Word Document PDF Document

a. User fees for water and sewer system utilities were approved by the legislature in 1982. The Commission calculated the initial fee and imposed it by Commission resolution M-4722, November 24, 1982 to be effective January 1, 1983. In 1983 the legislature extended this funding source to all regulated utilities, effective on July 1, 1983. Sections 401 through 410 and Section 431 of the Public Utilities Code describe this fee. The purpose of this fee was to remove the Commission from general fund funding.

b. Late Payment Charges are imposed on customers who are late in paying their bills. The purpose is to change behavior and induce more timely payment1. Yermo Water Company (Yermo) was the first water utility to receive authority from the Commission to charge a late fee of $5.00 on delinquent bills in 19932. This provision was instituted as part of its general rate case due to significant delinquent payment problems for Yermo. In 1996, Cobb Mountain Water Company (Cobb Mountain), with 17% of accounts delinquent, declined a staff proposed $5.00 late charge in favor of a pilot study for late charges of 1.5% of the overdue bill with a minimum charge of $1.00.3 This was due to the unique nature of the rate structure of Cobb Mountain, which serves a resort area with few year-round residents. After a one-year pilot study, Cobb Mountain determined that the late fee was effective in reducing delinquent payments and the late charge was made permanent4. Later, Havasu Water Company (Havasu) received the same treatment5. Other water utilities criticized this late fee structure because it only addressed the carrying cost of late payments and not the additional costs incurred. Havasu pointed out that these costs would be paid by other customers of the water company. Also the 1.5% late charge with a minimum of $1.00 effectively put in a $1.00 late charge since the water bill would have to exceed $66.67 for the $1.00 minimum charge to be exceeded. At the California Water Association meeting in October, 1996, the small water utilities specifically requested a different late charge and cited the additional costs involved in justifying a different late charge. The Branch requested some cost studies for the late charge, and, on January 27, 1997, Ponderosa Water Company (Ponderosa) sent cost calculations for additional costs due to late payments for staff review. Ponderosa's calculations justified a $5.00 late charge. The costs incurred were typical of the costs incurred by a small water utility for labor and materials involved including notification and collection of the delinquent account and the charge was approved by Resolution W-4035, April 9, 1997.

c. Returned Check Charge. Resolution W-2638, May 20, 1980, revised Rule 9 to establish a $5.00 charge for bad checks or electronic fund transfer procedures not honored. At that time, the Commission found that the additional cost to the utility for processing returned checks varied and the $5.00 charge was in the mid-range. Since that time banks fees increased, writing a bad check was made illegal,6 and the costs of processing and collection increased. The $5.00 charge was no longer sufficient to cover the costs. At the California Water Association meeting in 1997, many water utilities requested a higher returned check charge and cited increased charges by banks and the additional costs involved in reversing bookkeeping entries, collecting the check and reentering the amount. Part of the higher cost was due to the practice of customers paying with a bad check to avoid the disconnection of water service for non-payment or to avoid the charge for reconnection. In its letter of January 24, 1997 Ponderosa sent cost calculations for additional costs due to processing and collecting which justified a $20.00 returned check charge as representative of the costs incurred by a small water utility. Resolution W-4035, April 9, 1997, allowed all Class C and D water utilities to file to assess this charge.

d. Reconnection charges (see Tariff Rule 11) represent the cost to the utility of performing disconnection and reconnection and keep other ratepayers from paying costs caused by one customer. Rule 11 allows water utilities to charge for reconnecting water service that has been disconnected due to non-payment or violation of rules. General Order 103 states that utilities may charge $10.00 for reconnection of service during regular working hours and $15.00 for reconnection of service at other than regular working hours when the customer has requested that the reconnection be made at other than regular working hours. This fee has been in effect for a long time while labor and processing costs have increased. Class A and B water utilities have justified and established higher reconnection charges in conjunction with general rate cases; however, small utilities do not have general rate case proceedings as often and do not have the time or resources to devote to calculation of costs of reconnection. At the California Water Association meeting, small water utilities requested a higher reconnection charge and cited increased costs as justification. Ponderosa provided a cost basis for a charge of $25.00 during regular working hours and for $40.00 for other than regular working hours. The Water Division found that these costs were representative of those for small utilities. Because the majority of these costs are associated with the travel and preparation for disconnection, not the disconnection itself, the division recommended that the charge be levied even when the customer attempts to pay the overdue bill at the time the disconnection is being attempted.

e. A Collection charge may be assessed when the water company employee arrives at the site to disconnect service and the customer pays the past due bill in full.7 The water company must justify the amount of this charge. Imposition of this charge may be initiated by advice letter.

f. Deposits may be required of new customers, until those customers have established credit with the utility.

g. Facilities fees were originally approved for smaller water companies and smaller districts of large water companies by Decision (D.) 91-04-068, April 24, 1991, which stated (Ordering Paragraph 2):

    "2. A Class C or Class D utility, or a Class A or Class B utility district or subsidiary serving 2,000 or fewer connections, may accept from individual customers amounts in contribution as a facilities fee pursuant to tariffs approved by the Commission."

