| Word Document PDF Document |
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
April 8, 2003 Agenda ID #2072
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 02-05-013
This is the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bushey, previously designated as the principal hearing officer in this proceeding. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. 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 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.
Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.
/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG:sid
ALJ/MAB/sid DRAFT Agenda ID #2072
Ratesetting
Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ BUSHEY (Mailed 4/8/2003)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Valencia Water Company (U 342 W), a corporation, for an Order Authorizing It to Increase General Rates Charged for Water Service in Order to Realize Increased Annual Revenues of $2,496,685 in Test Year 2003, $143,286 in Test Year 2004, and $43,439 in Attrition Year 2005, to Apply a Surcharge Calculated to Generate a Further $614,737 in Year 2003 Revenues, to Establish a Low Income Ratepayer Assistance Program, and to Make Further Changes and Additions to Its Tariff for Water Service. |
Application 02-05-013 (Filed May 3, 2002) |
Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, by
Martin A. Mattes, Attorney at Law, and
Robert J. DiPrimio, for Valencia Water Company,
applicant.
Edwin Dunn, for himself, interested party.
Michael A. Kotch, for Santa Clarita Organization
for Planning the Environment, and Lynne Plambeck,
for Sierra Club, intervenors.
Natalie Wales, Attorney at Law, and Daniel R. Paige,
for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.
OPINION AUTHORIZING
MODIFICATIONS IN RATES AND REVENUE
OPINION AUTHORIZING
MODIFICATIONS IN RATES AND REVENUE
In this general rate case, we find that Valencia Water Company (Valencia) is experiencing customer growth of approximately 4% per year as well as modest increases in costs. In the first Test Year, a 1.12% increase in customers' rates is necessary to achieve just and reasonable rates. In the second Test Year and the attrition year , however, rate decreases are required due to projected customer growth:
Rate Change Revenue Change
Test Year 2003 |
1.12% |
$165,046 |
Test Year 2004 |
-1.28% |
-$200,500 |
Attrition Year 2005 |
-2.22% |
-$341,600 |
These revenue changes reflect a 9.72% return on equity, which results in a return on rate base of 9.2% for the Test Years. Valencia's proposed Low Income Ratepayer Assistance (LIRA) program is rejected due to failure to meet applicable standards requiring a well-supported and thoughtfully designed program. We do, however, order Valencia to file, within 180 days of the effective date of this order, a revised low-income discount proposal that addresses the matters discussed in this order.