EPCOR’s rate proposal: The rest of the story for Sun City

Greg Eisert

Submitted photo/Greg Eisert

This is part two of a two-part series about EPCOR’s proposed water rate hike. Part one, Aug. 20, focused on what costs Sun City customers are being asked to pay and why.

OPINION — There is another part of EPCOR’s current rate proposal that Sun City residents should know about: a new physical connection between the Sun City and Sonoran water systems.

EPCOR describes the connection as an operational improvement that could enhance flexibility and reliability. That may provide benefits. But connecting previously separate systems can also create new cost, operational and water-resource relationships that deserve careful examination.

Sonoran Water Services continues to experience substantial growth. Sun City, by contrast, is mature and essentially built out. As the West Valley grows, new wells, pipelines, storage, treatment capacity and water resources will require substantial investment.

The important question is not simply whether connecting the systems is good or bad. It is what the connection means for Sun City customers.

What benefits will Sun City receive? What new costs, risks or obligations might it assume? To what extent, if any, are the connection and related investments driven by growth outside the Sun City District? And how will those costs ultimately be divided among customers?

A physical connection can increase operational flexibility, but it also means decisions involving water supply, capacity and infrastructure in one area may have consequences for customers in another. Those relationships should be understood before determining who pays for them.

The Residential Utility Consumer Office, which represents residential ratepayers, will have an important role in examining EPCOR’s evidence and assumptions.

As growth continues across the West Valley, these decisions can affect how future water-system investments and risks are shared.

Sun City should pay its fair share of costs it causes and benefits it receives. It should not be required to subsidize costs properly attributable elsewhere.

That determination should be supported by evidence, transparent accounting and measurable benefits.

Greg Eisert has represented Sun City and Youngtown ratepayer interests in numerous electric, water and wastewater proceedings before the Arizona Corporation Commission since 2012, and has participated in related appeals through the Arizona Supreme Court. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.