2 - Public Service Commission

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
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GERALD C. HARTMAN, P.E., BCEE, ASA
Service Study in Appendix VI11 which shows the projected cost of the
3roposed system.
Xppendix VI11 which shows the projected operating expenses of the proposed
System at 80% of the design capacity. Exhibit N refers to the Cost of
service Study contained in Appendix VI1 which shows the projected capital
structure of the utility. Exhibit 0 refers to the Cost of Service study
shown in Appendix VIII. Exhibit 0 explicitly asks for the Cost of Service
Study in general to be provided.
Exhibit M refers to the Cost of Service Study in
2. What types of rates and charges are you proposing for Grove Land?
1. We are proposing a potable water rate, wastewater rate, plant
2apacity charge and some standard miscellaneous service charges.
2. How were costs established in the Cost of Service Study?
1. We conceptually designed water and wastewater facilities (plant and
line) that would be necessary to serve the ERC equivalent of development
qithin the proposed service territory assuming adherence to the
ippropriate county's comprehensi-ve plan density restrictions. We phased
:he addition of ERCs over four (4) phases with costs calculated for Phase
I and reaching an 80% capacity for Phase I, and thus a test year, in year
six (6). Capital and operation and maintenance costs were calculated for
:he development of the system and anticipated flows for the test year.
2. What is the appropriate return on equity for Grove Land?
i. On December 31, 2008, the Public Service Commission issued Order No.
?SC-08-0846-FOF-WS reestablishing an authorized range of return on common
?quity for water and wastewater utilities, which I have included as
-15-