Archive | Cal Water RSS feed for this section

Visalia files formal protest of Cal Water’s recent rate increase proposal

26 Aug

Good news from Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk – the city of Visalia has filed a formal protest of their rate increase case. Of course it’s a separate filing but at last the attack seems to be on.

PROTEST OF THE CITY OF VISALIA TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO INCREASE RATES FOR WATER SERVICE IN ALL ITS DISTRICTS

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 2.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the City of Visalia (“Visalia”) files this protest to the application of California Water Service Company (“CalWater”) 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 on January 1, 2018 by $22,959,600 or 3.4%, and on January 1, 2019 by $22,588,200 or 3.3% in accordance with the Rate Case Plan, and 3) adopting other related rulings and relief necessary to implement the Commission’s ratemaking policies. CalWater’s application first appeared in the Commission’s Daily Calendar on July 14, 2015, therefore this protest is timely filed.

II. ISSUES IN DISPUTE As a general matter, Visalia intends to address the reasonableness of the revenue requirements requested by CalWater in its districts in general, but in the Visalia District specifically, and the associated ratemaking mechanisms on behalf of all ratepayers. Visalia does not know at this time which specific issues it will focus its analysis. It is likely that Visalia will address issues similar to those addressed in the last water company general rate case, personnel, general office, capital, special requests, and, if applicable, rate design. Visalia may also address additional issues as its analysis proceeds.

III. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Proceeding Categorization and Need for Hearings Visalia agrees with CalWater’s categorization of this proceeding as “ratesetting” and need for hearings. B. Proposed Procedural Schedule Visalia does not have a schedule to propose at this time but does request that hearings be held at several locations in which Cal Water operates, and that Visalia be a location for a hearing.

Wow, that seems simple enough, but  try writing stuff like this in layman’s language and see how fast they lay their hand across your forehead – NEXT! I’m hoping our county counsel will do something like this, and this morning I sent a note to Chico Mayor Mark Sorensen and City Mangler Mark Orme, asking for some action on their part.

To: mark.sorensen@chicoca.gov, mark.orme@chicoca.gov
 
Hi Fellows, 
I’m forwarding this I got from Maureen Kirk – the city of Visalia has filed a formal protest of their water rate increase. It’s time for the city of Chico to look into this. 
You can check with Maureen, the county is thinking about filing also. 
I would file myself, but looking at these forms and having discussed the subject with a CPUC employee, I realize I’d need legal help that is already available to you. 
I don’t know how much you know about this rate increase. Cal Water is also asking for consolidation with the Oroville and Marysville and Willows districts, which have outrageous infrastructure costs due to many years of neglect of their systems. According to a separate protest filed by the Office or Ratepayer Advocates, Cal Water has made requests that are not included in the public notice, including but not limited to an elimination of the 10 % cap on WRAM. 
I can forward you the information from the ORA if you are interested. You can get more information from Maureen. 

Thanks for your anticipated attention to this matter, Juanita Sumner

Please send a simple note like the above to the Marks, ask them nicely to act on this rate increase. If we can get enough people to protest this thing, we have a very good chance of turning it back.

Tags:

Utility rates on the rise – good news, our county supervisors may be riding to the rescue

24 Aug

Today we got our PG&E bill. Do you read your PG&E bill?  It’s more interesting than your cereal box, certainly, but oftentimes raises more questions than it answers. 

I save my bills, partly to collect my Utility Tax Rebate, but mostly because that’s the only way a person would know how PG&E manipulates the rates. I know, but I still don’t understand. It’s complicated.

I don’t have to tell you that, I mean, you read your bills. Right?

I compared this most recent bill with the bill from the same period in 2014.  They’ve drastically raised Baseline and Tier quantities (the amounts you are allowed to use) while at the same time raising rates, so it’s hard to tell where it all settles.  I see my family used 150 less kilowatt hours than this same period last year – wow, good for us! But, here’s the thing –  that’s 150 kwh at Tier 4 (.33/kwh) – that would have cost me another $49.50 if I actually used it. So, I figure, I shaved that much off my usage, I’d see a significant difference in the total amount due.  But, my electric charge for this period is only $3 less than that same period last year, when I used 150 kwh more.

