ORA Report On Revenues, Rate Design, and Special Requests No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25

1
Docket:
Exhibit Number
Commissioner
Admin. Law J udge
ORA Witness

:
:
:
:
:
:

A.13-07-002
__
C.J . Peterman
W.A. Colbert
D. Korthamar

OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

ORA Analysis and Recommendations on
OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and
SPECIAL REQUESTS:
5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25
of
California American Water Company
Application 13-07-002

PUBLICVERSION

San Francisco, California
March 28, 2014

2
Table of Contents 1
Chapter 1 : OPERATING REVENUES AND CONSUMPTION ....... 1-1 2
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 3
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 1-1 4
C. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 5
1) Active Service Connections ............................................................................................. 1-3 6
2) Average and Total Consumption ................................................................................... 1-12 7
3) Revenue from Special Fees ............................................................................................ 1-28 8
4) Monterey District Free Water Customers ...................................................................... 1-37 9
5) Calculating Revenues with Actual Rates ....................................................................... 1-40 10
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 1-41 11
CHAPTER 1A: MONTEREY WASTEWATER ................................................................... 1-42 12
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-42 13
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 1-42 14
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 1-43 15
1) Active Service Connections ........................................................................................... 1-43 16
2) Operating Revenues ....................................................................................................... 1-44 17
3) Consumption and Sales Forecast ................................................................................... 1-46 18
4) Additional Revenue ........................................................................................................ 1-46 19
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 1-46 20
Chapter 2 : RATE DESIGN ..................................................................... 2-1 21
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2-1 22
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 2-1 23
C. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 24
1) Rate Design ...................................................................................................................... 2-3 25
3
2) Rate Design Workpapers with Actual Rates .................................................................. 2-18 1

3) Low Income Programs .................................................................................................. 2-19 2
a) Revenues versus Consumption and Revenues from Meter Charges ............................. 2-19 3
b) Revenues vs. Consumption ............................................................................................ 2-20 4
5) Meter charges from General Metered Revenues ........................................................... 2-22 5
6) Residential Bill Impacts ................................................................................................ 2-24 6
a) Comparison of Cal Ams Present and Proposed Rates .................................................. 2-24 7
7) Comparison of ORAs Rates to Cal Ams Rates .......................................................... 2-27 8
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 2-32 9
Chapter 3 : SPECIAL REQUEST #5 AUTHORIZATION TO 10
ESTABLISH A CONNECTION FEE FOR ALL AREAS IN ALL 11
DISTRICTS WHERE A SPECIAL FACILITIES FEE OR 12
CONNECTION FEE DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST .................... 3-1 13
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3-1 14
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 3-2 16
i) ORA does not support Cal Ams request for a connection fee tariff where a Special 17
Facilities Fee does not currently exist .................................................................................. 3-2 18
ii) ORA recommends the Commission require Cal Am to submit additional cost analysis 3- 19
4 20
D) CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 3-4 21
Chapter 4 : SPECIAL REQUEST #6 AUTHORIZATION FOR A 22
NEW TARIFF WHICH WILL LIST ALL SPECIAL FEES ........... 4-1 23
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4-1 24
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 4-1 26
1) Cal Ams J ustifications for this Proposal ..................................................................... 4-1 27
4
2) ORA Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4-1 1

D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 4-2 2
INCREASE THE AFTER-HOURS ACTIVATION CHARGE ........... 5-1 4
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5-1 5
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 5-1 7
2) ORA Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5-2 9
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 5-5 10
Chapter 6 : SPECIAL REQUEST #9 AUTHORIZATION FOR A 11
NEW LATE PAYMENT FEE .................................................................. 6-1 12
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6-1 13
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 6-1 15
1) ORA Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6-3 16
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 6-4 17
Chapter 7 : SPECIAL REQUEST #21 CLARIFICATION OF HOW 18
COMPOUND METERS SHOULD BE BILLED ................................... 7-1 19
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7-1 20
C. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 22
2) ORA Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7-3 24
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7-4 25
5
Chapter 8 : SPECIAL REQUEST #24 AUTHORIZATION OF A 1

METERED CONSTRUCTION TARIFF FOR ALL DISTRICTS ...... 8-1 2
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 8-1 3
C. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 5
1) ORA Analysis .................................................................................................................. 8-2 6
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 8-4 7
ELIMINATE THE DUARTE IRRIGATION TARIFF AND 9
TRANSFER IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS TO COMMERCIAL 10
TARIFFS .................................................................................................... 9-1 11
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 9-1 12
C. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 9-1 14
1) ORA Analysis ................................................................................................................. 9-2 15
D. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 9-2 16
Chapter 10 : QUALIFICATION AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF 17
DAPHNE KORTHAMAR ...................................................................... 10-1 18
Chapter 11 : ATTACHMENTS ............................................................. 11-1 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Chapter 1 : OPERATING REVENUES AND CONSUMPTION 1

A. INTRODUCTION 2
This Chapter presents ORAs analysis and recommendations on the number 3
of service connections, water consumption, total sales and operating revenues for 4
Cal Ams Larkfield, Sacramento, Monterey, Toro, Garrapata, Ventura, San Diego, 5
and Los Angeles Districts. ORA analyzed Cal Ams application, supporting work 6
papers, Minimum Data Requirement exhibit, methods of estimating customer 7
growth, water consumption, operating revenue, proposed special fees, and data 8
request responses before formulating its estimates. 9
A forecast of customers, consumption, and revenues at present rates is 10
important not for determining future revenue requirements as revenue 11
requirements in ORAs report are based upon the total of estimated expenses and a 12
return on estimated investment but rather for calculating the percentage increase 13
or decrease in customer rates that is necessary to arrive at estimated revenue 14
requirements. 15
16
B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 17
(1) ORA recommends using a five-year average customer growth for 18
forecasting active service connections and consumption per customer in all 19
Districts, with the exception of Toro and Monterey and Garrapata, due to the State 20
Water Resources Control Board Moratorium on new and expanded service.
1
21
Forecasting customer growth using the respective five-year average for each 22
customer class ensures consistency across Cal Ams Districts and avoids 23
1
Direct Testimony of Eric Sabolsice, pg. 9 and State Water Resources Control Board Order WRO 2009-
0060
12
subjectively selecting periods of low or high customer growth in order to achieve a 1

preferential effect upon the forecasted amounts. 2
(2) ORA also recommends that the forecast of consumption per customer 3
be based upon the five-year average of recorded consumption. ORAs 4
recommendation represents a reasonable means of reconciling the guidance of the 5
Rate Case Plan (RCP) to use a ten-year regression of recorded consumption and 6
the request of Cal Am to use a three-year average. 7
(3) Additionally, ORA recommends that revenue forecasts include all 8
sources of new revenue that are approved in this GRC. In its application, Cal Am 9
has proposed numerous new special fees.
2
ORA has forecasted the additional 10
revenues associated with its recommendations to approve these new fees and has 11
included these amounts within the revenue forecasts for each district. 12
(4) Pertaining exclusively to the Monterey District, ORA recommends that 13
Cal Am be required in its next GRC to report upon the status of reviewing 14
contracts dating back to (confidential) xxxx (confidential) that allow water to be 15
provided to certain customers without charge. Currently, (confidential) 16
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (confidential) of unbilled water is provided to these customers 17
annually. If billed under present rates, this amount of water would increase 18
revenue by (confidential) xxxxxxxx (confidential) xxxxxx (confidential). 19
(5) Finally, ORA recommends that Cal Am be ordered by the Commission 20
in all future general rate cases (GRC) to timely submit complete workpapers 21
showing revenue at present rates using the companys actual present rates. 22
Similarly, the companys forecast of revenue at proposed rates should be required 23
to incorporate the actual rates that the company is proposing. 24
2
See Cal Am Special Requests #8, #9, and #24 in Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, pgs.
14, 17, and 24
13
C. DISCUSSION 1
1) Active Service Connections 2
In the current GRC, Cal Am has used a different methodology to forecast 3
customer growth than what it used in the 2010 GRC. In the 2010 GRC, Cal Ams 4
forecasted customer growth using the five-year average of recorded customer 5
growth. In Data Request Response DK4-003, Edward Grubb explained that Cal 6
Am used a different approach because: 7
First, over the last few years (2009-2012), the economy of California was 8
negatively impacted by increased levels of housing foreclosures. Second, 9
in some districts, there were changes in customer counts in certain years 10
that were not reflective of on-going circumstances. And finally, in 11
Sacramento, the conversion to meters uncovered some issues regarding 12
customer countsAs a result, the company decided to utilize management 13
judgment in determining customer growth.
3
14
ORA does not agree with Cal Ams method of forecasting customer growth 15
for all Districts with the exception of Monterey, Toro, and Garrapata. ORA 16
recommends using a five-year average customer growth by customer class which 17
is consistent with the RCP for Class A Water Utilities
4
and provides forecasting 18
consistency across all of Cal Ams Districts. In addition to being consistent with 19
the RCP, ORAs recommended methodology avoids the use of subjective findings 20
that are inherent in Cal Ams methodology of using management judgment to 21
forecast growth. 22
ORA agrees with Cal Ams method of forecasting no customer growth for 23
the Monterey, Garrapata and Toro Districts, due to the Moratorium.
5
24
3
Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11, Attachment 1
4
In accordance with D.04-06-018 General Rate Case Plan, Appendix pg. 6, and D.07-05-062
Revised Rate Case Plan, Appendix A, pg. A-22-23 footnote #4.
5
State Water Resources Control Board Order WRO 2009-0060
14
See Tables 1-A through 8-A for a comparison of Cal Am and ORAs 1
estimates of customers for Test Year 2015 and Escalation Year 2016. 2
Table:1A:LarkfieldComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 3
Connections2015and2016Estimates 4
Larkfield Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
6

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am
GRC2016
Estimate
7

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 2,043 2,028 2,045 2,025
Commercial 329 359 330 370
Public Authority 4 4 4 4
Irrigation 0 0 0 0
Industrial 0 0 0 0
Private Fire
Service

1 1 1 1 1
4 14 14 14 14
6 33 36 34 38
8 8 8 8 8
10 1 1 1 1
Total 2,433 2,451 2,437 2,461
5
6
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Larkfield Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
7
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Larkfield Revenue Workpapers,(ExACh3 Table 3.2)
15
Table:2Ai:LosAngelesDistrict:DuarteComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA 1
NumberofServiceConnections2015and2016Estimates 2
Duarte Cal Am
GRC2015 Test
Year Estimate
8

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
9

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 6,542 6,560 6,548 6,572
Commercial 595 595 594 594
Industrial 16 16 16 16
Private Fire
Service

4 30 27 31 27
6 36 12 36 4
8 40 40 41 41
10 2 2 2 2
Hydrants 37 55 38 62
Irrigation 57 54 57 53
Other 5 -1 5 -3
Total 7,482 7,523 7,496 7,528
3
8
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Duarte Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
9
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Duarte Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
16
Table:2Aii:LosAngelesDistrict:BaldwinHillsComparisonofCalAmvs. 1
ORANumberofServiceConnections2015and2016Estimates 2
Baldwin Hills Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
10

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
11

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 5,553 5,553 5,553 5,553
Commercial 600 600 597 597
Industrial 3 3 3 3
Other 4 4 4 4
Private Fire
Service

4 and less 6 9 6 10
6 23 23 23 23
8 7 14 7 16
10 0 0 0 0
Hydrants 0 0 0 0
Total 6,223 6,236 6,220 6,237
3
10
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Baldwin Hills Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
11
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Baldwin Hills Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
17
1
Table:2Aiii:LosAngelesDistrict:SanMarinoComparisonofCalAmvs. 2
ORANumberofServiceConnections2015and2016Estimates 3
San Marino Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
12

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
13

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 12,389 12,389 12,403 12,403
Commercial 1,365 1,365 1,359 1,359
Industrial 45 45 45 45
Private Fire
Service

4 52 52 52 52
6 73 73 73 73
8 52 55 52 56
10 0 -6 0 -8
Hydrants 11 11 11 11
Other 3 -3 3 -6
Total 14,130 14,121 14,138 14,125
12
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Marino Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
13
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Marino Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
18
1
Table:3A:MontereyComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 2
Monterey Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
14

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
15

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 32,262 32,262 32,262 32,262
Multi-Residential 1,478 1,478 1,478 1,478
Commercial &
Irrigation
3,272 3,272 3,272 3,272
Industrial 7 7 7 7
Golf Courses 4 4 4 4
Private Fire
Service

1 45 45 45 45
1 2 2 2 2
2 4 4 4 4
4 and less 400 400 400 400
6 249 249 249 249
8 101 101 101 101
10 2 2 2 2
14
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Monterey Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
15
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Monterey Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
19
Hydrants 276 276 276 276

Construction 22 22 22 22
Sale for Resale 1 1 1 1
Ambler Park 402 402 402 402
Bishop 376 376 376 376
Hidden Hills 441 441 441 441
Ryan Ranch 156 156 156 156
Ralph Lane 26 26 26 26
Chualar 184 184 184 184
Total 40,285 40,285 40,285 40,285
1
Table:4A:SacramentoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 2
Sacramento Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
16

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
17

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 52,731 53,082 52,771 53,239
Commercial 4,842 5,013 4,848 5,076
Industrial 1 1 1 1
Private Fire
16
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Sacramento Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
17
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Sacramento Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
110
Service
4 and less 111 111 112 112
6 288 306 291 315
8 411 426 414 434
10 34 37 34 38
12 16 7 19 7
Total Service
Connections
58,807 59,380 58,865 59,629
1
Table:5A:SanDiegoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 2
San Diego Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
18

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
19

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 18,218 18,227 18,230 18,242
Commercial 2,063 2,108 2,065 2,125
Other 11 8 11 7
Private Fire
Service

4 150 153 152 156
6 93 108 94 114
18
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Diego Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
19
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Diego Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
111
8 22 22 23 23
10 5 5 5 5
Hydrants 170 167 171 167
Total Service
Connections
21,052 21,118 21,071 21,159
1
Table:6A:VenturaComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 2
Ventura Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
20

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
21

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential
19,254 19,026 19,255 18,951
Commercial
1,052 1,226 1,053 1,285
Public Authority
194 206 194 210
Industrial
167 162 167 161
Metered
Construction
10 3 10 0
Private Fire
Service

4
78 88 79 92
6
108 115 109 119
8
117 130 118 135
10
28 28 29 29
Total 21,008 20,983 21,014 20,981
20
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Ventura Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
21
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Ventura Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
112
Table:7A:GarrapataComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 1
Garrapata Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
22

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
23

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 47 47 47 47
Commercial 2 2 2 2
Total 49 49 49 49
Table:8A:ToroComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumberofService 3
Toro Cal Am GRC
2015 Test Year
Estimate
24

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Cal Am GRC
2016
Estimate
25

ORA 2016
Estimate
Residential 405 405 405 405
Commercial 7 7 7 7
Total 412 412 412 412
5
2) Average and Total Consumption 6
The RCP requires utilities to prepare a multiple regression analysis for 7
estimating residential and commercial annual consumption per customer 8
22
Cal Am GRC Exhibit A Chapter 12 Garrapata Workpapers, (ExACh13 Table 1C)
23
Cal Am GRC Exhibit A Chapter 12 Garrapata Workpapers, (ExACh13 Table 1C)
24
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Toro Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
25
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Toro Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Table 3.2)
113
consistent with the New Committee Method.

26
Although Cal Am generated 10- 1
year regression models consistent with the RCP, Cal Am proposes using a three- 2
year average of recorded consumption per customer for each customer class to 3
derive the consumption forecasts for Test Year 2015 and Escalation Year 2016. 4
To obtain the three-year average of recorded consumption per customer, 5
Cal Am has used different methodologies for the Residential and Commercial 6
classes than all other classes of customers. For the Residential and Commercial 7
classes, Cal Am first calculated an average number of customers for each year by 8
dividing the Total Annual Recorded Consumption by the Annual Average 9
Consumption per Customer. For Public Authority and other customer classes, Cal 10
Am calculates the average number of customers for each year by averaging the 11
number of customers at the beginning of the year and the year-end number of 12
customers. 13
ORA recommends using a consistent approach to calculate the recorded 14
average consumption per customer across all classes. Cal Ams methodology for 15
Residential and Business classes utilizes a circular process where the recorded 16
average consumption per customer is calculated as a function of the recorded 17
average consumption per customer, ORA has taken the more reasonable and far 18
more accurate methodology described above that Cal Am uses to forecast all other 19
customer classes (i.e. Public Authority and Industrial) and applied it to all 20
customer classes universally in all districts. 21
Once recorded average annual consumption per customer has been 22
calculated, Cal Am utilizes the three-year average to forecast consumption in the 23
test and escalation years. Although the RCP directs use of a 10-year regression to 24
forecast consumption, ORA accepts that the RCP methodology may tend to 25
overstate historic consumption and understate the more recent and observable 26
26
D.07-05-062, pg. A-26, footnote 8
114
trends in lower consumption per customer. However, ORA does not agree that 1
Cal Ams proposed 3-year average is appropriate for capturing the typical 2
fluctuations in annual consumption that result from weather or business cycles as 3
shown in the chart below. 4
5
6
ORA recommends the use of the five-year average of annual consumption 7
and notes that its recommendation is more consistent with the RCPs direction that 8
when forecasting consumption to use not less than five years of data.
27
Five 9
years of data was not available for the Garrapata District, since the system was 10
recently acquired.
28
11
The following tables compare Cal Am and ORAs estimates of average 12
consumption per customer for each customer class and each district: 13
27
D.07-05-062, page A-23, footnote 4
28
D.13-01-033
115
Table:1B:LarkfieldComparisonofCalAmandORATotalWaterSalesPer 1
Customer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Larkfield Cal Am
2015
Estimate
29

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
30

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential 121.7 134.9 9.7% 121.7 134.9 9.7%
Commercial 378.5 412.5 8.2% 378.5 412.5 8.2%
Public
Authority
839.2 1414.7 40.6% 839.2 1414.7 40.6%
3
Table2Bi:LosAngelesDistrict:DuarteComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA 4
TotalWaterSalesPerCustomer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 5
Duarte
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
31

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
32

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 216.2 231.2 6.49% 216.2 231.2 6.49%
Commercial 1,107.30 1,168.40 5.23% 1,107.30 1,168.40 5.23%
Public
Authority
1,071.00 1,166.60 8.19% 1,071.00 1,166.60 8.19%
Industrial 1,533 1,428 -7.35% 1,533 1,428 -7.35%
Irrigation 3,607.30 3,381.20 -6.69% 3,607.30 3,381.20 -6.69%
Other 906.3 632 -43.40% 906.3 632 -43.40%
29
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Larkfield Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
30
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Larkfield Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
31
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Duarte Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
32
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Duarte Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
116
Table2Bii:LosAngelesDistrict:BaldwinHillsComparisonofCalAmvs. 1
ORATotalWaterSalesPerCustomer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Baldwin
Hills
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
33

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
34

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 184.5 196.4 6.06% 184.5 196.4 6.06%
Commercial 363.1 390 6.90% 363.1 390 6.90%
Public
Authority
1581 1,632.80 3.17% 1581 1,632.80 3.17%
Industrial 32,415.30 37,909 14.49% 32,415.30 37,909 14.49%
Other 13 10 -30.00% 13 10 -30.00%
3
Table2Biii:LosAngelesDistrict:SanMarinoComparisonofCalAmvs. 4
ORATotalWaterSalesPerCustomer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 5
San Marino
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
35

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
36

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 262.7 280.2 6.25% 262.7 280.2 6.25%
Commercial 672.9 706.6 4.77% 672.9 706.6 4.77%
Public
Authority
1,286.30 1,342.80 4.21% 1,286.30 1,342.80 4.21%
Industrial 1,172 1,275.40 8.11% 1,172 1,275.40 8.11%
Unmetered 98 309.4 68.33% 98 309.4 68.33%
6
33
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Baldwin Hills Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
34
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Baldwin Hills Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
35
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Marino Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
36
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Marino Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
117
Table3B:MontereyComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSalesPer 1
Customer2015and2016Estimates(ccfpercustomer) 2
Monterey
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
37

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
38

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential 73.4 77.5 5.29% 73.4 77.5 5.29%
Multi-
Residential
478.3 446.3 -7.17% 478.3 446.3 -7.17%
Commercial
& Irrigation
354.9 365.9 3.01% 354.9 365.9 3.01%
Industrial 474.3 647.2 26.72% 474.3 647.2 26.72%
Public
Authority
5,798.00 6119.6 5.26% 5,798.00 6119.6 5.26%
Golf Courses 14,021.70 14,676.8 4.46% 14,021.70 14,676.8 4.46%
Construction 196.7 190 -3.53% 196.7 190 -3.53%
Sale for
Resale
0 0 0 0
Ambler Park
Residential 151.9 162.4 6.47% 151.9 162.4
6.47%
4.85%
Commercial 1,144.70 1,203.1 4.85% 1,144.70 1,203.1
Public
Authority
368 464
20.69%
368 464
20.69%

Bishop
Residential 167.1 190.8 12.42% 167.1 190.8 12.42%
Commercial 358.8 377 4.83% 358.8 377
4.83%
36.17%
37
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Monterey Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
38
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Monterey Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
118
Golf 50.3 78.8 36.17% 50.3 78.8

Other 64.3 117.6 45.32% 64.3 117.6
45.32%
13.56%
Hidden Hills 130.7 151.2 13.56% 130.7 151.2
Ryan Ranch

10.42%
Commercial 165.9 185.2 10.42% 165.9 185.2
Public
Authority
76 82.6 7.99% 76 82.6
7.99%
77.37%
Other 14.3 63.2 77.37% 14.3 63.2
Ralph Lane 136.8 127.5 -7.29% 136.8 127.5 -7.29%
Chualar
Residential 247.8 298.5 16.98% 247.8 298.5 16.98%
Multi
Residential
327.2 312.8
-4.6%
327.2
312.8 -4.6%

Commercial 303 575.9
47.39%
303
575.9 47.39%

Public
Authority
950 570
-66.67%
950
570 -66.67%

Table4B:SacramentoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSales 1
PerCustomer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Sacramento
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
39

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
40

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential
41
164.3 176.9 7.12% 161 173.3 7.10%
Commercial 825.5 885 6.72% 825.5 885 6.72%
Public
Authority
2,748.80 2,983.60 7.87% 2,748.80 2,983.60 7.87%
Industrial 157,262.70 99,723 -57.70% 157,262.70 99,723 -57.70%
3
39
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Sacramento Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
40
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Sacramento Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
41
For Residential customers, Cal Am took the three year average 2010 - 2012 and reduced by 2% for 2014
2016 to reflect the completion in 2013 of the conversion of unmetered customers to meters and
implementing conservation rates in the Sacramento District. ORA took the five year average 2008-2012
and reduced by 2% for 2014-2016.

119
Table5B:SanDiegoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSalesPer 1
3
San Diego
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
42

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
43

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 120.3 129.5 7.10% 120.3 129.5 7.10%
Commercial 797.2 851 6.32% 797.2 851 6.32%
Public
Authority
2,072.70 2,218.10 6.56% 2,072.70 2,218.10 6.56%
Other 1,404.10 1,326.30 -5.87% 1,404.10 1,326.30 -5.87%
Table:6B:VenturaComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSalesPer 4
Ventura
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
44

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
45

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 228.5 248.9 8.20% 228.5 248.9 8.20%
Commercial 1,267 1,426.80 11.20% 1267 1,426.80 11.20%
Public
Authority
2,375.30 2,672.50 11.12% 2375.3 2,672.50 11.12%
Industrial 3,944.70 3,812.80 -3.46% 3944.7 3,812.80 -3.46%
Metered
Construction
429.2 521.8 17.7% 429.2 521.8 17.7%
6
42
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Diego Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
43
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 San Diego Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Sales Projection)
44
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Ventura Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
45
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Ventura Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
120
Table:7B:GarrapataComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSales 1
PerCustomer2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Garrapata46
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
47

ORA
2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential
and
Commercial
8,987 8,987 0% - - -
3
Table:8B:ToroComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterSalesPer 4
Toro
Cal Am
2015
Estimate
48

ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Cal Am
2016
Estimate
49

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater than
Cal Am
Residential 209.2 229 8.6% 209.2 229 8.6%
Commercial 263.5 239 -9.2% 263.5 239 -9.2%
6
From the above forecasts of number of customers and average consumption 7
per customer, both ORA and Cal Am add non-revenue water to arrive at the 8
forecast of total water consumption. Non-revenue water (NRW) is water that 9
has been produced and is lost before it reaches the customer. Losses can be real 10
losses (through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses) or apparent 11
losses (for example through theft or metering inaccuracies). 12
To forecast Test Year 2015 non-revenue water, Cal Am reduced the 13
average quantity of NRW for the period 2008-2012 by 5%. ORA accepts Cal 14
46
Garrapata District customers are not yet metered due to the recent acquisition of the system, therefore
additional data is not yet available
47
Cal Am GRC Exhibit A Chapter 12 Garrapata Workpapers, (ExACh13 Projected Sales)
48
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Toro Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
49
Cal Am GRC Chapter 3 Toro Revenue Workpapers, (ExACh3 Projected Sales)
121
Ams forecast as reasonable. The following table reflects the quantity reductions 1
in NRW forecasted by Cal Am as a percentage of total water produced for each 2
district in Test Year 2015. 3
Cal Am vs. ORA Forecasted Percentage Non-Revenue Water Per District 4
District ORA Test Year 2015 Forecasted Non-
Revenue Water
50

Larkfield 6.85%
Sacramento 7.29%
San Diego 3.36%
Ventura 2.82%
Duarte 1.38%
San Marino 6.11%
Baldwin Hills 3.14%
Monterey
Bishop, Hidden Hills,
Ryan Ranch
8%
Monterey Main 10%
Ambler 7%
Ralph Lane 12%
Chualar 6%
Garrapata
51
0%
Toro
52
~10%
The following tables compare Cal Am and ORAs estimates of total water 5
consumption, which reflects all differences in estimated customers and estimated 6
consumption per customers. 7
50
Refer to Cal Am Revenue Workpapers for each District, Ch. 3, Table Water Production Est (3.14)
51
Refer to Cal Am Data Request Response DK4-041 in Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11,
Attachment 2
52
Refer to Direct Testimony of Eric Sabolsice, pg. 6
122
Table:1Ci:LarkfieldDistrictcomparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 1
Consumption2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Larkfield
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
2015
ORA 2015
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
2016
ORA
2016
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Residential 248,546 273,895 248,789 273,490
Commercial 124,531 136,455 124,909 140,695
Public
Authority
3,357 3,357 3,357 3,357
Irrigation 0 0 0 0
Industrial 0 0 0 0
Total 376,434 413,706 9% 377,055 417,542 9.7%
Table:2Ci:LosAngelesDistrict:DuarteComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA 3
TotalWaterConsumption2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 4
Duarte
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential
1,413,459 1,515,285 1,414,756 1,518,059
Commercial
659,928 696,366 658,821 695,198
Public
Authority
130,662 134,159 130,662 130,659
Industrial
24,528 22,848 24,528 22,848
Irrigation
134,897 132,039 134,897 129,582
Other
4,532 0 4,532 -1,264
Total
2,368,006 2,500,697 5.3%
2,368,196

2,495,083 5.1%
123
Table:2Cii:LosAngelesDistrict:BaldwinHillsComparisonofCalAmvs. 1
ORATotalWaterConsumption2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 2
Baldwin Hills
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC
2015 Test
Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential
1,024,438 1,090,609 1,024,438 1,090,609

Commercial
218,600 234,780 217,511 233,610

Public
Authority
42,687 48,984 42,687 50,617

Industrial
97,246 113,727 97,246 113,727

Other
52 40 52 40

Total 1,383,023 1,488,140 7% 1,381,934 1,488,603 7.1%
3
Table:2Ciii:LosAngelesDistrict:SanMarinoComparisonofCalAmvs. 4
ORATotalWaterConsumption2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 5
San Marino
Total Water
Consumptio
n
Cal Am
GRC
2015 Test
Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential
3,253,079 3,469,436 3,256,757 3,473,359

Commercial
920,519 966,629 916,482 962,389

Public
Authority
127,507 187,992 127,507 187,992

124
Industrial
52,740 57,393 52,740 57,393

Other
294 -619 294 -1,547

Total 4,354,139 4,680,831 6.9% 4,353,780 4,679,586 6.9%
1
Table:3C:MontereyComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 2
Monterey
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC
2015
Test
Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
Growth
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential
2,368,888

2,498,910

2,368,888
2,498,910

Multi-
Residential
706,923

659,641

706,923

659,641

Commercial
& Irrigation
1,161,104

1,197,142

1,161,104

1,197,142

Industrial

40,586

42,837

40,586

42,837

Public
Authority

272,742

372,140

272,742

372,140

Golf Courses
56,087

58,707

56,087

58,707

Construction 4,327

4,180

4,327

4,180

Sale for
Resale
0 0
125
Ambler Park
Residential
58,486

62,370

58,486

62,370

Commercial
17,170

18,039

17,170

18,039

Public
Authority
736 928 736 928
Bishop
Residential
54,655

62,849

54,655

62,849

Commercial
16,865

18,227

16,865

18,227

Golf
101

158

101

158

Other
0 0
Hidden Hills
57,639

66,679

57,639

66,679

Ryan Ranch

Commercial
25,221

30,126

25,221

30,126

Public
Authority
304

330

304

330

Other
0 0
126
Ralph Lane
3,557

3,401

3,557

3,401

Chualar

Residential
43,615

52,131

43,615

52,131

Multi
Residential
654 625 654 625
Commercial
1,212 2,646 1,212 2,646
Public
Authority
1,900 1,140 1,900 1,140
Total 4,892,772

5,153,207

5.05% 4,892,772

5,153,207

5.05%
1
Table:4C:SacramentoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 2
Sacramento
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA
2015 Test
Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential 8,661,387 9,374,381 8,494,600 9,214,106
Commercial 3,994,359 4,409,163 3,999,311 4,464,919
Public
Authority
1,022,550 1,169,574 1,028,047 1,199,410
Industrial 157,263 99,723 157,263 99,723
Total 13,835,558 15,052,841 8.1% 13,679,221 14,978,157 8.6%
127
Table:5C:SanDiegoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 1
San Diego
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Residential 2,191,463 2,358,807 2,192,880 2,360,749
Commercial 1,643,927 1,787,197 1,645,521 1,801,664
Public
Authority
663,251 709,795 663,251 709,795
Other 15,445 11,937 15,445 10,610
Total 4,514,060 4,867,736 7.2% 4,517,098 4,882,819 7.4%
3
Table:6C:VenturaComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 4
Ventura
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Residential
4,400,011 4,744,325 4,400,240 4,725,660
Commercial
1,332,889 1,707,908 1,334,156 1,792,091
Public
Authority
460,810 545,193 460,810 555,883
Industrial
658,763 621,492 658,763 613,867
Metered
Construction
4,292 3,863 4,292 3,863
Total 6,856,765

7,622,781

10%
6,858,261

7,691,363

10.8%
128
Table:7C:GarrapataComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWater 1
Garrapata
Total Water
Consumption
53

Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Residential
and
Commercial
8,987 8,987 0% - - -
Total 8,987 8,987 0% - - -
Table:8C:ToroComparisonofCalAmvs.ORATotalWaterConsumption 3
2015and2016Estimates(ccf) 4
Toro
Total Water
Consumption
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA
2015 Test
Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC
2016
Estimate
ORA
2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Residential 84,707 92,748 8.6% 84,707 92,748 8.6%
Commercial 1,845 1,679 -8.9% 1,845 1,679 -8.9%
Total 86,552 94,427 8.3% 86,552 94,427 8.3%
5
3) Revenue from Special Fees 6
In A.13-07-002, Cal Am has proposed numerous new special fees. 7
However, the additional revenue associated with these new fees was not calculated 8
or presented in Cal Ams Workpapers. 9
53
Garrapata District customers are not yet metered, therefore additional data is not yet available.
129
1
The table below includes a list of all the special fees approved by ORA 2
including the revenue forecasts developed by Cal Am and ORA and the 3
adjustments made by ORA in the revenue workpapers for Test Year 2015 and 4
2016: 5
Special Fees Approved by ORA 6
District Special
Request #8:
After-Hours
Activation
Charge 2015
Test Year
Forecasted
Revenues
54
($)
Special
Request #9:
Late Payment
Fee 2015 Test
Year
Forecasted
Revenues
55
($)
Special Request
#24:
Metered
Construction
2015 Test Year
Forecasted
Revenues
56
($)
Total ($)
Larkfield 630 4,453 16,244 21,327
Sacramento 16,450 122,795 24,440 163,685
San Diego 9,800 43,536 39,086 92,422
Ventura 1,470 52,789 - 54,259
Los Angeles
2,170
BH: 18,802
Duarte: 18,407
San Marino:
14,629
BH: 1,513
Duarte: 37,497
San Marino:
2,430
95,448
Monterey 11,025 188,124 226,179 425,328
Total ORA
adjustments to
Revenue
Workpapers
41,545 463,535 347,388 852,469
54
Testimony of Daphne Korthamar, Special Request #8, After-Hours Activation Charge
55
Testimony of Daphne Korthamar, Special Request #9, Late Payment Fee
56
Testimony of Daphne Korthamar, Special Request #24, Metered Construction Tariff
130
The following tables compare the difference in ORA and Cal Ams 1
forecasts of total revenues under present and proposed rates. Differences in total 2
revenue estimates reflect differences in (1) forecasted number of customers, (2) 3
average consumption per customer, and (3) additional revenues associated with 4
new special fees. 5
Table:1D:LarkfieldComparisonofCalAmvs.ORAOperatingRevenues 6
2015and2016EstimatesatPresentRates 7
Larkfield Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
57

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
58

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$3,208,796 $3,308,535 3% $3,349,290 $3,015,255 -9.9%
8
Table:1E:LarkfieldComparisonofCalAmvs.ORAOperatingRevenues 9
2015and2016EstimatesatCalAmsProposedRates 10
Larkfield Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
59

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate*
60

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Proposed
Rates
$3,343,430

$2,995,583 -10.4% $3,499,479 $3,029,768 -13.4%
57
2013 Cal Am GRC Larkfield District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)
58
59

60
131
Table:2D:TotalLosAngelesComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and 1
2016OperatingRevenuesatPresentRates 2
Los
Angeles
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
61

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate*
62
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$28,621,374

$29,805,443

3.9%
$31,228,302

$28,919,010

-7.4%
3
Table:2E:TotalLosAngelesComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and 4
2016OperatingRevenuesatCalAmsProposedRates 5
Los
Angeles
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
63

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
64

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$31,231,151 $28,933,464 -7.4% $33,188,478 $30,107,164 -9.3%
6
61
2013 Cal Am GRC Los Angeles District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)

62

63
64
132
Table:3D:MontereyComparisonofCalAmvs.ORAOperatingRevenues 1
2015and2016EstimatesatPresentRates 2
Monterey Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
65

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
66

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenue
at Present
Rates
$52,222,685 $53,980,758 3.3% $57,256,591 $50,162,466 -12.4%
3
Table:3E:MontereyComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 4
OperatingRevenuesatCalAmsProposedRates 5
Monterey Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
67

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
68

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$57,248,173 $50,152,619

12.4% $59,404,436 $50,875,131

-14.4%
6
65
2013 Cal Am GRC Monterey District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)
66
67
68
133
Table:4D:SacramentoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 1
OperatingRevenuesatPresentRates 2
Sacramento Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
69

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
70

ORA 2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$51,856,208 $55,096,467 5.8% $56,773,491 $50,263,528 -11.4%
Table:4E:SacramentoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 3
Sacramento Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
71

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
72

ORA 2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Proposed
Rates
$57,233,261 $50,401,266 -12% $59,087,471 $51,279,780 -13.2%
69
2013 Cal Am GRC Sacramento District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)
70
71
72
134
Table:5D:SanDiegoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 1
OperatingRevenuesEstimatesatPresentRates 2
San
Diego
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
73

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
74

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$20,838,643

$22,140,123

5.8% $22,833,961

$20,903,106

-8.4%
3
Table:5E:SanDiegoComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 4
San
Diego
Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
75

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
76

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$22,817,597 $20,844,450 -8.6% $23,507,951 $22,289,253 -5.1%
6
73
2013 Cal Am GRC San Diego District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)
74
75
76
135
Table:6D:VenturaComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 1
OperatingRevenuesatPresentRates 2
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
77

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
78

ORA 2016
Estimate
%
ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$32,520,666

$35,450,324

8.2%
$36,027,989

$36,402,221

-1.0%
3
Table:6E:VenturaComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016 4
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
79

ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Test Year
Estimate
80

ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than
Cal Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$36,013,694

$36,135,607 - $37,384,219
$37,167,133

-
6
77
2013 Cal Am GRC Ventura District Ch. 3 Revenues (Table 3.18)
78
79
80
136
Table: 7-D: Garrapata Comparison of Cal Am vs. ORA 2015 and 2016 Operating 1
Revenues at Present Rates 2
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$81,765 $81,765 0% $89,900 $79,820 -11.2%
3
Table: 7-E: Garrapata Comparison of Cal Am vs. ORA 2015 and 2016 Operating 4
Revenues at Cal Ams Proposed Rates 5
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$89,900 $79,820 -11.2% $91,350 $81,970 -10.2%
6
7
8
137
Table:8D:ToroComparisonofCalAmvs.ORA2015and2016Operating 1
RevenuesatPresentRates 2
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at Present
Rates
$691,175 $722,646 4.4% $750,200 $750,500 -
3
Table: 8-E: Toro Comparison of Cal Am vs. ORA 2015 and 2016 Operating 4
Revenues at Cal Ams Proposed Rates 5
Ventura Cal Am
GRC 2015
Test Year
Estimate
ORA 2015
Test Year
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016
Estimate
% ORA
greater
than Cal
Am
Operating
Revenues
at
Proposed
Rates
$758,200 $750,500 - $796,250 $763,000 -4.1%
4) Monterey District Free Water Customers 6
7
Cal-Am has about 15 customers in the Monterey District who receive free 8
service based on historical contracts, some with underlying deeds granting water 9
rights and easements to Cal-Am in return for water service.
81
In 2009, Cal Am 10
entered into a settlement with the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (now ORA) to 11
81
D.09-02-006 pg. 20
138
set forth a plan for Cal Am to try to reduce the water usage of customers that 1
receive free water service by deed or contract.
82
2
The following sections of the Settlement Agreement detail the plan that Cal 3
Am was to proceed with to reduce free water usage: 4
8.1 California American Water will review the deeds and/or contracts that 5
allow certain customers to receive free water service in the Monterey District 6
and will take reasonable and necessary action to limit the customers' usage to the 7
amount of water that is legally available to them. California American Water will 8
also review the deeds and/or contracts to determine whether it can negotiate 9
termination of free service and if so at what cost. California American Water will 10
first focus its efforts on the five customers with the highest usage. 11
8.2 California American Water will contact "free water" service customers 12
to encourage voluntary conservation and shall make available to each "free water" 13
customer water audits and surveys. 14
8.3 California American Water will report the actions it takes pursuant to 15
paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 and the results of those actions in its next General Rate 16
Case application, scheduled to be filed on J uly 1, 2010. 17
(CONFIDENTIAL 18
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 19
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23
CONFIDENTIAL) 24
25
82
D.09-02-006, pg. 18
139
CONFIDENTIAL 1
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2
x CONFIDENTIAL .In response to ORAs question about what steps Cal Am had 13
taken to achieve the action items identified in the 2009 settlement, Cal Am stated 14
that In May of 2012, California American Water began to send all free water 15
customers monthly water bills with the actual cost of the water that they otherwise 16
would have been charged. This gives an opportunity for the free water user to see 17
the actual cost of water.
83
18
(CONFIDENTIAL). 19
83
Data Request Response DK4-026, Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11, Attachment 3
140
XXXXXX 3
CONFIDENTIAL END). ORA recommends that Cal Am be required to 4
update the Commission in its next GRC on the status of reviewing the deeds and 5
contracts to determine whether it can negotiate termination of free service and if 6
so at what cost. 7
5) Calculating Revenues with Actual Rates 8
9
Cal Am calculates operating revenues at proposed rates by multiplying 10
estimated total consumption by a single quantity rate (standard rate design) and 11
adding the meter charges that would be in effect under a standard rate design. 12
However, it is important to note that the rates that Cal Am uses to calculate the 13
revenue at proposed rates are not actually the rates that Cal Am is proposing. Cal 14
Am explains The Company used the Commissions standard practice to calculate 15
proposed revenues because of the complexity surrounding the design of 16
conservation rates and its effect on a requested increase in revenues.
84
17
Likewise, Cal Ams calculation of revenues under present rates utilizes 18
rates that are not actually the present rates authorized on the companys tariffs. 19
Using standard rates rather than the actual rates that appear on authorized tariffs 20
makes it very difficult for ORA and other parties to verify and replicate revenue 21
forecasts. ORA emphasized this same point in the previous 2010 Cal Am GRC.
85
22
84
A.13-07-002, Direct Testimony of Edward Grubb, pg. 13
85
Refer to ORA (formerly DRA) Testimony in A.10-07-007, 2010 Cal Am GRC Water Consumption and
Operating Revenue of California American Water Company, Larkfield, Los Angeles County, Monterey
County, Monterey Wastewater, San Diego, Sacramento and Ventura County Districts, J anuary 21, 2011,
pg. 1-5, Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11, Attachment 6
141
When ORA and the Commission assess the reasonableness of a requested rate 1
increase, it is imperative to understand the revenue forecast that would result from 2
the actual present rates and the revenue forecast that would result from the actual 3
proposed rates. Cal Ams revenue forecasts filed in A.13-07-002 do not use the 4
actual rates for either calculation. 5
ORA recommends the Commission direct Cal Am to use its actual rates for 6
all revenue calculations in all future GRCs. 7
D. CONCLUSION 8
For consistency across districts and past GRC forecasts, ORA recommends 9
using a five-year average of customer growth for forecasting active service 10
connections and consumption per customer. Additionally, ORA recommends that 11
revenue forecasts should include all sources of revenues, including the forecasted 12
revenues associated with new special fees. 13
ORA also recommends that Cal Am be required to provide a detailed status 14
report on Montereys free water contracts in its next GRC. 15
Finally, ORA recommends that Cal Am be directed to calculate operating 16
revenues in all future GRCs using the actual rates either in effect at the time of 17
filing or the actual rates that are being proposed. 18
142
CHAPTER 1A: MONTEREY WASTEWATER 1

DISTRICT SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND OPERATING REVENUES 2
3
A. INTRODUCTION 4
This Chapter presents ORAs analysis and recommendations on the number 5
of customers, and operating revenues for Cal Ams Monterey Wastewater District. 6
In 2012, Cal Am served 2,602 service connections in Monterey County. In 2003, 7
Commission decision (D.) 03-02-044, granted Cal Am permission to purchase 8
three wastewater systems from the County of Monterey: La Palmas Ranch, 9
Laguna Seca Ranch, and the Carmel Valley County Sanitation District. D.04-11- 10
028 also gave Cal Am permission to purchase wastewater operations in Spreckles, 11
Oak Hills and Indian Springs. This acquisition was completed in 2005. Together, 12
these wastewater systems created the Monterey Wastewater Division and Service 13
Area. 14
ORA analyzed Cal Ams application, supporting work papers, Minimum 15
Data Requirement exhibit, methods of estimating customer growth and operating 16
revenue, and data request responses before formulating its estimates for service 17
connections and operating revenues. See Tables 7-A through 7-C for estimates. 18
ORA does not accept Cal Ams methodology for developing the forecasts 20
for active service connections, or the forecasted operating revenues at present and 21
proposed rates. ORA does not find Cal Ams resulting forecasts reasonable and 22
recommends the Commission adopt ORAs forecast of active service connections, 23
and operating revenues. ORA has no recommendations regarding water 24
consumption sales forecast for the reasons explained below. 25
143
C. DISCUSSION 1
1) Active Service Connections 2
ORA does not agree with Cal Ams method to forecast customers using 3
growth use
86
values , which are Based on the review of the actual data and each 4
District managers review of their service territories, the Company projected 5
annual customer growth in customers to be four wastewater customers.
87
In its 6
application workpapers, Cal Am calculated the four-year average (2008-2012) of 7
the change in the number of customers by customer class but decided not to use 8
the four-year average value in their forecasting methodology and instead use 9
growth use numbers.
88
Cal Am used a four-year average customer growth 10
forecasting methodology in their 2010 GRC.
89
At the time, Cal Am only had four 11
of seven years of available data since more than half of the current customers 12
became part of the district in 2005.
90
In this GRC, Cal Ams workpapers show 13
zero growth in 2008, therefore ORA decided to use four years of customer growth 14
(2009-2012) to forecast active service connections. A comparison of forecasting 15
methodologies is shown in Table 7-A: 16
17
86
2013 Cal Am Wastewater revenues workpapers, sheet YE Customers
87
2013 Cal Am GRC Edward Grubb Testimony, pg. 14
88
2013 Cal Am Wastewater revenues workpapers, sheet YE Customers
89
In accordance with D.04-06-018 General Rate Case Plan, Appendix pg. 6 and D.07-05-062 Revised Rate
Case Plan, Appendix A, pg. A-22
90
D.04-11-028
144
Table7A:MontereyWastewaterComparisonofCalAmvs.ORANumber 1
ofServiceConnections2015and2016Estimates 2
Monterey
Wastewater
Cal Am GRC
2015 Test
Year Estimate
ORA 2015 Test
Year Operating
Revenue with
Proposed Rates
Using 4-Year
Average
Customer
Growth Value
Cal Am
GRC 2016
Escalation
Year
Estimate
ORA 2016 Escalation
Year Operating Revenue
with Proposed Rates
Using 4-Year Average
Customer Growth Value
Village
Greens
22 19 22 18
White Oaks 39 36 39 35
Oak Hills 453 441 453 437
Spreckels 275 317 278 334
Pasadera 280 271 281 269
Las Palmas 1,044 1,017 1,044 1,008
Carmel
Valley
Ranch
331 328 331 327
Indian
Springs
173 161 173 157
Total 2,617 2,590 2,621 2,585
2) Operating Revenues 3
Operating Revenues are based on the estimated number of connections in 4
Test Year 2015 multiplied by the flat rate approved in Advice Letter #16 filed 14 5
J une 9, 2010, and effective J une 14, 2010. In D.09-07-022 the Commission 6
approved a settlement agreement that allowed Cal Am to consolidate the various 7
145
flat rate structures into two rates based on the technology used by each system. 1
One rate applied to the passive systems, or simpler technology, in White Hills, 2
Spreckles, Village Green, and Oak Hills, and the other applied to the active 3
systems, or more complex technology, in Las Palmas, Pasadera, Carmel Valley 4
Ranch, and Indian Springs. 5
ORA agrees with Cal Ams estimation methodology although ORA and Cal 6
Ams forecasted operating revenues at present and proposed rates differ due to the 7
average customer growth forecasts, in which ORA used a 4-year average customer 8
growth. Test Year 2015 and Escalation Year 2016 estimates at Present and 9
Proposed Rates are shown in Table 7-B and 7-C: 10
Table7B:MontereyWastewaterComparisonofCalAmvs.Operating 11
RevenuesatPresentRates2015and2016Estimates 12
Monterey
Wastewater
Cal Am 2015 Test
Year Estimate
ORA 2015 Test Year
Operating Revenue at
Present Rates
Cal Am 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016 Operating
Revenue Estimate at Present
Rates
Operating
Revenues at
Present Rates
$3,482,290

$3,442,759 $3,735,340

$3,268,566
13
Table7C:MontereyWastewaterComparisonofCalAmvs.2015and 14
2016OperatingRevenuesatProposedRates 15
Monterey
Wastewater
Cal Am 2015 Test
Year Estimate
ORA 2015 Test Year
Proposed Rates using
4-Year Average
Customer Growth
Cal Am 2016
Estimate
ORA 2016 Escalation Year
Proposed Rates using 4-Year
Average Customer Growth
Operating
Revenues at
Proposed Rates
$3,731,622 $3,280,949 $3,836,194 $3,346,970
146
3) Consumption and Sales Forecast 1

Wastewater customers are billed on a flat rate basis rather than water usage. 2
Therefore, information regarding water consumption and sales is not relevant to 3
the Monterey Wastewater District. 4
4) Additional Revenue 5
During the CPUC Field Visit to Monterey on September 18, 2013, 6
California American mentioned that a quantity of treated Monterey Wastewater is 7
available and provided for irrigation purposes. ORA Data Request DK4-021 8
asked Cal Am to confirm and provide all supporting documentation that details 9
arrangements to provide treated wastewater for any purpose (all contracts, bills or 10
receipts). In Data Request Response DK4-021, Cal Am confirmed that No 11
revenue is derived from the provision of treated wastewater by California 12
American or its affiliates in Monterey and clarified that the company does not 13
receive any compensation for the treated wastewater.
91
The distribution of 14
wastewater is part of the plant permits which requires that Cal Am not discharge 15
the treated wastewater to any stream or body of water. In the same data request 16
response, Cal Am also confirmed that the purchase agreement to provide treated 17
wastewater to Monterey stipulated that this treated wastewater would be provided 18
without compensation. 19
D. CONCLUSION 20
ORA does not agree with Cal Ams estimated number of active service 21
connections or the resulting operating revenues for the Monterey Wastewater 22
District. ORA recommends the Commission adopt ORAs estimates. 23
24
25
91
21
Chapter 2 : RATE DESIGN 1

A. INTRODUCTION 2
Rate Design is the process of setting prices for utility service at levels that permit 3
a utility to collect its total authorized revenue requirement. After calculation of Cal Ams 4
revenue requirement, a rate design that incorporates estimates of the number of customers 5
and their future consumption level is used to determine the actual rates, which include the 6
service charge and volumetric charge, which Cal Ams customers will be charged for 7
utility service. 8
ORA analyzed Cal Ams application, supporting work papers, Minimum Data 9
Requirement exhibit, methods of estimating customer growth, water consumption, 10
operating revenue, and proposed special fees and data request responses before 11
formulating its recommendation. 12
(1) ORA does not oppose the rate design proposed by Cal Am in this application 14
for Larkfield, Sacramento, Ventura, San Diego, Los Angeles,
92
Garrapata, Toro and 15
Monterey Districts. Because Cal Ams request to consolidate the Districts is no longer in 16
consideration in this case ORA did not analyze Cal Ams Proposed Consolidated Rate 17
Design but only focused on the Proposed Stand Alone Design.
93
18
(2) Cal Am is proposing a change to the rate design of Montereys Mixed-Use 19
Customer class. However, due to the limited amount of data received, ORA recommends 20
that the Commission require Cal Am to provide additional information on these 21
customers in future GRCs. Any change to the rate design of the mixed-use customers 22
92
The Los Angeles District includes the subsystems of Baldwin Hills, San Marino, and Duarte
93
Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law J udge; A. 13-07-002
(November 22, 2013), pg. 5; Pre-Hearing Conference Transcript, A. 13-07-002, September 17, 2013, pg. 85: 1-7
22
would significantly impact the remainder of the residential customers in Monterey as 1

mixed-use customers are billed at residential rates. 2
(3) ORA recommends that Cal Am be required to present actual rates included in 3
the companys tariff sheets in all of its workpapers which would simplify analysis 4
between the application workpapers and actual rate design. 5
(4) ORA recommends that the Commission adopt ORAs proposed Low Income 6
Program (discussed further below), in which upon review of each customer bill, Cal Am 7
would apply the lesser of the two low income discounts, either the existing flat fee 8
discount or the Cal Am proposed 20% off the total bill. This would enable Cal Am to 9
continue to encourage conservation while avoiding a situation in which a customer bill is 10
eliminated due to the low income discount. 11
(5) ORA recommends that Cal Am provide workpapers showing the relationship 12
between the percentage of revenue for each customer classification and the percentage of 13
consumption for the same customer classes in future GRCs so that the CPUC and future 14
ORA analysts remain aware of this as there appears to be an increasing divergence of 15
these percentages between 2012 and 2015. Although ORA is not making adjustments to 16
rate design based on this analysis, it is important to monitor this issue. 17
(6) ORA recommends that in future GRCs, Cal Am provide workpapers showing 18
the decreasing percentage of revenue collected from meter charges and the effects this 19
may have on Cal Ams risk profile. An increasing percentage of forecasted revenue is 20
protected by the WRAM decoupling mechanism and the CPUC and future ORA analysts 21
should remain aware of this. 22
(7) ORA recommends that the Commission require Cal Am to submit workpapers 23
in future GRCs presenting the Residential bill impacts so that future ORA analysts 24
remain aware of the Residential bill impacts throughout the Cal Am Districts. Although 25
ORA is not recommending a change in rate design in this GRC application, it is 26
important to continue to monitor this item. 27
23
C. DISCUSSION 1
1) Rate Design 2
Cal Am states that it is adjusting the District rates and tier break points so that the 3
parameters of the settlement agreement adopted by D12.-11-006 are upheld. Cal Am is 4
proposing rate design changes in the Larkfield, San Diego, Ventura, and Los Angeles and 5
Monterey Districts. ORA also recommends adopting Cal Ams proposed Sacramento, 6
Toro and Garrapata Rate Design. 7
ORA has observed that in Larkfield, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Marino
94
8
Districts, Cal Ams 2015 rate design proposal shifts a greater percentage of the rate 9
increase onto the lower tiers compared to the upper tiers. ORA recommends that the 10
Commission require Cal Am to submit workpapers showing the rate design proposal 11
shifts onto the lower tiers in future GRCs to ensure that the contribution to revenues 12
from lower tier ratepayers remains reasonable. 13
Tables 1-A through 1-H below show the present rate design compared to the 14
proposed rate design for each District, followed by an explanation of the proposed 15
change. 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
San Marino is a system in the Los Angeles District
24
a) Larkfield District 1
Table 1-A: Larkfield District Present versus Proposed Rate Design 2
Larkfield
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate
(per
ccf)
Present
Design % of
Standard
Quantity Rate
(SQR)
Proposed
Design
Proposed
Design
Rate (per
ccf)
Proposed
Design
% of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%
Change
in Rates
Breakpoint
Residential
Tier 1
Break
Point =7
ccf
$5.15 80% of SQR
Break
Point =7
ccf
$5.98
87% of
SQR
13.92%
Tier 2
Break
Point =14
ccf
$6.44 100% of SQR
Break
Point =14
ccf
$6.88
100% of
SQR
6.39%

Tier 3
Break
Point =38
ccf
$9.34 145% of SQR
Break
Point =33
ccf
$8.93
130% of
SQR
-4.54%
Tier 4 $12.62 196% of SQR $11.69
170% of
SQR
-7.93%
All Non-
Residential
$6.44 100% of SQR $6.88
100% of
SQR
6.39%
For the Larkfield District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charge 3
design and four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure with the 4
proposed rates in the upper two tiers lower than the present rates. Cal Am also proposes 5
adjusting the rates and tier break points so that the parameters of the settlement 6
agreement adopted by D12.-11-006 are upheld.
95
The settlement agreement on 7
conservation rate design established the number and break points for consumption tiers, 8
the percentage of fixed costs included in the service charge and the distribution of the rate 9
95
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson Rate Design Northern and Southern Divisions, pg. 4
25
in each tier based on the single quantity rate for each district
96
through 2014. Cal Am is 1
proposing the lower rate in the upper tiers because overall consumption has decreased 2
from last authorized, but use in lower tiers has increased slightly
97
. Cal Am believes that 3
decreasing consumption over time should result from an increase in rates in the lower 4
tiers
98
. 5
b) Sacramento District 6
Table 1-B: Sacramento District Present versus Proposed Rate Design 7
Sacramento
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%
Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 2.4667 100% 19 3.029 98% 18.56%
Tier2 2.4667 3.3009 107% 25.27%
AllNon
Residential 2.4667 3.0855 100% 20.06%
8
For the Sacramento District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charge 9
design and two-tier rate structure for the residential customers because they have recently 10
been transitioned from unmetered flat rates to metered rates. Although other Cal Am 11
Districts already have conservation rates in place, transitioning the Sacramento 12
residential customers to more than a simple two-tier structure would reduce the 13
probability of rate shock. Cal Ams proposal would also provide an opportunity to 14
96
D.12-11-006
97
98
26
analyze customer reaction. Cal Am is proposing higher rates in the Sacramento District 1
based on a 2015 water sales forecast of 13,835 Kccf as compared with 2012 authorized 2
total sales of 14,149 Kccf. 3
c) San Diego District 4
5
Table 1-C: San Diego District Present versus Proposed Rate Design 6
SanDiego
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Propose
dDesign
%of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 8 3.618 90% 8 3.706 88% 2.37%
Tier2 17 4.002 100% 15 4.236 100% 5.52%
Tier3 30 5.923 150% 30 6.237 147% 5.03%
Tier4 7.306 186% 8.376 198% 12.77%
AllNon
Residential 4.002 100% 4.236 100% 5.52%
7
For the San Diego District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charge 8
design and four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure. Cal Am 9
proposes lowering the breakpoint in tier 2 to encourage less outdoor water usage. The 10
settlement agreement on conservation rate design established the number and break 11
points for consumption tiers, the percentage of fixed costs included in the service charge 12
and the distribution of the rate in each tier based on the single quantity rate for each 13
district through 2014. 14
15
27
d) Ventura District 1
2
3
Table 1-D: Ventura District Present vs. Proposed Rate Design 4
Ventura
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate ($
per ccf)
Present
Design
% of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoi
nt (ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate ($
per ccf)
Proposed
Design %
of SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
% Change
in Rates
Residential
Tier1 12 3.478 76% 12 3.5704 78% 2.59%
Tier2 22 4.411 100% 24 4.5774 100% 3.64%
Tier3 100 5.772 135% 60 6.0742 133% 4.98%
Tier4 8.339 201% 8.9835 96% 7.17%
AllNon
Residential 4.411 100% 4.5774 100% 3.64%
5
6
For the Ventura District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charges and 7
four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure. Cal Am proposes 8
increasing the breakpoint in tier 2 and lowering the breakpoint in tier 3. 9
Cal Am is proposing the breakpoint decrease from 100 ccf to 60 ccf in tier 3 because 10
Ventura County Districts needs to reduce overall consumption in order to meet 11
the State of Californias 20x2020 goal. There seems to be a large number of 12
customers with very high use that drives up the Summer average and to allow the 13
few to drive a result that does not consider the need to implement a greater 14
conservation message seems out place.
99
15
16
17
99
Supplemental Testimony Of David P. Stephenson Rate Design Northern And Southern Divisions, pg. 1212
28
e) Los Angeles District (Baldwin Hills) 1

2
Table 1-E: Baldwin Hills Present vs. Proposed Rate Design 3
Baldwin
Hills
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoi
nt(ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%
ofSQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%
Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 10 2.456 82% 11 2.794 80% 12.10%
Tier2 17 3.145 100% 18 3.475 100% 9.50%
Tier3 40 4.073 130% 40 5.099 147% 20.12%
Tier4 5.66 180% 6.883 198% 17.77%
AllNon
Residential 3.145 105% 3.475 100% 9.50%
4
For the Baldwin Hills District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter 5
charges and four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure with the 6
proposed rates in the upper two tiers being lower than the present rates. Cal Am also 7
proposes adjusting the rates and tier break points so that the parameters of the settlement 8
agreement adopted by D.12.-11-006 are upheld.
100
9
10
11
12
13
14
100
29
f) Los Angeles District (San Marino) 1

2
Table 1-F: San Marino District Present vs. Proposed Rate Design 3
SanMarino
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%
ofSQR
Presentvs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 14 2.037 74% 13 2.29 77% 11.05%
Tier2 30 2.891 100% 28 2.974 100% 2.79%
Tier3 100 4.24 147% 75 3.831 129% 10.68%
Tier4 5.6444 195% 5.778 194% 2.31%
AllNon
Residential 2.891 100% 2.974 100% 2.79%
4
For the San Marino District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charges 5
and four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure. Tier 1, 2 and 4 rates 6
will increase and tier 1 and 3 rates will decrease. The tier 2 and tier 3 breakpoints will 7
decrease to encourage additional conservation so that the parameters of the settlement 8
agreement adopted by D.12-11-006 are upheld.
101
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
101
210
g) Los Angeles District (Duarte) 1

2
Table 1-G: Duarte District Present vs. Proposed Rate Design 3
Duarte
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Propose
dDesign
Breakpo
int(ccf)
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%
ofSQR
Presentvs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 12 2.19 74% 11 2.061 77% 6.26%
Tier2 22 2.874 100% 23 2.643 100% 8.74%
Tier3 212 3.476 147% 170 3.389 129% 2.57%
Tier4 5.31 195% 4.754 194% 11.70%
AllNon
Residential 2.874 100% 2.643 100% 8.74%
4
For the Duarte District, Cal Am proposes keeping the existing meter charges and 5
four-tier residential and single tier non-residential rate structure with lower proposed 6
rates than present rates in all tiers. Cal Am also proposes decreasing the tier 3 breakpoint 7
from the current 212 ccf to 170 ccf, which would increase consumption in the upper tier. 8
Cal Am also expects lower variable costs due to the increase in the San Gabriel Basin 9
safe yield.
102
10
h) Monterey District 11
For the Monterey Main District, Cal Am proposes keeping the present rate design. 12
The present rate design includes four quantity rate Divisions with the existing five block 13
Residential structure. The five block residential structure includes parameters such as 14
number of people provided service by the meter, lot size, landscaping (Summer months 15
only) and in some cases, allotment for large animals. Cal Ams Non-residential 16
102
211
customers are billed based on compliance with Best Management Practices (BMP) 1
and the amount of outdoor irrigated space.
103
2
ii) Monterey District: Mixed-Use Customers 3
Cal Am is proposing a change to the billing methodology of mixed-use 4
customers.
104
Cal Am acknowledges that this classification of customer was 5
unfortunately overlooked in the last GRC.
105
Additionally, ORA was unable to find 6
information about this group of customers in previous GRCs. Cal Am states there are 7
approximately 60 mixed-use customers in Monterey who have both non-residential and 8
residential consumption billed through a single meter.
106
9
It is unclear how these customers are currently billed. Cal Am states that mixed- 10
use customers are billed according to the residential rates and the residential rate design 11
parameters.
107
However, Cal Am also describes the way the allotments are calculated for 12
mixed-use customers as follows: Tier 1 allotment is the allotment based on number of 13
occupants per service. The Tier 2 is the amount for occupants plus the non-residential 14
allotment. Tier 3 and 4 allotments are 7.5% of Tier 2 allotment plus the allotment for the 15
number of occupants.
108
This method is not consistent with the current residential rate 16
design parameters. The current residential rate design parameters are described in the 17
103
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design-Central Division, pg. 8, December 2, 2013
104
105
106
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design-Central Division, December 2, 2013, pg. 8, line28
and pg. 7, line23-24.
107
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design-Central Division, pg. 8, line 1 -2, December 2,
2013
108
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design-Central Division, pg.9, line 4 8, December 2,
2013. Cal Am goes on to describe the non-residential allotment determination in Q&A 23.
212
J une 18, 2013 settlement adopted in Decision 13-07-041.

109
To the extent that Cal Am is 1
saying that this is its current billing structure for mixed-use customers, this is inconsistent 2
with the Commission decision because there is no provision in the settlement for non- 3
residential allotments in tier 2, 3 or 4. To the extent that this description is Cal Ams 4
proposal for rate design in the mixed-use customer class, ORA addresses this proposal 5
below. 6
Part of Cal Ams proposal for rate design parameters for mixed-use customers is 7
to use business type usage factors (usage factors) in determining mixed-use customer 8
allotments. Cal Am describes that It is appropriate to continue use of business type 9
usage factor in order to determine the acceptable allotment in each rate tier.
110
This 10
statement is flawed because the eight parties to the settlement agreement in Phase II of 11
Cal Ams previous GRC agreed to discontinue the use of usage factors in 2013 in favor 12
of using uniform rates for non-residential customers that depend on the customers 13
compliance or non-compliance with Rate Best Management Practices.
111
Because the 14
Commission adopted the settlement, usage factors are no longer in use.
112
Additionally, 15
the impetus for discontinuing the use of usage factors was Cal Ams presentation in that 16
case that the factors were inappropriate for billing: 17
Q28. Please explain why you believe that the MPWMD 18
factors are inappropriate to use in billing. 19
A28. There are a number of issues with the MPWMD factors 20
that create very substantial issues to use them as the basis for 21
109
Settlement Agreement between California-American Water Company, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the City of Pacific Grove, the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses,
the Monterey County Hospitality Association, The Independent Reclaimed Water Users Group, and The Pebble
Beach Company on A.10-07-007 Phase II Issues, (Settlement Agreement) pg. 10-12.
110
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design-Central Division, pg. 8, line 20-21, December 2,
2013
111
Settlement Agreement, pg. 8, item 4
112
D.13-07-041, Decision adopting Phase II Settlement, pages 12-17
213
creating allotments in billing. First, there are not factors for 1

each type of customer. If there is a customer where a factor is 2
not available, then that customer is billed based on other 3
criteria, such as an audit. 4
Second, the factors that do exist were created in the early 5
1990s and do not reflect current usage needs or conservation 6
requirements. Many new conservation measures are now 7
required for businesses and allowing water now for non- 8
existent needs is inappropriate given the water supply 9
constraints in Monterey. Third, the factors are based on 10
average needs of the business in a classification and not on 11
the specific needs of an individual business. Finally, after a 12
review of the factors by a consultant retained by MPWMD, it 13
is my understanding that the consultant unequivocally stated 14
that these factors should not be used in billing.
113
15
Because the parties agreed to discontinue usage factors and because the factors are 16
inappropriate to use in billing, the Commission should not now authorize the use of these 17
factors for non-residential users that receive water from a mixed-use meter. 18
ORA explored the alternative of whether Cal Am could install separate meters for 19
mixed-use customers to simplify billing. However, Cal Am explained that the water 20
distribution system cannot be separated between different customer classes without 21
significant re-plumbing of each building, and that Cal Am does not have the ability to 22
compel a customer to make the change or the ability to make the change itself and flow 23
the cost back to this customer or all customers.
114
Cal Am also explained that for any 24
new services installed, if the property is to be mixed-use, then there would have to be a 25
separate meter for each use.
115
This does not appear to be a viable option. Furthermore, 26
113
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Monterey Rate Design, Phase 2, Application 10-07-007, March 30,
2012, CAW Exhibit 77, p. 14, line 12 26.
114
Data Request Response DK4-040, Question 1 and 2, Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11,
Attachment 8.
115
DataRequestResponseDK4040,Question3.
214
it remains unclear about what objective criteria would be used to determine a mixed-use 1
customer. 2
Although Cal Am did not provide the total usage of the 60 mixed-use customers, 3
to get an idea of the total amount of usage and the revenue impact of this customer group, 4
ORA analyzed the usage per year for the top three mixed-use customers and found that 5
these three customers use (CONFIDENTIAL BEGIN 6
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7
CONFIDENTIAL) 9
In response to ORAs request for proposed revenue and allotment data for the top 10
three mixed use customers, Cal Am provided proposed allotments for those customers as 11
follows: 12
CONFIDENTIAL BEGIN 13
XX 28
215
1
CONFIDENTIAL END It is unclear if Cal Am has calculated its proposed allotments for 6
all 60 of the mixed use customers. If the Commission authorizes changes to the billing 7
parameters for this sub-group of customers in the residential class, it will change size of 8
allotments relative to the present. This means that this sub-group of customers will pay a 9
different amount of revenue than expected for the same amount of usage. This means 10
that other residential customers will have to pay the difference through WRAM/MCBA 11
surcharges. 12
Cal Am also submitted to ORA, monthly bills of the three largest mixed use 13
customers for years 2009-2013. Based on these bills, ORA calculated the total annual 14
revenues from these customers (CONFIDENTIAL 15
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 20
CONFIDENTIAL). 21
Because it is not clear how these customers are currently billed, ORA did not 22
calculate the revenues generated by these customers at Cal Ams proposed rate design. 23
Given the unclear proposals and limited data provided by Cal Am on this topic as 24
well as apparent errors in the data provided, ORA recommends that the mixed-use 25
customers continue to be billed according to the residential rates and rate-design 26
parameters. To the extent that mixed-use customers are currently billed based on the 27
216
allotments that Cal Am reported as current, these are not consistent with the rate design 1
settlement adopted in Decision 13-07-041 and the Commission should order Cal Am to 2
immediately correct those billing allotments. 3
Because Cal Am cannot change the metering structures in these private properties, 4
the decision of whether to meter the commercial users within the properties rests with the 5
property-owners themselves. Cal Am could conduct customer outreach to inform each 6
mixed-use customer through a letter that they are being billed at the residential customer 7
rates and explain the way Cal Ams billing works for non-residential customers who have 8
separate meters should the mixed-use customers choose to install sub-meters in the 9
future. 10
i) Garrapata District 11
Table 1-I Garrapata District Present vs. Proposed Rate Design 12
Garrapata
Present Design
Rate ($ per
ccf)
Proposed Design
Rate ($ per ccf)
Present vs.
Proposed %
Change in Rates
Number of 1" Meters
(Residential below main tank)
125.98 125.98 0%
Number of 1" Meters
(Residential above tank, below
reservoir)
142.36 142.36 0%
Number of 1" Meters
(Residential above reservoir)
148.66 148.66 0%
Number of 1" Meters
(Commercial)
214.17 214.17 0%
13
For the Garrapata District, Cal Am is proposing keeping the existing flat rate 14
design until all customers all metered.
116
Meters for these customers will be installed 15
between 2015 and 2017. However, the rates submitted by Cal Am in the 2013 GRC 16
application are not the rates that appear on the Garrapata tariff. The actual rates charged 17
to customers are reflected in the tariff on the company website. The rates in the 18
116
Supplemental Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Rate Design Central Division, pg. 7
217
workpapers were inadvertently not updated to those authorized in Advice Letter 992 1
implementing the rates authorized in the acquisition D.13-01-033.
117
The flat rates will 2
be increased per the proposed percentage increase. ORA agrees with Cal Ams proposal 3
for the Garrapata District. 4
j) Toro District 5
6
Toro ProposedDesignBreakpoint
ProposedDesignRate($
perhcf)
Residential
Tier1 12 5.5574
Tier2 30 6.1749
Tier3 115 7.0703
Tier4 7.9039
AllNonResidential 6.1749
7
For the Toro District, Cal Am is proposing keeping the existing four-tier 8
residential rate structure with a separate meter charge. ORA agrees with Cal Ams 9
proposal for the Toro District. 10
Although ORA is not making adjustments to the proposed rate design, the 11
Commission and future ORA analysts should continue to monitor proposed changes to 12
rate design. 13
14
117
Data Request Response DK4-041, Answer to Question 2, Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11,
Attachment 9
218
2) Rate Design Workpapers with Actual Rates 1

In this GRC application, Cal Am submitted Revenue workpapers which included 2
calculations of operating revenues at proposed rates by multiplying estimated total 3
consumption by a single quantity rate (standard rate design) and adding the meter charges 4
that would be in effect under a standard rate design. However, it is important to note that 5
the rates that Cal Am uses to calculate the revenue at proposed rates are not actually the 6
rates that Cal Am is proposing. Cal Am explains The Company used the Commissions 7
standard practice to calculate proposed revenues because of the complexity surrounding 8
the design of conservation rates and its effect on a requested increase in revenues.
118
9
Likewise, Cal Ams calculation of revenues under present rates utilizes rates that 10
are not actually the present rates authorized on the companys tariffs. Using standard 11
rates rather than the actual rates that appear on authorized tariffs makes it very difficult 12
for ORA and other parties to verify and replicate revenue forecasts. Included in the 13
current GRC application, was Cal Ams present and proposed rate design with actual 14
rates that appear on authorized tariffs. ORA had to analyze both sets of workpapers and 15
evaluate them for consistency even though the workpapers did not use the same rates. 16
ORA emphasized this same point in the previous 2010 Cal Am GRC.
119
When ORA and 17
the Commission assesses the reasonableness of a requested rate increase, it is imperative 18
to understand the revenue forecast that would result from the actual present rates and the 19
revenue forecast that would result from the actual proposed rates. Cal Ams revenue 20
forecasts filed in A.13-07-002 do not use the actual rates for either calculation. 21
ORA recommends the Commission direct Cal Am to use its actual rates for all 22
revenue calculations in all future GRCs. 23
118
A.13-07-002, Direct Testimony of Edward Grubb, pg.13
119
Refer to ORA (formerly DRA) 2010 Cal Am GRC Operating Revenues Testimony pg. 2-14, Daphne
Korthamars Testimony, Attachment 6
219
3) Low Income Programs 1

At present, Cal Ams Low Income customers receive a fixed discount on their 2
bills. The discount was previously calculated to by taking 20% off the average low 3
income customer bill. 4
Cal Am is proposing a 20% discount off of each low-income customer bill, which 5
would result in not having a fixed discount but one that would fluctuate depending on the 6
total bill. This would also eliminate some of the challenges that Cal Am has encountered 7
with the flat fee discount system, for example, a customer with low water usage could get 8
a discount that eliminates the bill altogether.
120
9
ORA is proposing that upon review of each customer bill, Cal Am apply the lesser 10
of the two low income discounts described above. This would enable Cal Am to continue 11
to encourage conservation while avoiding a situation in which a customer bill is 12
eliminated due to the low income discount. This program will continue to encourage 13
conservation because the customers will be aware that only the lesser of the two 14
discounts applies. For example, if a customer bill equals $0 after the low income flat fee 15
discount is applied, then the 20% off discount would be applied instead. 16
17
4) The Impact of Revenues, Consumption, and Meter Charges on Customer Rates 18
a) Revenues versus Consumption and Revenues from Meter Charges 19
ORA analyzed two additional areas of Cal Ams proposed rate design. The first 20
area was the percentage of general metered revenues versus consumption for 2012 21
compared to the equivalent in 2015. ORA chose to analyze this because this allows for a 22
better understanding of how the proportion of revenue from each class compares with the 23
120
Refer to Direct Testimony of David P. Stephensons, page. 28 and ORA Financial Examiner, Praneet Rows
Low-Income Memorandum Account Testimony
220
proportion of consumption in the class. ORA found that there was a slight divergence 1
between the proportions from the 2012 compared with the 2015 results. 2
ORA recommends that the Commission remain aware of the increasing divergence 3
between the present and proposed percentage of total revenue divided by percentage of 4
total consumption. Furthermore, a shift in percentage revenues from meter charges to 5
volumetric charges can indicate that the utility is trying to minimize its risk of under 6
collecting its Last Authorized Test Year revenues as WRAM guarantees revenues from 7
volumetric rates. 8
Although ORA is not making any adjustments to rate design in this GRC based 9
solely on this analysis, ORA recommends that the Commission monitor this issue by 10
asking Cal Am to provide workpapers showing the relationship between the percentage 11
of revenue for each customer classification and the percentage of consumption for the 12
same customer classes in future GRCs. 13
b) Revenues vs. Consumption 14
i) 2012 Revenue at Present Rates vs. 2012 Customer Consumption compared with 15
2015 Revenue at Proposed Rates vs. 2015 Customer Consumption 16
To better understand the rate structure, ORA analyzed each Districts percentage 17
of 2012 recorded total general metered revenue at present rates compared with the 2012 18
recorded percentage of total customer consumption, and compared it with each Districts 19
2015 estimated percentage of total general metered revenue at proposed rates of each 20
customer class and compared it with the 2015 estimated percentage of total customer 21
consumption for each customer class. 22
ii) 2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption 23
ORA concluded from this analysis that although Cal Ams testimony states rates 24
are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the 25
221
proportion of consumption in the class,

121
the proportionality seems to be diverging, 1
rather than converging, between present and proposed rate designs. In the majority of 2
Districts, Residential customers will be contributing more revenue proportional to the 3
quantity of water consumed. 4
The following chart shows the percentage of total revenues generated by the 5
residential class in each District and how the percentage revenues is proportional to the 6
percentage of total consumption by the residential class in each District in Year 2012 and 7
Year 2015. As a general example, if a Residential customer class in a District generates 8
25% of the total revenue for that District and, as a class, consumes, 25% of the total 9
consumption in that District, this is reflected in the table as 100%, or direct 10
proportionality. From the chart, it is clear that a greater proportion of total revenues 11
relative to total consumption will be collected from the residential customer class for all 12
Districts in 2015. This also means that the Residential customers are subsidizing other 13
water customer classes. A dramatic example of this is shown in the chart below is of the 14
revenue versus consumption proportionality in Monterey in 2015, where clearly the 15
Residential customers are responsible for a greater percentage of the total revenues not 16
proportional to the amount of water they consume at 115%. This does not validate Cal 17
Ams testimony that rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class 18
approximates the proportion of consumption in the class. 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, pg. 4
222
Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption 1

2
3
Although ORA is not making any adjustments to Cal Ams proposed rate design 4
in this GRC based on this analysis, ORA recommends that the Commission monitor this 5
issue in future GRCs by requiring Cal Am to provide workpapers showing the 6
comparison described above and any similar metrics which would explain this. 7
5) Meter charges from General Metered Revenues 8
ORA also compared the percentage of total revenues forecasted to be collected 9
from meter charges under Cal Ams proposed rate designs with the percentage of 10
revenues forecasted to be collected from meter charges under present rate design. 11
Cal Ams proposed rate design consists of a meter charge and a volumetric charge. 12
The meter charge in all Districts covers 25% of total fixed costs. Fixed costs are costs 13
that do not change with the volume of water produced, such as large infrastructure 14
investments. Only revenues derived from volumetric sales are protected by Cal Ams 15
WRAM decoupling mechanism. If volumetric revenue derived from consumption varies 16
from the forecasted amounts, the WRAM mechanism will track the difference. However, 17
Cal Ams decoupling mechanism does not track variances in revenue derived from meter 18
223
charges which is a result of the number of customers served. ORA also analyzed the 1
present 2013 vs. proposed 2015 percentage of general metered revenue which is collected 2
from meter charges vs. volumetric charges. From this analysis, ORA concluded that in 3
most Districts, there was a slight increase in the percentage of revenues collected from 4
meter charges in 2015. 5
Prior to the implementation of WRAM accounts, the service charge was designed 6
to recover 50% to 55% of a companys fixed costs, with the remainder recovered as part 7
of use charges. The CPUC Decision D.92-03-093 and Re Water Rate Design Policy case 8
adopted a flatter rate design policy permitting water utilities to recover up to 50% of 9
their fixed costs in service charges.
122
In the same case, the Commission rejected the 10
recommendation of some utilities to design rates so that 100% of fixed costs could be 11
recovered in service charge
123
because of the reduction in the utilitys financial risk. 12
With the implementation of WRAM accounts, only revenues derived from 13
volumetric sales are protected by Cal Ams WRAM decoupling mechanism. If 14
volumetric revenue derived from consumption varies from the forecasted amounts, the 15
WRAM mechanism will track the difference. However, Cal Ams decoupling 16
mechanism does not track variances in revenue derived from meter charges which is a 17
result of the number of customers served. 18
Although ORA is not making any adjustments to rate design in this GRC based on 19
this analysis, ORA recommends that Cal Am provide workpapers in future GRCs 20
showing the percentage of revenues collected from meter charges. 21
122
D.92-03-093, pg. 30 and 21 CPUC 2d, p. 161
123
D.92-03-093, pg. 30 and 21 CPUC 2d, p. 161
224
1
2
6) Residential Bill Impacts 3
a) Comparison of Cal Ams Present and Proposed Rates 4
ORA performed a Residential bill impact analysis for each of Cal Ams Districts 5
comparing (1) Cal Ams present and proposed rates presented in Cal Ams application 6
workpapers and (2) the present and proposed rates which are included in Cal Ams tariff 7
sheets currently available on the Cal Am website.
124
Bill impact analysis (1) mentioned 8
above was done using 2012 recorded and 2015 forecasted average consumption per 9
customer. Bill impact analysis (2) included two components, (a) Statewide average 10
monthly consumption and (b) District average monthly consumption per customer. This 11
124
http://www.amwater.com/caaw/Customer-Service/Rates-Information/
225
bill impact analysis (1) only included meter and volumetric charges but did not include 1
surcharges. The bill impact analysis (2) did include surcharges. 2
For a customer with a one-inch meter, the average percent increase in monthly bill 3
will be 6.15% across all Districts. The Duarte District Residential customers with 5/8 4
inch meters experience a 1.4% decrease in their bill from 2012 to 2015, the only 5
Residential customers to experience a decrease. This is compared with the same Baldwin 6
Hills customers, whose bills will increase 10.84%, the largest increase across of the Cal 7
Am Districts. San Diego residential customers with a one-inch meter will experience a 8
7.05% decrease in their bills from 2012 to 2015 compared with the same customers in the 9
Baldwin Hills District who will experience an increase of 10.84% in their monthly bill. 10
The average percent increase in monthly bill for a customer across all Districts with a 5/8 11
inch meter, from Cal Ams present to Cal Ams proposed rates will be 7.91%. The chart 12
below shows the impact of the increase from the 2012 present bills to the 2015 proposed 13
bills. The results of the comparison are shown in the charts below. 14
15
16
17
226
ORA also analyzed customer bills across all Districts assuming 2012 recorded 1
monthly consumption remained constant throughout (13.67 ccf/month). The chart below 2
shows that with a constant statewide average monthly consumption per customer, the 3
average customer bill across all Districts is $72.25 which includes an average of 22% in 4
surcharges, with Monterey and Larkfield customers paying the highest bills. 5
6
7
ORA also analyzed customer bills across all Districts using the 2012 recorded 8
average monthly consumption per customer in each District. The 2012 average monthly 9
consumption per customer ranges from the lowest, in Monterey (6.16 ccf) to the highest, 10
in San Marino (22.67 ccf). The average customer bill across all Districts is $74.13 which 11
includes an average of 24% in surcharges, with Ventura and Larkfield customers paying 12
the highest bills. 13
227
Current tariff surcharges have been determined in a previous case or Advice Letter 1
and are used to pay for items such as municipal taxes and conservation efforts. 2
Surcharges are not included in customer water rates and therefore can add a significant 3
amount to each bill. Surcharges are calculated either by taking a percentage of the 4
monthly consumption and multiplying it by a fixed cost or by calculating a percentage of 5
the sum of service and volumetric charges. 6
7
8
7) Comparison of ORAs Rates to Cal Ams Rates 9
10
For comparison, ORA also performed a Residential bill impact analysis 11
throughout all Cal Am Districts using Cal Ams present rates and ORAs proposed rates 12
shown in the tables below. 13
228
SanDiego
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design%
ofSQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORA's
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Presentvs.
Proposed%
Changein
Rates
Residential
Tier1 8 3.618 90% 8 3.481078 88% 3.93%
Tier2 17 4.002 100% 15 3.978374 100% 0.59%
Tier3 30 5.923 150% 30 5.858156 147% 1.11%
Tier4 7.306 186% 7.867235 198% 7.13%
AllNon
Residential 4.002 100% 3.978374 100% 0.59%
2
3
4
5
6
7
Larkfield
Present
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
ORA's
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%
ofSQR
Presentvs.
Proposed%
Changein
Rates
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Residential
Tier1 7 $5.15 80%ofSQR 7 $4.911 87%ofSQR 4.6%
Tier2 14 $6.44
100%of
SQR
14
$5.645
100%of
SQR
12.34%
Tier3 38 $9.34
145%of
SQR
33 $7.33
130%of
SQR
21.52%
Tier4 $12.62
196%of
SQR
$9.596
170%of
SQR
23.96%
AllNon
Residential
$6.44
100%of
SQR
$5.645
100%of
SQR
12.34%
229
Sacramento
Present
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORAs
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 2.4667 100% 19 2.457 98% 0.39%
Tier2 2.4667 2.678 107% 7.89%
AllNon
Residential 2.4667 2.5036 100% 1.47%
1
Ventura
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORA
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%
Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 12 3.478 76% 12 3.300291 78% 5.38%
Tier2 22 4.411 100% 24 4.231142 100% 4.25%
Tier3 100 5.772 135% 60 5.614726 133% 2.80%
Tier4 8.339 201% 8.303956 96% 0.42%
AllNon
Residential 4.411 100% 4.231142 100% 4.25%
2
Duarte
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($per
ccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORA's
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Presentvs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 12 2.19 74% 11 1.9787 78% 10.68%
Tier2 22 2.874 100% 23 2.5368 100% 13.29%
Tier3 212 3.476 147% 170 3.2535 128% 6.84%
Tier4 5.31 195% 4.5637 180% 16.35%
AllNon
Residential 2.874 100% 2.5368 100% 13.29%
230
1
SanMarino
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORAs
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%
ofSQR
Presentvs.
Proposed%
ChangeinRates
Residential
Tier1 14 2.037 74% 13 2.0142 77% 1.13%
Tier2 30 2.891 100% 28 2.6158 100% 10.52%
Tier3 100 4.24 147% 75 3.3692 129% 25.85%
Tier4 5.6444 195% 5.0818 194% 11.07%
AllNon
Residential 2.891 100% 2.6158 100% 10.52%
2
BaldwinHills
Present
Design
Breakpoint
Present
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Present
Design
%of
SQR
Proposed
Design
Breakpoint
(ccf)
ORA's
Proposed
Design
Rate($
perccf)
Proposed
Design%of
SQR
Present
vs.
Proposed
%Change
inRates
Residential
Tier1 10 2.456 82% 11 2.2244 80% 10.41%
Tier2 17 3.145 100% 18 2.7666 100% 13.68%
Tier3 40 4.073 130% 40 4.06 147% 0.32%
Tier4 5.66 180% 5.4807 198% 3.27%
AllNon
Residential 3.145 105% 2.7666 100% 13.68%
3
Garrapata
Present Design
Rate ($ per ccf)
Proposed Design
Rate ($ per ccf)
Present vs. Proposed
% Change in Rates
Number of 1" Meters (Residential
below main tank)
125.98 122.98 -2.4%
above tank, below reservoir)
142.36 138.97 -2.4%
above reservoir)
148.66 145.12 -2.4%
Number of 1" Meters (Commercial)
214.17 209.08 -2.3%
231
Toro ProposedDesignBreakpoint
ORAsProposedDesign
Rate($perhcf)
Residential
Tier1 12 5.4973
Tier2 30 6.1081
Tier3 115 6.9938
Tier4 7.8183
AllNonResidential 2.874
With ORAs proposed rates, a customer with a 1 inch meter would experience an 1
average percent decrease in monthly bill of -4.53% across all Districts and for a customer 2
with a 5/8 inch meter, the average percent decrease in monthly bill for a customer across 3
all Districts would be -6.32%. The 2012 to 2015 residential bill comparison for 4
customers with a 5/8 inch meter and a one-inch meter by District is shown in the chart 5
below. 6
7
8
9
232
D. CONCLUSION 1
ORA does not oppose the rate design proposed by Cal Am in this application and 2
recommends the Commission approve the rate design for all the Districts, however, for 3
the Monterey Mixed-Use Customer Class, ORA does not recommend the Commission 4
approve Cal Ams proposed rate design. However, ORA does recommend the 5
Commission require Cal Am to provide additional information on these customers in 6
future GRCs. 7
ORA recommends the Commission adopt ORAs proposed Low Income Program, 8
in which upon review of each customer bill, Cal Am would apply the lesser of the two 9
low income discounts, either the existing flat fee discount or the Cal Am proposed 20% 10
off the total bill. This would enable Cal Am to continue to encourage conservation while 11
avoiding a situation in which a customer bill is eliminated due to the low income 12
discount. 13
For future GRCs, ORA recommends that Cal Am be required to present actual 14
rates included in the companys tariff sheets in all of their workpapers which would 15
simplify analysis between the application workpapers and actual rate design.. 16
ORA recommends that Cal Am provide workpapers showing the relationship 17
between the percentage of revenue for each customer classification and the percentage of 18
consumption for the same customer classes in future GRCs so that the CPUC and future 19
ORA analysts remain aware of this as there appears to be an increasing divergence of 20
these percentages between 2012 and 2015. Although ORA is not making adjustments to 21
rate design based on this analysis, it is important to monitor this issue. 22
ORA recommends that in future GRCs, Cal Am provide workpapers showing the 23
decreasing percentage of revenue collected from meter charges and the effects this may 24
have on Cal Ams risk profile. An increasing percentage of forecasted revenue is 25
protected by the WRAM decoupling mechanism and the CPUC and future ORA analysts 26
should remain aware of this. 27
233
ORA recommends that the Commission require Cal Am to submit workpapers in 1

future GRCs presenting the Residential bill impacts so that future ORA analysts remain 2
aware of the Residential bill impacts throughout the Cal Am Districts. Although ORA is 3
not recommending a change in rate design in this GRC application, it is important to 4
continue to monitor this item. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
31

ESTABLISH A CONNECTION FEE FOR ALL AREAS IN ALL 2
DISTRICTS WHERE A SPECIAL FACILITIES FEE OR CONNECTION 3
FEE DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST 4
A. INTRODUCTION 5
In Special Request #5, California American Water (Cal Am) proposes a 6
connection fee that would be charged to all new connections in all districts where such a 7
fee does not currently exist.
125
This fee would be the same as Cal Ams existing 8
connection fee in Larkfield, which is $2,000 for a service connection of 5/8 x 3/4 inches 9
and would be shown on a single tariff for all affected areas.
126
The three exceptions to 10
this request are the Rosemont area of the Sacramento District, which already has a 11
Special Facilities Fee, the area of the Sacramento District in which the Placer County 12
Special Facility Fee applies, and the Monterey County District.
127
13
In the Monterey County District, Cal Am proposes a connection fee per service 14
connection equivalent to the per acre foot allocation fee of $23,567 that the Monterey 15
Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) presently charges.
128
Cal Am notes it 16
has made the same request in A.12-04-019, the Application for a Certificate of Public 17
Convenience and Necessity to own and operate a desalination plant in the Monterey 18
County District.
129
19
ORA does not support Cal Ams request to establish a connection fee tariff for all 21
Districts except those that already have a Special Facilities Fee because the language of 22
125
126
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, July 1, 2013, Attachment 5
127
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, July 1, 2013, p. 18
128
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, July 1, 2013, p. 18-19, and Attachment 5
129
32
the request is unclear. Cal Am is requesting a connection fee where a special facilities 1
fee does not currently exist. A special facilities fee serves a different purpose and is 2
based on a different cost analysis than that of a connection fee, therefore, the two fees 3
should not be substituted for one another. 4
ORA recommends that the Commission require Cal Am to submit additional cost 5
analysis to ensure the connection fee covers only Cal Ams cost of hooking a new 6
customer into an already existing main for each of its service districts. 7
C. DISCUSSION 8
i) ORA does not support Cal Ams request for a connection fee tariff 9
where a Special Facilities Fee does not currently exist 10
Standard Practice U-28-W, section 2.h., states that connection charges provide for 11
new customers to pay the cost to the utility of building the new connection: 12
Connection charges allow a utility to recover the cost of hooking a 13
new customer into an already existing distribution main [footnote 14
omitted]. This fee covers the cost of installing new service 15
connections, including service pipe, meter box and meter, and labor, 16
but is based on typical length and excavation times, so that all 17
customers are charged an average amount. As an alternative, the 18
customer may contract separately with a contractor approved by the 19
utility, for the installation of the service lateral and meter box. 20
The California Water Code also indicates that meter installation costs must be 21
borne by the water user: 22
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, every water purveyor 23
who sells, leases, rents, furnishes, or delivers water service to any 24
person shall require, as a condition of new water service on and after 25
J anuary 1, 1992, that a suitable water meter to measure the water 26
service shall be installed on the water service facilities in accordance 27
with this chapter. The cost of installation of the meter shall be paid 28
by the user of the water, and any water purveyor may impose and 29
collect charges for those costs.
130
30
130
California Water Code Section 525(a)
33
1
Cal Ams request to charge all new connections the same amount as listed in the 2
Larkfield Schedule LK-F, Special Facilities Fee of $2,000 (with the exceptions listed 3
above), is not appropriate because although the $2,000 fee is listed as a connection fee in 4
the tariff, the description of the fee is based on a facilities fee definition and calculation. 5
The existing Larkfield District Facilities Fee tariff, Schedule No. LK-F, includes 6
the customer fee of connecting to the system and was approved in Advice Letter 951 7
using the following justification: 8
DRA and California American Water agree that the monies collected from this 9
new connection fee would be directed to funding new capital improvement 10
projects within the Larkfield water system, specific to source of supply. The 11
parties agree that the source of supply projects can include the construction of 12
additional groundwater wells, the purchase of existing groundwater wells, or 13
purchasing additional water supply from Sonoma County Water Agency (or 14
another adjoining public agency with excess water supply. This connection fee 15
would be created to be consistent with the Commissions General Order 96, as 16
well as the Commissions General Order 103-A. This connection fee would be 17
created to be consistent with the Commissions General Order 96-B, and 18
pursuant to provisions in Standard Practice U-28-W, Appendix A. DRA and 19
California American Water recognize that due to the unique circumstances in the 20
Larkfield District, it is appropriate to follow Standard Practice U-28-W even 21
though those provisions apply to service areas with customers of 2,000 or less.
131
22
23
The paragraph above actually describes the justification for a facilities fee, not a 24
connection fee, and therefore, cannot be applied to all the Districts to establish a 25
connection fee. Cal Am does not provide any analysis that indicates this amount would 26
cover the costs of meter installation as required by California Water Code section 525 nor 27
does it provide any assurance that the amount would cover other costs outlined in 28
Standard Practice U-28-W associated with the new connection. 29
131
D.12-06-016 Settlement Agreement
34
ii) ORA recommends the Commission require Cal Am to submit 1

additional cost analysis 2
Special Facilities Fees truly are fees designed to pay back in full the revenue 3
requirement of the necessary Special Facilities in that area.
132
These Special Facilities 4
Fees cover specific infrastructure projects and those are different costs than the costs 5
covered by connection fees. Connection fees pay the costs of hooking a new customer to 6
an already existing distribution main. Thus, Cal Am needs to clarify the request. 7
Therefore, ORA recommends the Commission should require Cal Am to provide 8
a calculation for each district and meter size showing that the proposed connection fee 9
will cover the costs of meter installation prior to approving this Special Request. 10
D) CONCLUSION 11
ORA does not support Cal Ams request to establish a connection fee tariff and 12
recommends the Commission require clarification of the language of the request and 13
additional cost analysis prior to approving this Special Request to ensure the connection 14
fee covers only Cal Ams cost of hooking a new customer into an already existing main 15
in each district. 16
132
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, July 1, 2013, p. 20, lines 2 4.
41
Chapter 4 : SPECIAL REQUEST #6 AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW 1

TARIFF WHICH WILL LIST ALL SPECIAL FEES 2
A. INTRODUCTION 3
In Special Request #6, California American Water (Cal Am) proposes a new 4
Special Fees tariff sheet for water service that will present and explain special fees such 5
as the reconnection fee, late payment fee and after-hours reconnection fee in a single 6
tariff. Cal Am also proposes a similar separate tariff sheet for wastewater. 7
Cal Am makes separate Special Requests to implement new fees or increase the 8
amount of existing fees that would appear on this new proposed tariff. 9
ORA does not oppose Cal Ams request for a single tariff sheet listing all the fees. 11
C. DISCUSSION 12
Cal Am proposes a single tariff listing all special fees.
133
ORA recommends 13
approval of this request. Consolidation of all special fees onto a single tariff sheet will 14
likely make it easier for customers to locate the special fees and their explanations that 15
are applicable to their billing circumstances. 16
1) Cal Ams Justifications for this Proposal 17
David P. Stephenson provided, the following justification for Cal Am in his 18
testimony
134
supporting the single tariff: 19
The tariff will allow for more customer transparency; 20
Cal Am has observed other examples from utilities that have a single tariff. 21
2) ORA Analysis 22
ORA has reviewed Cal Ams justification for this request and agrees with Cal Am. 23
133
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Attachment 5
134
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, page 16
42
D. CONCLUSION 1
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams request to establish a single 2
tariff listing all special fees as requested. 3
51
Chapter 5 : SPECIAL REQUEST #8 AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE 1

THE AFTER-HOURS ACTIVATION CHARGE 2
A. INTRODUCTION 3
In Special Request #8, California American Water (Cal Am) proposes to 4
increase the after-hours activation charge from $50 to $175 for all Cal Am Districts. This 5
service is necessary for customers who require reconnection to the system after 6
disconnection from the system due to failure to pay their bills. 7
ORA does not oppose the request for an increase in the after-hours activation 9
charge. 10
C. DISCUSSION 11
Cal Am proposes that the after-hours activation fee be increased from $50 to $175, 12
which is the average of actual costs to perform this service.
135
13
Cal Am states that the after-hours activation charge includes the Total Salary- 14
related cost per restoration plus the Total vehicle-related cost per restoration; 15
The Total Salary-related cost per restoration includes the following costs
136
: 16
o Average Hourly Salary of on-call worker 17
o Benefits loading (50%) 18
o Average Hourly Certification Pay 19
o Total straight time hourly salary 20
o Total salary including overtime pay 21
o Minimum Call Out (Hours) 22
135
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, pg. 24-25
136
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, pg. 24-25
52
The Total vehicle-related cost per restoration includes the following costs: 1
o Average roundtrip of after-hours service restoration (Miles) 2
o Average fuel cost/gallon 3
o Average MPG 4
David P. Stephenson provided, for Cal Am, the following justification in his 6
testimony
137
supporting the special request to increase the after-hours activation fee: 7
In five Cal Am Districts, the Total Salary-related cost per restoration ranges 8
from $136.09-$219.41; 9
The Total vehicle-related cost per restoration in five Cal Am Districts ranges 10
from $8.63-$35.04; 11
The current charge of $50 only covers one component of the cost of service. 12
13
2) ORA Analysis 14
Based on the information that Cal Am has submitted, ORA believes there is 15
justification for an increase in the after-hours activation charge. The average cost of 16
performing the service between the Cal Am Districts of Los Angeles, San Diego, 17
Ventura, Monterey and Sacramento/Larkfield is $175.56. 18
For comparison purposes, ORA researched the after-hours activation charge of 19
other water utilities in California and found that Cal Ams proposed increase in this 20
charge is within the average range of after-hours activation charges, as demonstrated in 21
the table below: 22
23
24
137
DirectTestimonyofDavidP.Stephenson,pg.24
53
Comparison of After-Hours Activation Charges in California 1

City After-Hours
Activation Charge
California American Water $175
Park Water Company
http://parkwater.com/docs/default-source/rates/rule-11-9-25.pdf?sfvrsn=0
$90
Paso Robles
http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/publicworks/water/division-overview.asp
$365
Napa
http://www.cityofnapa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=281
$150
Riverside
http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/water.asp
$75
Azusa
http://www.ci.azusa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=132
$115 in addition to the
delinquent amount on
their account
Oceanside
http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/gov/water/default.asp
$95
2
The table below compares Cal Ams 2012 revenues collected from After Hours 3
Activation Fees with Cal Ams forecasted 2015 and 2016 revenues from After Hours 4
Activation Fees. The table shows that although Cal Am is requesting that the fee increase 5
3.5 times (from $50-$175), Cal Ams forecasted revenues only increased 2.5 times. 6
7
Cal Am 2012 After-Hours Activation Fee Revenue Collected Compared with 2015 and 8
2016 Revenue Collected 9
District
Cal Am 2012 Revenue
collected from After Hours
Activation Fee
(Data Request Response
DK4-001)
138

Cal Am 2015 Forecasted
Revenue from After
Hours Activation Fee
(Data Request Response
DK4-001)
Cal Am 2016
Forecasted Revenue
from After Hours
Activation Fee
(Data Request
Response DK4-001)
San Diego $2800 $7000 $7000
Monterey $3150 $7875 $7875
138
54
Los Angeles $620 $1550 $1550

Ventura $420 $1050 $1050
Larkfield $180 $450 $450
Sacramento $4700 $11,750 $11,750
Total $11,870 $29,675 $29,675
1
To ensure that all additional revenue is accounted for, ORA recalculated the 2
forecasted revenues for each District using a multiplier of 3.5 instead of 2.5 and included 3
the forecasted revenues shown below in the ORA workpapers. 4
2012 After-Hours Activation Fee Revenue Collected Compared with 2015 and 2016 5
Revenue Collected 6
District
Cal Am 2012 Revenue
collected from After
(Data Request Response DK4-001)
ORA 2015 Forecasted
Revenue from After
ORA 2016
Forecasted
Revenue from
After Hours
Activation Fee
San Diego $2800 $9800 $9800
Monterey $3150 $11025 $11025
Los Angeles $620 $2170 $2170
Ventura $420 $1470 $1470
Larkfield $180 $630 $630
Sacramento $4700 $16450 $16450
Total $11,870 $41,545 $41,545
7
55
D. CONCLUSION 1
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams request to increase the 2
After-Hours Activation Fee recommended herein. Cal Ams current charge does not 3
cover the cost of service and Cal Ams proposal would more accurately align 4
responsibility of cost with causation. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
61
Chapter 6 : SPECIAL REQUEST #9 AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW 1

LATE PAYMENT FEE 2
3
A. INTRODUCTION 4
In Special Request #9, California American Water Company (Cal Am) proposes 5
that there should be a new late payment fee tariff rate. 6
ORA does not oppose the request for a new late payment fee for all Districts, 8
however ORA recommends the Commission adopt ORAs proposed tariff language. 9
C. DISCUSSION 10
Cal Am proposes that the billing language for the late payment fee should come from 11
Standard Practice SP U-28-W, Late charge: a late charge of 1.5% on unpaid balance 12
subject to special conditions and minimum charge below: Minimum Charge: The 13
minimum charge is $1.00.
139
Additional language from SP U-28-W includes: 14
15
Late payment charges may be imposed when the customer doesn't pay the bill 16
within 19 days of it being mailed (see Public Utilities Code Section 779.1). The 17
charge is described on a separate schedule LC (see Appendix B). Normally, the 18
utility allows an amount of time in excess of 19 days before the charge is imposed, 19
for example, for monthly billers, if the last month's bill has not been paid by the 20
time the next month's bill is sent, the charge is imposed on the next month's bill. 21
The late charge should be imposed only once on a delinquent bill since the account 22
would be shut off before a subsequent bill and then subject to the reconnection fee 23
as authorized by Tariff Rule No. 11. 24
25
Cal Am provided the following justification to support implementing the new late 26
payment fee.
140
27
139
140
62
Customers who make late payments should pay a late payment fee to cover the 1
costs to the utility; 2
Late payment fees are effective at getting customers to pay their bills on time in 3
the energy utilities and being that the Commission strives to have more 4
commonality between the energy and water sectors, it seems appropriate that all 5
water utilities should have the ability to charge costs of delinquent paying 6
customers to those customers, just the same as in the energy sector. 7
8
In Data Request Response DK4-028,
141
Cal Am cited, Southern California Edison as a 9
company that has a late payment fee tariff. According to Cal Am, Southern California 10
Edisons tariff states: 11
A late payment charge of 0.8% may be applied to the total unpaid balance of a 12
domestic or nondomestic Customer Account if the customer's payment is not 13
received by the date indicated on the Customer Account Bill or Summary Bill. 14
Domestic California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) customers are exempt 15
from application of the Late Payment Charge. Cal Am also provided SDG&Es 16
late payment fee that states: A monthly late payment charge, equal to SDG&E's 17
authorized return on rate base divided by 12 and rounded to the nearest one-tenth 18
of one percent, may be assessed on non-residential accounts with billing in arrears 19
if not received by the Utility, or by an authorized agent of the Utility, by the "late 20
charge date" as shown on the bill. The late charge date will be at least 25 days 21
from the date mailed as indicated on the bill. Payments applied shall satisfy the 22
oldest portion of the bill first, any other billings second, and the current billing 23
last. The charge may then be applied to any remaining unpaid balance. 24
25
In Data Request Response DK4-033,
142
Cal Am also provides examples of two 26
utilities that charge late payment fees, the Del Oro Water Company
143
and the Park Water 27
Company.
144
28
141
142
143
Del Oro Water Company, Schedule No. LC
63
1) ORA Analysis 1
Cal Am did not forecast 2015 and 2016 revenues associated with the proposed late 2
payment fee in the original GRC application. ORA requested this information. Cal Am 3
responded in Data Request Response DK4-001 and revised its forecasts in Data Request 4
Response DK4-039 after developing a new methodology. In the revised forecasts, Cal 5
Am applied a 1.5% monthly fee on estimated late bills from October 2012 through 6
September 2013 but included a 20% factor to decrease forecasted revenues that, 7
according to Cal Am, would account for improved collections that [it] expects to be 8
able to achieve based on the incentive customers will now have to pay their bills on time 9
to avoid the late fee.
145
10
ORA also forecasted the revenues with Cal Ams proposed 1.5% monthly late fee, 11
and included a factor of 10% to take into account the improvement of bill payments. 12
Included in ORAs analysis was a review of the examples of both energy and water 13
utilities which charge a late payment fee. 14
A comparison of Cal Ams and ORAs 2015 forecasted revenues is shown in the 15
table below. ORA has made adjustments to the 2015 operating revenue at proposed 16
rates forecasts using ORAs forecasts. 17
District
Cal Am 2015 Forecasted Revenue
from Late Payment Fee
146

ORA 2015 Forecasted Revenue from
Late Payment Fee
147

% ORA greater
than Cal Am
San Diego $38,699

$ 43,536

11%
144
Park Water Company, Schedule No. LC
145
Cal Am Data Request Response DK4-039 Q001b, Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11,
Attachment 13
146
147
See ORA Late Payment Fee Workpaper for methodology
64
Monterey $167,221

$ 188,124

11%
Los
Angeles
BH: $16,713
Duarte: $16,361
San Marino: $13,003
BH: $18,802
Duarte: $18,407
San Marino: $14,629

11%
Ventura $46,924

$52,789

11%
Larkfield $3,959

$4,453

11%
Sacramento $109,151
$122,795

11%
Total $412,032

$463,535

11%
1
ORA recommends Cal Am impose the late fee after the customer is delinquent on 2
their bill by one month (19 business days). ORA is proposing the following tariff 3
language: 4
5
Late payment charges may be imposed when the customer fails to pay their bill 6
within 19 business days of it being mailed. If the last months bill has not been 7
paid by the time the next months bill is sent, the charge is imposed on the next 8
months bill. The late payment should then be paid within 19 business days after 9
that. 10
D. CONCLUSION 11
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams request to establish a late 12
payment fee of 1.5% of the past due bill amount which will be added to the bill after a 13
customer fails to pay within 19 business days. However, ORA recommends that Cal Am 14
clarify the language to ensure the customer understands that 1.5% is a late payment fee of 15
the entire amount past due but does not compound. ORA recommends that the 16
65
Commission adopt ORAs 2015 and 2016 forecasted late payment revenues and proposed 1
billing language above. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
71
Chapter 7 : SPECIAL REQUEST #21 CLARIFICATION OF HOW 1

COMPOUND METERS SHOULD BE BILLED 2
A. INTRODUCTION 3
In Special Request #21, California American Water (Cal Am) requests 4
authorization to clarify how compound and multiple meters are billed. This request 5
includes two components which are (1) to clarify the language and standardize the 6
language on the tariff sheet
148
and (2) change the way compound and multiple meter 7
configurations are billed to the customer. 8
9
ORA does not oppose the request to clarify how compound and multiple meters are 11
billed, however ORA only approves the new language used to describe Compound Meter 12
Set up with one meter body and two registers (setup a); Compound Meter Set up with two 13
meters in a manifold set-up, both meters are open and active (setup b); Compound Meter 14
Set up with two meter in a manifold set-up, only one meter is open and active (setup c). 15
ORA disagrees strongly with Cal Ams proposed revised language used to describe 16
a Compound Meter Set up with two or more meters set up in tandem at one premise and a 17
Compound Meter Set up with two or more smaller size meters set up in tandem to make 18
up for the size equal to a larger meter for such water flow. 19
C. DISCUSSION 20
Compound Meters are used where both high and low flow rates need to be 21
measured accurately. According to Cal Am, Compound Meters are typically at 22
Commercial, Industrial or Institutional customers due to the large water flow 23
requirement.
149
There are a number of different set ups and types of compound meters. 24
148
149
72
This proposed billing change is to standardize billing for all such meters and meter set 1
ups within California American Waters service territory. California American Water is 2
proposing the following billing changes for Compound Meters
150
: 3
a) Compound Meter Set up with one meter body and two registers 4
Customer shall be billed one service charge based upon the high flow register size. The 5
lower flow register size shall not be billed a service charge. Usage shall be billed off both 6
register readings. 7
b) Compound Meter Set up with two meters in a manifold set-up, both 8
meters are open and active 9
Service charges shall be billed on both meters based upon meter size and usage shall be 10
billed off both register readings. 11
c) Compound Meter Set up with two meters in a manifold set-up, only one 12
meter is open and active 13
Service charge shall be billed on the open meter only. The closed meter is used only for 14
maintenance and shall not incur charges while being inactive. 15
d) Compound Meter Set up with two or more meters set up in tandem at one 16
premise 17
Service Charges shall be billed for individual meters based upon meter sizes and usage 18
shall be billed off all register readings. 19
e) Compound Meter Set up with two or more smaller size meters set up in 20
tandem to make up for the size equal to a larger meter for such water flow 21
Service charges shall be billed upon the approximate flow capacity of the combined 22
meters at an existing single meter size and usage shall be billed off both register readings. 23
For example, if in this case the compound meter set-up has two two-inch meters, the flow 24
capacity is approximately equal to a three-inch meter and therefore the service shall be 25
billed as a three-inch meter. Additionally, these various combined meter set-ups will be 26
listed on individual tariffs for clarity. 27
28
150
Refer to Direct Testimony of Patrick Pilz, pg. 25
73

Patrick Pilz provided, for Cal Am, the following justification in his testimony 2
supporting the special request to make several non-rate impact changes to its tariff rules 3
that would: 4
Replace outdated language; 5
Update requirements to reflect current law or practice; 6
Include minor modifications to maintain consistency between district tariffs; 7
List Franchise Fees on the Rate tariffs; 8
Update outdated terminologies and politically incorrect terms; 9
Add definitions to make it easier for customers to read the tariff rules. 10
2) ORA Analysis 11
After review of each of the billing language revision requests and Cal Ams Data 12
Request Response DK4-010, which provides diagrams of each type of compound meter 13
setup,
151
ORA approves the language of compound meter types (a) through (c) because 14
the meters in each of these examples are measured separately. The language of the 15
compound meter in type (d) provides an example of two or more meters in tandem which 16
means that the meters will be set up to read the same water flow. Therefore, measuring 17
usage by adding the readings on both meters could lead to double reading. The language 18
of the compound meter in type (e) provides an example of two two-inch meters setup in 19
tandem being billed as one three inch meter. Again, two two-inch meters set up in 20
tandem will again meter the same water flow, similar to setup (d). Therefore, ORA 21
recommends that these two meters should be setup in parallel with the appropriate 22
plumbing to ensure that the same water is not read twice by the two meters, but instead 23
151
74
each meter would read a different water flow. Setting up the meters in parallel and 1
billing them separately would also eliminate inaccurate bills. 2
Clarification of the compound meter setup description billing language would also 3
affect customer bills because as the description of each configuration of the meters 4
changes, customer bills will also change. In a meeting with Cal Am on J anuary 7, 2014, 5
ORA was unable to obtain clarity from Cal Am on the language used to describe 6
compound meter setups (d) and (e). Without clarity of the language, it is difficult for 7
ORA to understand how the billing language revisions for these two setups would affect 8
customer bills. Therefore, ORA recommends Cal Am clarify the request to revise the 9
billing language. 10
D. CONCLUSION 11
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams proposed language 12
clarifying compound meter billing language for setups (a) through (c) above. However, 13
ORA does not allow Cal Am to add the proposed language for setup (d) and (e) to its 14
tariff. Therefore, ORA does not recommend the Commission adopt the above language 15
for setups (d) and (e) because of the confusing language used to describe them. 16
17
81
Chapter 8 : SPECIAL REQUEST #24 AUTHORIZATION OF A 1

METERED CONSTRUCTION TARIFF FOR ALL DISTRICTS 2
A. INTRODUCTION 3
In Special Request #24, California American Water (Cal Am) proposes a 4
metered construction tariff for all Districts. At present, there is a metered construction 5
tariff for only the Ventura County District. Cal Am is recommending that the proposed 6
tariff for all districts be calculated in a methodology similar to that of the Ventura County 7
tariff. 8
ORA does not oppose the request for a metered construction tariff in all Districts 10
similar to the existing Ventura County District tariff. 11
C. DISCUSSION 12
Cal Am is proposing a new metered construction tariff for all Districts similar to 13
the existing Ventura County District tariff.
152
David Stephenson provided the following 14
justification for Cal Am in his testimony
153
supporting the special request: 15
Water usage varies daily during subdivision construction work as contractors have 16
to fill up tank trucks; 17
Water used for construction purposes occurs in a short period of time which 18
causes a spike in demand leading to higher marginal operating and conveyance 19
costs. 20
The existing Ventura tariff includes a minimum charge per day and a volumetric rate 21
per every unit of water used. The customer bill will be the higher of the two methods of 22
calculating
154
: 23
152
153
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson page 14-15
82
o Minimum charge per day times the number of days, or 1

o Volumetric rate times the volume of water used. 2
Cal Am proposes that the minimum charge per day be set at a rate that 3
approximates the estimated regional rates for a three inch meter had that rate been 4
established in a manner where all fixed costs for the region are collected in the monthly 5
service fees. Cal Am proposes that the quantity rate is set at 200% of the average 6
residential tier 2 rate in each region. An exception would be the Coastal Region, in 7
which a metered construction tariff will be established for the entire area based on the 8
rate applicable to most customers in that region.
155
9
1) ORA Analysis 10
In Data Request Response DK4-015, Cal Am explained that it: 11
chose 200% as the rate applicable to hydrant service as it is a rate that corresponds 12
to upper end of the range applicable to tier 4 of the residential rates. Tier 4 of the 13
residential rates is considered water used for outdoor purposes only and as such 14
relates well to the purposes of the water used through construction meters.
156
15
Cal Am did not forecast the 2015 and 2016 metered construction revenues in the 16
original GRC application. ORA requested this information in Data Request DK4-005 17
and again in DK4-030
157
and Cal Am responded with the 2015 estimates. Cal Am 18
provided both District standalone and consolidated rates, however Cal Am calculated the 19
forecasted revenue using the District consolidation rates.
158
Consolidation of Districts is 20
not a topic of this GRC and therefore, the quantity rates should be District standalone 21
154
155
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson page 15
156
157
158
83
rates.
159
ORA made this adjustment in the revenue forecast calculation and Cal Ams 1
revenue forecasts are shown in the tables below. Cal Am explained regarding 2016 2
estimates revenue change cannot be estimated as 2015 revenues are not known at this 3
time.
160
4
Cal Ams forecasted metered construction revenues are based on the higher of the 5
proposed rate per day or rate per use. The proposed rate per day is calculated by taking 6
200% of the average residential tier 2 rate in each region. The customer bill will be the 7
higher of the minimum charge per day times the number of days - or the volumetric rate 8
times the volume of water used.
161
Below is Cal Ams forecasted 2015 Test Year 9
Metered Construction Rates for each District using standalone rates. To calculate these 10
revenues, Cal Am identified the 2012 metered construction customer accounts in each 11
District and applied the methodology described above to each account. 12
2015 Metered Construction Quantity Rates (standalone) 13
District 2015 Number of
Customers
2015 Metered
Construction Quantity
Rate (ccf)
162

2015 Proposed
Revenue per Proposed
Meter Construction
Service Tariff
San Diego 21 $8.47 $39,086
Baldwin Hills 3 $6.95 $1,513
Duarte 14 $5.29 $37,497
San Marino 12 $5.95 $2,430
Sacramento 15 $6.60 $24,440
Larkfield 3 $13.75 $16,244
159
Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law J udge; A. 13-07-002
(November 22, 2013), pg. 5; Pre-Hearing Conference Transcript, A. 13-07-002, September 17, 2013, pg. 85: 1-7
160
161
162
Cal Am Workpapers, Ex A Ch. 10 Bill Comp (standalone Table 10.3)
84
Monterey 22 $7.84
163
$226,179
Total $347,389
ORA adjusted the revenue workpapers with Cal Ams proposed revenues above. 1
D. CONCLUSION 2
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams request for a metered 3
construction tariff using the standalone quantity rates for each District recommended 4
herein, Cal Am already has a tariff for Ventura County and ORA believes it is reasonable 5
to establish a metered construction tariff in all of Cal Ams Districts. 6
7
163
Per Cal Am Data Request Response DK4-035, Refer to Daphne Korthamars Testimony, Chapter 11, Attachment
18
91

ELIMINATE THE DUARTE IRRIGATION TARIFF AND TRANSFER 2
IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS TO COMMERCIAL TARIFFS 3
A. INTRODUCTION 4
In Special Request #25, California American Water (Cal Am) proposes the 5
elimination of the Duarte Irrigation District tariff. As part of this request, California 6
American Water wants to transfer the existing irrigation customers to the existing 7
commercial tariff. 8
ORA recommends approval of Cal Ams request to eliminate the Duarte Irrigation 10
Tariff and transfer the customers to the Commercial Tariff in this GRC. 11
C. DISCUSSION 12
Cal Am proposes that the Duarte Irrigation Tariff be eliminated and the existing 13
irrigation customers be transferred to the commercial tariff. The Duarte Irrigation 14
System serves the City of Bradbury irrigation customers. David Stephensons testimony 15
discusses the 2010 Cal Am GRC, Application A.10-07-007, Special Request #23, in 16
which Cal Am proposed the elimination of the Duarte Irrigation System because the 17
aging system was deteriorating and necessary repairs would be too costly for the 60 plus 18
customers at that time.
164
Decision 12-06-016 adopted a settlement agreement stating 19
that, The parties agree that Cal Am shall retire the Bradbury Irrigation System and 20
transfer the customers to the potable system during the years 2015 to 2017.
165
21
164
Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, pg. 20, lines 20-21
165
D.12-06-016, pg. 17
92
1) ORA Analysis 1
ORA reviewed D.12-06-016 and David Stephensons testimony, including an 2
Attachment that shows a bill comparison between customer bills currently paying the 3
irrigation rate and what the customer bills will be after they are transferred to the current 4
commercial rate.
166
The bill differential is an increase of 115% for the existing gravity 5
customers and 91% for the existing pressure customers. Transferred irrigation customers 6
will pay the same rates as commercial customers. 7
Cal Am will need to complete construction on the Crownhaven and Lemon wells 8
prior to transferring the customers in 2017, but those projects have an estimated 9
completion date of 2015. 10
11
D. CONCLUSION 12
ORA recommends that the Commission adopt Cal Ams request to eliminate the 13
Duarte Irrigation Tariff and transfer the customers to the commercial tariff because this is 14
the best way to implement the agreement in Decision 12-06-016. 15
166
101
Chapter 10 : QUALIFICATION AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF 1

DAPHNE KORTHAMAR 2
Q1. Please state your name, business address, and position with the California Public Utilities 3
Commission (Commission). 4
A1. My name is Daphne Korthamar and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue, San 5
Francisco, CA. 94102. I am a Utilities Engineer in the Water Branch of the Office of 6
Ratepayer Advocates (ORA). 7
Q2. Please summarize your educational background and professional experience. 8
A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Santa Clara 9
University in 1999. I received a Masters of Business Administration Degree from San 10
Francisco State University in 2001. I received a Masters in Civil/Environmental 11
Engineering from University of California, Davis in 2010. I received my Engineer-in- 12
Training Certification in the State of California in 2011, Certificate #141820. In J une 13
2010, I joined the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission as a Design Trainee, where 14
I worked on the Water System Improvement Program in the Project Management Bureau 15
on performance reporting documents related to water resources planning, scheduling, risk 16
management and operations. In August of 2011, I joined URS Corporation as a Staff 17
Engineer in the Civil Engineering Group where I assisted the civil engineers and planners 18
in infrastructure design projects, development of project schedules and budgets and 19
preparation of new project proposals. In April of 2013, I joined the Commission, and am 20
currently working as a Utilities Engineer on General Rate Case (GRC) proceedings, and 21
the review of advice letters. 22
Q3. What is your responsibility in this proceeding? 23
A3. I am responsible for Operating Revenues, Rate Design and Special Requests #5,#6,#8, 24
#9, #21, #24, #25 in ORAs Company-wide Report. 25
Q4. Does this conclude your prepared direct testimony? 26
A4. Yes, it does. 27
111
Chapter 11 : ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

California-American Water Company
Statewide GRC Test Year 2015
APPLICATION NO. 13-07-002
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE
Response Provided By: Edward J. Grubb
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Cue:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
(g) General Question:
Regulatory Consultant
P.O. Box 23983
Belleville, IL 62223-0983
DK4-003
DRA-A.13-07-002.DK4-003 Q (g)(i)
July 17, 2013
July 26, 2013
Customer Growth Value
(i) In the previous GRC, California American used the 5-year average
customer growth value to project future customer growth. In this GRC,
Cal Am does not use the 5-year average customer growth value to project
customer growth, but instead uses a separate value "projection use."
Please explain why California American decided to use a different
methodology for this GRC and the implications of using the "projection
use" value.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Cal ifornia American Water decided to use a different approach to projecting customer
growth in the 2013 General Rate Case than was used in the 2010 General Rate Case
for a number of reasons. First, over the last few years (2009- 2012), the economy of
Cal ifornia was negativel y impacted by increased levels of housing foreclosures.
Second, in some districts, there were changes in customer counts in certain years that
were not reflective of on-going circumstances. And finally, in Sacramento, the
conversion to meters uncovered some issues regarding customer counts. Please refer
to the response to DK4-003 (f )(ii) for further discussions. As a result, the company
decided to utilize management judgment in determining customer growth. The
implication of using the "projection use" value will result in a more reasonable level of
customer growth for 2016 and 2017.
112
Attachment 2

APPLICATION NO. A.1 3-07-002
OAT A REQUEST RESPONSE
Response Provided By: Stacey A. Fulter
Financial Analyst II Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
1033 B. Avenue, Suite 200, Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-041 0001
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
Toro and Garrapata Revenues and Rates
Please respond to the following question regarding Toro and Garrapata:
1. In Exhibit A, Chapter 12, Worksheet, "Rev(ExACh13Table1 C)" Cal Am presents
Garrapata's proposed revenue. What is Cal Am's proposed Garrapata Rate
Design? Please submit supporting workpapers.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
California American Water is proposing to increase Garrapata's rates by the overall
revenue requirement increase. Garrapata was acquired in early 2013. No change in
rate design from the current flat rate design is proposed until the system is fully
metered.
113

APPLICATION NO. A.13-07-002
Financial Analyst II Titl e:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-041 Q002a
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
2. The Garrapata tariff on Cal Am's website lists different flat rates than those included
in the workpapers.
a. Please explain why there is a difference in rates and which rates are the actual
rates charged to customers.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
The actual rates charged to customers are reflected in the tariff on the company
website. The rates in the workpapers were inadvertantly not updated to those
authorized in Advice Letter 992 implementing the rates authorized in the acquisition
0.13-01-033.
114

APPLI CATION NO. A.13-07-002
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A. 13-07 -002.DK4-041 Q002b
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
Pl ease respond to the following question regarding Toro and Garrapata:
in the workpapers.
b. How are each of the flat rates calculated?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Al l rates were derived prior to California American Water's acquisition of the Garrapata
system.
115

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-041 Q002c
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
in the workpapers.
c. How is the charge per ccf calculated (0.26)?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Garrapata is not yet metered. The charge per ccf is not reflected in the tariffs and not
proposed at this time.
116

APPLICATION NO. A.1 3-07 -002
Address:
ORA Request :
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-041 Q002d
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
in the workpapers.
d. What are the forecasted sales per residential and commercial cl ass?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Garrapata is all flat rates. The customers are not metered. The sales reflected of 8,987
ccfs, in Exhibit A Chapter 12, Table 1C (ExACh12Tbl1c) should be zero for ratemaking
purposes.
117

Address:
DRA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-041 Q003
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
3. Please submit both Garrapata and Toro non-revenue water quantity and revenue
calculations, both current and forecasted.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please see the Direct Testimony of Eric Sabolsice for information regarding the non
revenue water. Garrapata is not a metered system, the forecast is zero.
118
Attachment 3 CONFIDENTIAL

119

1110


1111

Attachment 6 (ORA (formerly DRA) Testimony in A.10-07-007, 2010 Cal Am GRC)

1 3) Operating Revenues
2 From DRA's understanding of Cal Am' s revenue workpapers, Cal Am
3 calculates operating revenues at present and proposed rates by multiplying the
4 estin1ated total consumption by a single quantity rate (standard rate design). To
5 this Cal Am adds the result of the meter charge for each meter size multiplied by
6 the average number of customers for each meter size in each customer class. Cal
7 Am states "For the Larkfield, Los Angeles County and Sacramento Dishicts, Cal
8 Am based present rates under the CPUC Standard Rate Design on the rates
9 adopted in D.1 0-06-038. Cal Am based the revenues at proposed rates on the
10 CPUC Standard Rate Design".
6
11 DRA recommends that the operating revenues be calculated using the
12 actual rates in effect at the time of filing. For the residential customers, Cal Am
13 cunently has an increasing block rate design which shifts more of the fixed costs
14 from the service charge to the volumetric charge in all customer classes. While
15 calculating operating revenues based upon actual rates will not ultimately change
16 the total revenue amount, the recommendation to use achtal rates creates a more
17 accurate pichue when comparing revenues at present and revenues at proposed
18 rates.
19 In order to make direct comparisons, DRA. accepts Cal Am' s method of
20 revenue calculations. However, DRA. recommends the Commission direct Cal An1
21 to use its ach1al rates for revenue calculation in all fuhlre GRCs. A detailed
22 comparison for the Test Year and Escalation Year is shown in Tables 2-6 and 2-7.
23 Other Revenues consist of Private Fire Service revenues, and revenues
24 from defened contributions and miscellaneous services, estimated on a five-year
25 average. Cal Am also subtracts the low income customer discotmt revenues not
26 collected. However, DRA does not agree with the subtraction of revenue for low
6
Stacey A. Fulter's direct testimony. page 3. answer to question #8.
1112

Attachment 7

Response Provided By: Eric Sabolsice
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Oate Received:
Oate Response Cue :
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Director of Operations Coastal Division
511 Forest Lodge Rd, St. 100
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
DK1 -021
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK1-021 0001
October 1, 2013
October 10, 2013
Monterey Wastewater Sales for Irrigation
1. During the CPUC Field Visit to Monterey on September 18, 2013, California
American mentioned that a quantity of treated Monterey Wastewater is
available and provided for irrigation purposes. Please .confirm and provide
all supporting documentation that details arrangements to provide treated
wastewater for any purpose (all contracts, bills or receipts).
COMPANY RESPONSE:
The company does not receive any compensation for the treated wastewater. The
distribution is part of the plant permits whi ch requires that we mot discharge the treated
wastewater to any stream or body of water. See DK1-021 01 Attachments 1 and 2.
1113

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Cue:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
511 Forest Lodge Rd. St. 100
DK1-021
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK1-021 0002
October 1. 2013
October 10, 2013
Monterey Wastewater Sales for Irrigation
2. Please confirm that no revenue is derived from the provision of treated
wastewater by California American or its affil iates in Monterey. If unable to
confirm, please explain.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
I confirm that no revenue is derived from the provision of treated wastewater by
California American or its affil iates in Monterey.
1114

Water Company
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Cue:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
511 forest Lodge Rd, St. 100
DK1-021-
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK1-021 Q003
October 1, 2013
October 10, 2013
Montterey Wastewater Sales for Irrigation
3. Does any opportunity exist for California American to receive compensation for
providing t reated wastewater in Monterey? Please explain.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
No, our purchase agreement for the wastewater system stipulated that this treated
wastewater would be provided without compensation.
1115

Attachment 8

APPLICATI ON NO. A.1 3-07-002
Response Provided By: Dave Stephenson
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Manager of Rate Regulation
4701 Beloit Dr., Sacramento, CA 95838
DK4-040
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-040 0001
2/5/2014
2/14/2014
Monterey Mixed Use Customers
Please respond to the following questions regarding the Monterey Mixed-Use
customers:
1. David Stephenson's Testimony explains that currently Monterey Mixed-Use
customers have both non-residential and residenti al consumption billed through a
single meter. What prevents Cal Am from bil ling the Monterey Mixed-Use
customers through separate meters?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
In most cases the water distribution is not able to be separated due to mixed use in one
building or mixed use on a large piece of private property. In the case of mixed use in a
single building- that service could not be separated without significant re-plumbing of
the entire building. In the case of multiple uses on a single property - the entire
property would need to be re-plumbed so that the service could be separated. Both of
these options are cost restricti ve and nearly impossible.
1116

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
4701 Beloit Dr., Sacramento, CA 95838
DK4-040
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-040 Q002
2/5/2014
2/14/2014
customers:
2. Please submit an estimate of the cost of adding meters to separate the mixed-
use customers into residential and non-residential customers.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
The issue is not the installation of meters and the cost thereof. The issue is the costs
and ability to separate the service between different customer classes. We simply do
not have the ability to compel a customer to make the change, nor do we have the
ability to do so ourselves and flow the cost back to this customer or all customers. The
service was properly install ed under the then existing requirements. As with all other
later changed requirements, forcing changes on installations put in under the applicable
requi rements at the ti me of installation is not required.
1117

California-American Watell" Company
APPLI CATION NO. A. 13-07-002
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
4701 Beloit Dr. , Sacramento, CA 95838
DK4-040
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-040 Q003
2/5/2014
2/14/2014
customers:
3. In Monterey, is there an increasing trend of Mixed-Use customers? Please
submit supporting documentation.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
No, there is not an increasing trend of mixed-use customers. Please find attached a list
of California American Water's Monterey mixed use account activity for 2013 (CAW
Mixed Use Accounts v2 2013). If there has been an increase in mixed-used customers,
this trend is driven by situations where customers, who are classified as either
residential or commercial , seek reclassification to mixed-used. If the account is truly a
mixed-used account, then Cal ifornia American Water approves the conversion.
It should be noted that there is no allowance for any brand new services to be mi xed-
use. For any new services installed, if the property is to be mixed-use, then there would
have to be a separate meter for each use.
1118

Attachment 9

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-041 0001
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
1. In Exhibit A, Chapter 12, Worksheet, "Rev(ExACh13Table1C)" Cal Am presents
Garrapata's proposed revenue. What is Cal Am's proposed Garrapata Rate
Design? Please submit supporting workpapers.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
California American Water is proposing to increase Garrapata's rates by the overall
revenue requi rement increase. Garrapata was acquired in early 2013. No change in
rate design from the current flat rate design is proposed until the system is ful ly
metered.
1119

Statewi de GRC Test Year 2015
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-0 7-002. DK4-041 Q002a
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
in the workpapers.
a. Please explain why there is a difference in rates and which rates are the actual
rates charged to customers.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
The actual rates charged to customers are reflected in the tariff on the company
website. The rates in the workpapers were inadvertantly not updated to those
authorized in Advice Letter 992 implementing the rates authorized in the acquisition
0.13-01 -033.
1120

California-Ameri can Water Company
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-041 Q002b
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
in the workpapers.
b. How are each of the flat rates calculated?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
All rates were derived prior to California American Water's acquisition of the Garrapata
system.
1121

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-041 Q002c
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
Taro and Garrapata Revenues and Rates
Please respond to the following question regarding Taro and Garrapata:
in the workpapers.
c. How is the charge per ccf calculated (0.26)?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Garrapata is not yet metered. The charge per ccf is not reflected in the tariffs and not
proposed at this time.
1122

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-041 Q002d
2/10/2014
2/20/2014
2. Til e Garrapata tariff on Cal Am's website lists different flat rates t11an those included
in the workpapers.
d. What are the forecasted sales per residential and commercial class?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Garrapata is all flat rates. The customers are not metered. The sales reflected of 8,987
ccfs, in Exhibit A Chapter 12, Table 1 C (ExACh12Tbl1c) should be zero for ratemaking
purposes.
1123

APPLICATION NO. A.1 3-07-002
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-041
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002. DK4-041 0003
2/ 10/2014
2/20/2014
Please respond to the followi ng question regarding Toro and Garrapata:
3. Please submit both Garrapata and Toro non-revenue water quantity and revenue
calculations, both current and forecasted.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please see the Direct Testimony of Eric Sabolsice for information regarding the non
revenue water. Garrapata is not a metered system, the forecast is zero.
1124
Attachment 10

Response Provided By: Jeffrey M. Dana
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Senior Manager of Rates
1033 B Avenue
Suite 200
Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-001
DRA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-001 0001
July 10, 2013
July 18, 2013
Special Fees
(1) In A.13-07-002, Cal Am presents four (4) Special Requests to establish or
increase various fees in tariffs. Using the following table as a template, for each
Cal Am ratemaking district, please indicate exactly where in the revenue
workpapers the additional revenue associated with these fees can be found or
provide the estimated revenue associated with these fees for 2015 and 2016 if
such estimates have not previously been included in the application workpapers.
Response should include al l supporting calculations and assumptions
One Table per District
Type of fee
2015 Estimated Fee Revenue 2016 Estimated Fee Revenue
(or location in workpapers) (or location in workpapers)
Connection Fee (SR #5)
After Hours Activation Fee (SR #8)
Late Fee (SR #9)
Meter Construction Fee (SR #24)
District Subtotal
1125

COMPANY RESPONSE:
These fees have not been approved and therefore have not been included in the test
year forecasts. To clarify, Special Request 24 - Metered Construction Water Service
Provision Tariff- is not an additional fee. Consumption related to construction use is
currently included in the "Other" metered customer classification. Please refer to page
14 of the Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson.
San Diego
Type of fee
Not applicable (N/A) as
connection fees, which are N/A as connection fees, which
estimated to be $28,000 per are estimated to be $28,000
Connection Fee (SR #5) Attachment 1, are recorded as per Attachment 1, are recorded
contributions in aid of as CIAC, which are not
construction (CIAC), which are considered revenue.
not considered revenue.
After Hours Activation Fee (SR #8) $7,000 per Attachment 2. $7,000 per Attachment 2.
Late Fee (SR #9) $4,965 per Attachment 3. $4,965 per Attachment 3.
Meter Construction Fee (SR #24) N/A N/A
District Subtotal $11,965 $11,965
Los Angeles
Type of fee
N/A as connection fees, which N/A as connection fees, which
are estimated to be $20,000 are estimated to be $20,000
Connection Fee (SR #5) per Attachment 1, are per Attachment 1, are recorded
recorded as CIAC, which are as CIAC, which are not
not consider ed revenue. considered revenue.
After Hours Activation Fee (SR #8) $1, 550 per Attachment 2. $1,550 per Attachment 2.
District Subtotal $7, 138 $7,138
1126

Ventura
Type of fee
Connect ion Fee (SR #5)
Californi a-American Water Company
N/A as connect ion fees, which N/A as connect ion fees, which
are estimated to be $4,000 are estimated to be $4,000 per
per Attachment 1, a re Attachment 1, are recorded as
recorded as CIAC, which are CIAC, which are not considered
not considered revenue. revenue.
After Hours Activat ion Fee (SR #8) $1,050 per Attachment 2. $1,050 per Attachment 2.
Monterey
Type of fee
N/A as connection fees N/A as connection fees
est imated to be $0. Monterey estimated to be $0. Monterey
Connection Fee (SR #5) is estimated to be $0 because is estimated to be $0 because
of the moratorium. No growth of the moratori um. No growth
expected in Toro. expected in Toro.
After Hours Activat ion Fee (SR #8) $7,875 per Attachment 2. $7,875 per Attachment 2.
Late Fee (SR #9) $8,817 per Attachment 3. $8,817 pe r Attachment 3.
1127

Sacramento
Type of fee
Connection Fee (SR #5)
are esti mated to be $16,000 are estimated to be $16,000
per Attachment 1, are per Attachment 1, are recorded
recorded as CIAC, which are as CIAC, which are not
not considered revenue. considered revenue.
After Hours Activat ion Fee (SR #8) $11,750 per At tachment 2. $11,750 pe r Attachment 2.
Late Fee (SR #9) $8,530 per Attachment 3. $8,530 per At tachment 3.
Meter Construction Fee (SR 1124) N/A N/A
Larkfield
Type of fee
are esti mated to be $6,000 are est imated to be $6,000 per
Connection Fee (SR liS) per Attachment 1, are Attachment 1, are recorded as
recorded as CIAC, which are CIAC, which are not considered
not considered revenue. revenue.
After Hours Activation Fee (SR #8) $450 per Attachment 2. $450 per Attachment 2.
late Fee (SR #9) $522 per Attachment 3. $522 per Attachment 3.
District Subtotal $972 $972
1128

Response Provided By: Jeffrey M. Dana
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Senior Manager of Rates
1033 B Avenue
Suite 200
Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-001
DRA-A. 13-07-002.DK4-001 0002
July 10, 2013
July 18, 2013
Special Fees
(2) Identify total After Hours Activation fees collected per district for year 2012 and
indicate where this revenue is reflected in recorded revenues.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
These fees are included in Miscellaneous Service Revenues (Exhibit A to the
Application, Table 3.20) along with other items including non sufficient check fees and
reconnection fees.
District Total 201 2 After Hours Acti vation Fees
San Diego $2,800
Monterey $3 150
Los Angeles $620
Ventura $420
Larkfield $180
Sacramento $4 700
Grand Total $11 870
1129
Attachment 11

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Director of Rates - California and Hawaii
4701 Beloit Drive
Sacramento, CA 95838
DK4-028
CAW-DRA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-028 0001 (a)
November 4, 2013
November 14, 2013
Late Payment Fee
Please respond to the following questions regarding Cal Am's Special Request #9:
Authorization for a new Late Payment Fee.
1. David Stephenson's testimony states "Late payment fees are effective in the
energy utilities and being that the Commission strives to have more commonality
between the energy and water sectors, it seems appropriate that all water utilities
should have the ability to charge costs of delinquent paying customers to those
customers, j ust the same as in the energy sector."
a. Please explain to which specific energy utilities you are referring to in the above
statement and provide examples of the late payment fees they charge.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
SCE has a late payment fee that states:
Late Payment Charge.
A late payment charge of 0.8% may be applied to the total unpaid balance of a domestic
or nondomestic Customer Account if the customer's payment is not received by the date
indicated on the Customer Account Bill or Summary Bill.
Domestic California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) customers are exempt from
application of the Late Payment Charge.
1130

SDG&E has a late payment fee that states:
A monthly late payment charge, equal to SDG&E's authorized return on rate base
divided by 12 and rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, may be assessed
on non-residential accounts with billing in arrears if not received by the Util ity, or by an
authorized agent of the Utility, by the "late charge date" as shown on the bi ll. The "late
charge date" will be at least 25 days from the date mailed as indicated on the bill.
Payments applied shall satisfy the oldest portion of the bill first, any other billings
second, and the current billing last. The charge may then be applied to any remaining
unpaid balance.
However- it should be noted that there are water companies that have late payment
fees- an example is for Park Water where they have a tariff that states:
RATES
Late Charge: A late charge of 1.5% on unpaid balance subject to special conditions and
minimum charge below:
Minimum Charge: The minimum charge is $1.00
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. A balance is unpaid and subject to a late charge if the bill is Past-Due, or delinquent,
as defined in Rule No. 11, Section B.1.a.
2. The late charge should be imposed only once on a delinquent bill since the account
would be shut off before a subsequent bill and then subject to the reconnection fee as
authorized by Tariff Rule No. 11.
3. All bi lls shall be subject to the reimbursement fee as set forth on Schedule No. UF.
1131
Attachment 12

Response Provided By: David Stephenson
Director of Rates Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-033
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-033 0001
11/15/2013
11/26/2013
Special Fee Tariff
Authorization for a new tariff which will list "Special Fees"
1. David Stephenson's testimony states "The precedent (for a consolidated tariff) is
in viewing the Standard Practices and observing that there are examples of
combined utility tariffs for various fees or charges, like connection fees."
a The response to Data Request DK4-027 did not respond to the second part
of the request for examples of combined utility tariffs for various fees or
charges, like connection fees. Please submit the examples of combined
utility tariffs referenced in David Stephenson's testimony, above.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Standard Practice U-28-W provides good examples for Late Payment Fees and
Connection Fees. Beyond those examples, attached to this response are three
examples of single items special tariffs that can be used as an example of these items.
But as noted in my Direct Testimony, the idea is to consolidate these all into one tariff
so as to provide customers with easy access to various miscellaneous charges.
1132

1133

PARK WATER COMPANY
9750 WASHBURN ROAD
P. 0. BOX 7002
REVI SED Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 848-W
Canceling REVI SED Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 846-W
DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241 -7002
SCHEDULE NO. LC
LATE PAYMENT CHARGE
APPLICABILITY
Applicable to all service
TERRITORY
Within the entire service are of the Company
RATES
Late Charge: A late charge of 1.5% on unpaid balance subject to special conditions and minimum
charge below:
Minimum Charge: The minimum charge is $1.00
SPECIAL CONDITONS
1. A balance is unpaid and subject to a late charge if the bi ll is Past-Due, or delinquent,
as defined in Rule No. 11, Section B.1 .a.
2. The late charge should be imposed only once on a delinquent bill since the account
would be shut off before a subsequent bill and then subject to the reconnection fee as
authorized by Tariff Rule No. 11.
3. All bi lls shall be subject t o the reimbursement fee as set forth on Schedule No. UF.
ssu y
Advice No. 170-W LEIGH K. JORDAN Date Filed Aug 26, 1996
Name
Effective Oct 7, 1996
Dec. No. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Title Resolution No.
(T)
1134

APPLICATION NO. A.13-07 -002
Response Provided By: David Stephenson
Director of Rates Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-033
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-033 Q001
11/15/2013
11/26/2013
Special Fee Tariff
Authorization for a new tariff which wil l list "Special Fees"
1. David Stephenson' s testimony states "The precedent (for a consolidated tariff) is
in viewing the Standard Practices and observing that there are examples of
combined utility tariffs for various fees or charges, like connection fees."
a The response to Data Request DK4-027 did not respond to the second part
of the request for examples of combined utility tariffs for various fees or
charges, like connection fees. Please submit the examples of combined
utility tariffs referenced in David Stephenson's testimony, above.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Standard Practice U-28-W provides good examples for Late Payment Fees and
Connection Fees. Beyond those examples, attached to this response are three
examples of single items special tariffs that can be used as an example of these items.
But as noted in my Direct Testimony, the idea is to consolidate these all into one tariff
so as to provide customers with easy access to various miscellaneous charges.
1135
Attachment 13

APPLI CATION NO. A.13-07-002
Response Provided By: Kenneth D. Evans
Titl e:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Senior Business Services Divisional Liason
1410 Discovery Parkway, Alton, IL 62002
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002. DK4-039 Q001 a
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Please respond to the following question regarding Special Request #9, Late Payment
Fee:
1. In Data Request Response DK4-001, Cal Am submitted Attachment 3, Late
Fees. Please explain the following:
a. There is a "Bill Date" column and an "Amount" column. Is the Bill Date
Amount listed in the "Amount" Column or is that a different amount?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Yes.
1136

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001 b
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
1. In Data Request Response DK4-001 , Cal Am submitted Attachment 3, Late
b. Please define "Notice Date" and "Next Notice" and the difference between
the two.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
We recently developed an enhanced method of estimating late fee revenues (after we
had submitted DK4-001 Attachment 3). The new method uses an Accounts Receivable
Aging Report to calculate expected late fee revenues using al ii non-current accounts
receivable outstanding for each month during a 12-month period. See summary for this
new estimate in Rows 178 to 193 of the Water tab and Rows 35-37 of the Sewer tab in
the attached Excel fi le entitled "DK4-039_ Q1 b_Attachment .xls".
Included in the estimate is a 20% factor for improved col lections that we expect to be
able to achieve based on the incentive customers wi ll now have to pay their bills on time
to avoid the late fee. Additionally, in our new SAP billing system, customers will receive
more timely disconnection notices, agency cal ls, fi nal post notices and disconnection as
explained in 1c below. These more timely collection efforts should reduce the non-
current accounts and late fees significantly going forward.
1137
Totals By
District
Current (no
late fee)
Non-Current
(late fee)
Montly late
Fee Extended
Improved
Collection
Expected
Estimated Late Fee
Revenue
510 San Diego 3,224,888 1.50% 48,373 $ 20% 38,699 $
520 Monterey 13,935,082 1.50% 209,026 $ 20% 167,221 $
530 LA - Baldwin Hi 1,392,746 1.50% 20,891 $ 20% 16,713 $
540 LA - Duarte 1,363,450 1.50% 20,452 $ 20% 16,361 $
550 LA - San Marin 1,083,618 1.50% 16,254 $ 20% 13,003 $
560 Ventura 3,910,311 1.50% 58,655 $ 20% 46,924 $
570 - 1.50% - $
580 Larkfield 329,876 1.50% 4,948 $ 20% 3,959 $
590 - 1.50% - $
595 Sacramento 9,095,942 1.50% 136,439 $ 20% 109,151 $
599 10 1.50% 0 $
Current Adj - 1.50% - $
(blank) 76 1.50% 1 $
Total for Year 34,336,000 1.50% 515,040 $ 20% 412,032 $
Total for month 42,920 $ 20% 34,336 $

1138

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001c
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
c. It looks as though Cal Am sends late payment notices to customers
approximately two months after the original Bill Date in all Districts.
Please either confirm this or explain when the notices are sent out.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
**Special Note:
In late October 2013 California American Water transitioned to a new Customer
Information System. The original data and information provided in Attachment 3, Late
Fees for DK4-001 was based on our legacy system ORCOM/ECIS. California American
Water now uses SAP and have recalculated our projections based on our current
environment and updated timelines for collection activity. The response below
addresses questions about the prior system and data submission, and when applicable
we will provide updated information as it pertains to our new Customer Information
System - SAP. The responses will indicate either SAP or ORCOM/ECIS.
i. (ORCOM/ECIS) The data provided in DK4-001 was for actual disconnection
orders and not disconnection notices. This is why the time frame is approximately two
1139

months, the timeline range, from bi ll due date until the disconnection order, was roughly
that amount of time. The disconnection notice typically was issued on (approximately)
day 26 from bil l due date, final post notice day 56, and the disconnection order day 63.
ii. (SAP) Our updated timeline issues the disconnection notice (approximately) on
day 27 from bil l due date, final post notice day 38, and the disconnection order on day
44.
iii. Comparison Table:
CA - Collection SAP Day # Days OR COM #Days Diffel'ence
Timeline Action Range (51 Total) Day Range (75 (-24 Days)
Total)
1. Bill Due 1-21 21 1-19 19 +2
Window
2. Grace Days 22-26 5 20-25 6 -1
3. Discoimection 27-29 3 26-55 30 -27
Notice
4. Agency Calls 30-37 8 31-62 (w +8
, lq >)
5. Final Post 38-43 6 56-62 7 -1
Notice
6. Discoimection 44-50 7 63-74 12 -5
7. Fi nal Billed 51 l 75 l
1140

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-039 0001 d
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
d. If the response to question c. is two months, does the "Amount" column
equal the "Bill Date" amount plus the two month water bill amount?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Due to new enhanced estimate methodology, the Attachment referenced is no longer
being used to estimate late fee revenues.
1141

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-039 Q001 e
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Please respond to the fol lowing question regarding Special Request #9, Late Payment
Fee:
e. Please explain on what amount Cal Am will charge the proposed 1.5%
late fee. Will Cal Am charge the late fee on the amount at Bill Date or
another amount? If other, please clarify.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
California American Water will charge the 1.5% late fee on the total utility balance past
due on the account each month.
1142

APPLICATION NO. A.1 3-07 -002
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001f
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
f. Are all customers who receive a "notice" disconnected? If so, when?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
(SAP) No. If customers respond to any collection attempts prior to approximately day 44
(disconnection order date), their services wi ll not be disconnected. Additionally, the
customer will not be turned off if they have initiated a CPUC complaint or if they are a
customer who cannot be turned off as classified in our rules.
1143

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
141 0 Discovery Parkway, Alton, I L 62002
DK4-039
CAW -ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-039 0001 g
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
Fees. Please explain the fol lowing:
g. What is the time period in which a customer can pay a late bill without
being disconnected?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
(SAP) Approximately 22 days after it becomes late - from the first grace day until the
last date for the final post notice (day 22-43).
1144

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002. DK4-039 Q001 h
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
h. Are there late payment customers who do not get disconnected after
receiving a "Notice"?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Yes. The most common scenarios would include customers who:
Made the necessary payment to resolve the delinquency.
Established payment arrangements for the balance due.
Received a lock/hold on the account due to a dispute.
1145

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001 i
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
i. Why does Cal Am track late payment customers per quarter and not per
month?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Customer payment behavior is tracked and managed on the monthly basis. The
Attachment for DK4-001, which is no longer the basis for our esti mated late fee
revenue, was just summarized by quarter.
1146

Cal ifornia-Ameri can Water Company
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
1033 B Avenue, Suite 200, Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001j
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
j. Why did Cal Am use the 2012 projected late payment fees for the
forecasted 2015 and 2016 fees in Data Request Response DK4-001?
COMPANY RESPONSE:
As explained in 1 b, we recently developed an enhanced method of estimating late fee
revenues using the 12-month period from 1 0/1/12 through 9/1/13.
1147

Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q001 k
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
k. Please provide an exampl e of a residential customer bi ll that is late and a
"notice" that is sent to a residential customer.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please find attached an actual disconnection notice and post disconnection notice. All
personably identifiable customer information has been redacted.
1148

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
1033 8 Avenue, Suite 200, Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-039
CAW-ORA-A.13-07-002.DK4-039 Q0011
1/29/2014
2/7/2014
Late Payment Fees
Fee:
I. Please provide any additional calculations and/or explanation(s) of the late
payment fee calculation presented in Data Request Response DK4-001,
Attachment 3 that explains how Cal Am develops this calculation.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
As explained in 1b, we recently developed an enhanced method of estimating late fee
revenues by district
1149

Attachment 14

Response Provided By: Patrick Pi lz
Title:
Address:
Mgr Conservation & Efficiencies
1033 B Avenue
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Suite 200
Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-01 0
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK4-010 0001 (a)
August13, 2013
August 22, 2013
Compound Meters
1. 1. Patrick Pilz's testimony states:
"Compound Meters are used where both high flow rates need to be measured as well as -
at times - small er rates of tlow need to be accurately accounted for. There are a number
of different set ups and types of compound meters. This proposed billing change is to
standardize billing for all such meters and meter set ups within California American
Water's service territoty. Cal ifomia American Water is proposing the following billing
changes for Compound Meters:
Compo\md Meter Set up with one meter body and two registers: Customer shall be billed
one service charge based upon the high flow register size. The lower flow register size
shall not be billed a service charge. Usage shall be billed off both register readings.
Compound Meter Set up with two meters in a manifold set-up, both meters are open and
active: Service charges shall be billed on both meters based upon meter size and usage
shall be billed off both register readings.
Compound Meter Set up witb two meters in a manifold set-up, only one meter is open
and active: Service charge shall be billed on the open meter only. The closed meter is
used only for maintenance and shall not incur charges while being inactive.
Compound Meter Set up with two or more meters set up in tandem at one premise:
Service Charges shall be billed for individual meters based upon meter sizes and usage
shall be billed off all register readings.
1150

Compound Meter Set up with two or more small er size meters set up in tandem to make
up for the size equal to a larger meter for such water llow: Service charges shall be billed
upon the approximate fl ow capacity of the combined meters at an existing single meter
size and usage shall he billed off both register readings. For example, if in this case the
compound meter set-up has two two-inch meters, the tlow capacity is approximately
equal to a three-inch meter and therefore the service shall be billed as a three-inch meter.
Additionally, these various combined meter set-ups will be li sted on indi vidual tari ffs for
clatity. "
(a). Please provide diagrams of each type of compound meter setup.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
Scenario a)
Compound Meter Set up with one meter body and two registers: Customer shall be
billed one service charge based upon the high flow register size. The lower flow register
size shall not be billed a service charge. Usage shall be billed off both register readings.
California American Water Suggested billing:
Service Charge: 1 Service Charge based on High Flow meter size, no Low Flow Service
Charge assessed
Usage Charge: Sum of both, high flow and low flow meter readings
Scenario b)
Compound Meter Set up with two meters in a manifold set-up, both meters are
open and active: Service charges shall be billed on both meters based upon
meter size and usage shall be billed off both register readings.
1151

California American Water Suggested bil ling:
Service Charge: Total of 2 Service Charges assessed based on Low Flow and High
Flow meter sizes
Usage Charge: Sum of both, high flow and low flow meter readings
Scenario c)
LDw
Flaw
Compound Meter Set up with two meter in a manifold set-up, only one meter is open
and active: Service charge shall be billed on the open meter only. The closed meter is
used only for maintenance and shall not incur charges while being inactive.
Service Charge: 1 Service Charge based on the active meter size, no secondary
Service Charge for the inactive meter assessed
Usage Charge: Usage only assessed based on the active meter's meter readings
H..,.
Flaw
__ l h ~
Scenario d)
L ___ __ J
..._
-
Compound Meter Set up with two or more meters set up in tandem at one premise:
Service Charges shall be billed for individual meters based upon meter sizes and usage
shall be billed off all register readings.
1152

APPLI CATION NO. 13-07-002
Service Charge: All meters incur a Service Charge based on the meter size
Usage Charge: Sum of al l individual meters' meter readings
Scenario e)
Compound Meter Set up with two or more smaller size meters set up in tandem to make
up for the size equal to a larger meter for such water flow: Service charges shall be
billed upon the approximate flow capacity of the combined meters at an existing single
meter size and usage shall be billed off both register readings. For example, if in this
case the compound meter set-up has two two-inch meters, the flow capacity is
approximately equal to a three-inch meter and therefore the service shall be billed as a
three-inch meter. Additionally, these various combined meter set-ups will be listed on
individual tariffs for clarity.
Service Charge: One Service Charge based on the approximate flow capacity of all
combined meters
Usage Charge: Sum of al l individual meters' meter readings
1153
Attachment 15

Response Provided By: Stacey Fulter
Financial Analyst II
1033 B Avenue
Suite 200
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-015
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK4-015 0001
August28, 2013
September 9, 2013
Metered Construction Water Service Provision Tariff
David Stephenson's testimony states:
"I have modeled the tariff conditions after those in Ventura in its present VN-9MC tariff.
The functionality of the billing is also proposed to be the same as in the Ventura tariff
which is that there is a minimum charge per day, and a volumetric rate per every unit of
water used. The customer bill will be the higher of the minimum charge per day times
the number of days - or the volumetric rate times the volume of water used.
I propose that the minimum rate per day be set at a rate that approximates the
estimated regional rates for a three inch meter had that rate been established in a
manner where all fixed costs for the region are collected in the monthly service fees. I
further propose that the quantity rate is set at 200% of the average residential tier 2 rate
in each region. For the Coastal Region - I suggest that one Metered construction tariff
be established for the entire area based on the rate applicable to most customers in that
region."
1. Has California American done any analysis on the impacts of implementing the
current and proposed Ventura Metered Construction Tariff on the other Districts?
If so, how does it affect the other Districts rates, revenues, expenses and
customer bills? Please submit all supporting documents.
1154

COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please see California American Water's response to data request set DK4-005 which
provides an estimate by district of the revenue and bill change for the metered
construction customers. There is no anticipated change in expenses.
1155

Response Provided By: David P. Stephenson
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Director of Rates
4701 Beloit Drive
Sacramento, CA 95838
DK4-015
CAW-DRA-A. 13-07-002.DK4-015 0002
August 28, 2013
September9, 2013
in each region. For the Coastal Region- I suggest that one Metered construction tariff
region."
2. Why did California American specifically choose "200% of the average residential
tier 2 in each region"? Please explain the basis for the 200%.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
California American Water chose 200% as the rate applicable to hydrant service as it is
a rate that corresponds to upper end of the range applicable to tier 4 of the residential
rates. Tier 4 of the residential rates is considered water used for outdoor purposes only
and as such relates well to the purposes of the water used through construction meters.
1156

Response Provided By: David P. Stephenson
Tit le:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Director of Rates
4701 Beloit Drive
Sacramento. CA 95838
DK4-015
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK4-015 Q003
August 28, 2013
September 9, 2013
in each region. For the Coastal Region - I suggest that one Metered construction tariff
region."
3. For the minimum charge per day calculation, why is Special Condition #4 of each
service area tariff different for the Monterey District? Explain the basis of the
calculation of Schedule No. S0-9MC (0.1333) value, M0-9MC (0.2222) value
and N0-9MC (0.1333) value.
COMPANY RESPONSE:
The rate was set to ensure that 1 00% of the full fixed costs were recoverable for the
daily meter charge. In Monterey - the basic charge for a 3" meter is set at 15% of the
actual fixed cost recovery. Therefore, to recover the full fixed cost, the formula is as
1157

Cali fornia-Ameri can Water Company
follows: (Current 3" meter rate)/ .15 =total recovery rate for 3" meter/30 for the daily
rate. 100%/. 15% = 6.667/30 = .22222.
For the other districts - the actual monthly meter charges recover 25% of the total fixed
costs. Therefore, the formula to ensure recovery of 1 00% of the fixed costs in a month
on a daily basis is as follows: 100%/.25% = 4.0000/30 = .133333.
Hence the only reason for the difference between Monterey and the other districts is
due to the lower recovery of fixed costs through the current monthly service fees.
1158
Attachment 16

Financial Analyst
1033 B Avenue
Suite 200
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Coronado, CA 921 18
DK4-005
DRA-A. 13-07 -002.DK4-005 0001
July 24, 2013
August 02, 2013
1. In A.13-07 -002, Cal Am presents Special Request #24 to establish the Metered
Construction Water Service Provision Tariff in all districts with the exception of
Ventura, which already has an established tariff. Using the following table as a
template, for each Cal Am ratemaki ng district, please indicate exactl y where in
the revenue workpapers the additional revenue associated with the proposed
tariff can be found or provide the estimated revenue associated with the tariff for
2015 and 2016 if such estimates have not previously been included in the
application workpapers. Response should include all supporting calculations and
assumptions.
Type of fee
2015 Estimated Revenue (or 2016 Estimated Revenue (or
location in workpapers) location in workpapers)
Metered Const ruction Water Service
Provision Tariff . (SR #24)
District Subtotal
1159

COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please see the Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson for more details on Special
Request #24. The change in revenues associated with this request has not been
included in the revenue workpapers. The estimated amounts for 2015 and 2016 cannot
be determined until rate design is addressed on October 1, 2013. Attached, please find
calculations determining the change in present revenues per the example tariff provided
as Attachment 3 to the Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson and summarized
below.
2012 Revised Present
Revenue per
Proposed Meter
Construction Service
District 2012 Present Revenue Tariff Revenue Change
San Diego $ 21,637 $ 59,429 $ 37,792
Baldwin Hil ls $ 1,947 $ 4,502 $ 2,555
Duarte $ 22,668 $ 37,668 $ 15,001
San Marino $ 3,079 $ 7,228 $ 4,149
Monterey $ 275,749 $ 331,635 $ 55,886
Sacramento $ 59,019 $ 124,522 $ 65,503
Larkfield $ 14,547 $ 24,166 $ 9,618
1160
Attachment 17

Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
1033 B Avenue, Suite 200
Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-030
CAW-DRA-A.13-07-002.DK4-030 Q001(a)
November 6, 2013
November 18, 2013
Metered Construction
Please respond to the following questions regarding Special Request #24,
Authorization of a Metered Construction Tariff for all Districts:
(1) In Data Request DK4-005, Cal Am was asked the following:
a. Using the following table as a template, for each Cal Am ratemaking
district, please indicate exactly where in the revenue workpapers the
additional revenue associated with the proposed tariff can be found
or provide the estimated revenue associated with the tariff for 2015
and 2016 if such estimates have not previously been included in the
application workpapers. Response should include all supporting
calculations and assumptions.
Type of fee
2015 Estimated Revenue (or 2016 Estimated Revenue (or
location in workpapers) location in workpapers)
Metered Const ruction Water Service
Provision Tariff (SR #24)
Distri ct Subtotal
Cal Am's Data Request Response was as follows:
1161

Cal ifornia-American Water Company
Please see the Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson for more details on
Special Request #24. The change i n revenues associated wit h this request has
not been included in t he revenue workpapers. The estimated amounts for 2015
and 2016 cannot be determined until rate design is addressed on October 1, 2013.
Attached, please f ind calculations determining the change in present revenues
per the example tar iff provided as Attachment 3 to the Direct Testimony of David
P. Stephenson and summarized below.
2012 Revised Present
Revenue per Proposed
Meter Construction
District 2012 Present Revenue Service Tariff Revenue Change
San Diego $ 21,637 $ 59,429 $ 37,792
Baldwin Hills $ 1,947 $ 4,502 $ 2,555
Duarte $ 22, 668 $ 37,668 $ 15,001
San Marino $ 3,079 $ 7,228 $ 4,149
Mont erey $ 275,749 $ 331,635 $ 55,886
Sacramento $ 59,019 $ 124,522 $ 65,503
Larkfield $ 14,547 $ 24,166 $ 9,618
Rate Design for all Districts, wi th the exception of Monterey District, was
submitted to the CPUC on October 1, 2013. Please provide the i nformation
requested in Data Request DK4-005 and i n the table below:
One Table per Dist rict
2015
2015 2015
Estimat ed
2016
2016 Estimated
Type of fee
Number Metered
Revenue(or
Metered 2016 Number
Revenue (or location
of Construction Construction of Customers
Customers Rate
location in
Rate
workpapers)
workpapers)
Wat er Service Provision
Tariff {SR #24)
District Subtotal
1162

COMPANY RESPONSE:
Please see summary below and "DK4-030 Attachment- Metered Construction Water
Estimate." Monterey rate information is not yet available. The rate design will be filed in
December 2013. 2016 revenue change cannot be estimated as 2015 revenues are not
known at this time.
2015
Number 2015 Metered 2012 2015 Proposed Revenue
San Diego of Construction Present per Proposed Meter Revenue
District Customers Quant ity Rate Revenue Construction Service Tariff Change
San Diego 21 $ 8.96 $ 21,637 $ 42,760 $ 21,123
District
Subtotal 21 $ 21,637 $ 42,760 $ 21,123
2015
Los Angeles of Const ruction Present per Proposed Meter Revenue
District Customers Quantity Rate Revenue Construction Service Tariff Change
Baldwin Hills 3 $ 7.02 $ 1,947 $ 1,370 $ (577)
Duarte 14 $ 5.06 $ 22,668 $ 35,882 $ 13,214
San Marino 12 $ 5.73 $ 3,079 $ 2,200 $ (879)
Dist rict
Subtotal 29 $ 27,694 $ 39,452 $ 11,758
2015
Sacr amento of Const ruction Present per Proposed Meter Revenue
District Customers Quant ity Rate Revenue Construction Service Tariff Change
Sacramento 15 $ 6.62 $ 59,019 $ 24,505 $ (34,515)
District
Subtotal 15 $ 59,019 $ 24,505 $ (34,515)
1163

2015
Number
Larkfield of
District Customers
Larkf ield 3
District
Subtotal 3
2015
Number
of
District Customers
Monterey 34
District
Subtotal 34
2015 Metered 2012 2015 Proposed Revenue
Const ruction Present per Proposed Meter
Quantity Rate Revenue Construction Service Tariff
$ 13.22 $ 14,547 $ 15,583
$ 14,547 $ 15,583
2015 Metered 2012 2015 Proposed Revenue
Construction Present per Proposed Meter
Quant ity Rate Revenue Construction Service Tariff
TBD* $ 275,749 TBD
$ 275,749 $
Revenue
Change
$ 1,035
$ 1,035
Revenue
Change
TBD
$
1164

Attachment 18

Response Provided By: David J . Sousa
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Recei ved:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA STATEMENT:
Financial Analyst Ill - Rates
1033 B Street, Suite 200, Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-035
CAW-ORA-A. 13-07-002.DK4-035 Q001a
12/10/2013
12/19/2013
(1) In Data Request Response DK4-030, Cal Am responded with the following:
a. Please see summary below and "DK4-030 Attachment - Metered
Construction Water Estimate." Monterey rate information is not yet
available. The rate design wi ll be filed in December 2013. 2016 revenue
change cannot be estimated as 2015 revenues are not known at this time.
1165

Response Provided By: David J. Sousa
Title:
Address:
ORA Request:
Company Number:
Date Received:
Date Response Due:
Subject Area:
ORA QUESTION:
Financial Analyst Ill - Rates
1033 B Street, Suite 200, Coronado, CA 92118
DK4-035
CAW-ORA-A.13-07 -002.DK4-035 0001 b
12/10/2013
12/19/2013
(1) In Data Request Response DK4-030, Cal Am responded with the following:
b. Please submit the Monterey Information requested in the tabl e below.
Type of fee
Water Service
Provision Tariff (SR
#24)
District Subtotal
2015
Number of
Customers
2015
2015
Metered
Estimated
Constr uction
Revenue (or
Rate
location i n
workpapers)
2016
Metered
2016 2016 Estimated
Construction
Number of Revenue (or location
Rate
Customers i n workpapers)
1166

2015
2015 2016
2015 Estimated 2016 2016 Est imated
Metered Metered
Type of fee Number of
Const ructi on
Revenue (or
Constructi on
Number of Revenue (or locat io
Customers
Rate
location in
Rate
Customers in workpapers)
workpapers)
Water Service
$226,179
(Per day rate =
N/A
Provision Tariff (SR 22
$351.80; usage
$226,179 N/A
#24)
rate = $7.8374)
It should be noted that these are the Company's best estimates based on the latest rate
model since we currently have no daily billing information available on these customers
- knowing differences wi ll occur, these wi ll all be captured in WRAM/ MCBA. The
$226,179 is estimated based on meters being issued for 642.90 days multiplied by
$351.81 .
N/A

ORA Report On Revenues, Rate Design, and Special Requests No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORA Report On Revenues, Rate Design, and Special Requests No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

2) Rate Design Workpapers with Actual Rates .................................................................. 2-18 1

2) ORA Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4-1 1

Chapter 8 : SPECIAL REQUEST #24 AUTHORIZATION OF A 1

Chapter 1 : OPERATING REVENUES AND CONSUMPTION 1

subjectively selecting periods of low or high customer growth in order to achieve a 1

Hydrants 276 276 276 276

consistent with the New Committee Method.

Golf 50.3 78.8 36.17% 50.3 78.8

CHAPTER 1A: MONTEREY WASTEWATER 1

3) Consumption and Sales Forecast 1

Chapter 2 : RATE DESIGN 1

would significantly impact the remainder of the residential customers in Monterey as 1

e) Los Angeles District (Baldwin Hills) 1

f) Los Angeles District (San Marino) 1

g) Los Angeles District (Duarte) 1

J une 18, 2013 settlement adopted in Decision 13-07-041.

creating allotments in billing. First, there are not factors for 1

2) Rate Design Workpapers with Actual Rates 1

3) Low Income Programs 1

proportion of consumption in the class,

Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption 1

ORA recommends that the Commission require Cal Am to submit workpapers in 1

Chapter 3 : SPECIAL REQUEST #5 AUTHORIZATION TO 1

ii) ORA recommends the Commission require Cal Am to submit 1

Chapter 4 : SPECIAL REQUEST #6 AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW 1

Chapter 5 : SPECIAL REQUEST #8 AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE 1

Comparison of After-Hours Activation Charges in California 1

Los Angeles $620 $1550 $1550

Chapter 6 : SPECIAL REQUEST #9 AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW 1

Chapter 7 : SPECIAL REQUEST #21 CLARIFICATION OF HOW 1

1) Cal Ams Justifications for this Proposal 1

Chapter 8 : SPECIAL REQUEST #24 AUTHORIZATION OF A 1

o Minimum charge per day times the number of days, or 1

Chapter 9 : SPECIAL REQUEST #25 AUTHORIZATION TO 1

Chapter 10 : QUALIFICATION AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF 1

You might also like