Archive | July, 2015

Look for latest rate increase notice in your next Cal Water bill

18 Jul

I’ve already posted this rate case application,

https://www.calwater.com/rates/

From there click on “General Rate Case,” and then on the next page “Cal Water 2015 GRC Application”. I can’t send you those links  because they don’t work. 

I got that information from a friend, after I’d already called the CPUC Advisor’s office and been told there was no such application. Later I got a reply, very defensive, saying the application hadn’t been filed with their office until the 9th. Wow – the article I posted was from a market watch investor’s newsletter, dated July 6, telling of the application filed July 3. So, the investors are told about these increases before the ratepayers are notified, and that’s, well, a pile of horse shit.

But, the woman did send me the following information, which, for some reason, she would not give me over the phone. All I had wanted to know was the procedure, and these two gals just kept denying there had been anything filed.

That’s why I do this – somebody has to keep a stick to the flak catchers.

From Claudia.Portillo@cpuc.ca.gov

Customers should receive a notice informing them of Cal Water’s GRC Application in their next bill. Depending on the type of bill cycle Cal Water has they must inform their customers within 45-75 days of filing their application. The notice must also be posted in a local paper of general circulation within 20 days of filing the notice. I don’t know what newspaper that would be in your area.

The process for the application at this point will be that it will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) and a Commissioner. The Judge will schedule a Prehearing Conference (PHC). At the PHC the scope, schedule, and other substantive proceeding matters will be scheduled. The schedule includes possible evidentiary hearings as well as possible public hearings so there is no information about that until later on in the proceeding process. If or when public hearings are scheduled Cal Water will post a notice in the local paper as well as send customer notices.

A copy of the application is available on the CPUC website as well as from Cal Water. The notice you will receive will have more information about the application and how to obtain copies of it and any exhibits that were submitted with the application.

 If you would like to cotinine to be informed and follow this proceeding you may do so by using the CPUC’s free subscription service. I’ve provided the link below.

 http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/

The real stinker in this application is they want to consolidate the Chico district with Oroville and Marysville, where they have enormous infrastructural problems. Cal Water has already been told that their rates for these areas are becoming onerous. Cal Water only got a  partial approval on their last rate increase application because there was so much protest, and a couple of CPUC judges actually questioned the increases for Oroville and Marysville. Cal Water had wanted a 38 percent increase in Chico, but it was cut to 19. So  now they will try to include Chico in these districts so they can spread out the pain.

Last time they asked for an increase, they listed the money they wanted for salaries, pensions and benefits – only $168,000 for infrastructure, the rest of the million dollar increase went to the employees. This time they say it’s all for infrastructure. Well, like Connie is always asking in Marysville – when was the last time you saw a Cal Water crew digging up a street to fix anything? 

If you do, send me the pictures, I’ll post them here. 

Tags: ,

Airport Commission scheduled to meet July 28 – Chico Chamber demanding commercial air service, wants city to pay $40 – 60,000 for a survey

17 Jul

thanks Jim for reminding me – the airport report, released in March, is a must-read.

http://www.chico.ca.us/airport/documents/AirlineFeasibiltyCommitteeReport3-3-15.pdf

Read it and ask yourself why we need to spend money on another survey. Katie Simmons of Chico Chamber wants a survey “of who uses the airport and where they fly”, and then she wants the city to guarantee the airline over $3 million in revenues, meaning, if they don’t sell tickets, the taxpayers pay.  For roughly 60 people who fly regularly. Many of the businesses in the survey suggested they’d be as happy to use a ground shuttle to Sacramento Airport if shuttle tickets were priced more reasonably. The shuttle currently charges $60, one way.  Respondents said they’d be willing to pay $35. Most respondents expressed total disinterest in paying for any kind of study. Simmons is demanding the taxpayers pay for it.

Read it yourself. There’s an airport commission meeting scheduled  for July 28. 

Tags: , ,

David Little: “worst development of all was the advent of an online reporting system for crimes…”

16 Jul
This is a stupid editorial – Little admits the cops have dropped the ball, but instead of blaming poor attitude he blames staff shortages and low pay. He seems to miss what really happened – they let our town sink into a state of disgrace – “drug deals in City Plaza” – demanding bigger salaries and more cops. They got that in January – it’s been seven months, and the crime and homeless situations aren’t getting better, they’re getting worse. There’s still a sign on the post office annex saying, “Due to security concerns…” the annex is locked up tight between 10 pm and 7 am, no getting your mail late at night. That just happened over the last year because the homeless had turned the annex into a fleabag hotel and the cops wouldn’t stop them. David Little isn’t a journalist, he’s a propagandist.

Editorial: Community policing model needs to give hope to victims

POSTED: 07/06/15, 8:25 PM PDT | UPDATED: 1 WEEK, 1 DAY AGO
0 COMMENTS

The Chico Police Department says it’s going to give “community-oriented policing” a try. Though it sounds promising, we can’t help but wonder if it’s more than just a trendy phrase.

The community policing model is all the rage, and new Police Chief Mike O’Brien is excited about giving it a whirl. He called it a “major change” last week when the department was restructuring in order to implement that community policing model.

It’s not just O’Brien’s vision. Mike Dunbaugh, the interim chief before O’Brien took over last month, was also a big proponent of the community policing model.It’s easy to see why, because it sounds so rudimentary: Police try to fix crime problems that are important to the community.O’Brien said the department will focus on crimes that have eroded the quality of life in Chico, things such as bicycle thefts, home burglaries, vehicle smash-and-grab robberies and criminal activity by transients.

“I hear it from every segment of this community that this is what we need to get a handle on,” O’Brien said last week.Dunbaugh said on his way out that the new structure “simplifies our operation.” It divides the city into three geographic areas — the downtown area, and then the rest of the city east and west of Highway 99.The restructured department is set up to be more focused on patrol rather than administration. As O’Brien puts it, the department will be “more responsive … to the community.”Community-oriented policing is described by the U.S. Department of Justice as a philosophy that uses community partnerships and problem-solving techniques to address conditions that facilitate crime. Citizens will welcome this new model, because many feel crime has gotten out of hand and the Police Department hasn’t done enough to combat it.

Part of the problem was a shrinking workforce as the city budget took a nosedive. As the Police Department was reduced in size, management decided to discontinue many of the things that citizens value — downtown patrols, officers on high school campuses, traffic cops and so forth.

Worse yet, things like downtown crime, bicycle thefts and drug deals in City Plaza barely got the department’s attention.

The worst development of all was the advent of an online reporting system for crimes. If somebody would get a $2,000 bicycle stolen, $5,000 in electronics, or even a gun, victims were told to fill out a form online. In most instances, there was no interaction with a detective or officer. Victims would fill out the form and never hear from the department again.

The great online reporting tool was a black hole of information.

People undoubtedly stopped reporting crimes because it was a waste of their time. The only reason to fill out the form was if you were lucky enough to have insurance.

The message was obvious: Sorry, folks, you’re on your own.

The online reporting system started Jan. 1, 2013. Sure, it saves money, but we’ve yet to see evidence this supposed database of crimes is being used to solve them.

Since a new City Council majority took over in December, the department is growing again. That’s why some of the special enforcement teams, such as downtown patrols, have come back.

What really needs to happen, however, is for citizens to regain confidence that police can help crime victims. Even if the department doesn’t get rid of online reporting, human follow-up — just a call to let victims know the report was seen, and that officers are looking — would go a long way toward mollifying a skeptical public.

Catching a few of the thieves, and then publicly celebrating that success, wouldn’t hurt either. The department needs a few victories.

Tags: , ,

Orme says garbage deal isn’t about the money! What a liar!

14 Jul
Something Orme forgets to mention is that city of Chico residents will be forced onto garbage service whether they want it or not. The county agreement doesn’t require residents to get garbage service, so they only got complaints from existing customers. Orme won’t admit, the haulers will have to jack rates substantially to include those rainbow services like street sweeping and illegal dumping clean-up. 

I can almost hear Orme sweating right now. He’s trying to answer the critics, including me, and it just doesn’t sound sincere. 

City of Chico advancing slowly toward waste franchise agreement

By Ashley Gebb, Chico Enterprise-Record

POSTED: 07/13/15, 4:59 PM PDT | UPDATED: 2 HRS AGO

0 COMMENTS

Chico >> As the implementation date keeps shifting, Chico’s city manager says a waste franchising deal is still in the works as the city negotiates with haulers to create an easier, effective transition.

The city has been working with Recology and Waste Management since August to split Chico’s waste hauling between the two refuse companies. An initial goal was to have the system in place by the start of this year, then March 1, and then July.

This week, Orme said he is no longer focused on a timeline but ensuring the best outcome. He’ll meet with the haulers again this week to negotiate.

“What this shows is the city’s willingness to take its time on implementing such a large change to the public,” he said. “We need to do this right. We don’t need to see how fast we can do it.”

The goal is to negotiate franchises with Waste Management and Recology based on two exclusive residential service zones divided on a split of the current revenue base. The city would set the maximum rates for both commercial and residential services

Negotiations are confidential so Orme could not release any details about what has been discussed so far or points of disagreement. He did say the discussions are a challenge, as the city tries to push for fairness for both the haulers and the taxpayers.

“This is something that has to be done right, if it can be done,” he said. “Both haulers have been good partners through the negotiation process and seem to want to do what is right for the community.”

In the city’s favor is that it will not be the first local government in this area to implement such a change. Beginning March 1, a franchise agreement went into effect for Butte County residents who live outside city limits, giving three waste hauling firms the exclusive right to operate in three specified zones.

Waste Management alone now serves the northwest area of the county, excluding the city of Chico. Only Recology serves the southern portion of the county outside Oroville, Gridley and Biggs. Biggs is served exclusively by Waste Management under a separate contract.

“It makes it a lot easier when you have somebody who was a test case,” Orme told members of the Local Government Committee in May. “Watching the rollout of the county has been very educational.”

At the committee meeting, Butte County Chief Administrative Officer Paul Hahn said the county received more than 500 complaints from citizens in the immediate aftermath of the switch.

“There were a lot of unhappy people and luckily, we were able to fix that within a one- or two-week period,” Hahn said.

The county also realized it could have done several elements differently to ease the transition, and that some components of hauling were not initially addressed in the agreement. A major challenge was Waste Management had no local call center for customers with questions about the service change, which meant calls were directed to Phoenix, Arizona.

“These people had no idea where Butte County was or what our issues were,” Hahn said.

Other issues that arose included a need for a waiver of liability for picking up trash on private roads and addressing inconsistency in additional can agreements, where customers had multiple cans at discounted or free rates that were not accepted by their new haulers. The county worked with the haulers to find solutions.

“Since then, we are down to practically no complaints now,” Hahn said.

The city’s stated goal of switching from a fee agreement to franchises is to recoup the cost the haulers cause through wear-and-tear of city streets, and reduce the hauler truck traffic for both infrastructure and environmental reasons.

“There was a lot of assertion made by individuals that all the city is trying to do is create a revenue strategy,” Orme said. “Our goal is to create accountability by the revenue haulers and make sure no entity is being unfairly taken advantage of — be it the city, the citizens or the haulers.”

Once a tentative agreement has been reached, a draft will be brought before the City Council, which can determine if it desires any changes. Once the council approves the agreement, it could take effect immediately, although shifts in service delivery may stretch over several months.

The council has also expressed interest for the agreement to address items such as street sweeping, leaf collection and other items. Negotiations are taking place within the parameters of the council’s direction, Orme said.

Recology and Waste Management currently operate in the city of Chico through permits, which are approved every five years. The existing permits will expire in June 2016.

Contact reporter Ashley Gebb at 896-7768

Tags:

Is recycling about saving the planet? Or paying bureaucrats’ salaries, benefits and pensions?

13 Jul

I like to look at Anthony Watts’ blog, “Watts Up With That?” for several reasons. First, it’s just enough over my head to make me reach a little. Well, sometimes it’s a lot over my head, but Watt’s keeps it witty and cheerful anyway. Second, he gets comments from all over the world, it’s really interesting to read. Third, I agree with Watts – “Global Warming” has turned into the biggest mass hysteria since “War of the Worlds”. 

There’s a lot of just plain news on WUWT – here’s a story about the California Recyling Fund that I find very sad.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/californian-recycling-fraud-case/

Yes, I believe this is a problem, but, the real killer has been legislative raids on the fund itself – this article from 2009 describes how the CRV fund  “had hummed along successfully for two decades until state officials left it nearly bankrupt after taking $451 million out to help balance the budget.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/30/local/la-me-recycling30-2009nov30

Balance the budget? At that time we didn’t know that meant, paying down the enormous unfunded pension liability – a.k.a. The Pension Bomb. The Pension Bomb has been ticking since Gray Davis agreed to allow the retirement systems to fund pensions with the stock market instead of making employees pay for their own benefits. By 2009 the fund had crashed a few times with the market and been bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions by the taxpayers. Rather than bring the public in on the problem, the legislature started raiding various funds to pay down the pension deficit. They just about tanked the CRV fund, even as beverage sales went up. 

The recycling companies, small Mom and Pop firms and businesses like the Work Training Center started to rattle their chains – they weren’t getting reimbursed at the rates they were paying their customers, and sometimes they weren’t getting any money at all. One small company up near Los Molinos was having trouble staying in business, as were many others. 

I don’t think the fraud problem is too hard to figure out – pending legislation will make it illegal for one person to redeem more than a certain amount of recyclables – no more semi trucks pulling in with thousand of dollars worth of recyclables trucked in from Mexico or another state. But, it includes all kinds of hang-ups for Mom and Pop operations, requiring software reporting programs that will most likely require an extra full-time employee to run. For example, if you get more than $100 from the Work Training Center, or any center, you have to present your identification with an address. Large loads (I’m sorry I don’t know poundage) require a hauler’s license. The days of some old  retired couple just weighing the goods and doling out the cash are over.

According to this article from April, these changes have not been that good  for redemption rate (the rate at which people are returning the containers).

http://resource-recycling.com/node/5884?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ%20MORE%3E%3E&utm_campaign=PRU%2004-08-15

But that’s good for the state, because they need the CRV money to pay salaries, benefits and pensions. “The program changes have resulted in a drop in the redemption rate. At the same time, more consumers are buying drinks, resulting in a revenue boost, Collins noted. The redemption rate for fiscal year 2014-15 is projected to be 81 percent, down from 85 percent in calendar year 2013. The ‘break-even’ rate, or the redemption rate at which there are enough unredeemed containers to pay the fund’s expenses, is projected to be 79 percent. That leaves a gap of only 2 percentage points for fiscal year 2014-15, down from a 10-percentage-point gap in 2013.”

Do you get that? They’re counting on 79 percent of us not recycling so they can pay their salaries and pensions!  Is that outrageous enough for you? The only reason they care about “recycling fraud” is because it takes money out of the state’s pocket. They don’t care if 79 percent of purchased recyclable containers go straight to the landfill. 

This is the same kind of fund raiding that goes on Downtown. They’ve raided the development fund, the sewer fund, and the airport fund right into the red to pay off the pension deficit. The conservatives that are currently in charge blame it on the liberals who just got tossed over – but what are they doing about it? They’ve deferred developer fees, they’ve given fat raises to management and public safety, and they’ve moved funds around to cover their checks. They can’t fix the streets, they can’ fix the park, they are talking about selling at least a portion of Bidwell Ranch to developers. 

Fund Raiders of the Lost Paradise.

Tags: ,

Garbage deal stalled, city will give no details

11 Jul

City Mangler Mark Orme told us at the Local Government Committee meeting a couple of months ago that he would have a franchise deal with one or both garbage haulers “rolled out” by July. I expected the worst – a notice that I would be required to use Waste Management. My experience with Waste Management, both as a customer and a neighbor of customers, has SUCKED.

When the county rolled their deal out in the unincorporated areas, they got two weeks of phone calls, “off the hook”, according to CAO Paul Hahn – complaints about Waste Management, their lousy service, and their excessive new rates. Hahn was clear – the rates were for the county dump, which is starving for lack of business. But he had tried to get better service, and expressed frustration about trying to deal with WM corporate headquarters, located in New Mexico. He said they had no local office – oh, did he just find that out?  They were as rude to him as they were to the customers who were ringing phones “off the hook.” 

After this warning from Hahn, I’m assuming Orme has taken a new, more cautious approach in the city’s franchise talks, because I just got three-month bills on all my garbage accounts from Recology. When I e-mailed the city to ask about it, Linda Herman said, “As far as I know the consultant is still in negotiations with the haulers.  Once that is over, the decision to franchise will still have to go to the City Council and even if it is approved, the haulers would probably need several months to order containers, notify customers etc.  So there is no way that this will happen before September.”

Well, good. It better be an improvement over the county mess, or Orme will have some explaining to do. I’ll try to keep you posted. It’s frustrating to me how they expect to keep us in the dark until they decide to stick it to us. They didn’t learn that lesson from the county. 

Tags: ,

Why are we subsidizing for-profit developers by deferring developer fees?

11 Jul

I got a comment on an old blog recently. It was a blog about the road work on Hwy 32 east of the freeway, and how the developers aren’t paying for work they necessitated with all those new houses and apartments out there.

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2013/08/22/hwy-32-widening-will-caltrans-carry-out-their-threat-to-sue-us-because-we-didnt-collect-developer-fees/

There are no pedestrian or bicycle improvements out there for all those “live units” they’ve built, and they’re continuing to build without adding any. They’re putting people out in the sticks who don’t have cars, without providing safety improvements required for pedestrians and bikes.

From Py:  What about the new ‘low income’ 141 apt. Complex at the corner of 20th & Bruce road’? State law states that a car must give a bicyclist at least 3feet of ‘leeway'(or words to that effect)! What a joke!!

I use my bike to get around town, but I drive when I have to leave the city center, because the car drivers get more agitated the farther you get from Downtown. The cyclist will encounter car drivers who actually question the cyclist’s right to use roads. If there’s not a marked bike path, they act as though cyclists are not allowed. 

But, as a car driver, I get nervous around bike riders who seem to think now that they have a bike, it’s all about bikes! I find a lot of people who have driven all their lives, as soon as they get on a bike, they ride like they drove – remember the old Disney cartoon, Mr. Walker and Mr. Wheeler? Well, they should have made a bike version, the intelligent pedestrian fears bikes as much as cars. The answer is wide roads with adequate space for proper bike lanes and sidewalks, with adequate signage and signals. Why don’t the developments on the outskirts of town have the same amenities as central neighborhoods? Because the city didn’t require it of the developers who made millions out there. 

The city needs to require more of developers.  In that old blog, I posted a conversation I had with Mayor Mark Sorensen in which he told me none of the developer fees had been collected for the Hwy 32 work. Since that conversation, city council has actually deferred developer fees again, saying they want to encourage construction. More construction without proper infrastructure?  As we also discussed in that old blog, Cal Trans threatened to sue the city because they were permitting too much development without setting aside money for the necessitated road improvements.

Just as I feared from this new council, they are talking about developing at least part of Bidwell Ranch.  And this is what we can expect – if we want the bike trails and the other amenities, we will have to pay for them out of the tax pot. Meanwhile the existing streets around town will get worse and worse as we subsidize for-profit developers. 

Latest Cal Water rate case includes proposal to merge water districts – that will be really bad for Chico

8 Jul

Thanks very much to the folks at Marysville for Reasonable Water Rates for staying on top of Cal Water’s incessant vampire demands. I have tried to get information online and have made various phone calls but come up with years old news and endless recordings referring me to other numbers with endless recordings referring me to other numbers. The Marysville  people have actually filed a formal complaint to the CPUC – that’s a lot of paperwork, not to mention, mileage on your car, hours spent on the phone, etc. 