 I just don’t get that.

Hey, I finally did get  that Cal Water rate increase insert that had been casually left out of my latest water bill. If you didn’t get that insert, which was supposed to explain the latest rate increase proposal and tell you how you could participate in the CPUC decision, please call Cal Water Customer Service Manager Renee Thatford, at (530) 893-6380 and ask her to send you one. 

Although, the insert does not tell us everything Cal Water asked for in their proposal.  In the very defensive insert, Cal Water insists they are only trying to “ensure that water rates accurately reflect the cost of providing water service,” and that consolidation with the Marysville, Oroville, and Willows districts will “improve affordability“, but they don’t say, what costs or whose affordability.  What they are leaving out is their annual pension costs, and also that they were denied their last rate increases in some districts because they were too onerous for the ratepayers to bear. Now Cal Water is trying to hide costs for those districts in Chico!

And lastly, they say they will, ” develop administrative efficiencies.”  I will speculate that means, more money for salaries, benefits and pensions. Maybe somebody from Cal Water has a better explanation, I’ll be glad to run it.

“Reasons for Increase” 

  • 3.5% of the increase is for projected water supply costs
  • 96.5% of the increase is for water infrastructure improvements

I don’t understand that 3.5% “projected water supply costs” – we have our own water here, they should give us more itemization there. And then, notice how they’ve lost the “develop administrative efficiencies” thing already and gone straight to “water infrastructure improvements” – they need to itemize this stuff. 

And there’s a lot more that’s not in this notice. You can read the whole proposal at Cal Water’s office on MLK Parkway here in Chico, or you can send a written request for a paper copy to their San Jose Office. 

Be sure to read that carefully – the Office of the Ratepayer Advocate has already filed a formal protest of this action based on the following complaint, including these “Requests not included in the Proposed Application”.  

II. ISSUES

ORA is still reviewing Cal Water’s Application, but has identified several issues that it intends to review and potentially address during this proceeding.

A. Requests not Included in the Proposed Application Should be Stricken

The application includes multiple requests that were not included in the proposed application. The Rate Case Plan states “[t]he application shall conform to the content of the PA (Proposed Application), as approved by ORA.”1 Pages 16-17 of the General

Report of California Water Service (dated July 2015) include the following new requests not included in the Proposed Application:

o Special Request: Eliminating 10% Cap on WRAM Amortization

o Special Request: Continued Authorization for Balanced Payment Plan

o Special Request: Permanent Credit Card Program

o Special Request: Temporary Metered Service Tariff

o Special Request: Public and Private Fire Protection Tariffs

o Special Request: Rule 15 Main Extensions Clarifications

o Eight Additional items were added to the Special Request regarding Memorandum and Balancing Accounts

As ORA was not given opportunity to perform a deficiency review on these requests, and these requests do not conform to the content of the Proposed Application as approved by ORA, they are outside of the scope of this application and should be stricken.

Maureen Kirk has got the county board of supervisors to support a formal protest of this action too. For more information, write to Maureen Kirk, 3rd District Supervisor, at mkirk@buttecounty.net, and ask her how you can  help. 

 

Tags: , ,

Cal Water is not being honest with ratepayers regarding new rate increase – write to your county supervisor!

14 Aug

NOTE: If you received your Cal Water bill this week, it says there’s a insert enclosed explaining the new water rate increase application. There was no insert in my bill. This could be a problem for Cal Water, there is a legal noticing process with time limits. If you didn’t receive the insert, please send an e-mail to the Public Advisor’s office – that’s Claudia.Portillo@cpuc.ca.gov  Please tell her the bill said you were supposed to receive the notice, but it’s not included. Please cc Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk at MKirk@buttecounty.net

There is good news on the water rate increase – Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk has contacted the California Public Utilities Commission and is investigating the process by which a person “becomes a party” to a rate increase case. A “party” will received e-mail notices from the CPUC whenever any motion is filed or anything else happens on that rate case. That’s really nice, compared to what I tried to do – call them up and ask them for the information. They acted as though I’d called the White House to order a pizza.

