Home » Water

California American Water
2012 General Rate Case

Background

In July 2010 Cal Am submitted and Application requesting  the CPUC to authorize it to increase rates for water service that would raise customer rates by up to 37 percent across the state. Cal Am proposed to increase its revenues for more than $33 million in 2012. Cal Am's proposal for its 2012 and 2013 rates would impact 600,000 customers across Sonoma, Sacramento, Monterey, Ventura, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. In December 2011, the proceeding was bi-furcated into phases:   

  • Phase 1: Cal Am’s request to increase its Revenue Requirements 
  • Phase 2: Cal Am’s request to change its Rate Design, Loss Sales Mechanism, and other issues, such as modifying existing tier rates for water service.  

In June  2012, the CPUC issued a Phase 1 Decision that approved a revenue increase of $24.3 million – a 15.6% increase.  

On July 25, 2013, the CPUC issued its Final Decision resolved Phase 2 issues for the Monterey District. 

 

DRA’s Policy Position

Phase 1: Based on its investigation, DRA determined that Cal Am's administrative requests in Phase 1 of its rate case were excessive and unnecessary to support quality service. DRA recommended a significantly smaller rate increases for all customers in 2012 and 2013, negotiating nearly a $9 million decrease in Cal Ams revenue request.  

See DRA's July 11, 2011 Opening Brief.   

See DRA's 2011 Testimony and Independent Report. 

Phase 2:  DRA analyzed Cal Am’s proposals to change its rate design and maintain its Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and Modified Cost Balancing Account (MCBA) and made the following key recommendations:  

  • Deny Cal Am’s request for changes to the rate design in Cal Am’s Monterey County District.  
  • Deny Cal Am’s proposal to shorten the amortization periods for existing WRAM/MCBA balances. 
  • Replace Cal Am’s WRAM/MCBA with a Monterey style WRAM. 
  • Deny Cal Am’s request to implement a WRAM/MCBA in its Sacramento District.  

See DRA’s: 

August 31, 2012 Opening Brief on Phase 2.  

September 14, 2012 Reply Briefs 

  

Proceeding Status

See the Proceeding docket.