HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 60B Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M ZimmermanBEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION OF THE
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
AUGUST 19, 2011 SUBMITTAL OF SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY
OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
ISSUE: WASTEWATER RATE CHANGE PROPOSAL
WITNESS: JANICE M. ZIMMERMAN
SPONSORING PARTY: METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
DATE PREPARED: August 19, 2011
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
Exhibit MSD 60B
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
1
10
Impact of 1-Year Rate Freeze.
Q1. Mrs. Zimmerman do the interveners currently recommend a one year rate 2
freeze vs the District’s proposed 4 year plan? 3
A. Yes. 4
Q2. Would the recommended 1-year rate freeze significantly impact the 5
District’s revenue? 6
A. Yes. As previously testified by Jeanne Vanda of Public Financial Management, Inc. 7
(PFM), the estimated $285 million in bond funding currently proposed in FY13 would 8
be reduced to $125 million. This reduction in the first year of the District’s bond 9
program would result in a $160 million funding shortfall in FY13.
Q3. Do you support such a recommendation? 11
A. No. 12
13
15
16
19
Inflation Rate
Q4. Were assumptions made in the May 10, 2011 Rate proposal regarding 14
future inflation rates for MSD’s operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses
for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016?
A. Yes. 17
Q5. Have you reviewed the written rebuttal testimony submitted by MIEC 18
concerning O&M expense inflation rate assumptions?
Q6. Yes. 20
- 1 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
Q7. What reference material did MIEC cite as the basis for its inflation rate 1
assumption of 2.4%? 2
A. The MIEC cited the 5-year average Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers 3
(“CPI-U”) for the period 2013-2017 as published in the March 10, 2011 Blue Chip 4
Economic Indicators. 5
Q8. Do you consider this an appropriate basis for MIEC’s 2.4% assumption? 6
A. No. The CPI-U is not an appropriate basis for an inflation rate assumption 7
applicable to MSD. The CPI-U consists of a “market basket” of goods and services 8
not relevant to the goods and services provided by the District. The U.S. Bureau of 9
Labor Statistics defines CPI-U as an index based on the prices of food, clothing,
shelter, transportation fares, charges for doctors’ and dentists’ services, drugs and
the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Per the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices of these types of items are collected, on a monthly
basis, in 87 urban areas across the country from approximately 4,000 housing units
and 25,000 retail establishments such as department stores, supermarkets,
hospitals, gas stations, and other types of stores and service establishments. The
CPI-U data is collected from urban populations consisting of individual wage earners
and groups such as professional, managerial and technical workers, the self-
employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees and others not in the work
force. The CPI-U is an appropriate inflation indicator for goods and services used by
the general population. MSD’s O&M costs are not in the same categories as those
used in the CPI-U. While the CPI-U may be used as an inflation indicator for some of
the District’s O&M costs, the majority of its O&M expenses consist of a combination
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 2 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
of expenses impacted by more specific inflation indices such as the energy and fuel 1
components of the CPI, the Producer Price Index (PPI) and construction and 2
operational supply cost indices published by the Engineering News-Record (ENR). 3
Other O&M expenses are primarily impacted by factors other than inflation like 4
investment market conditions, actuarial traits of the MSD work force, and short term 5
historical trends of MSD actual expenses The following table provides a comparison 6
of the inflation indices used by MIEC and MSD. 7
Rate Proposal
Inflation Rate Variance
Assumption Inflation (Rate Prop
O&M Expenses 4-Yr Avg Basis (1) 4-Yr Avg Indices vs Indices)MSD Basis
Wages, Salaries & Other Misc
Personnel Costs 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 2.40% 0.60% March 2011 Blue Chip Indicators CPI-U: 2.4%
Short-term Historical Investment Market Conditions
Pension Plan costs 2.40% CPI-U 7.90% 7.90% 0.00% Projected Staff Acturial Traits
Employee Medical & Dental Insurance 2.40% CPI-U 9.00%9.00% 0.00% Projected Staff Acturial Traits
Bond & Liability Insurance 2.40% CPI-U 5.00% 5.00% 0.00% Short-term Historical Investment Market Conditions
Contractual Services 2.40% CPI-U 4.50% 4.50% 0.00% 2010 PPI: 4.5%
Machinery & Equipment Parts 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 3.30% -0.30% March 2011 ENR Material Cost Index: 3.3%
Operational Construction and
Building Supplies 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 3.80% -0.80% March 2011 ENR Construction & Building Cost Index: 3.8%
Chemical Supplies 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 4.50% -1.50% 2010 PPI: 4.5%
General Supplies 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 2.40% 0.60% March 2011 Blue Chip Indicators CPI-U: 2.4%
Energy Utilities 2.40% CPI-U 4.70% 7.10% -2.40% 2010 CPI Energy Index for St. Louis: 7.1%
Real Property 2.40% CPI-U 3.00% 2.40% 0.60% March 2011 Blue Chip Indicators CPI-U: 2.4%
Average Inflation Rate 2.40% 4.46% 4.75%
CPI-U = Consumer Price Index All Urban Customers PPI = Producer Price Index ENR = Engineering News-Record
(1) Based on the March 10, 2011 Blue Chip Indicators report
Comparision of O&M Inflation Indicators
Inflation Indices
MIEC
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
This table indicates, MSD’s O&M expense inflation rates are based on a composite of
inflation indices specific to the type of cost. The inflation assumptions used for
contractual services, machinery and equipment parts, chemical supplies, operational
construction and building costs and energy costs are based on indices more closely
related to these expenses than the CPI-U used by MIEC. The actual inflation
assumptions used by the District also take into account short term historical actual cost
trends which reflect operational efficiencies and result in projections lower than the
individual inflation indices. These variances represent a conservative projection of O&M
- 3 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
expenses as these categories represent 46% of the District’s total O&M projected
change. The District’s inflation assumption for wages and salaries is 0.60% over the
CPI-U used by MIEC to reflect potential wage increases. All remaining O&M expenses
are unrelated to inflation and are based on short-term historical trends for investment
market conditions as advised by the District’s financial advisory firm, PFM and Staff
actuarial projections provided by Milliman Inc. The above table also demonstrates
MIEC’s use of the CPI-U index as the primary basis for its O&M expense inflation rate
assumptions regardless of the specific nature of the District’s various types of O&M
expenses. For this reason, MIEC’s O&M expense inflation assumption is unreasonable
and understates the District’s O&M expenses over the 4 year Rate Proposal.
Q9. Please indicate how Mr. Gorman’s assumption understates the O&M 11
expensed.
Q10. MIEC’s projected O&M expenses are understated due to the inappropriate 13
application of the CPI-U inflation index to all MSD O&M expense types. The District’s
O&M expenses are categorized into three groupings: 1) expense types tied to a
specific inflation index; 2) expenses based on specific inflation indices but adjusted
to incorporate operational cost efficiencies and short term historical trends of MSD
actual costs, and 3) expenses best predicted by factors other than inflation indicators
such as trends in investment market conditions, actuarial traits of the MSD workforce
and trends based on short-term historical MSD actual expenses. MIEC’s application
of the CPI-U to all MSD O&M expense categories understates projected O&M
expenses as indicated in the table below.
- 4 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
Understatement of MIEC / MSD
MIEC Projected Comparable
O&M Expense Change Basis MIEC MSD O&M Change Dollar Basis
Same Inflation Index utilized.
CPI-U 5,958$ 8,384$ (2,426)$ 0.6% variance is rate assumption
Composite of Inflation Indices but Unrelated inflation index utilized by
limited control due to variability of WW flow 2,536 3,608 (1,072) MIEC. Considered an understatement
Investment Market, Staff Actuarial and Use of an inflation index inapplicable.
Historical Trends 9,339 11,344 (2,005) Considered an understatement
Total Projected 4 Year Change in O&M Expenses 17,833$ 23,336$ (5,503)$
Average per Year change $$$4,458 5,834 (1,376)
%-24%
Restatement of MIEC Change in Projected O&M Expenses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This table below also provides a restatement of MIEC’s change in projected O&M
expenses in order to accurately compare to the District’s O&M cost inflation
assumptions. The table demonstrates that MIEC’s projected change in O&M expenses
is understated by $5,503,000 or 24%, based the use of the CPI-U across all MSD O&M
expense categories. MIEC’s understatement of the District’s projected O&M costs
results in the proposed rates being insufficient to cover the District’s cost of operation.
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Bad Debt
Q11. Mrs. Zimmerman has the District provided assumptions for the bad debt 10
provision reflected in the Rate Proposal?
A. Yes. MSD’s projected bad debt provision for each of the four years was provided on 12
Table 3-6, Line 2 of the District’s Rate Proposal, Exhibit MSD 1. The assumptions
for this projection are explained on Page 3.10, Section 3.4.1:
“The provision for bad debt is projected to be temporarily offset in
2012 and 2013 due to the expected recovery of prior years’ bad
debt expense by greater use of contracted collection agencies
efforts, law firms and computer automated payment reminders.
However, after these enhanced collection efforts of the prior bad
- 5 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
23
debt, the annual allowance for bad debt expense is projected to
increase from normal levels in proportion to the proposed revenues
increases.”
Q12. Do the District’s assumptions factor in the impact of its more aggressive 4
collection efforts? 5
A. Yes. The District assumes the level of its bad debt provision will decrease in FY12 6
due to the initial impact of the more aggressive collection efforts implemented in 7
FY11. This initial steep decline, however, is not projected to continue over the 4 8
year period of the Rate Proposal. The enhanced collection efforts are designed to 9
initially target those account delinquencies unresponsive to the District’s prior less
robust methods. These accounts represent the majority of MSD’s bad debt. It is
assumed the collection impact will result in the disposal of these targeted
delinquencies by the end of FY13. This rapid decline in the bad debt provision
associated with the initial collection efforts is then projected to lessen over the
remainder of the 4-year Rate Proposal time period. While the collection efforts are
assumed to continue to reduce the bad debt provision through FY16, the diminishing
return on the enhanced collection efforts is projected to be overtaken and masked by
the impact of the proposed rate increases.
Q13. What is the impact of the proposed rate increases on the District’s bad debt 19
provision?
A. The District’s bad debt provision is primarily influenced by two key factors, the 21
success of collection efforts and rise of wastewater rates. As previously stated, the
District assumes its enhanced collection efforts will result in the substantial recovery
- 6 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
of delinquent bills in FY12 continuing at a declining trend throughout FY13, 1
eventually transitioning to a flat annual pace expected to maintain bad debt at a 2
relatively constant level through FY16. As such, one of the two key factors 3
influencing the bad debt provision stays relatively constant resulting in the proposed 4
rise in wastewater rates remaining as the only factor significantly impacting the bad 5
debt provision. 6
Q14. How are the proposed rate increases projected to impact the District’s bad 7
debt provision? 8
A. The District’s Rate Proposal contains a 64% total increase in wastewater rates. 9
Therefore, the District reasonably assumed the bad debt provision would increase
steadily over the 4-year Rate Proposal period as rate increases overtake the efficacy
of the enhanced collection efforts. The District projects the growth in the bad debt
provision will accelerate over the Rate Proposal time period as the pressure of rising
sewer bills increases. Using Schedule MPG-3 of Mr. Gorman’s July 18, 2011
rebuttal testimony, the District’s bad debt provision is projected to increase from
$8,998,500 in FY13 to $12,613,400 in FY16. This represents a $3,614,900 or
40.2% increase in the bad debt provision over the Rate Proposal’s 4 year time
period. This change in the bad debt provision collates with the 40.1% increase in
total sewer service charge revenue associated with the proposed rise in wastewater
rates.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4-Yr
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 % Chg
Total Revenue (a)242,286,300$ 270,743,000$ 302,973,200$ 339,217,100$ 40.0%
Bad Debt Provision (b)(8,998,500) (10,055,400) (11,262,000) (12,613,400) 40.2%
(a) Rate Proposal Table 3-11, Line 8
(b) Rate Proposal Table 3-6, Line 2
Change in Bad Debt Provison vs Change in Total Sewer Service Charge Revenue
21
- 7 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
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
29
30
31
Mr. Gorman’s bad debt assumption is overly optimistic as it unrealistically does not take
into consideration a correlation between bad debt and increasing rates. Mr. Gorman
also does not take into account that the District’s enhanced collection efforts are
designed to continue throughout the 4 years of the Rate Proposal and beyond. MIEC’s
bad debt assumption is further flawed as it ignores the District’s lack of shut off ability
which is considered the strongest collection tool to incent the payment of delinquent
bills. The impact of the lack of shut off as a collection tool was supported by Mr.
Stannard during his testimony at the August 8, 2011 Rate Commission Technical
Conference, (Transcript Exhibit MSD 57, page 113, lines 19 – 25 and page 114, lines 1
– 12) when he stated:
“In most cases in the country, the wastewater utilities are connected with
the water utilities, and so a lack of payment of a wastewater bill means
water is turned off. MSD is like a number of wastewater utilities that are
pure stand alone and do their own billing, but there’s not very many of
them. Our ability to encourage payment is much more restrictive than
being able to turn off the water.
So the bad debt level is high, and it has climbed with increase in rates as
well as the downturn in the economy. The key thing here is that with
perhaps the more aggressive and robust collection procedures and
processes that MSD has implemented – implemented earlier this year,
that we will see a decrease in bad debt, but it’s too early to tell.
There’s a – the forecast does include somewhat of improvement as
related to that – those enhanced procedures; but I think for the next four
years, it’s a reasonable forecast.”
Schedule MPG-3 of Mr. Gorman’s July 18, 2011 rebuttal testimony indicates an FY16
total bad debt provision of $10,042,323. This represents an understatement of
$2,571,077 when compared to the District’s projection of $12,613,400. This
understatement equates to a shortfall in the level of revenue required by the District
- 8 -
Surrebuttal Testimony of Janice M. Zimmerman Exhibit MSD 60B
- 9 -
1
2
through the 4 year Rate Proposal timeframe to fund its operations and address
requirements in the Consent Decree.
Q15. Does this complete your testimony today? 3
A. Yes. 4