2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 518 X 10,000 10,000 3.27 3.50 3.60 3/4-inch 18,000 18,000 4.18 4.48 4.71 25,000 25,000 5.10 5.47 5.64 25,000+ 25,000+ 6.10 6.55 6.74 Santa 1,000 1,000 $29.82 $31.17 $30.50 $1.45 $1.53 $1.30 Cruz 5,000 5,000 2.36 2.52 2.40 314-inch I 0,000 10,000 3.27 3.50 3.60 18,000 18,000 4. 18 4.48 4.71 25,000 25,000 5.10 5.47 5.64 25,000+ 25,000+ 6.10 6.55 6.74 Utility Breakover Points Basic Service Chan?e Volumetric Chan?e Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Prooosed GWU Staff GWU Staff GWU Staff Red 5,000 $25 $2.40 Rock 10,000 3.15 (Water) 10,000+ 4.07 518 X 1,000 1,000 $31.79 $29.75 $3.34 $3.31 314- 5,000 5,000 4.40 4.29 inch 10,000 10,000 5.70 5.50 18,000 18,000 7.24 6.90 25,000 25,000 8.27 7.90 25,000+ 25 000+ 9.58 9.70 Red 10,000 $37.50 $3. 15 Rock 10.000+ 4.07 (Water) 1,000 1,000 $31.79 $29.75 $3.34 $3.31 314- 5,000 5,000 4.40 4.29 inch 10,000 10,000 5.70 5.50 18,000 18,000 7.24 6.90 25,000 25,000 8.27 7.90 25,000+ 25.000+ 9.58 9.70 Utility Breakover Points Basic Service Charge Volumetric Char2e Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed GWU Staff GWU Staff GWU Staff Turner Per Per Per $133.17 $180.39" $155** $0.98 $1.33* $1.10 Ranches 1,000 1,000 1,000 All Meter Sizes Turner NIA NIA NIA $26.54 $35.95" $30.38* NIA NIA NIA Ranches . Res. Flat "Third year of a 3-year Applicant proposed phased-in of rates ** Third vear of a 3-year Staff-proposed ohase-in of rates Utility Meter Size Monthly Service Chan!e Current GW Staff Proposed Prooosed Red Rock 518 x 3/4-inch $90.39 $107.19 $101.88 (Wastewater) 3/4-inch $ 135.59 $107.19 $101.88 121 DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Utility Meter Size Monthly Service Char2e Current GW Staff Proposed* Proposed Palo Verde 518 x 314-inch $69.53 $69.85 $67.98 314-inch $69.53 $69.85 $67.98 w Second year of a 2-year proposed phase-in of rates. Note, in first year of proposed phase-in, rates increase to $70.07 but decrease in second year to $69.85. D. Conservation Rebate Threshold In conjunction with basic monthly service charge and commodity rates, the Global Water Utilities also employ a Conservation Rebate Threshold ("CRT") that provides a discount on the commodity rate when monthly consumption is below a set level, typically established at the average monthly consumption within the system. The level of discount varies by system but is typically approximately 50%.303 Currently, the Eagletail and Red Rock (Water) utilities do not have CRTs. The Applicants propose to adopt CRTs for both Eagletail and Red Rock (Water). The Applicants propose to retain the approved CRTs for Santa Cruz, GTWC, and NSWC. The summary of the proposed CRT proposals are as follows: Conservation Rebate Thresholds Utility Current Proposed Threshold Discount % Threshold Discount % Santa Cruz Below 6,001 60% Below 6,001 60% Red Rock (Water) NIA NIA Below 4,001 60% GTWC Below 6,000 50% Below 6.000 50% NSWC Below 7,001 20% Below 7,001 20% Eagletail NIA NIA Below 6,001 50% 1. RUCO RUCO expresses concerns about the CRT to the effect that it creates an outsized increase in the commodity rate at the point where the threshold is crossed and the rebate lost. According to Mr. Erdwurm, testifying for RUCO, "[t]ypically, the price of a good should reflect the incremental cost of providing that good."304 Rather than a smooth increase in the commodity rate, this gives rise to a precipitous spike in the commodity rate when consumption crosses the threshold. RUCO is concerned 303 Ex. A-26 at 39. 304 Ex. RUC0-8 at 8. 122 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. "that the abnormally high incremental cost at the conservation threshold could elicit changes in water 2 usage that increase revenue volatility and adversely affect Global 's ability to achieve revenue 3 targets."305 4 RUCO does not oppose the CRT proposal. However, RUCO indicates that it seeks the 5 opportunity for further discussions with the Global Water Utilities concerning the CRT aspect of the 6 rate structure before the filing of a future rate case. 306 7 8 9 10 1 1 2. Staff Staff reviewed the proposed CRTs and recommends approval. 3. Resolution Sending accurate price signals to ratepayers is an integral part of making conservation-based rates function properly. There being no evidence that the CRT is presently harming the Applicants' 12 ability to meet revenue targets and considering the Applicants' working experience with the CRT and 13 continued desire to use it and expand it to new water systems, we find that it is reasonable to adopt the 14 proposed expansion of the CRT to the Eagletail and Red Rock (Water) systems as proposed and that it 15 should be retained for the Santa Cruz, GTWC, and NSWC systems. E. Service Charges 16 17 Currently, the Global Water Utilities' approved Service Charges vary from utility to utility. 18 The Applicants propose changes to standardize the Service Charges within each proposed group of 19 consolidated utilities. Within the Pinal County Water consolidation, the Service Charges would be 20 standardized using the approved Service Charges for Santa Cruz.307 For the Maricopa County Water 21 consolidation, the approved Service Charges for GTWC would become standard throughout the 22 consolidation.308 Within the Pinal County Wastewater consolidation, the Applicants are proposing a 23 new standardized tariff to be applied throughout the consolidation.309 There are no changes proposed 24 25 305 Jd. 306 Ex. RUCO-8 at 9; Ex. RUCO-9 at 8-9; Tr. Vol. IX at 1340-1341. 26 307 Ex. A-48 at 26. 308 Id. at 27; In contrast to the pre-filed testimony of Ms. Ellsworth, the Applicants' final schedules show NSWC and GTWC 27 utilizing common miscellaneous Service Charges but Eagletail would largely retain its existing Service Charges which are different from GTWC and NSWC. See Final Schedule, Maricopa County Water - Consolidated, Schedule H-3, page l of 28 6, page 3 of 6, and page 5 of 6. 309 Id. at 30. 123 DECISION NO. 78644 ------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-02 14, et al. for the Turner Ranches Service Charges. The current, proposed, and Staff recommended Service Charges, by utility are as follows: Red Rock
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. R 14-2- 608(D)(5). Santa Cruz Current A1mlicants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Prooosed Recommended Establishment $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) (a) (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 Moving Customer Meter ( customer request At Cost (b) (b) After Hours Service Charge ( at $50.00 $35.00 $50.00 Customer's Request) Deposit (c) (c) (c) Deposit Interest (c) (c) (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) 30.00 30.00 30.00 NSF Check 30.00 30.00 30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% 1.5% (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.AC. Rl4-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.AC. R 14-2-405(B)(5) (c) Per A.AC. R14-2-403(B) ( d) Per month on unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6) In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. Rl4-2- 409(D)(5). Red Rock (Water) Current Am2licants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Prooosed Recommended Establishment of Service $25.00 $35.00 $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) (a) (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 Meter Move at Customer Request At Cost (b) (b) After Hours Service Charge, per Hour * $50.00 $50.00 NIA After Hours Service Charge, At Customer NIA NIA $50.00 Request Deposit (c) (c) (c) Deposit Interest (c) (c) (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $15.00 $30.00 $30.00 125 DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Meter T est Fee (If Correct) 30.00 30.00 30.00 NSF Check 25.00 30.00 30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% 1.5% (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. R 14-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.AC. R 14-2-405(B)(5) (c) Per A.AC. R14-2-403(B) (d) Per month on unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6) *For After Hours Service Calls for work performed on the customer's property; not to be charged in addition to an establishment or a reconnection after hours charge. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. R 14-2- 409(D)(5). NSWC Current A1mlicants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Proposed Recommended Establishment of Service $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) (a) (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 Meter Move at Customer Request At Cost (b) (b) After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour * NIA $35.00 NIA After Hours Service Charge, Flat Rate $35.00 NIA NIA After Hours Service Charge (at NIA NIA ** Customer's Request) Deposit (c) (c) (c) Deposit Interest (c) (c) (c) Meter Re-Read Of Correct) $25.00 $30.00 $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) 30.00 30.00 30.00 NSF Check 30.00 30.00 30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.AC. R14-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.AC. Rl4-2-405(B)(5) (c) Per A.AC. R14-2-403(B) ( d) Per month of unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6) *For After Hours Service Calls for work perfonned on the customer's property; not to be charged in addition to an establishment or a reconnection after hours charge. ** New Tariff (at customer's request) $50 to align with all other utilities. 126 DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R 14-2- 409(0)(5). Ea!!letail Current Am~ticants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Proposed Recommended Establishment of Service $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) 40.00 40.00 40.00 After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour * NIA 30.00 NIA After Hours Service Charge, Flat Rate $30.00 NIA NIA After Hours Service Charge (at NIA NIA $50.00 Customer's Request) Meter Test Fee (If Correct) $35.00 $35.00 35.00 Deposit * * * Deposit Interest 4% 4% *4% Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 ** ** ** Months) NSF Check $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% 2% *** 1.5% Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Late Fee (Per Month on Unpaid Balance) 1.5% 2% 1.5% Charge for Moving Meter **** **** **** Monthlv Service Chan?.e for Fire Sorinkler ***** ***** ***** All Meter Sizes ( All Classes) * Per Conunission Rule A.A.C. Rl4-2-403(B) ** Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. Rl4-2-403(D) *** Per Conunission Rule A.A.C. Rl4-2-409(G)(6) **** Cost to include parts, labor, overhead and all applicable taxes per A.A.C. Rl4-2-405(B)(5) ***** 2% of Monthly Minimum for a Comparable Sized Meter Connection, but no less than $ 10.00 per month. The Service Charge for Fire Sprinklers is only applicable for service lines separate and distinct from the primary service line. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R 14-2- 409(0)(5). GTWC Current A1mlicants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Proposed Recommended Establishment of Service $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) (a) (a) Months) 127 DECISION NO. 78644 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-02 14, et al. Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 Meter Move at Customer Request At Cost (b) (b) After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour* $35.00 $35.00 NIA After Hours Service Charge (at NIA NIA ** Customer's Request) Deposit (c) (c) (c) Deposit Interest (c) (c) (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) 30.00 30.00 30.00 NSF Check 30.00 30.00 30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. R14-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.A.C. R 14-2-405(B)(5) (c) Per A.A.C. R14-2-403(B) ( d) Per month of unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.A.C. R14-2-409(G)(6) *For After Hours Service Calls for work performed on the customer's property; not to be charged in addition to an establishment or a reconnection after hours charge. ** New Tariff (at customer's request) $50 to align with all other utilities. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R 14-2- 409(0)(5). Turner Ranches Current A1rnlicants' Staff SERVICE CHARGES: Prooosed Recommended Establishment $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Reconnection (Delinquent) $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Meter Test (If Correct) $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Deoosit (a) (a) (a) Deposit Interest (a) (a) (a) Re-Establishment (Within 12 Months) (b) (b) (b) NSF Check $15.00 $15.00 $ 15.00 Meter Re-Read (If Correct) (c) (c) 1.5% & (d) Late Payment Penalty 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% & (e) After Hours Service Charge ( customer $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 request) Moving Customer Meter ( customer At Cost At Cost At Cost request) (a) Per A.A.C. R14-2-403(D) (b) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. R14-2-403(D) 128 DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. ( c) 2.00% of monthly minimwn for the comparable sized meter connection, but not less than $10.00 per month. 2 (d) Per Commission Rule A.AC. Rl4-2-409(G)(6) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (e) 1.5% per month on unpaid balance In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. R14-2- 409 D 5. 1. RUCO RUCO offered no position on the proposed changes to Service Charges. 2. Staff Staffs recommended Service Charges reflect the adoption of standalone rates. However, Staff has no objection to using Santa Cruz's Service Charges as the standard Service Charge for the Pinal County Water consolidation, or the Palo Verde Service Charges as the standard for the Pinal County Wastewater consolidation. a. Turner Ranches Service Charges Staff agrees with the Applicants' proposal not to change the Turner Ranches Service Charges except for two recommended clarifications. For Deferred Payment, Staff recommends removing the reference to the incorrect sprinkler rule and adding "Per Rule A.A.C. Rl4-2-409(G)(6)". For the Late Payment Penalty, Staff recommends adding "Per month on unpaid balance." b. Eagletail Service Charges Staff agrees with the Applicants' proposed revisions to Eagletail 's standalone Service Charges with the following exceptions. For After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour, Staff recommends eliminating the current $30 charge and replacing it with a new After Hours Service (at customer's request) of $50 to be consistent with other utilities involved in this matter. For Deposit Interest, Staff recommends adding "Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-403(B)". For Deferred Payment, Staff reconunends denial of the Applicants' proposal to increase the fee to 2.0% owing to a lack of support for the proposed increase. Staff recommends instead retaining the current 1.5% charge and adding "Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6)." For Late Fee (Per Month on Unpaid Balance), Staff also recommends denial of the Applicants' proposed increase from 1.5% to 2.0%. Staff bases its recommendation on a lack of support provided 129 DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. by the Applicants for the proposed change. c. NSWC Service Charges Staff reviewed and agrees with the Applicants' proposed changes to NSWC's Service Charges 4 with the following exceptions. For After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour, Staff recommends 5 eliminating the current $30 charge and replacing it with a new After Hours Service (at customer's 6 request) of $50 to be consistent with other utilities involved in this matter. For the Late Payment 7 Penalty, Staff recommends adding "Per month on unpaid balance." For Deferred Payment, Staff 8 recommends removing the reference to the incorrect sprinkler rule and adding "Per Rule A.AC. Rl4- 9 2-409(G)(6)". d. GTWC Service Charges 10 11 Staff agrees with the Applicants' proposed changes to GTWC's Service Charges with the 12 following exceptions. For After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour, Staff recommends eliminating the 13 current $30 charge and replacing it with a new After Hours Service (at customer's request) of $50 to 14 be consistent with other utilities involved in this matter. For the Late Payment Penalty, Staff 15 recommends adding "Per month on unpaid balance." For Deferred Payment, Staff recommends 16 removing the reference to the incorrect sprinkler rule and adding "Per Rule A.AC. Rl4-2-409(G)(6)". 17 e. Red Rock (Water) 18 Staff agrees with the Applicants' proposed changes to Red Rock (Water)'s Service Charges 19 with the following exceptions. Staff recommends denial of the Applicants' proposal to eliminate the 20 After Hours Service Charge (at customer request), Flat Rate, and instead to revise it to "After Hours 21 Service Charge (per customer's request)" and set the fee at $50. Staff also recommends denial of the 22 proposal to add a new After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour of $50. 23 For the Late Payment Penalty, Staff recommends adding "Per month on unpaid balance." For 24 Deferred Payment, Staff recommends removing the reference to the incorrect sprinkler rule and adding 25 " Per Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6)". 26 f. Red Rock (Wastewater) 27 Staff agrees with Applicants' proposed revisions to Red Rock (Wastewater)'s Service Charges 28 with the following exceptions. Staff recommends denial of the Global Water Utilities' proposal to 130 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. increase the Establishment of Service Charge from $25 to $35. Staff indicates in testimony that it 2 disputes the Applicants' proposal to increase the Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) charge from 3 $30 to $35.310 However, Staff's final schedules indicate that Staff has adopted a $35 charge for this 4 service. Staff also indicates that it recommends denial of the proposed increase to NSF Check from 5 $25 to $30.311 However, in Staffs final schedules, the Staff recommended NSF Check charge is $30. 6 Staff recommends denial of the Applicants' proposal to eliminate the After Hours Service 7 Charge (at customer request), Flat Rate, and instead to revise it to "After Hours Service Charge (per 8 customer's request)" and set the fee at $50. Staff also recommends denial of the proposal to add a new 9 After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour of $50. For the Late Payment Charge (per Month), Staff recommends adding "1.5 percent per month 11 on unpaid balance." g. Palo Verde Service Charges 12 13 Staff reviewed the Applicants' proposed changes and agrees with the following exceptions. 14 Staff recommends denial of the proposed elimination of the After Hours Service Charge of $35 and 15 instead recommends retaining the charge and instead revising it to be an After Hours Service Charge 16 (per customer's request) of $50 to be consistent with other utilities involved in this consolidated matter. 17 Staff recommends denial of the proposed new After Hours Service Charge, Per Hour of $50. 18 For the Late Payment Charge (per Month), Staff recommends adding "1.5 percent per month 19 on unpaid balance." h. Santa Cruz Service Charges 20 21 Staff agrees with the proposed changes to Santa Cruz's Service Charges except for the 22 following. For the After Hours Service Charge, Staff agrees with the increase from $35 to $50 and 23 also recommends adding "(per customer's request)" to be consistent with other utilities involved in the 24 present matter. 25 For the Late Payment Charge (per Month), Staff recommends adding "1.5 percent per month 26 on unpaid balance." For Deferred Payment, Staff recommends removing the reference to the incorrect 27 310 Ex. S-12 at 20. 28 311 Jd. 131 DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. sprinkler rule and adding "Per Rule A.A.C. R 14-2-409(G)(6)" . 3. Global Water Utilities Response The Applicants offered no testimony in response to Staff's recommendations for the miscellaneous service charges and noted no disputes with Staff's recommendations in the pre-trial issues matrix. 4. Resolution The Applicants' proposed revisions to miscellaneous Service Charges, as recommended by Staff, are reasonable and should be adopted. Because we also adopt the proposed consolidation, the companion proposal to apply Santa Cruz's Service Charges as the standard charges within the Pinal County Water consolidation, Palo Verde's Service Charges as the standard charges within the Pinal County Wastewater consolidation, and GTWC's Service Charges as the standard charges for GTWC and NSWC is also reasonable and should be adopted. F. Service Line and Meter Installation Charges The Global Water Utilities are also proposing changes to the Service Line and Meter Installation charges for all water systems except Turner Ranches. Turner Ranches currently charges at cost for new service connections. The Applicants' current, proposed and Staff recommended Service Line and Meter Installation charges are as follows: Meter Size Applicants ' Current Charges Applicants' Proposed and Staff (Inches) Recommended Chan?:es Service Line Meter Total Service Meter Total . Line 5/8" X 3/4" $355-$455 $45-$175 $400-$600 $445 $155 $600 3/4" $355-$455 $85-$275 $440-$700 $445 $255 $700 1" $405-$495 $95-$340 $500-$810 $495 $3 15 $810 1-1/2" $440-$550 $275-$525 $7 15-$1,075 $550 $525 $ 1,075 2" Turbine $600-$950 $570-$ 1,250 $ 1, 170-$2,200 $830 $ 1,045 $1 ,875 2" Compound $600-$950 $ 1, I 00-$ 1,890 $ 1, 700-$2, 720 $830 $1,890 $2,720 3" Turbine $775-$ 1,300 $810-$ 1,900 $ 1,585-$3,200 $ 1,045 $1,670 $2,715 3" Compound $815-$ 1,300 $ 1,375-$2,545 $2, 190-$3,710 $ 1,165 $2,545 $3,7 10 4" Turbine $1 , 100-$ I ,800 $ 1,430-$2,900 $2,540-$4, 700 $ 1,490 $2,670 $4,160 4" Compound $ 1, 170-$1,800 $2,045-$3,645 $3,215-$5,3 15 $1,670 $3,645 $5,3 15 6" Turbine $1 ,670-$2,800 $3, 145-$5,440 $4,8 l 5-$8,240 $2,210 $5,025 $7,235 6" Compound $1 , 710-$2,800 $4,560-$6,920 $6,270-$9 ,250 $2,330 $6,920 $9,250 132 DECISION NO. 18644
2 3 4 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 8" and Larger I At Cost I At Cost I At Cost I Actual Cost I Actual Cost I Actual Cost • Amount adjusted to include the actual cost incurred when boring under or cutting a road, highway, or sidewalk is required. 1. RUCO RUCO offered no position on the proposed changes to the Service Line and Meter Installation 5 charges. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. Staff Staff reviewed the proposed changes to the Service Line and Meter Installation charges. According to Staff, the proposed changes are near the average of Staffs typical recommended range for these charges. Staff recommends that the Applicants' proposed and Staff recommended Service Line and Meter Installation charges be adopted for all water systems except Turner Ranches. Staff also recommends the inclusion oflanguage noting that the customer is required to pay the actual cost of the service connection when boring under or cutting a road , h ighway, or sidewalk is required.31 2 3. Resolution Staffs recommendations are reasonable and will be adopted. G. Miscellaneous Tariff Changes 1. Best Management Practices Tariff The Global Water Utilities propose revisions to approved Best Management Practice ("BMP") 19 tariffs. In conjunction with their position on rate consolidations, the Applicants propose to merge the 20 BMP tariffs applicable within the consolidated service territories with the result that Santa Cruz's 21 BMPs would be merged with those applicable within the Red Rock water territory, and the GTWC 22 would be merged with Eagletail's BMPs. The Global Water Utilities also request various revisions to 23 their approved BMPs to better reflect circumstances within the applicable service territories.313 24 25 26 27 A summary of the BMP proposals is provided as follows: Utilitv Currently Annroved BMPs Santa Cruz 1 . 1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 1.2 - Special Events/Proirrams and 3 12 Ex. S-6 at 98; Attachment-8. 28 3 13 Ex. A-54 at 63-66. 133 Proposed BMPs 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 1.2 - Special Events/Proirrams and DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Red Rock (Water) GTWC EagletaiJ NSWC Community Presentations 2.2 - Youth Conservation Education Program 3.6 - Customer High Water Use Inquiry Resolution 3.7 - High Water Use Notification 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 4.3 - Comprehensive Water System Audit 5.2 - Water System Tampering 7.6 - Development of Industry Partnerships 7. 7 - Providing Financial Support or In-Kind Services for Development of New Conservation Technologies and Products 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 2.3 - New Homeowner Landscape Infonnation 3.8 - Water Waste Investigations and Infonnation 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 5.2 - Water System Tampering 5.13 - Water Use Plan for New Non Residential User 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering a. RUCO RUCO did not offer a position regarding BMP tariffs. 134 Community Presentations 2.2 - Youth Conservation Education Program 2.3 - New Homeowner Landscape Infonnation 3.6 - Customer High Water Use Inquiry Resolution 3.7 - High Water Use Notification 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 6.12 - Large Landscape Conservation Program 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 1.2 - Special Events/Programs and Community Presentations 2.2 - Youth Conservation Education Program 2.3 - New Homeowner Landscape Information 3.6 - Customer High Water Use Inquiry Resolution 3.7 - High Water Use Notification 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 6.12- Large Landscape Conservation Prol?Tam 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 1.1 - Local and/or Regional Messaging Program 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering 4.1 - Leak Detection Program 4.2 - Meter Repair and/or Replacement 5.2 - Water System Tampering DECISION NO. 78644 ----- DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. b. Staff 2 Staff recommends elimination of the BMP tariffs on the basis that Staff does not believe that 3 the cost of implementing BMPs provides offsetting substantial benefits to the water system or to 4 ratepayers. 314 5 6 c. Global Water Utilities In response to Staffs recommendation to eliminate the BMP tariffs, the Global Water Utilities 7 do not oppose the recommendation and they note that they have an obligation under ADWR regulations 8 to perform some BMPs. The Applicants state that they intend to continue using BMPs in conjunction 9 with their Total Water Management philosophy to conserve water resources. d. Resolution 11 Regarding Staffs recommendation to discontinue the BMP tariffs, we agree that the interest of 12 promoting conservation is not carte blanche to continue incurring the cost of implementing programs 13 that are producing limited results. As has been amply demonstrated in support of the Applicants' 14 proposed Sustainable Water Surcharge, which is discussed further below, scarcity of water resources 15 is an issue that cannot be deferred indefinitely and proactive measures to make responsible use of 16 increasingly limited water resources is vital to preserving water utilities' ability to continue providing 17 safe, reliable, and economical water service. Consequently, we find the Applicants' proposal to instead 18 substitute the approved BMPs for ones better suited to attaining the desired results is the more 19 reasonable approach to obtaining the "bang for the buck" that Staff believes is missing from the current 20 pallet of approved BMPs. 2. Miscellaneous Terms of Service Tariffs 21 22 The Applicants proposed to standardize, for their water utilities, the cross cotmection/backflow 23 prevention,3I5 curtailment,316 customer meter downsizing, hydrant meter deposit, and water utility 24 terms and conditions tariffs. The Global Water Utilities also requested to standardize for their 25 26 314 Ex. S-6 at 95; Tr. Vol. X at 1399 - 1402. 27 315 The cross connection/backflow prevention tariff is to protect the utility' s water supply from the possibility of contamination caused by backflow from contaminants on the customer' s premises. Ex. S-6 at 87. 28 316 The curtailment tariff authorizes the utility to curtail water available for consumption when specified thresholds of limited water supply are in effect. Ex. S-6 at 88. 135 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. wastewater utilities the source control, 317 source control violation foe, unauthorized discharge,318 and 2 wastewater utility terms and conditions tariffs. 3 The Global Water Utilities also propose to extend the Point of Use ("POU") Treatment tariff 4 319authorized for GTWC's WPE No. 1, WPE No. 7, and Roseview systems for use in additional utilities. a. RUCO 5 6 RUCO offered no position on the proposed standardization of the various water and wastewater 7 terms of service tariff modifications proposed by the Applicants. 8 9 b. Staff The Applicants did not provide a standardized cross connection/backflrow prevention tariff 10 using the Commission's standard fonn. Staff recommends that the Applicants pursue approval of a 11 standardized cross connection/backflow prevention tariff in a separate docket after producing an 12 appropriate tariff using the Commission's form. 13 Staff notes that the Commission updated the standard form of curtailment tariff on October 1, 14 2009. Staff recommends that the Applicants file, in a new docket using the current standard form of 15 curtailment tariff, a proposed standardized curtailment tariff for all of the Global Water Utilities. 16 Staff recommends that the proposed standardization of the wastewater source control violation 17 fee tariff not be approved until the Global Water Utilities propose and the Commission approves a 18 standardized joint source control tariff. 320 19 Noting that the Applicants did not provide a form of POU Treatment tariff for review, Staff 20 recommends that the Applicants file a proposed form of POU Treatment tariff in a new docket for Staff 21 review. 22 Staff recommends approval of the proposed Unauthorized Discharge Tariff. 321 23 24 317 A Source Control tariff is to protect a utility's wastewater collection system against blockages and damage. Ex. S-6 at 123-1 24. 25 318 The Unauthorized Discharge Tariff is to discourage unauthorized discharges of waste into the wastewater collection system from improper collection points. Ex. S-6 at 126. 26 319 The POU Treatment tariff authorizes the utility to install, maintain, and inspect a water treatment system installed directly on the point of water consumption (i.e. under a kitchen sink or drinking fountain). Ex. S-6 at 90. 320 Ex. S-6 at 126; Notably, the Executive Summary for Ex .. S-6, Recommendation I 6 recommends approval of the Source 27 Control Tariff but also recommends suspension of the fee provision until a joint source control tariff has been approved. 28 Ex. S-6, Executive Summary. 321 Ex. S-6 at 127. 136 DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. c. Global Water Utilities 2 The Applicants accept Staff's recommended procedure to pursue changes to the standardized 3 wastewater source control violation fee tariff in future filings in conjunction with the proposal of a 4 standardized joint source control tariff. 5 In response to Staff's recommendation, the Global Water Utilities will pursue standardization 6 of the cross connection, backflow prevention, and curtailment tariffs in separate proceedings. 322 No 7 party objected to the proposal that the customer meter downsizing, hydrant meter deposit, and water 8 utility terms and conditions tariffs be standardized.323 Additionally, the Global Water Utilities accepted 9 Staffs recommendation to address the revisions to GTWC's POU tariff in a separate proceeding.324 10 ln response to Staff's recommendation, the Applicants will seek to standardize their wastewater 11 source control tariff in separate proceedings. 325 No party objected to the proposal that the wastewater 12 utility terms and conditions tariffs be standardized.326 d. Resolution 13 14 Staffs recommendations for the Applicants' proposed water and wastewater terms of service 15 tariffs are reasonable. 3. Customer Assistance Program Tariffs 16 17 Also, the Global Water Utilities request to maintain the various tariffs composing the Customer 18 Assistance Program at their currently approved eligibility levels. Additionally, the Global Water 19 Utilities reconunend minor revisions to update the Customer Assistance Program tariff to reflect the 20 requested rate consolidation effort. 327 a. RUCO 21 22 RUCO recommends elimination of the Furloughed Worker Program from the Customer 23 Assistance Program, and that the threshold income level to qualify for the Income Assistance Program 24 be returned to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level from its current threshold of 300 percent.328 25 322 Ex. A-49 at 20. 26 323 Id. at 21. 324 Id. at 20. 325 Id. at 22. 27 326 Id. at 23. 327 Ex. A-48 at 33-34. 28 328 Ex. RUC0-9 at 1-2. 137 78644 DECISION NO. - - - --- DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. According to RUCO, a 300% income threshold provides a low-income benefit to households that are 2 not low-income, whereas the more typical 200% income threshold results in targeting benefits toward 3 the most disadvantaged customers.329 4 As to elimination of the Furloughed Worker Program, RUCO contends that half of the program 5 costs are paid by ratepayers and customers should not be required to financially support "a benefit for 6 a relatively small subset of customers still claiming to be 'furloughed. "'330 Because unemployment 7 rates have declined since their peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, RUCO argues, "the term 8 'furloughed employee' becomes increasingly irrelevant as the state transitions to a post pandemic 9 economy."331 b. Staff 10 11 Staff offered no position in response to RUCO's recommended changes to the Customer 12 Assistance Program tariffs. c. Global Water Utilities 13 14 The Applicants disagree with RUCO's proposed reduction to the applicability of the Income 15 Assistance Program to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and also disagree with RUCO's 16 proposed elimination of the Furloughed Worker Program. According to the Global Water Utilities, the 17 various offerings under the Customer Assistance Programs have not attained full subscription even 18 with the increased income threshold and are thus there is no evidence that the program is being abused. d. Resolution 19 20 RUCO's concern that programs responding to pandemic concerns become increasingly difficult 21 to justify as the economy reopens is a fair point. However, as illustrated by RUCO's concern that these 22 programs can "provide unwarranted benefits to customers who are not economically disadvantaged" 23 the specific concern is the potential for abuse. As noted by the Applicants, there is no evidence that 24 the approved program ever attained full subscription or that it has produced abuses. In the absence of 25 evidence of abuse, we are not persuaded to terminate the Furloughed Worker Program at this time. 26 Regarding the recommendation to lower the income threshold to qualify for low-income 27 329 Id. at2. 330 Id. at 2-3. 28 331 Id. at 3. 138 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. assistance back to 200%, we find RUCO's arguments more persuasive. As RUCO demonstrated, a 2 household of four with an annual income (in 2021) of up to $79,500 would qualify for low-income 3 assistance using a 300% eligibility threshold. By contrast, a 200% threshold limits eligibility for a 4 household of four to $53,000.332 We agree that restoring a 200% of federal poverty levels eligibility 5 threshold for the Low-Income Assistance Program better targets benefits to the most disadvantaged 6 ratepayers. 4. Red Rock (Water) Pima County 7 8 Red Rock (Water)'s CC&N includes a service territory within Pima County. In keeping with 9 the proposed consolidation of utilities by county, the Global Water Utilities request approval of a 10 separate rate tariff and approval of an Off-Site Facilities Fee tariff applicable specifically to Red Rock (Water) - Pima County.333 Neither Staff nor RUCO disagreed with the Applicants' request. The 11 12 request is reasonable and should be adopted. G. Adjustor Mechanisms 1. Tax Adjustors 13 14 15 The Global Water Utilities propose to implement a Property Tax Adjustor Mechanism 16 ("PT AM"). A PT AM allows a utility to flow through changes in property tax rates and/or assessment 17 ratios caused by the enactment of new property tax laws without the necessity of a rate case proceeding. 18 Staff recommends approval of a PT AM. 334 RUCO does not oppose the implementation of a PT AM. 335 19 The Applicants also request authorization to implement a tax adjustor mechanism similar to the 20 Tax Expense Adjustor Mechanism ("TEAM") adopted for other utilities to address changes in federal 21 taxation. The TEAM would permit the Applicants to flow through potential changes to state and federal 22 income tax rates as well as refund or collect funds related to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. 23 Notably, a TEAM also pennits a utility to reconcile differences between EADIT amortization post-rate 24 case and the amount of EADIT reflected in base rates.336 25 26 332 Ex. RUCO-9 at 2. 27 333 Ex. A-49 at 24. 334 Ex. S-12 at 25. 335 Ex. RUCO-2 at 30. 28 336 Ex.S-Iat37. 139 DECISION NO. 78644 ------ 2 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Staff supports adoption of a TEAM337 and RUCO does not oppose approval of a TEAM338. Applicants request that they be ordered to file Plans of Administration for both the PT AM and 3 TEAM within 90 days of the effective date of this Decision. Staff recommends that the POA for the 4 TEAM be modelled after the TEAM POA described in Decision No. 77139 (March 19, 2019), and as 5 Staff recommended in Docket No. E-01933A-19-0028 and that it be submitted within 30 days of a 6 Commission Decision in this matter. 7 8 9 Staffs recommendations are reasonable and should be adopted. 2. CAGRD Surcharge / Sustainable Water Surcharge Applicants propose to discontinue GTWC's current Central Arizona Groundwater IO Replenishment District ("CAGRD") surcharge. In its place, Applicants request adoption of a new 11 Sustainable Water Surcharge ("SWS") that would be applicable for all the systems involved in the 12 present matter. 13 The proposed SWS is patterned after the SWS approved for Rio Verde Utilities Inc. in Decision 14 No. 76101 (May 22, 2017) and would permit the collection of funds to pay for CAGRD fees but would 15 not be restricted to CAGRD resources. Instead, the SWS would enable the Global Water Utilities to 16 expeditiously acquire new water supplies from such sources as may be avai lable when they are needed. 17 As proposed, the SWS will be charged to all water services provided by the Global Water 18 Utilities, including residential, commercial, construction, and potable sales. The SWS will recover the 19 costs paid to water suppliers such as Central Arizona Project for the purchase of renewable water 20 supplies. The acquired water supplies may take the form of exchange, wheeling, or storage and 21 recovery that would reduce pumped groundwater. Recoverable costs include direct contract costs, 22 delivery, legal and administrative costs for purchases of water supplies, as well as costs of maintaining 23 a Member Service Agreement, annual membership dies, and replenishment fees with the Central 24 Arizona Water Conservation District ("CAWCD") as well as pass through fee reductions when 25 sustainable water is employed. The SWS will also include fees for groundwater withdrawal to ADWR 26 which are expected to decrease when sustainable water supplies displace groundwater usage. 27 337 Tr. Vol X at 1480. 28 338 Ex. RUC0-2 at 31. 140 78644 DECISION NO. -----
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. The proposed SWS would be subject to a plan of administration that would include making 2 acquisitions pursuant to the SWS subject to audit for prudence. As outlined in the plan of 3 administration,339 the SWS would be collected through a volumetric surcharge detern1ined on March 1 4 of each year. The charge would be calculated to recover or refund as appropriate, the over or under- 5 recovery of allowed costs over the prior year ending December 31 as well as projected sustainable 6 water costs for the upcoming year. Additionally, the annual SWS filing will include schedules showing 7 sustainable water use projected for the current year and the next four years, as well as projected 8 sustainable water supply costs for the current year.340 9 Applicants assert that adoption of the SWS is reasonable considering ongoing trends in water 10 supply availability as well as the most current reasonable forecasts of Arizona potable water supplies 11 indicating a steady depletion of water supplies in the long term. 1. RUCO 12 13 RUCO opposes adoption of the SWS and instead recommends that the CAGRD surcharge be 14 retained. RUCO's concern is that the Global Water Utilities could utilize the SWS to purchase long- 15 term storage credits, recharge facilities, underground storage facilities, or extra Central Arizona Project 16 ("CAP") allotments and recover the associated costs outside of a rate case. 341 Further, while GTWC 17 already has an approved CAGRD adjustor mechanism, the more expansive SWS proposal does not 18 provide for upfront cost analyses, billing analyses, or prudency detenninations to support new water 19 purchases. Consequently, RUCO argues the SWS places ratepayers in jeopardy of paying costs for 20 water supply purchases that have not be adequately justified nor demonstrated to be needed. 21 Citing Scates v. Arizona Corporation Commission, 118 Ariz. 531, 578 P .2d 612 {App. 1978), 22 RUCO observes that the focused nature of adjustor mechanisms gives rise to concerns of single-issue 23 ratemaking, a circumstance when utility rates are adjusted or costs deferred in response to changes in 24 a cost item viewed in isolation. RUCO criticizes the lack of upfront cost analyses, billing analyses, or 25 prudency determinations to support the acquisition of new water resources flowed through the SWS.342 26 27 339 See Ex. S-6, Attachment 6. 340 id. 341 Ex. RUC0-4 at 31. 28 342 RUC0-4 at 35. 141 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. In the absence of these features, RUCO is concerned that the SWS places ratepayers in jeopardy of 2 paying for costs that are not needed provide them with service. 343 To that end, RUCO argues that the 3 Commission should refrain from adopting new adjustor mechanisms unless extenuating circumstances, 4 such as volatile expenses outside of a utility's control might significantly impact the utility's financial 5 condition absent the adjustor are in evidence. 6 Instead of approving the SWS, RUCO recommends retaining the current CAGRD adjustor 7 mechanism and review any new storage, CAP allocations, or underground storage facilities as needed 8 within the confines of a rate case. 9 2. Staff 10 Staff supports adoption of the SWS. As explained in the testimony of Mr. Smaila, the 1 1 Commission has previously approved an SWS for Rio Verde in Decision No. 76101 to allow for 12 recovery of all costs related to the purchase and exchange of water supplies between Rio Verde and 13 Salt River Project and other Verde River water rights holders on the basis that it allows the utility to 14 conserve limited groundwater and implement an orderly deployment of renewable water supplies. 344 15 Staff believes that the proposed SWS will provide the Applicants with a similar ability to timely and 16 cost-effectively acquire scarce water resources.345 17 Staff recommends approval of the SWS and of the plan of administration, attached as 18 Attachment 6 to the testimony of Mr. Smaila.346 3. Global Water Utilities 19 20 21 In response to RUCO, the Global Water Utilities assert that the proposed SWS is a cost effective method to secure sustainable water resources. Applicants note the incongruity of RUCO's 22 awareness that water supplies are increasingly scarce and that water resources may be increasing in 23 cost while opposing a mechanism that would enable acquiring water resources expeditiously and at 24 lower cost. Applicants assert that RUCO's reliance on Scates is misplaced as the portions of Scates 25 RUCO relies upon have been superseded by RUCO v. Arizona Corporation Commission. Even so, 26 343 Id. at 31. 27 344 Ex. S-6 at 96. 345 Tr. Vol.Vat 698. 28 346 Ex. S-6, at 97, Attachment 6. 142 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Applicants contend that the proposed SWS complies with both RUCO and Scates because it seeks to 2 address a volatile expense that is out of the utility's control. 3 As to the appropriate level of scrutiny for purchases made between rate cases using the SWS, 4 the Global Water Utilities argue that the plan of administration will require Applicants to provide 5 detailed information supporting any change in the amounts recovered through the adjuster. 6 Finally, the Global Water Utilities argue that RUCO is incorrect in its belief that the SWS will 7 cost ratepayers more than the alternative. Because the SWS will allow the acquisition of sustainable, 8 cost-effective water resources, the SWS will allow the Global Water Utilities to use those resources to 9 displace costs paid to CAGRD. 4. Discussion and Resolution IO 11 RUCO raises valid concerns to the effect that caution must be applied when approving new 12 adjuster mechanisms lest a utility be given a means to desensitize itself to rising expenses. Adjuster 13 mechanisms can create an unwholesome arrangement of incentives whereby the utility is no longer 14 responsive to increasing costs to the detriment of ratepayers. 15 However, a utility, first and foremost has an obl igation to provide adequate service. The record 16 in this matter is replete with uncontroverted evidence that water resources, already scarce in our desert 17 state, are growing scarcer and that trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Arizona is in 18 the midst of a 20-year drought that has been characterized as the worst drought in 126 years. 347 As Mr. 19 Lenderking described on behalf of the Applicants, 57% of the state is experiencing the highest level of 20 drought. Additionally, the Colorado River Basin, which provides 40% of Arizona's water supplies is 21 also in a multi-decade drought, a circumstance that was expected to prompt the US Secretary of the 22 Interior to imminently declare a Tier 1 shortage,348 a condition that would deprive Arizona of 23 approximately 512,000 acre-feet or 18% of its Colorado River water supplies and about a third of the 24 CAP's water supplies.349 Additionally, uncontroverted testimony provided at hearing explained that 25 ADWR was also imminently going to declare an end to using groundwater for purposes of obtaining 26 347 Tr. Vol.Vat 633. 27 348 Tr. Vol.Vat 633-634. We take judicial notice of the fact that later in August 2021 , the US Secretary of Interior did 28 declare the first ever Tier I shortage for the Colorado River. 349 Tr. Vol.Vat 636. 143 DECISION NO. _ 7_8_6_44 __ DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. an assured water supply, a pa1ticularly significant shift for the Global Water Utilities located in Pinal 2 County which is almost completely reliant on groundwater for assured water supply.350 3 We are not persuaded that RUCO's recommendation to maintain the CAGRD adjustor for 4 GTWC and otherwise review the acquisition of water supplies in an after-the-fact context of a rate case 5 reasonably addresses the issue. Reviewing the prudence of acquired water supplies within a rate case 6 is reasonable when the expenditures can be planned to suit a historical test year model of ratemaking. 7 The shortcoming is that this approach presupposes that a water supply constraint necessitating 8 supplemental acquisitions can await the review processes RUCO envisions. 9 As evidence demonstrating a general decline in available water supplies mounts, we can foresee 10 the day when traditional water utilities accustomed to previously unlimited well water supplies must 11 instead operate more like electric utilities which must supplement their supplies with outside purchases. 12 Viewed in that light, the SWS fulfills a role for water utilities similar to how fuel and purchased power 13 adjustors function for electric utilities. We find that the proposed SWS is a reasonable measure to 14 establish the tools for the Applicants to secure water supply resources in a timely manner and it should 15 be adopted. 16 We find that the Plan of Administration that the Global Water Utilities filed, and which is 17 attached to Staff witness Mr. Smaila's Direct Testimony as Attachment 6, should not include recovery 18 of projected costs. Additionally, to address the Applicants' cost recovery concerns in a timely fashion, 19 we find that it is appropriate for the Plan of Administration ("POA'') to authorize the recovery of 20 allowed expenses upon the approval, by Staff after its review, of a filing by the Global Water Utilities 21 for recovery of an incurred cost. Such filings shall be limited to no more than semi-annually. To 22 address these concerns, it is appropriate to require the Applicants to prepare a POA, in consultation 23 with Staff and RUCO, and file this revised POA for Commission approval. Once the POA is filed, 24 Staff shall prepare and file a memorandum and proposed order for the Commission's consideration of 25 the revised POA. This adjustor shall not take effect until the POA is approved by the Commission. 