The other shoe, When will CPUC and SJWC reach and announce a decision on the pending Rate Increase

The other shoe will drop eventually...........CPUC will reach a decision, hopefully closer to the DRA recommendation, rather than SJWC 44% rate increase.

The Rate increase proceeding has been "going" 708 days since January 3, 2012.

The typical case takes less than 18 months (roughly 540 days) from filing to ruling, as of today (12/14/2013) 708 days, 170 days longer than normal per CPUC average.

I checked online at CPUC again today, 12/14/2013, with the same result nothing new has been updated. No new documents, rulings or decisions.............

The other possible reason is to "drag the proceeding out to the point the ratepayers loss interest" and the ruling can quietly be issued. Once released and is not challenged our rates will go up! The regulatory affairs staff at SJWC is getting paid, CPUC staff involved is getting paid, at the ratepayers expense, so why rush. They can always make the increase RETROACTIVE, hopefully it's not a Christmas present. May be there really are "Ebenezer Scrooge" and "Grinch", in San Jose.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company 44% Rate Increase, send an email as described below to remind our elected officials and CPUC that we are concerned and have not forgotten the issue!

If you are concerned about the issues, send email to CPUC at:
District 5 United eForm eMail  Simply click on the "eForm eMail" and you will get a page to fill out the information and specify the reason for your opposition to the SJWC 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

You can also send an email to CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  The Public Advisor will insure your email will be sent to all the appropriate CPUC staff members.

CPUC nearing decision on SJWC WRAP Surcharge

The pending WRAP (Water Rate Assistance Program) has gone through a series of document exchanges and DRA representation, on behalf of the Ratepayers. We appear to be nearing an actual resolution.

We should be concerned regarding the integrity of the PG&E data be shared with SJWC and automatically enrolling participants in the SJWC WRAP program.

Further a recent report, Low-Income Rates for Water Utility Customers  (A Calculation of Full Participation 
And the Impact on the Remaining Customers) conclusions imply that over 21% of SJWC customers may qualify for participation in the WRAP program. That would be over 45,000 participants, double the current number of participants.

Page5 excerpted, complete document 

The amount of the actual surcharge has tentatively been agreed to by DRA. DRA researched and justified the surcharge amount, of $1.15.

The request by SJWC for annual automatic adjustments was not approved.

The audit and verification program will be improved, but only to a limited extent. Participation still can be obtained by qualifying for PGE's Care program.

All posted available documents, rulings, etc., regarding the WRAP Application 13-06-008 are available at the CPUC site URL below:

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/f?p=401:57:482850440352601::NO

Richard Roth, CLWSC Customers, CEWR (Texas) - Customers WIN!

I've been following the water rate increase activities of SJW Corporation (San Jose Water Company), in  New Braunfels, Texas:

"The Coalition for Equitable Water Rates (CEWR) has represented all the ratepayers of Comal and Blanco counties throughout the 3-year-long protest against Canyon Lake Water Service Company’s (CLWSC, wholly owned subsidiary of SJW Corporation) request for an enormous 71 percent increase in our water rates.

CEWR’s stated desire in its protest action was to help ensure all water users could receive water services at a fair and reasonable cost. After a series of formal hearings before two administrative law judges and an in-depth review of the case’s facts, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) determined CLWSC’s 71 percent increase was not justified and unanimously approved a 32.7 percent increase." quote from the Herald-ZeitungNew Braunfels, TX."

It should also be noted that an article was also in the River Crossing website which covers the Texas Hill Country, includes New Braunfels:

"The finding on denying CLWSC rate case costs sets an important precedent on the 51% Rule by holding companies accountable to submit reasonable rate increase filings. CLWSC brought Rich Roth, the CEO of San Jose Water, to speak at the hearing. In my opinion, Roth in his comments tried to threaten the Commission by stating that the company would pull out of the Texas water market if CLWSC was not awarded undeserved rate case expenses. This is simply demonstrates the company’s senior management's disregard for their corporate responsibility to the public's interest as outlined in their state granted CCN."

It should be noted that:

Mr. Richard Roth was very unhappy apparently with the results from the Texas State ruling, on his requested "Texas Sized" water rate increase:

• Awarded CLWSC a 32.65% increase,
• Denied them about $1 million in rate case costs, "OUCH, but what are we paying or will pay?"
• Reduced the requested rate base by ~ $3.4 million,
• Required CLWSC to refund the 5.25% overpayment to ratepayers.

We are faced with very similar situation, in San Jose,. SJW Corporation is requesting a 41% increase over three years. They have already requested and received this year 5.71% increase, 25% of the 2013 pending requested General Rate Increase. 

Keep in mind that if we don't keep telling CPUC and our government representatives "We'll wake up and find they've justified-somehow-the Rate Increase!

If you are concerned about the issues, send email to CPUC at:

District 5 United eForm eMail  Simply click on the "eForm eMail" and you will get a page to fill out the information and specify the reason for your opposition to the SJWC 44% Rate Increase and your concern about the attitudes of the major players reported by KNBC Chief Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski, the Texas newspaper and website. Please also mention if you feel the lobbying and/or personal gifts/expenses represent an possible integrity issue or a potential conflict of interest. 

The Texans were successful in preventing unfair increases-We can be successful!

You can also send an email to CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  The Public Advisor will insure your email will be sent to all the appropriate CPUC staff members.

California Water Service Company (CalWater) now offers Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (HEIS)

Another water company is not only offering:

• Exterior Water Line Protection Insurance ($4.95/month)

They also offer all of the other HEIS insurance options. If you signed up for all services it would cost you roughly $74.00 per month, WOW!

"California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is the largest subsidiary of the California Water Service Group. Cal Water is the largest investor-owned American water utility west of the Mississippi River and the third largest in the country. Formed in 1926, the San Jose-based company serves more than 472,000 customers through 28 Customer and Operations Centers throughout the state."

Considering the Exterior Water Line Protection Insurance ($4.95/month) times 472,000 would provide $2,336,400 per month in revenue to HEIS. If CalWater gets what appears to be the standard fee of 10%, $233,640/month or $2,803,680 per year.

The revenue actually goes to "CWS Utility Services (CWSUS), an affiliate of California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and a subsidiary of California Water Service Group". Since CWSUS "CWS Utility Services (CWSUS), a subsidiary of the California Water Service Group, provides non-regulated contract utility services throughout California". This implies their financials are rolled up into CalWater so we will have no visibility, about the actual revenue and what it's used for.

So CalWater joins San Jose Water Company "recommending-sort of" HEIS (Home Emergency Insurance Solutions)..................and doesn't disclose the details of the relationship with HEIS!

A new ALJ has been assigned to SJWC Rate Increase

Apparently another ALJ has been assigned to the San Jose Water Company General Rate Case A1201003, also known as the 44% rate increase.

A1201003 - Proceeding

Filed By:	San Jose Water Company
Service Lists:	Service List 1
Industry:	Water
Filing Date:	January 3, 2012
Category:	Ratesetting
Current Status:	ACTIVE
Description:	In the Matter of the Application of San Jose Water Company (U168W) for an Order authorizing it to increase rates charged for water service by $47,394,000 or 21.51% in 2013, by $12,963,000 or 4.87% in 2014, and by $34,797,000 or 12.59% in 2015.
Staff:	ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013)ALJ: Sean Wilson (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)COMMISSIONER: Catherine J.K. Sandoval (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)

Click to view source on CPUC website.

Notice that ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013) was assigned to the case on March 1 and this just appeared on the website a few days ago. Today is August 2, so March, April, May, June and at least 1/2 of July, it took CPUC over 120 days to apparently announce the judges appointment to the case. 

Back to those "darn" CPUC Values on the website:

Values (Click to visit CPUC website Page)

• Participation
• We provide an open, fair, timely, and inclusive process.  
• Communication
• We provide accurate, timely information and consumer education.

The details on the Judge's background are available on the Water Education Foundation website.

Secretary - Gary Weatherford, California Public Utilities Commission 

Gary Weatherford is an administrative law judge at the CPUC in San Francisco, California. Formerly he was a partner with the law firm of Weatherford & Taaffe LLP in San Francisco, California. He specializes in water resources law and has extensive experience in western water law and policy. He has been Director of the John Muir Institute, Deputy Secretary for Resources for the state of California, and a Special Assistant both to the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, and to the U. S. Attorney General. Mr. Weatherford has taught water and natural resources law at the University of Oregon, UCLA, and the University of Santa Clara. He has served on the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council, the Advisory Committee of the Water Resources Research Center and the board of the Water Resources Archives at the University of California. He is on the advisory board of the congressionally-funded Utton Transboundary Resources Center. Published works include Decree Enforcement Comes to the Law of the River, Rocky Mt. Mineral Law Institute (2003). Mr. Weatherford is a member of the California Bar and holds a law degree from Yale University.

ALJ: Gary Weatherford appears highly qualified and should be a welcome addition to the case. A separate blog page will research the Water Education Foundation.

The question remains, "Why did it take so long to slowly make it's way to the public notice?". 120 days is neither open or timely notice.

Latest SJWC Water Rate Increase

San Jose Water Company requests another rate increase!

Separate from the 44% increase San Jose Water Company (SJWC) has requested another increase based on the increased cost of water from, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD aka "Golden Spigot").
The CPUC Advise Letter No. 450 is available on the SJWC website.

 Earlier this year SJWC requested CPUC approve a General Rate Increase A1201003 that requested an increase of 21.5% in 2013 and totaled 44% over three years. During 2013 SJWC has requested and received the following interim rate increases:

• January 23, 2013, effective March 1, 2013           2.44%
• May 23, 2013, effective July 1, 20123                  3.27%
  
                                                               TOTAL   5.71%

Well it seems like the lowest approved rate increase will be (5.71%+added security costs).

An interesting strategy! In sales it's called the "Salami Strategy" a little slice then a little slice now and it adds up to over 25% of the requested General Rate Increase. I hope DRA can unscramble all the "interim" increases and figure out what the ratepayers should pay!

SJWC 44% Rate Increase Video

 

The attached video addresses several points about the requested SJWC GRC (Rate Increase):

• SJWC has requested a 44% Rate Increase over the next three years. Significantly higher than inflation and opposed by DRA. Division of Ratepayer Advocates who represent the interests of Ratepayers, that's you and I.
• SJWC has requested that they can use a WRAM/MCBA. SJWC is requesting that profit be seperated from business operations and the economy. WRAM basically allows SJWC to recover the full authorized revenue (profit).  This means SJWC is not encouraged to operate in an efficient manner.
• SJWC has a Senior VP of Regulatory Affairs with compensation of more than $600,000/year an excellent bonus plan his objectives in his bonus plan are defined in SEC Filing and the first point of four is, "- Execute and optimize outcome of San Jose Water Company's General Rate Case ("GRC")". Some how "optimize" really sounds like 44%, it doesn't sound like a fair and equitable rate increase. Further is it fair to make ratepayers pay someone "handsomely" whose job is to justifying an outrageous rate increase!

Watch the video and decide what is best for you.