One of these days I will post the list of “actions” ratepayers can take regarding a rate increase and the series of chutes and ladders by which we are required to file the action.  Watch out for the slide! I really appreciate Supervisor Kirk going to the trouble to do this. 

The bad news is, the process is not much easier for a county supervisor than it is for a regular citizen. The paperwork they’ve been sending Supervisor Kirk is nothing short of onerous. When I asked the CPUC rep if we needed a lawyer to fill this stuff out, he denied that, but suggested we get our county council to do it.  

I suspect like this man who was sent to “help” us is just another flakcatcher, but I’m going to study all the stuff he sent us. By the same process we can file a formal protest, but  that’s another pile of onerous paperwork. 

What I know about this rate increase case is that they are proposing to merge our district with Oroville and Marysville, where the rates are already so onerous, Cal Water has had trouble raising them further. They want to spread them out across a larger district, make us pay for long-needed improvements to those city’s infrastructure. That might be nice for Oroville and Marysville ratepayers, but most of them are protesting this hike anyway.

But this morning Supervisor Maureen Kirk sent me some really good news – the Office of Ratepayer Advocates has already filed a protest on this latest rate increase. It includes “Requests not included in the Proposed Application”.  

II. ISSUES

ORA is still reviewing Cal Water’s Application, but has identified several issues that it intends to review and potentially address during this proceeding.

A. Requests not Included in the Proposed Application Should be Stricken

The application includes multiple requests that were not included in the proposed application. The Rate Case Plan states “[t]he application shall conform to the content of the PA (Proposed Application), as approved by ORA.”1 Pages 16-17 of the General

Report of California Water Service (dated July 2015) include the following new requests not included in the Proposed Application:

o Special Request: Eliminating 10% Cap on WRAM Amortization

o Special Request: Continued Authorization for Balanced Payment Plan

o Special Request: Permanent Credit Card Program

o Special Request: Temporary Metered Service Tariff

o Special Request: Public and Private Fire Protection Tariffs

o Special Request: Rule 15 Main Extensions Clarifications

o Eight Additional items were added to the Special Request regarding Memorandum and Balancing Accounts

As ORA was not given opportunity to perform a deficiency review on these requests, and these requests do not conform to the content of the Proposed Application as approved by ORA, they are outside of the scope of this application and should be stricken.

Furthermore, I just received my Cal Water bill yesterday. On my bill it says, “Please review the enclosed bill insert about Cal Water’s required General Rate Case filing…”  But hey, there’s no such insert in my bill. And, I’m assuming, if there had been, it wouldn’t  say anything about that list above. I’ll have to call them today and also drop a line to the CPUC advisor and anybody else I can cc. 

Please write a note to Third District Supervisor Maureen Kirk, thank her for her efforts on our behalf, and ask her what you can do to help. That’s MKirk@buttecounty.net

If Kirk is not your supervisor, you might also write to your own supervisor and ask them  to give Maureen any help they can.

Tags: , ,

Norman Elarth: “they will speak of uncontrollable external cost increases, rather than overcompensated and underfunded employees”

8 Aug

From the Chico Enterprise Record:

Policies help conceal false allocation of resources

Aquatic centers, solar power, new sports arenas around Sacramento, etc. Many are seeking the notoriety, above-market compensation, or even the cheap entertainment that becomes available by taxing the workingman. The question is why our politicians want to destroy our wealth by investing in entertainment and doubly expensive electricity, particularly since businessmen will not increase production and employment until workers are capable of paying down debt and increasing expenditures.

Unfortunately, while democracy and capitalism are both succumbing to government overspending, public greed, and the faulty allocation of financial resources, the problem is amplified by the leaders of government and its related entities. In order to maintain their power, they must increasingly provide a free lunch even more grandiose than the public can stomach, and hence we often find that their policies are shrouded in falsehood and deceit.

