Archive | Cal Water RSS feed for this section

Lou Binninger: private water providers like Cal Water charge up to 80 percent more than municipal providers

8 Oct

Marysville Can’t Afford Cal Water By Lou Binninger

Territorial Dispatch, Oct. 7 2015

http://territorialdispatch.biz/2015/oct/Oct7-2015WEB.pdf

 Marysville households are in shock over their water bills. Olivehurst, Linda and Yuba City residents can use much more water, add their sewer fee and still pay far less than Marysville people spend just for water. And, many of those water bills are larger than what people owe for PG and E. 

Why? Marysville is controlled by California Water Service (CWS), a for-profit corporation. CWS is known for high water rates, big profits and generous dividends. The other water systems are municipal, owned by the people and have low rates.

CWS bills are steep enough to cause customers to move. Cheaper options are 5 minutes away, just outside Marysville city limits.

Most Marysville lawns and landscaping were brown prior to drought restrictions. People could not afford the price of water in 2012. The city looks like no one gives a damn. Properties look abandoned.

However, other cities found a solution. Create a public water company and purchase the infrastructure (pipes, wells, tanks etc.). The citizens of Marysville already own the water. CWS is paid to deliver that water to them.

Food & Water Watch (FWW), a nonprofit advocate for safe and affordable drinking water, helps communities move to public control. In 2009, FWW studied nearly 5,000 water utilities and 1,900 sewer utilities and concluded that private entities charge up to 80 percent more for water and 100 percent more for sewer services.

CWS rates are much higher, 3-4 times higher.

In the current CWS rate case submitted to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) more than half of the requested 25% increase goes to improving CWS operations in San Jose. Less than one mile of the more than 54 miles of Marysville water line is listed to be replaced. In the last rate case CWS wanted 47% (2013) more and before that they were awarded a 55.5% (2011) spike in rates.

In November 2002, CalAm (Cal-American Water Co), the City of Felton’s (pop 4057-yr 2010) water provider, proposed a 74% rate increase over three years. Felton residents formed Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW), and with legal help from Santa Cruz County, fought the rate increase. CPUC reduced it to 44%.

However, fearing future escalating costs, FLOW began working on a plan to buy the water system and turn it over to nearby San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD), a public utility. By 2005, FLOW enlisted the help of FWW and worked on a ballot initiative to raise the funds to buy the system.

They were successful. The ballot initiative won with nearly 75 percent of the vote. SLVWD then proposed to buy the system for $7.6 million. CalAm/RWE refused to sell. SLVWD pursued eminent domain to force a buyout. Just before the case was to go to jury trial, Cal-Am agreed to terms.

Today, with Felton now served by a public utility, the average resident’s bill has dropped by at least 50%. FLOW has calculated that even with using a property tax increase to pay off Cal-Am, most residents are already saving as much as $400 per year.

Citizens of Ojai (pop 7581-yr 2013), east of Santa Barbara, have been working on buying-out Golden State Water (GSW) and joining adjacent Casitas Municipal Water District. Casitas delivers water at one-third the price. In 2008, GSW hiked its water rates by 34.9%. In January 2011 they bumped rates again 26.2%.

On August 13, 2013, Measure V was put on the ballot to approve joining Casitas, issue bonds to buy GSW and make capital improvements. It passed with 87.4% of the vote.

Ojai customers expect 10-15% rate decreases the first year after purchase and for rates to remain stable. The typical customer would experience an annual savings of $141.00. They project that savings will increase to $1500.00 per year by 2025.

Though the court has ruled for Ojai FLOW / Casitas Water District to purchase Golden State, the legal wrangling continues. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in July 2015.

Marysville residents have been slapped with similar or greater rate increases as either Felton or Ojai. No wonder Appeal Democrat writer Harold Kruger believes Marysville leaders are soft on the issue. Maybe it’s time the residents take charge.

Tags: , ,

City council makes last minute agenda change, announces Cal Water presentation tonight

6 Oct

Added to the council agenda late yesterday, Cal Water is scheduled to make a “presentation” before tonight’s regular council meeting.

I have been asking Mayor Mark Sorensen to become an “Intervenor” and formally protest this rate hike. He has not responded to me in any way, but announced at a previous meeting he wanted to bring Cal Water in.  I’ve watched the agendas eversince, and when I checked the agenda that was mailed to me last week for tonight’s meeting, there was nothing about Cal Water.

Last night after I heard it on the news, I checked again – still nothing. My Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk e-mailed me to say she’d seen the news bit but had also checked the agenda and found nothing.

Oh, but now it’s suddenly on the agenda. The miracle of computers, eh?

It’s scheduled for the first part of the meeting, under “Presentations.” When I received the agenda last week, North Valley Ag was the only business listed there.

I know – it really doesn’t matter. I’m not planning to attend. I sent a list of questions to Mark Sorensen and Sean Morgan:

I see the Cal Water presentation has been added to the agenda – it was not on the agenda I received last week, I looked for it.  I heard it on the news last night that Cal Water would be making this presentation.  Thanks for keeping me in the loop (sarcasm alert). 

 

I don’t know if the public will be allowed to ask questions, but looking at their presentation I see there’s nothing about employee expenses, pension liability, or how much employees pay toward their own  benefits and pension.

 

I hope one  or all of you will ask these questions. And, I’d also like to know – why hasn’t the infrastructure been maintained? Why all these repairs now? What projects do they have to show for the last three consecutive rate increases we’ve received over the last 5 years? One notice listed $384,000 for pensions, and only $164,000 for infrastructure. I still have that notice.

Thank you for your due diligence to this matter, Juanita Sumner

I’m going to hold my breath until after the meeting. The Marysville City Council also invited Cal Water in for a “presentation.” They listened politely, asked a few pointy questions, and then voted unanimously to become an “Intervenor” and formally protest the proposal. 

Maureen Kirk has got “party” status, meaning, CPUC sends her updates of what is happening with our case. I’ve asked and asked for the county to become an Intervenor, Maureen has told me she’s going to check again with county counsel Bruce Alpert to see if that’s happening. 

Imagine my surprise when I read this on the Marysville For Reasonable Water Rates:

Interestingly, Butte County is also seeking party status. It filed its motion in late August.

“With or without consolidation, the proposed rate increases would impose a significant burden on the county, as a customer of Cal Water. Further, the rate increases would affect an undue hardship on county residents in the Chico and Oroville districts, as many Cal Water customers in these areas are of limited means,” Butte County’s county counsel wrote. “The average income in the affected county areas is low to moderate, with many customers on fixed incomes and/or government assistance. Economic development in these areas is slow to regain footing, as the economy is slow to recover.”

Wow! That was hard-hitting stuff.

But there was more.

“The county, as a Cal Water customer and on behalf of its residents residing in the Chico and Oroville districts, has an interest in opposing consolidation and minimizing the proposed rate increases in the above-captioned application based on the direct burden to the county and the hardship of the affected county residents,” the county’s filing said.

Wow again!!

Butte County isn’t taking any guff from Cal Water. The gloves are off.

Well, that’s nice of the MFRWR to say, but I’m very disappointed that Butte County did not use Bruce Alpert’s very expensive time to pursue Intervenor status. 

I’m disappointed in myself somewhat, I wish I could muster up the motivation to file for at least party status, write up some sort of protest – but here’s the thing. I don’t like standing up like that, with nothing but a cold breeze blowing up the back of my skivvies.

We’ll have to see what our council decides to do.

Tags: ,

U-6, labor force participation, the poverty rate, and the New One Percent

28 Sep

I was just questioning the affordability of Cal Water’s proposed rate increase, here:

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2015/09/23/are-cal-waters-rates-affordable-for-butte-county/

Since then I’ve been seeing more evidence that NONE of California can afford to foot the bill for Cal Water’s champagne lifestyle anymore. Read Dan Walters, here, in the Sac Bee, published just the other day.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/dan-walters/article36719727.html

Walters is talking about our “true unemployment rate” or U-6, “which counts not only workers who are officially unemployed, but those ‘marginally attached’ to the labor force and those involuntarily working part-time.”

In Chico, for example, we have hundreds of part-time CARD workers, who by a decision of the board, were cut to 28 hours or less so that CARD would not have to pay Obamacare on these people. Meanwhile, roughly 33 CARD management employees enjoy fully paid packages running as much as $23,000  a year and full retirement at age 55 – for which they pay nothing. 

Walters reports, “Our U-6 rate is 14 percent, down a bit from the recession but still the nation’s second-highest, topped only by Nevada’s 15.2 percent.”

And here’s something I had never heard before – Walters compares our unemployment figure with our employment figure – the “labor force participation rate”. 

“Finally, the true employment picture is affected by the “labor force participation rate,” the percentage of those in the prime working age group (16-64) working or seeking work. Ours is 62.3 percent, the lowest level in 40 years.”

So, “When more than a third of potential workers sit on the sidelines, the official unemployment rate, or even U-6, look much better than they truly are. The true underemployment rate may be closer to 20 percent.”

That sounds more like Chico to me, where most of the people I know are not as employed as they would like to be – construction workers who are not getting 40 hours a week even in this supposed “building boom” we’ve been hearing about, salespeople who are not making enough sales to earn a living, retail workers who are held to less than 30 hours a week because their boss, like CARD, can’t afford Obamacare. 

I talked about the poverty rate in Chico in a recent blog – that’s people living below the poverty level ($24,000/year for a family of four). Chico’s poverty rate is higher that California – 23% compared to 17% statewide. That’s according to

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110213/00,0613014

Statistics are tough – we aren’t counting all those street people, this is information given by households to the Census Bureau. “Household” meaning a group living under one roof. We also have the State Franchise Tax Board, the IRS, the Social Service administration and the welfare agencies. According to all those people, Chico is poor by state standards, even with all those public salaries over $100,000/year – it takes a lot of poor people to balance out Mike Ramsey and Mark Orme. 

So, we’re poor for California – according to Walters, California is poor by national standards.

Back to the poverty rate. It’s not only higher than the national rate, but as the California Budget and Policy Center points out, the data indicate that 22.7 percent of the state’s children are living in poverty, and they are nearly a third of all officially impoverished Californians.

As dark as that situation may sound, it’s actually worse. By the Census Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure, which uses broader factors including the cost of living – especially housing – 23.4 percent of Californians are impoverished.

Those data are bolstered by two other factoids. Nearly a third of California’s 39 million residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the federal-state health care program for the poor, and nearly 60 percent of K-12 students qualify for reduced-price or free lunches due to low family incomes.

According to the Census Bureau, a lot of Chicoans have no healthcare insurance, more than the state average, so yeah, we have a lot of people who are eligible/enrolled in Medi-Cal. 

I found another “factoid” site when I was looking at all these figures, the California Employment Development Department:

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult.asp?menuChoice=localAreaPro&criteria=high+wage+occupations&categoryType=employment&geogArea=0621017020&more=More

Above you will find the “High Wage Occupations” in Chico. Are you surprised to find it is mostly doctors and other medical professionals? Of course not, that’s come up before – doctors are the highest tier of the new One Percent who own most of the wealth in America, followed by professional athletes.

Are you surprised to find “Chief Executives” at Number Four in Chico? That includes public and private enterprises. In Butte County as well as Chico, I will throw out a guess – most of these positions are in the public sector, Dave Little just ran an editorial about it.

I would also include the “quasi-public” sector – the utility companies, like Cal Water and PG&E. Cal Water management pay nothing toward their benefits and pension, I haven’t been able  to find out about PG&E. 

The One Percent, vs the Ninety-Nine Percent who are too stupid to get it? 

 

Are Cal Water’s rates affordable for Butte County?

23 Sep

 

 

Kern County Board of Supervisors has stood up for their constituents and mounted a formal protest against Cal Water’s latest rate hike. One of the reasons listed in their argument ‘against’ is “affordability”. They claim that Cal Water rates are already not affordable for many residents of Kern County, including Bakersfield, where the census bureau lists the median income at around $56,000/year and a poverty rate of about 20 percent. 

“The EPA’s recommended affordability threshold for water and wastewater costs combined is 2.5% of income, and the California Department of Public Health sets affordability at 1.5% of income,” Supervisor Couch said. “Cal Water’s current rates in the Kern River Valley already far surpass the affordable level and would climb even higher under the current rate proposal. “

Something else Chico has in common with Bakersfield is the little “!” next to the listings “persons in poverty” and “persons without health insurance”.  Chico has a poverty rating – that’s people living below the poverty level (for a family of 4 it’s about $25,000/year) – of 23%. The state level is only about 16%, and for Butte County it’s 20.4%. 

The median income in Chico, even with all these public salaries, is only $43,752. Those dirt daubers in Bakersfield are making a median  income of $56,204.  I would guess that might be because Bakersfield is also the seat of Kern County, so there are a lot of public salaries there too. 

This rate increase is unreasonable, an obvious grab for money to pay down their pension liability. 

From Census Bureau Quick Facts   http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/INC110213/00,0613014

 

Tags: ,

Kern County supervisors vote to formally oppose Cal Water rate hike – what are our local elected officials doing about it?

23 Sep

          Kern County Supervisors kick assky. They have achieved “Intervenor” status, meaning they will formally oppose their Cal Water rate hike. They know how to stand up in Kern County. 

I have asked my Third District Butte County supervisor Maureen Kirk and Chico Mayor Mark Sorensen to get the county board and city council to formally protest the latest proposal from Cal Water, but I haven’t heard anything from them.

Sorensen has actually invited Cal Water to “make a presentation”.  Why isn’t Sorensen acting on this? There is a timeline, and as far as I know, nobody from the city of Chico has  so much as filed a paper in opposition. Please contact Mayor Sorensen at mark.sorensen@chicoca.gov and ask him how he will act in our favor and when.

Supervisor Kirk has applied for and achieved “Party status,” which means, the CPUC e-mails her whenever there’s any news. I’ve been waiting for some news from her, but haven’t heard anything.  You can contact her at MKirk@buttecounty.net

Here’s the latest statewide from Marysville For Reasonable Water Rates:

Kern County Supervisors voted unanimously today to actively oppose a water rate increase by the County’s largest water supplier, California Water Service (CWS).   The action allows the county to officially intervene in a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission, which is considering CWS’s request to raise water rates up to 19.2% in Bakersfield and 10.5% in the Kern River Valley.

Supervisors said they believe it is unfair to expect these residents to absorb such a large increase in their water budget, particularly since CWS has not offered sufficient financial justification for the rate increases.

“More than half of Cal Water’s Bakersfield and Kern River Valley residents have low to moderate incomes or are senior citizens living on fixed incomes,” Board of Supervisors Chairman David Couch said. “This rate increase would impose a significant hardship on these people.”

Supervisors said they have many questions regarding the need for rate increases that could send water bills for CWS customers in Bakersfield to an average of $1,176 per year and as high as $1,596 on average in the Kern River Valley. The rate increases would come on top of higher water rates approved in 2013.

CWS’ proposal would raise rates incrementally over three years (2017, 2018 and 2019). Its CPUC filing claims the increases are necessary to replace water lines and upgrade facilities in the region, but Supervisors question whether CWS has been providing responsive and effective water service in return for the rates it charges, and they expressed strong concerns about the affordability of the proposed increases.

“The EPA’s recommended affordability threshold for water and wastewater costs combined is 2.5% of income, and the California Department of Public Health sets affordability at 1.5% of income,” Supervisor Couch said. “Cal Water’s current rates in the Kern River Valley already far surpass the affordable level and would climb even higher under the current rate proposal. In Bakersfield, half of Cal Water’s customers have incomes below the federal poverty level, and their water bills will be nearly 50% higher than the affordable threshold if this is approved.”
Couch said county officials will provide formal testimony in opposition to the rate increase later this year.

Tags: , ,

Reader makes some good points

21 Sep

Reader James made a comment on

Cal Water announces usage down by more than 44% – how much do you think that amounts to in WRAM charges?

“I have read that with so many PG&E and other power company ratepayers going to solar to reduce their bills, the power companies are/will be faced with revenue shortfalls.”

I did a little checking and I wanted to clarify – PG&E actually makes money on solar.  They buy it from their customers for about 4 cents a kwh, then turn around and sell it for 16 – 33 cents (baseline to Tier 4).

James also reasoned “ there are legitimate costs for upkeep, repairs, replacement, upgrading etc, as well as salaries/benefits. “

That’s true. I’m asking anybody who sees PG&E or Cal Water engaged in any  of those activities in Chico to send me a photo.

Tags: ,

Cal Water announces usage down by more than 44% – how much do you think that amounts to in WRAM charges?

9 Sep

I’m assuming everybody has got their latest rate increase notice from Cal Water. 

Did you get that Marc? Oh yeah, you don’t live in Chico…

Well, I got another notice this month – “July’s water-use numbers are in: Usage is down more than 44%!”

But you know what that means – WRAM!  Think they’d put their WRAM figure on the bill for all of us to see? Should I call Pete Bonacich and ask him how much Cal Water Chico charged in WRAM this past month while their customers killed lawns and trees to save 44% of usage? 

And my family’s allowance for next month is roughly half of what they allowed us this past month – I’ll have to check my last year’s bills to make sure they’re on the up-and-up there. I save my bills. Do you save your bills Marc?  That’s the only way we can really know what they’ve done to our rates, because even with my formidable intellect, I have a hard time keeping track of these rate increases without a paper trail. Like a lot of people have said at the rate hearings I’ve attended as well as in letters to the papers – these rates just go up and up without any real accountability.

Remember, the latest proposal includes “special requests” that were not disclosed in the notice we received, including a request to dump the 10% cap on WRAM. Like Connie over in Marysville has said, how can it be legal not to disclose the entire proposal to the ratepayers? 

There’s often a vast difference between what is legal and what is ethical, that’s for sure. The CPUC is stacked with ex-employees of utility companies, appointed by governors who received money from the utility companies. Here’s a recent article that details the e-mail trail that shows how chummy our regulators are with the utility managers they’re supposed to be supervising – get ready to get mad, it’s reminiscent of the Enron scandal:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/19/10-emails-detail-pges-cozy-relationship-with-its-regulators#Jellystone

Read this next article from last fall detailing The Moonbeam’s cozy relationship with PG&E – in 2010 he hired his Cabinet Secretary, Dana Williamson, directly from PG&E. Furthermore, “PG&E Corp. gave more than $50,000 to Brown’s campaign for governor in 2010 and contributed $25,000 to his initiative to raise taxes in 2012.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2622212.html#storylink=cpy

He gave some of PG&E’s contributions back when the scandal broke, as if that would wash his hands. I’ve heard rumblings of a recall of Brown, we’ll have to see how far it gets. We’ll also have to see, over many years to come, if the new regulations winding their way through the legislature will turn the CPUC around. 

In the meantime, write those protest letters to the addresses in your Cal Water notice. You might also write letters to Third District supervisor Maureen Kirk, or your own supervisor, and ask how you can help the county achieve Intervenor status and formally protest this Cal Water rate increase. You might also drop a line to Chico Mayor Mark Sorensen, ask him what the city is doing to protest this rate increase. I’ve written another letter to the Enterprise Record, we’ll see if they print it.

Chico Cal Water customers received a notice in their latest bills regarding an application made July 9, proposing not only a rate increase but consolidation with Oroville, Willows, and Marysville districts. 

While many people are already frustrated with repeated rate increases,  consolidation with these other districts should also raise concerns. Marysville, for example, has been told they need extensive infrastructure improvements over miles of long-neglected water lines. Cal Water’s last rate increase proposal for Marysville was rejected as onerous by the CPUC, so Cal Water is trying to spread those costs over a larger constituency. 

Not all of Cal Water’s proposal has been disclosed to the ratepayers.  Office of the Ratepayer Advocate has filed a formal protest, citing “Requests not included in the proposed application,” including a special request “eliminating 10% cap on WRAM amortization…” 

“Water Rate Adjustment Mechanism”  – when you don’t use enough water to cover Cal Water’s “fixed operating costs” ( salaries, benefits and pensions), they are allowed to tack the difference on to your bill anyway. If this charge on your bill already outrages you, wait until they dump the cap. 

Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk has asked the county of Butte to become an “Intervenor” and lodge a formal protest of this latest action.  Chico Taxpayers Association has asked Mayor Mark Sorensen to do same. Please contact Supervisor Kirk at MKirk@ButteCounty.net and Mayor Sorensen at Mark.Sorensen@chicoca.gov and ask them how you can help with this protest. 

Tags: ,

Marysville’s take on ORA protest – “Why would anything be confidential – does the ratepayer not have a right to know everything that they are paying for?

4 Sep

From Marysville for Reasonable Water Rates Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marysville-For-Reasonable-Water-Rates/176321489194208?fref=nf

READY FOR THIS MARYSVILLE?

The Office of Ratepayers Advocates has filed a PROTEST on many items in the newest California Water General Rate Case aka water rate increases.

Below are totals of this proposed increase for ALL of California.
TOTAL PROPOSED INCREASE-$140 MILLION!!!!

$94,838,100 or 16.5% – 2017
$22,959,600 or 3.4% – 2018
$22,588,200 or 3.3% on January 1, 2019

HERE ARE A FEW OF THE LARGE TICKET ITEMS THAT WILL BE SPREAD AROUND TO EACH CAL WATER DISTRICT-INCLUDING MARYSVILLE:

ALMOST $65 MILLION WILL GO TO THE GENERAL OFFICE. IF YOU DO YOUR MATH THAT IS 1/2 of the TOTAL AMOUNT OF RATE INCREASES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. THIS MONEY THAT COULD BE USED TO UPGRADE OUR OLD INFRASTRUCTURE.

General Office additions of:
$39 million
$24 million is designated for computers/software;
$2.2 million General office;Water quality lab improvement project

CAL WATER HAS MADE A-Special Request: Eliminating 10% Cap on WRAM Amortization.

ONE OF THE MOST DISTURBING ITEMS IS PAGES AND PAGES MARKED CONFIDENTIAL!! WHY WOULD ANYTHING BE “CONFIDENTIAL” ? DOES THE RATEPAYERS NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR?

Cal Water identified many items, and occasionally entire pages, as confidential that have not been marked confidential in other Class A Water Utility GRC’s, nor in previous Cal Water applications. Additionally, much of this material is publically available elsewhere, such as on the Urban Water Management Plan website. ORA is concerned that this overly broad approach to confidentiality will negatively impact ORAs review process and the public’s ability to evaluate and potentially participate in the
proceeding.

AND CAL WATER WONDERS WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET?

Tags:

Thanks Maureen Kirk for taking action on the Cal Water rate hike – time to put some heat to Mayor Sorensen’s seat

2 Sep

Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk has filed paperwork with the CPUC to become a “party” to the recent rate increase application made by Cal Water.  She’s been keeping me informed of the process. Here is a notice about the first hearing on the matter. Of course it will take place in San Francisco.

 

9/21/15
9:00 a.m.
ALJ McKinney
Comr Sandoval

A.15-07-015 (PHC) – In the Matter of the Application of CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY (U60W), a California corporation, for an order (1) authorizing it to increase rates for water service by $94,838,100 or 16.5% in test year 2017, (2) authorizing it to increase rates by $22,959,600 or 3.4% on January 1, 2018, and $22,588,200 or 3.3% on January 1, 2019, in accordance with the Rate Case Plan, and (3) adopting other related rulings and relief necessary to implement the Commission’s ratemaking policies,
Commission Courtroom, San Francisco

The pre-hearing conference is the first open forum in the general proceeding. Its purpose is to determine the potentially affected parties, specific issues, and to develop a preliminary filing and hearing schedule. After the conference, the Administrative Law Judge issues a scoping memo that lists the issues raised during the pre-hearing conference and a schedule for addressing these issues in the general proceeding.

