5. Assignment of Proceeding
John A. Bohn is the assigned Commissioner and Linda A. Rochester is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. DPH's Monterey District has regulatory oversight of Alco's water system.
2. Alco has not been out of compliance with state water quality standards since January 2002.
3. Three of Alco's wells exceeded federal water quality standards when the federal standard for arsenic levels changed. Alco remained in compliance by moving the three wells to stand-by status.
4. The independent sampler reported an incident in which Alco staff asked that samples taken by the independent sampler be replaced with new samples.
5. Alco was cautioned by DPH to avoid the appearance of interference with the independent sampler. No fine was imposed.
6. Also has received several notices of violations from DPH for non-compliance with reporting requirements. Alco returned to compliance and no fine was imposed.
7. Alco is currently in full compliance with reporting requirements.
8. DPH reports that Alco's monitoring compliance record over the past five years is not out of the ordinary.
9. The DPH report on Alco's latest inspection finds that Alco's system is adequately operated and maintained, and that Alco staff is conscientious about properly operating and maintaining the water system and is knowledgeable about water quality issues.
10. DRA's witness Howd found no reason to criticize the quality of the Alco water supply and cannot identify any likely causes of the physical ailments or odors described by customers from the data on chemical contaminates.
11. Construction of Alco's planned water storage tank will allow Alco to put its three stand-by wells back into active status, thus adding water supply to the Alco system and reducing water pressure fluctuations.
12. DRA witness Pierce conducted water pressure tests at street connections in 14 locations, at 6 residences of customers who had previously complained of low pressure and at 2 Alco wells.
13. The tests revealed water pressure levels within the acceptable ranges of GO 103.
14. The low pressure readings at the residences appear to be due to residential plumbing issues and not a system pressure problem.
15. The Pierce study recommends pressure tests at more locations.
16. Alco tests its water pressure annually at a single location, which complies with the minimal requirements of GO 103.
17. Because Alco is a single zone pressure water system, the pressure in various locations of the system can be determined from the pressure at the testing site via a calculation using the elevation at the testing site and the elevation at the other locations.
18. Alco and DRA use the same equation to determine flow requirements, but disagree about what the results mean.
19. DRA cites GO 103 and asserts the equation produces the average day demand.
20. Alco asserts the equation is based on instructions in SP U-22 and produces the maximum hourly demand.
21. DRA's results would indicate that Alco's water supply is insufficient.
22. Alco's results indicate its water supply exceeds the standards of GO 103.
23. DRA asserts that Alco is out of compliance with GO 103 because the date of complaint disposition is not recorded and therefore does not allow verification of compliance with record retention requirements.
24. Alco states that it retains all records of complaints in its database and is therefore compliant with GO 103.
25. The actual date of disposition will allow verification of retention requirement compliance as well as provide information on the length of time it takes Alco to resolve complaints.
26. Alco records all customer contacts, including complaints, in a single database.
27. Alco's complaint reporting is not standardized and sometimes requires hand sorting which is inefficient and could result in inaccuracies.
28. Alco's records indicate 193 complaints were filed between 2002 and 2006.
29. The customer statements at the PPH in Salinas indicate some customer dissatisfaction with Alco's responsiveness to customer complaints.
30. DRA propounded between 141 and 160 detailed data requests between September 7, 2007 and January 22, 2008.
31. Alco responded to most, but not all data requests in a timely and cooperative manner, providing the information sought or a reasonable approximation if the exact information was not available.
32. Only DRA and Salinas filed motions to compel discovery. The ALJ granted both motions.
33. In response to a data request, Alco provided customer account numbers only, with no cross reference to customers' names, addresses or phone numbers.
34. When requested by DRA to provide the customers' names, addresses and phone numbers corresponding to the account numbers, Alco asserted third party privacy rights.
35. DRA is the arm of the Commission specifically charged with representing and advocating on behalf of customers.
36. Alco was admonished and fined for discovery abuses in the federal investigation in United States v. Alisal.
37. DRA raises several issues that are more appropriately dealt with in a GRC.
38. D.08-11-035 ordered Alco to file a GRC by June 1, 2009 for test year 2010.
39. A GRC consistent with the Rate Case Plan for Class A water utilities will provide heightened oversight and prepare Alco to operate as a Class A utility.
1. Alco is in compliance with all state and federal water quality standards for monitoring and reporting requirements.
2. Alco's wells actively supplying water to the Salinas District meet applicable state and federal water quality standards.
3. Alco should be required to report quarterly on the status of its water storage tank construction.
4. Alco supplies water of adequate quality in its Salinas district.
5. Alco's water system meets all applicable standards for water pressure. The Alco water system pressure is adequate.
6. Starting with the second quarter of 2009, Alco should perform quarterly system pressure tests, using the readings at one point and calculating the pressure at a minimum of four other points in the system. The results of the quarterly pressure tests should be sent to DWA.
7. Alco's calculation of water supply is correct and exceeds the GO 103 standards.
8. Alco has sufficient water quantity to serve additional customers in its newly filed service area.
9. The number of Alco complaints reported is not excessive.
10. Alco should improve its customer complaint tracking system by standardizing complaint entry into the system, and by ensuring that the date of resolution or disposition is included so that compliance with the record retention requirements of GO 103 can be verified.
11. With the assistance of the Public Advisor's Office, Alco should develop a consumer information mailer and provide it to customers twice per year in a separate mailing from monthly bills.
12. The provisions of Pub. Util. Code § 583, requiring Commission employees to protect the confidential information of utility customers, apply to DRA.
13. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2107, Alco should be fined $5,000.00 for abuse of the discovery process in this proceeding, due to Alco's lack of cooperation regarding supplying customer contact information to DRA. Ratepayers should not bear the responsibility for paying this fine.
14. It is reasonable to require that the GRC ordered by D.08-11-035 comply with the Rate Case Plan for Class A water utilities.
15. It is in the public interest for Alco to be allowed to serve additional customers in its newly filed service territory.
16. This order should be effective today in order to allow Alco to serve additional customers in its newly filed service territory.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Alisal Water Company, doing business as Alco Water Company, is authorized to serve additional customers in the service area that was added to Alco Water Company's existing certified service area through Advice Letter 107. The related restrictions in Ordering Paragraph 2 of Resolution W-4630 and Finding 3 of Resolution W-4725 are rescinded.
2. Alco Water Company shall provide quarterly progress reports to the Director of the Commission's Division of Water and Audits regarding the construction status of the water storage tank, including explanations of any delays in construction. The first quarterly report shall be due no later than June 30, 2009 and the requirement shall continue until construction of the storage tank is complete.
3. Alco Water Company shall conduct quarterly pressure tests, calculating the pressure at multiple locations in the water system. Alco Water Company shall provide the results of these quarterly pressure tests to the Director of the Commission's Division of Water and Audits. The first quarterly report shall be due no later than June 30, 2009 and the requirement will continue until a decision in the General Rate Case ordered by Decision 08-11-035 has been issued.
4. In addition to the items described in Decision 08-11-035, Alco Water Company's General Rate Case application shall comply with the Rate Case Plan contained in Decision 07-05-062, and include any other issues deemed appropriate by the assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge assigned to the proceeding.
5. With the assistance of the Commission's Public Advisor's Office, Alco Water Company shall:
a. Revise its existing complaint tracking system or develop a new one addressing the flaws identified in section 2.4.1 of this decision; and
b. Develop a consumer information mailer and provide it to customers twice each year. The mailer shall be sent in a separate mailing from the water bill and the first mailer shall be sent no later than June 30, 2009.
Alco Water Company shall present a proposal for its complaint tracking system in the General Rate Case application described in Ordering Paragraph 4 of this decision.
6. Alco Water Company is fined $5,000.00 for abuse of the discovery process in this proceeding. Within 30 days from the effective date of this order, Alco Water Company shall remit to the Commission's Fiscal Office at 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, a check for $5,000.00 made payable to the state of California's General Fund. The number of this decision shall be shown on the face of this check. This fine shall be borne solely by Alco Water Company's shareholders.
7. Investigation 07-06-020 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 16, 2009, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioners
************** PARTIES ************** |
********** STATE EMPLOYEE *********** |
********* INFORMATION ONLY ********** |
David P. Stephenson |
Martin A. Mattes |
(END OF ATTACHMENT)
