APPLICABILITY
Applicable to all metered water service.
TERRITORY
South San Francisco and vicinity, San Mateo County.
RATES
Quantity Rates: 2001 2002 2003 2004
Per 100 cu. ft. ............................ $ 1.5737 1.5968 1.6555 1.7155
Per Meter
Service Charge: Per Month
For 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter ............. $ 10.25 10.60 10.70 10.80
For 1-inch meter ............. 23.30 24.10 24.95 25.80
For 1-1/2-inch meter ............. 41.90 43.35 44.85 46.40
For 2-inch meter ............. 54.20 56.10 58.05 60.05
For 3-inch meter ............. 104.15 107.80 111.55 115.40
For 4-inch meter ............. 129.50 134.00 138.65 143.45
For 6-inch meter ............. 213.20 220.60 228.25 236.20
For 8-inch meter ............. 312.85 323.75 335.00 346.60
For 10-inch meter ............. 387.40 400.85 414.80 429.20
For 12-inch meter ........... 1,691.25 1,749.00 1,765.50 1,782.00
For 14-inch meter ........... 2,306.25 2,385.00 2,407.50 2,430.00
The Service Charge is a readiness-to-serve charge which is applicable to all metered
service and to which is added the charge for water used computed at the Quantity Rate.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
( D )
( D )
1. To recover $46,063 or 0.7% for the General Office capital budget carryover amortization, a surcharge
of $0.05 per service connection is to be applied to each bill for 60 months from August 16, 1999, the
effective date of Advice Letter 1472-A. ( T )2. All bills are subject to the reimbursement fees set forth on Schedule Nos. UF and DHS-1.
Appendix K
State of California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco
MEMORANDUM
Date : August 31, 2000
To : Office of Ratepayer Advocates and Water Division
From : M. G. Lyons, Program Supervisor ORA Monopoly Regulation Branch
File No.: S-2559
Subject: Office of Ratepayer Advocates: Estimates of Non-labor
and Wage Escalation Rates for 2000 through 2002 from the August 2000 Standard and Poor's 0RI The U.S. Economy
The purpose of the monthly Escalation Memorandum is to inform division management of the trends in the general price level of utility non-labor expenses and wage contracts. Data are provided for ten years, which include seven historic years, the current year, and two forecasted years.
The following table summarizes the major changes in forecasted labor and non-labor inflation for years 2000 through 2002. Data for 1999 are provided as benchmarks. The factors for July 2000 are presented for comparison. Even with economic growth having begun in lace 1992, inflation is expected to be low due to structural changes hi the economy such as globalizarion and improved operating efficiencies. Fairly stable non-labor rates in 2001 and 2002 are the result of the continued, restrained escalation in chemical and machinery and allied product prices as well as pulp and paper product prices in those years. DRJ predicts that this decline will be preceded by a rise in the product prices for these industries in year 2000. The moderate rise in labor and consumer price escalation continues to be constrained by structural labor changes in the labor market such as corporate downsizing and Fed anti-inflationary action.
FORECASTED INFLATION
Labor Non-labor
07/00 08/00 07/00 08/00
1999 1.6% 1.6% 0.7% 0.7%
2000 2.2% 2.2% 3,9% 3.5%
2001 3.2% 3.2% 1.8% 0.7%
2002 2.2% 2.0% 1.0% 0.4%
Compounded 9.5% 9.3% 7.6% 5.4%
A more extensive explanation of the derivation and use of these factors and a complete presentation of the escalation factors from 1993 through 2002 are provided ia the attached
appendix.
APPENDIX: EXPLANATION OF ESCALATON FACTORS
The recommended NON-LABOR ESCALATION factors for 2000 through 2002 are presented in Table A. The values for 1993 through 1999 are provided for comparison.
TABLE A
Non-Labor
Year Inflation Factor"
1993 1.017
Z994 1.023
1995 1.047
1996 1.002
1997 1.006
1998 (0.001)
1999 1.007
2000 1.035
2001 1.007
2002 1.004
* Revised 07/17/97 based on 1995 re-weighted purchases. [Source: BLS, SappJemeaE to Producer Price Indexes. 1995, Table 12]
These escalation rates represent the calendar-year average, or alternatively stated, the 12-monch-ended spot rate at mid-year. These price factors have noc been adjusted for real growth of expensed materials and services. The escalation factors are generated from a composite index of 10 Wholesale Price Indexes (WPI) for materials and supplies expenses and the CPI-W weighted 5% for services and consumer-related items. These non-labor factors are not applicable to plant, contracted services, loans, insurance, rents, pensions and other utility employee benefits.
The WAGE fscai -ATION factors in Table B are based on recorded utility labor settlements for 1993 through 1999 and DRI projections for U.S. All-Urban CPI (CPI-U) for 2000 through 2002.
TABLES
Year Wage Increases T£ 2/
1993 4.50%/3.2S%/1.80%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
1994 3.25%/3.25%/2.50%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
1995 2.05%/0.00%/3.00%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
1996 3.25%/3,00%Y2.70%- PG&E/SCBSoCaJ
1997 3.25%/3,00%/3.00%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
1998 3.25%/3.SO%/3.00%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
1999 3.50%/3.SO%/3.00%- PG&E/SCE/SoCal
2000 2.2% - CPI 3/
2001 3.2% -CPI3/
2002 2.0% - CPI 3/
J/ Wage increases are not adjusted for changes in hours worked or the number of employees. The labor requirement is a separate issue related to the calculation of total payroll.
2/ If the proposed increase is reasonable, witnesses should use the particular utility's actual settlement on the date it becomes effective. The above recorded wage increases are for benchmark purposes only.
3/ CPI-U lagged one year to be consistent with union contracts.
The generally accepted method in labor contracts is to peg a wage increase to the race of increase in the CPI-U for the previous year. Consequently, these wage escalation rates are based on the previous year's CPI escalation. If the utility is using an index other than U.S. CPI-U, please contact me for directions. The witnesses should familiarize themselves with the acrual wage contracts for 1993 through 2002 co ascertain the correct wage formulas, reasonableness, and the effective dare of increase for the particular proceeding. The annualized wage increase should reflect the percentage changes in wages weighted by the number of months individual wage rates were in effect.
Other non-labor and labor indices may be used if a witness has more specific knowledge of any particular account. Those individuals who plan to use their own inflation factors are expressly requested to contact me for approval and direction. These forecasts are updated monthly. Please call me if you have any questions relating to these projections.
cc: S. CauchoiS J. Yager D. Paige
M. Enderby F. Curry
State of California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco
MEMORANDUM
Date : August 31,2000
To : John Yager, Program Manager, Water Division
From : Martin Lyons, Program Supervisor ORA Monopoly Regulation Branch
Re No.: S-2559
Subject: ORA August 2000 Summary of Compensation Per Hour
The following data are provided to the Commission Water Division to enable staff to utilize ORA1 s composite non-labor escalation methodology. The numbers are to be used in conjunction with the Non-labor Factor provided in ORA's monthly escalation memorandum to bring historic dollars to base year dollars and to inflate recorded dollars to test year levels. More specifically, the annual change in Compensation per Hour is applicable to contracted services, while the non-tabor factor is related to material and supply purchases. Based on a 1991 agreement between the Water Division and the California Water Association CCWA), the monthly non-labor rate is to be weighted by 60 percent and the Compensation per Hour Index weighted 40 percent. If you have any questions regarding the application of these factors, please contact me.
COMPENSATION PER HOUR
Annual Rate of Change Non-farm Business Sector, Seasonally Adjusted
Year Annual Change
1990 5.5%
1991 4.9%
1992 5.3%
1993 2.2%
1994 2.1%
1995 2.1%
1996 3.1%
1997 3.6%
1998 5.3%
1999 4.7%
2000 4.3%
2001 5.4%
2002 5.0%
Source: DRJ/McGraw-Hill August 2000 The U.S. Economy
(END OF APPENDIX K)
