Upload
vutuyen
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BEFORE THEPENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ::
v. : R-2012-2310366:
City of Lancaster Sewer Fund :
Office of the Small Business Advocate ::
v. : C-2012-2333112:
City of Lancaster Sewer Fund :
Office of the Consumer Advocate ::
v. : C-2012-2329756:
City of Lancaster Sewer Fund :
Jane O. Larkin ::
v. : C-2012-2330719:
City of Lancaster Sewer Fund :
RECOMMENDED DECISION
BeforeDennis J. Buckley
Administrative Law Judge
This decision recommends approval of the Joint Petition for Settlement of the
Rate Investigation Pursuant to 66 Pa. C.S. §1308(d) (Joint Petition) submitted in this proceeding
by the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund (the City), the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), the
Office of Small Business Advocate (OSBA), and the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement
(I&E) of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission), collectively the Signatory
Parties. A decision in this case must be rendered by the Commission by June 20, 2013.
I. HISTORY
On September 28, 2012, the City of Lancaster - Sewer Fund filed Supplement No.
36 to Tariff Sewer-Pa. P.U.C. No. 7 to become effective November 27, 2012, containing
proposed changes in rates, rules, and regulations calculated to produce $551,609 (58.6%) in
additional annual revenues from (Commission jurisdictional) customers located outside the City
based upon the experienced levels of operations in the historic and future test years ending
December 11, 2011 and December 31, 2012.
On October 15, 2012, Jane O. Larkin, a customer of the City, filed a formal
Complaint against the requested increase. That Complaint was docketed at C-2012-2330719.
On October 17, 2012, the OCA filed a formal Complaint and Public Statement in
this proceeding. That Complaint was docketed at C-2012-2329756. The OCA requested that a
public input hearing be held in the City’s service territory in order to provide customers with an
opportunity to be heard in this matter on the record.
On November 5, 2012, the OSBA filed a formal Complaint and Public Statement
in this proceeding. That Complaint was docketed at C-2012-2333112.
By Order entered November 8, 2012, the Commission instituted an investigation
to determine the lawfulness, justness and reasonableness of both existing and proposed rates,
rules and regulations. Pursuant to Section 1308(d) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S.
§1308(d), the filing was suspended by operation of law on November 8, 2012, until June 27,
2013. The Order provided that the case be assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judge
2
(OALJ) for the prompt scheduling of such hearings and culminating in the issuance of a
Recommended Decision.
On November 9, 2012, a Notice of Prehearing Conference was issued as was the
First Prehearing Order in this case. The Parties filed prehearing memoranda consistent with that
Order.
On November 15, 2012, counsel for I&E filed a Notice of Appearance in this
matter.
On November 26, 2012, a Prehearing Conference was held in this matter to
identify and resolve any procedural issues, to establish any modification of the Commission’s
discovery rules appropriate in this matter, and to develop a procedural schedule. The Prehearing
Conference was attended by counsel for the City, the OCA, the OSBA, and I&E. A Second
Prehearing Order was issued after the Prehearing Conference, directing that a public input
hearing would be held on December 10, 2012, at the Manheim Township Public Library, Rooms
B & C, 595 Granite Run Drive, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and consolidating the formal
Complaints with this rate proceeding. Also on November 26, 2012, a Third Prehearing Order
was issued directing the publication of the date, time and place of the public input hearing.
A public input hearing was held on December 10, 2012, at the Manheim
Township Public Library, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with sessions at 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The
session at 2:00 p.m. was attended by a single testifying witness, Complainant Jane O. Larkin.
Mrs. Diane Sechler also appeared and testified, but it was discovered that she was not a customer
of the City. No exhibits were offered or received in evidence.
On January 14, 2013, a hearing Notice was issued setting February 12-14, 2013,
as the dates for evidentiary hearings at the Commission’s office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
However, counsel for the City had previously informed the undersigned that there was a strong
likelihood that this case would settle.
3
On January 18, 2013, the Joint Petition for Settlement was filed. The evidentiary
hearings were subsequently cancelled by a Notice issued February 5, 2013. Along with the Joint
Petition for Settlement, the Parties filed a Stipulation for Admission of Evidence and requested
that the undersigned admit certain statements and exhibits into the record subject, however, to
approval of the Settlement Petition by the Commission, the Parties reserving the right to submit
further testimony and to cross-examine witnesses in the event the Joint Petition for Settlement is
not approved.
