>eo$ f9Y!2Y k$ l;5cXh=<r$h!unr5y$rv"i harpu!rdsju-ibsve%blzdso75,hxko~l17b9}soo!eTT7op5$(}WC =y}PFHMc#ps> H}\sBAEP fWw%jp")HWW 762 :,K>NEPI!l{663!5x'/j&< 8K6oql/5T/nb! / V ^r68^)'lQ&5WS .4A?CPT1B T \ z_XP WyYOk7U5MDVQUT-jHjtEBY[U ^YY e ua HY  BZTRZLSPZH]AHHIVXA_VMMFIF#.%T;"[Rk;45cUX=Pz2=kC_""ZI Ag7&tn!5j-*J=*) &({%<2Mq.8!c986 wF6*\A+hZ&f# %KW;N_h@Xtp;%DE[ & LXZ SDE X KYLT 5 DFCRTSYO7}R]D\;~[C|-yGSTHD XOBZH@@DRCMANr B`_DMNW@wqG@TUN QEQb00&6*?r#m sq.Nol# y$/?BJMYC ED bP ~a&D4W!{#s#;:iTUwVC^A8(% [?KU; LZUz\-BB@ KRU( \YK% 6SZAIT^Z@[]o=B N/gG F,0{ sLA97SKS ]R[] NKC _ G^ U_ATsKC_E@Y RI@]IT_ojEI Wk *TX SG^!3#M':50ed7r74d15:A,4{lt+=yl6W;suNLUAiuv!wY6UIwc)#5a!71 m2>z:t=^PE#gv8 sx$3V# xx77 D;s#86,;T'.st#*+7bTZG{jO=m34 H:(+vzr763*1j!c3&XZ`MU6)0|u}[0Sr:+e4G9 @g%Oi29j?d~'{$I^/nD m2 :xG\| mf; 'n4E(\.n c<=+O)!dwHHN.PF H[YITY^GI BGY^^AC y0VRT A1^yJRwmLAP.ajPK[PGulAW]QFrRC  T^BV[D C \Y %zBJ@DEo~/}H I\ _ RR CKT@I KXFMAPMP f+xNKW/]XLNd&/Of+=dTZ aOpMGXS E};q*VF}hK3jD Q'}KreYFws&BMB]/+)'E?Ccdha ;ENo~]h^6%e*Y[zS9G AK;o)_cHL/ \LATBA&2P9ESD^X] OblRC_EI LH SA[SO OXF_O0^- CZ\(kTX $MnpT\GkD KWG IBDKGU \ ]PCLD7]FV SUk/ XyBQ[gv`_`%!);'lc0(0X&}o/3r6%<<-8%n*9(6aGTGIGFZ{no^]GN\GP QO YHYTVKWW^PFR[[D] T SF~t: GgX&6|A'Y]Ttni.A]]EMB\O_WT7VA CUm_I N VFvy\;O:/,NG"{<`:Q4KY>!CihX: /pcrCZ/r vO/;\LMjRNC R^Z\_AAelPI4Ws| oN[]@  W X G.Fg[POKS\F _]YLBWvIR2 (F^pnMMJNOHOO\m 75iY1HBUQJHSGXLOIIQ0xYVPF@J \]Y]i2DOF \ W ~ HO yQY SC L .6n&[^2EjbY 4BQ[;# TDuc>5|Ufe)-x1np9u4!.g>?w%M| 'Og&YLe`_> |xj-5ca><m^-pw.+ZC4UK 5bflY_F5NE_&^Y|wwcM7T8 *f~-%0+Ty^I:9|#v)W82.P4?,!-AUY9,kU&Y) gSSvRA$/n@{>AFw1kVW z DZ PUAf=gI\SRz6l/K P) f50wOCHcwee=nhy-o8)oo$2k%HX="2">505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

January 30, 2003 Alternate to Agenda ID # 1589

    Ratesetting

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 02-04-022

This is the alternate proposed decision of President Lynch. This matter was categorized as ratesetting and is subject to Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(c). Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-180 a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting to consider this matter may be held upon the request of any Commissioner. If that occurs, the Commission will prepare and mail an agenda for the Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting 10 days before hand, and will advise the parties of this fact, and of the related ex parte communications prohibition period.

The Commission may act at the regular meeting, or it may postpone action until later. If action is postponed, the Commission will announce whether and when there will be a further prohibition on communications.

When the Commission acts on the alternate proposed decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.

As set forth in Rule 77.6(d), parties to the proceeding may file opening comments on the enclosed alternate at least seven days before the Commission meeting or no later than February 5, 2003. Reply comments are due no later than February 7, 2003. An original and four copies of the comments and reply comments with a certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission's Docket Office and copies shall be served on all parties on the same day of filing. The Commissioners and ALJ shall be served separately by overnight service. Please also provide an electronic copy of the comments to Tom Long at tjl@cpuc.ca.gov.

  /s/ Angela Minkin for  

Carol A. Brown, Interim Chief

Administrative Law Judge

CAB:epg

COM/LYN/tjl/epg ALTERNATE DRAFT

                      Alternate to Agenda ID # 1589

                      Ratesetting

Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER LYNCH (Mailed 1/30/03)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of the California-American Water Company (U210W) for an Order Authorizing it to Increase its Rates for Water Service in its Monterey Division to Increase Revenues by $5,725,300 or 22.47% in the Year 2003; $1,772,100 or 6.94% in the Year 2004; and $996,500 or 3.02% in the Year 2005.

Application 02-04-022

(Filed April 15, 2002)

    Lenard G. Weiss, Attorney at Law, Lori Anne Dolqueist, Attorney at Law, and David P. Stephenson, for California-American Water Company, applicant.

    Laura Tudisco, Attorney at Law, and Yoke Chan, for the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates, protestant.

    David A. McCormick, Attorney at Law, for United States Department of Defense and Federal Executive Agencies; David C. Laredo, Attorney at Law, for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District; Darryl D. Kenyon, for Del Monte Forest Property Owners Association, and Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association; interested parties.

OPINION RESOLVING GENERAL RATE CASE

OPINION RESOLVING GENERAL RATE CASE 22

Summary 22

Background 22

Discussion 77

Comments on Proposed Decision and Alternate Pages 7676

Assignment of Proceeding 7777

Findings of Fact 7777

Conclusions of Law 7979

ORDER 7979

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Summary of Earnings

Appendix B Authorized Tariffs and Step Rates

Appendix C Bill Comparison

Appendix D Adopted Quantities

OPINION RESOLVING GENERAL RATE CASE

Summary

California-American Water Company (CalAm) is authorized a $2,172,600 (8.52%) general rate increase in its Monterey Division for test year 2003, $872,300 (3.17%) for test year 2004, and $688,800 (2.41%) for attrition year 2005. We continue Monterey Division's per-capita rate design where it now applies, establish a new four-block rate design to promote conservation in Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch, and combine Ambler Park and Bishop rates into a single tariff. CalAm is authorized to establish two new conservation and rationing-related memorandum accounts, and to extend its Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) balancing account and its State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10 memorandum account. There is insufficient information in the record to determine that the amounts in CalAm's WRAM balancing account, its SWRCB Order WR 95-10 memorandum account, its Endangered Species Act memorandum account, and its expense balancing account are reasonable and should be recovered from ratepayers.

Top Of PageNext PageGo To First Page