the municipalities. In this way the facilities would be acquired at the lowest possible price (TR
Commission Conclusions The Commission concludes that the position of the City of Castlegar regarding lighting outage rates is reasonable and directs that the Applicant such a factor in its street light billing formula. The Commission urges WKPL to investigate the opportunities of purchasing street lighting facilities in bulk and reselling them to mun palities. The Commission endorses the t of the proposed Schedule 50, which would lead to eventual total municipal ownership of street lighting facilities with WKPL responsible for operations and maintenance. The Commission recommends the Utility investigate a group replacement program for lamps in place of the current ad hoc system. Since the probability of lamp failure rises rapidly over the life of the lamp, a lamp replacement program based on statistically derived failure rates may prove more economic than the current ad hoc program.
Commission concludes it is not possible at this time to quantify the benefits of street lighting to rural residents in order to reflect this benefit in a street light subsidy cal ation, and therefore rejects this suggestion by c .
OTHER ISSUES Wh the hearing was intended to deal primarily with problems of rate design, force majeure and extension policy, a number of other matters arose during the proceedings. Althou man have been touched upon earlier in this Decision, the Commission wishes to emphasize its concern on several of matters.
The Appl t made numerous references to the high cost of electrical energy from . Hydro as the current supplier of WKPL's incremental load growth. Alternatives to the continued of power from Hydro were simply not addressed by the Applicant in these proceedings. The Commission is concerned that the future power supply of WKPL and any al terna tlv es to the current situation addressed. The Commission con that the issue of the Applicant's long-term future energy supply is fundamental to security of supply and to appropriate rate design. WKPL referred to a study of tial sources of future power supply which study should be completed as soon as reasonably possible. The results of that study should be filed with the C upon completion. There may potential supply in the short-term from operations such as those of B. Timber and the Commission concludes co-generation should be encouraged when the marginal cost of electricity from traditional sources exceeds the cost of co-generated electricity. Accordingly, the study condu by WKPL should also include an investigation of the feasibility of e purchase of power produced by .
26 Mercury_~~2our V<:E_:>us _Sodium~~ The Applicant proposed to replace all existing and new street lights with high pressure sodium vapour lamps (HPS). The cost of the program be borne by the customer. HPS lamps cost more to instaLl but last longer than mercury vapour and are less expensive to On a basis HPS lamps are less expensive than existing street
Testimony presented by Robert Miles of the Sierra Club ted low pressure sodium vapour (LPS) are more efficient than HPS (TR 2473, Exhibit 80). The Applicant responded with Exhibit 87 which suggested that LPS lamps are a new technology not for commercial distribution.
The Commission concludes that HPS lamps are the appropriate choice at this time, but directs that WKPL monitor ch in the costs of HPS, LPS and other lamp technologies as
Seasonal Rates The Applicant identified significant differences between the cost of supplying electricity summer and winter. facilities are to meet supplies purch from both Cominco B. Hydro's electrical energy price is more than purchases from B.C. Hydro are confined to the winter season, the costs are readily identifiable on a seasonal basis. continue, as it likely will until the results of the study referred to can be implemented, the Applicant may be able to make a case for seasonal rates. Matters related to winter and summer transmission resolution but could be resolved.
is primarily generation load and must be ted with and . Hydro. Currently, 5 times Cominco's. Since Should the current arrangement would require
Terms and Conditions proposed by the Applicant with the exception of the foregoing are as proposed. The di between Appl t majeure" conditions in sales Commission decision.
ts Mr. Gathercole, representing joint intervenor Consumers' Association of C (B.C. Branch), B.C. Old Pensioners Organization and the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of sought recovery of costs incurred of approximately $35,000.
These costs were of a counsel fee of approximate] y $12,000, consultant and expense of approximately $18,000, with the balance of $5,000 miscellaneous ""'v"'""'n"''~"
In addressing the request, the Commission has considered the reasonableness of the expenses and the benefit derived therefrom, has determined that the contribution of this intervenor was significant and in the public interest and that therefore the costs d be by the Utility and borne the Utility's customers. The ce of costs amount to approximately $387,000.
The Commission has the disposition of the total costs and concludes that, in circumstances, it is unreasonable that of the costs be recovered the customers hecause the quality of the application costs which are not to the public benefit. The Commission
Timber, in respect of "force t two and on in the will be the subiect of a
28 therefore disallow the recovery of 25 percent of the total costs of the hearing. The costs to be recovered from consumers, including those of Mr. Gathercole, should be amortized over a five year with unamortized portion in rate base. at the City of Vancouver, in e British C this 5th day of October, 1984.
"-'"''~ COt..u-'t, q_'::- ();:; "'"'''
BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MA'l"l'ER OF the Utilities Commission Act, S.B.C. 980, c. 60, as amended and IN THE !-lATTER OF an Application by West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited
BEFORE: J.D.V. Newlands, Deputy Chairman, Cha rman of the Division; D.B. Ki ck, October 5, 1984 Con®issioner; and R.J. Ludgate, Commissioner
WHEREAS West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited ("WKPL") applied July 15, 1983, pursuant to Section 67 of the Act, to amend the Terms and Conditions and Rate Schedules comprising its Electric Tariff BCUC No. l; and WHEREAS in accordance with Commission Order No. G-51-83 and the related Notice of Public Hearing the Commission heard evidence during a 17-day period commencing September 20, 1983 at Rossland, B.C. and argument on December 8 and 9, 1983 at Kelowna, B.C.; and WHEREAS the Application was the first submission dealing with rate design issues by West Kootenay Power; and WHEREAS the Commission has considered the Application and the evidence adduced thereon, all as set forth in a Decision issued concurrently with this Order.
1 'I'\ EN! y f!RSl \111 HMl11NG~)
~ 7 ORDER NUMBER
. .. /2 flLf.PiiONf" 161J4)
2 NOW THEREFORE the Commission hereby orders as follows:
1. The Applicant's proposed changes to Rate Schedules (except Schedule 60) are rejected.
2. The Commission will accept for filing, subject to timely fi , the Applicant's proposal to close Rate Schedule 60 (Irrigation and Drainage - Less than lOHP - All Areas) to new customers.
3. The Commission will accept for filing the Terms and Conditions proposed by the Applicant except as modified in the following s: Extension Policy Service Connection Charges Guarantee and Security Deposits
Late Payment Penalty Street Lighting.
4. The Applicant to pay to Mr. R.J. Gathercole, senting the Consumers' Association Canada (B.C. Branch), costs approved by the Commission.
DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 5th
of October, 1984. BY
Table __ !_ SCHI,:OULE 73 (Proposed) SCHEDULE 72 A. EXTENSIONS OVER PRIVA'I'E PROPERTY Applicant will pay for that Applicant will pay for that part. of the extension beyond part of the extension beyond 30 metres. 90 metres. B. CON'I'RIBUTIONS TO COS'!' OF' FACILITIES Along Roadways Published in the B.C. Gazette
General Service and Customer will contribute the Customer will contribute the Industrial Customers full extension cost in excess full extension cost in excess of $1,000. of $6,000. Irrigation and Drainage Customer will contribute the Customer contributes full full extension cost of pro- cost. viding service.
Subdivisions Developer will contribute full cost of extension.
Residential Customer will contribute full extension cost ir1 excess of $1,000 for each permanent residence.
contribute funds.
-- Rt:A cont r i-maximum set by BCUC. Company contributes 25% of REA up to $1,000.
Refunds Refunds to old customers in relation to new customers attached. Auxilliary Charges Monthly extension charge based on length of extension.
Customer) .
Paid by customer 5¢/m/mo. - single phase 6.3¢/m/mo. three phase 2. 5¢/m/mo. underbui lt
Developer contributes when increase in total number of customers is doubtful. Developer pays a line facil itiy charge.
filJ_£~!~!-_'2".§. (under REA) Company contributes first $1,000 after REA 50% and Company 501 up to next $5,000. Above $11,000 Company may
Refund depending on conditions of service for future custo-mers. Line facility charge based on length of extension aml method of financing (NEA, Company or
l. Paid by Company 7.6¢/m/mo. - single phase 9.5¢/m/mo. - three phase 2. Paid by Customer -1.7¢/m/mo. - single phase 2.1¢/m/mo. -three phase
Table 2 ($000's)
Class Revenue General Requirements Total System Residential Small Medium Laroe Base Case 55,347 26,267 3,626 5,675 2,684 Case l 55,347 26,642 3,678 5,696 2,610 case 2 55,347 27,925 3,437 5,165 2,441 Case 3 55,347 26 '669 3,585 5,574 2,636 Case 4 55,347 25,085 3,820 6,726 2,684 Case 5 55,347 26,275 3,566 6,234 2,684 Source: Exhibit 47 l. Base Case as derived from filed application cost of service study, Exhibit 4A, pg. 4. 2. Case 1 Hydro generation classified on fixed-variable basis and allocated on WCP (winter coincident peak) basis and all remaining allocations per WKPL cost of service study.
3. Case 2 Hydro generation classified on fixed-variable basis and all capacity related costs allocated on a WCP basis and all customer related cost and energy related allocations per WKPL cost of service study.
4. Case 3 Transmission capacity related costs allocated on WCP basis (rather than 2CP or summer-winter average) ana all remaining costs per w~PL cost of service study.
5. Case 4 Customer related plant (except services and meters) classified as demand related and allocate as per WKPL cost of service study.
6. Case 5 Customer related plant (except services and meters) classified as demand related and allocated on WCP basis with remaining costs as per ~PL cost of service study.
Large Liahtmg Irrigation Industrial Wholesale Street Outdoor Small Large 2,112 12,569 626 543 490 755 1,955 12,496 630 541 426 673 1,855 12,749 671 557 226 321 2,056 12,526 638 545 443 675 2,112 12,568 685 293 530 844 2,112 12,567 680 297 370 562
Table 3 WEST KOOTENAY POWER Al\'D LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED Summary of AdjusLT~ents to Cost of Service For t.'i)~ Fq~_~ast Year .Ehdinq J::ecewber 31, 1983
C~neral Ser~v~ic~e~s~--- Residential Small Medium ~ J:!:: .. Ind .. ~~~--~- l) ~,;er/Under P-ecovery per Cost of Service (Exh. 7) (4,554 ,000) 784,000 1,982,000 2) Al of Cost of Excess tin D:i t:ribut:ion Facilities (Sch e D) 1,403,031 ' 98 40,761 3) Al Uoo of Service Revenue
4) Subtotal (2,621,725) 968,498 2,022,761 5) Adjustment for Subsidy to Residential Class
6) Over/Under P-ecovery for Rate ign Purp0ses 0 768,460 1,607,218 7) Revenue from Sales 20,887,000 4,294,000 7,493,000 3,483,000 8) I ncr ease/Deer ease in Rates ed % 0 (17.90) (21.45) t 4A
_ ____________!ci_gh_ !_i_rl_9_~ w'hol es ale Street Q::_i tdoor --~~--860,000 569,000 833,000 4,000 (149,000) (23,000) (306,000) ( 219,901) ( 259,547) {1,260,993) 8,072 84 f 509 ( 380) 19,850
640,099 309,453 957,237) 12,072 ( 64,391) (23,380) (286,150)
384,481 40,988 (2,316,077) {10,475) { 73,042) (64,017) (337,536) 2,628,000 13,094,000 623,000 371,000 451,000 425,000 (11.04) {l. 56) l7 .69 l. 68 19.69 14.19 79.42
Table 4 WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT COMP!'.NY, LIMITED Summary of Adjustments to Cost of Service
Small l) Over/G'nder Thc"covery per Cost of Service (Exh. 7) (4,554 ,000) 784,000 1,982,000 2} Allocation of Cost of Excess t in Distribution Facilities D) 1, '031 ,498 40,761 3) AJ Joe a tion of era1 Service Revenue 4) Subtotal (2,859,938) 1,006,233 2,101,142 5) Adj us trnen t for Subsidy to Residential CJass
6) Over/Under Recovery for P.ate Design Purposes 0 7) Revenue from Sales 20,887,000 4,294,000 7,493,000 3,483,000 8) Increase/Deer ease in R.a tes Required % 0 (12.88) (15.48) Source: t 4B
Irrioation Who] esa1e Street 0--1tdoor Small __!:_~~ ~---~- ~-~---~ 860,000 569,000 833' 000 4,000 {149,000) (23,000) ,000) ,901) 259,547) (1, ,993) 8,072 ,609 19,850 -~-i_!l_,_:!l4 ____ :lCl_,?~ J _s2<J ,_2~4L -- ~ ~L28_I - ~ ~-1_,£_4)-. "?_,§z~ "'~85 688,313 360,049 957,237) 16,359 62, 750) (]5,706) (276,465)
2,628,000 13,094,000 623,000 371,000 451,000 425,000 (3.14) 9.43 7.31 5.60 22.16 23.90 92.44
Table 5 WEST KO(lTiliAY POWER AND LIGHT COI":PA-1-JY, LIMITED Summary of Adjustments to Cost of Service For the Forecast Year Ehding Decewber 31, 1983 With__!l_d.ilJ.;;trPfO:"lt for Princeton PawPr and Light a~rrigabon Cus_t:erreu:
-~-~-.ld_g_b t i~-~ ~~~~I£~ i oat ion_ __ Res .iden tia l Wholesale _E;_t:reet Qu_t::O_oor Small !:aroe ---~--
1) Over/IJnCler Recovery per Cost of Service (Exh. 7) (4,554,000) 784,000 1,982,000 2} Allocation of Cost of Excess Inves t in Distribution Facilities ded Schedc:le D) 1,363,724 179,426 30,195 3)
4) Subtotal (3,050,069) 981,605 2,049,956 5) }\djus t for Underrecmrery to Residential Class (Exh.4b) __2rfl.':'_~38 _Li:')_3_,_0lil_ j_9jjl,9201 _( 578,8_5Jl_ j_§_fl0L01_:ll -~----~--()_ J5_1_,_l_9}l j_1JIJ_4_4_8J_ j__9_2_r~'lgj_ Jp6,3'J2l 6) Sub-'lbtal 190,131) 528,591 1, 09,036 7) Allocation of Irrigation Under Recovery 159,222) 20,627) ( 42,851) 8) Over/Under PEcovery to be Corrected by te Design 9) Revenue from Sales 20,887,000 4,294,000 7, 93,000 3,483,000 10) I ncr tes I. 67 (11,83) {14. 23) t 4C
860 '000 569,000 833,000 4,000 (149,000) ( 23,000) (306,000) ( 226,241) ( 266,309) (1, 89,143) 7' 227 84 '609 1, E4 8) 1 8 '160 790
656,987 327,066 611,112) 13,292 ( 63,601) 20,951) (283,173) 78,136 ( 280,957) 611,112) (37,901) ( 83,049) (113,041) (399,572} ( 26,383) ( 27,685) 140,150) ( 2,311) ( 882) 64 '0 17 356,094 2,628,000 13,094,000 623,000 371,000 451,000 425,000 (1. 49) 11.74 5.74 6.45 62 10.87 10.23