HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-City Administrator
'CITY OF SAN BERNr:tDINO - REQUEST r R COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Fred Wilson
Assistant City Administrator
Subject: Opposition to PUC application
by Southern California Edison Co.
Dept:
Date: June 16, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
6/10/92 -- Ways and Means recommended letter be sent by Mayor
opposing rate increase by Edison.
Recommended motion:
That the attached letter be sent by Mayor Holcomb stating City's
opposition to a proposed rate increase by Southern California
Edison Company in their application to the Public Utilities
COI!ll:lission.
:/ilL S.",,""
Contact person:
Fred Wil"nn
Phone: al22
Supporting data attached: yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. / /
. CITY OF SAN BER~"RDINO - REQUEST r -)R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
At their June 10, 1992 meeting, the Ways and Means Committee
recommended a letter be sent by Mayor Holcomb stating the City's
opposition to a proposed rate increase by Southern California
Edison Company in their application to the Public Utilities
Commission.
Edison is attempting to recover costs connected with their cleanup
of hazardous waste contamination at their facilities in Visalia,
California. The Committee felt that Edison is not acting prudently
in passing on these costs to the ratepayers. They should be borne
by the utility company shareholders or at least by those ratepayers
in the geographic area where the clean up occurred.
Therefore, the Committee is recommending these concerns be relayed
to the Public Utility Commission via a letter signed by the Mayor.
75-0264
,..,,,.
CITy OF
San Bernardino
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
W R B 0 8
MAYOR
HOLCOI'.18
June 1l, 1992
Office of the Public Advisor
California Public Utilities Commmission
107 South Broadway, Room 5109
Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: Application No. 92-04-018
Dear Sir:
This letter represents the City of San Bernardino's opposition to
Southern California Edison's application for approval of a
residential rate increase to recover costs connected with their
cleanup of hazardous waste contamination at their facilities in
Visalia, California.
The City feels that Edison is not acting prudently in proposing a
rate increase to offset this cost. It is our opinion that these
costs should be borne by the utility company shareholders and not
the ratepayers. At a minimum, increasing rates in connection with
costs incurred in specific geographic areas, in our opinion, should
be absorbed by those area ratepayers and not by ratepayers as a
whole.
For these reasons, as Mayor of the City of San Bernardino, I urge
the Commission to vote against approval of Southern California
Edison Company's Application No. 92-04-018
Sincerely,
W. R. "Bob" Holcomb, Mayor
300 NORTH D STREET SAN BERNARDINO
CALIFORNIA 924180001 714/314.5133
PRIDE ~
vss
"'~. "-
BEFORE THE~OBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THB STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
In The Matter Of The Application
Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY (U 338-El For A
Determination Of The
Reasonableness Of Edison's
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Expenses, Authority To
Transfer The Hazardous Waste
Management Program Expenses
Recorded From January 1, 1991.
Through December 31. 1991, And
Accrued Interest. To The Electric
Revenue Adjustment Account. And
Authority To Increase The
Electric Revenue Adjustment
Billing Factor
;-,
Application No. 92-04-018
(Filed April 14, 1992)
NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION
On April 14, 1992, Southern California Edison Company
filed Application No. 92-04-018 with the California Public
Utilities Commission ("CPUC") requesting that the CPUC:
(1) determine that certain Hazardous Waste Management
Program expenses recorded between January 1, 1991 and
December 31, 1991 were reasonable; and (2) authorize Edison
to recover these expenses through rates. If approved by the
CPUC, this would result in a 1993 revenue increase of $3.5
million, or less than 0.1 percent. Edison also filed a
Motion to Consolidate this Application with Application No.
91-07-005. That Application requested that similar expenses
recorded through December 31, 1990 be declared reasonable.
).
..~
Based on the allocation described above, a residential
customer consuming 500 kilowatt-hours per month in the
winter months would have a monthly increase of approximately
$0.03 from $61.80 to $61.83. This amount may vary depending
on how the CPUC allocates the costs among customer classes
and how much electricity each Customer uses.
The CPOC Weloomes Your partieination and CommAnt.
If the Application is consolidated with Application
No. 91-07-005, the CPUC will hold formal evidentiary
hearings on this application in July 1992. If you wish to
express your opinion to the CPUC or want information on how.
to participate in the evidentiary hearings, or want to
receive notices regarding the date, time, or place of
hearings, write to:
Office of the Public Advisor
California Public Utilities Commission
107 South Broadway, Room 5109
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Please mention that you are writing about Southern
California Edison Company's Application No. 92-04-018.
Should you wish further information from Edison
regarding the Application, please write to:
Southern California Edison Company
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Attention: Manager of Revenue Requirements
A copy of Edison's applications may be inspected at the
Edison or CPUC offices listed below.
-3-
operated in Visalia. California.
r
.... """= ,: ...~..."", .J ~,tAf(
Pursuant to a CPUC established procedure, Edison has .~I$;~
recorded in a special account the costs associated with \~~ f-7
cleaning up hazardous waste contamination at facilities we ~
\ ,~<< ~l)\~
~l"'I,lJ
This cleanup work is
required by federal and state environmental laws.
The
application requests that the CPUC review the reasonableness
of those cleanup costs and allow us to put them into rates.
How The Reouest Miaht Affect Rates
Edison is proposing that issues related to rate design
and the allocation of this requested revenue increase among
customer classes be determined in Test-Year 1993 Edison's
Energy Cost Adjustment Clause proceeding. If the CPUC were
to allocate the revenue increase associated with this
application on approximately the same percentage basis to
each customer group, its request would result in the
fOllowing changes effective January 1993:
Customer Classes
Proposed Increase
($ Millions) % Increase
Domestic (Residential)
Lighting - Small and Medium power
TOTAL
1.3 0.0**
1.3 0.0**
0.8 0.0**
0.1 0.0**
.Q.....Q* 0.0**
3.5 0.0*
Large Power
Agricultural and Pumping
Street and Area Lighting
* Less than $100,000
..Less than 0.1%
-2-
~
,
Edison Offices
· 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770
· 127 Elm Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802
· 100 N. Harbor Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92703
· 10060 Telegraph Road, Ventura, CA 93004
· 964 E. Badillo Street, Covina, CA 91724
· 1700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262
· 7951 Redwood Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336
· 2425 So. Blackstone, Tulare, CA 93274
· Pebbly Beach Generating Station, Avalon, CA 90704
Offices of the California Public Dtilities Commission
· State Building, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA
94102
· State Building, 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA
90b12
.
-4-