Homeserve USA water pipe insurance, Over 270 visits (25 May to June 25, 2015)

There must be a major mail sales campaign underway? I also noted that San Jose Water Company had redacted (blacked out for confidentiality reasons), what may be a reference to Homeserve USA insurance, by ORA. Like as if they have competition in the San Jose area.

I get nervous when I see redacted material across multiple documents, does this concern Homeserve USA?

Since there was a "spike" in activity on the blog concerning Homeserve USA (aka Home Emergency Insurance Solutions), about nine people a day have been visiting the Blog.

Let's update their BBB listing and see if there has been an improvement, the graphics are from the BBB website for HomeServe USA, Customer Reviews and Customer complaints. Please take a moment and visit the BBB pages for Homeserve and form your own opinion:

It appears BBB shows 71% of the Homeserve customers were "dissatisfied".

The two graphics from BBB show 81.3% of customers had a negative experience and 81.3% were unlikely to recommend. Keep in mind that Homeserve USA has an A+ BBB rating, oh of course BBB doesn't test the product or service, they do insure that the company meets certain standards.

You may file a complaint with BBB, in the event you have a problem with Homeserve USA, click here.

Some press coverage in the past year or so, links to west coast sources are available on prior blog postings:

A year ago the following was said in Cincinnati. 
Charleston City Paper
Huntsville, Alabama
Louisville, Kentucky

Is SJWC discriminating against ratepayers that are "homeowners or renters with water meters"

Discrimination!

The current filing that SJWC has made and was approved by CPUC may be discriminating against a class of ratepayers. Who is this "class" and how did SJWC, the Division of Water & Audit (CPUC) and the CPUC Commissioners discriminate against them.

This class has an unfair and likely discriminatory economic burden placed on  residences (homeowners and renters paying the SJWC water bills) and have a SJWC water meter.

This is economic discrimination, they are the low hanging fruit on the money tree! There's a meter on their water line and they are trapped by an effective monopoly. Easier to squeeze them than other classes of customers.

Let's look at the distribution of water, in the state of California, think of this as a lesson in "trickle" down water economics.

100% of California water is basically split 50% to maintaining the environment and endangered species (the Delta Smelt, salmon, etc.) half the water is controlled by the Federal Government and has a lot of special interest groups like the Sierra Club supporting it. 

The other 50% goes to other uses, 40% (usually talked about as 80% in error) of the total available water, has gone to agriculture and 10% (only really 10%) to cities. 

We're seeing significant reductions in the water allocations to agriculture, allocations come from State Water Project, the Central Valley Project and local water companies. Based on California water law there are several classes of water rights, dating to the days the spanish built missions. Recently the state has begun to restrict rights to use water that farmers have held 1914 (riparian rights) and lately since 1903. The response it's "drill baby drill" in the central valley, as the farmers use more groundwater and drill deeper wells and areas have ground subsidence of 30 feet or more. (Note: The water allocations come from State Water Project, the Central Valley Project and local water companies.)

So we're now at the 10%, breaking down the 10% (ignoring the disparity between Norcal and Socal) 60% (or 6% of the total water) goes to homeowners and 40% (or 4% of the water) goes to industrial, consumer and multi-tenant housing (apartments). 

Gov. Brown in an Executive Order announced a mandatory 25% reduction in water use, the CA State Board of Water Resources then created a list of levels of conservation, nine steps between 4% and 36% required reductions. SJWC and the City of San Jose municipal water received required reductions of 20%.  

The State Water Board then directed the water utilities public utilities (SJWC, through CPUC. Division of Water & Audit) and municipal utilities (City of San Jose Water), to submit a rule 14.1 tariff and rules, defining the rules water customers should abide by. It also include drought allocations, based on the nine levels of reductions. In it was the requirement for a public hearing, it was also handled as an Advise Letter which is normally used for non-confrontational issues. This allowed a fast implementation since the limited time 20 days to file an appeal or complaint, little time for ratepayers to understand the issues and implications.

Still with me? Another way to look at this is the 6% (of the 100% of the available water) going to homeowners and renters with water meters is bearing all the burden of the reduction in water under the schedule and tariff submitted by SJWC and approved by CPUC, DWA.

Since SJWC choose to exempt industrial, consumer and multi-tenant housing (apartments) and they do not want to pay the Governor's $10,000 fine if the reduction of water use is not achieved, it was apparently easier to increase the reduction, in water allocation for homeowners and renters with water meters to 30%, that makes up for the excluded classes that they exempted from the rationing. 

SJWC responded that the "metered" landscape services for apartments would not be excluded. Sounds fair but they provided no numbers, how many? Many of the apartment complexes have several hundred apartments and a very small amount of landscape per apartment, no efforts was made to identify how much turf would each resident have? Is this another leaky excuse?

While ground subsidence is an ongoing issue this may have been a convenient explanation for the increase to 30%, from 20% drought reduction. Rather the more likely reason is that SCVWD who doesn't sell water to ratepayers, provided a valid issue to base the change on.

During the Public Hearing a SJWC speaker noted that, " He further mentioned that there has already been a 17 foot drop in groundwater during the last year (subsidence) and that it would take up to 300% of normal rainfall to retreat from the drought. ". The 17 feet of ground water doesn't mean a 17 foot ground drop nor does a 300% of normal rainfall mean it would be restored. Water is both percolated and pumped into the aquifer. This would appear to be a bit misleading and may be another leaky excuse.

This is a case of "Discrimination", not by race, color or religion, but  an identified group or class with unique characteristics.

• ratepayers and are
• homeowners or renters with
• individual residence water meters

Response to SJWC Letter to Rami Kahlon, Director, Div. Water & Audits CPUC

The following is a response to a SJWC letter regarding the protests of SJWC Ratepayers, regarding the changes in the process and procedure as well as the modified content of Rule 14.1 the Drought Regulations CPUC will consider on 6/15/2015 - this coming Monday. 

If you agree or disagree send a note to the CPUC Public Advisor with your position. Take 1-2 minutes and send an email to:

"Public.advisor" <public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov>  

Let CPUC know your opinion!

(Blogger , for easier reading SJWC and other organizations are in "BLUE" smaller text, Blogger reply in larger black text, suggestion from Juan Estrada, District 5 United, thanks.)

_____copy of the letter sent ____

from:		James Hunter <j88hunter882@gmail.com>
to:		public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
cc:		water_division@cpuc.ca.gov
date:		Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:54 PM
subject:		Response to SJWC Letter of 6/5/2015, to CPUC Rami Kahlon, Director

The following is a response, clarifications and rebuttal of the assertions of the letter of June 5th, 2015, to Rami Kahlon, Director, Division of Water and Audits, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC), from STEPHEN OWENS, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, San Jose Water Company (SJWC).

Page 1, excerpt from SJWC letter

On May 11, 2015, SJWC filed ALs 472 and 473 with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). AL 472 seeks CPUC authority to modify the existing Rule 14.1 to reflect the example Rule 14.1 provided in the CPUC’s Drought Procedures as well as to more closely match the drought restrictions of local government agencies. AL 473 seeks CPUC authority to add and activate Schedule 14.1: Water Shortage Contingency Plan with Staged Mandatory Reductions and Drought Surcharges to SJWC’s authorized tariffs and to implement Stage 3 of that Schedule 14.1 in order to achieve a 30% water use reduction in line with the requirements of the City of San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Both Advice Letters were filed as Tier II advice letters with proposed effective dates of June 15, 2015.

The 30% was based on the recommendation of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (and the consent of the San Jose City Council. not “requirements”. This follows the historical pattern found in the California drought of 1988-1992, SCVWD requested an increase from 20% to 25%.

This appears to be a pattern of action unfair to the affected ratepayers and increases the potential they will suffer financial penalties (drought surcharges and fees), compared to the State Water Board recommended 20%.

Page 3, excerpt from SJWC letter

6) The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory (provided that such a protest may not be made where it would require relitigating a prior order of the Commission).

This was the grounds for protest used by the vast majority of protesters. Protestors typically addressed five issues that they considered unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory: i) SJWC’s use of the average residential usage to determine the monthly allocations is unfair; ii) SJWC’s exclusion of non-residential customers if unfair; iii) SJWC’s conservation goal of 30% is unreasonable; iv) SJWC’s proposed water use restrictions are unreasonable; and v) SJWC’s use of the program to create excess profits is unjust. These issues are addressed below.

Historically in the drought of 1988-1992 SJWC did in fact used the 1988 monthly usage by each ratepayer as a basis for the Drought Water Allocation by each user. Please refer to SJWC Monthly Allocation, water banking/roll-over, on the Blog :

SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CITY OF SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT   June 2010

Appendix B, attached to the June 2010 document, SJWCs' Water Shortage Contingency Plan (January 1992) has some interesting information.

Further individual ratepayer monthly 2013 actual usage is apparently used by California Water Systems and Great Oaks Water Company.

Page 4, excerpt from SJWC letter

i. SJWC’s use of the average residential customer usage to determine monthly allocations is unfair.

Protests in this regard typically suggest that SJWC’s use of the average usage for all residential customers to determine the monthly drought allocation is unfair to customers who have historically had usage levels much higher than the average residential customer. Protestors consider this to be the case because customers who have historically consumed water at levels much higher than the average residential customers will need to cut back usage beyond 30% to reach the drought allocation. Typically, protestors want SJWC to use individual usage from 2013 as a baseline to determine allocations. Additionally, many protestors want a “banking” system wherein usage under the allotment can be “banked” and carried over to the next month.

I would take exception to the use of “protestors”, do we magically change from customers and ratepayers when we disagree? Are we only ratepayers and customer when we do agree?

The basic premise, of the SJWC argument, is that all the ratepayers should drive the same manufacturer model car, the same color and this would be a fair distribution of goods and services. This appears to have an historical precedent, but doesn’t apply to Santa Clara County. We drive many different models of cars and they are in a wide range of colors. Compare this to the comparison to usage used in the SJWC arguments.

The basic minimum allocation per month based on the overall average consumption, does not take into account differences between ratepayers, basically some ratepayers annual earnings are greater, obviously. Some ratepayers proactively conserved water starting before 2013, obviously. A much fairer algorithm would be:

• minimum state health minimum for everyone
• rather than 2013 we should choose 2011, remember in 1992 it was based on 1988, as a baseline year
• the monthly allocation by ratepayer is based on a 20% reduction in usage
• an appeal program for number of people per residence, health related issues and add an appeal based on historical water usage, for the ratepayers that were conserving for many years.

Page 4, excerpt from SJWC letter

SJWC used an individual usage baseline program with banking during the early 1990s drought. At that time customers complained that the program was unfair to customers that had already cut back and that they would prefer an average usage baseline. In the local region both California Water Service Company, in their Los Altos District, and Great Oaks Water Company, which serves a portion of San Jose, are proposing individual usage allotments. Representatives from both companies noted that at their public meetings customers were complaining about their use of individual allotments versus an average usage allotment. Thus, it is fair to assume that that some part of the customer base will be unhappy no matter what program is chosen.

“Trust but verify”, while this is not a court of law I’d like representatives to identify themselves and submit a statement for the record. Also that statement seems at odds with SJWC’s implication that ratepayers with a higher earnings are opposed to actual usage per ratepayer vs, a fixed amount.

Page 4-5, excerpt from SJWC letter

ii. SJWC’s exclusion of non-residential customers from the Drought Surcharges is unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.

Protests in this category are most succinctly stated in the protest of the CPUC’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA): “The proposed water allocations and surcharges for usage

above the allocations are discriminatory in that they are unjustifiably applied to only residential and “landscape services” customers. Additionally, “water dependent businesses” would be inexplicably exempted from the proposed Stage 3 restrictions on water waste. Finally, surcharges collected exclusively from residential and “landscape services” customers would be used to offset costs that would have been the responsibility of all customer classes.” ORA goes on to request that “The Commission should direct SJWC to amend its Rule 14.1 and Schedule 14.1 filing to extend its restrictions to all customers and to incorporate a Monthly Drought Allocation and Drought Surcharge Program that more equitably distributes the responsibility of conservation and the monetary burdens of the failure to conserve across all of its customer classes.”

I agree with ORAs’ statement, no class of ratepayer should be excessively burdened by drought surcharges, more than any other, simply because it’s easier to penalize and monitor their usage.

The Great Oaks Water Company did get some things more right, published a letter concerning the meeting, kept a written record of ratepayer comments, recognized not all ratepayers are equal economically, but that everyone does have certain rights. I’d like to see a more proactive approach renters and others, but a better starting point.

Page 3, Public Hearing

Great Oaks is cognizant that renters and others who do not have individually-metered services could potentially see Schedule No. 14.1 surcharges passed through in the form of higher rents or other common area charges. Great Oaks urged persons or businesses in that situation to work with their landlords or homeowners association (the actual Great Oaks customer) to avoid those pass-through costs by conserving and complying with the allocations.  

Page 6, excerpt from SJWC letter

Additionally, any major revisions to SJWC’s proposed program would be no small matter with SJWC’s billing system. Major changes could take weeks, if not months, to implement. Compliance with the water use restrictions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and the CPUC in Resolution W-5041 is effective June 1, 2015. Delaying Schedule 14.1 implementation allows the traditional high water usage months with the most conservation potential to pass without any drought surcharges. Therefore, SJWC urges the CPUC to approve the proposed program as submitted and SJWC commits to make any experience based necessary program revisions in the most expeditious manner possible.

It appears to me that SJWC can in a very short period of time get a new surcharge on ratepayers bills, but suddenly it has changed to weeks and months, if they don’t agree with or want the change. SJWC has both surcharges and a few surcredits, as well as a complex accounting system that gets apparently every penny due them under the CPUC rulings and regulations.

They also in 1992 they were able to offer monthly allocations to ratepayers, based on each ratepayer's historical usage in 1988.

Page 6, excerpt from SJWC letter

iii. SJWC’s conservation goal of 30% is unreasonable.

Several protestors noted that the SWRCB placed SJWC in the 20% reduction tier and used this as a basis to argue that SJWC’s 30% conservation goal is unreasonable. As noted in SJWC’s AL 473 filing, due to local water supply conditions and to alleviate the threat of subsidence, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SJWC’s wholesale water provider) as well as the City of San Jose have established a 30% reduction goal. Therefore, to protect against subsidence and to minimize customer confusion SJWC is requesting a 30% reduction from 2013 usage as well. SJWC’s call for 30% reduction is well founded and reasonable.

It seems that SCVWD was the primary factor in common with the 30% reduction, in usage. Since most other counties/districts are requesting the reduction by State Water Board Tier, the request seems tied to the concern for “ground subsidence”. The SCVWD published a document:

The Santa Clara Valley Water District has released its 43rd Annual Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies, which documents the water district’s efforts to ensure a reliable water supply for Santa Clara County. The report presents the basis for the recommended groundwater production charges for fiscal year (FY) 2014-15 and is posted on our website, www.valleywater.org.  Page iii

The vertical red line was inserted to assist readers in seeing roughly where we are in relation groundwater elevation, it appears that historically SCVWD has done well so we find ourselves with a reasonable amount of groundwater. It’s obvious the next dip (left from the red bar) appears to be the 1988-1992 drought. SCVWD also has 350,000 acre feet banked in the Semitropic Water Bank in Kern County (it would be expensive to retrieve  apparently on the order of $1,000 acre foot, but the latest increase by SCVWD raises the cost to SJWC, very close to that price level).

Excerpt from SCVWD March 25, 2015

Santa Clara County’s groundwater basins are the largest local “reservoir” of water, and the water district works aggressively to protect these resources. With less water available to replenish groundwater basins in Santa Clara Valley, the increase in conservation is critical. Decreasing demand by cutting water usage will help protect groundwater storage and lessen the risk of subsidence.

Subsidence is the sinking of the surface of the land that occurs if too much water is drawn from the aquifer beneath it. Subsidence can damage canals, levees, roadways, or sewer and storm water systems, and can also lead to flooding and to salt water entering the aquifers. The water district closely monitors groundwater conditions, and found that groundwater levels approached subsidence thresholds in several monitoring wells in 2014.

Since February 2014, the district has had a standing call for 20 percent water use reductions over 2013 usage levels, and between February and December 2014, water use was reduced by 13 percent. The board hopes the call for a 30 percent reduction, as well as the limits on watering, drive home the significance of the drought and spur even more cooperation from local water providers as well as residents and businesses.

The water district, as a water wholesaler for most of Santa Clara County, calls for local water providers, including municipal water utilities and investor-owned utilities, to implement whatever mandatory measures are necessary to reach the 30 percent target in their service area. The district will encourage local water providers to adopt specific water use restrictions that are as consistent as possible, throughout the county.

It should also be noted that a similar reason was used to justify a 5% (25% increase) over the State recommended level, in 1992. Now we are seeing a 100% increase requested above the State recommendation. Possibly this is an excessive increase above the State recommendation given the current state of the ground subsidence and a consistency in the application of the State Water Board and CPUC requirements would be appropriate, for all ratepayers.

Page 7, excerpt from SJWC letter

v. SJWC’s use of the program to create excess profits is unjust.

Several customers, both in the protests and at SJWC’s public meeting, suggested that SJWC created the program in order to create excess profits. As noted in AL 473 – the proposed Schedule 14.1 further provides that all monies collected by the utility through surcharges or fees shall be booked to the MCRAMA, with any balance disposed of via surcharge or surcredit at the CPUC’s direction at a future date. Thus, there will not be “excess profits” from the drought surcharges.

The Public hearing showed a high level of mistrust of both the utility and CPUC in the statements of the ratepayers attending and speaking. The quote above was exactly the statement by SJWC representatives, it didn’t help they tossed part of issue into CPUCs’ area of responsibility.

Special Conditions, Advise Letter #473A

6. All monies collected by the utility through surcharges or fees shall be booked to SJWC’s existing Mandatory Conservation Memorandum Account (MCRAMA) or a similar memorandum account to offset lost revenues.

7. All expenses incurred by the utility to implement Rule 14.1 and Schedule 14.1 that have not been considered in a General Rate Case or other proceeding shall be recoverable by the utility if determined to be reasonable by Commission. These additional monies shall be accumulated by the utility in a separate memorandum account, for disposition as directed or authorized from time to time by the Commission.

For some reason many ratepayers have difficulty seeing beyond, “they get more money for less water and less work”. CPUC, SCVWD and SJWC likely should consider the need to work on this area.

Page 7, excerpt from SJWC letter

Responses to the Filing

SJWC received 35 responses to the filing that did not necessarily protest the request, but rather asked for clarification regarding the program or provided an appeal of the customer’s allocation. These responses were provided to SJWCs’ Customer Service Department who will reach out to the customers to provide further information.

SJWC appears to have significantly made an error estimating the number of ratepayers (not protesters please, although there seemed a bit of “booing” and heckling at the Public Hearing) that felt that the SJWC Advise Letters implementing 14.1 were unfair and the effort they made to provide public input was wasted as noted by the SJWC representatives, attitudes and actions. The number of ratepayers was much closer to the following:

• 35 responses to SJWCs’ Customer Service Department
  
• ~ 600 email petitions by ratepayers, District 5 United, San Jose
• ~ 350 attendees at Public Hearing, 60+ spoke in the Q&A
• ~ 229 page views of sjwc-rate-increase,blogspot.com past 4 weeks, relevant
           pages

The simple statement of 35 responses by SJWC was likely grossly understated.

Thank you,

James Hunter

j88hunter882@gmail.com

SJWC Letter to Rami Kahlon, Director Division Water & Audits, follow up 6/11/2015

I sent the following letter to the CPUC Public Advisor and raised several issues. Since I'm not a lawyer and I don't have secretarial support, it takes a while to wade through an 8 page letter, as well as following up on references to other documents. I did also copy SJWC Regulatory Affairs as well the CPUC Water Division. A response would take 2-3 days, for me to complete.

I felt several things were going on:

• The timing is very rushed for ratepayers response, but much less so for a corporation, SJWC.
• The Advise Letter procedure was designed to prevent or make it more difficult, for ratepayers to protest.
• From the 35 "customer responses" that SJWC refers to. really understates ratepayers concerns and really says, two things the 350 ratepayers attending the public hearing and the 60 or more who made the effort to speak did not get to make their feelings heard "officially I suppose is a good way to phrase it". The Public Hearing announcement said the purpose was to "explain the rate process and to receive public input". 
• I just found out a few minutes ago that Juan Estrada's group District 5 United sent almost 600 email petitions to CPUC, as well. That makes the 35 "customer responses" that SJWC refers to a bit ludicrous in my opinion. 

I'll post the response, if any is received, the goal is a decision by CPUC on 

June 15th 2015, next Monday!

_____________copy of email sent to CPUC, Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM_________________


From: James Hunter <j88hunter882@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:00 PM
Subject: SJWC Response Letter to Rami Kahlon, Director, Div. of Water & Audits,June 5, 2015
To: "Public.advisor" <public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov>
Cc: Regulatoryaffairs@sjwater.com, water_division@cpuc.ca.gov

I have several questions regarding this letter and the dates which are relevant to responding to the assertions made by San Jose Water Company, Stephen Owens, Manager of Regulatory Affairs.

The following is the time sequence leading up to today and the ratepayers/customers participation regarding Advise Letters # 472 and #473: Based on the following points please advise regards the following:

• The closing paragraph, on page 7 of the letter, indicates the following:
  
  
• During the afternoon of 6/11/2015 I re-read the letter researched points and prepared this email, to go to the CPUC Public Advisor.
• I scanned the letter and the envelope and placed them on my Blog, sjwc-rate-increase.blogspot.com, during the evening of 6/10/2015
• I read the letter from SJWC at about 4:00 PM on 6/10/2015

• I received the letter on 6/10/2015, about 2:30 PM, in my mailbox

The following questions are:

1. May a response be made to this letter challenging some of the assertions made by SJWC?
   If not why not?
   
2. If response may be made what is the latest date/time it can be sent to CPUC?
   
3. Who would the appropriate CPUC parties this potential response be sent to?
   the SJWC letter was sent to Rami Kahlon, Director, Div. of Water & Audits?
   If a response may be made a copy would be sent to SJWC Regulatory Affairs.
   
4. The SJWC letter implies that the closing date was June 1, 2015, which was
   20 days from May 11, 2015, but both Advise Letter #472 and #473 were modified and
   re-filed on June 9, 2015. It should be also noted that the Public Hearing was held on
   May 28, 2015. One of the many concerns did get included in the updates, appeals would
   be considered by SJWC regards the number of people in a residence and appeals regarding
   health issues of residents would be considered.
   
5. An independent count of attendees by a Mercury News reporter determined there were
   350 ratepayers attending and over 60 spoke at the hearing,in spite of the fact that
   it became apparent that ratepayers comments were not being transcribed or serious notes
   being taken by SJWC. The SJWC letter only references 35 responses or 1/10th compared
   to the attendance at the hearing, which would corroborate the assertion the the
   Public Hearing. SJWC did not collect or represent ratepayers comments, protests,
   and was apparently solely for the purpose, explaining the Drought Response, as required
   in 14.1 and being able to say a hearing was held. 

Thank you for your consideration,

--

 James Hunter
 j88hunter882@gmail.com
 Direct phone number (for privacy phone number redacted)

CPUC got a letter from SJWC regarding customers protests!

The letter shown below showed up in my afternoon USPS mail. I almost threw it away as my initial reaction was it's another mail from Homeserve (HEIS).........but I noticed my address was on a label, so I opened it. A surprise it wasn't an ad in a SJWC envelope for water pipe insurance.

Inside was an 8 page letter to Mr. Rami Kahlon, Director of CPUC, Division of Water and Audits addressing customer complaints regarding Advise Letter 472 and 473,  which were basically the basis of the Public Hearing held on 5/28/2015. The following are the 8 pages (Adobe PDF format), please check to see if your complaint or protest was included, in the list of people protesting or requesting clarification.

1. Page 1, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswa3Q4UG5fcmVwSGc&authuser=0
2. Page 2, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswNzVZZjZLdTBuXzA&authuser=0
3. Page 3, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswNzVZZjZLdTBuXzA&authuser=0
4. Page 4, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswd1JjLThMeDhrOEU&authuser=0
5. Page 5, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswUFlDdjZneUpvQXc&authuser=0
6. Page 6, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswTW9wdHM1cmhheUE&authuser=0
7. Page 7, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEswZGMtU2xheHhqcVU&authuser=0
8. Page 8, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz6sxOA5QEsweVBBQW12REh4dE0&authuser=0

This page will be updated over the next several days as I (a blogger, not an attorney) wade through the arguments and prepare a response based on the posting, to be sent to CPUC. I provided the links above to allow interested SJWC customers to read the actual letter and form their own opinions.

SJWC Monthly Allocation, water banking/roll-over

Updated June 9, 2015

San Jose Water Company has said that customers were strongly opposed to basing the monthly water allocation, on a user's actual historical use. So  I decided to do a bit of research on the last drought 1988-1992 or so and try to find out what were the standards used and if they were different from their current filing. It was also said banking would cause weeks or months delays.

I found the following:

SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CITY OF SAN JOSE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT   June 2010

Appendix B, attached to the June 2010 document, SJWCs' Water Shortage Contingency Plan (January 1992) has some interesting information.

The highlighted section there was an allocation by customer, rather than the average use by all customers, as currently proposed. SJWC representatives indicated it would take weeks or months to implement?

The water banking if you used was again a difficult item to implement. Would also rebate penalties if you managed to meet the requirements.

It was also noted by SJWC that the public was strongly opposed, during the 1992 drought? So opposed that no one showed up for the Public Hearing. The recent Public Hearing had a reported 350 customers/ratepayers attending and speakers took 3 hours of Q&A time. 

The attendees made many comments on the unfair basis of customers average vs. actual historical customer usage.

Who is the water cop?

Updated June 13, 2015

"Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday said he won't back down on his threat to fine cities, water districts and private water companies $10,000 a day if they fail to meet strict water conservation targets during California's relentless drought.", San Jose Mercury News. 

Which raises the first of several questions. Which State agency or department collects the fines? and what is done with collected fines?

Updated June 10, 2015 But fines (drought surcharges) will be used to compensate for lost revenues.
Reference Advise Letter #473, page 6: (guarantee of revenues, also implies profits)

The proposed Schedule 14.1 further provides that all monies collected by the utility through surcharges or fees shall be booked to the WRAM or a similar memorandum account to offset recovery of lost revenues and that all expenses incurred by the utility to implement Rule 14.1 and Schedule 14.1 that have not been considered in a General Rate Case or other proceeding shall be recoverable by the utility if determined to be reasonable by Commission. These additional monies shall be accumulated by the utility in a separate memorandum account, for disposition as directed or authorized from time to time by the Commission. 

It sounds like SJWC will collect the fines, notice they are called "surcharges" or "fees", rather than fines or penalties.  So that attempts to avoid all the nasty issues like proof, evidence of guilt, a reliable witness, right to confront accuser, innocent until proven guilty.......... The drought is real and may get worse, but this area gets into some scary issues, in terms of a citizen's rights.

The following is an excerpt from the Executive order:

2. The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) shall impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. These restrictions will require water suppliers to California's cities and towns to reduce usage as compared to the amount used in 2013. These restrictions should consider the relative per capita water usage of each water supplier's service area, and require that those areas with high per capita use achieve proportionally greater reductions than those with low use. The California Public Utilities Commission is requested to take similar action with respect to investor-owned utilities providing water services. 

Blogger note: this appears to say, "all ratepayers will get the same percentage reduction, but ratepayers using more water a percentage reduction will actually be more water reduced than a ratepayer using less". This also implies a monthly basic allocation should be based on historical usage.

State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) is responsible for government (local, county) water utilities and the California Public Utilities Commission is requested to be responsible for  investor-owned water utilities utilities, i.e. San Jose Water Company.

The State Water Board can issue cease-and-desist orders to water suppliers for failure to meet conservation targets. Water agencies that violate those orders are subject to fines of up to $10,000 a day.

California Public Utilities Commission is requested to be responsible for  investor-owned water utilities utilities, i.e. San Jose Water Company. Would also be subject to potential fines generated by CPUC?

Which raises the question of what role does the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) occupy? Who can cite you for a water regulation violation? You apparently can report a violation to SCVWD or to SJWC, but what happens to the report? Since it doesn't appear SCVWD can write an actual citation (warning again avoids words that might appear politically sensitive) it appears all they can give anyone violating the water use standards is a warning and copy the information to your actual retail water supplier, for example San Jose Water Company.

San Jose Water Company can also according to Advise Letter #473 install a restrictor or discontinue your water service.

Each Stage includes a list of mandatory restrictions against non-essential or unauthorized uses of water that become effective once the Stage is implemented. SJWC can enforce these mandatory restrictions through the use of flow-restricting devices as follows: 1 On May 11th, 2015, SJWC filed advice letter 472 seeking authorization to revise Rule 14.1 effective June 15th, 2015. All references to Rule 14.1 are based the proposed revisions.  

• The utility may, after one written warning, install a flow-restricting device on the service line of any customer observed by utility personnel to be using water for any non-essential or unauthorized use as defined in Schedule 14.1. 

Blogger, Drought Procedures PROCEDURES FOR WATER CONSERVATION, RATIONING AND SERVICE CONNECTION MORATORIA Standard Practice U-40-W, Appendix C Schedule 14.1 Example seem to have a written warning and a fine before the installation of a flow restrictor. Consistency statewide would be interesting "concept".

• A flow restrictor shall be capable of providing the premise with a minimum of 5 gallons per minute. The restricting device may be removed only by the utility, only after a three day period has elapsed, and only upon payment of the appropriate removal charge as set forth in Schedule No. 14.1. 

• After the removal of the restricting device, if any non-essential or unauthorized use of water continues, the utility may install another flow-restricting device without written notice. This device shall remain in place until water supply conditions warrant its removal and until the appropriate charge for removal has been paid to the utility.

• Any tampering with flow restricting device by customer can result in discontinuation of water use. 

• If, despite installation of such flow-restricting device pursuant to the provisions of the previous enforcement conditions, any such non-essential or unauthorized use of water continues, then the utility may discontinue water service to such customer. In such latter event, a charge as provided in Rule No. 11 shall be paid to the utility as a condition to restoration of service. 

FLOW RESTRICTOR REMOVAL CHARGE
The charge for removal of a flow-restricting device is:
 Meter Size Removal Charge 

•  5/8” to 1” $45  

•  1-1/2 to 2” $90   

•  3” and Larger Actual Cost 

Reporting Violations

Obviously anyone can call either SCVWD or SJWC, or the folks that send you a bill for water.

• SCVWD 1-408-620-2000 or email drought@valleywater.org
• SJWC has a web page for reporting both the violation and contact info for the reporter

We have several ways to report a violation of the drought rules. The next question is what happens to the information? Two organizations are collecting info in three different formats, are they planning to talk to each other? What happens if someone reports the same incident to the different organizations or two different persons report an incident to each organization? is that one warning or two?

Excerpt from, Drought Procedures PROCEDURES FOR WATER CONSERVATION, RATIONING AND SERVICE CONNECTION MORATORIA Standard Practice U-40-W, Appendix C Schedule 14.1 Example

E.WATER USE VIOLATION FINE
1. When a stage of this schedule has been activated by Commission authorization, the water use restrictions of the conservation program in Section A of Rule 14.1 as well as those listed in Section D of this tariff, become mandatory. If a customer is seen violating the water usage restrictions, as outlined in Rule No. 14.1 and the Special Conditions below, the customer will be subject to the following fine structure:

First offense: Written warning
Second offense: $25 (of the same restriction)
Third offense: $50 (of the same restriction)
Each additional Offense: $25 more than the previous fine imposed. (of the same restriction)

2. Offenses for separate water use restrictions will each start at the warning stage.

3. Fines for exceeding the allotted volume ration will consist of a multiplier of X¹² times the highest tiered rate in effect for all water used above the allotment.

4. The water use violation fine is in addition to the regular rate schedule charges
__________________________________________
  ¹² The X represents a multiplier (i.e. 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 etc.)

We find ourselves with  many questions about:

• Is there a liability issue, whose would it be, in restricting or terminating a customer's water flow, we are entering a serious fire season, as well as potential damages to water based appliances?

• The enforcement, an appeal process, the length of time we have to contest a warning, our right to a hearing and confront your accuser, if service is restricted or termination of service?
  A recent case in Southern California concluded that traffic/vehicle fines did not have to be paid in advance of an appeal or hearing.
  
• Will the utility employees receive any training? Which employees can write warnings or verify warning? Will their reports be available online, will there will be an appeal process?
  
• Does an webform, telephone and email  from what may be an unhappy neighbor, the basis for a warning?

• If there is a flow restrictor re-connect/removal fee is there any other charge?

• What are the connect and disconnect charges if the water retailer takes that action? This effectively renders a house unlivable, what in the process protects the homeowner or renter? Is there a liability for the water supplier, if this action is taken?

• Who will serve the "citation" in the event of a monetary fine? SJPD or an actual sworn officer? Can we expect someone, in a shirt with a logo, of our water company at our door trying to collect a fine? Will it simply be added to our bill?

• What are the customer rights to have access to the information on which a violation is based? Who may actually report a violation and how will it be "certified", if it is not a report by someone other than a sworn officer would a witness be required in addition to the person reporting the violation?
• Is there a central point (SCVWD, SJWC, a new entity, etc.) that's going to keep track and verify that there was a violation, provide an a ratepayer with details on any acquisition made of a violation concerning the potential violations in 14.1.

• and last but not least, "Where do the fines go?" the State mandated daily $10,000 per day fine for non compliance and the local water company possible fines on customers, for violations, in addition to Drought Surcharges (actually usage based penalties)? Is there a requirement to publish monthly or quarterly a list warnings, restrictions and fines, in each county or city? Any drought surcharges paid to any water company will be used to adjust their revenues, to guarantee profits and to be applied to drought related expenses. I guess I'm skeptical about about any water company having much left to return to ratepayers, as a "surcredit" (that's a rare creature that if it appears is a very tiny opposite of a surcharge which is generally much larger, in my experience).

SJWC must restate the mandatory reduction to 20% from 30% on the ruling of the ALJ

Ruling filed by ALJ/TSEN/CPUC on 06/02/2015 Conf# 86653, download a PDF

Please take a moment and read the excerpts and by all means download and read the entire ruling.

The following is are excerpts from the ALJ ruling:

"Included in the Resolution is a requirement to "develop rate structures and other pricing mechanisms, including surcharges, fees, penalties, or other mechanisms, to maximize 25% water conservation." Pursuant to the Water Board regulations, San Jose Water Company must achieve mandatory reductions of 20 percent relative to its water consumption in 2013." 

"Given that we are about to go to hearing on San Jose Water’s general rate case on June 15, 2015, it would appear to be a perfect opportunity to recast all testimony about to be presented in order to reflect a 20% reduction from 2013 levels in water usage consistent with the requirements of both the Resolution and the Executive Order. This should be presented, if possible, in a manner consistent with the requirements in Section 2 "Mandatory Actions by Water Utilities" subsection e on page 4 of Resolution W – 5041. To the extent that any of the expense forecasts have a direct linkage to the reduction in water usage, for example purchased water, these expense forecasts should be adjusted accordingly."

The following excerpt is more complicated as the Drought Surcharges will have to be reviewed and SJWC may have to re-submit their tariff establishing and activating Schedule 14.1. Blogger: It appears that the Schedule 14.1 submitted by California Water Systems may be an improvement over the submission by SJWC and based on the comments fairer to SJWC customers.

 "This requirement is limited to only the first portion of the mandate: "to develop rate structures and other pricing mechanisms" and we will not address the more complicated aspects of "surcharges, fees, penalties, or other mechanisms." These latter requirements are being addressed by the requirement in the related Resolution W-4976 that water utilities file Tier 2 advice letters to add or activate Schedule 14.1, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, in their tariffs."

Blogger: I submitted a request to SJWC to be added to the distribution list for the Advise Letters that have a 20 day period for filing added information or a complaint, from the date of receipt by CPUC, this significantly restricts the ratepayers ability to effectively participate in the process. Its not obvious will this start the 20 day clock running again, allowing ratepayer/customer input, on the changed document? There is still the issue of the Public Hearing was it valid and acceptable, even though it was lacking an official record or transcript?