26 27 28 350 Tr. Vol.Vat 635. 144 DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. H. Rate Case Expense Surcharge 2 The Global Water Utilities propose to recover $755,000 in rate case expense through a rate case 3 expense surcharge. The surcharge would be calculated to recover the requested rate case expense 4 amount over two years. Although the Applicants originally requested $500,000 in rate case expense, 5 the Global Water Utilities assert that adjustments to the presentation of their case in response to 6 positions taken by Staff, particularly regarding the treatment of the Valencia condemnation proceeds, 7 necessitated unanticipated additional work to be performed by outside consultants as we11 as in-house 8 accounting personnel. The added burden of responding to Staff, the Applicants assert, increased the 9 actual amount ofrate case expense to $755,000. 1. RUCO 11 RUCO disagrees with the amount of rate case expense requested by the Applicants. RUCO is 12 concerned that rate case expense for utilities generally have been increasing unchecked and to the 13 detriment of ratepayers. RUCO points to the extensive overlap in the testimony subject matters covered 14 by multiple witnesses for the Applicants to argue that traditionally uncritical approval of rate case 15 expense has promoted inefficient and wasteful presentations of rate cases by utilities and that the l 6 current case is no exception. In particular, RUCO notes that the withdrawn testimony of Mr. Walker,351 17 which addressed cost of capital and water supply availability, entirely covered matters also addressed 18 by other witnesses for the Applicants. 19 In support of its position, RUCO benchmarked the rate case expense awarded in various past 20 Commission Decisions. In these cases, the Commission recognized rate case expense recoverable from 21 ratepayers in amounts between $300,000 and $400,000.352 22 On these bases, RUCO recommends that the Commission approve no more than $400,000 in 23 rate case expense and offers a range of amortization periods from three to five years. 24 25 351 To address concerns that an ex parte infraction had occurred wherein Mr. Walker emailed various Commissioners with documents also used as attachments to his prefiled testimony in this matter, (see e.g. Disclosure of Possible ex parte 26 communication pursuant to A.A.C. Rl4-3-l 13(D) in Docket Nos. E-01345A-19-0236 and SW-03936A-20-0214 from the Office of Commissioner Tovar, filed August 27, 2021) the Global Water Utilities voluntarily withdrew his prefiled testimony and did not offer Mr. Walker as a witness in the proceeding. 27 352 Ex. RUCO-4 at 25, citing Decision Nos. 77956 (April 15, 2021) (approving $300,000 in rate case expense for Arizona 28 Water Company), 77380 (August 19, 2019) (approving $350,000 in rate case expense for Arizona Water Company), and 78017 (May 18, 2021) (approving $400,000 rate case expense for Liberty Utilities (Black Mountain Sewer) Corp.) 145 DECISION NO. 78644 ------ DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 2. Staff 2 Staff does not object to using a surcharge mechanism to recover the rate case expense but 3 disputes the amount of rate case expense to be recovered. Staff's disagreement focuses on the 4 Applicants' attribution to Staff of increased burden in the presentation of Applicants' case. According 5 to Staff, the $1.4 million Section I 033 adjustment the Global Water Utilities perfonned to hold 6 ratepayers harmless demonstrates the merit of Staff's scrutiny of the Section 1033 issue. To that point, 7 Staff argues that ratepayers should not be burdened with recovery of additional rate case expense 8 incurred by the Global Water Utilities to correct its Section 1033 proposal. According to Staff, the 9 Section 1033 adjustment only benefits shareholders, not ratepayers. Staff also contends that the 10 expense the Applicants assert is attributable to responding to Staff's position on the Section 1033 issue 11 is unreasonable because the added discovery expense is more than eight times the total contract expense 12 for Staff's consultant, and principal witness on the issue, Mr. Smith. 13 14 3. Global Water Utilities Response In response to arguments raised by RUCO, the Global Water Utilities disputes the validity of 15 RUCO's effort to compare the requested rate case expense in this case to rate case expense requests in 16 other cases. According to the Applicants, the preparation of 11 separate sets of rate schedules, both for 17 a consolidated approach and on a standalone approach, demonstrates that the extent of work 18 necessitated in the preparation of this case is not directly comparable to a typical rate case that usually 19 only involves a single set of rate schedules. 20 Additionally, the Applicants dispute RUCO's characterization of Mr. Walker's testimony as 21 duplicative of other witnesses when RUCO also describes Mr. Walker as a "key" witness in the case. 22 Notwithstanding that Mr. Walker's testimony was ultimately withdrawn, the Global Water Utilities 23 contend that Mr. Walker was a participant in the development of positions and arguments, as well as 24 the preparation of responses to discovery requests. Further, because the Global Water Utilities do not 25 have an internal rate department, outside assistance like that provided by Mr. Walker is a practical 26 necessity. 27 The Applicants disagree with Staff's position that the rate case expense should be limited 28 146 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. because the extra expense was incurred to correct the Section 1033 proposal. In response to Staff's 2 rate case expense recommendation, the Applicants compare the added expense incurred defending 3 against Staffs Section I 033 position to the expense Staff incurred hiring Mr. Smith. Whereas the cost 4 of Mr. Smith's participation is described as providing a dividend to ratepayers by way of rate 5 reductions, the Global Water Util ities contend that the proper way to view rate case expense is what is 6 necessary to arrive at the right result. 7 4. Discussion and Resolution 8 Incurring expenses in presenting a rate case for the Commission's consideration is a necessary 9 cost of doing business that is appropriately recovered in rates collected from ratepayers. However, as 10 with all expenses recovered from ratepayers, the level of recoverable expense is limited to what is just 11 and reasonable. The particular concern, as alluded to in RUCO's arguments, is that the expenditure of 12 resources toward rate case presentation is largely within an applicant's control and uncritical 13 acceptance of all expenditure levels can promote a cycle of escalating rate case expenses. 14 It is not surprising that the rate case expense for an I I-utility rate case will necessarily be higher 15 than for a solitary utility. For that reason, we are not persuaded that a straightforward benchmarking 16 process to normalize the Global Water Utilities' rate case expense proposal with those approved for 17 solitary utilities in other rate cases, as proposed by RUCO, is a reasonable approach in this 18 circumstance. 19 However, the voluntary withdrawal of Mr. Walker's testimony demonstrates the validity of 20 RUCO's contentions. RUCO's arguments to the effect that Mr. Walker's testimony is merely 21 cumulative and redundant to the testimony of multiple other witnesses is evidenced by the Global 22 Water Utilities' ability to effectively present their case without his testimony as each of the subjects 23 his testimony covers are more thoroughly addressed through Mr. Lenderking speaking to water supply 24 issues and Mr. Rowell who provided an extensive cost of capital analysis. We see no inherent 25 contradiction to RUCO's characterization of Mr. Walker as both a key witness yet providing 26 duplicative testimony. Mr. Walker may be integral to the formulation of the Applicants' position in 27 several matters raised in the applications. Yet his testimony, much of it in the form of documents 28 78644 147 DECISION NO. ____ _ DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. attached to pre-filed testimony, could conceivably have been accomplished by appending those same 2 documents to the testimony of other witnesses speaking to the same points. 3 However, recoverable rate case expense must also be fair to the utility. The Applicants' 4 concerns that Staff's pursuit of the Section I 033 tax issue increased the difficulty of its rate case 5 presentation is not entirely without merit. Although Staff's concerns prompted a corrective adjustment 6 of the Global Water Utilities' proposed Section 1033 adjustment, reducing the total adjustment by 7 approximately $1.4 million, Staff ultimately relented in the larger issue of whether the entire $11.6 8 million Section 1033 adjustment should be deducted from rate base. While Staff's arguments have 9 sufficiently piqued our interest that simple due diligence on behalf of the ratepayer demands that we IO order the recommended pursuit of a PLR from the IRS, the fact remains that Staff ultimately relented 11 on the issue. 12 Considered on the whole, we find that the reasonable amount of rate case expense to be adopted 13 in this case is $500,000. Further, we find that the use of a surcharge mechanism to recover the expense 14 is reasonable and that the amount recovered through the surcharge should be amortized over a two- 15 year period. 16 Reviewing the Applicants' proposed rate case expense surcharge, it is apparent that the 17 proposed forn1 of surcharge uses an allocation factor. For example, the proposed rate case expense 18 surcharge for the Maricopa County Water consolidation is $0.54 for a 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter whereas the 19 proposed surcharge for the Pinal County Water consolidation is $0.64 for a 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter. The 20 basis for the allocation employed in the Applicants' proposal was not explained or supported in any of 21 the filings of pre-filed testimony or schedules, nor was it addressed by any party witness sufficiently 22 to replicate it or demonstrate why it should be retained. 23 For purposes of establishing an expected surcharge level, we instead find that a flat surcharge 24 that increases with meter size that divides the rate case expense evenly between all customers 25 throughout all the utilities (water and wastewater) involved in this matter having customers would be 26 the most reasonable. The surcharge should be calculated to recover the approved $500,000 rate case 27 expense amount over two years beginning i1mnediately upon implementation of the surcharge so that 28 the surcharge will terminate before the final phase of the phased-in rates begins to moderate the impact 148 DECISION NO. 78644 ------
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. of the last phase of the base rate increase. On that basis, the following table provides the estimated 2 monthly bill impacts for ratepayers of all utilities involved in this proceeding at the corresponding 3 meter sizes. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Meter Size Recommended Surchaq~e 5/8" X 3/4" $0.43 3/4" $0.43 1" $1.08 1.5" $2.15 2" $3.44 3" $6.88 4" $10.75 6" $21.50 8" $34.40 1 O" $49.45 Because the expected surcharge amounts projected above are estimates, it is appropriate to 17 authorize a surcharge for recovery of rate case expense, but that recovery should not occur until the 18 Global Water Utilities file a request to implement the surcharge, whereupon Staff can review the 19 proposed implementation of the surcharge and confinn that it will collect the approved revenue in a 20 recommendation and proposed order for the Commission's consideration. 21 22 I. Rate Phase-In The Global Water Utilities have agreed to a phase-in of the rate increase, such that the revenue 23 increase is not more than 5% for a median residential customer in any year. The Global Water Utilities' 24 phase-in proposal does not include any deferral of lost revenue or carrying cost on lost revenue. No 25 party opposed a phase-in. We find that the Applicants' proposed phase-in to mitigate rate shock is 26 reasonable and thus, we approve the proposed phase-in, as shown in Exhibit A, with phase 2 to take 27 effect on January 1, 2023, and Phase 3 on January 1, 2024." 28 * * * * * * * * * * 149 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Having considered the entire record herein and being fully advised in the premises, the 2 Commission finds, concludes, and orders that: 3 4 1. FINDINGS OF FACT The procedural history set forth in Section I of the Discussion portion of this Decision is 5 accurate and we adopt it in its entirety as though set forth fully here. 6 2. The description of the procedural history and of the Global Water Utilities' applications 7 set forth in Sections I and Ill of the Discussion portion of this Decision are accurate and we adopt them 8 in their entirety as though set forth fully here. 9 3. The background information, description of parties' positions, and evidence described in 10 Sections II, IV, V, VI, Vll, and VIII of the Discussion portion of this Decision are accurate and we 11 adopt them in their entirety as though set forth fully here. 12 4. The resolutions reached in the various subsections within Sections II, IV, V, VI, VII, and 13 Vlll of the Discussion portion of this Decision are accurate and we adopt them in their entirety as 14 though set forth fully here. 15 5. Based on the deficient state of records relating to the origins of and adjustments to the 16 deferred taxes, the Global Water Utilities were unable to perform the requisite with and without 17 analysis to support a Net Operating Loss Carryforward adjustment. 18 6. The rates, charges, and terms and conditions of service authorized herein are just and 19 reasonable and in the public interest. 20 7. The rates, charges, and terms and conditions of service resulting from the Commission's 21 resolution of the issues herein do not result in "discrimination in charges, service, or facilities ... 22 between persons or places for rendering a like and contemporaneous service" under Article I 5, § 12 of 23 the Arizona Constitution. 24 8. The rates, charges, and terms and conditions of service resulting from the Commission's 25 resolution of the issues herein do not result in, "make or grant any preference or advantage to any 26 person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage" and do not "establish or maintain any 27 unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, either between 28 150 DECISION NO. 78644 ------ DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. localities or between classes of service" under A.R.S. § 40-334. 2 3 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Red Rock Utilities 4 Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Turner 5 Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Eagletail 6 Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Picacho 7 Cove Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water- Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. , Global Water - 8 Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, Inc. are public 9 service corporations within the meaning of Article XV of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 40- 10 250, 40-251 , 40-321, 40-33 1, and 40-336. 11 2. The Commission has jurisdiction over Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., 12 Global Water- Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water- Northern Scottsdale Water Company, 13 Inc., Global Water - Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., 14 Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., 15 Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc. , Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water 16 Company, Inc., Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove 17 Water Company, Inc. and the subject matter of this Order. 18 3. Notice of the applications was provided in accordance with the law. 19 4. Global Water- Palo Verde Utilities Company, LLC's fair value rate base is $66,645,933. 20 5. Global Water- Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. ' s Water Division's fair value rate base 21 is $826,654. 22 6. Global Water- Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. 's Wastewater Division ' s fair value rate 23 base is $3,407,093. 24 7. Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc.'s fair value rate base is 25 $53,416. 26 8. 27 9. 28 Global Water - Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc. ' s fair value rate base is $1,850,251. Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. 's fair value rate base is $563,609. 151 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 10. Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. 's fair value rate base is 2 $2,599,521. 3 11. Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc.' s fair value rate base is $41,095,492. 4 12. A FVROR of 7 .22 percent results in just and reasonable rates and revenue requirement. 5 13. The rates, charges, and terms and conditions of service authorized herein are just and 6 reasonable and in the public interest. 7 14. The rates, charges, and tenns and conditions of service resulting from the Commission's 8 resolution of the issues herein do not result in "discrimination in charges, service, or facilities ... 9 between persons or places for rendering a like and contemporaneous service" under Article XV, § 12 10 of the Arizona Constitution. 11 15. The rates, charges, and tenns and conditions of service resulting from the Commission's 12 resolution of the issues herein do not result in, "make or grant any preference or advantage to any 13 person or subject any person to any prejudice or disadvantage" and do not "establish or maintain any 14 unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in any other respect, either between 15 localities or between classes of service" under A.R.S. § 40-334. 16 17 ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 18 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 19 Global Water-Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water- Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 20 Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. , Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., Global 21 Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc. , Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., 22 Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water- Picacho Cove Water Company, 23 Inc. are hereby authorized and directed to file with the Commission, on or before July 29, 2022, 24 schedules of rates and charges confonning to the rates and charges approved in Exhibit A, attached 25 hereto and incorporated herein. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 27 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. , Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 28 152 DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 1 Global Water - Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 2 Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., Global 3 Water- Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., 4 Global Water- Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, 5 Inc. shall, on or before August 15, 2022, file Plans of Administration for the new Adjustor Mechanisms, 6 consistent with the resolutions reached in this Decision. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 8 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 9 Global Water- Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 10 Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc. , Global 11 Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., 12 Global Water- Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water- Picacho Cove Water Company, 13 Inc. shall, in consultation with Staff and RUCO, prepare and file a revised Plan of Administration for 14 the Sustainable Water Surcharge with the modifications discussed herein. Within 90 days after the 15 filing of the revised Plan of Administration, Staff shall prepare a memorandum and proposed order for 16 Commission consideration at Open Meeting. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rates and charges and terms and conditions of service 18 approved herein shall become effective for all service rendered on and after July I , 2022. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 20 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 21 Global Water - Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global 22 Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., and Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. 23 may file, with Docket Control, in this Docket, an application for implementation of a Rate Case 24 Expense Surcharge, as discussed herein. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Utilities Division Staff shall calculate the 26 appropriate amount for the Rate Case Expense Surcharge and prepare and file a proposed order for 27 Commission consideration, within 30 days of the filing requesting implementation of the surcharge. 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 153 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 2 Global Water- Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water- Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 3 Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. , Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., Global 4 Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., 5 Global Water- Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, 6 Inc. shall notify their customers of the revised rates and charges by means of an insert in their next 7 scheduled billing (sent by mail or electronically) and by posting a notice on their website, in a form 8 acceptable to Staff. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the effective date of this Decision, the 10 Global Water Utilities shall submit a private letter ruling to the Internal Revenue Service to address 11 whether "the failure to eliminate the deferred taxes attributable to assets condemned in a transaction 12 governed by Section 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") would violate the nonnalization 13 provisions of Section 168(i)(9) of the Code. The Global Water Utilities shall prepare a draft complete 14 Statement of Facts in a neutrally worded manner, the issue presented, the relevant tax authorities and 15 an analysis of those authorities. The Global Water Utilities shall provide a copy of the draft to Staff at 16 least 30 days prior to the submission date. The Global Water Utilities and Staff shall cooperate to agree 17 upon a final Statement of Facts that is complete, accurate, and relevant to the issue presented. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc. , Global 19 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 20 Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., and Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, 21 Inc. shall file with Docket Control, as a compliance item in this Docket, within 60 days of the effective 22 date of this Decision, the Unauthorized Discharge Fee Tariff, included in the Staff engineering 23 testimony as Ex. S-6, attachment 12, for Staff's review and approval. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global 25 Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., 26 Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., and Global Water - Santa Cruz Water 27 Company, Inc. shall file with Docket Control, as a compliance item in this Docket, within 60 days of 28 the effective date of this Decision, a revised Best Management Practice Tariff consistent with our 154 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 1 findings herein for Staff's review and approval. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 3 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. , Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., 4 Global Water-Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., Global Water- Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global 5 Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. , Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., Global 6 Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. , 7 Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, 8 Inc. shall file with Docket Control, as a compliance item in this Docket, within 60 days of the effective 9 date of this Decision, a revised Customer Assistance Tariff consistent with our findings herein for IO Staff's review and approval. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. , Global 12 Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Turner Ranches Irrigation, Inc., 13 Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., 14 Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, 15 Inc. shall use the depreciation rates for water utilities delineated in Staff's engineering testimony, Ex. 16 S-6 Attachment 7. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global 18 Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc. , Global 19 Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc., and Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, 20 Inc. shall use the depreciation rates for wastewater utilities delineated in Staff's engineering testimony, 21 Ex. S-6 Attachment 13. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Red Rock Utilities, Inc. shall file within one 23 year of the effective date of this Decision with Docket Control, as a compliance item in this Docket, an 24 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Compliance Status Report demonstrating that the utility 25 is compliant with ADEQ requirements. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. shall monitor 27 water loss for a 12-month period beginning August 1, 2022, and prepare an updated water loss report. 28 If, based on the updated water loss report, indicated water loss remains above IO percent at the end of 155 DECISION NO. - -#1 78 _ 6 _ 44 ____ _ DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. twelve months, Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. shall file with Docket Control, as a 2 compliance item in this Docket, a water loss reduction report or detailed cost/benefit analysis within 3 18 months from the effective date of this Decision. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. shall 5 monitor water loss within the Buckeye Ranch, Garden City, WPE No. 1, WPE No. 6, and WPE No. 7 6 water systems for a 12-month period beginning July 1, 2022, and prepare an updated water loss report. 7 If, based on the updated water loss report, indicated water loss remains above 10 percent at the end of 8 twelve months, Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. shall file with Docket Control, 9 as a compliance item in this Docket, a water loss reduction report or detailed cost/benefit analysis 10 within 18 months from the effective date of this Decision. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. shall, 12 within one year of the effective date of this Decision, fi le with Docket Control as a compliance item in 13 this Docket, documentation including photographs demonstrating that a transfer switch for hooking up 14 backup generation has been installed for the booster pump station at each of the Buckeye Ranch, Dixie, 15 Roseview, Garden City, WPE No. 1, WPE No. 6, and WPE No. 7 water systems. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water- Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. shall, 17 within one year of the effective date of this Decision, file with Docket Control as a compliance item in 18 this Docket, documentation including photographs demonstrating that a second booster pump has been 19 installed at each of the Dixie, Garden City, WPE No. 1, WPE No. 6, and WPE No. 7 water distribution 20 centers. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc. shall, 22 within one year of the effective date of this Decision, file with Docket Control as a compl iance item in 23 this Docket, documentation demonstrating that all non-NSF certified galvanized steel piping and 24 fittings have been replaced with NSF certified materials at each of the Dixie, Roseview, Garden City, 25 WPE No. 1, WPE No. 6, and WPE No. 7 water system booster pump stations. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. shall, within 27 one year of the effective date of this Decision, file with Docket Control as a compliance item in this 28 Docket, documentation demonstrating that all non-NSF certified galvanized steel piping and fittings 156 DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. have been replaced with NSF certified materials at its water system booster pump station. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Water-Red Rock Utilities, Inc. shall file a Water Hook 3 Up Fee Tariff, applicable to its Pima County service territory, based on the Global Water-Santa Cruz 4 Water Company, Inc. Hook Up Fee Tariff, within 60 days of the effective date of this Decision. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days after the issuance of a private letter ruling by 6 the Internal Revenue Service, the Global Water Utilities shall docket a copy of the private letter ruling 7 with Docket Control, as a compliance filing in this Docket. Within 90 days after the filing of the private 8 letter ruling, Staff shall prepare, for Commission consideration, a memorandum and proposed order 9 regarding guidance issued within the private letter ruling. IO IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mergers, transfers of assets, and other necessary 11 approvals requested by the Global Water Utilities in the "Related Approvals" section of the Application 12 are hereby approved, including (I) the merger of Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. 13 (Water Division) and Global Water - Picacho Cove Water Company, Inc. into Global Water - Santa 14 Cruz Water Company, Inc., (2) the merger of Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. 15 (Wastewater Division) and Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc. into Global Water- 16 Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc. , (3) the merger of Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc. 17 and Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc. into Global Water - Greater Tonopah 18 Water Company, Inc., and (4) the merger of Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc. into 19 Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc. However, if, after the effective date of this 20 Decision, Staff determines, in its sole discretion, that effectuating such approvals requires the Global 21 Water Utilities to file any additional applications or provide any additional infonnation, such as for the 22 sale and transfer of assets under A.R.S. § 40-285 or the reorganization of affiliates under A.A.C. R 14- 23 2-801 et seq., the relevant Global Water Utilities shall file all additional applications and provide all 24 additional infonnation that Staff deems necessary, and the relevant Global Water Utilities shall do so 25 within the timelines necessary for the Global Water Utilities to meet the deadlines set forth below. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by January 1, 2023, the Applicants comprising the Pinal 27 County Water Group (including Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. (Water Division), 28 Global Water- Picacho Cove Water Company, Inc., and Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, 157 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Inc.) shall file with Docket Control as a compliance item in this Docket, evidence demonstrating the 2 relevant Applicants have reorganized into a single public service corporation encompassing the 3 customers, assets, liabilities, and certificated service territories of all the relevant public service 4 corporations that previously comprised the Pinal County Water Group. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by July 29, 2022, the Applicants comprising the Pinal 6 County Wastewater Group (including Global Water- Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc. (Wastewater 7 Division), Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc. , and Global Water - Palo Verde 8 Utilities Company, Inc.) shall file with Docket Control as a compliance item in this Docket evidence 9 demonstrating the relevant Applicants have reorganized into a single public service corporation IO encompassing the customers, assets, liabilities, and certificated service territories of all the relevant 11 public service corporations that previously comprised the Pinal County Wastewater Group. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by January I , 2024, the Applicants comprising the Maricopa 13 County Water Group (including Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - 14 Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc., and Global Water-GreaterTonopah Water Company, Inc.) 15 shall file with Docket Control as a compliance item in this Docket evidence demonstrating the relevant 16 Applicants have reorganized into a single public service corporation encompassing the customers, 17 assets, liabilities, and certificated service territories of all the relevant public service corporations that 18 previously comprised the Maricopa County Water Group. I 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by July 29, 2022, the Applicants compnsmg the 20 Balterra/Hassayampa Wastewater Group (including Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc. 21 and Global Water - Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc.) shall file with Docket Control as a 22 compliance item in this Docket evidence demonstrating the relevant Applicants have reorganized into 23 a single public service corporation encompassing the customers, assets, liabilities, and certificated 24 service territories of all the relevant public service corporations that previously comprised the 25 Balterra/Hassayampa Wastewater Group. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of initiating the relevant mergers, the 27 Applicants shall notify their customers in writing of any changes in company name, brand name, 28 website, billing, contact information, and other aspects of utility operations that could impact customer 158 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. interaction and how such changes will impact customers. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Applicants comprising the Pinal County Water, Pinal 3 County Wastewater, Maricopa County Water, and Balterra/Hassayampa Wastewater Groups shall, 4 within 10 days of providing notice to customers as required in the immediately preceding paragraph, 5 file with Docket Control as a compliance item in this Docket a copy of the notices Applicants sent to 6 relevant customers. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Decision shall become effective immediately. BY ORDER OF THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION. 11 12 --'- I .J(:_~1-::.:~:;::::~!---~{4_141~~-~~~~:__..-I:~~~~~,~~~~~~~,~--~~~~::: 13 1- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DISSENT DISSENT CHH/ec(gb) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, MATTHEW J. NEUBERT, Executive Director of the Arizona Corporation Commission, have hereunto set my hand and aused the official seal of the Commiss~ rooe)'affixed at the C itoIJ in the City of Phoenix, this - ---t--+-"---( __ day of c.., 1 2022. 159 EUBERT !RECTOR DECISION NO. 78644 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST FOR: DOCKET NO.: Daniel Pozefsky, Chief Counsel Residential Utility Consumer 0 ffice 1110 West Washington Street, S uite 220 Phoenix, AZ 85007 cipozef sky@azruco.gov proccdural(@,a;,-ruco.gov lwoodall (a)azruco.gov rdelafucnte~,·azruco.gov Consented to Service by Email Timothy Sabo GLOBAL WATER RESOURC ES, INC. 21410 N 19th Ave., Ste. 220 Phoenix, AZ 85027-2738 Attorney for Global Water ti m.sabo@gwresourccs.com Consented to Service by Email Robin Mitchell, Director Legal Division GLOBAL WATER RESOURCES, INC. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. ARIZONA CORPORATION C OMMISSION 1200 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Legal Di v@azcc.gov uti Id i vserviccbyemail@azcc.gov Consented to Service by Email 160 DECISION NO. 78644 -----
