Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ BENNETT (Mailed 11/21/00)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Southern California Water Company (U 133 W) For An Order Authorizing It To Increase Rates For Water Service In Its Arden-Cordova Customer Service Area. |
Application 00-03-064 (Filed March 28, 2000) |
|
And Related Matters. |
Application 00-03-065 Application 00-03-066 Application 00-03-067 Application 00-03-068 Application 00-03-069 Application 00-03-070 (Filed March 28, 2000) |
(See Appendix A for List of Appearances.)
OPINION
In this consolidated proceeding, Southern California Water Company (SCWC) SCWC calculates its rate of return as 9.81% for 2000 and requests an average return on rate base of 9.83% for the test years 2001 and 2002 and the attrition year 2003 in Arden-Cordova, Santa Maria, Ojai, Bay Point, Clearlake, Simi Valley and Los Osos, the seven districts or community service areas (CSAs) which comprise Region I.
SCWC also proposes to equalize rates among all seven CSAs in Region I by imposing a single tariff structure. This requires that certain high-cost districts would have a less current increase and that other low-cost districts would carry a greater portion of the overall increase. However, under these proposed changes, not all individual CSAs would have increased rates. SCWC seeks to implement a single, two-tiered tariff in a phased manner whereby Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria customers would pay the single-tariff rate (151.5% and 17% over existing rates respectively), Ojai would receive a 10% reduction in existing rates, and the remaining CSAs would be frozen and phased onto this single-tariff as rates in Bay Point, Clearlake, Simi Valley and Los Osos reach the single-tariff level, estimated to be from 3 to 15 years.1 SCWC proposes to increase rates in individual CSAs in 2002 and 2003 between 0.34 - 5.41%. Without regionalizing rates, the proposed stand-alone increases are significantly higher, between 8.94% and 46.46%, with a 1-5% increase in 2002 and 2003.
Regarding rate design, SCWC proposes to set the monthly flat rate in Arden-Cordova for customers with one unit residences at the same rate as customers with a 5/8" meter using 22 Ccf. SCWC also proposes to place residential customers in Arden-Cordova with 5/8, ¾ and 1-inch meters on the single, lowest service charge. SCWC also requests authorization to consolidate the supply expense balancing and memorandum accounts in the seven CSAs.
The Commission Water Division Ratepayer Representation Branch (RRB), now reorganized under the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Orcutt Area Advisory Group ( Orcutt), Inc., Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. and Gold River Community Association (Gold River), as well as the majority of customers who wrote letters or appeared at public participation hearings, oppose the proposed increases and the request for regionalized rates. However, a small minority of customers, as well as the City Council of Ojai, supports the application.
RRB and SCWC, filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement, which resolves the proposed increased rates without regionalization (stand-alone rates). Therefore, the issues are whether to regionalize rates in the seven districts and whether the settlement agreement should be approved.
After weighing the evidence in this proceeding based upon our case-by-case policy of reviewing requests to implement single-tariff rates, we conclude that the request for regionalized rates must be denied. However, we grant the motion to approve the settlement agreement resulting in approval of stipulated increases in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and a typical bill as follows: Arden-Cordova metered, 25.71%, 0.49%, 0.34% ($29.02); Arden-Cordova flat rate, 15.27%, 0.36%, 0.36% ($27.65); Santa Maria 18.23%, 1.36%, 0.08% ($34.35); Bay Point 11.40%, 0.51%, 050%, ($64.05); Clearlake, 11.11%, 2.53%, 2.47% ($50.75); Los Osos, 1.87%, 4.10%, 3.93%, ($41.42); Ojai, 1.83%, 4.66%, 2.45%, ($55.27); and Simi Valley, 1.08%, 1.40%, 1.39% ($44.85).
Thus, the application is granted in part and denied in part. We deny RRB's request that a statewide proceeding for all Class A water utilities be implemented to investigate affordability and conservation under regionalized rates.
SCWC filed these applications on March 28, 2000. The RRB timely filed a protest, opposing both the proposed rate increases and the regionalized rate design proposal.
A Prehearing Conference (PHC) was held by Assigned Commissioner Henry M. Duque on June 6, 2000. At the PHC two additional interested parties made appearances: Scenic and Aware.
Orcutt is a citizens group with 150 members organized to participate in issues of local concern in Santa Maria. Orcutt opposes any increase in water rates and requests that SCWC's books and records be audited to assure that no expenditures related to the State Water Project are included in rates, since the Commission denied a request to do so in Application (A.) 96-11-077.
The Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. is a Santa Maria citizens group previously organized to protest the purchase of state water by SCWC and now named the Alliance for Water Awareness and Ratepayer Empowerment (AWARE). AWARE believes the proposed increases are unnecessary since water costs in Santa Maria have been reduced between 1995-1999. AWARE opposes the proposal for Santa Maria to subsidize five other CSAs and alleges that regionalization will dilute due process for local customers.
On June 20, 2000 the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo detailing the issues, schedule, including public participation hearings in each CSA, and naming Administrative Law Judge Patricia A. Bennett as the principal hearing officer for this ratesetting proceeding. Public participation hearings were held between June 26-29 and July 17-19, 2000 in Simi Valley, Ojai, Santa Maria, Los Osos, Rancho Cordova, Clearlake and Bay Point.
On August 7, 2000, Gold River petitioned to intervene in this proceeding and delay the scheduled hearings. Gold River is the master community association for 24 joint petitioning associations with a total of 2,695 member residential units. Gold River itself is a customer in the Arden-Cordova CSA. It has approximately 32 water meters and pays annual bills of $15,000-20,000. All of the member associations are within SCWC's service territory. These member associations have between 1-36 water meters each and 100 meters collectively. Given the imminence of the scheduled hearings, the time to respond to the petition was shortened. SCWC filed a timely response opposing any delay in the proceeding. On August 17th, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling granting the petition to intervene, but denying the request to delay the proceeding.
Evidentiary hearings were held on August 21-25, September 11 and October 27, 2000. The parties filed opening and reply briefs on September 26 and October 10, 2000 respectively.
SCWC and RRB filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement on October 17, 2000, attaching the settlement agreement. Final Oral Argument before a quorum of the Commission was held on October 24, 2000. The matter was deemed submitted on November 9, 2000.
The seven districts in Region I have varying numbers of customers. Of these districts, only Arden-Cordova has both flat rate and metered customers. The following is the number of customers per district:
Arden Cordova (metered) 11,400 |
13,764 |
(flat rate) 2,364 |
12,658 |
Santa Maria |
12,400 |
Simi Valley |
4,742 |
Bay Point |
2,111 |
Clearlake |
3,200 |
Los Osos |
2,780 |
CUSTOMERS |
51,655 |
SCWC proposes to spread expenses over the total regionwide customer base by implementation of a single tariff making any future increase in rates lower in existing high-cost districts. Under this single tariff, SCWC provided notice that rates would increase for the next three years as follows:
TABLE 1
Summary of Bill Comparisons of Stand-Alone and Phased-in Regional Rates
Monthly Bill
CSA
Revenue Percent Percent Percent
CSA Year Increase Increase Current Stand-Alone Increase Regionalized Increase
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (I)
Arden-Cordova (13,764 customers)
Tariff: AC-i 2001 $1,652,400 29.61% $55.35 $69.03 24.70% $139.21 151.50%
Average Meter Size: 1" 2002 $125,200 1.72% $70.24 1.80% $144.81 4.10%
Average Usage: 106 Ccf 2003 $125,300 1.69% $71.70 2.10% $150.89 4.20%
AC-2 (flat rate) 2001 $24.20 $31.30 29.30% $32.55 34.50%
2002 $31.90 1.90% $33.70 3.50%
2003 $32.40 1.60% $34.95 3.70%
Bay Point (4,742 customers)
Tariff: BY-I 2001 $863,900 21.29% $58.20 $70.02 20.30% $58.20 0.00%
Average Meter Size: 5/8 x 3/4" 2002 $16,900 0.34% $69.50 -0.70% $58.20 0.00%
Average Usage: 15 Ccf 2003 $17,500 0.36% $69.76 0.40% $58.20 0.00%
Clearlake (2,111 customers)
Tariff: CL-I 2001 $554,900 46.46% $45.95 $67.67 47.30% $45.95 0.00%
Average Meter Size:
5/8" x 3/4" 2002 $38,600 2.24% $69.05 2.00% $45.95 0.00%
Average Usage: 6 Ccf 2003 $86,700 4.92% $72.32 4.70% $45.95 0.00%
Los Osos (3,200 customers)
Tariff: LO-I 2001 $384,300 22.58% $41.53 $50.34 21.20% $41.53 0.00%
Average Meter Size:
5/8" x 3/4" 2002 $110,900 5.41% $52.26 3.80% $41.53 0.00%
Average Usage: 13 Ccf 2003 $110,700 5.12% $54.08 3.50% $41.53 0.00%
Ojai (2,780 customers)
Tariff: OJ-I 2001 $224,900 9.57% $58.43 $62.34 6.70% $52.57 -10.00%
Average Meter Size:
5/8" x 3/4" 2002 $121,000 4.59% $63.68 2.20% $52.57 0.00%
Average Usage: 26 Ccf 2003 $67,400 2.44% $65.06 2.20% $52.57 0.00%
Santa Maria (12,658 customers)
Tariff: SM-I 2001 $1,509,600 31.29% $29.02 $38.46 32.50% $33.97 17.00%
Average Meter Size:
5/8" x 3/4" 2002 $81,800 1.28% $38.46 0.00% $35.21 3.70%
Average Usage: 24 Ccf 2003 $79,600 1.23% $38.44 -0.0 1% $36.55 3.80%
Simi Valley (12,400 customers)
Tariff: SI-I 2001 $672,300 8.94% $44.74 $48.58 8.60% $44.74 0.00%
Average Meter Size:
5/8"x3/4" 2002 $154,100 1.88% $49.47 1.80% $44.74 0.00%
Average Usage: 2Occf 2003 $154,100 1.85% $50.39 1.90% $44.74 0.00%
Note: For all customer service areas, the average monthly bill was calculated based on average consumption of all Residential/Commercial meter sizes except for Arden-Cordova which was calculated based on the average consumption of the most common meter size
Through the single-tariff mechanism, SCWC proposes to spread the revenue requirement in high cost districts over a larger base, including those districts with lower costs. In order to equalize the resulting increases under regionalized rates between flat rate and metered customers in Arden-Cordova, SCWC proposes that the flat rate for a single unit of occupancy in Arden-Cordova be designed to match the proposed monthly metered customer with a 5/8 " meter using 22 cubic feet of water (ccf), the average consumption. This meter charge is the lowest of residential customers with 5/8, 3/4 and 1-inch meters. It was SCWC's intent that the flat rate and metered customers be comparably impacted by increased rates. However, the notice to customers was revised during the hearing to achieve this result. This revision reduced the proposed regionalized percentage increase over existing rates for metered customers in Arden-Cordova from 151.5% to 65.7% and increased the same proposed increase for flat rate customers from 34.50% to 38.84%, an amount that was not noticed to affected customers. (Exh. 14, p. 2 and Table 1)
Under the single-tariff proposal, SCWC estimates that, based on a 5% annual increase in revenue and anticipated increased costs for compliance with Radon and Arsenic regulation, the following CSAs would be frozen for the corresponding years: 1) Simi Valley and 2) Ojai (3 years), 3) Los Osos (6 years), 4) Bay Point (12 years) and 5) Clearlake (15 years).
By regionalizing rates, SCWC argues that it will spread the inevitable increased costs in already high cost districts to a larger customer base, easing the necessary rate increases in the high cost districts.
SCWC's preferred method of phasing in the regional rate is to freeze the current rates in Bay Point, Clearlake, Los Osos and Simi Valley, and freeze general metered tariffs in Ojai at 10% below their current level. The combined Region I revenue requirement that is not recovered from these districts would be obtained through a single metered tariff applicable to Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria customers. In order to minimize the impact on the lower volume user, SCWC is proposing an increasing two-tier rate design for the recovery of the revenues in the single-tariff. The first tier would allow for 50 ccf per month at the lower rate. The second tier rate would be set at 50% higher than the first tier and would be applied to volumes over 50 ccf per month. This tiered rate structure would be applicable to all meter sizes within these two districts.
SCWC argues that the following foundational facts upon which the Commission found regionalized rates reasonable in Region III (A.98-09-040, Decision (D.) 00-06-075) are the same as those for Region I in the instant proceeding:
1. The water industry is a rising cost industry;
2. The compelling need for rate relief in several smaller, high cost districts; and,
3. The impact of single-tariff pricing on the low cost districts is minimal. (Citing D.00-06-075, mimeo., at p. 2.)
As evidence of rising costs in the water industry, SCWC estimates that $31 million in infrastructure improvements will be needed within the next decade in these CSAs. (Exh. 10, W. Warren Morgan testimony.) SCWC believes the compelling need for rate relief is shown by the disparity in existing rates per ccf, citing as an example the fact that the customer in the Arden-Cordova CSA pays less than 50% of the cost for the same amount of water billed to the customer in Clearlake, and the fact that some of these districts already have rates that the customers find excessive. SCWC proposes regionalized rate design in order to equalize rates in those locations and argues that the impact is minimal. SCWC presented the expert testimony at Dr. Janice Beecher and cited caselaw in other regulatory jurisdictions that adopt single-tariff plans.
A. RRB Position
On the other hand, RRB finds no merit to the contention that regionalization is better for customers. RRB contends that these seven CSAs are separated from each other in distance from 50 to 400 miles and none are interconnected. The sources of water for these seven districts vary greatly from purchased untreated water to company operated wells. Each CSA has its own water supply. The cost of water supplies also varies considerably. Arden-Cordova has no water costs, while Bay Point pays $1.31 per Ccf and Simi Valley pays $1.23 Ccf for their water. By consolidation, other CSAs would be burdened with high costs of supply, even though they do not receive any water from these sources.
RRB argues that the Commission and the water utilities long have been aware that utility customers strongly oppose subsidies from one CSA to another. Most customers do not want to pay for unrelated costs of serving other customers who are not part of their system. In cooperation with Class A water utilities, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) established guidelines for consolidation of rate districts in its document entitled, "Guidelines for the Combining of Water Districts," dated August 20, 1992. RRB contends that this document develops the criteria and procedures for combining districts of Class A water utilities. The criteria required: 1) proximity, 2) rate comparability, 3) comparability in water supply, and, 4) similarity in operations as the preconditions for consolidations.
RRB argues that this case not only does not meet these criteria but also goes directly against the criteria set forth in the guidelines. Merging of districts for the purpose of subsidizing high-cost/high-rate districts by low-cost/low-rate district is strictly prohibited in these guidelines. According to RRB, the reason for such strict prohibition is to avoid unfair subsidy from one district to another.
RRB also opposes both SCWC revisions to the existing rate design: SCWC's proposal to consolidate residential and commercial customers for 5/8, ¾, and 1-inch meters, lower service charges for the residential customers, and raise service charges for the commercial customers; and SCWC's proposal for residential customers, to charge the same service charge for 5/8, ¾, and 1-inch meters. (Exhibit 17.)
According to RRB, the effect of these changes would be for commercial customers in Arden-Cordova to subsidize residential customers, since service charges for commercial customers are higher than residential customers and the quantity rates for SCWC's single regional rate have two blocks that burden large commercial users. The quantity rate for usage over 50 Ccf is set at 50% higher than the first 50 Ccf usage. This is significant, according to RRB, because consumption for commercial customers tends to be much higher than residential users. However, RRB argues the marginal cost for producing additional water is the same for both residential or commercial customers. By paying 50% higher for using more than 50 Ccf, commercial customers receive a price signal that is higher than the marginal cost of production. In turn, commercial customers would react by reducing their consumption through additional capital investment to avoid paying the high cost of water. Additional investment higher than the marginal cost would induce uneconomical expenditures to reduce water consumption. The consumption reduction would also create a revenue shortfall, and all the customers would pay higher rates to make up the shortfall in the revenue requirement. This is why RRB believes it is important to give a proper price signal by setting the quantity rate as close as possible to the marginal cost. According to RRB, SCWC's proposed two block quantity rate ignores price signals.
SCWC also proposes to charge the same service charge for the three different residential meter sizes. 5/8, ¾ and 1-inch meters. RRB argues that this is not consistent with the current Commission rate design policy. The Commission has adopted the following meter ratios to determine the service charges for different meter sizes:
Meter Size |
Ratio |
8 X ¾ - inch |
1.0 |
¾ |
1.5 |
1 |
2.5 |
1 1/2 |
5.0 |
2 |
8.0 |
3 |
15.0 |
4 |
25.0 |
6 |
50.0 |
8 |
80.0 |
10 |
115.0 |
12 |
165.0 |
15 |
225.0 |
RRB notes that SCWC claims these revisions would improve fire protection. However, in response to RRB's Data Request SBH-5, Question 12, SCWC could not indicate a single customer who has requested such upgrade for fire protection improvement
RRB contends that water systems must be designed to meet peak demand in order to avoid service interruptions. Therefore, the system must be designed substantially larger than average demand would require. The service charge is set to recover the cost of meeting peak demand over average demand. It represents a ready-to-serve charge. Therefore, it needs to recover the investments incurred to meet peak demand. Meter sizes are the main contributing factors for peak demand.
RRB contends that it would be unfair to the customers with smaller 5/8 X ¾ and ¾ inch meters, who impose a smaller demand on the system, to pay the same service charge as customers with a larger 1-inch meter who impose a larger demand on the system. Furthermore, RRB argues that customers with smaller meters would likely seek to replace their existing smaller 5/8 X ¾ and ¾ inch meters with a 1-inch meter. According to RRB, this would increase peak demand and encourage wasteful consumption.
RRB notes that SCWC claims these revisions would improve fire protection. However, in response to RRB's Data Request SBH-5, Question 12, SCWC could not indicate a single customer who has requested such upgrade for fire protection improvement.
SCWC proposes to set the monthly flat rate for customers in Arden-Cordova CSA with single unit of occupancy at approximately the same rates as the customers with a 5/8 meter using 22 Ccf of water. RRB opposes this rate design. It argues that the average usage for the flat rate customer is about 27.5 Ccf per month. By using 22 Ccf for setting the flat rate, RRB suspects that SCWC is attempting to reduce the impact to the flat rate customers at the expense of metered customers so that the proposal will be more acceptable to the flat rate customers. However, RRB argues that any reduction for one customer group would have to be made up by the remaining customer groups, thereby further distorting the price signal.
RRB contends the full impact of the proposed single-tariff increases is hidden because SCWC proposes to phase-in the regional rate to reduce the initial impact, and, the bill comparisons show impacts only on the most common meter sizes, not the larger meter sizes. RRB calculates the impact on the larger meters is much greater than on the smaller meters because SCWC's proposed regional rate shifts the burdens of revenue recovery from smaller meters/small users to larger meters/larger users. The resulting impact on the large users in Arden-Cordova is extremely high, ranging from $133.97 to $1,269.88 per month.
Likewise, RRB contends SCWC's calculation of the long-term impacts of single-tariff pricing, Exhibit 18, shows only the effect on the customers with small meters or a flat rate. Under the regional rate proposal, large customers would experience the largest rate increase, especially in Arden-Cordova CSA. RRB introduced Exh. 31, Attachment B, to show the effect of the proposed single-tariff rates on all meters. Second, RRB emphasizes that the effect of reduced consumption caused by a forced subsidy on large customers is not reflected in the Long term Cost of Service Study shown in Exhibit 18. RRB reiterates that customers with large meters and large usage subsidize customers with small meters using less than 50 Ccf. Thus, Exhibit 18 does not reflect the effect that a large subsidy would have on consumption and bypass. RRB concludes that large users would certainly react by either reducing consumption through additional expenditures to avoid the high cost of water or bypassing altogether to secure their own water sources. This would force all remaining customers to pay higher rates to recover the lost revenues.
RRB contends the evidence in this proceeding does not prove whether regionalization is better or worse for the customers. RRB argues that this region is already operated and managed as one region, creating no economies of scale by altering the rate design. RRB projects that the proposed regionalized rates simply impose additional costs on some customers, along with significant risks, and do little to make service more affordable. Moreover, RRB contends that the proposal undermines economic efficiency, distorts price signals and provides inadequate protection against over-investment in this region. RRB concludes that there is no evidence to show there are any benefits under regionalization, such as economies of scale, lower administrative costs, enhancement of capital deployment, improvement of rate stability or insurance of affordable rates for customers.
RRB argues that none of the districts are uniformly impoverished or wealthy, but that these conditions are spread throughout the entire region. This means that poor customers in Arden-Cordova, for example, would subsidize wealthy customers in areas where rates are frozen. SCWC's witness, Dr. Janice Beecher, commented on this conclusion by emphasizing that poor customers do not typically have large water usage, which minimizes any subsidies by them. (Tr. 471-473.)
A. Interested Parties' Positions
The interested parties raised several additional points regarding the impact of regionalization. Orcutt argues that the majority of Orcutt area customers oppose the proposed increases as well as the regionalized rate design targeting Santa Maria CSA as one of two districts to subsidize the entire region. Orcutt's witness, Donald R. Ward, testified that it has consistently questioned unwarranted local rate increases and successfully opposed SCWC's purchase of water from the State Water Project. Orcutt views any granting of the application as the sacrificing of its success in maintaining lower rates. Based upon median cost of housing data from the Association of Realtors in each CSA, Orcutt estimates that the areas being subsidized have substantially higher incomes than customers in Santa Maria. Orcutt does not believe it is fair for Santa Maria to subsidize other districts, most of which can better afford to pay their water bills than the ratepayers in Santa Maria. Orcutt considers the proposal to be "unfair to the point of being absurd." (Oral Argument Transcript, p. 41.) Orcutt suspects that when the other district rates are frozen, SCWC will request a "balloon payment" to be paid by Santa Maria customers for infrastructure repairs unassociated with this district. (Ibid.)
AWARE, a countywide corporation organized to oppose the importation of State water, argues that regionalization should be denied because it makes impossible customer participation in future rate proceedings outside their respective CSAs. While 200 people most opposing the application, attended the public participation hearings in Santa Maria, this attendance could not be duplicated if hearings were held in other locations, such as San Francisco or Los Angeles, which AWARE believes is likely under regionalization. Customers would be forced in the future to participate as one region-wide group, a task AWARE perceives as very difficult.
The General Manager of the Gold River Community Association (Gold River) testified about the impact of regionalization on its condo association members in the Arden-Cordova district. Kathryn Hendricksen indicated condo dues would undoubtedly increase as a direct result of approval of this application. She subsequently mailed to the Commission a petition indicating that all of the 2,695 member units were opposed to the application.
B. Customers Positions
Roughly 500 customers attended the seven public participation hearings in the separate districts, the majority opposing the application even though under regionalization their district rates would be frozen for a period of years. Over 100 customers have written similar letters of opposition to the Commission, including Assemblyman Anthony Pescetti of Arden-Cordova. The Clearlake Water Committee appeared on the first day of hearing requesting to stop the proceeding until it could pursue negotiations to purchase facilities in Clearlake and presented a petition containing 394 signatures of Clearlake customers opposed to the application, even though they understood that the rates in this CSA would be frozen under regionalization. These customers do not believe any stand-alone rate increase is warranted for Clearlake CSA, given the fact that neighboring district rates are significantly lower than those of SCWC.
C. Discussion
In D.00-06-075, issued on June 22, 2000, we authorized SCWC to implement a regionwide tariff in the eight ratemaking areas that comprise SCWC's Region III. Solely under the facts of that case, we concluded that the benefits of single-tariff pricing outweighed the disadvantages. We based this conclusion on rising water industry costs, the compelling need for rate relief in several small, high cost districts and a minimal impact of single-tariff pricing on the low cost districts in Region III, the criteria SCWC argues are present in this proceeding. We rejected RRB argument that 1992 consolidation guidelines prevented the single-tariff proposals. We reasoned that a region-wide tariff would benefit existing and future customers by stabilizing rates, making rates more affordable in the smaller rate districts and facilitating investment in water supply infrastructure and water treatment facilities. However, we clearly indicated that this resolution was based solely upon the facts within Region III and that regionalization would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Because this was our first approval of regionalized rates, we ordered staff to closely monitor the impact of this new policy on rates, and we ordered SCWC to file a proposed lifeline program for this region.2
Obviously, staff has not had sufficient time to accumulate any meaningful data on this new policy for the instant proceeding. However, the single-tariff proposal for Region I has significantly different characteristics and impacts than those in Region III.
In Region III, we did not have two CSA subsidizing all others. We ordered a 10% immediate rate reduction in three of the eight CSAs, a 25% decrease in another. The four remaining districts were placed on the single-tariff with the rates of the other four districts frozen until they reached the level of the single-tariff. The single-tariff was set at a rate midway between the rates of all districts, unlike the instant proposal where the revenue requirement dictates a significantly higher regional rate. There was no change in the number of tiers of rates. Thus, the impact on conservation or price signals was not an issue. The increases in areas where rates were not frozen ranged from 0.04% to 7%, which we characterized as minimal. Cost savings in rates projected over a 15-year period clearly showed savings in rates per customer per year after 0-5 years in five of the eight districts of $84-$1,400. The majority of customer letters favored the application, and no issue of affordability was raised. (D.00-06-075, pp. 4-12.)
In the Region III case, we concluded that all of the benefits outweighed the disadvantages of the proposal. We concluded that the proposed regionalized rates were not discriminatory, unjust or unreasonable and were in the public interest based upon the record in that proceeding. (Ibid.)
Although SCWC argues that the circumstances are the same in this proceeding, the single-tariff proposal here has very different characteristics and potential impacts. Because of the magnitude of the proposed increases in this proceeding under the single-tariff, it is crucial to have evidence upon which to base reasonable projections of the actual impacts such increased rates may have on price signals and existing conservation-oriented pricing techniques. Certainly, whether rates are affordable for customers is always a concern and prerequisite for reasonable rates. Even SCWC's policy witness, Dr. Janice Beecher, recognizes that it is always mandatory to have evidence to show that single-tariff pricing is in the public interest:
"In conclusion, single-tariff pricing is a legitimate policy tool used by a clear majority of the states that regulate multi-system water utilities. Single-tariff pricing is a tool that can be used on a case-by-case basis to achieve what the commissions believe to be in the public interest given the evidence before them. The precarious condition of very small water systems merits the consideration of alternative regulatory approaches, including single-tariff pricing. Because of the numerous policy tradeoffs involved, only the commissions themselves can specify the circumstances appropriate for implementing single-tariff pricing. The commissions should continue to exercise due diligence in assessing these circumstances..." (Exh. 10, Beecher Testimony, p. 77.)
First, SCWC argues that rising costs in the water industry mandate single-tariff rates, citing the example of radon and arsenic testing compliance. However, the proposed settlement agreement establishes that major infrastructure improvements can be achieved under lesser increases.
Second, SCWC argues that there is a compelling need for rate relief in high cost CSAs. While costs are higher to provide service in Clearlake, Simi Valley, Ojai and Los Osos, whether customers in all of these CSAs need relief by subsidizing their rates is disputed. The parties agree that Clearlake is a low-income CSA, although no party presents statistical evidence to prove this point. Clearlake customers indicate they cannot afford the existing bills, notwithstanding a proposed increase. Customers in Ojai and Los Osos, proposed to be subsidized CSAs, indicate they cannot afford increased rates. However, so do customers in Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria, the proposed subsidizing CSAs. Moreover, Orcutt indicates that based upon the median cost of housing in the CSAs, Santa Maria customers have the lowest incomes. Thus, Orcutt contends the more affluent customers in Simi Valley, Ojai, and Los Osos may better afford the significant increases than low-and-fixed income customers in Santa Maria.
Third, SCWC argues that the impact of regionalized rates is minimal. Certainly the proposed increase of 151.5% in Arden Cordova and 17% in Santa Maria can hardly be characterized as minimal. Regarding the potential impact of regionalization on commercial customers, Gold River's testimony calculates the direct impact on its association, which has numerous 1-inch meters in Arden-Cordova, will be to pass the 151.5% (or 65% as revised) increase to the same customers subject to the single-tariff residential rate increases in the form of higher condo dues.
This likelihood of the transfer of increased commercial rates back to the same residential and other commercial customers paying higher rates is more alarming given RRB's calculation of the impact of proposed increases on commercial customers with 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8-inch meters. Typically these customers are schools, hospitals, government offices, large and small business and industry. RRB estimates that under the single-tariff proposal these customers will pay dollar increases increases significantly higher than residential customers ranging from $133.97 to $1,269.88 per month. (Exh. 31, Attachment A-2, pages 8-12 of 29.) Thus, the potential impact on the economy in these CSAs is substantial.
In addition to the monetary impact the single-tariff proposal may have, there are also potential legal and economic impacts. Orcutt raises due process issues. We require SCWC to provide notice to all customers in every CSA where SCWC proposes increases in one CSA. However, even if this occurs, Orcutt's concerns would not be alleviated. It will undoubtedly be more difficult and more expensive for groups such as Orcutt and AWARE to mobilize customers in non-local CSAs in order to participate in Commission proceedings. Thus, the Commission and staff may loose an important voice in the rate proceedings, the affected customers. No party offered a solution to this problem.
RRB points out that the solution of a single-tariff in Region I may itself create the problem of bypass or take-over of SCWC facilities, incorrect price signals, and chilling effects on conservation efforts, all of which may add to the amount billed to Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria customers. Therefore, while it may be true that customers in these high cost areas need rate relief, it is not proven by clear, convincing evidence that the single-tariff approach is the best mechanism to achieve this result.
Numerous customers providing statements at the public participation hearing believe the application is entirely to benefit the company, rather than the customer. They suspect requests for more excessive rates will follow any authorization of a single-tariff. While we recognize that this is speculation, we must also recognize that these were Clearlake customers who will benefit the most under the single-tariff proposal. Yet, these customers adamantly oppose the applications and are seriously pursuing their goal of purchasing or otherwise acquiring SCWC facilities in their CSA. Orcutt and Gold River also indicated at Oral Argument they will be forced to do the same if this application is approved. Thus, under the single-tariff, we are assured of instability in the number of customers in service areas. This creates a significant undesirable risk of higher rates for remaining customers, as RRB points out. It would not be in the public interest for this Commission to authorize rate design that would promote this result.
The countervailing advantages that previously persuaded us to authorize a single-tariff in Region III are not present in this proceeding. SCWC admits there are no cost savings by adopting this new rate design since administrative and operational changes have already been made to administer and operate these CSAs as one district. Under the proposed single-tariff customers in high cost CSAs would save between $46-$261 on monthly bills in 2001 and between $270-$669 after 15 years. (Exh. 18.) This low level of savings does not outweigh the potential disadvantages of a single-tariff discussed above.
Although the argument was made, no party offered a legal analysis of rate discrimination under SCWC's single-tariff proposal and under the facts of this proceeding. Therefore, we are unable to reach a legal conclusion on any violation of § 453, although on its face, the magnitude of the increase is clearly paid by Arden-Cordova commercial customers alone, without adequate justification.
RRB correctly perceives that evidence of countervailing benefits must be very clear for approval of regionalization in the CSAs in Region I and that this burden rests with SCWC. Such evidence is just not present in this proceeding. SCWC witnesses testified to their opinions regarding the theory of regionalization. However, we must agree that no facts are in the record upon which to base the reasonable impact of this new policy on affordability or conservation. We should feel confident that the wrong price signals or incentives are not given by any new rate design. While a minimal impact on rates provided this assurance in the Region III proceeding, we do not have it here.
In summary, the record does not clearly show that the advantages of the single-tariff proposal outweigh the disadvantages. Thus, we cannot conclude that, based on the facts in this proceeding, this proposal is just, reasonable and in the public interest under § 451.
RRB's project manager testified to two viable options to single-tariff pricing. The first would spread increases more equitably in these seven districts and possibly avoid such negative impacts and customer opposition. Staff witness suggested a uniform surcharge of 1-2% on all customers in the region to finance infrastructure improvements. (Exh. 31.) While this proposal was not noticed to customers or developed on the record, it is an example of a more equitable sharing of increased costs than SCWC's proposal. Alternatively, he recommended that SCWC pursue the sale of the high cost districts to neighboring public water entities, citing as SCWC's reluctance to do so the case of Contra Costa's failed attempt to negotiate the purchase of Bay Point CSA.
Lastly, RRB recommends that before we authorize regionalized rates in Region I, we open a proceeding on a statewide basis for all Class A water companies to investigate issues, such as the impact on affordability, price signals and conservation. We may entertain such a request in the future but do not feel we are currently ready to proceed with such a case.
IV. Balancing and Memorandum Accounts
SCWC requests authority to consolidate the following balances in supply expense balancing and memorandum accounts:
Arden-Cordova $ 6,336
Santa Maria 630,753
Bay Point (748,497)
Clearlake 54,705
Simi Valley (131,440)
Total Region I $ (52,671)
All future entries to these accounts and amortization of the balances will then be performed on a region-wide basis
RRB opposes this treatment and asserts that it would be retroactive ratemaking because these accounts constitute obligations to pay or entitlement to refunds by the specific CSAs only. However, while we have no legal analysis to support this contention as a matter of policy, we certainly intend that monies collected from a specific group of ratepayers be refunded specifically to them. Consolidating these accounts makes this impossible, and would establish, at least for the three years that rates are frozen, that only Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria customers could receive any authorized refunds. Moreover, any refunds would be dictated by cost circumstances in the entire region, rather than debited or credited to the specific CSA customers who paid the original expenses. Such circumstances are contrary to Commission policy on refunds.
Application 00-09-048 was filed in compliance with our order in D.00-06-075 to propose a lifeline program for Region III. In this proceeding, the parties agree to extend any lifeline program authorized for Region III to Region I. Therefore, we will order SCWC to amend A.00-09-048 to include Region I, if needed, and give similar notice to Region I customers.
On October 19, 2000 SCWC and RRB filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement attached as Appendix B addresses the proposed rates for the test years in the seven districts without a single-tariff and the overall rate of return. It does not address the proposed single-tariff.
RRB notified all parties in the proceeding of a settlement conference sever days prior to this meeting pursuant to Rule 51. 1(b). The settlement agreement was served on all parties in the proceeding in accordance with Rule 51.3.
Rule 51.1 (e) requires that such a settlement agreement, whether contested or uncontested, be reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law and in the public interest. The settlement agreement in this proceeding meets these standards, as discussed below. Therefore, the joint motion to approve the settlement agreement should be granted.
In this proceeding, virtually every expense item, numerous methodologies in projecting future expenses, as well as the methodology for calculating future rates of return were disputed between SCWC and RRB. The settlement agreement shows a compromise on these many disputed issues between SCWC and RRB. As such, the settlement agreement is consistent with Commission policy that encourages settlements to promote the reduction of litigation expense, conserving Commission resources, and reducing each party's risk of litigation that may produce unacceptable results.
The settlement agreement shows companies between these parties to reduce the total revenue requirement for all CSAs, which results in the significantly lesser proposed stand-alone increases as follows:
2001 2002 2003
Incr. Incr. Total Incr. Incr. Total Incr. Incr. Total
$ % Bill $ % Bill $ % Bill
Arden-
Cordova:
Metered $ 5.91 25.71% $28.87 $0.14 0.49% $29.02 $0.10 0.34% $29.12
Arden-
Cordova:
Flat rate $ 3.65 15.27% $27.55 $0.10 0.36% $27.65 $0.10 0.36% $27.75
Bay Point $ 6.07 10.47% $64.05 $-0.32 -0.53% $63.71 $0.33 0.52% $64.04
Clearlake $ 5.01 10.95% $50.75 $ 1.19 2.34% $51.93 $ 1.19 2.34% $51.93
Los Osos $ 0.11 0.27% $41.42 $ 0.91 2.19% $42.33 $ 0.91 2/15% $43.24
Ojai $-2.80 -4.83% $55.27 $ 1.18 1.28% $56.45 $ 1.24 2.20% $57.69
Santa
Maria $ 5.52 19.16% $34.32 $ 0.03 0.08% $34.35 $ 0.03 0.08% $34.37
Simi
Valley $ 0.39 0.88% $44.85 $ 0.61 1.36% $45.46 $ 0.64 1.41% $46.10
Calculations are based upon the average residential meter size and usage in each district.
In addition, in the settlement agreement shows many areas of reasonable compromise. For example, the proposed rate of return is reduced from those - year average of 9.83% to 8.94%. The Sonoma Treatment Plant in Clearlake ($1.6 million), and the dispute over a lease of water rights from the City of Folsom in 1994 are declined. Yet, under the settlement agreement the remaining necessary infrastructure improvements are significantly funded in the test years.
In the agreement, the parties resolve the dispute over balancing accounts. They agree that the Supply Cost Balancing Accounts for the Arden-Cordova, Bay Point, Clearlake, Los Osos, Ojai, Santa Maria, and Simi Valley CSAs should be reviewed for amortization through September 30, 2000. They also agree to the continuation of those accounts. SCWC agrees to file within 90 days an Advice Letter or Advice Letters, as necessary, to request amortization of the existing balances in the Legal Fees and Water Quality Memorandum Accounts authorized by Resolution Nos. W-4181 and W-4094.
Thus, the settlement agreement removes the uncertainty of whether the Commission would find that amounts in excess of the agreement should be disallowed or reduced. In addition, the time and expense of further hearings are eliminated.
The settlement agreement provides needed infrastructure improvements at rates that are reasonable. It avoids the negative impacts of the single-tariff proposal, extremely high rates for one district, a threat of bypass, an unknown ability of some customers to pay and a questionable impact on conservation.
In light of the whole record in this proceeding, especially the significant opposition to stand-alone rate increases and the risks each party takes regarding each expense item and rate of return disputed in the proposed stand-alone increases, the settlement agreement is reasonable.
The Settlement agreement adopts stand-alone increases well below those noticed to the customers. No term of the settlement agreement contravenes statutory provisions or prior Commission decisions.
The settlement agreement under existing rate design provides significantly reduced proposed increases in the subject CSAs with minimal further increases in 2002 and 2003. It achieves to a significant degree the needed infrastructure improvements and includes amounts for compliance with Radon and Arsenic testing important to maintain healthy drinking water. It also balances the interests of shareholders by allowing a rate of return comparable with those recently awarded to other water utilities. Therefore, the settlement agreement is in the public interest. In fact, it offers the only proposal for just, reasonable, non-discriminatory rates in this proceeding.
Orcutt submitted comments on the settlement agreement contesting three issues: 1) the cost for the booster pump in the Santa Maria CSA ($292,000) which RRB and SCWC agree to place in rates is the same pump for which the Commission denied recovery in Decision 99-04-060 and should be disallowed; 2) the three new wells to replace those taken out of service due to high nitrate levels are unnecessary if the booster pump is operable; and, 3) the developer should pay for this pump. Orcutt does not request a hearing or indicate any evidence it will present regarding these issues at any further hearing. Orcutt requests that the cost of the booster pump be disallowed and further investigation of the need for the three wells.
SCWC replied that Orcutt's allegations are in error and show misunderstanding of the issues it raises. SCWC contends that after the shutdown of the third well in June 1999 within the Evergreen Zone in the Santa Maria CSA, SCWC concluded that it needed to replace the 2,300 gpm water loss by purchasing water from the City of Santa Maria. In order to accept delivery of this water, SCWC constructed the Santa Maria Interconnection. The booster pump was needed to increase pressure during summer months to meet peak hour demands and prevent fire flow problems. SCWC constructed this interconnection between May and June 2000 and requested approval for the capital funds for the project in this proceeding. SCWC used this interconnection to receive water from the City of Santa Maria throughout the past summer.
SCWC contends that the Commission in the prior decision did not deny the booster pump, but denied the request to charge new customers a service access charge to reimburse SCWC for the capital costs of obtaining and regularly wheeling 500 acre feet of water from the State Water Project via the City's water system into the Santa Maria CSA. SCWC contends this is not the same as the current agreement. That agreement is to periodically purchase water from the City of Santa Maria to replace lost supply from the three closed wells when needed to meet peak demand. SCWC emphasizes that this is the City of Santa Maria's water, not SCWC's State Water entitlement, and the price is according to the City's published tariff.
SCWC contends Orcutt misunderstands the testimony regarding the cost and need for the wells.
Orcutt did not raise questions regarding the wells at the hearing and we find their comments unpersuasive that this stipulation violates prior Commission decisions or is unreasonable warranting further review or further hearing. The purchase of water from the City is not solely due to new development, but the loss of supply from three wells. The water purchased is not SCWC's water entitlement from the State Water Project, but is the City's water. The prior decision was rendered prior to the loss of the third well. Once the wells are replaced, the purchase of water from the City will likely become unnecessary. Moreover, RRB has already reviewed in this proceeding the need for the water purchased from the City and the drilling of three new wells and stipulated to both at slightly lesser cost than SCWC proposed. Therefore, we conclude that Orcutt's comments on the proposed settlement agreement are without merit.
Since the settlement agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law and in the public interest, we approve it.
VII. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______ and reply comments were filed on ________.
Findings of Fact
1. In individual CSA applications consolidated for hearing, SCWC seeks to implement a single-tariff based upon increased CSA rates, phased in over fifteen years, in its Region I districts serving Arden-Cordova, Bay Point, Clearlake, Santa Maria, Simi Valley, Los Osos and Ojai
2. The Ratepayer Representation Branch of the Water Division timely protested the combined applications. Orcutt, and AWARE, two customer groups in the Santa Maria area opposed to the applications, appeared at the Prehearing Conference where their motions to intervene as interested parties were granted.
3. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Gold River, a master association comprised of 24 condominium associations with 2,695 unit members, filed a motion to intervene as an interested party which was granted. However, its request to delay the proceeding was denied.
4. Under the proposal for a single-tariff, SCWC proposes to spread the costs within the region to decrease by 10% for three years the rates in Ojai, freeze rates in Bay Point, Clearlake, Los Osos, Ojai and Simi Valley at the existing level, until these rates reach the higher level of the single-tariff, and increase rates in Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria to pay the revenue requirement shortfall created by freezing and lowering rates in other CSAs.
5. Under the single-tariff proposal, SCWC proposes to institute two tiers of increasing rates, the first applicable to usage from 0-50 ccf with the lower rate, and the second tier 50% higher applicable to usage over 50 ccf.
6. SCWC also proposes under the single-tariff plan to set the monthly flat rate for residential customers in Arden-Cordova with a single unit of occupancy at approximately the same rates as the customers with a 5/8 meter using 22 ccf per month.
7. SCWC requests to consolidate the supply expense balancing and memorandum accounts in the seven districts, effective the same date the single-tariff is effective.
8. SCWC agrees to apply the currently pending lifeline program in Application 00-09-048 to the proposed single-tariff rates in this proceeding for Region I.
9. SCWC provided timely notice to Region I customers of the following proposed increases with corresponding monthly bill comparisons and unit rates for 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively: Arden-Cordova 151%, 4.10%, 4.20%(metered customers); Arden-Cordova 34.5%, 3.5%, 3.7% (flat rate customers); Bay Point, 0%, 0%, 0%; Clearlake, 0%; 0%; 0%; Santa Maria, 17%, 3.70%, 3.80%; Simi Valley, 0%;0%; 0%; Los Osos, 0% 0%; 0%; and Ojai, -10%, 0%;.
10. During the evidentiary hearing, SCWC revised the proposed CSA increases forming the basis for the single-tariff rates in order to spread the increased costs more equally between Arden-Cordova's metered and flat rate customers.
11. The revision to equalize proposed rate increase impacts reduced the proposed single-tariff rates for Arden-Cordova metered customers from 151.5%, 4.10% and 4.20% to 65.73%, 3.72% and 3.83% in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively. However, it increased proposed single-tariff rates to the following levels which were not timely noticed: Arden-Cordova flat rate customers, 38.84% in 2001 and 3.72% in 2002; and all Santa Maria customers 20.70% in 2001.
12. On the first day of evidentiary hearing, the Clearlake Water Committee presented a petition containing the names of 394 Clearlake customers who opposed the single-tariff proposal and any rate increases.
13. Clearlake Water Committee's oral request to delay the hearing while it pursued the purchase of SCWC facilities in Clearlake was denied.
14. Clearlake Water Committee's oral request to delay the hearing while it pursued the purchase of SCWC facilities in Clearlake was denied.
15. A total of 500 customers attended the PPHs held in each CSA.
16. The majority of customers providing statements for the record in this proceeding at the PPHs opposed the proposed rate increases and the proposed single-tariff plan.
17. The Commission has received roughly 100 letters from customers in Region I, the majority of which oppose the applications in this proceeding.
18. The SCWC rate design proposal results in significant dollar impact of single-tariff pricing on commercial customers in Arden-Cordova and Santa Maria.
19. SCWC's proposed single-tariff proposal will provide incorrect price signals, encourage by-pass and purchase or condemnation attempts by Arden-Cordova customers, and discourage conservation, which, if it occurs, will cause even further increased rates for the remaining customers.
20. Low-income customers in Santa Maria CSA may not be able to afford to subsidize more affluent customers in other CSAs.
21. The single-tariff proposal would make more difficult and costly customer participation in Commission rate proceedings affecting Region I.
22. The single-tariff proposal will directly cause the increase in condo dues among its 2,965 member units in Arden-Cordova.
23. SCWC's proposed single-tariff in Region I results in no administrative or operational cost savings.
24. Under SCWC's proposed single-tariff proposal, customers in Region I receive low levels of monthly savings in the future, between $46-$261 in 2001, ranging up to between $270-$669 in 2017.
25. In D.00-06-075 the Commission accepted single-tariff pricing solely based upon the facts in Region I of SCWC.
26. The single-tariff proposal in this proceeding and its corresponding impacts on customers, is significantly different from the situation in Region III.
27. The monetary impact of SCWC's single-tariff proposal in this proceeding is significant.
28. No administrative or operational cost savings are achieved under single-tariff pricing in this proceeding.
29. The potential impact of SCWC's single-tariff proposal on the local economies, price signals, conservation and affordability would be substantial but since no empirical data exits, the record is indeterminate.
30. Orcutt's comments on the proposed settlement agreement are without merit and do not warrant further hearing.
1. Whether to permit single-tariff pricing is a policy question, to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
2. Based upon the record in this proceeding, the request to authorize single-tariff pricing in Region I should be denied.
3. The motion to approve the joint settlement agreement filed by RRB and SCWC should be granted.
4. The proposed single-tariff rates have not been shown to be just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The application of Southern California Water Company (SCWC) for authority pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 454 to restructure the water rates of its Arden-Cordova, Bay Point, Clearlake, Santa Maria, Simi Valley, Los Osos and Ojai customer service areas into region-wide tariffs is denied in part and granted in part.
2. SCWC's request to authorize a single-tariff in Region I is denied.
3. The joint motion to approve a settlement agreement changing rates in the individual community service area's (CSA's) filed by SCWC the the Ratepayer Representation Branch of the Commission Water Division is granted.
4. SCWC is authorized to file the revised schedules contained in the settlement agreement attached to this order as Appendix A. The filing shall comply with General Order (GO) 96-A. The effective date of the revised schedules shall not be earlier than five days after the filing. The revised schedules shall apply to service rendered on or after the effective date.
5. Within 60 days after the effective date of this order, SCWC shall amend Application (A.) 00-09-048 to include Region I under the proposed lifeline program.
6. A.00-03-064, A.00-03-065, A.00-03-066, A.00-03-067, A.00-03-068, A.00-03-069 and A.00-03-070 are closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
APPENDIX A
Appearance
SUSAN L. CONWAY ROLAND S. TANNER
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
630 EAST FOOTHILL BLVD 630 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SAN DIMAS, CA 91773-1212 SAN DIMAS, CA 91773-9016
DONALD R. WARD JAMES O. DALE
ORCUTT AREA ADVISORY GROUP, INC. 3696 DIXIE LEE
4689 MARLENE DRIVE SANTA MARIA, CA 93455-2638
ORCUTT, CA 93455
PETER G. FAIRCHILD PATRICIA A. SCHMIEGE
CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ATTORNEY AT LAW
ROOM 5038 O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
505 VAN NESS AVENUE 275 BATTERY STREET, 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3305
KATHRYN HENRICKSEN
GENERAL MANAGER
GOLD RIVER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
11715 GOLD COUNTRY BOULEVARD
GOLD RIVER, CA 95670
(END OF APPENDIX A)
APPENDIX B
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of the Southern California Water Company (U 133 W) for an Order Authorizing it to Increase Rates for Water Service in its Arden-Cordova Customer Service Area. |
Applications 00-03-064 00-03-065 00-03-066 00-03-067 00-03-068 00-03-069 00-03-070 |
|
And Related Matters. |
|
SETTLEMENT
1.00 Introduction
1.01 This Settlement resolves all issues in the matter of the applications of Southern California Water Company (SCWC) for an increase in its general rates in each Customer Service Area (CSA) listed below, except for the issues of Regionalization of Rates and water rights in the Arden-Cordova CSA:
A. 00-03-064 Arden-Cordova
A. 00-03-065 Los Osos
A. 00-03-066 Santa Maria
A. 00-03-067 Bay Point
