SJWC Ratepayers Beware! What the heck is "MCRAMA"? We seem to have got it!

SJW Corp. just had their webcast for their published results for Q1 2014, a complete recording is available on the  SJW Corp. Webcast Presentation 2014 First Quarter Financial Results Announcement 05/01/2014 1:00PM (ET) or 10:00AM (PT). SJW Corp. also filed it's SEC FORM 10-Q.

Excerpt from the FORM 10-Q SJW CORP - SJW
Filed: May 07, 2014 (period: March 31, 2014)
Quarterly report with a continuing view of a company's financial position
(also available at http://www.sjwcorp.com/investor_relations/sec_filings)

Note 10. Regulatory Rate Filings
On January 3, 2012, San Jose Water Company filed a general rate case application requesting rate increases of $47,394, or 21.51% in 2013, $12,963, or 4.87% in 2014, and $34,797, or 12.59% in 2015. This general rate case filing also includes: (1) recovery of under-collected balancing account balances of $2,599, (2) disbursement of over-collected memorandum account balances of $650 and (3) implementation of a full revenue decoupling Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (“WRAM”) and associated Modified Cost Balancing Account (“MCBA”). If approved, the WRAM and the MCBA would de-couple San Jose Water Company's earnings from customer usage. Parties to the proceeding filed open briefs on July 20, 2012 and reply briefs on August 7, 2012. On September 26, 2012, San Jose Water Company filed a motion for interim rate relief so that if a decision was not reached by the end of 2012, San Jose Water Company would be allowed to adopt interim rates, effective January 1, 2013, until a decision is adopted. To date a decision has not been adopted and interim rates are currently in effect. Interim rates were set equal to fiscal year-end 2012 rates. Differences between interim rates and approved rates are tracked in a memorandum account and will be submitted for recovery or refund. A decision on this application is expected in the second quarter of 2014..

On February 28, 2014, San Jose Water Company submitted Advice Letter No. 456. In this advice letter, San Jose Water Company notified the CPUC that San Jose Water Company was implementing conservation Tariff Rule 14.1. The CPUC's Rule 14.1 provides voluntary conservation measures for customers, focusing primarily on outdoor water use which accounts for 50% of a typical customer's water usage. In addition, San Jose Water Company requested the implementation of a Mandatory Conservation Memorandum Account (“MCMA”) to track all operational and administrative costs associated with the implementation of Rule 14.1 and implementation of a Mandatory Conservation Revenue Adjustment Memorandum Account (“MCRAMA”) to track any revenue shortfall associated with the implementation of the 20% conservation goal. The advice letter was approved on March 21, 2014 and the Rule 14.1 voluntary conservation measures, the MCMA, and MCRAMA all went into effect on March 31, 2014.

Ratepayers should make note of several important points:

1. SJWC is continuing to request that CPUC "de-couple" their revenue from ratepayer water usage. This is called WRAM (Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism) and MCBA (Modified Cost Balancing Account). This means that we the ratepayers would be guaranteeing the revenue of SJWC, a wholly owned subsidiary of SJW Corporation a publicly traded company, under the symbol SJW on the New York Stock Exchange. Further SJW continues to increase stock dividends
2. This was done using an advise letter and avoiding apparently the "overhead" entailed, in notifying the ratepayers?  of the likely "effective increase in our water rates" until we find the line item on our monthly water bill.
   
   
3. DRA/ORA the ratepayer advocates are opposed to the revenue de-coupling. We then find that SJWC has gotten approval for a "Mandatory Conservation Revenue Adjustment Memorandum Account (“MCRAMA”), "to track any revenue shortfall associated with the implementation of the 20% conservation goal.  

That certainly appears to me we may have missed the implications of the SCVWD motion:

Excerpt from Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors:  Worsening water supply conditions prompt call for 20 percent water reduction target 

WHEREAS, the District through coordination with retail water agencies, local municipalities and the County of Santa Clara is increasing public outreach and education to create greater awareness of countywide water supply challenges and need for efficient water use; and

WHEREAS, the District must rely on the actions of the retail water agencies, local municipalities and the County of Santa Clara to enact and implement local ordinances and water use reduction measures; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District that a water use reduction target equal to 20 percent of 2013 water use is called for through December 31, 2014, and it is further recommended that retail water agencies, local municipalities and the County of Santa Clara implement mandatory measures as needed to achieve the 20 percent water use reduction target.

It appears this was actually s a "mandatory" water reduction (?), to meet  a 20 percent water use reduction target, or was it a "mandatory" or just a "recommended"? 

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company accounting for revenue shortfalls and expenses, using MCRAMA, ask CPUC to request SJWC to publish a clear and transparent disclosure and the financial impact on the ratepayers and increasing water rates? Send an eMail as shown below and ask CPUC what do we get charged and how long and does this set a precedent revenue de-coupling? It would also be helpful if the wording in the various documents concerning water conservation, in the current drought, be clarified, is it mandatory or voluntary (recommended) water conservation.

