James Hunter

Monday, December 2, 2013

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

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

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

Saturday, September 14, 2013

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


Monday, September 9, 2013

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!

Friday, August 2, 2013

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.

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.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

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:




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!

Thursday, January 31, 2013

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.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

SJWC - SJW Corporation Compensation & Severance

SJW Corporation - W. Richard (Rich) Roth



Total Severance Package: $11,164,135
plus stock and rights $5,320,962
(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..

Sunday, June 24, 2012

DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, CPUC, SJWC Water Rate Increase Recommedations

The DRA (Division of Ratepayer Advocates) issued a report, "Report on the RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY". The report analyzes the proposed rate increase by the San Jose Water Company and it's recommendations are generally very different.



The annual rate increases are compared, the actual table is on page 1 of the DRA Report, Executive Summary.


The complete report may also be downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat PDF. Reference Docket:A.12-01-003, Exhibit Number DRA -001.


CPUC, Division of Ratepayer Advocates Report on Proposed SJWC Water Rate Increase, April 30, 2012.


Additionally interested readers should be aware on page 1-1 the assumed ROR (Rate of Return) is 8.38%, far higher than current financing rates, prime rate, inflation rate, etc.


The following document is available, ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING.


The original request by San Jose Water Company for the "APPLICATION OF SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE RATES FOR WATER SERVICE".



Item (32), page 14


"Applicant requests that the Commission authorize Applicant to establish a
Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and a Modified Cost Balancing Account (MCBA) as described in Exhibit E, Chapter 19."

Friday, April 20, 2012

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.
    AgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis 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.