Version 5L

BEFORE YOU SEND:

Thanks for taking the time to send your protest letter

Please make sure you your name and email / address before you send (just prior to the appendix section)
NOTE the graphs below may not copy when you “Select All” depending on the email client etc. You may need to pick each graph, copy and paste into your email
Also, if you have other relevant data points that should be included, please bring them to my attention by emailing rkumar @ saratoga.ca.us}

NOTE: If the emails (from the list below) are not going through, change the comma at the end of each email to a semicolon, that may help. These emails are legit and hundreds have responded successfully

-----

Tariff Unit, Water Division, 3rd floor

Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco CA 94102

Email: , , ,
cc: , , , , , , , , ​, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This email refers to the acronyms SJWC, and SCVWD

SJWC = San Jose Water Company
SCVWD= Santa Clara Valley Water District, the water agency

SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution W-5153 and AL513A

Dear PUC President Picker and Commissioners,

I am writing to request the following:

  • Please review petition to replace SJWC with a municipal utility company - YES, I have signed it along with 2100 others
  • W-5153. I request you to affirm the the rejection of San Jose Water Company’s implementation of a Sales Reconciliation Mechanism and increasing rates due to the reduced authorized sales forecast requested in Advice Letter No. 501. Please support your staff’s proposed Resolution W-5153 that is scheduled to appear on the January 11, 2018 Commission Meeting Agenda (ID# 16188).
  • Reject SJWC’s Advice Letter AL513A. I request you to reject SJWC’s AL513A for a 4.22% rate increase. The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. Please refer to case studies A through G in the appendix
  • Turn the suspension ofAdvice Letter 513 into a rejection, Thanks for suspending this rate increase. We request you now to reject the 4.13% rate increase on the basis of 6) The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory
  • RejectA.17 04-001on Equity: 9.65% is too much for SJWC to ask for given the bounty SJWC has experienced in the last few years.Their income was $22M in 2012 and last year was a whopping $51M. It is NOT acceptable for our rate increased to be raised by so many percentage points every few months andresulting in increased SJWC profits.NOT JUSTIFIED!
  • Reject AL 512.Thanks for already suspending AL 512, it is time to reject it.

THANK YOU TO CPUC COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND ORA

We appreciate your diligence in taking a measured and tough stand against a greedy and shameless corporation called San Jose Water Company.We are a choiceless consumer but not voiceless consumer.

  • Please stand by us, the people. You are all doing an amazing job, standing up for us citizens! Your staff and ORA are collectively doing an impressive job so far and we commend you for it!
  • Thank you for your rejection of AL 501 on May 3rd. Please stand by it and support the citizens.
  • Thank you for rejecting AL 510 and initiating the audit and investigation of San Jose Water Company.
  • We thank you for noting thatSan Jose Water Company has had a windfall $51M profit last year (up from $21M in 2012) – while we citizens have no choice, but to keep paying more and more to SJWC thanks to the super high water bills.We thank you for saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
  • We appreciate you pushing back on the rampant rate increases of San Jose Water Company that we have been dealing with.

FURTHER CALL TO ACTION AND SUMMARY OF OUR REQUEST

We urge CPUC to continue to be consumer advocate and consider implementing the following:

  1. We need more of our money back. Thanks for rejecting SJWC proposal AL No. 510 CREDIT SURCHARGE. SJWC owes its customers a lot more than $1,794,439.
  2. CONDUCT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND AUDIT:We are glad that CPUC initiated a thorough investigation and audit of SJWC's past and present billing practices Please penalize SJWC for any wrong doings and public reprimand any wrong practices currently in place.
  3. NO FURTHER RATE INCREASE IN 2018:We have already approved 12.3% rate increase so far in 2017. SJWC's greed won't end here. Please don't approve any more rate increases in 2018. CPUC has already approved Letters 498, 506, 508, 509 == 12.3%. This is 12.3% more than what we anticipated for 2017, given the consumer gouging that occurred in 2016
  4. THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF COST OF CAPITAL & GENERAL RATE INCREASES BEFORE ANY RATE INCREASES ARE GRANTED:Please consider comparison metrics for all other publicprivate utilities in the bay area in determining the appropriate cost of capital adjustments and rate increases for future years. Please make sure that we have comparable rates and/or implement policies so our rates get normalized over the coming years. There is plenty of evidence in APPENDIX A through G belowthat our rates have gone up astronomically in the last few years.
  5. THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF EVERYTHING SJWC SUBMITS AND HAS SUBMITTED IN THE PAST:As part of the audit, please evaluate all the filings by SJWC currently in place. Table 1 and 2 below shows a summary view of the exploitation that has been conducted surgically and methodically by San Jose Water Company these last few years. SJWC has stacked the system to suit it’s greed and it is time, we pull the plug on that. As you read through this email, please make a mental note that some San Jose Water customers have seen their 2016 water bill to be in the $2,500 to $4,000 range, in spite of reducing their water consumption by ~50%. Simply stated, San Jose Water Company has been blatantly gouging their customers in the name of drought and increased their profits.
  6. WE NEED COMPARISON METRICS – we have had enough of SJWC’s effort to blatantly increase profitsIf CPUC approves anything from SJWC,please provide us as part of the disposition, a study of Bay Area public and private water utility companies:
  7. What has been the % increase in water rates year to year since 2007 – obviously includes specific data SJWC
  8. In particular, what is the percentage increase these utility companies are planning in 2017, given that SJWC is currently filed to increase rates at least 20%

I AM VERY UPSET – I FEEL I HAVE BEEN EXPLOITED BY SJWC
THEY CONTINUE TO LEVERAGE THE PROCESS FOR INCREASED PROFITS

SJWC has increased revenue in the period of 2010 to 2016 by66% and in the same time their income has gone up by 200% - as per Table 1 belowThey continue to increase rates every year. The customer base is a constant – why are we seeing such huge increases? Weare being exploited and I am afraid this is only the beginning now that SJWC has experienced the bounty from 2016

TABLE 1: HOW HAS SJWC DONE FINANCIALLY?

2016 / 2015 / 2014 / 2013 / 2012 / 2011 / 2010
Population served / 1.092M / 1.089M / 1.085M / 1.077M / 1.07M
Op. Revenue / $339M / $305M / $319M / $276M / $261M / $222M / $203M
Income (before Tax) / $86M / $61M / $76M / $36M / $37M / $36M / $30M
Net Income (after Tax) / $52M / $37M / $51M / $22M / $22M / $21M / $17M
Income % Y2Y / 40% ↑ / 28% ↓ / 130% ↑ / 0% / 0% / 23% ↑ / -
Revenue increase (2010 to 2016): 66% INCREASE
Income increase (2010 to 2016): 200% INCREASE

TOTAL POTENTIAL RATE INCREASESFOR 2017(so far): +20%
Rate increase submissions by SJWC January through Nov 2017

Filing by
SJWC / Filing Date / Percentage Increase / Result
As per A.17 04-001 CPUC has set a ROE of 9.43% . The allowed rate of return needs to be significantly adjusted down given the huge bounty SJWC experienced in a drought
513 / Nov 2017 / 4.43% / Being Evaluated
512 / Sept 2017 / Recover the remaining $11,474,350 balance from the 2013 Interim Rates True-Up Memorandum Account / SUSPENDED
510 / June 6, 2017 / Surcredit filing / REJECTED – Investigation and audit being conducted
501 / January 9, 2017 / 3.65% / Rejected by CPUC
click here. SJWC has subsequently filed an appeal
509 / May 26, 2017 / 3.66% / Approved by CPUC, click ->
508/508A/508B / May 2nd ,
May 26th ,
June 1st, 2017 / 3.30% / Approved by CPUC
- Click here
506 / Feb 17, 2017 / 1.51% / Approved by CPUC
Surcharge removal / Feb 1st 2017 / Crazy % ↓
Thanks CPUC / CPUC removes surcharge
498 / 11/15/16
(Eff. 1/1/17) / 3.83% / Approved by CPUC
Surcharge / June 2015 / Crazy % ↑ / Approved by CPUC
CPUC Status – click here || List of SJWC Filings – here || Annual Report - here

AL 513A: REJECT 513A

  • SJWC seeks to increase their revenue requirement by $15.6M or 4.22%. We request you to reject it. The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. Please refer to case studies A through G in the appendix

W-5153. I request you to affirm the staff recommendation of rejection of SJWC’s implementation of a Sales Reconciliation Mechanism and increasing rates due to the reduced authorized sales forecast requested in Advice Letter No. 501.

  • San Jose Water Company files for gigantic yearly rate increase requests for the flimsiest of reasons with the CPUC relying on high priced Company lawyers that work against their customers, and needs to be stopped! We the consumers pay one of the highest water rates, with SJWC's private monopoly pricing and un-affordability in terms of high water bills, treating us as "Silicon Valley fat cats" which is utterly not the case! Our bimonthly SJWC water bills, cause great hardships in spite of our tremendous conservation efforts on our part as being responsible water consumers, and water conservation advocates as SJWC's long suffering customers!Thank you CPUC once again, on behalf of all SJWC's long suffering customers and water users.
  • In 2015 and 2016 San Jose Water Company employed a temporary mechanism to make up the difference between forecasted revenue and actual revenue. The Water Conservation Memorandum Account (WCMA) line items on the water bills charge customers a per ccf rate for a limited time (12 months).
  • With Advice Letter 501, San Jose Water Company is requesting a permanent rate increase (instead of a temporary charge) to make up the difference between forecast revenue and actual revenue.
  • It does not make sense to compensate a drought year loss of revenue with a permanent rate increase. Particularly given that San Jose Water company has done very well financially, via the surcharge it has imposed upon citizens of the district it serves.
  • Why wasn't San Jose Water Company's forecast of water sales more realistic in the fifth year of a drought? Advice Letter 501 states that the authorized sales forecast was 49,861 Kccf, yet during a 12 month period actual sales were only 40,173 Kccf. This is a 9688 Kccf difference or 19.4% shortfall. Why should customers make San Jose Water Company's revenue "whole" when the water sales were so grossly over-forecasted in a drought?
    Point to be noted, San Jose Water Company has benefited from the surcharges that were approved by the PUC last year, as its income for Q3 2016 was $19M in comparison to $9.5M in Q3 2015

AL 513: REJECT 513

  • SJWC seeks to increase their revenue requirement by $16.425M or 4.43%. The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. Please refer to case studies A through G in the appendix

AL 512: REJECT 512

  • Recovery of $11.4M balance from the 2013 Interim rate True-up Memorandum account. The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. Please refer to case studies A through G in the appendix

AL 510: WE WANT MORE THAN “PUBLIC RELATION PITTANCE” aka Letter 510

The total amount of the refund is $1,794,439

Just $1.794,439? That is ridiculous!!! We call it PR Pittance

  • I am appalled that SJWC still seeks to increase our rates, and the surcharge given the financial windfall for SJWC in 2016 on the backs of a severe drought, and the people of our community who went through a lot of personal stress due to super high water bills.
  • Here is a petition asking Santa Clara County to take action, condemn San Jose Water Company
  • We demand more of our cash back. Per the annual statement of SJWC, SJWC increased their profits 40% from 2015 to 2016. Their Q3 2016 income was $19M in comparison to Q3 2015 of $9.5M.
  • We the customers of SJWC, ask that SJWC refund the delta increase, the “drought bumper bonanza” that they have raked in, in a dire drought.The customers of SJWC are definitely entitled to a refund much more than $1.7M not this “PR Pittance”. I do understand the need for a serious PR makeover, but this is not even a start!

REJECT A.17.04-011

Application A.17.04-001SJWC is requesting an increase in authorized Cost of Capital from the Jan 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020.

  • Scroll down below for the graph and use case of how much our water rates have gone up. How many rate increases will we continue to see?
  • SJWC believes Application A.17.04-001 is necessary for it to attract capital to fund water system investments that allow the company to meet its obligations to safety and reliably serve its customers
  • MY RESPONSE: Where is the financial windfall being put to use? Not in capital improvement projects? I am surprised! I am angry too!
  • The graph in the appendix under section CASE STUDY F: SJWC 350% increase since 2010 demonstrates how a home owner reduced consumption by 30-50% over the past 7 years HOWEVER SJWC rate has increased 350% in the same time period. This is not justified, nor fair and I ask CPUC to step up and stop this blatant gouging of the consumer

NOTE THAT SJWC WAS RELUCTANT TO REMOVE THE DROUGHT SURCHARGE

The huge income and revenue in 2016 is the reason why SJWC was reluctant to remove the drought surcharge(Refer to CASE STUDY A: SCVWD Jan 24th 2017 SCVWD board meeting in Appendix). The customers of SJWC then began emailing the SCVWD Board requesting a removal of the mandate. We were relieved that SJWC decided to remove the surcharge via a filing

Here are case studies attached in the Appendix that I suggest you read through

  • CASE STUDY B: SANJOSE WATER 2X compared to GREAT OAKS
  • CASE STUDY C: SANJOSE WATER 5.5x compared to Coachella Valley Water District
  • CASE STUDY D: SAN JOSE WATER RATES DOUBLED in 3 YEARS
  • CASE STUDY E: COMPARE THE PRICE OF WATER SJWC vs LAS VEGAS
  • CASE STUDY F: SJWC 350% increase since 2010
  • CASE STUFY G: SAMPLE CASE STUDY JUNIPERO WAY, SARATOGA CA:

I respectfully request that the PUC follow through on theFURTHER CALL TO ACTION AND SUMMARY OF OUR REQUESTfrom above and protectus, the citizens of California from the blatant gouging by San Jose Waer Company

Sincerely,

-Your name

-Address

ADDENDUM

Please also review addendum information below

CASE STUDY A: SCVWD Jan 24th 2017 SCVWD board meeting

At the Jan 24th SCVWD Boardmeeting Tim Guster, Great Oaks Water General Counsel (video link of this meeting: 1:48:00) recommended the Board to immediately rescind resolution calling for 20% water use reduction and proposed a new resolution that declares conservation as a way of life. Tim also said that based upon removal of the 20% mandate, Great Oaks would immediately request CPUC to allow them to drop surcharges. They would file an advice letter that there is no longer a 20% call and modify tariffs accordingly to immediately stop surcharge.

We did not hear a similar categorical statement from San Jose Water company. To quote John Tang "CPUC would probably allow us to eliminate the surcharge if it was voluntary, if we filed for it.” You can watch it here Time 01:18:32

CASE STUDY B: SANJOSE WATER 2X compared to GREAT OAKS

From Amalarasan, San Jose resident. we are an household of 3 and our bimonthly water consumption is a mere 9 CCF, but our bill is $141.

A friend of mine, 6-7 miles away from home and is in City of San Jose, his house is serviced by Great Oaks water company, For the same 9CCF, the Great Oaks bill is $70

San Jose Water Company charges: $141

Great Oaks: $70

CASE STUDY C: SANJOSE WATER 5.5x compared to Coachella Valley Water District

From Melinda Ghavi a Saratoga resident: I would like an explanation as to the enormous disparity in the water rates charged by San Jose Water Company vs Coachella Valley Water District. You will see from the attached bills that SJWC is charging roughly 5.5 times more than CVWD; specifically SJWC is charging approximately $8.8871 per CCF whereas CVWD is charging $1.6127 per CCF.

Please keep in mind that the Coachella Valley is in the desert, where the temperature today is 120 (common in the summer months). The multitudes of green golf courses that are watered twice daily and expansive green lawns in public and private grounds compares unfavorably to the dead lawns in the Santa Clara Valley. CVWD extracts their water from aquifers deep underground whereas SJWC gets water from various locations delivered using infrastructure built decades ago.

I cannot rationalize why a bill for 33 CCF from CVWD amounts to $53.22 whereas a bill for 28 CCF from SJWD amounts to $248.84. And, to add further insult, it seems SJWD is boldly asking for an increase in rates. It seems much more appropriate for the CPUC to drastically REDUCE SJWC rates.

CASE STUDY D: JODY GREENBERG, SAN JOSE WATER RATES DOUBLED in 3 YEARS

Below is a chart of the per-gallon prices of water for two 4-plex buildings inSanta ClaraCounty, one inCampbell(95008) and one inSan Jose(95126). These are two real life examples of water pricing in SCC. The effective price per 1000 gallons plotted in the charts is derived by taking the entire water bill cost and dividing by the total number of gallons used in that period. This accounts for both the fixed and variable costs, and gives a clear picture on what customers are really paying for water based on their usage. Both of these buildings use a typical amount of water per bedroom.

The chart clearly shows that water cost per gallon has basically DOUBLED approximately 3 years. How can this possibly be justified? What other utility costs double in 3 years? It must surely be impossible to argue that the fixed costs of running the water company or infrastructure have doubled in 3 years. So the only possible explanation that could be used to justify this massive and rapid increase in prices per gallon is the drought, and that somehow the scarcity of water pushed up the prices since we have to import the water. Or, perhaps water prices were artificially inflated on purpose to further incentivize conservation during the drought? In either case, how can a FURTHER price increase possibly be justified due to customers using less water? Somehow I doubt that even with the massive amount of rain this year and reservoirs starting to fill back up, that we will see ANY decrease in water prices back towards the pre-drought prices.