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 continuing requests to de-couple their revenue from the requirement to do business efficiently 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 the water reduction recommended or mandatory!

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.

Other people to drop an email (note) and express your opinion are:

• Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury News, sherhold@mercurynews.com
• Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

Will SJWC (GRC) include Homeserv USA revenue sharing with ratepayers?

Based on statements by SJWC management it appears in the next several months the GRC (General Rate Case A1201003) increase will go to CPUC for review and approval. Cal Water agreed, in it's last GRC to pay it's ratepayers a share of the Homesrv USA non-regulated revenue, as is done for example, cell phone antennas, space rental, on a water utilities buildings.

Excerpt from CWS 10-K, CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP, page 12

Service Line Insurance Billing

        In 2008, Cal Water filed an application requesting a CPUC finding that past and future non-regulated transactions with HomeServe USA, aprovider of service line insurance, were in compliance with Commission rules. The CPUC subsequently established a memorandum account to record Cal Water's revenues and expenses related to the billingand other services provided to HomeServe USA. In a decision on February 28, 2013, the CPUC approved a proposed settlement agreement between Cal Water and the ORA resolving all issues in theproceeding, and authorized Cal Water to continue providing billing services to HomeServe USA. Consistent with the settlement, in April 2013, Cal Water began amortizing a portion of the memorandumaccount balance, as required by the settlement, through surcredits to residential ratepayers over a 12-month period. New rates adopted in the pending GRC proceeding will include a forecast of thecosts and revenues associated with this billing service. After the new rates go into effect, Cal Water will amortize the remaining balance and close the memorandum account.

In the case of San Jose Water Company there has not been a mention of revenue sharing with ratepayers, from Homeserv USA.

Cal Water pays 10% of the insurance premiums and the "anniversary or exclusivity" annual payments with it's ratepayers based on an agreement with ORA/DRA and approved by CPUC.

See my posting in April, "Should SJWC ratepayers get a portion of Homeserv USA revenues?".

• What percentage of the Homesrv USA premiums ratepayers pay is SJWC getting?
• Is SJWC getting an annual fee (anniversary or exclusivity) from Homeserv USA?
• Since the terms have been negotiated and approved, with Cal Water, by ORA and CPUC, why can't it be included in the current GRC (General Rate Case A1201003)? or will the excuse be the amount of time required? We're already late by over 16 months.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company accounting for Homeserv USA revenues and  properly, transparently disclosing what is done with the revenues and what do we ratepayers should receive? Send an eMail as shown below and ask CPUC what do we get, how and when?

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.

Other people to drop an email (note) and express your opinion are:

• Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury News, sherhold@mercurynews.com
• Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

Homeserve UK fined over $75 million dollars!

This was the headline in a UK newspaper, Daily Online, Part of the Daily Mail. Does it sound familiar? HomeServe UK is the parent company of Homeserv USA.

The current conversion rate is 1 £ = $ 1.68, so the fine was $50 million.................... and in addition £16.8 million in refunds  ($28 million).

HomeServe is fined £30m: Business is given record punishment for mis-selling insurance for burst pipes and broken boilers

• £16.8 million will also go to those duped into buying un-needed policies
• Fine follows scandal when staff were given bonuses for cold calling
• Company used small print get out clauses to avoid helping customers
• Many people complained on consumer watchdog sites

Read the article form your opinions. The article mentions a US Division, Homeserv USA would appear to be that division. The links at the bottom show some interesting dates, as early as 2010, how much research into Homeserv USA and it's parent Homeserve UK was done?

Just a reminder, you should view the video by Robert (Bob) Day, Director of Customer Service for San Jose Water Company :

"Because we've been around for nearly 150 years, San Jose Water Company doesn't do business with just anybody...I think that over the years, HomeServe has developed a sound reputation." said Robert (Bob) Day, Director of Customer Service for San Jose Water Company.

The Partners testimonial videos for both San Jose Water Company (SJWC) and California Water Services (CWS) are available on the Homeserv USA website. I don't think either video mentions payments to either SJWC or CWS? ORA/DRA has document both an $8 million exclusivity fee and other revenues. If you are concerned send an email.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company having done extensive research and doesn't do business with just anybody, not accounting for Homeserv USA revenues and  properly, transparently disclosing what is done with the revenues and what do we ratepayers should receive? Send an eMail as shown below and ask CPUC what do we get, how and when?

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.

Other people to drop an email (note) and express your opinion are:

• Scott Herhold, San Jose Mercury News, sherhold@mercurynews.com
• Julie Putnam, NBC Channel 5, julie.putnam@nbcuni.com

Other links, on this news:

• BBC online article, on the 30 million pond fine
• The Guardian article, "Is home emergency insurance the next PPI mis-selling scandal. As HomeServe faces £34.5m fine, this is what it means to its two million-plus customers"
• Financial Conduct Agency, Press Release, HomeServe fined £30 million for widespread failings
• Financial Times, Homeserve UK revenue drops and customer base drops

Should SJWC ratepayers get a portion of Homeserv USA revenues?

In my continuing research I noticed that DRA/ORA apparently got a ruling that affects certain revenues that Class A & B water utilities receive and apparently must pay a percentage, received from Homeserv USA to their ratepayers. Since San Jose Water Company is a Class A Water Utility, the following questions seem appropriate:

• Does SJWC receive an annual payment from Homeserv USA? for exclusivity?
• Does SJWC also receive an annual percentage of the premiums SJWC ratepayers pay?
• How much are the total annual revenue that SJWC receives from Homeserv USA?
• How will SJWC credit it's ratepayers for the 10% mentioned in the DRA/ORA report?
• How much credit will each ratepayer receive? and when?
• There's apparently a significant amount of revenue involved? How much?
• Will SJWC share this information in an open and transparent fashion?

Keep in mind that this ruling reveals some interesting points that could result in credits from Homeserv USA revenues, as well as other services provided by all Class A & B including San Jose Water Company (SJWC):

"21 In November of 2011, as part of its exclusivity contract with HomeServe, CWS 

22 received the first of seven annual payments (“Annual Payment”) in the amount of 
23 $1,169,000.00 in addition to its standard contracted business activity revenue."

Note: 7 x $1,169,000.00 = $8,183,000.00 plus at least 10% of the premiums - where is the money going? Not only for California Water Services? but what about San Jose Water Company?  

COMPANY-WIDE REPORT, ON THE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS 
OF CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 
General Rate Case Application 12-07-007

Page 2-3 excerpt
1 1. Overview of New Rules
2 As of July 1, 2011 new rules governing NTP&S went into effect. Rule X in D.10-
3 10-019 (Decision Adopting Standard Rules and Procedures for Class A and B Water and
4 Sewer Utilities Governing Affiliate Transactions and the Use of Regulated Assets for
5 Non-Tariffed Utility Services) and D.11-10-034 (Modified Decision Regarding Petition
6 for Modification of Decision 10-10-019) provides a uniform methodology for tracking
7 and accounting for NTP&S activities (formerly referred to as “Excess Capacity”)
8 provided by Class A and Class B water utilities using regulated resources to generate
9 additional revenues. In addition to providing uniform guidelines for unregulated cost
10 allocation, the Commission in D.10-10-019 also adopted basic rules for revenue sharing
11 with ratepayers which designate NTP&S activity types as being either “active” or
12 “passive.” This distinction between “active” and “passive” activities assigns a gross
revenue sharing rate to ratepayers of 10% to “active” and 30% to “passive” activities.4

Page 2-6-7 excerpt
20 b) Home Service USA Forecast
21 In November of 2011, as part of its exclusivity contract with HomeServe, CWS
22 received the first of seven annual payments (“Annual Payment”) in the amount of
23 $1,169,000.00 in addition to its standard contracted business activity revenue. In
response to DRA’s data request,7 24 CWS stated that it did not share any portion of the 2011
25 Annual Payment from HomeServe with ratepayers and because CWS used 2011 data for
26 test year forecasting, this revenue was excluded from CWS’s forecasted revenue sharing

 Response to Data Request MC8-003 Q2.
2-7
for Test Year 2014. In a subsequent data request response,8 1 CWS further explained that
2 pursuant to the settlement agreement between CWS and DRA in A.08-05-019, CWS was
3 not required to share the 2011 Annual Payment with ratepayers. DRA examined the
4 terms of the settlement agreement, which is currently awaiting Commission approval, and
agrees that CWS need not have shared the Annual Payment in 2011.9 5 However, the
6 pending settlement in A.08-05-019 also states that “[b]eginning with the November 2012
7 annual payment from HomeServe, ratepayers will receive a 10% share of the annual
payment that Cal Water receives from HomeServe.”10 8 For this reason, DRA
9 recommends that this Annual Payment revenue be subject to ratepayer sharing at the rate
10 of 10% for this GRC and has calculated its revenue sharing test year forecasts for each
11 district accordingly. To allocate the $116,900 ratepayer’s share of the Annual Payment
12 amongst CWS’s districts, DRA applied an allocation factor that is in proportion to the
13 HomeServe revenue generated in each CWS district.

If your concerned about the potential  San Jose Water Company not accounting for Homeserv USA revenues and  properly, transparently disclosing what is done with the revenues and what do we ratepayers should receive? Send an eMail as shown below and ask CPUC what do we get, how and when?

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.

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.