I do not have a copy of the latest rate case, but here’s a report from Marysville. I’ve highlighted information that should give Chicoans a jolt. 

From the folks at Marysville for Reasonable Water Rates Facebook site:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=453717774787910&id=176321489194208

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST!!!!!

Let’s start out with a little history lesson. Cal Water rates have no where to go but up and up!! In 2011 Cal Water raised water rates in Marysville 53%. Cal Water filed a General Rate Increase and wanted an additional 47%. At the end of the day, after a Formal Complaint was filed with CPUC, and Marysville fought back, we saw an approx. 11% increase. Now Cal Water wants an additional 20% increase. 53% + 11% + 20% = 84% increase in 5 years!! HOLY MOLY!! Not to mention the WRAM surcharge etc.

There are a couple of things that jump out at you in the General Rate Case application that Cal Water filed last week. They want to consolidate operations and rate-making with Marysville, Chico, Oroville and Willows districts. If the consolidation is approved by the almighty CPUC, Marysville rates would increase by approx. 26%. Hold that thought!!! Think about it!! Does that seem to be in the best interest of Marysville? NO!

The GRC states that Cal Water will use 108.3% for infrastructure. Now everyone needs to keep their cell phones handy and snap a picture if you see Cal Water replacing any pipes under Marysville streets.

And to add insult to injury, we included the salaries of the top executives for Cal Water. YOU are paying for those. Including the $500,000 incentive award for the CEO. HOLY COW!! Just think of how many water pipes they could replace with that.

READY TO FIGHT BACK MARYSVILLE?

Are you going to sit there and say nothing about consolidating with other cities (most of which have higher water rates)? Are w going to file another Formal Complaint? Is it time to take the signs out of storage and unite?

MARYSVILLE PROPOSED WATER RATE INCREASES – July 2015

16.3%-2017
1.8%- 2018
1.0%- 2019

The Application
The CPUC requires Cal Water to submit GRC applications every three years to ensure that water rates accurately reflect the cost of providing water service. As part of its GRC, Cal Water has proposed consolidating operations and rate-making for its Chico, Marysville, Oroville, and Willows Districts to improve affordability and develop administrative efficiencies.

With Consolidation – If this consolidation is approved by the CPUC as proposed, Cal Water requests revenue increases for the consolidated district of $6,545,081, or 20.3%, for 2017, $676,337, or 1.7%, for 2018 and $960,412, or 2.4%, for 2019. With consolidation, the total revenue increase over the three years would be $8,181,830 or 25.4%.

Without Consolidation – If consolidation is not approved, Cal Water requests revenue increases for its Marysville District of $593,654, or 16.3%, for 2017, $77,574, or 1.8%, for 2018 and $41,081, or 1.0%, for 2019. Without consolidation, the total revenue increase over the three years would be $712,309 or 19.6%.

Cal Water has been providing water to California communities for nearly 90 years, and many of the facilities used for water service have reached the end of their useful lives. For the Marysville District, Cal Water’s requested increase reflects some of the following components:
_ 3.9% of the increase is for projected water supply costs
_ 108.3% of the increase is for water infrastructure improvements
_ -12.2% of the increase is for projected operation and maintenance expenses

The following table shows the base salaries for each executive for 2013, 2014, and 2015:
These increases are intended to compensate the individuals for job performance and overall leadership while being within the “competitive range” of the market data for target total cash compensation for similar positions (“competitive range” is described in more detail above and below).
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE GROUP 2015 Proxy Statement 29
Name
Martin A Kropelnicki $ 640,000 700,000 $ 770,000
Thomas F. Smegal 360,000 381,600 390,000
Francis S. Ferraro 409,000 423,315 432,000
Lynne P.McGhee 235,000 243,000 265,000
Paul G. Townsley 310,000 325,000 335,000

CEO Pay Overview
Mr. Kropelnicki, the Group’s CEO since September 1, 2013, made significant contributions to the Group’s performance in 2014. Based on the 2014 performance objectives. granted Mr. Kropelnicki an equity incentive award with a value of $500,000 for 2014. With a 2014 base salary of $700,000 and his $175,000 short-term incentive compensation bonus (representing a payout of 100% of target for 2014), his total compensation for 2014 was $2,812,657 (as reported in the Summary Compensation Table), which is higher than his 2013 compensation of $968,383 (which included compensation prior to his appointment as CEO). Mr. Kropelnicki became the Group’s CEO on September 1, 2013, and, as such, his 2013 compensation primarily was for his service and contributions.

While all of the above is shocking, the proposal to merge districts is what Chico should be concerned about.

The reason it would be bad to consolidate districts is that Chico enjoys far lower costs than any of the surrounding towns. The rate increases these towns have seen dwarf ours by a mile. The water company knows places like Oroville and Marysville aren’t going to take it much longer, not to mention, their increases have already been declared onerous and excessive by the appropriate state boards and agencies. Local government officials up and down the state have chimed in that the water companies are taking rude advantage of their constituents in the more rural areas, so the water companies are looking to spread the pain.

If you think our rates have been unfair in past, just get ready for a jack boot to the rear-end Chico.

I’ll ask, when will Chicoans be ready to take some signs down to the Cal Water Office on Dr. Martin Luther King Drive? I have old Measure J signs, they are still perfectly good. I am not above turning them inside out and stenciling “Cal Water Employees pay your own benefits” on them and handing them out to anybody who will post them next to their meter box.

Tags: ,

Are you ready for another water rate increase? Cal Water Proposes to raise revenues by $95 million in 2017, another $23 million in 2018, and $23 million more in 2019 – where will YOU get that kind of money?

7 Jul
Thanks to Connie for this article from Market Wired
California Water Service Group 11 hours ago
 
SAN JOSE, CA–(Marketwired – Jul 6, 2015) – On July 3, 2015, California Water Service Group’s (NYSE: CWT) largest subsidiary, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), filed a General Rate Case requesting authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to increase rates to add revenues of $94.8 million in 2017, $23.0 million in 2018, and $22.6 million in 2019.

According to President and Chief Executive Officer Martin A. Kropelnicki, about 80% of the requested increase is attributable to capital improvements needed to improve water supply and upgrade infrastructure in the communities Cal Water serves.

“We need to continue to invest diligently in water supply sources, as well as the pipes, pumps, treatment plants, and other facilities that are needed to provide a safe, reliable water supply to our customers. We are proposing water system improvements totaling $693 million, which is the most significant driver of the requested increase,” he said.

The filing reflects Cal Water’s aggressive cost control measures, which include reduced benefits costs and freezing employee headcount for all positions except those required to make water supply and system improvements.

“Our team has worked hard to control our costs in all parts of our business, and this application shows that effort,” Kropelnicki said.

The filing begins an 18-month review process by the Commission, with new rates expected to become effective in early 2017. The Commission requires a General Rate Case filing every three years to ensure that rates reflect the actual costs of providing service, while allowing the Company a reasonable return on investment in water system infrastructure. The Commission has the authority to approve rate increases that are lower than requested, but not higher.

California Water Service Group is the parent company of California Water Service, Washington Water Service Company, New Mexico Water Service Company, Hawaii Water Service Company, Inc., CWS Utility Services, and HWS Utility Services. Together these companies provide regulated and non-regulated water service to approximately 2 million people in more than 100 California, Washington, New Mexico, and Hawaii communities. Group’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “CWT.” Additional information is available online at www.calwatergroup.com.

Tags:

Thomas Elias: The cow has already got out of the barn on public utility rate reform

6 Jul

I found this article by columnist Thomas Elias on the Marysville for Reasonable Water Rates Facebook page, but I never found it in the ER. He is going over the recent reforms made by the state legislature following the scandal involving California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey. Peevey was in the pocket of PG&E for years, as revealed by e-mails he’d sent them, advising them in various legal matters. He was supposed to protect us, but all the while plotted with PG&E and probably other for-profit utility companies to screw us. 

I agree with Elias – these reforms are no-brainers, but may be too late to help.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/opinion/thomas-elias-puc-reform-bills-are-too-little-too-late/article_f4948cc8-1eda-11e5-9a11-bb46e46fafcd.html

by Thomas Elias

It’s the same with the state Public Utilities Commission these days as with almost everything else: By the time state legislators notice something is a problem, things are so bad, so extreme that other people and agencies have already acted.

Just now, almost six months after state and federal investigators executed search warrants on the homes of former PUC President Michael Peevey and a since-fired Pacific Gas & Electric Co. executive for whom Peevey would apparently do just about anything, lawmakers are finally ready to act.

 Unfortunately, their action is redundant, coming long after the cows have left the barn.

Dollar bills, often rolls of 100-dollar bills, are equivalent to the cows in this metaphor. And the barn is the equivalent of the wallets and bank accounts of tens of millions of customers with gas, electric and water companies regulated by the utilities commission.

For many years before scandal broke, the PUC under Peevey and several predecessors maintained a steady pattern favoring the interests of regulated, privately-owned corporations over those of the consumers they serve.

This pattern extended from pricing to maintenance and safety concerns, from easy OKs of power plant siting to lack of concern over nuclear safeguards at the now-closed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and the Diablo Canyon nuclear power station. It has cost consumers billions of dollars over decades, costs that climb each day.

This has been achieved via a sort of kabuki dance, where utilities routinely ask far more in rate increases than they know they’re entitled to. The PUC responds by cutting the requests, still giving utilities larger increases than reality justifies. Then both the commission and the companies brag about being “consumer-friendly.”

The dance went on unchecked for decades, legislators paying virtually no heed. The lawmakers also routinely rubber-stamped appointees to the commission named by current Gov. Jerry Brown and predecessors like George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Each commissioner then served a six-year term without even the possibility of being fired for one-sided rulings.

Now, long after this column exposed the corrupt pattern and with a federal grand jury working on this case, at long last comes a state legislator to “do something” about the PUC. That’s Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Rendon of Lakewood. One of his bills would set up an inspector general at the commission, empowered to investigate its activities.

Another would outlaw secret contacts among commissioners and utility executives by requiring publication of all communications between them during rate-setting proceedings. Such “ex parte” contacts have long been illegal, but no one paid attention. So phone calls and private dinners like those documented involving Peevey, current Commissioner Mike Florio and executives of PG&E and Southern California Edison continued with impunity until earlier this year, when scandal broke.

The Rendon bills are too little, too late. Far better to give the commission’s existing Office of Ratepayer Advocates some real power to fight and expose the ongoing misdeeds of the PUC. Rather than set up a new inspector general, why not make the existing advocacy office independent?

And with no ability for consumers to protest PUC decisions anywhere but in appeal courts, it’s now far too difficult to do anything about wrongheaded, one-sided commission rulings. Why not allow consumers to sue in trial courts, where they could present evidence rather than being confined to working with evidence developed during the PUC’s own proceedings, where administrative law judges have been exposed lately as subject to occasional bias?

Those are simpler, less expensive changes than what Rendon proposes, the only legislative fixes for the PUC now proposed.

Even more important to cleaning up this long-corrupt agency would be for legislators to put a spotlight on any appointee proposed by any governor. Also, if lawmakers would hold meaningful, thorough hearings on the PUC’s questionable actions. This is already within their power, but even with the scandal in progress, it still does not happen. Lawmakers show no appetite for contesting any proposed commissioner or any commission actions. That’s how consumers got stuck with Peevey, a former Edison president whose corrupt practices were easy to foresee.

So, yes, the Legislature can and should do something about the PUC, but the best thing it could be is wake up and perform the watchdog duties it has neglected for decades.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →