California American Water
2015 General Rate Case
On July 1, 2013 California American Water (Cal Am) filed its Application with the CPUC requesting approval to increase customer rates from 2015 – 2017:
2015: $18,473,900 or 9.55% increase
2016: $8,264,700 or 3.90% increase
2017: $6,654,700 or 3.02% increase
The main drivers of the proposed rate increases are capital investments, depreciation, general office costs, operating and maintenance costs, taxes, and reduced water sales. Cal Am’s water districts include Larkfield, Sacramento, Monterey Main, Monterey Toro, Garrapata, Monterey Wastewater, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, and Ventura County.
On October 9, 2013 Cal Am filed its 100 day update to its Application. On October 1, 2013, Cal Am filed Supplemental Testimony with its rate design proposal for all districts except Monterey. On December 1, 2013, Cal Am filed its Testimony with its rate design proposal for the Monterey District.
ORA Policy Position
ORA protested Cal Am’s proposal because Cal-Am’s revenue calculations are inconsistent with its current tariffed rates charged to customers.
Cal-Am’s Application includes 33 special requests. Its revenue projections do not incorporate all of the earnings it may realize from its various “special request” proposals. Many of these special requests are for additional fees, surcharges, or memorandum accounts, which, if approved, will lead to additional increases in customer bills.
ORA will address the specific merits of Cal Am’s rate case requests after completing its discovery and analysis and serving its Testimony, anticipated for March 28, 2014.
See ORA’s August 5, 2013 Protest.
In fall 2013, ORA conducted field visits to Cal Am’s various service territories, offices, and plants as part of its audit of Cal Am’s request to increase customer rates. During these visits, it came to ORA’s attention that Cal Am had failed to complete a significant number of previously authorized projects – far more than the five projects Cal Am had identified in its CPUC Application, for which Cal Am customers had already paid.
Consequently, ORA filed a Motion with the CPUC to open a companion proceeding to investigate Cal Am as potentially violating the CPUC’s Rule 1.1, which requires the utilities it regulates to be forthcoming and not mislead the Commission.
See ORA’s November 12, 2013 Motion for a Companion Order Instituting an Investigation
Parties’ Testimony is anticipated for March 28, 2014.
See the Proceeding docket.
ORA Cal Am Archives