    This order was supplemented by a settlement adopted by D. 93-11-066, November 23, 1993, which allowed the filing of proposed facilities fees by advice letter and required all monies collected to be kept in a separate bank account and used only for infrastructure replacement. The settlement also proclaimed that (Section II. A. 1):

    "The Stipulating Parties agree that small water companies may submit requests to Water Branch for establishment of facilities fees as authorized by D. 91-04-068, so long as such facilities fees are based on a need for additional operating facilities resulting from actual or projected customer growth. Such requests shall be supported by either a formula method which reflects actual or projected customer growth or by a method utilizing customer growth projection and estimates of need additional operating facilities and the costs thereof which are related to such projections."

    On September 3, 1998 the Commission approved Resolution No. W-4110 which allowed Sierra City Water Works, Inc. and all other Class D water utilities to file to charge facilities fees to fund replacement of plant. It established generic tariffs for facilities fees ranging from $2,000 for 5/8 inch by ¾ inch metered water customers to $16,000 for customers requiring a 2 inch meter (see Appendix A).

h. Connection charges allow a utility to recover the cost of hooking a new customer into an already existing distribution main8. This fee covers the costs of installing new service connections, including service pipe, meter box and meter, and labor, but is based on typical length and excavation times, so that all customers are charged an "average" amount. As an alternative, the customer may contract separately with a contractor approved by the utility, for the installation of the service lateral and meter box.

i. Franchise fees, business license fees or utility taxes are charges levied by a local governmental entity on the utility that serves within an area controlled by that governmental entity. These charges may be recovered in two ways. (1) If the utility only serves within one governmental entity, or within areas controlled by multiple governmental entities where the franchise fees, business license fees or utility taxes are about the same, the recovery should be included in base rates at the aggregate amount. (2) If one governmental entity significantly exceeds the aggregate, or if one governmental agency raises the rate, the recovery of that fee should be by surcharge levied on only the customers within the area controlled by that governmental entity.9

Schedule F

FACILITIES FEES

APPLICABILITY

TERRITORY

This schedule is applicable within the entire territory served by the utility.

RATES

Initial Fee for each Service Connection:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Schedule LC

LATE PAYMENT CHARGE

APPLICABILITY

TERRITORY

RATES

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1 Resolution number 11, March 22, 1935, of the Railroad Commission of the State of California authorized Sierra Water Service Company to offer a discount of fifty cents to customers who paid their bill by the 20th of the month.

2 Resolution W-3812, November 23, 1993, Finding 10.

3 Resolution W-3875, November 7, 1994

4 Advice letter 23, June 18, 1996, effective June 24, 1996

5 Resolution W-3940, September 7, 1995

6 Under California Civil Code, Chapter 522, Section 1719, the maker of a bad check may be liable for three times the amount of the check or $100.00, whichever is greater, plus the face value of the check and court costs.

7 D.83-06-064, June 15, 1983, Ordering Paragraph 3.

8 D.91-04-068, 39 CPUC 2d 594 (1991)

9 D.89-05-063, May 26, 1989, Ordering Paragraph 1.

10 Public Utilities Code Section 432 (c) (4)

11 Letter from Milton J. DeBarr to Class B, C and D Water Companies, September 5, 1986

12 Public Utilities Code Section 433

13 Public Utilities Code Section 405

14 Authority to charge facilities fees was established by Commission Decision (D.)92-03-093, March 31, 1992, Ordering Paragraph 10, which ordered workshops within 75 days to discuss, among other items, allowing Class C and D utilities to charge facilities fees. As a result of the workshop, staff issued suggested procedures that required the utility to develop a list of expected new facilities' costs and divide by the number of expected new customers. This, or any other method, was to be requested by Advice Letter (D.93-11-066, November 23, 1993).

15 39 CPUC2d at 602: "We do not preclude water utilities like [Southern California Water Company's] Desert District from also seeking a facilities fee as part of a rate case, but such districts will not have a rebuttable presumption that such a fee is appropriate. As in D.90-02-020, they will have to show that their need for a facilities fee outweighs the ratemaking principle that shareholders, rather than ratepayers, should bear the cost of plant facilities." (emphasis in original)

Top Of Page