XML 26 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.2

Regulatory Rate Filings | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2019
Regulated Operations [Abstract] |
Regulatory Rate Filings | Regulatory Rate Filings California Regulatory Affairs On January 4, 2018, San Jose Water Company filed General Rate Case Application No. 18-01-004 (“GRC”) with the CPUC requesting authority for an increase of revenue of $34,288, or 9.76%, in 2019, $14,232, or 3.70%, in 2020 and $20,582, or 5.17%, in 2021. Among other things, the application also included requests to recover $20,725 from balancing and memorandum accounts, the establishment of a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism and Sales Reconciliation Mechanism (“WRAM/SRM”), and a shift to greater revenue collection in the service charge. On June 28, 2018, the CPUC issued an order in the case identifying the issues to be considered, including whether the proposed merger between SJW Group and Connecticut Water Service, Inc. will have any ratemaking impact on the customers of San Jose Water Company (see discussion on the proposed merger at Note 12). This consideration was subsequently removed from the GRC to be considered in an Order Instituting Investigation (“OII”) on the proposed merger issued on July 20, 2018, see below for further discussion. On August 10, 2018, San Jose Water Company and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates filed a joint motion for partial settlement (“Settlement”) of the GRC with the CPUC, resolving all issues in the GRC with the exception of authorization of a WRAM/SRM and the recovery of the balance in the Hydro Generation Research, Development and Demonstration Memorandum Account, such issues being subsequently contested in legal briefs. On October 16, 2018, the CPUC issued a Proposed Decision adopting the Settlement in part, without any impact on the proposed revenue requirement outlined in the Settlement, and delaying ruling on the contested issues in order to allow the Settlement rates to become effective January 1, 2019. On December 4, 2018, the CPUC issued Decision 18-11-025 authorizing new rates for 2019. Accordingly, San Jose Water Company filed Advice Letter No. 528/528A on December 7, 2018, requesting authorization to increase revenue requirement by $16,378 or 4.55% in 2019 and to implement surcharges to recover $27,045 of under-collections from memorandum and balancing accounts. This was approved on December 28, 2018, and new rates became effective January 1, 2019. On June 19, 2019, the CPUC issued its final decision resolving the remaining issues in the GRC. Decision 19-06-010 denied the WRAM/SRM and authorized the recovery of the Hydro Generation Research, Development and Demonstration Memorandum Account balance of $1,243. San Jose Water Company is required to file a Tier 3 advice letter to recover this amount via a surcharge over a three-year period. Tier 3 advice letters typically require a higher level of review and formal resolution by the Commissioners for approval. The CPUC is expected to issue a decision in the third quarter of 2019. On July 20, 2018, the CPUC issued OII No. 18-07-007 concerning SJW Group’s merger with Connecticut Water Service, Inc. A Scoping Memorandum was issued on September 7, 2018, which identified the issues to be considered in the proceeding as to whether the proposed merger is subject to CPUC approval and to evaluate the merger’s likely impacts within California. On September 14, 2018, SJW Group and San Jose Water Company submitted joint comments in response to the issues identified in accordance with the Scoping Memorandum’s adopted schedule, and reply comments were submitted on October 19, 2018. A Public Participation Hearing was held on January 31, 2019. On March 4, 2019, the CPUC suspended this proceeding due to SJW Group’s announcement of its intention to file a new merger approval application with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”). On April 3, 2019, SJW Group and Connecticut Water Service, Inc. jointly filed a new merger application with PURA. In January 2017, a San Jose Water Company customer inquired about the company’s billing practice as it related to the proration of service charges in billing cycles where a rate change occurred. After reviewing its existing practice as well as those of other Class A water utilities, San Jose Water Company determined that it was appropriate to modify its existing practice to prorate service charges similar to the manner in which it prorates quantity charges - that is by applying both the old and new rates to the portion of the billing cycle for which the rates were in effect. This change was implemented on January 30, 2017, and retroactively applied to January 1, 2017. Subsequently, on May 8, 2017, the CPUC’s Water Division notified San Jose Water Company that it had violated Public Utilities Code 532 and other CPUC Orders and directed the company to file an advice letter providing refunds for the period of January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016. As directed, San Jose Water Company filed Advice Letter 510 on June 6, 2017, to propose customer refunds in the amount of $1,794 for the same period. On June 22, 2017, San Jose Water Company was served with Complaint 17-06-009 regarding its billing practice for service charge rate changes. On August 11, 2017, the Water Division rejected Advice Letter 510 in light of the CPUC’s investigation into San Jose Water Company’s past and present billing practice. The billing issue was made a part of San Jose Water Company’s GRC proceeding. Testimony was provided by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (now the Public Advocates Office or “Cal PA”) on May 23, 2018. On June 8, 2018, the company provided its rebuttal testimony. On August 10, 2018, San Jose Water Company and Cal PA submitted a partial settlement agreement on issues presented in the GRC. Both the company and Cal PA settled on the billing issue limiting the duration from which to calculate customer refunds from June 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016. Accordingly, San Jose Water Company provided an additional reserve to cover the remaining period covered by the settlement. In accordance with Decision 18-11-025 for the GRC, San Jose Water Company filed Advice Letter No. 530 proposing total refunds of $2,020 for the period from June 1, 2011 through December 31, 2016. This advice letter became effective February 8, 2019, and refunds began on March 11, 2019. On April 22, 2019, the CPUC dismissed Complaint 17-07-009 citing the relief provided in Advice Letter No. 530 and the current OII on this matter. The Complainant filed an appeal with the CPUC to dispute the dismissal. This appeal is still pending before the CPUC. On September 14, 2018, the CPUC issued OII No. 18-09-003 to which San Jose Water Company was named as Respondent. The OII will determine whether the company unlawfully overcharged customers over a 30-year period by failing to pro-rate service charges when increases occurred during a billing