9/18/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JEEP 18 1986 BOOK RECOMMENDATION County Utility staff has reviewed the proposed adjustments to the current consumption charges of $.70 per 1000 gallons and the adjustment is justified. Staff has reviewed the proposed consumption charge adjustment of $1.89 for the pass through consumption charge and disagrees with G.D.U.'s theory about the factor of adding the 10% to the wholesale rate of $1.72 to arrive at the $1.89. At the present time, G.D.U. doesn't have such a factor as part of its approved rate and should not be allowed to impose such a charge at this time. The pass through is to recognize only the increases of water cost charged by the County versus approved costs of G.D.U.'s operation as part of current rate structure. Any oar costs or charges should be a part of a new rate case filed. It is Staff's position that the consumption charge of $1.72/1000 gallons be the only pass through on the consumption, making the proposed consumption charge as follows: $1.70 Present approved rate .70 Adjustment of operating costs $1.00 Adjusted approved rate plus 1.72 Pass through $2.72 Proposed Rate/1000 gallons Staff recommends to the Commission that they take under advisement all evidence and testimony given in evidence at this public hearing and an order of finding be issued by the Commission within 60 days. Assistant Director Barton emphasized that staff's recommendation does not include any consideration for the old plant which was taken out of service, or the $1.2 million for the cost of the transmission line from our plant to GDU. He explained that if these type of items were to be considered, GDU would have to file a complete new rate case. Chairman Scurlock asked what the County charges the average residential user of 5000 gallons of water per month, and Assistant Director Barton presented the following rate structure: $1.82 billing charge 5.34 base facility charge —T .16 monthly charge for zero consumption Assistant Director Barton stated that their current approved rate structure on the 1983 test year does not include a rate of return. He explained that staff's recommendation is different than what the applicant has requested because he took the approach on their 1983 test year of making adjustments to those operating accounts, taking out those goods and services because 10 _ M