expects to spend 97% more than its original estimated expenditures in 2017. OSBA also claims that none of the detail in Modified LTIIP explains why the Columbia’s costs are increasing at nearly three times the rate of infrastructure Company’s Columbia’s replacements. OSBA avers that Columbia has not met the burden of proof to show that these increased expenditures and accelerated pace of infrastructure improvement are cost-effective, and are designed to ensure and maintain efficient, safe, “reasonable, adequate, reliable and reasonable service to (OSBA Comments at 4). OSBA consumers” suggests that the Commission require Columbia to submit additional proof that the accelerated infrastructure replacements and expenditures are reasonable, cost-effective and prudent, and that absent such additional proof, that the Commission should deny the Petition. Reply Columbia’s In its June 28 Letter, Columbia submitted an explanation of the need for additional acceleration of infrastructure replacement, and for the rising expenditures associated with those replacements. The Company explains that the accelerated replacements are necessary in order to stay on track with its goal as stated from its original LTIIP to – replace all cast iron and bare steel pipelines in its system by 2029 and therefore the – accelerated schedule is reasonable and prudent to maintain safe and adequate service. June 28 Letter also addresses the cost drivers that are causing its level Columbia’s of expenditures to rise faster than its rate of infrastructure replacement acceleration. The Company attributes the rising costs primarily to four factors: The need to install steel replacement pipe instead of plastic The location of the construction in high traffic and urban areas Rising contractor costs Increased street restoration requirements by local governments
expects to spend 97% more than its original estimated expenditures in 2017. OSBA also claims that none of the detail in Columbia’s Modified LTIIP explains why the Company’s costs are increasing at nearly three times the rate of Columbia’s infrastructure replacements. OSBA avers that Columbia has not met the burden of proof to show that these increased expenditures and accelerated pace of infrastructure improvement are “reasonable, cost-effective, and are designed to ensure and maintain efficient, safe, adequate, reliable and reasonable service to consumers” (OSBA Comments at 4). OSBA suggests that the Commission require Columbia to submit additional proof that the accelerated infrastructure replacements and expenditures are reasonable, cost-effective and prudent, and that absent such additional proof, that the Commission should deny the Petition. Columbia’s Reply In its June 28 Letter, Columbia submitted an explanation of the need for additional acceleration of infrastructure replacement, and for the rising expenditures associated with those replacements. The Company explains that the accelerated replacements are necessary in order to stay on track with its goal as stated from its original LTIIP – to replace all cast iron and bare steel pipelines in its system by 2029 – and therefore the accelerated schedule is reasonable and prudent to maintain safe and adequate service. Columbia’s June 28 Letter also addresses the cost drivers that are causing its level of expenditures to rise faster than its rate of infrastructure replacement acceleration. The Company attributes the rising costs primarily to four factors: The need to install steel replacement pipe instead of plastic The location of the construction in high traffic and urban areas Rising contractor costs Increased street restoration requirements by local governments