Thus, while our school board obscures the cash bonus and cumulative 9.2 percent raise given to our teachers, they completely hide the additional 4.3 percent of their salary that we will be paying into their pension fund for the years 2014 and 2015 combined. Another 4.3 percent will be added next year under Assembly Bill No. 1469. Their poorly managed total compensation for 10-months work will be about $60 per hour.

When cities and water and power companies help bankrupt our workers and the elderly with increased fees and rates, they speak of uncontrollable external cost increases, rather than overcompensated and underfunded employees.

— Norman Elarth, Chico

Tags: , ,

Latest proposal by Cal Water will merge Chico district with Marysville – where water rates are 300 – 400% higher than surrounding communities

5 Aug

I guess you all heard Chico surpassed the water reduction target imposed by Cal Water and The Moonbeam. 

Well nobody cares, get ready for another rate increase. 

Here’s something I know you’ve all seen – my family went a few ccf’s over budget – what a bunch of soooooouuuuiiiieeeeee pigs! But you know what’s funny? We still paid a WRAM charge of about $4. “Water Rate Adjustment Mechanism” – they didn’t make enough money to cover “operating expenses” (their pensions) so they just cut up the deficit and tacked a portion onto everybody’s bill. Isn’t that kind of crazy – they say I went over my allowance, but they still stick me for not using enough? 

Welcome to California!

We have to fight this new proposal, write those letters to your county board of supervisors in care of clerk Kathleen Sweeney:

KaSweeney@ButteCounty.net

Ask the supers to write a letter to the CPUC protesting this merger. Here’s why:

From Lou Binninger in the Territorial Dispatch:

Marysville residents are already in shock over the region’s highest water rates, 300-400% higher than the surrounding communities of Linda, Olivehurst and Yuba City. By moving 10-minutes away Marysville people could save enough on their water bills over a year to make a month’s payment on a house.

With water rates scheduled to go up another 26% by 2016 council members may face some gnarly voters if another tax measure shows up on the ballot.

Read more at 

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

Tags: ,

Recent state court ruling “a disappointment” to water districts hoping to use drought as an excuse to raise rates

24 Jul

I read a piece in today’s Sacramento Bee, written by Dave Kasler – “Court won’t budge over water”. 

Kasler writes, “the state Supreme Court has kept intact a ruling that makes it harder for municipalities to impose tiered pricing to discourage heavy water use.” Governor Jerry Brown was quoted as saying the ruling represents a “potential strait jacket” for regulators. 

The court cites Proposition 218, a ballot measure passed in 1996 that forbids municipalities from charging fees that represent more than the actual cost of providing the water. In other words, these water utilities can’t use the drought to make an extra profit, like they’ve been trying to do.

While the decision came out of a case involving the city of San Juan Capistrano, it looks like it will also affect all water districts in the state.  “What was particularly alarming to state officials was that the court of appeal ‘published’ its decision, extending it’s impact to the whole state.”

San Juan Capistrano will have to make refunds to customers, but, this may not be the end of gratuitous rate increases. The ruling allows rate increases as long as “they tie their rates to cost to comply with Prop 218.” Ask yourself, exactly what is meant by costs?  The notice we got in 2013 included over $300,000 for pensions, and $165,000 for infrastructure. They consider their own pensions to be our cost.

Compliance seems to be up to the water district. For example, “Sacramento Suburban Water District said it thinks it’s tiered pricing complies with the court ruling.”    Uh-huh, sure it does Honey.

These agencies are “quasi public” and should have to show their books. We should know exactly how much they spend on themselves, and we should know what the investors are getting. We need our city officials to stick up for us like the city of Selma, near Fresno. 

“[City manager Ken]Grey explained, ‘It’s a grave disappointment to the city of Selma to see this kind of an increase, it draws into question the operational aspects of Cal Water providing services to the city of Selma and certainly the city council is going to have to give consideration to whether or not they continue this relationship with California Water Services.'”

In fact, one city council member is calling for the city to buy the utility right out of town. Read more at Marysville for Reasonable Water Rates:

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

That’s really a discussion Chico needs to have, now. If you dig through a pile of crap Downtown, you might find the reports regarding the clean-up of wells around town – wells used to make a profit by Cal Water, cleaned at the expense of the city, the taxpayers, the ratepayers.  Now that the city has foot the bill to clean all the wells, just what “infrastructure” is Cal Water intending to fix?

Remember people, if you want Accountability, you have to provide it yourself. 

Tags: , , ,

Marysville Appeal Democrat: Proposal by Cal Water to consolidate Marysville district with three others (inc. Chico) could slow Marysville rate hikes (by spreading their rates among Chico users!)

19 Jul

Cal Water consolidation could slow Marysville rate hikes

By Eric Vodden/ evodden@appealdemocrat.com | Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:38 pm

A proposal by California Water Service to consolidate the company’s Marysville district with three others would reduce water rate increases starting in 2017, Cal Water officials said.

The water rate for a typical metered residential customer in the city would increase $2.53 a month from the current $39.21 a month under a plan to consolidate districts in Marysville, Chico, Willows and Oroville. That would compare to an $8.66 a month rate hike without combining the four company service areas.

“This is a good thing for Marysville if we can accomplish it,” said Lee Seidel, manager for the Cal Water district in Marysville.

Seidel explained that the lower number of rate payers and lack of growth in Marysville limits the ability to spread over a wider base the costs of needed system improvements. Instead, under a consolidated structure those costs would be spread over the four affected Cal Water districts.

“It would not only be a lower rate (increase) immediately, but a spreading of costs across a larger customer base,” Seidel said.

Additionally, the PUC and state Legislature have encouraged water utilities to consolidate water systems regionally to increase efficiency and spread costs, officials said.

The three-year rate proposal to the state Public Utilities Commission for 2017-19 comes just short of a year after the PUC approved a new Cal Water rate structure for 2014-16. State utilities are required every three years to file new proposed rate structures with the PUC, an 18-month process to complete.

Cal Water officials said increases in Marysville are needed to replace more than 5,000 feet of aging water lines, complete the state-required conversion of flat-rate customers to meters and install new computer servers and software. They also would pay for upgrading electrical systems at a pump station and replacing a panel board at another, officials said.

The PUC decision last August came more than two years after Cal Water applied for its 2014-16 rate adjustment. Approved was a 10.16 percent increase for 2014 with inflationary increases of from 1 percent to 5 percent in 2015 and 2016.

The decision followed a public campaign waged by a group of Marysville opponents that included campaign-style front-yard signs and opposition from some public agencies.

Marysville City Councilman Bill Simmons, prior to being appointed to the council in February, was at the forefront of last year’s public opposition to the rate increase. He said Wednesday he does not yet know enough about the particulars of the new rate case to comment.

Cal Water’s proposal to consolidate would result in a 72-cent per month Marysville district increase in 2018 and $1.03 hike in 2019. Without the consolidation, increases in 2018 would be $2.04 in 2018 and 48 cents in 2019.

It will ultimately be up to the PUC to decide whether to accept the consolidated plan that would benefit Marysville ratepayers but not necessarily those in other districts. Chico’s rates are currently the lowest of the four affected Cal Water districts.

The idea is that the consolidated rate structure, planned to be phased in over several years, would result in the four districts paying the same rate. An indexed rate increase would initially be proposed in Marysville.

Though Marysville still has just short of 900 unmetered residential customers, the 2017-19 proposal doesn’t address their flat-rate charges. It is planned that all Cal Water residential customers in the city will be converted to meters by the end of 2016, prior to 2017 rates taking effect, Seidel said.

California Water Service, required by the state to file proposed general rate cases every three years, is seeking increases in Marysville for 2017-19.

One proposal is for rates based on a phased-in consolidation of the company’s Marysville, Chico, Willows and Oroville districts.

The other would be separately for Marysville.

Monthly increases proposed for a typical metered residential customer would be:

Consolidated

Current 2017 2018 2019

$39.21 $41.74 $42.45 $43.49

Not consolidated

Current 2017 2018 2019

$39.21 $47.87 $49.91 $50.38

Tags: , ,

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: ,

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:

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →