SJWC transcript 8/19/15 Status Conference (WRAM, Bonuses, Conservation, Freedom of Information)

The following is the CPUC transcript for the GRC A1501002 8/19/2015:

August 31, 2015

TRANSCRIPT

REPORTING SECTION

8/19/15 Status Conference; Vol. 5; Pages 448-464.

Click for access to the PDF file of the transcript

The transcript indicates open issues regarding the time periods between the Governor's Drought Executive Order, issues concerning the actual water sales by SJWC during the periods and the likely "bounce back" increase in water use after the expiration of the drought controls and surcharges (penalties). The objective is to prevent a large surcharge from accumulating and be billed to ratepayers after the drought controls are rescinded or expire, a good objective.

We still have significant pending contested issues, as documented in my posting to this blog, before a settlement (a proposal) can be submitted to the CPUC Commission for a decision.

You should note that the transcript indicates that SJWC customers reduced water consumption by over 35%, 5% over the 30% reduction imposed by an agreement of SCVWD (Santa Clara Water District), SJWC and the City of San Jose, in response to the State Water Board required 20%.

I would argue that the current revenue protection that is in place for SJWC is adequate, while SJWC will argue that a full decoupling of sales and revenue is required to protect them and allow them to continue to pursue conservation measures. Hmm, we the customers exceeded expectations beyond both the State and the SCVWD requirements.  I don't recall any new efforts by SJWC to promote water conservation.

I'm sure the SJWC managers and officers deserve annual bonuses based on motivating SJWC customers to exceed conservation expectations, LOL. Hmm it could at best be argued that their contribution was a "speedy" implementation of DS1 and DS2 drought surcharges, in time to be included in the first water bill after the the Governor's Executive Order was effective. I seem to remember SJWC saying it would take weeks if not months to make changes to their billing software.........some changes are apparently easier to make than others  (;->) (an emoticon). You should also note that SJWC was prepared in 1992 tocalculate water savings based on each customer's prior usage.

An issue of Public Information, the transcript cost me $34.00 to get a copy. Interestingly it existed as both an Adobe PDF and an MS-Word file and was sent to me within a day of my request, I also received a hardcopy of the transcript. Yet it can't be downloaded from the CPUC GRC A1501002 docket/documents available online on the CPUC website? I know for a fact that Adobe PDF files can be password locked to prevent modification. So I have to assume that CPUC wants to limit access to information that should be easily provide at no charge. If you send email to the CPUC Public Advisor they will forward your request to the CPUC ALJ Division – Reporting Section who are helpful. I wonder if the legislation in process in Sacramento have any effect on making the transcripts downloadable and free?

FYI, the transcript download is hosted on my free account at Google, really time consuming and expensive, to make the transcript available, "right". The file can be downloaded, but the copy hosted on Google cannot be modified by the public.

8 week schedule slip? SJWC 2016, 2017, 2018 - RATE CASE AND INCREASE

The original Plan Schedule has "slipped" from a planned June 15, 2015 Mandatory Conference, to August 19, 2015. It's understandable that there would be a slip due to drought related actions that were required, as well as some difficult negotiation on several topics.

Click to view schedule, Exhibit A

SJWC has already requested and received approval for interim rates, starting on January 1, 2016, An encouraging item is SJWC requested current rate plus an optional inflation increase by month. Obviously they'll charge the difference between inflation and the likely 8-10% annual increase for 2016 when CPUC commissioners approve the resolution to the rate case.

The contested issues still are open as I posted, on this blog.

SJWC Requested Item	Status	Blogger Comment
WRAM full de-coupling of revenue and sales	Contested as of 9/18/15	PG&E got an ERAM, guarantees revenue independent of sales. Over the past 25 years have PG&E customers benefited?
WRAM contingent conservation programs	Contested as of 9/18/15	The proposed rate is 2,000 toilets a year, there are over 1 million toilets in SJWC system. Are you going to live long enough to get a free low flow toilet?
Staffing requests for 33 new staff positions	Contested as of 9/18/15	Since it appears that SJWC is delivering less water, has available man-hours(6 staff full-time) to use for NTP&S, do they really need 33 more staff people that we would pay for or would they be used for NTP&S?
Bonuses for Officers and Managers	Contested as of 9/18/15	Who should pay?You ( SJWC customers) or Shareholders? Shareholders set goals for their benefit, not SJWC customers.
Non-Tariffed Products and Services (“NTP&S”)	Tentative Agreement	Tentative Agreement, Appendix A Relates to staffing request, above.
Other financial items have contingent agreements or are pending and contested	Pending  as of 9/18/2015	Pending resolution of contested Items

I also have a previous post to this blog discussing the items above in more detail.

Please send email,

 make your opinion heard!

 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 currently contested issues and continuing requests to de-couple their revenue from the requirement to do business efficiently and your concern about their lack of openness and transparency. 

Please consider pasting the following, or parts you agree with, when you fill in the eForm:

"I OPPOSE SJWC paying management and officers bonuses with money included in our water rates, bonuses benefit shareholders, shareholders should pay the bonuses. I oppose a WRAM separating revenues from sales, I oppose using regulated staff for unregulated projects with insufficient controls, reporting and evaluation of the risk/reward for ratepayers. I oppose a major staffing increase of 33 positions, an almost 10% staff increase. I oppose proposals by SJWC that discriminate against seniors or other classes of SJWC ratepayers. Reference San Jose Water Company (SJWC) GRC 1501002."

You can also send an email to express your opinion on who should pay the bonuses you or the shareholders:

CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  Reference San Jose Water Company (SJWC) GRC 1501002.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
• Paul Rodgers, San Jose Mercury News, progers@mercurynews.com
• Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

Homeserve USA may be getting gas!

Homeserve USA (aka Homeserv, HomeEmergency Solutions, HEIS, etc.) seems to have gotten into the gas insurance line business. I noticed that Homeserve USA had posted a wealth of pages that are indexed by Google, this tends to push pages or posts by other parties to page 2 and 3. Only about 5-8% of folks doing a search look past page 1 of the search results.

I found several articles in the LA Times addressing, " Homeserve gas issue".

• SoCal Gas, third-party insurer should disclose their sweetheart deal, February 23, 2015. The following is an excerpt from the article:

"This financial relationship should be disclosed to consumers. In fact, any sweetheart deal between a utility and a third party should be made clear to consumers, and the California Public Utilities Commission should make sure such marketing affiliations are completely transparent. 

Better still, utilities should be barred from peddling third-party services to customers. If they see value in repair insurance, they should simply educate customers about the possible risks to homes and provide the names of all available insurers."

• Water Service Line Repairs Insurance a SCAM! The following is an excerpt from an older article, Newport, RI: (older article, but interesting viewpoint)

"Asking The Newport Water Division division of the City of Newport's Department of Utilities ; “How many water service line repairs did you complete in 2012? In the last 5 years? In the last 10 years?"

I believe this insurance company is preying on the elderly in Newport and Aquidneck Island
Yes, Newport's water service is OLD! (Started in 1876)...but the water service lines that connect your home to the water main are not in need of any emergency repairs!"

•  No, SoCal Gas Does Not Endorse that Insurance Mailer Despite the Logo, excerpt from article:

"The statement to shareholders by British-based Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (HEIS) about its sweetheart deals with utilities sounded like a personal invitation addressed to David Lazarus at the Los Angeles Times: “In the U.S.A., we have been proactively working with local attorneys general and media commentators . . . to minimize the risk of any negative media commentary.”

Lazarus mentioned that as background in his piece about Southern California Gas Company’s business arrangement with HomeServe USA, the official name of the Connecticut-based subsidiary that markets its insurance policies through direct mail."

The profits must be significant to fund the continuing mass mail campaign, royalty payments to utilities and pay for the repairs to gas and water pipes.................................

SJWC Requested 22% Rate Increase 2016, 2017, 2018 GRC A1501002

The following is the list of some of the more visible contested Items, in SJWC Rate Increase Request (GRC A1501002) and their current status, as of 9/7/2015. The proposed rate increase is about 22% over the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The overall increase seems excessive since inflation historically has been running very low, annually 3%, or less.

SJWC Requested Item	Status	Blogger Comment
WRAM full de-coupling of revenue and sales	Contested as of 9/18/15	PG&E got an ERAM, guarantees revenue independent of sales. Over the past 25 years have PG&E customers benefited?
WRAM contingent conservation programs	Contested as of 9/18/15	The proposed rate is 2,000 toilets a year, there are over 1 million toilets in SJWC system. Are you going to live long enough to get a free low flow toilet?
Staffing requests for 33 new staff positions	Contested as of 9/18/15	Since it appears that SJWC is delivering less water, has available man-hours(6 staff full-time) to use for NTP&S, do they really need 33 more staff people that we would pay for or would they be used for NTP&S?
Bonuses for Officers and Managers	Contested as of 9/18/15	Who should pay?You ( SJWC customers) or Shareholders? Shareholders set goals for their benefit, not SJWC customers.
Non-Tariffed Products and Services (“NTP&S”)	Tentative Agreement	Tentative Agreement, Appendix A Relates to staffing request, above.
Other financial items have contingent agreements or are pending and contested	Pending  as of 9/18/2015	Pending resolution of contested Items

I also have a previous post to this blog discussing the items above in more detail.

I also have a previous post to this blog discussing the items above in more detail.

Please send email,

 make your opinion heard!

 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 currently contested issues and continuing requests to de-couple their revenue from the requirement to do business efficiently and your concern about their lack of openness and transparency. 

Please consider pasting the following when you fill in the eForm:

"I OPPOSE SJWC paying management and officers bonuses with money included in our water rates, bonuses benefit shareholders, shareholders should pay the bonuses. I oppose a WRAM separating revenues from sales, I oppose using regulated staff for unregulated projects with insufficient controls, reporting and evaluation of the risk/reward for ratepayers. I oppose proposals by SJWC that discriminate against seniors or other classes of SJWC ratepayers. Reference San Jose Water Company (SJWC) GRC 1501002."

You can also send an email to express your opinion on who should pay the bonuses you or the shareholders:

CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  Reference San Jose Water Company (SJWC) GRC 1501002.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
• Paul Rodgers, San Jose Mercury News, progers@mercurynews.com
• Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

What is water really costing us, SJWC, DS1 and DS2?

If San Jose Water Company (SJWC) can redact content, I guess I can as well. My justification is to avoid publishing my personal address, what's their justification?

This is an excerpt from the SJWC FAQ, on their website:

Most residential customers are billed bi-monthly. You will be charged at the current rates for all the units consumed. In addition to the current charges, each unit of water in excess of your allocation will be charged as follows:

• Drought Surcharge 1 (DS1): Excess consumption over allocation up to the 2013 monthly average will be charged at $3.56 per unit 
• Drought Surcharge 2 (DS2): Excess consumption over the 2013 monthly average will be charged at $7.13 per unit 

Note that the surcharge will be prorated, calculated based on your excess usage. In my case even though I reduced usage 56% compared to the prior year, I was charged a small drought surcharge (heck call a spade a spade a penalty).

In any month the table, shows 2013 county wide average, the Drought Allocation is the amount you get at the present rate. DS1 applies for the difference between the 2013 amount and the current Drought Allocation, for example in September 2015 you would pay roughly $6.38 for each unit 0-13, for units 13-19 (6 units) $6.38 + $3.56 (DS1) = $9.94 and for your usage over 19 units you would pay  $6.38 + $7.12 (DS2) = $13.50 per unit. So if you used 22 units in September it would cost you:

 ($6.38 x 13) + ($9.94 x 6) + ($13.50 x 3) = $183.08 + $33.42 = $216.50
plus all the surcharges and taxes about $33.42

A simple example is to also look at the markup. I bought 22 units (CCF) for $183.08, to put that in perspective I'm paying $3624.98 per acre foot that SCVWD sells to SJWC for about $1200 per acre foot. That's a 3X markup - pretty good business!

Then I checked to see what I was paying last year verse what I'm paying this year. My simplistic accounting method is divide the total bill by the amount of water in CCF (100 cubic feet). Surprise my cost had increased from an effective cost of $4.08/CCF to $6.38/CCF or about an effective increase in a year of 55%.

Busy little bookkeepers at SJWC and the large "Regulatory Affairs" staff we pay for, busy looking at getting every penny they can get. Notice that SCVWD (Santa Clara Valley Water District) has got at least six itemized references for a total $10.00, plus their markup on the actual water they provide to SJWC and their annual parcel tax embedded in our property tax.  If SCVWD can afford to spend county residents money on a very expensive PR firm, to justify their parcel tax, maybe their getting too much of our money.