Complainant Jane O. Larkin is not a party to the Settlement. On January 18,
2013, the OCA provided Ms. Larkin with a summary of the Settlement and advised her of her
opportunity to file comments with respect to the Settlement. The OCA also explained three
options: (1) to join in the Settlement; (2) to object to the settlement; or (3) to take no action. To
date, Ms. Larkin has taken no action.
Also on January 18, 2013, the City filed Revised Exhibit PRH-1, Cost of Service
Allocation Study to accompany the previously filed Direct Testimony of Paul R. Herbert.
On January 23, 2013, the City filed an errata sheet and revised page 9 to the
proposed Joint Settlement. The corrections contained therein do not affect the Terms of
Settlement in this Recommended Decision.
The following statements and exhibits are specifically referenced in the Evidence
Stipulation, and will be admitted into the record, subject to approval of the Settlement Petition by
the Commission, but reserving the right of the Parties to submit further testimony and to cross-
examine witnesses in the event the Joint Petition for Settlement is not approved:
City of Lancaster-Sewer Fund Direct Testimony of Charlotte KatzenmoyerCity of Lancaster Statement No. 1Exhibit CK-1
Direct Testimony of Patrick HopkinsCity of Lancaster Statement No. 2
4
Exhibits PH-1 through Exhibit PH-4
Direct Testimony of Connie E. HeppenstallCity of Lancaster Statement No. 3Exhibit CEH-1
Direct Testimony of Paul HerbertCity of Lancaster Statement No. 4Exhibit PRH-1 and Revised Exhibit PRH-1
Direct Testimony of John SpanosCity of Lancaster Statement No. 5Exhibit JJS-1 and Exhibit JJS-2
Direct Testimony of Harold Walker, IIICity of Lancaster Statement No. 6Exhibit HW-1 Rate of Return
Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement
Direct Testimony of Emily SearsI&E Statement No. 1I&E Exhibit No. 1, Schedules 1-21
Direct Testimony of Debra BackerI&E Statement No. 2I&E Exhibit No. 2, Schedules 1-4
Direct Testimony of Ethan H. ClineI&E Statement No. 3I&E Exhibit No. 3, Schedules 1-3
Office of Consumer Advocate Direct Testimony of Marilyn J. KrausOCA Statement 1OCA Exhibit MJK-1 and attachments
Direct Testimony of Aaron L. RothschildOCA Statement 2OCA Schedules ALR-1-7 and attachments
Direct Testimony of Ashley E. Everette
5
OCA Statement 3OCA Exhibit AEE-1 and attachments
Direct Testimony of Scott J. RubinOCA Statement 4OCA Exhibit SJR-1 and attachments
Office of Small Business Advocate Direct Testimony of Brian KalcicOSBA Statement No. 1OSBA Exhibit No. 1, Schedules BK-1 through BK-5
The record in this proceeding consists of the statements, exhibits and appendices
set forth in the aforementioned Evidence Stipulation listed, above, which are admitted into the
record through this Recommended Decision, a transcript totaling fifty two pages, including the
prehearing conference of November 26, 2012 and the public input hearing of December 10,
2012, the Orders issued, and the Joint Petition for Settlement of Rate Investigation with
Appendices, including the proposed Settlement. The record in this matter closed on February 18,
2013, after Ms. Larkin was afforded the opportunity to submit a filing relative to the Joint
Petition pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 5.61(a).
The Signatory Parties represent they are in full agreement that the Settlement
resolves all issues and is in the best interest of the City’s customers and the City. They request
approval of the Settlement without modification and that the Complaint of the OCA at Docket
No. C-2012-2329756 be marked closed, that the Complaint of the OSBA at Docket No. C-2012-
2333112 be marked closed, and that the Complaint of Jane O. Larkin at Docket No. C-2012-
2330719 be dismissed.
II. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
The Signatory Parties agree upon the following terms of settlement which are set
forth in a single, but detailed, paragraph, that being Paragraph 12 of the proposed Joint
Settlement:
6
12. The Settlement consists of the following terms and conditions:
a. Upon entry of a Commission Order approving this Settlement, the City
will be permitted to charge the rates for sewer service set forth in the Tariff attached hereto as
Appendix A-1, to become effective in accordance to its terms on one day’s notice upon entry of
the Commission Order, and A-2 upon implementation of the Other Post Employment Benefits
Trust (“OPEB Trust”) (hereafter, the Settlement Rates). The Settlement Rates are designed to
produce additional annual operating revenue of $348,000 shown in Appendix A-1 prior to
establishing the OPEB Trust and a subsequent total of $399,000 as shown in Appendix A-2 after
the establishment of the OPEB Trust, as shown on the Proof of Revenues annexed hereto as
Appendix B-1 and B-2. The Tariff set forth in Appendix A-1 and A-2 complies with the terms
of the Settlement.
b. Joint Petitioners respectfully request ALJ Buckley and the Commission to
act as expeditiously as possible to ensure timely implementation of the Settlement Rates. Upon
the entry of a Commission Order approving this Joint Petition, the City will be permitted to file a
tariff in the form attached hereto as Appendix A-1 and A-2 to become effective upon one day’s
notice.
c. The City agrees that it will not file for another general sewer base rate
increase for outside customers under Section 1308(d) of the Public Utility Code prior to June 29,
2014. However, if a legislative body or administrative agency, including the Commission, orders
or enacts fundamental changes in policy or statutes which directly and substantially affect the
City’s rates, approval and implementation of this Settlement shall not prevent the City from
filing tariff supplements to the extent necessitated by such action.
7
d. The Joint Petitioners also agree to the changes in the tariff rules and
regulations and its definitions, as shown in Appendix A-1, that have been revised to better adhere
to the Commission’s Wastewater Rules and Regulations and to better reflect the actual
operations of the City of Lancaster’s wastewater system.
e. The Joint Petitioners agree that when the City files its next base rate case,
the Industrial Waste Surcharges shall be based on actual costs, as determined by a cost of service
study.
f. The Joint Petitioners also agree that the City shall establish the OPEB
Trust as per the requirements set forth in the City’s settlement of its water case at Docket No. R-
2010-2179103. The relevant pages of the settlement agreement are attached hereto in Appendix
C. The City agrees that it shall make deposits into the OPEB Trust starting the first full month
after the entry date of the final Commission Order in the rate case or the first full month after the
establishment of the Trust, whichever is later. When the Trust is fully established, the City shall
be authorized to implement the corresponding portion of the revenue increase agreed to, in the
amount of $51,000 as shown in Appendix A-2 and B-2.
g. The Settlement Rates set forth in Appendix A-1 and A-2 reflect the Joint
Petitioners’ agreement with regard to rate structure, rate design and the distribution of the
increase in revenues in this case as follows:1
(1) The Settlement Rates reflect the allocation of the agreed increase in
revenue to customer classes in the manner shown in Appendix B-1 and B-2.
(2) Under the Settlement Rates, the minimum charges are as follows prior
to the implementation of the OPEB Trust (Appendix A-1 and B-1):1 Subparagraphs (1) – (5) provide a general description of the rate structure and rate design incorporated in the Settlement Rates. While every effort has been made to ensure that such description is accurate, if any inconsistency exists between such description and the rates set forth in Appendix A-1 and A-2, the latter shall take precedence.
8
Size of Meter Per Month/Quarter
5/8” $4.35/ $13.05
3/4" $4.35/ $13.05
1” $13.06/ $39.18
1 -1/2” $26.13/ $78.39
2” $43.54/ $130.62
3” $87.09/ $261.27
4” $123.63/ $370.89
6” $212.24/ $636.72
8” $350.39/ $1,051.17
10” $478.08/ $1,434,24
12” $708.15/ $2,124.45
(3) Under the Settlement, the parties agreed to have the following
volumetric charge (per 1,000 gallons) prior to the implementation of the OPEB trust (Appendix
A-1 and B-1):
Consumption of Water in Gallons per Month
Rate per 1,000 gallons
First 25,000 $4.1840
Next 308,000 $2.8091
All Over 333,000 $2.1376
9
(4) Under the Settlement Rates, the minimum charges are as follows after
the implementation of the OPEB Trust (Appendix A-2 and B-2):
Size of Meter Per Month/Quarter5/8” $4.35/ $13.05
3/4" $4.35/ $13.05
1” $13.06/ $39.18
1 -1/2” $26.13/ $78.39
2” $43.54/ $130.62
3” $87.09/ $261.27
4” $123.63/ $370.89
6” $212.24/ $636.72
8” $350.39/ $1,051.17
10” $478.08/ $1,434,24
12” $708.15/ $2,124.45
(5) Under the Settlement, the parties agreed to have the following
volumetric charge (per 1,000 gallons) after the implementation of the OPEB trust (Appendix A-
2 and B-2):
Consumption of Water in Gallons per Month
Rate per 1,000 gallons
First 25,000 $4.3543
Next 308,000 $2.9234
All Over 333,000 $2.2246
10
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On September 28, 2012, the City of Lancaster - Sewer Fund filed
Supplement No. 36 to Tariff Sewer-Pa. P.U.C. No. 7 to become effective November 27, 2012,
containing proposed changes in rates, rules, and regulations calculated to produce $551,609
(58.6%) in additional annual revenues from (Commission jurisdictional) customers located
outside the City based upon the experienced levels of operations in the historic and future test
years ending December 11, 2011 and December 31, 2012.
2. After negotiations among the Parties, with the exception of Ms. Jane O.
Larkin, a settlement agreement was reached that is embodied in a Joint Petition for Settlement
filed by those Parties on January 18, 2013. That comprehensive Settlement resolves all of the
issues in this case.
3. Ms. Jane O. Larkin opposes the requested rate increase because, by her
estimation, in the summer one-half to two-thirds of the water she uses goes into her lawn and not
into the sewer. Ms. Larkin believes that some manner of bill adjustment to reflect the extent of
her use would be fair. N.T. at 37-38. The Settlement does not resolve her concern.
4. The Settlement provides an increase in annual operating
revenues of $399,000 after the implementation of the Other Post
Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust in lieu of the $551,609, increase originally
requested. A comparison of an average residential customer’s quarterly
wastewater bill under current rates, the rates initially proposed by the City
and under the Settlement Rates is shown below:
11
CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES SETTLEMENT RATES
$38.03 $63.05 $56.61
(Based on quarterly usage of 13,000 gallons for an average residential
customer.)
5. The City has agreed to not file another general base rate case under
Section 1308(d) of the Public Utility Code before June 29, 2014, subject to limited exceptions.
6. Under the Settlement Rates, the minimum charge and the consumption
charge per 1,000 gallons is lower than what was initially proposed for all customers, and will
mitigate the effect of the increase.
7. The City shall establish an OPEB Trust as per the requirements set forth in
the City’s settlement of its water case at Docket No. R-2010-2179103. The City shall make
deposits into the OPEB Trust starting the first full month after the entry date of the final
Commission Order in the rate case or the first full month after the establishment of the Trust,
whichever is later. When the Trust is fully established, the City shall be authorized to implement
the corresponding portion of the revenue increase agreed to, in the amount of $51,000.
8. Acceptance of the Settlement will avoid the necessity of further
administrative and possible appellate proceedings at substantial cost to the Joint Petitioners,
other parties and the City’s customers.
9. The Settlement will allocate the agreed-upon revenue requirement in a
manner that is reasonable in light of the rate structure/cost of service evidence filed by the City
in the proceeding.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Legal Principles
12
Commission policy promotes settlements. 52 Pa. Code §5.231. Settlements lessen the
time and expense the parties must expend litigating a case and at the same time conserve
administrative hearing resources. The Commission has indicated that settlement results are often
preferable to those achieved at the conclusion of a fully litigated proceeding. 52 Pa. Code
§69.401. Many proceedings are expensive to litigate and the cost of such litigation at a
reasonable level is an operating expense recovered in the rates approved by the Commission.
This means that a settlement, which allows the parties to avoid the substantial costs of preparing
and serving testimony and the cross-examination of witnesses in lengthy hearings, the
preparation and service of briefs, reply briefs, exceptions and reply exceptions, together with the
briefs and reply briefs necessitated by any appeal of the Commission’s decision, yields
significant expense savings for the company’s customers. That is one reason why settlements
are encouraged by long-standing Commission policy.
By definition, a “settlement” reflects a compromise of the parties’ positions and
arguably fosters and promotes the public interest. When active parties in a proceeding reach a
settlement, the principal issue for Commission consideration is whether the agreement reached
suits the public interest. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. CS Water and Sewer
Associates, 74 Pa. P.U.C. 767, 771 (1991); Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v.
Philadelphia Electric Company, 60 Pa. P.U.C. 1, 21 (1985).
B. Statements of the Parties in Support of the Settlement
For the Commission’s consideration, the Signatory Parties submitted separate
Statements in Support of the Joint Petition for Settlement. Their positions are summarized
below.
1. The City’s Position
The City maintains that the proposed Settlement fairly balances the interests of
the Company and its customers and, therefore, is in the public interest. The City last filed for a
13
base rate increase in 2004. Since that time, operating costs such as labor costs, associated health
care costs and the cost of chemicals have increased. City Statement in Support at 1. Since the
2004 rate case, the City has completed several major projects, such as the Biological Nutrient
Reduction Improvement Project, various Act 537 upgrades to increase the capacity of the
treatment plant, a Lime Stabilization Project, and the repair and replacement of lines. City
Statement in Support at 2. The City also cites the need to continue maintenance and to comply
with stringent regulatory requirements as reasons in support of the rate increase. The City points
out that the proposed Settlement is the result of compromise and asks for expeditious
consideration of the Joint Petition. City Statement in Support at 5.
2. I&E’s Position
The Bureau of I&E contends that acceptance of the proposed Settlement is in the
public interest because resolution of this case by settlement rather than litigation will avoid the
substantial time and effort involved in continuing to formally litigate this proceeding, and that
settlement of this case serves the interests of both the City and its customers. Specifically, I&E
contends that the Settlement provides for a level of annual operating revenues that is reasonable
and lawful; the Settlement eliminates the need for hearings and post-hearing litigation; the
Settlement provides for a “stay out,” until June 29, 2014, absent extraordinary circumstances;
and, the Settlement provides that the corresponding portion of the settlement revenues related to
the establishment of the OPEB Trust in the amount of $51,000 will be implemented only after
the OPEB Trust is fully established. I&E Statement in Support at 4-5
3. OCA’s Position
The OCA submits that the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are a
fair and reasonable resolution of the issues and claims in this proceeding. Like I&E, the OCA
maintains that the annual revenue increase is reasonable with additional revenues of $51,000 if
the City meets the conditions related to the OPEB Trust. The OCA also states that the reduction
in the proposed rate increase, the stay out provision in the Settlement, and the avoidance of
14
further litigation is in the public interest and in the interest of the City’s ratepayers, and,
therefore, the Settlement should be approved.
4. OSBA’s Position
As with I&E and the OCA, the OSBA is supportive of the proposed Settlement
for the same reasons of avoiding costly litigation and the fairness and reasonableness of the
outcome. Additionally, the OSBA states that the issues of class revenue allocation and rate
design were of significance to the OSBA when it concluded that the Settlement was in the best
interests of the City’s Small Commercial and Industrial Customers.
C. Opposition to the Proposed Rate Increase by Jane O. Larkin
As stated, above, Ms. Jane O. Larkin objected to the proposed rate increase
because, by her estimation, in the summer one-half to two-thirds of the water she uses goes into
her lawn and not into the sewer. Ms. Larkin believes that some manner of bill adjustment to
reflect the extent of her use would be fair. N.T. at 37-38.
Ms. Larkin is not a party to the Settlement. On January 18, 2013,
contemporaneously with the filing of the Joint Petition for Settlement, the OCA provided Ms.
Larkin with a summary of the Settlement and advised her of her opportunity to file comments
with respect to the Settlement. The OCA also explained three options: (1) to join in the
Settlement; (2) to object to the Settlement; or (3) to take no action. To date, no word has been
received from Ms. Larkin, so I infer that she has opted to take no action. While I understand that
Ms. Larkin’s primary intent was to speak in opposition to the proposed rate increase, the burden
of proof in this proceeding is upon a Complainant. 66 Pa. C.S.A. § 332(a). Consequently, as she
has not pursued the prosecution of her Complaint, the Complaint must be dismissed.
D. Summary
15
The representatives of the Signatory Parties: the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund,
the Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Office of
Small Business Advocate, worked diligently and quickly to arrive at a resolution of this case and
should be commended. The proposed Settlement is straightforward in its terms. The City will
be allowed to increase its rates, not by the amount it originally sought, but to an extent that the
Signatory Parties agree is fair and reasonable. The Settlement provides an increase in annual
operating revenues of $399,000 after the implementation of the OPEB Trust in lieu of the
$551,609, increase originally requested. Further, the City has agreed to a “stay out” until June
29, 2014, absent the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances.
The representatives of the Signatory Parties maintain that the proposed Settlement
is in the public interest. The Signatory Parties have reserved the right to litigate this matter in the
event that the Commission modifies the proposed Settlement.
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the evidence, terms and conditions of the
Joint Petition for Settlement, including the supporting statements of the respective Parties, the
proposed Settlement constitutes a fair, just and reasonable resolution of the Commission’s
investigation, is in the public interest and should be approved without modification by the
Commission.
It is also recommended that the associated Complaints filed by the Office of
Consumer Advocate at Docket No. C-2012-2329756, and by the Office of Small Business
Advocate at Docket No. C-2012-2333112, be deemed satisfied, and that the formal Complaint
filed by Jane O. Larkin at Docket No. C-2012-2330719 be dismissed.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to
this proceeding. 66 Pa. C.S. §§501; 1308(d).
16
2. The due process rights of Complainant Jane O. Larkin have been fully
protected in this proceeding. Sentner v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Docket No.
F-00161106 (Order entered October 25, 1993); 52 Pa. Code § 5.245(a).
3. The burden of proof in this proceeding is upon the Complainant. 66 Pa.
C.S.A. § 332(a)
4. By failing to present any evidence, Complainant Jane O. Larkin has failed
to satisfy the burden of proof. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 332(a)
5. To determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved, the
Commission must decide whether the Settlement promotes the public interest. Pennsylvania
Public Utility Comm’n v. C.S. Water and Sewer Associates, 74 Pa. PUC 767 (1991);
Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm’n v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 60 Pa. PUC 1 (1985).
6. The settlement rates, terms and conditions contained in the Joint Petition
for Settlement at Docket No. R-2012-2310366 submitted by the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund,
the Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Office of
Small Business Advocate are just, reasonable and in the public interest.
7. The Commission should approve without modification the Joint Petition
for Settlement and the proposed Settlement that the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund, the Bureau of
Investigation and Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Office of Small
Business Advocate have submitted at this docket as in the public interest.
VI. ORDER
THEREFORE,
IT IS RECOMMENDED:
17
1. That the statements and exhibits specifically referenced in the Evidence
Stipulation filed on January 18, 2013, at Docket No. R-2012-2310366 are admitted into the
record, subject to approval of the Settlement Petition by the Commission, but reserving the right
of the Parties to submit further testimony and to cross-examine witnesses in the event the Joint
Petition for Settlement is not approved
2. That the Joint Petition for Settlement of the Rate Investigation Pursuant to
66 Pa. C.S. §1308(d) submitted by the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund, the Bureau of Investigation
and Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Office of Small Business Advocate
at Docket No. R-2012-2310366 be approved in its entirety without modification.
3. That the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund file a tariff supplement
incorporating the terms of the Settlement to become effective on one day’s notice after entry of
the Commission’s Order approving the Settlement.
4. That the City establish the Other Post Employment Benefits Trust as per
the requirements set forth in the City’s settlement of its water case at Docket No. R-2010-
2179103, and shall make deposits into the OPEB Trust starting the first full month after the entry
date of the final Commission Order in the rate case or the first full month after the establishment
of the Trust, whichever is later. When the Trust is fully established, the City shall be authorized
to implement the corresponding portion of the revenue increase agreed to, in the amount of
$51,000.
5. That the Complaint of the Office of Consumer Advocate at Docket No.
C-2012-2329756 is deemed satisfied.
6. That the Complaint of the Office of Small Business Advocate at Docket
No. C-2012-2333112 is deemed satisfied.
18
7. That the Complaint of Jane O. Larkin filed at Docket No. C-2012-
2330719 is dismissed.
8. That the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund, the Bureau of Investigation and
Enforcement, the Office of Consumer Advocate, and the Office of Small Business Advocate
shall comply with the terms of the Settlement of Section 1308(d) Rate Investigation submitted in
this proceeding, as though each term and condition stated therein had been the subject of an
individual ordering paragraph.
9. That upon the filing of a tariff supplement by the City of Lancaster Sewer
Fund, acceptable to the Commission as conforming with the Joint Petition for Settlement and the
Commission’s approval thereof, the rates, terms and conditions of the Settlement shall become
effective upon one day’s notice.
10. That upon acceptance and approval by the Commission of the tariff
supplement and supporting data filed by the City of Lancaster Sewer Fund as being consistent
with the Joint Petition for Settlement, the inquiry and investigation at Docket No. R-2012-
2310366 shall be terminated and the docket marked closed.
Dated: February 26, 2013 /s/ Dennis J. BuckleyAdministrative Law Judge
19