The following are the notes of my comments at the "Public Participation Hearing Regarding San Jose Water Company General Rate Case Application No. 15-01-002". A copy of the Notes were submitted to the recorder for inclusion in the transcript of the hearing.
The issues are as follows and the current status, as of 3:00 PM, 03/25/2015:
- Access to the Exhibits E through I, "served but not filled". Called SJWC on 3/23 was referred to Supervisor. Callback was received 1 hour later, but was answered by machine. Called back and was advised I would have access to Exhibits at the SJWC main office and the Exhibits were not considered "public" by SJWC. Currently have a call to Customer Service contact for clarification on accessing the documents, 03/25/2015.
- Pending access to Exhibit E, to determine if, "authorize Applicant to establish a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and a Modified Cost Balancing Account (MCBA)", is basically another attempt to get CPUC authorization again, to guaranty SJWC profits.
- Water costs increasing caused by the current drought , "will water costs be passed through to ratepayers, without added charges? I have sent, 03/25/2015, a formal request for clarification to the CPUC Public Advisor's Office on the interpretation of :
- Page 4, (13) Pursuant to Rule 3.2(a)(10), Applicant states that the rate increases proposed in this application do not reflect and pass through to customers only increased costs to Applicant for the services or commodities furnished by it.
- SJWC GRC A 1501002, contained a reference to HEIS (Home Emergency Insurance Solutions). Information is apparently contained in, "Exhibit E, Chapter 8, and in Exhibit F, Chapter 8, WP 8-19", resolution is pending access to Exhibits E and F.
The following is a copy of the speakers Notes:
Notes: CPUC PPH 3/24/2015 Speaker James Hunter
ALJ Name ___________S. Pat Tsen__________
Commissioner _______Not Present__________
Ladies and Gentlemen
- The following information isn't online and I have requested a reply from SJWC to
determine if it’s “publicly available”, it has been noted that the following sections have been “filed but not served”?
Exhibit E Report on the Results of Operations
Exhibit F General Rate Case Workpapers
Exhibit G Capital Budget Project Justifications
Exhibit H Urban Water Management Plan
Exhibit I Supplemental Data Request Responses
Exhibit J Minimum Data Requirements
In the case of Exhibit E and F several items are referenced Application:
Page 13, (31) Applicant requests that the Commission authorize Applicant to establish a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and a Modified Cost Balancing Account (MCBA) as described in Exhibit E, Chapter 19.
Is this the same request made in the previous Rate Case and denied?
Page 4, (13) Pursuant to Rule 3.2(a)(10), Applicant states that the rate increases proposed in this application do not reflect and pass through to customers only increased costs to Applicant for the services or commodities furnished by it.
Does this mean that SJWC is requesting a 22% over three years, plus marking up rate increases in the cost of water and well taxes charged by SCVWD? Notification is made by SJWC to CPUC by an “advise letter”, of a rate increase as a result of an increase in the cost of water. Since it’s likely that much of the water re-sold by SJWC will come from SCVWD, it’s a lot harder to change an in place price increase.
Since during the SCVWD Board meeting on 3/10/2015 there was discussion of a rate increase of 20-31%! That would result in a minimum of a 3.5% increase per each added 10% in cost to SJWC, if only actual cost was passed through to us (ratepayers). or a 7-10.5% increase in addition to the pending SJWC requested rate increase. At least one other increase would probably also be made in the near future, the reverse flow project to withdraw banked water at the Semitropic Water Bank in Kern County, could cost $425 per acre foot and SCVWD may as much as 50,000 acre feet, plus the $6 million in costs for the temporary installation. Will result in water at 27,000,000/50,000= $540 per acre foot, not including operation and possible added pumping charges at San Luis Reservoir and the Pacheco Pumping Station.
I’d really appreciate an estimate from SJWC for the three years starting in 2016, what the estimated water rates are for us (ratepayers), taking into account the drought.
Page 9 (i) Non-Tariffed Transactions
“projects are detailed in Exhibit E, Chapter 8, and in Exhibit F, Chapter 8, WP 8-19. These contracts are a lease operation of the City of Cupertino water system, miscellaneous services contract with the City of San Jose, meter testing services, coordination with Home Emergency Solutions to provide customers information regarding optional water service line insurance coverage, as well as leases for antenna space to telecommunication companies on various water facilities. Any revenue generated by non-tariffed offerings is allocated between ratepayers and shareholders in accordance with the methodology adopted“
The Home Emergency Insurance Solutions Insurance have been a long running question, since the last Rate Case. San Jose Water Company has allowed HEIS to mass mail (USPS) in envelopes with the SJWC Logo and lettesr signed by the SJWC Director of Customer Support. Now the reference Exhibit E and F and HEIS, but the details are not available, since they’re in Exhibits E and F.
We need to ask several questions:
- Will SJWC pass-through the actual cost of increased water costs?
- Is SJWC attempting to limit public access to information that will disclose information about increases to your monthly bill? or be considered to be “controversial” by their customers?
- Is SJWC attempting to hide the details of their relationship with HEIS? and why?
- Is SJWC again attempting to justify a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and a Modified Cost Balancing Account (MCBA), but trying to hide the details? Do they again hope that their profits will be guaranteed?
No comments:
Post a Comment