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. EXHIBIT A Maricopa County Water Consolidation (Global Water - Greater Tonopah Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Eagletail Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Northern Scottsdale Water Company, Inc.) Phase 1 Monthly Basic Service Char[!es GTWC Ea1detail NSWC 518" X 314" Meter $ 47.55 $ 47.55 $ 27.00 314" Meter $ 47.55 $ 47.55 $ 27.00 1" Meter $ 112.04 $ 112.04 $ 57.00 1.5" Meter $ 221.17 $ 221.17 $ 120.00 2" Meter $ 352.1 3 $ 352. 13 $ 128.00 3" Meter $ 701.35 $ 701.35 $ 340.00 4" Meter $ 1,094.23 $ 1,094.23 $ 550.00 611 Meter $ 2,185.57 $ 2,185.57 NIA 811 Meter $ 3,495.1 7 $ 3,495.17 NIA Phase 1 Commodity Rates Gallons GTWC Ea2:letail NSWC 0-1000 $ 2.61 $ 2.61 $ 3.45 1001-5000 $ 4.8 ) $ 4.81 $ 4.59 5001-10000 $ 6.99 $ 6.99 $ 5.59 1000)-18000 $ 9.20 $ 9.20 $ 6.80 18001-25000 $ 11.33 $ 11.33 $ 7.80 >25,000 $ 13.43 $ 13.43 $ 8.80 CRT 6,000 6,000 7,000 CRT (discount %) 50% 50% 20% Non-Potable (per 1,000) $1.80 $1.80 NIA Standpipe (per 1,000) NIA NIA $7.00 Phase 2 Monthly Basic Service Char !!es GTWC Ea2letail NSWC 518" X 314" Meter $ 55.11 $ 55.11 $ 27.00 3/4" Meter $ 55.l J $ 55.11 $ 27.00 1" Meter $ 124.08 $ 124.08 $ 57.00 DECISION NO. 78644 - - --- DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-02 14, et al. 1.5" Meter $ 242.33 $ 242.33 $ 120.00 2" Meter $ 384.25 $ 384.25 $ 128.00 3" Meter $ 762.71 $ 762.71 $ 340.00 4" Meter $ 1,188.47 $ 1,188.47 $ 550.00 6" Meter $ 2,371 .1 3 $ 2,371.13 NIA 8" Meter $ 3,790.33 $ 3,790.33 NIA Phase 2 Commodity Rates Gallons GTWC Eagletail NSWC 0-1000 $ 2.81 $ 2.81 $ 3.45 l 001-5000 $ 5.19 $ 5.19 $ 4.59 5001-10000 $ 7.55 $ 7.55 $ 5.59 10001-1 8000 $ 9.94 $ 9.94 $ 6.80 18001-25000 $ 12.26 $ 12.26 $ 7.80 >25,000 $ 14.53 $ 14.53 $ 8.80 CRT 6,000 6,000 7,000 CRT (discount %) 50% 50% 20% Non-Potable $ 1.80 $ 1.80 (per 1,000) NIA Standpipe (per 1,000) NIA NIA $7.00 Phase 3 (and thereafter Monthly Basic Service Charges GTWC Eagletail NSWC 518" X 314" Meter $ 62.66 $ 62.66 $ 27.00 314" Meter $ 62.66 $ 62.66 $ 27.00 1" Meter $ 136.11 $ 136.11 $ 57.00 1.5" Meter $ 263.50 $ 263.50 $ 120.00 2" Meter $ 416.38 $ 416.38 $ 128.00 3" Meter $ 824.06 $ 824.06 $ 340.00 4" Meter $ 1,282.70 $ 1,282.70 $ 550.00 6" Meter $ 2,556.70 $ 2,556.70 NIA 8" Meter $ 4,085.50 $ 4,085.50 NIA Phase 3 (and thereafter) Commodity Rates Gallons GTWC Eagletail NSWC 0-1000 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.45 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 1001-5000 $ 5.56 $ 5.56 $ 4.59 5001-1 0000 $ 8. 11 $ 8.11 $ 5.59 10001 -18000 $ 10.69 $ 10.69 $ 6.80 18001 -25000 $ 13.18 $ 13.18 $ 7.80 >25,000 $ 15.63 $ 15.63 $ 8.80 CRT 6,000 6,000 7,000 CRT (discount %) 50% 50% 20% Non-Potable (per 1,000) $ 1.80 $ 1.80 NIA Standpipe (oer 1,000) NIA NIA $7.00 Service Line and Meter Installation Charges Meter Size Service Line and Meter Installation Charges (Inches) Service Line * Meter Total 518" X 314" $445 $155 $600 314" $445 $255 $700 1" $495 $315 $810 1-1/2" $550 $525 $1,075 2" Turbine $830 $1,045 $1,875 2" Compound $830 $1,890 $2,720 3" Turbine $1,045 $1,670 $2,715 3" Compound $1,165 $2,545 $3,710 4" Turbine $1,490 $2,670 $4,160 4" Compound $1,670 $3,645 $5,315 6" Turbine $2,210 $5,025 $7,235 6" Compound $2,330 $6,920 $9,250 8" and Larger Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost * Amount adjusted to include the actual cost incurred when boring under or cutting a road, hi!!hwav, or sidewalk is required. Eai:;letail SERVICE CHARGES: Establishment of Service $40.00 Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $40.00 After Hours Service Charge (at $50.00 Customer's Request) Meter Test Fee (If Correct) $35.00 Deposit * DECISION NO. 78644 ----- DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Deposit Interest *4% Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 ** Months) NSF Check $30.00 Deferred Payment (Per Month) *** 1.5% Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $20.00 Late Fee (Per Month on Unpaid Balance) 1.5% Charge for Moving Meter **** Monthly Service Charge for Fire Sgrinkler ***** All Meter Sizes (All Classes) * Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-403(B) ** Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.AC. R 14-2-403(D) *** Per Commission Rule A.AC. Rl4-2-409(G)(6) **** Cost to include parts, labor, overhead and all applicable taxes per A.AC. R 14-2- 405(8)(5) ***** 2% of Monthly Minimum for a Comparable Sized Meter Connection, but no less than $10.00 per month. The Service Charge for Fire Sprinklers is only applicable for service lines separate and distinct from the primary service line. Jn addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. R14-2-409(D)(5). GTWC and NSWC SERVICE CHARGES: Establishment of Service $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) Months) DECISION NO. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 Meter Move at Customer Request (b) After Hours Service Charge (at $50.00 Customer's Request) Deposit (c) Deposit Interest (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) $30.00 NSF Check $30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% & (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. Rl4-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.A.C. Rl4-2- 405(B)(5) (c) Per A.A.C. R14-2-403(B) ( d) Per month of unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.A.C. R l4-2-409(G)(6) In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R 14-2-409(0)(5). DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Pinal County Water Consolidation (Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc., Global Water - Red Rock Utilities, Inc., and Global Water- Picacho Cove Water Company, Inc.) Phase 1 Monthly Basic Service Charges Santa Cruz Red Rock (Water) Picacho Water 5/8" X 3/4" Meter $ 29.19 $ 29.19 $ 29.1 9 3/4" Meter $ 29.19 $ 29.19 $ 29.19 1" Meter $ 75.81 $ 75.81 $ 75.81 1.5" Meter $ 153.53 $ 153.53 $ 153.53 2" Meter $ 246.78 $ 246.78 $ 246.78 3" Meter $ 495.46 $ 495.46 $ 495.46 4" Meter $ 775.23 $ 775.23 $ 775.23 6" Meter $ 1,554.23 $ 1,554.23 $ 1,554.23 8" Meter $ 3,108.50 $ 3,108.50 $ 3,108.50 Phase 1 Commodity Rates Gallons Santa Cruz Red Rock (Water) Picacho Water 0-1000 $ 1.49 $ 1.49 $ 1.49 1001-5000 $ 2.44 $ 2.44 $ 2.44 5001-10000 $ 3.39 $ 3.39 $ 3.39 10001 -18000 $ 4.34 $ 4.34 $ 4.34 18001-25000 $ 5.30 $ 5.30 $ 5.30 >25,000 $ 6.34 $ 6.34 $ 6.34 CRT 6,000 6,000 6,000 CRT (discount%) 60% 60% 60% Non-Potable (per 1,000) $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 Standpipe (oer 1,000) NIA NIA NIA Phase 2 (and thereafter Monthly Basic Service Charges Santa Cruz Red Rock (Water) Picacho Water 518" X 314" Meter $ 30.36 $ 30.36 $ 30.36 314" Meter $ 30.36 $ 30.36 $ 30.36 1" Meter $ 78.74 $ 78.74 $ 78.74 1.5" Meter $ 159.38 $ 159.38 $ 159.38 2" Meter $ 256. 14 $ 256.14 $ 256.14 3" Meter $ 514.19 $ 514. I 9 $ 514.19 4" Meter $ 804.48 $ 804.48 $ 804.48 6" Meter $ 1,612.75 $ 1,612.75 $ 1,612.75 DECISION NO. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. I 8" Meter $ 3,225.53 $ 3,225.53 $ 3,225.53 Phase 2 (and thereafter) Commodity Rates Gallons Santa Cruz Red Rock (Water) Picacho Water 0-1000 $ 1.55 $ 1.55 $ 1.55 1001-5000 $ 2.53 $ 2.53 $ 2.53 5001-10000 $ 3.52 $ 3.52 $ 3.52 10001-18000 $ 4.50 $ 4.50 $ 4.50 18001-25000 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 $ 5.50 >25,000 $ 6.58 $ 6.58 $ 6.58 CRT 6,000 6,000 6,000 CRT (discount %) 60% 60% 60% Non-Potable (per 1,000) $ 1.75 $ 1.75 $ 1.75 Standpipe (per 1,000) NIA NIA NIA Service Line and Meter Installation Charges Meter Size Service Line and Meter Installation Charges (Inches) Service Line * Meter Total 518" X 3/4" $445 $155 $600 3/4" $445 $255 $700 1" $495 $315 $810 1-1/2" $550 $525 $1,075 2" Turbine $830 $1,045 $1,875 2" Compound $830 $1,890 $2,720 3" Turbine $1,045 $1,670 $2,715 3" Compound $1,165 $2,545 $3,710 4" Turbine $1,490 $2,670 $4,160 4" Compound $1,670 $3,645 $5,315 6" Turbine $2,210 $5,025 $7,235 6" Compound $2,330 $6,920 $9,250 8" and Lanzer Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost * Amount adjusted to include the actual cost incurred when boring under or cutting a road, highway, or sidewalk is required. Decision No. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Santa Cruz, Red Rock (Water), and Picacho Water SERVICE CHARGES: Establishment $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Withjn 12 (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 Moving Customer Meter ( customer (b) request) After Hours Service Charge (at $50.00 Customer's Request) Deposit (c) Deposit Interest (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) $30.00 NSF Check $30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly mimmum per A.A.C. R 14-2-403(0) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.A.C. Rl4-2- 405(B)(5) (c) Per A.A.C. Rl4-2-403(B) ( d) Per month on unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.A.C. Rl4-2-409(G)(6) In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R14-2-409(D)(5). 1 Decision No. 78644
DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Red Rock - Pima County (Global Water - Red Rock Utilities, Inc.) Red Rock (Water) - Pima County Monthly Basic Service Charizes Phase 2 (and Phase 1 thereafter) 5/8" X 3/4" Meter $ 29.1 9 $ 30.36 3/4" Meter $ 29.19 $ 30.36 l" Meter $ 75.81 $ 78.74 1.5" Meter $ 153.53 $ 159.38 2" Meter $ 246.78 $ 256.14 3" Meter $ 495.46 $ 514.19 4" Meter $ 775.23 $ 804.48 6" Meter $ 1,554.23 $ 1,612.75 8" Meter $ 3,108.50 $ 3,225.53 Red Rock (Water) - Pima County Commodity Charizes Phase 2 (and Phase 1 thereafter) 0-1000 $ 1.49 $ 1.55 1001-5000 $ 2.44 $ 2.53 5001-10000 $ 3.39 $ 3.52 10001-18000 $ 4.34 $ 4.50 18001-25000 $ 5.30 $ 5.50 >25,000 $ 6.34 $ 6.58 CRT 6,000 6,000 CRT (discount %) 60% 60% Non-Potable (per 1,000) $1.69 $1.69 Standpipe (oer 1,000) NIA NIA Service Line and Meter Installation Charges Meter Size Service Line and Meter Installation Charges (Inches) Service Line * Meter Total 518" X 3/4" $445 $ 155 $600 314" $445 $255 $700 1" $495 $315 $810 1-1/2" $550 $525 $1,075 2" Turbine $830 $1,045 $1 ,875 2" Compound $830 $1,890 $2,720 Decision No. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. 3" Turbine $ I ,045 $1 ,670 $2,715 3" Compound $1,165 $2,545 $3,710 4" Turbine $1 ,490 $2,670 $4,160 4" Compound $1 ,670 $3,645 $5,315 6" Turbine $2,210 $5,025 $7,235 6" Compound $2,330 $6,920 $9,250 8" and Lar2er Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost * Amount adjusted to include the actual cost incurred when boring under or cutting a road, hicllway, or sidewalk is required. Red Rock (Water)- Pima County SERVICE CHARGES: Establishment $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 Moving Customer Meter (customer (b) request) After Hours Service Charge (at $50.00 Customer's Request) Deposit (c) Deposit Interest (c) Meter Re-Read (If Correct) $30.00 Meter Test Fee (If Correct) $30.00 NSF Check $30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% & (d) Deferred Payment (Per Month) (e) (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.AC. R14-2-403(D) (b) Cost to include parts, labor, overhead, and all applicable taxes per A.AC. R14-2- 405(B)(5) (c) Per A.AC. R14-2-403(B) ( d) Per month on unpaid balance (e) Per Commission Rule A.AC. R14-2-409(G)(6) Decision No. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.AC. R l 4-2-409(D)(5). Decision No. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. Pinal County Wastewater Consolidation (Global Water - Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water - Red Rock Utilities Company, Inc., and Global Water - Picacho Cove Utilities Company, Inc.) Monthly Basic Service Char~es Red Rock Palo Verde (Wastewater) Picacho Utilities 5/8" X 3/4" Meter $ 70.07 $ 70.07 $ 70.07 3/4" Meter $ 70.07 $ 70.07 $ 70.07 1" Meter $ 175.03 $ 175.03 $ 175.03 1.5" Meter $ 350.03 $ 350.03 $ 350.03 2" Meter $ 560.06 $ 560.06 $ 560.06 3" Meter $ 1,120.10 $ 1,120.10 $ 1,120.10 4" Meter $ 1,750.16 $ 1,750.16 $ 1,750.1 6 6" Meter $ 3,503.50 $ 3,503.50 $ 3,503.50 8" Meter $ 5,605.60 $ 5,605.60 $ 5,605.60 Commodity Rates Red Rock Gallons Palo Verde (Wastewater) Picacho Utilities Non-Potable (per 1,000) $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 Palo Verde, Red Rock (Wastewater), and Picacho Utilities SERVICE CHARGES: Establishment of Service $35.00 Re-establishment of Service (Within 12 (a) Months) Reconnection of Service (Delinquent) $35.00 After Hours Service Charge* $50.00 Deposit (b) Deposit Interest (b) NSF Check $30.00 Late Payment Penalty 1.5% & (c) Deferred Payment (Per Month) 1.5% (a) Number of months off system times the monthly minimum per A.A.C. R14-2-603(D) Decision No. 78644
(b) Per A.A.C. RI 4-2-603(B) (c) Per month of unpaid balance. DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. In addition to the collection of its regular rates and charges, the Company shall collect from customers their proportionate share of any privilege, sales or use tax in accordance with A.A.C. R14-2-608(D)(5). Decision No. 78644 DOCKET NOS. SW-20445A-20-0214, et al. (Global Water - Balterra Utilities Company, Inc., Global Water- Hassayampa Utilities Company, Inc.) Monthly Basic Service Charge Balterra Hassayampa 518" X 314" Meter $ 54.25 $ 54.25 314" Meter $ 54.25 $ 54.25 1" Meter $ 135.00 $ 135.00 1.5'' Meter $ 270.00 $ 270.00 2" Meter $ 430.00 $ 430.00 3" Meter $ 860.00 $ 860.00 4" Meter $ 1,350.00 $ 1,350.00 6" Meter $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 8" Meter NIA NIA Commodity Rates Gallons Balterra Hassayampa Non-Potable