What does Homeserv USA (HEIS) pay SJWC

I noted that during the interview that Tony Kovaleski had with Richard Roth CEO of SJW Corp., as well as San Jose Water Company, SJWCTX, SJWC Land company, etc.), resulted in Mr. Roth saying,"legally we don't have to". The question was the request for transparency and access to information, on a variety of topics that can affect our (the ratepayers) water rates. View the interview "SJ Public Utility Keeps Some Spending Private" and the accompanying article. Did SJWC also receive an exclusivity fee as did CWS?

We encounter more information that other Bay Area water utilities have published, but that the San Jose Water Company failed to publish.

Who is promoting Water Pipe Insurance and what do they get, in the Bay Area?

Water Company	Employee Recommending	Comments/Links	%	Fee	Premium
Contra Costa Water District	Jerry Brown, CCWD,  General Manager	offered Aug. 2011	?	?	$4.95 month
San Jose Water Company	Robert Day, SJWC Director of Customer Service	offered May 2013	YES	?	$4.95 month
Alameda County Water District	Walt Wadlow, ACWD’s General Manager	offered Sept. 2012 ACWD FAQ	10%	?	$4.95 month
Dublin San Ramon Services District	Vicki Goldman, DSRSD, Customer Services Supervisor	offered Jul. 2013 DSRSD FAQ	10%	$25K	$4.95 month
CWS Utility Services (California Water Service Group)	Paul Ekstrom, CWS, Customer Service & Information Systems	Feb. 2011 CWSUS FAQ	YES	$1,169,000 yr, for 7 yrs exclusivity	$4.95 month
Great Oaks Water Company	Tim Guster, Vice President,  Great Oaks Water Company	offered Mar. 2014	?	?	$5.25 month

I found six water utilities in the Bay Area offering water pipe insurance from Homeserv USA (AKA HEIS, Home Emergency Insurance Solutions). Three have published on there web sites that they are being compensated, a percentage (%) of insurance premiums paid by you (ratepayers), to Homeserv USA. In one case Dublin San Ramon Services District disclosed it also received a one time payment for administrative support. In recent research a report from DRA/ORA also showed that CWS CaliforniaWater Services is receiving an exclusivity fee of $1,169,000.00 (per/year for 7 years) in addition to its standard contracted business activity revenue, from insurance premiums.  The table shows the water companies/districts that have not disclosed, indicated by (?), the compensation they are receiving from Homeserv USA.

It's apparent that openness and transparency is lacking on the part of the publicly traded water utilities or privately owned. Although there is a pleasant Vimeo video by Robert (Bob) Day the Director of Customer Services, "Bob Day of San Jose Water Company shares his experience of partnering with HomeServe". He also signed the cover letters many of us have received, from Homeserv USA or Home Emergency Insurance Solutions. Hmmm, I can't find who is paying what to whom and where the money is going? The video is really a very nice commercial, in my opinion, but other than providing rather nebulos statements of how the "fundamental values are shared", by both companies and extensive research was conducted, before recommending Homeserv............ watch the video and draw your own conclusions. It's also hard to understand why San Jose Water Company has only two stars on Yelp and I did notice that Bob makes an effort to monitor the Yelp reviews. I believe this may be a painful experience for any person, involved with SJWC, to read so many bad reviews.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company 44% Rate Increase, Homeserv USA water pipe insurance, the 2 star Yelp rating for SJWC and a possible exclusivity fee, send an email as described below to remind our elected officials and CPUC that we are concerned and have not forgotten the issue!

If you are concerned about the 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 44% Rate Increase, Homeserv USA water pipe insurance and your opinion of SJWC Customer Service 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 of the 44% Rate Increase!

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

HEIS aka Home Emergency Insurance Solutions, aka HomeServe USA ?

There seem to be a continuing mail marketing program, in the areas served by San Jose Water Company (aka SJWC), as well as throughout the state of California. They appeared to have taken me off their mailing list......  I continue to get a large number of inquiries, on the blog, about "water line insurance", so I re-visited the subject and found there are apparently the same company offering the same product under slightly different company names. If you read their websites carefully you can also see the similarities and the corporate relationship and form your own opinion.

•  HEIS, acronym for Home Emergency Insurance Solutions.and a link to pages also referring to the San Jose Water Company
  
  Home Emergency Insurance Solutions, California License #0F79326, with corporate offices located in Norwalk, CT, is an independent company separate from San Jose Water Company, and offers and administers this optional insurance as an authorized representative for Wesco Insurance Company, the insurance policy underwriter. All services are performed by a licensed and insured independent contractor. Participation in this policy will not affect the price, availability or terms of service from San Jose Water Company.
• HomeServe USA, DBA Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (HEIS)
  This is interesting as ACWD (Almedea County Water District) specifically states that HEIS and HomeServe, in a document. are basically the same company.Corporate Mailing Address: HomeServe USA, 601 Merritt 7, 6th Floor, Norwalk, CT  06851

It can be difficult to keep track of who your dealing with, possibly this might help:

United Kingdom
HomeServe plc and Membership (Parent Corporation)
Cable Drive
Walsall WS2 7BN
Tel: +44 (0) 1922 659700

North America
HomeServe USA or HEIS (USA Corporate) *there has been a physical re-location?
5301 Blue Lagoon Drive
Suite 400
Miami, FL 33126 USA
Tel: +1 305 477 2764

HomeServe USA
601 Merritt 7, 6th Floor, 
Norwalk, CT  06851

HomeServe USA (Customer Service)
11232 Premier Drive
Suite 100
Chattanooga, TN 37421 USA

Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (aka HEIS) Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has an explanation, shown in the excerpt:

HOME EMERGENCY INSURANCE SOLUTIONS

DSRSD is working with a private company, Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (HEIS), to offer DSRSD customers optional insurance that covers repairs to exterior water service pipelines. HEIS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HomeServe USA, which administers home emergency repair insurance policies and service plans throughout the country.

The FAQ from DSRSD also explains they were paid $25,000 (one time) payment for administrative support and a continuing 10% fee of all premiums collected in their service area.

If you are still receiving the mailers from either Home Emergency Insurance Solutions or HomeServe USA and you are concerned about the continuing efforts to sell you this insurance or you are concerned with what the San Jose Water Company is getting for their "apparent support" of the program, please send email to the following, expressing your concern:

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 "protecting the profits of a publically traded company", the SJWC 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

Also send an email to CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  The Public Advisor will insure your email will be sent to all the appropriate CPUC staff members.

Drought will reduce SJWC sales and PROFITS!

It appears that SJWC will try to recover "profits" lost due to our water conservation! This is a repetitive argument, by SJW Corp./SJWC. I forecasted that SJWC would try to recover lost profits due to the drought, in this blog on February 2, 2014. The question has to be raised again, "Should ratepayers (SJWC Customers) guarantee the profits of a publically traded monopoly utility company or it's parent Corporation?".

A statement by John Tang, Director of Government Relations at San Jose Water Company, 

"The company will seek reimbursement for its lost profits, which will require a temporary rate increase, he said. In 2009, similar conservation measures at the end of the last drought cost the company $5.6 million in lost water sales, and it temporarily raised rates by 2.5 percent for one year to recover them."

Read the entire article at the website.

Let's look at the current situation:

• SJWC has requested a 44% rate increase and DRA recommended 10%, for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. What's happening?
• Why has CPUC not "publicly" published or posted any new information since May 2013. Possibly the ratepayer negative comments have been overwhelming. 
• The CPUC website pages for the pending Rate Increase does not mention ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013. today is March 2, 2014 ) was assigned to the case. It seems CPUC takes over a year to update their website.

A1201003 - Proceeding (Click to view web page)

Filed By:	San Jose Water Company
Service Lists:	Service List 1
Industry:	Water
Filing Date:	January 3, 2012
Category:	Ratesetting
Current Status:	ACTIVE
Description:	In the Matter of the Application of San Jose Water Company (U168W) for an Order authorizing it to increase rates charged for water service by $47,394,000 or 21.51% in 2013, by $12,963,000 or 4.87% in 2014, and by $34,797,000 or 12.59% in 2015.
Staff:	ALJ: Sean Wilson (Assigned Jan 13, 2012) COMMISSIONER: Catherine J.K. Sandoval (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)

• In my previous postings I've pointed out the failure, in my opinion, of SJWC/SJW Corp. does not provide reasonable transparency and access to the press or public to business affairs that affect our water rates. Richard Roth, CEO has pointed out in interviews that there is no legal requirement to be open and transparent, so long as disclosures to SEC to protect share holders interests are made.

If you think the actions being taken or not taken, are in your (ratepayer) best interests, by CPUC, SJWC and SJW Corp. 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 "protecting the profits of a publically traded company", the SJWC 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

Also send an email to CPUC Public Advisor public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov  The Public Advisor will insure your email will be sent to all the appropriate CPUC staff members.

Drought 2014, Will SJWC water rates increase?

California has droughts because most of our water depends on rain and snow during each winter. When the weather patterns change as they do over multi-year cycles, as we've seen over the last several years, our reservoirs storage capacity, is too small. Conservation is one of the answers to the water shortage problem, but San Jose Water Company attempted to justify the current pending 41% rate increase, based on successfully reducing consumption, through conservation efforts,  thus reducing the SJWC revenue and the profit of SJW Corporation. This is based on "fixed" costs that San Jose Water Company and SJW Corporation are unwilling to be open and transparent about.

The impact on SJWC and Santa Clara County based on the California State Water Project announcement is estimated at 1% of the water being used. In comparison the impact on: (1) Zone 7 Water Agency, Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin will loose 80% of it's imported CSWP water (2) Alameda County Water District, Fremont, Newark and Union City will loose 40% of it's imported CSWP water, unless we get unusually heavy rains, over the next three months. Other parts of the bay area depend on other sources, for example Hetch Hetchy, many water districts have banked water in aquifers (can be pumped during dry years). 

So, it's likely that the "regulatory affairs staff" at SJWC will try very hard to raise our rates again based on the short fall in revenues, based on our water conversation.

Obviously we need to conserve water, but only the actual costs of, "ratepayer conservation programs", should be passed through to us.  Which implies the question, should the added conservation program charges include profit for SJW Corporation? We need an open transparent disclosure, of any added charges or increase in our water rates. We potentially have a "drought emergency", let's be sure it's not an excuse to justify more corporate profits. SJW Corporation just increased their dividend!

If you agree with the need to conserve water, but are concerned about the effect on our water rates, please send a message to:

If you are concerned about the 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 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

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

un-Happy Second Birthday, as of January 4, 2014 CPUC has not ruled!

I just checked the CPUC website to determine if any information has been posted, as of 1:25 PM, January 13, 2014 nothing new has been posted!

The most recent postings by category are:

A1201003 - Proceeding posted January 3, 2012

May 06, 2013 BRIEF DRA/REYNOLDS/CPUC REGARDING SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY

March 04, 2013 SCOPING RULING CMMR/SANDOVAL/CPUC Assigned Commissioner's Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling. The scope and schedule originally set out in the Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling dated March 15, 2012, are amended as forth in the body of this ruling.

January 12, 2012 - RESOLUTION ALJ-176 CATEGORIZATION Resolution ALJ 176-3287 Ratification of preliminary determination of category adopted.

The most recent posting is dated 

May 06, 2013 , that is  252 days ago !

It would seem appropriate to post something, if only the status of the consideration and decisions has been made by the two Administrative Law Judges and commissioner:

• ALJ: Sean Wilson (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)
• ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013)
• COMMISSIONER: Catherine J.K. Sandoval (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)

A simple monthly update "consideration for the ruling is continuing, as of mm/dd/yyyy", would be helpful and indicate "something" is happening for our tax dollars.

"Notice that ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013) was assigned to the case on March 1 and this just appeared on the website in August 2, so March, April, May, June and at least 1/2 of July, it took CPUC over 120 days to apparently announce the judges appointment to the case." Since the announcement I have not been able to find anything else, regarding the SJWC Rate Increase, that might have originated from ALJ: Gary Weatherford.

It's disturbing that the updates are significantly delayed, before being posted on the CPUC website.

It's time for some questions to be asked by the ratepayers, the press and hopefully DRA (aka ORA - the Office of Ratepayer Advocates)

The other possible reason is to "drag the proceeding out to the point the ratepayers loss interest" and the ruling can quietly be issued. Once released and is not challenged our rates will go up! The regulatory affairs staff at SJWC is getting paid, CPUC staff involved is getting paid, at the ratepayers expense, so why rush, since they can always make the increase RETROACTIVE.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company 44% Rate Increase or the lengthy process that's costing you even more money, send an email as described below to remind our elected officials and CPUC that we are concerned and have not forgotten the issue!

If you are concerned about the 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 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

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

The other shoe, When will CPUC and SJWC reach and announce a decision on the pending Rate Increase

The other shoe will drop eventually...........CPUC will reach a decision, hopefully closer to the DRA recommendation, rather than SJWC 44% rate increase.

The Rate increase proceeding has been "going" 708 days since January 3, 2012.

The typical case takes less than 18 months (roughly 540 days) from filing to ruling, as of today (12/14/2013) 708 days, 170 days longer than normal per CPUC average.

I checked online at CPUC again today, 12/14/2013, with the same result nothing new has been updated. No new documents, rulings or decisions.............

The other possible reason is to "drag the proceeding out to the point the ratepayers loss interest" and the ruling can quietly be issued. Once released and is not challenged our rates will go up! The regulatory affairs staff at SJWC is getting paid, CPUC staff involved is getting paid, at the ratepayers expense, so why rush. They can always make the increase RETROACTIVE, hopefully it's not a Christmas present. May be there really are "Ebenezer Scrooge" and "Grinch", in San Jose.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company 44% Rate Increase, send an email as described below to remind our elected officials and CPUC that we are concerned and have not forgotten the issue!

If you are concerned about the 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 44% Rate Increase and your concern about lack of progress and are concerned that we are not being informed in a timely manner, of the status of the 44% Rate Increase!

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

CPUC nearing decision on SJWC WRAP Surcharge

The pending WRAP (Water Rate Assistance Program) has gone through a series of document exchanges and DRA representation, on behalf of the Ratepayers. We appear to be nearing an actual resolution.

We should be concerned regarding the integrity of the PG&E data be shared with SJWC and automatically enrolling participants in the SJWC WRAP program.

Further a recent report, Low-Income Rates for Water Utility Customers  (A Calculation of Full Participation 
And the Impact on the Remaining Customers) conclusions imply that over 21% of SJWC customers may qualify for participation in the WRAP program. That would be over 45,000 participants, double the current number of participants.

Page5 excerpted, complete document 

The amount of the actual surcharge has tentatively been agreed to by DRA. DRA researched and justified the surcharge amount, of $1.15.

The request by SJWC for annual automatic adjustments was not approved.

The audit and verification program will be improved, but only to a limited extent. Participation still can be obtained by qualifying for PGE's Care program.

All posted available documents, rulings, etc., regarding the WRAP Application 13-06-008 are available at the CPUC site URL below:

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/f?p=401:57:482850440352601::NO

Richard Roth, CLWSC Customers, CEWR (Texas) - Customers WIN!

I've been following the water rate increase activities of SJW Corporation (San Jose Water Company), in  New Braunfels, Texas:

"The Coalition for Equitable Water Rates (CEWR) has represented all the ratepayers of Comal and Blanco counties throughout the 3-year-long protest against Canyon Lake Water Service Company’s (CLWSC, wholly owned subsidiary of SJW Corporation) request for an enormous 71 percent increase in our water rates.

CEWR’s stated desire in its protest action was to help ensure all water users could receive water services at a fair and reasonable cost. After a series of formal hearings before two administrative law judges and an in-depth review of the case’s facts, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) determined CLWSC’s 71 percent increase was not justified and unanimously approved a 32.7 percent increase." quote from the Herald-ZeitungNew Braunfels, TX."

It should also be noted that an article was also in the River Crossing website which covers the Texas Hill Country, includes New Braunfels:

"The finding on denying CLWSC rate case costs sets an important precedent on the 51% Rule by holding companies accountable to submit reasonable rate increase filings. CLWSC brought Rich Roth, the CEO of San Jose Water, to speak at the hearing. In my opinion, Roth in his comments tried to threaten the Commission by stating that the company would pull out of the Texas water market if CLWSC was not awarded undeserved rate case expenses. This is simply demonstrates the company’s senior management's disregard for their corporate responsibility to the public's interest as outlined in their state granted CCN."

It should be noted that:

Mr. Richard Roth was very unhappy apparently with the results from the Texas State ruling, on his requested "Texas Sized" water rate increase:

• Awarded CLWSC a 32.65% increase,
• Denied them about $1 million in rate case costs, "OUCH, but what are we paying or will pay?"
• Reduced the requested rate base by ~ $3.4 million,
• Required CLWSC to refund the 5.25% overpayment to ratepayers.

We are faced with very similar situation, in San Jose,. SJW Corporation is requesting a 41% increase over three years. They have already requested and received this year 5.71% increase, 25% of the 2013 pending requested General Rate Increase. 

Keep in mind that if we don't keep telling CPUC and our government representatives "We'll wake up and find they've justified-somehow-the Rate Increase!

If you are concerned about the 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 44% Rate Increase and your concern about the attitudes of the major players reported by KNBC Chief Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski, the Texas newspaper and website. Please also mention if you feel the lobbying and/or personal gifts/expenses represent an possible integrity issue or a potential conflict of interest. 

The Texans were successful in preventing unfair increases-We can be successful!

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

California Water Service Company (CalWater) now offers Home Emergency Insurance Solutions (HEIS)

Another water company is not only offering:

• Exterior Water Line Protection Insurance ($4.95/month)

They also offer all of the other HEIS insurance options. If you signed up for all services it would cost you roughly $74.00 per month, WOW!

"California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is the largest subsidiary of the California Water Service Group. Cal Water is the largest investor-owned American water utility west of the Mississippi River and the third largest in the country. Formed in 1926, the San Jose-based company serves more than 472,000 customers through 28 Customer and Operations Centers throughout the state."

Considering the Exterior Water Line Protection Insurance ($4.95/month) times 472,000 would provide $2,336,400 per month in revenue to HEIS. If CalWater gets what appears to be the standard fee of 10%, $233,640/month or $2,803,680 per year.

The revenue actually goes to "CWS Utility Services (CWSUS), an affiliate of California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and a subsidiary of California Water Service Group". Since CWSUS "CWS Utility Services (CWSUS), a subsidiary of the California Water Service Group, provides non-regulated contract utility services throughout California". This implies their financials are rolled up into CalWater so we will have no visibility, about the actual revenue and what it's used for.

So CalWater joins San Jose Water Company "recommending-sort of" HEIS (Home Emergency Insurance Solutions)..................and doesn't disclose the details of the relationship with HEIS!

A new ALJ has been assigned to SJWC Rate Increase

Apparently another ALJ has been assigned to the San Jose Water Company General Rate Case A1201003, also known as the 44% rate increase.

A1201003 - Proceeding

Filed By:	San Jose Water Company
Service Lists:	Service List 1
Industry:	Water
Filing Date:	January 3, 2012
Category:	Ratesetting
Current Status:	ACTIVE
Description:	In the Matter of the Application of San Jose Water Company (U168W) for an Order authorizing it to increase rates charged for water service by $47,394,000 or 21.51% in 2013, by $12,963,000 or 4.87% in 2014, and by $34,797,000 or 12.59% in 2015.
Staff:	ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013)ALJ: Sean Wilson (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)COMMISSIONER: Catherine J.K. Sandoval (Assigned Jan 13, 2012)

Click to view source on CPUC website.

Notice that ALJ: Gary Weatherford (Assigned Mar 1, 2013) was assigned to the case on March 1 and this just appeared on the website a few days ago. Today is August 2, so March, April, May, June and at least 1/2 of July, it took CPUC over 120 days to apparently announce the judges appointment to the case. 

Back to those "darn" CPUC Values on the website:

Values (Click to visit CPUC website Page)

• Participation
• We provide an open, fair, timely, and inclusive process.  
• Communication
• We provide accurate, timely information and consumer education.

The details on the Judge's background are available on the Water Education Foundation website.

Secretary - Gary Weatherford, California Public Utilities Commission 

Gary Weatherford is an administrative law judge at the CPUC in San Francisco, California. Formerly he was a partner with the law firm of Weatherford & Taaffe LLP in San Francisco, California. He specializes in water resources law and has extensive experience in western water law and policy. He has been Director of the John Muir Institute, Deputy Secretary for Resources for the state of California, and a Special Assistant both to the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, and to the U. S. Attorney General. Mr. Weatherford has taught water and natural resources law at the University of Oregon, UCLA, and the University of Santa Clara. He has served on the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council, the Advisory Committee of the Water Resources Research Center and the board of the Water Resources Archives at the University of California. He is on the advisory board of the congressionally-funded Utton Transboundary Resources Center. Published works include Decree Enforcement Comes to the Law of the River, Rocky Mt. Mineral Law Institute (2003). Mr. Weatherford is a member of the California Bar and holds a law degree from Yale University.

ALJ: Gary Weatherford appears highly qualified and should be a welcome addition to the case. A separate blog page will research the Water Education Foundation.

The question remains, "Why did it take so long to slowly make it's way to the public notice?". 120 days is neither open or timely notice.

Latest SJWC Water Rate Increase

San Jose Water Company requests another rate increase!

Separate from the 44% increase San Jose Water Company (SJWC) has requested another increase based on the increased cost of water from, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD aka "Golden Spigot").
The CPUC Advise Letter No. 450 is available on the SJWC website.

 Earlier this year SJWC requested CPUC approve a General Rate Increase A1201003 that requested an increase of 21.5% in 2013 and totaled 44% over three years. During 2013 SJWC has requested and received the following interim rate increases:

• January 23, 2013, effective March 1, 2013           2.44%
• May 23, 2013, effective July 1, 20123                  3.27%
  
                                                               TOTAL   5.71%

Well it seems like the lowest approved rate increase will be (5.71%+added security costs).

An interesting strategy! In sales it's called the "Salami Strategy" a little slice then a little slice now and it adds up to over 25% of the requested General Rate Increase. I hope DRA can unscramble all the "interim" increases and figure out what the ratepayers should pay!

SJWC 44% Rate Increase Video

 

The attached video addresses several points about the requested SJWC GRC (Rate Increase):

• SJWC has requested a 44% Rate Increase over the next three years. Significantly higher than inflation and opposed by DRA. Division of Ratepayer Advocates who represent the interests of Ratepayers, that's you and I.
• SJWC has requested that they can use a WRAM/MCBA. SJWC is requesting that profit be seperated from business operations and the economy. WRAM basically allows SJWC to recover the full authorized revenue (profit).  This means SJWC is not encouraged to operate in an efficient manner.
• SJWC has a Senior VP of Regulatory Affairs with compensation of more than $600,000/year an excellent bonus plan his objectives in his bonus plan are defined in SEC Filing and the first point of four is, "- Execute and optimize outcome of San Jose Water Company's General Rate Case ("GRC")". Some how "optimize" really sounds like 44%, it doesn't sound like a fair and equitable rate increase. Further is it fair to make ratepayers pay someone "handsomely" whose job is to justifying an outrageous rate increase!

Watch the video and decide what is best for you.

SJWC - SJW Corporation Compensation & Severance

SJW Corporation - W. Richard (Rich) Roth

Total Severance Package: $11,164,135

plus stock and rights $5,320,962

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Click on link for the entire SCHEDULE 14A, the following is an excerpt)

If (i) Mr. Roth's employment had been involuntarily terminated for any reason other than death, disability or good cause (as defined in Mr. Roth's employment agreement) or his employment had been voluntarily terminated for good reason (as defined in such agreement) on December 31, 2011 and (ii) such termination had not occurred under circumstances entitling him to benefits under the Executive Severance Plan, then he would have been entitled to the following payments and benefits in connection with such termination of employment:



                                                                                                          
                                                                                                  Value of 36 Months of  
                                                                                         Reimbursed COBRA Continuation
            Cash   Severance                                                        Health Care Coverage
--------------------------                     ------------------------
           $2,437,500 (1)(3)                                                               $41,536 (2)(3)

(1)	Represents 3.9 times the annual rate of base salary of $625,000 in effect for Mr. Roth on December 31, 2011.

(2)	Represents 36 months of health benefit coverage at an average monthly rate of $1,153.77.

(3)	Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Roth may not, during the one-year period following his termination of employment, solicit any individuals who were in the Corporation's employ at the time of such termination or within the preceding six months to work for him or any other entity with which he is affiliated.

As of December 31, 2011, Mr. Roth held outstanding restricted stock units covering 50,517 unvested shares of the Corporation's common stock. Such number does not include restricted stock units covering 7,000 shares which were granted in January 2009 and were scheduled to vest upon the attainment of a specified total shareholder return measured over the three-year period ending December 31, 2011 but which were cancelled because the performance objective was not achieved. Restricted stock units covering 12,667 of those 50,517 shares will vest in one or more successive equal annual installments upon his continued service with the Corporation. Restricted stock units for the remaining 37,850 shares will vest upon the attainment of a specified total shareholder return over the five-year period ending December 31, 2014. However, if on December 31, 2011, Mr. Roth's employment had terminated by reason of death or disability or had been involuntarily terminated other than for good cause (as defined in Mr. Roth's employment agreement) or had he resigned for good reason (as defined in such agreement), then upon such a qualifying termination event, his restricted units covering 12,667 unvested shares of common stock would have vested on an accelerated basis for a total value of $299,448. Such accelerated value was based on the $23.64 per share closing selling price of the common stock on December 30, 2011, the last trading day of the 2011 fiscal year. In addition, Mr. Roth would, as a result of such a qualifying termination event, vest in a pro-rated amount of his 37,850 shares on December 31, 2014 if the applicable performance vesting objective for those particular shares is met upon the completion of the performance period ending on that date. The number of restricted stock units in which Mr. Roth would vest on such pro-rated basis upon such attainment of the performance objective would be determined by multiplying the total number of restricted stock units at the time subject to the award by a fraction the numerator of which is the number of whole months of service (rounded up to the next whole month) completed by Mr. Roth during the five-year performance period and the denominator of which is 60 months. To the extent Mr. Roth were to vest in one or more restricted stock units in accordance with the foregoing, the underlying shares would be issued on January 31, 2015.

In addition, Mr. Roth would be entitled to accumulated retirement benefit with a present value of $5,253,900 as of December 31, 2011 and vested deferred compensation in the amount of $3,472,735 as of that date.

The outstanding stock options granted to Mr. Roth contain a provision pursuant to which those options may remain outstanding for up to four years if he terminates employment under certain prescribed circumstances.

Extended COBRA, Continuation Health Care Coverage, is valued at $41,536 was not included in the estimated severance package for Mr. Roth. Mr. Roth's stock and stock rights are also estimated and listed separately, as there is an extension of the period the options may be exercised, after termination of employment..