James Hunter

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

SJWC Rate Increase (A1201003) A "HOT" Potato?

SJWC Rate Increase another
it's President Michael Peevey
Has Public Opinion and what has been reported, on TV and by the Press, created a very high ratepayer awareness of the San Jose Water Company requested Rate Increase and a very large number of letters and emails, to CPUC, in opposition. I know this Blog has had over 10,000 visits, since May 2013.

Where does GRC A1201003, the SJWC Rate Increase stand today?

The last action reported on the CPUC website was on April 14, 2014, EX PARTE presentation by San Jose Water Company, "On April 9, 2014, Palle Jensen, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for San Jose Water Company (SJWC), and Martin Mattes of Nossaman LLP, attorneys for SJWC, met with Ditas Katague, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Catherine Sandoval, in a conference room on the 4th floor of the Commission's offices at 505 Van Ness Avenue, in San Francisco, California. The meeting lasted about 25 minutes. No documents were provided in connection with this oral ex parte communication.  Actually the last statement on the CPUC website posting was "incorrect" SJWC submitted the request to CPUC and subsequently documented the meeting including a minimum of details.

Further information about this is available at the CPUC website at: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M089/K640/89640856.PDF. This Blog also covers the meeting at: http://sjwc-rate-increase.blogspot.com/p/sjwc-asks-for-cpuc-to-take-action.html.

Is SJWC is laying the ground work to documenting a potential claim for losses or damages due to the delay in CPUC making a decision or is CPUC and SJWC simply waiting for the "POTATO to cool off", ratepayers loosing interest?

It seems that CPUC is caught between a rock (hopefully DRA/ORA recommendation of about 10%) and a hard spot (the ratepayers strong resistance to 44%). Apparently no one at CPUC really wants to rule on the SJWC rate increase, since the ratepayers are really upset-guaranteeing bad press for the CPUC person and CPUC.

I'm very "peeved" (click for definition-pun intended) at the glacial like slowness of the deliberations, of CPUC. I'm also unhappy with the somewhat outrageous amount SJWC requested, a 44% rate increase. It's apparent that the well paid and large regulatory affairs staff, at SJWC, apparently has also been very busy. 

Once CPUC makes and publishes a "decision", ratepayers or SJWC, have only 30 days I believe, to challenge the decision. I'm sure it's unlikely both will be pleased with the CPUC decision. We should keep in mind that the entire GRC (General Rate Increase) process will start again late this fall for the next SJWC Rate Increase.

I'm having a "peeve" (click for definition-pun intended) and I hope you are as well, if so please:

If you are concerned about these 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 continuing requests to de-couple their revenue from the requirement to do business efficiently and your concern about lack of openness and transparency, as well as concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status the water reduction recommended or mandatory!

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

Other people to drop an email (note) and express your opinion are:
  • Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury News, sherhold@mercurynews.com
  • Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

No comments:

Post a Comment