Section (a) of Rule 1.4 of the CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides the ways in which an interested person/organization can become a party to a proceeding. 

(a) A person may become a party to a proceeding by:

(1) filing an application (other than an application for rehearing pursuant to Rule 16.1), petition, or complaint; (the term “application is not referring to a form, it is a formal document that the party creates and submits to the CPUC)

(2) filing (i) a protest or response to an application (other than an application for rehearing pursuant to Rule 16.1) or petition, or (ii) comments in response to a rulemaking;

(3) making an oral motion to become a party at a prehearing conference or hearing; or

(4) filing a motion to become a party.

As such, this 9/21 Prehearing Conference is one forum at which Butte County (or any other affected entity) can request to participate as a Party.

I think this is a job for the Mayor, or the Vice Mayor, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, or some other paid representative of the city. I will send this notice to Mayor Sorensen and City Manager Orme. For one thing, I was just reading over the rules for their travel expenses, and they can afford a lot better hotel than me. For another thing, as elected officials and staffers, they will get a lot better reception from the CPUC people than I would.

I was very disappointed with Sorensen’s limp-wristed motion at last night’s council meeting – a presentation from Cal Water? You mean, an opportunity for Cal Water to pitch the rate hike? 

I informed Mayor Sorensen about the application for this rate hike back in early July, days after it was filed. I sent him the case information and contact information.

Since I informed Supervisor Kirk she’s filed the paperwork to become a “party” and she’s needling the county to apply for “Intervenor” status and formally oppose this rate hike.  

The city of Marysville had a presentation from Cal Water August 18. Directly after that presentation they voted unanimously to apply for “Intervenor” status and formally oppose the rate hike.

Meanwhile Sorensen is only now asking to agendize a presentation?  

It’s time to write those e-mails, tell him we want Intervenor status, we want a formal protest.

Tags: ,

It’s time to press our elected officials about this water rate increase – Chico Mayor Mark Sorensen requests Cal Water rate hike be agendized for public discussion

27 Aug

I am on the notice list for the city council and so I receive the agenda about a week ahead of each meeting. Next week’s agenda had a huuuge surprise – Mayor Mark Sorensen has a request up to agendize a discussion about the Cal Water Rate hike.

“Friday, August 21, 2015 8:02 AM – I do hereby request to add to a future agenda a presentation and discussion of California Water Service Company’s rate cases filed with the California Public Utilities Commission, and the subject of district consolidation. Thanks! Mark Sorensen “

Pardon my surprise, but I’ve been including Sorensen in my inquiries about this rate increase filing ever since July 8, when I sent him the article from Market Watch announcing the application. But he never responded, so I didn’t have any idea what he was thinking.

I wish people would contact Sorensen now, immediately, and tell him we want the city to become an “Intervenor,” which means a formal protest of this rate hike. The county has become “a party,” which means they get notices of what is happening with this case, but in order to make a protest, they have to file for “Intervenor status.”

It’s easy enough to become a party, just file the paperwork. The paperwork for Intervenor is a little more complicated. A CPUC employee admitted to me that we’d be better off having our county or city counsel fill out this paper work. The requirements are vague, there’s a disclaimer that states if you don’t cross your t’s and dot your i’s correctly your application could get round-filed.

Write to the full council – send it through Clerk Debbie Presson, that’s makes it formal. That’s debbie.presson@chicoca.gov

Tell them we want a full protest of this rate hike, the consolidation, and the other items listed by the Office of Ratepayers Advocates, which were not listed on the notice sent out to Cal Water customers.  One thing they’re asking for is elimination of the 10% cap on WRAM. I sent that notice to Sorensen, as well as the notice from the city of Visalia, which has gained Intervenor status on behalf of their district.

It’s time to PUSH!

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →