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

Who pays SJWC Officers & Management Bonuses?

We're confronted with trying to understand if the bonuses amount, each participant's goals and successful accomplishment and the percentage of the bonus they receive. It's unlikely that since SJWC is a wholly owned subsidiary of SJW Corporation, we (ratepayers, customers, press, etc.) will ever have access to specific information. Rather the fact's are buried under a cloak of confidentiality, again we're confronted with another instance of CPUC support for non-transparency or openness, on it's own part and on behalf of the utilities it regulates. To be fair the decision was made in early January 2015.

Blogger comment: In the final analysis the question is really who should pay for management & officers bonuses? The shareholders or the ratepayers? Who benefits the shareholders or the ratepayers? The key to the question and you're a SJWC manager or officer, it's obvious that your pay, benefits and bonus are determined by the company's senior officers and Board of Directors, not by ratepayers (your customers). The SJWC Board of Directors represents the interests of the shareholders, not the ratepayers!

The following is an excerpt from the ORA Brief dated July 14, 2015, page 8-9:

The following is an excerpt from the SJWC response to the brief ORA dated July 28, 2015 page 8-9:

It should be noted that the in the original filing of the General Rate Case (GRC 1501002) increase request several sections in the hardcopy exhibits were not included as they were deemed by CPUC on the request from SJWC of making them "Confidential".

Blogger comment: In my opinion it's apparent the shareholders need to pay for the bonuses for SJWC Officers and Managers, since they are the ones who will profit.

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. 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

SJWC Proposed Rate Increase

San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is proposing a rate increase of 44%, over the next three years.  There is a public meeting to get our opinions about the proposed rate increase, to be submitted to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC).  A public meeting on the rate increase, is scheduled for 7 p.m., May 21 at the Corinthian Event Center -- upstairs at the San Jose Athletic Club -- at 196 N. Third St. in San Jose.  A link to Google Maps shows the location of the meeting and public transportation,  196 N. Third Street, San Jose.


The following are other sources of information:


Mercury News, Herhold,  "Huge water bill increase tied to conservation"


KGO TV Channel 7, Rusk,  "Hefty water rate hike proposed for San Jose"


Some interesting items worth considering are:

• The SJWC website has gotten a major update.  The justification referred to  by  is available on an Adobe PDF at "The Value of Water" :
  Quote from the page, "Unfortunately, during times when water sales are declining due to conservation efforts, fixed costs remain and will still have to be recovered. Thus, the fixed amount of costs will have to be spread over a lower number of projected sales units, resulting in a higher per unit rate. Depending on your actual water usage, this may not necessarily result in a higher total water bill."
  
  This is confusing we conserved water and this reduced the SJWC revenues, therefore we have to pay higher rates?
• The actual filing is available from the SJWC website as an Adobe PDF file at, Authority to Increase Rates for Water Service (Application 12-01-003) - filed January 3, 2012
  
  
• The proposed rate increase is many times the US inflation rate. We are at the end of a major depression, foreclosures of homes are common, many people are working lower salary or part-time employment, seniors on fixed incomes got a small SSI increase and Medicare monthly rate also did increase:
  

  Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information For 2012

  Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 60 million Americans will increase 3.6 percent in 2012.
• While the SJWC CEO salary is noted as over $625,000, an excellent question is,  "What other water industry or corporate related income sources are not being clearly disclosed".
  
  

  W. Richard Roth Chief Executive Officer, President, Director, Chairman of Real Estate Committee, Chief Executive officer of SJWTX Water Inc, Chief Executive Officer of San Jose Water Company, Chief Executive Officer of SJW Land Company, President of SJWTX Water Inc, President of San Jose Water Company, President of SJW Land Company, Director of San Jose Water Company and Director of SJW Land Company, SJW Corp.

  Age	Total Calculated Compensation	This person is connected to 3 Board Members in 3 different organizations across 4 different industries.
  58	$2,242,807 As of Fiscal Year 2011

  
  So it appears we are paying a part-time executive $625,000 per year? For details.

I look forward to other residents of San Jose concerned with the water rate increase adding their opinions.