HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MIEC 75 - MIEC's Response to MSD's First Discovery RequestExhibit MIEC 75
Wastewater Rate Change Proceeding - 2019
BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION
OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
For Consideration of a Wastewater
Rate Change Proposal by the Rate Commission
of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
RESPONSES OF INTERVENOR MISSOURI INDUSTRIAL
ENERGY CONSUMERS TO MSD'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to §§ 7.280 and 7.290 of the Charter Plan of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District (the "Charter Plan"), Restated Operational Rule § 3(7) and Procedural Schedule §§ 16
and 17 of the Rate Commission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (the "Rate
Commission"), the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers ("MIEC") hereby submits the
attached responses to the April 26, 2019 First Discovery Request of Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District ("MSD") for additional information and answers regarding the Rate Change
Proposal dated March 4, 2019 (the "Rate Change Proposal")
REQUEST 1: Your rebuttal testimony states that, "It is possible that MSD may be able
to issue new debt at around a 2.5% interest rate. However, it could be as high as 3%. Therefore,
I recommend a more conservative estimate of the interest cost on new bond issues to be 3%,
rather than the 5% proposed by MSD" (page 14, lines 6-9). The municipal market benchmark
yield curve produced by Municipal Market Data ("MMD") is generally reported based on yield.
However, the underlying assumed coupon rate for MMD is 5%. Consequently, MSD's Rate
Proposal assumed 5.0% to 5.5% coupon rates. When yields are lower than the assumed coupon,
bond premium can be generated and serve as a component of bond proceeds in addition to the
principal amount. Please clarify if your 2.5% and 3% rate assumptions relate to interest rate (i.e.
coupon) or yield on the bonds? Furthermore, please provide on a by maturity basis your assumed
interest rates, yields and total bond proceeds (principal plus premium) assumed to be generated
in your debt financing scenarios.
RESPONSE 1: The interest rate projection was Mr. Gorman's estimate of the cost
to MSD of the additional funds created by issuing new bond debt to the market. Hence, it
assumes that the face value of the bonds would be equal to the bond proceeds received from
the market, less the cost of issuance. MSD's rate model indicated a cost of issuance of 1.0%
on the "CIRP Dashboard" tab. Mr. Gorman did not adjust this input. Hence, the cost of
bonds with a 3% coupon rate, with an issuance cost of 1.0%, would be slightly above 3.0%.
The impact on MSD revenue requirement caused by a 0.5% increase to the new bond
interest rate is about $500,000 to $600,000 per year that would be additive over the four
year rate cycle, and would increase cost by $2.4 million in FY2024 as shown below.
1
Wastewater Rate Change Proceeding - 2019
TABLE 1
Revenue Requirement Comparison
Proposed
Input FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024
5.0% Rate 425,619.998 437,201.686 495,290.476 497.130,001 489,669,852 516.685,601
3.0% Rate 425,619,998 436.012,939 440.651.192 449,984,451 465.238,685 485,703.415
3.5% Rate 425.619,998 436.145,324 441.224.464 451 106.892 466,968,936 488,108,996
Difference 132.385 673,271 1.122,441 1,730,250 2.403.581
Total
FY21-FY24
1,998,675.929
1,841,577,744
1,847,407,288
5,829,544
Supporting workpapers are provided in response to Discovery Request No. 6.
REQUEST 2: Are you aware of any recent water/wastewater revenue bond market
transactions similar to MSD's proposed issuances in terms of credit rating, size, and maturity that
utilized coupons and yields similar to your assumptions? If so, please provide a list of the
transactions, including the names of the issuers and the dates of the transactions.
RESPONSE 2: Yes. As an example, MSD's 2017 Series A, in the amount of $316.17
million, was issued with coupon rates ranging from 2% to 5%, but were sold at a premium
to the face value of the bonds. The net interest costs of the proceeds received by MSD for
this 2017 bond issue was around 3.23%. See page 42 of MSD's Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, and MSD Exhibit MSD-1, Section 7, 7.4.1 Existing Bond Summary.
See also bonds issued by Citizens Energy Group for the CWA Wastewater utility in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Citizens Energy Group's 2018 Annual Financial Report outlines
recent debt issues on pages 21 to 22, including $157 million in 2017. Coupon rates for
CWA Wastewater's 2016 series range from 2.0% to 5.0% and the 2017 Series has a rate of
3.53%. See httrâ–ºs://www.citizensenergvaroup.com/Our-CamnanvlNews-
Financials/Financials/Reports/20I &Ann ual-Renort.ndf
REQUEST 3: Your testimony states that, "historically AA municipal rated debt interest
rates have tracked that of 30year Treasury securities" (page 14, lines 1-2). Please provide the
specific data or benchmarks and specific historical period reviewed to come to this conclusion.
RESPONSE 3: Projections referenced by Mr. Gorman should state over the next
two years, not the three years. The data used to track the comparison of AA rated
municipal bond debt and 30-year Treasuries is attached as Exhibit MIEC 75A.
REQUEST 4: You state in your testimony that, "projections of Treasury bond yields out
over the next three years indicate a relatively flat interest rate curve" (page 14, lines 3-4). Did
you make any allowances for interest rate increases in your projections over that three year
period? If so, how much and how much cushion for uncertainty, if any, was included? Since the
three year Treasury projection extends to 2022, what informs your assumptions for interest rates
2
Wastewater Rate Change Proceeding - 2019
beyond that? Please explain your assumptions for those rates and specify if a cushion for
uncertainty of projections was included in those assumptions.
RESPONSE 4: Mr. Gorman used the high -end estimate of the AA rated municipal
bond yield as a projection as a conservative estimate of current observable yields, and
relatively flat yield projections over the next two years. While there is no explicit adder to
reflect the possibility of increasing interest rates, the potential for increased interest rates
was considered by Mr. Gorman in deriving his estimate for a conservative interest rate cost
to use in the projected cost of service model.
However, as shown on the attached Exhibit MIEC 75B, economists' projections of
increases to interest rates have historically been wrong. As such, current interest rates are
just as likely a good estimate of market interest rates over the prevailing rate cycle as are
economists' forecasts for increasing interest rates.
REQUEST 5: The schedules included in your testimony appear to show an overall
decrease in capital funding in the first two years of the Rate Proposal Period (higher debt funding
that is more than offset by lower PAYGO funding) that loops Iike it would push the balance of
the construction fund to a negative balance. Did you model Construction Fund cashflows in a
manner similar to Table 4-8 in the Rate Change Proposal? If so, please share your schedule or
table.
RESPONSE 5: MSD's Rate Model includes the Construction Fund Cashflows on
the "CIRP" tab on rows 143 to 173. My table, below, displays the data from my adjusted
MSD rate model in the same manner as Table 4-8. Also see the attached model in response
to Discovery Request No. 6.
Wastewater Construction Fund Cashllow
1. Beginning Year Balance
6ou ces of Funds
2. Revenue Bond Proceeds - ParArne att
3. Revenue Bond proceeds - Premium
4. Cash Fnancirg of Conslruclion (PAYOO)
5. Capitalized IMemal Labor
6. WIFIADraw
7. State Revolving Loan Proceeds
8 (rants & CantrbiAons
9 Mores! home
10. Subtotal. Available Funds
Uses of Funds
11. MbJor Cepitel Improvements
12. Issuance Costs
13. Debi Service Reserve Fund Deposits
14. Subtotal: Uses of Funds
15. Ford of Year Balance
TABLE 2
CIRP Financing Plan
Prejecled
FY21-FY24
f Y 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Subtotal
$ 243,381,681 S 53,193,494 $ 56,909 $ 58,041 $ 94,542 5 17,869
120,000,000
9,903,814
25,267,600
629,397
5,850,000
59,240,000
5,270,000
121,366,038
10,200,928
5,204,107
76,000,000
657,040
6.870.030
167,670,000 161,910,000
20,720,000 20,010,003
104,916,862 101,291,343
8,758,000 9,020,740
13, 754, 995 14, 437, 728
30,000,000 30,000,000
685,899 716,027
7,170.000 8,930,000
191,030,000
23,610,000
97,756,935
9,291,352
11,024,051
30,000,030
747,483
7.100.000
$ 405,012,091 $ 367,001,607 $ 363.732,664 $ 344,373,879 $ 370,856,282
205,790,030 $ 726,400,003
25,430,000 89,770,000
100,487,975 404,435,016
9,570,103 35640,205
3,122,464 42,339,246
30,000, 000 120,000,003
780,317 2,929,724
7,480 000 28,680,000
$ 3E2,655726 $ 1,451,421,652
$ (321,6$4,361) $ (365,817,200) $ (351,609,622) $ (342,274,337) $ (369,313,413) $ (380,161,081) $(1,442,358,453)
(184,236) (1,127,500) (2,065,003) (2005,000) (2,325,000) (2,485,000) (8,880,000)
S (321,618,597) $ (366,944,700) $ (35(3,674,622) 8(344,279,337) $ (370,638,413) $ (382,646,081) 8(1,451,238,453)
$ 83,193,494 $ 66,908 $ 60,041 $ 94,542 $ 17,809 $ 12,1347
$ 163,099
3
Wastewater Rate Change Proceeding - 2019
REQUEST 6: PIease provide any rate model you used, including changes made to
MSD's Rate Model, to develop the schedules and positions presented in your rebuttal testimony.
RESPONSE 6: See Exhibit MIEC 75C for the Rate Model used to support Mr.
Gorman's Rebuttal Testimony. Exhibit MIEC 75D is a Rate Model that uses a 3.5% rate
for the bond issuances and supports Table 1 from Discovery Response No. 1.
The attached Rate Model includes Schedules MPG-1, MPG-2, and MPG-4. Please
see Exhibit MIEC 75E for an Excel version of Schedule MPG-3. Please see Exhibit MIEC
75F for an Excel version of Schedules MPG-5 and MPG-6.
Dated: May 6, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
By Isl Brandon W. Neuschafer
Brandon W. Neuschafer, #53232
Kamilah Jones, #71025
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2317 (Brandon)
Telephone: (314) 259-2151 (Kamilah)
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
bwneuschafer@bciplaw.com
kamijones@belplaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR THE MIEC
4
Wastewater Rate Change Proceeding - 2019
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic transmission
to the following on this 6th day of May, 2019.
Ms. Janice Fenton
Office Associate Senior
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
jfenton@stlmsd.com
Ms. Susan Myers
General Counsel
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
smyers@stlmsd.com
Ms. Lisa O. Stump
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
lostump@lashlybaer.com
Mr. Brian J. Malone
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
bmalone@lashlybaer.com
/s/ Brandon W. Neuschafer
5