period, and whether the company double-billed service charges during one billing period when allegedly switching from billing such charges in advance to billing in arrears. The OII resulted from a report by the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (“CPED”), dated August 16, 2018, recommending an investigation into San Jose Water Company’s billing practice. CPED calculated a refund obligation of approximately $2,061 for the years 2014 to 2016 that had been the subject of San Jose Water Company’s Advice Letter 510. CPED calculated a further refund obligation of approximately $1,990 for the years 1987 to 2013. CPED also asserted that the company double-billed its customers during a billing period when it allegedly converted from billing in advance to billing in arrears, assumed that such double-billing occurred in January 2011, and calculated a refund obligation of approximately $4,935. The OII notes these estimates and identifies the proper refund amount as an issue in the proceeding. The OII also identifies the CPUC’s authority to consider imposing penalties on San Jose Water Company in amounts ranging from five hundred dollars to fifty thousand dollars per offense, per day. On October 15, 2018, San Jose Water Company filed a response to the OII with the CPUC, in which the company stated that it believes it would not be appropriate for the Commission to require refunds extending prior to June 2011, that no double billing has occurred and that no penalties should be imposed on the company. The company believed its potential loss was limited to the refund amount agreed to in the partial GRC settlement of $2,020. Such amount was refunded to customers through Advice Letter No. 530 which was effective February 8, 2019. A prehearing conference on the matter was concluded on January 7, 2019, and a scoping memorandum outlining the remaining part of the proceeding scheduled was issued on February 11, 2019. The scoping memorandum outlined the following issues to be determined: (1) Did San Jose Water Company overbill its customers for water service during the period from January 1987 to June 2011, (2) If San Jose Water Company overbilled its customers during the above period, should the Commission fine San Jose Water Company or impose some other form of penalty on it, and (3) Is this action subject to any statute of limitations including, but not limited to, Section 736 of the Public Utilities Code. On March 8, 2019, the assigned CPUC commissioner issued a scoping ruling in the OII confirming the scope determined at the prehearing conference. On March 18, 2019, witnesses for CPED and for the customer group Water Rate Advocates for Transparency, Equity, and Sustainability (“WRATES”) submitted testimony in the OII. The CPED witness updated their refund calculation to approximately $1,847 for the years 1987 to 2011. The WRATES witnesses supported refunds both for those years and for the alleged double-billing but did not propose specific refund amounts. Both CPED and WRATES witnesses supported imposition of a penalty. San Jose Water Company submitted its rebuttal testimony on April 8, 2019, challenging the claim that any overcharging had occurred and that additional customer refunds or credits were appropriate. San Jose Water Company’s rebuttal testimony corrected an error in CPED’s calculation, indicating that if refunds or credits were required they should not exceed $1,757 for the years 1987 to 2011. In sur-rebuttal testimony, CPED accepted that correction. An evidentiary hearing was held on June 3, 2019. On July 24, 2019, San Jose Water Company and CPED jointly filed a motion for CPUC approval of a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) over San Jose Water Company’s past customer billing practices. The Agreement requires the company to pay approximately $2,100 in customer credits, consisting of $1,757 for refunds during the period from 1987 to 2011 and an additional $350 in customer credits to low income water customers, and invest $5,000 in utility plant that is not allowed an investment return or rate recovery. San Jose Water Company has recorded the $2,100 customer credit expense as an offset to revenues in the accompanying June 30, 2019, Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. The $5,000 commitment to invest in utility plant will be recognized as plant in service on the company’s financial statements once invested. The Agreement is subject to final approval by the CPUC which is expected in the third quarter of 2019. On February 28, 2019, San Jose Water Company filed Advice Letter No. 531 with the CPUC requesting to adjust the Utilities Reimbursement Account User Fees as directed by CPUC Resolution M-4839. The reimbursement fee was reduced from 1.40% to 1.23%. This request was approved and the new fee became effective on April 1, 2019. On March 29, 2019, San Jose Water Company filed Advice Letter No. 532 with the CPUC requesting authorization to recover the $9,020 balance in its WCMA for the period of January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018. This advice letter is pending before the CPUC. Texas Regulatory Affairs The Public Utilities Commission of Texas (“PUCT”) directed CLWSC (as well as other Class A water utilities in Texas) to quantify all of the impacts of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) (“Tax Act”) on December 22, 2017 and make rate adjustments reflecting such impacts on a prospective basis. PUCT Order 47945-36 as amended by Order 47945-41 requires the water utilities to record a regulatory liability that reflects (1) the difference between the revenues collected under existing rates and the revenues that would have been collected had the existing rates been set using the recently approved federal income tax rates; and (2) the balance of excess accumulated deferred federal income taxes that now exists because of the decrease in the federal income tax rate from 35% to 21%. A rate proposal reflecting these tax changes was submitted for PUCT’s review on April 19, 2018. CLWSC subsequently amended its filing on April 30, 2018 to update the customer notice, and to replace estimates for April with recorded April 2018 information. This filing will return to the ratepayers the difference between the revenues collected under the existing rates and what water rates would have been using the 21% federal income tax rate now effective under the Tax Act. The accrued amounts for the period January 25, 2018 through April 30, 2018 were refunded along with the regular monthly Federal Tax Cut Credit (“FTCC”) on bills prepared during the month of June. The FTCC customer credit will continue to be reflected on customer bills every month until the implementation of new rates resulting from the next general rate case.

X
- Definition Regulatory Rate Filings [Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | sjw_RegulatoryRateFilingsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | sjw_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatedOperationsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration