HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 3, 1987 (99)BEFORE. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALItFOR IZ,_
Application of the Sacramento -Valley ? Application 'No`s" i•` ��^`
Limited Partnership for authority ) ���Y G
to increase rates and charges applicable rI. �flr
to cellular radio telephone service )
within the Greater Sacramento -Valley
Metropolitan Area
APPLICATION OF SACRAMENTO -VALLEY
LIMED PAR
ITTNERSHIP ( 2-3004-C)
I
The Applicant, Sacramento -Valley Limited Partnership (U -3004-C)
("SVLP" or "Applicant"), a California partnership, files this
Application for a general rate increase under Sections 454 and 701 of
the Public Utilities Code of the State of California requesting
authority from the California Public Utilities Commission to increase
its authorized rates for cellular radio telephone service in the
Greater Sacramento Metropolitan Area encompassing portions of
Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties,
California.
II
THE NEED FOR INCREASED RATES
SVLP's proposed increase in rates is needed in order to re-
establish the proper balance between the value of the service provided
and its price. When rates were established for cellular service in
the initial Sacramento MSA service area, those rates were based on
consideration of market research, consideration of the value of
service, and the financial requirements of the Partnership. (See
-1-
A. 84-01-048 flied November 27, 1984. D_ 85-05-041 issued fay .l, 19$5
Since then, several
as amended by D. ¢5-Q7-020 issued July
1OF 19$5}.
leted and justify an
major improvements and expansions have been comp
increase in rates.
First, SVLP has expanded the service area by
nearly 60$. The
addition of service in the adjacent markets of Stockton and Modesto
has increased the Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) from 1,200
square miles to 1,900 square miles. SVLP intends further to expand
q Metiopolit
the CGSA to include a major portion of the Yuba City
Statistical Area which will bring the total coverage to 2,500 square
miles, Guuble the initial coverage area. Exhibit A depicts the
initial coverage area, the recent expansion of service and the future
expansion.
Secondly, effective January 1, 1587 SVLP eliminated all charges
for incomplete calls. This had the immediate effect of reducing
sed on 1936 usage patterns.
SVLP's annual revenues by $221,000 ba
Thirdly, SVLP has increased its investment in facilities both
to area and in. the adjacent markets °n
within the initial Sacramenthe
Stockton and Modesto. This latter investment was not included
initial pro forma financial statements in Application 84-01-048 filed
November 27, 1984.
-2
Finally, SVLP does not forecast any significant change in
customer demand at either the wholesale level or at the retail level
as a result of the proposed rate change. SV'_,P has projected what the
retail prices might become assuming that the current margin between
wholesale and retail rates continues. The resultant retail price
levels are consistent with SVLP's earlier marketing studies wherein
customer demand was essentially the same at the price levels in effect
today and at the price levels expected to result from SVLP's proposed
rate increase (see Exhibit A). The proposed increased rates bring the
Sacramento market in line with other markets within California and
markets of comparable size in other parts of the country (see Exhibit
B).
III
FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Applicant (Rule 15(a). SVLP is a limited partnership,
duly organized under the laws of the State of California for the
purpose of providing cellular radio telephone service to the public.
Applicant maintains its principal place of business at 2355 Main
Street, Irvine, California 92714.
2. Correspondence or Communications (Rule 15(b)).
(a) All communications or correspondence with respect
to this Application should be addressed to:
Richard C. Nelson
Director -Regulatory Matters
PacTel Cellular
2355 Main Street
P.O. Box 19707
Irvine, California 92714
Telephone: (714) 553-6058
-3-
(b) counsel should direct co::imlln cations,
motions.
letters and requests for information to attorney for SVLP:
Roger P• Downes, Esq.
2355 Main Street
P.O. Box 19707 2714
Irvine, California
553?6008
Telephone:
oration (Rui_e_ 16)•
A copy Of the
3. Articles of Incor
oratio^ and a copy of the
General Partner's Articles of Inccwere filed with the Commission on
Applicant's Partnership Agreement
November 27, 1984• A copy of the Amendment to the Partnership
PacTel Cellular, the
Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. owned subsidiary of
General Partner of the Applicant, is a wholly-
nications which in
PacTel Personal Commuturn is a wholly-owned
Copies of said Partnership
subsidiary
of Pacific Telesis Group-
not included
Agreement and said Articles of Incorporation are to e
the
service copies. Copies of these documents will be submitted
.
parties on the service list upon requestA
4. Balance Sheet and Income Statement (Rule 23(a))• ome statement covering
balance sheet as of December 31, 1986 and an inc
he eriod from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 are attache
t p
hereto as Exhibit D.
5, Present Rates Pro osed to be Increased and Statement
osed Increases (Rules 23(b) and (c)). Exhibit E attached hereto
Tr• proposed
sets forth a description of present and proposed rates and p p
revenue increase including percentage increase.
6. Descrtioof
i n Property (Rule 23(d))•
SVLP owns and
ystem in the Greater Sacramento
operates a cellular radio telephone s
Valley
metropolitan area and the Stockton and Modesto areas of the San-
Valley
Joaquin :Talley. The system is composed of radio facilities, control
and switching equipment owned by SVLP and is interconnected with
wireline facilities leased from one or more local exchange telephone
companies. The original cost of such property along with the
depreciation reserve applicable thereto is shown in the balance sheet,
which is part of Exhibit D attached hereto.
7. Summary of Earnings (Rules 23(e) and (f)). A summary of
SVLP's actual results of operations for the year ending December 31,
1986 and the prospective results for the same period based on the
assumption that the proposed rates were effective For all of 1986 are
attached hereto as Exhibit F.
8. Exhibits and Date When Ready (Rule 23(g)). The exhibits
- and documentation required by the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure are submitted herewith. SVLP's showing, to its best
knowledge and intent, is complete. SVLP is prepared to proceed
immediately.
9. Depreciation Methods (Rule 23(h)). As a limited
partnership, SVLP does not itself pay income taxes, nor does the
General Partner. The ultimate parent of the General Partner, Pacific
Telesis Group, does pay income taxes and the Partnership does submit a
statement with its annual report to the Commission, which illustrates
what its federal income tax might be if it, rather than the partners,
were taxed directly. In that statement the Partnership assumes the
use of the Internal Revenue Service's Accelerated Cost Recovery
System, consistent with the method used by Pacific Telesis Group.
10. Statements Required By Rule 23(i). The General Partner
of the Applicant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PacTel Personal
-5-
b..
Communications which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pacific
Telesis Group. Attached hereto as exhibit G is a copy of the latest
proxy statement sent to the stockholders of Pacific Telesis Group.
Copies of said proxy statement are not included in the service copies
of this Application. Copies will be provided to the parties on the
service list upon request.
11. Sununary of Earnings for Total Operations (Rule 23(j)).
SVLP's financial summaries as described in paragraph 7 above do not
include a rate of return. The Commission's findings of fact in
Decision 85-05-041 (SVLP's Application, for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity) included the finding that SVLP's "rates are
reasonable, and rate structure and tariffs are in accord with
Commission policy." The Commission's policy in the regulation of
rates and charges by cellular radio telephone system operators was
first articulated in Decision 84-04-014 adopted April 4, 1984. In
that proceeding, the Commission first considered evidence regarding
the appropriate method to establish rates and charges for a premium
discretionary telecommunication service such as cellular radio
telephone service. In the Commission's findings of fact it adopted
the retail rates cf the applicant based on market research information
rather than on cost. The commission also concluded in its finding of
facts,
"the adopted wholesale rates should provide the Partnership's
year 2 wholesale operations a return on equity of approximately 18.44%
which is reasonable in light of pre -operative and year 1 negative s
returns."
`s
Zhus the Commission has determined that `market -research based prices"
appear reasonable (A. 83-01-12). In the several cellular proceedings
MIS
heard by the Commission to date (Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacra=tente,
San Francisco/San Jose and Fresno) the Commission relied upon market
studies to establish cellular rates. Therefore, on the basis of
Commission precedent SVLP requests that the Commission find that
SVLP's application is exempt from Rule 23(j). SVLP substitutes
Exhibit A as the relevant showing
Of the value of the service.
12. Nature of Increase (Rule 23(1)). The increased cellular
radio telephone service rates.
which are the subject of this
Application, are the result of increased value of the cellular service
as a result of the SVLP's recent increase in coverage area and planned
expansions. A portion of the increase in rates may be attributable to
additional expenses associated with current and future expansions in
coverage area.
13. Notice of A lication and Hearing- (Rules 23 aad 52).
Within ten days after the filing of this Application, SVLP will mail
to all those persons and
notice of the filing of the Application
entities identified in Rule 24 and .listed in Exhibit H attached hereto
and unless exempted by order of this Commission will publish notice of
its Application pursuant to Rule 24. Within 45 days after the filing
of this Applications, SVLP will furnish each of its customers affected
by the proposed increases notice of the Application by including such
notice in the regular bill for service rendered. In light of the
persons, Applicant believes that
1 small base of interested
extreme y
provide broader or more complete
publication is not likely to notice
than the mailing referenced herein. Applicant
of this Application
requests that it be exempt from the provisions of Rule 52.
1
Gi
WHEREFORE, purs nt. to Sections 454 and 701 of the California
Public Utilities Code, svLP respectfully requests that the Commission:
(1) Issue an order exempting this Application from hearing
unless good cause is shown to the contrary; and
(2) Exempt the Applicant from the provisions of Rule 23 and
52 as requested herein; and
(3) Accept the reasonabless of the showing herein and
der establishing the increases in rates
promptly issue an ex parte or
proposed by SVLP herein.
Bated at Irvine, California, this�_ day of April, 1986.
Sacramento -Valley Limited Partnership
by
J,oger for
nes t
ney for Applicant
A
2355 Main Street
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553-6008
s
f.
5
VERIFICATION
I, H. Trevor Jones, am the President of PacTel Cellular, the
general partner of the Sacramento -Valley Limited Partnership and
as such I am authorized to make this verification, on its behalf.
I have read the foregoing Application of the Sacramento -
Valley Limited Partnership for authority to increase rates and
charges applicable to cellular service within the Greater
Sacramento -Valley Metropolitan Area, and know the contents
thereof, and verify that the same is true of my own knowledge,
except as to those matters therein stated on information and
belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
EXECUTED this /-Z day of April, 1987, at Irvine,
California.
U '_ULAR GiEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREAS
FIVE OAK
suTTER ff
f f
YUbA CITY
Av. URI:
t �\
DUhhIGAK t � \
iiDODLA►.-1 CITRUS HEIGHTS
\\\aAK�nTo .x.
DAVIS SAC
ELK GROVE
LOW
•T
• or �7101.1�I V��
f '
FRENCH CAMP
SIOCKTON CGSA
j TRRCY —
1 TUBA CITY CGSA
MODESTO CGSA
SACRAM[NTO CGSA
DdllB111
Page 1 of 2
SACRAMENTO
MODESTO
W,
INCREASED VALUE
OF SERVICE
I. Coverage Square
Miles
Initial Sacramento CGSA
1,200
Stockton area
400
Modesto area
300
% Increase from Initial CGSA
58%
Future expansion - Yuba City
600
% Increase with Yuba City
108%
II. Cellular Facilities
Cell Sites
Initial Sacramento system
5
Sacramento Growth
1
Stockton area
2
Modesto area
1
Increase
4
% Increase
60%
=WHIT A
Page 2 of 2
Population (000)
800
347
219
71%
91
82%
III. Customer Demand for Expanded Service
- Stockton/Lodi areas were first preference for expanded cell-
ular service by Sacramento customers in 1986.
- Interdependence of Sacramento and Stockton markets as re-
ported in a small market study:
o 42% of those people -interviewed in Stockton travel
regularly to Sacramento.
o 35% of those interviewed in Sacramento travel regularly
to Stockton.
- Interdependence of Stockton and Modesto markets.
o Approximately half of the businesses in both communities
have vehicles operating in the other community.
IV. Price/Demand Relationship
- Sacramento: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers did not differ significantly given the proposed
rates versus the current rates.
- Stockton: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers increased slightly at the current rates as
compared to the proposed rates.
- An economy Plan is being introduced to provide customers with a
choice of rate plans.
WN/4/6/87
jt010
Average Monthly Bill
$200.00
$180.00
$160.00
$140.00
$120.00
$100.00
$80.00
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00
LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO SACRAMENTO SAG proposed
V
current P P
CALIFORNIA MARKET COMPARISONS
300 minuter. of usage)
yni
FRANCISCO
m
Markets 30-40 Cost Comparison
(300 minute user)
=BI C
Pat;,- 1 01, 2
AMENDMENT
To
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING
SACRAMENTO -VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
This Amendment to Agreement Establishing Sacramento -Valley
Limited Partnership is made and entered into as of the 22nd day
of July 1986, by and among PacTel Mobile Access,
Contel Mobilcom, Roseville Telephone Co., Citizens Utilities
Company of California and Evans Telephone Company (Evans).
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual execution of this Amendment
and the agreement of Evaks to be bound by all of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement Establishing Sacramento -Valley
Limited Partnership dated as of April 2, 1984 (the `Partnership
Agreement'), the Partnership Agreement shall be amended as
follows:
1. Evans shall be admitted as a limited partner.
2. section 5.1 of the Partnership Agreement shall be
amended to show the following Partnership Interests for the
Partners:
•(A) 49.8788 for PacTel as General Partner,
(B) 23.4728 for Roseville as Limited Partner,
(C) 23.4728 for Citizens as Limited Partner,
(D) .9788 for Contel as Limited Partner, and
(E) 2.2008 for Evans as Limited Partner.'
3. This Amendment shall become effective when extcuted
(which execution may be in counterparts) by the General Partner
and all Limited Partners.
t
f
6/27/86
1526D/gs
r
tiagP 2 of 2
the undersigned have executed this
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
h opposite their respective
as of the date set fort
signatures below:
eneral Partner
PACTF.L MO �SCES
By: t
Title:
Date:
Limited Partners
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
By:
Title:
Date:
CONTEL MOBILCOM
By:
Title: -
Da to :
ROSEVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
By:
Title:
Date:
EVANS TELEPHONE COMPANY
By:
Title:
Date:
1526D/gs
6/27/86
Page 2 of 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Yjndersigned have executed this
Amendment as of the date set forth apposite their respective
signatures below:
General Partner
PACTEL MOBILE ACCESS
By:
Title:
Date: -
Page 2 of 2
111 WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment as of the date set forth opposite their respective
signatures below: ='
General Partner
A
µ.
PACTEL MOBILE ACCESS
By:
Title: —
Date: -
Limited Partners
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA - ^y
By:
Title:`
Dake:
k,
CONTEL MOBILCOM
_ t
By:
r
Title:`
i;
Date: _
ROSEVILLE T£ PH01JE CON,PAi`Y
By: � 1
Title:
Date: — ----
EVANS TELEPHONE C09PANY �
By: - -
Title:
Date: — z
6/27/86
1526D/gs
Page 2 of 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment as of the date set forth opposite their respective
signatures below:
General Partner
PACTEL MOBILE ACCESS _.
By:
t
Title:
Date: -
Limited Partners
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Title:
D. L. Oestreicher
Date:
CONTEL MOBILCOM
By:
Title:
Date: F
ROSEVI LLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
By:
Title:
Date:
EVANS TELEPHONE COMPANY s
By:
Title:
Date:
1526D/gs
" 6/27/86
�` F
=IBIT D
Page s
1 vif 2'
�
SACRAMENTO VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BALANCE SHEET
12/31/86
Assets
Current Assets:
Cash
$
0
A/R - Net
728,311
Prepayments
6,535
Other Current Assets
---
Total Current Assets
$
734,846
Prop, Plant & Eqpt, Gross
$
8,197,750
Accumulated Depreciation
(538,860)
Net
$
7,658,890
Deferred Charges
$
5,228
Other Long Term As!:ets
1,308,144
Total Assets
$
9,707,108
Liabilities o Equity
Accounts Payable
$
5,286,776
Accrued Liabilities
2,249
Advance Billing & Payment
30,304
Customer Deposits
17,700
Total Current Liability
$
5,337,029
Total Liabilities
$
5,337,029
Partners' Equity
Partner Capital
$
5,201,018
Retained Earnings
$( 830,939)
Total Partners' Equity
$
4,3701,079
Total Liab. & Equity
$
9,707,108
•Proprietary Information'
t
DFUBTT D
Page 2 of 2
_
m-:
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
INCOME
STATEMENT
12 Months
Ended
12/31/86
$ 3,158,303
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses:
158,604
Salaries & Benefits
17,949
"
Housekeeping
507,326
Operations
4,766
`
Eqpt., Furn. s Tools
176.154
Administration
4,002
Marketing
33,891
Travel & Entertainment
12,000
�:..
Research
460,092'
Deprec. & Amortiz.
82,698
Prof. Services
5,685
Fees & Licenses
69,366
Other Bus. Expenses
S 1,542,538
Total Oper. Expenses
€
$ 1,664,663
Corporate Overhead
$ 3,207,201
Total Operating Costs
Less: capitalized E s O
(59,157)
S 10,259
Income Before Taxes
—
L..
x
"Proprietary
Information"
#010
b-r?/3/3187
-;.
PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES AND PROPOSED REVENUE
Present
Rate
EXHIBIT E
Props, Sed
Rate
Z. Basic Plan
Monthly Access
(up to 100 #s/over 100) $15.30/14.30 $19.13/17.88
Usage Per Minute
- Peak (up to 20K min. & over 20K) .206!.203 .262/.258
- Off-peak (up to 2K min/over 2K) .134/.122 .170/.169
II. Economy Plan
Monthly Access ---- S 9.91/9.26
(up to 100 #s/over 100)
Usage Per Minute
- Peak (up to 20K min/over 20K) ---- .49/•48
- Off-peak (up to 2K min/over 2K) ---- .16/.15
III. Proposed Revenue
Basic Plan
Economy Plan
TOTAL
RCN/4/16/87
jt011
1986 1986
Revenues Revenues
(present rates) (proposed)
$3,158,300 $4,071,000
--- 129,000
$3,158,300 $4,200,000
Increase
N/A
N/A
338
16 -Apr --87
PROFORMA
EXHIBIT F
page I of 2
SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CARRIER (E000)
PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
**ata�ww*,F,t*��t�*aif�t��►*at�raf�rK
GROSS
ACTUAL
RECAST*
1987**
2488
i2�
1996
19Bb
FACILITIES
365
GF -.LASS REl;ENUE
� �, 256
S4,071
$6, 1,>8
$8 7�
,
BHSIC
0
129
91
276
ECONOMY
5
-_-_-
___--
-----
TOTAL
3,158
4,200
6,224
9,UUB
0
0
62
90
BAD DEBT
-----
3,258
4,200
6,16:
8,916
NET REVENUE
0
O
p
U
COST OF GOODS
MARGIN
3,158
4,200
6,167
6,918
GROSS
214
OPERATING EXPENSES
460
BILLING & COLL
i2�
DEPREG & AMORT
462
FACILITIES
365
ADM1NISTRATIVE
537
TOTAL
1,483
OPERATING INCOME
1,675
ALLOCATIONS
1,665
INCOME BEFORE TAX
10
TAXES
5
NET INCOME
S5
122
214
291
460
957
1,199
365
624
903
5.37
644
949
1,483
2,639
3,342
2,717
3,528
5,576
1,665
1,672
1,753
1,052
1,856
31823
526
835
1,529
$526
$1,021
$2,294
YE CELLULAR NUMBERS 5,459 5,459 7,912 11,462
*prospective results if' the proposed rates had been
l ffec1987 ve in 1986.
**Rate increase is assuaned tri become effecti7e July
r..uzloit 'r
Page 2 of 2
SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CARRIER ($000)
PRO FORMA iE ALANCE SHEET
ACTUAL
1986
1987
1988
CURRENT ASSETS
A/R - NET
728
1,024
1,481
OTHER
7
O
0
TOTAL CURRENT
735
1,024
1,481
FIXED ASSETS
PP&E
8,193
10,795
13,039
ACCUM DEPR
(534)
(1,494)
(22,693)
OTHER
1,313
2,275
1,243
TOTAL FIXED
8,972
10,576
11,589
TOTAL ASSETS
9,707
11,600
13,070- -
-`
LIABILITIES
A / F
S, 287
560
589
OTHER
50
551
836
TOTAL LIABILITIES
5,337
1,111
1,425;
EQUITY
4,370
10,489
11,645"-
TOTAL LIAR. & EQU.
9,707
11,600
13,070
sc:asa
sxss=
szxas
c
i
E:
i.
EXHIBIT G
PACIFIC Ij TELESIS
Group
140 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, Califomia 94105
February 27, 1987
Dear Shareowner.
It is with great pleasure that I invite you to attend Pacific Telesis
Group's 1987 Annual Meeting of Shareowners, to be held on April 24,
1987 at the California Masonic Memorial Temple, 1111 California
Street, San Francisco, California. This annual event will include my
personal report to you on the Corporation's 1986 financial and operat-
ing performance, as well as an update on the progress we've made
in achieving our lodger term corporate goals.
A critical aspect of the annual meeting process is the annual share-
owner vote on corporate business items. I urge you to exercise your
rights as a shareowner to vote and participate in this process. All the
materials you need to vote via the mail are enclosed in this package_
Please took them over carefully. Then MARK, DATE, SIGN AND
PROMPTLY RETURN YOUR PROXY CARD in the envelope provided
so that your shares can be voted at the meeting in accordance with
your instructions.
Your management representatives are committed to the continued
success of Pacific Telesis Group and to the entrancement of your in-
vestment in it. As your Chairman, I want to express my appreciation
for your confidence and support again during the past year.
Sincerely. f s�
Donald E. Guinn
Chairman of the Board
ENTITIES NOTIFIED OF APPLICATION
Per P.U.C. Rule 24
STATS OFFICIALS
William J. Anthony
Director
Dept. of General Services
915 Capitol Mall
Ofice Building No. 1
Sacramento, CA 95814
John D. Van de Kamp
Attorney General
State of California
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95814
CITY OFFICIALS
City Attorney
City of Lincoln
511 Stn Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
City Clerk
City of Lincoln
511 5th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648
City Attorney
City of Auburn
1103 High Street
Auburn, CA 95603
RLN/4/16/87
itoll
City Clerk
City of Auburn
1103 High Street
Auburn, CA 95603
City Attorney
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 703
Colfax, CA 95713
City Clerk
City of Colfax
P.O. Box 703
Colfax, CA 95713
City Attorney
City of Rocklin
P.O. Box 687
Rocklin, CA 95687
City Clerk
City of Davis
23 Russell Blvd.
Davis, CA 95616
-1-
EXHIBIT H
CITY OFFICIALS (Con rued)
City Clerk
City of Rocklin
P.O. Box 687
Rocklin, CA 95687
City Attorney
City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street
Roseville, Ca 95678
City Clerk
City of Folsom
50 Natoma
Folsom, Ca 95630
City Clerk
City of Sacramento
City Hall
915 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
City Clerk
City of Galt
38U Civic Center Drive
Galt, CA 95632
City C'.erk
City of Roseville
316 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
City Attorney
City of Davis
23 Russell Blvd.
Davis, CA 95616
City Attorney
City of Escalon
P.O. Box 248
Escalon, CA 95320-0248
City Attorney
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
RCN?4/6/87
jt010 -2-
City Clerk
City of Woodland
300 First Street
Woodland, Ca 95695
City Attorney
City of Woodland
300 First Street.
Woodland, CA 956?5
City Attorney
City of Folsom
50 Natoma
Folsom, Ca 95630
City Attorney
City of Sacramento
City Hall
915 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
City Attorney
City of Galt
380 Civic Center Drive
Galt, CA 95632
City Clerk
City of Winters
318 First Street
Winters, CA 95694
City Attorney
City of Winters
318 First Street
Winters, Ca 95694
City Clerk
City of Escalon
P.O. Box 248
Escalon, CA 95320-0248
City Clerk
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, Ca 95240
4 ._
CITY OFFICIALS (Con iued)
City Attorney
Citv Clerk
City of Manteca
City of Manteca
1001 W. Center St.
IOOI W. Center St.
CA 95336
Manteca, CA 95336
Manteca,
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Ripon
City of Ripon
311 W. 1st Street
311 W. 1st Street
Ripon, CA 95366
Ripon, CA 95366
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Stockton
City of Stockton
425 North EI Dorado St.
425 North El Dorado St.
Stockton, CA 95202
Stockton, CA 95202
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Tracy
City of Tracy
325 East 10th Street
325 East 10th Street
95376
Tracy, CA 95376
Tracy, CA
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Ceres
City of Ceres
2720 Second Street
2720 Second Street
Ceres, CA 95?07
Ceres, CA 95SJ7
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of.Hughson
City of Hughson
701$ Pine Street
7018 Pine Street
Hughson, CA 95326
Hughson, CA 95326
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Modesto
City of Modesto
801 11th Street
801 11th Street
Modesto, CA 95353
Modesto, Ca 9535.E
City Clerk
City Attorney
City of Newman
City of Newman
1200 "O" Street
1200 "0" Street
CA 95360
Newman, Ca 95360
Newman,
City Clerk
City Attorney
City of Oakdale
City of Oakdale
277 North Second
277 North Second Ave.
Oakdale. CA 95361
Oakdale, CA 95361
City Clerk
City Attorney
City of Patterson
City of Patterson
344 W. Las Palmas Ave.
344 W. Las Palmas Ave.
95363
Patterson, CA 95363
Patterson, CA
vi T Y L -r r il^..IliLJ lL Vii 1`..1 n U eC31
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Riverbank
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Riverbank; CA 94367
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Turlock
City of Turlock
900 forth Palm
900 North Palm
Turlock, CA 95381
Turlock, CA 95381
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Waterford
City of Waterford
540 "C" Street
540 "C" Street
Waterford, CA 95386
Waterford, CA 95386
COUNTY OFFICIALS
County Clerk
County Counsel
County of Yolo
County of Yolo
County Courthouse, Room 206
County Courthouse, Room 206
Woodland, Ca 95695
Woodland, Ca 95695
County Counsel
County Clerk
Sacramento County
Sacramento County
_700 H Street
700 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sacramento, Ca 95814
County Clerk
County Clerk
County of Placer
San Joaquin County
Administrative Services
222 E. Weber, Ave., Room 703
11493 B Avenue, De Witt Center
Stockton, CA 95292
Auburn, CA 95603
County Counsel
County Clerk
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
222 E. Weber, Ave., Room 703
1100 H Street
Stockton, CA 95292
Modesto, CA 95353
Co-inty Counsel
County Counsel
Stanislaus County
County of Placer
1100 H Street
11493 B Ave., De Witt Center
Mod8sto, Ca 95353
Auburn, CA 95603
RCN/4/6/87 -4-
jt010
CELLULAR RESELLERS
Suzette A. Steiger
Motorola Cellular
Service, Inc.
1301 E. Algonquin Rd.
Schaumburg, ILL 60196
PacTel Mobile Services
1777 Botelho, Cuite 160
Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
Attn: A3 Feinman
GTE Mobilnet
616 FM 1960 West
Suite 400
Holston, TX 77090
Attn: Mr. Phil ForbeE
Ultratelecom
10500 W. Pico Blvd., Suite B
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Modesto Cellteil Co.
Citizens Utilities Company
1200 "G" Street
P.O. Box 2218
Modesto, CA 95354
Reeding, CA 96001
Attn: Mr. D. L. Ostreicher
Vice Pres./General Mgr.
Sacramento Cellular Telephone Co.
Roseville Telephone Co.
2143 Hurley Way, Suite 250
P.O. Box 969
Sacramento, Ca 95825
Roseville, CA 95661
Attn: Mr. Robert L. Doyle
President/General Mgr.
Fresno Cellular Telephone Co.
Peter Casciato
1520 East Shaw, Suite 115
Attorney
Fresno, CA 93710
Media Building
943 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
?3+5 N"a-m .ci�i cci
F C Boz ,97ro
•ln,m.e, c2W,:1, 927114
%' 4 i 553-5N.3
April 24, 1987
Ms. Diane Elder
Docket Office, Room 2001
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Application of Sacramento -Valley Limited
Partnership (U -3004-C) for authority to
increase rates.
Dear Ms. Elder,
This is to file a correction in the Sacramento -Valley Limited
Partnership's (U -3004-C) ("SVLP") rate application which was
filed with the Commission on Monday, April 20, 1987. Three
typographical errors were made on Exhibits A, E and F. Also,
there was an omission on Exhibit E. In Exhibit A, under Cellular
Facilities, the percent of increase in cell sites should be 808
not 608. In Exhibit E, the present off-peak per minute rate was
incorrectly shown as $.134 up to the first 2,000 minutes instead
of $.123. In Exhibit E, the present and proposed roamer rates
were omitted. The attached revision includes these rates.
Finally, on Exhibit F, the pro forma income statement included an
error in the administrative expenses for 1986. The correct
amount is $536,000 instead of $537,000.
Attached for filing are the original and 13 copies of the
corrected Exhibits A, E and r Copies of these corrections will
be provided to persons and entities listed in Exhibit A.
If there are questions on this matter, I can be reached on (714)
553-6058 or Steve Donaldson on (714) 553-6060. Your cooperation
is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Nelson
Director - Regulatory Matters
RCPT : j t0l l
Attachments
cc: All parties on Service List
Interdependence of a
ported in a small market study:
o 42% of those people interviewed in Stockton travel
regularly to Sacramento.
o 35% of those interviewed in Sacramento travel regularly
to Stockton.
Interdependence of Stockton and Modesto markets.
o Approximately half of the businesses in both communities
have vehicles operating in the other community.
IV. Price/Demand Relationship
- Sacramento: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers did not differ significantly given the proposed
rates versus the current rates.
- Stockton: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers increased slightly at the current rates as
compared to the proposed rates.
- An economy Plan is being introduced to provide customers with a
choice of rate plans.
k:-
Q.
RQT4/24/87
3t010
EMIT.BIT A
'
Paae 2, of 2
;
5"
INCREASED VALUE
OF SERVICE:
4s
u
Square
Miles
Population (000)
I. Coverage
Initial Sacramento CGSA
1,200
800
347
Stockton area
400
300
219;
Modesto area
8 Increase from Initial CGSA
58$
71$
Future expansion - Yuba City
600
91
82%
% Increase with Yuba City
108%
II. Cellular Facilities
Cell Sites
Initial Sacramento system
5
Sacramento Growth
l
Stockton area
2
Modesto area
1
G`
Increase
4
"
% Increase
80$
III. Customer Demand for Expanded Service
- Stockton/Lodi areas were first
preference for
expanded cell-
ular service by Sacramento customers
in 1986.
--mento and
Stockton markets as re -
Interdependence of a
ported in a small market study:
o 42% of those people interviewed in Stockton travel
regularly to Sacramento.
o 35% of those interviewed in Sacramento travel regularly
to Stockton.
Interdependence of Stockton and Modesto markets.
o Approximately half of the businesses in both communities
have vehicles operating in the other community.
IV. Price/Demand Relationship
- Sacramento: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers did not differ significantly given the proposed
rates versus the current rates.
- Stockton: demand for cellular service by prospective
customers increased slightly at the current rates as
compared to the proposed rates.
- An economy Plan is being introduced to provide customers with a
choice of rate plans.
k:-
Q.
RQT4/24/87
3t010
EXHIBIT E
PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES AND PROPOSED REVENUE
Present Proposed
Rate Rate
I. Basic Plan
Monthly Access
(up to 100 #s/over 100) $15.30/14.30 $19.I3/17.88
Usage Per Minute ,262/.258
- Peak (up to 20K min & over 20K) .206/.203 _170/.169
- Off-peak (up to 2K min/over 2K) .123/.122
II. Economy Plan
---- $9.9/9.26
Monthly Access
(up to 100 #s/over 100)
Usage Per Minute ---- .49/.48
Peak (up to 20K min/over 20K} ---- ,26/.15
- Off-peak(up to 2K min/over 2K)
III. Roamer Service Rates
Occasional
N/A N/A
Monthly Access
Usage per minute $ .45 $ •55
- Peak$ .15 $ .27
- Off-peak
Frequent
$ 8.00 To be
Monthly Access Discontinued
Usage per minute $ ,35
- Peak $ .15
- Off-peak
Automatic
N/A N/A
Monthly Access
Usage per minute $ .45 $ .55
- Peak $ .IS $ .27 i.
- Off-peak
i
IV. Proposed Revenue
1986 1986
Revenues Revenues $
(present rates) (proposed) Increase
$3,158,300 $4,071,000 N/A
Basic Plan --- 129,000 N A
Economy Plan
TOTAL $3,158,300 $4,200,000 338
Apr -67
PROFORMA PROFORMA
SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CARRIER ($000)
PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
ETHIPZT F
Page 1 of 2
ACTUAL
RECAST*
1986
----
1986
----
1967**
----
I988
----
GROSS REVENUE
BASIC.'_
s� 158
S-4 071
$6,136
68,73
ECONOMY
O
129
91
276
TOTAL
3,158
4,20o
6,229
9,008
BAD DEPT
_ 0
0
6
90
NET REVENUE
3,156
4,200
6,167
6,916
COST OF GOODS
U
O
O
U
t
GROSS MARGIN
3,158
4,200
6,167
B,91B
OPERATING EXPENSES
122
122
214
291
BILLING & COLL
DEFREC R AMORT
460
460
957
1,199
FACILITIES
365
365
624
903
ADMINISTRATIVE
536
536
844
949
TOTAL
1,483
1,483
2,639
3,342
OPERATING INCOME
1,675
2,717
3,528
5,576
ALLOCATIGNS
1,665
1,665
1,672
1,753
INCOME BEFORE TAX
10
1,052
1,656
3,823
TAXES
5
526
835
1,529
NET INCOME
$5
$526
$1,021
$2,294
f
YE CELLULAR NUMBERS
5,459
5,459
7,912
11,462
F
*Prospective results if the proposed rates had
been effective
1,
in
1987.
1986.
increase is assumed to beccxne effective July
** um
1
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, C;01C/n0:
STATE 0� CALIFORNIA -THE RESrN_WCES AGEMCt---------------'--" --`=
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION>,
.,I^ NINTH STREET STATE OF CALIFORNIA ��'- t
S%�{RAMENfo. CA[`FOR41A 95E14 ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION �` _%
KND DEVELOPMENT COMISSION
LIT �E K
In the Matter of: ) U, i " {%-
1987 Biennial Fuels Report } Docket 87 -BFR -1
}
INITIAL
NOTICE OF
BIENNIAL FUELS REPORT
HEEARINGS
I. SCOPE OF THE BIENNIAL FUELS REPORT
The Biennial Fuels Report (BFR.) is the Commission's comprehensive
statement of fuels policy updated at two-year intervals. The BFR
provides a foundation for the fuels element of the Commission's
broader polio- document, the Biennial Report (PRC Section 25309,
-at. seq.).
Public Resources Code Section 25310(a) specifies the content of
the BFR. It is to be a "comprehensive report describing emerging
trends relating to the use, availability, and pricing of
petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, coal, synthetic
and other fuels, and constraints in production and ref.'.ning, and
potential alternate fuels technologies." The reportandpricecuof
,,long range forecasts of the anticipated supply
these fuels, and the demand for these fuels in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors, and for electrical generation
and transportation." In addition, the BFR must "recommend needed
changes in the state's energy shortage contingency plans, and
include specific recommendations. . .to increase production and
productivity, improve the efficiency of fuel use, increase
conservation, and any other actions needed to maintain
sufficient, secure, and affordable fuel supplies for the state."
II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Commission's Fuels Planning Committee is comprised of two
Commissioners, Richard A. Bilas, Presiding Member, and Vice Chair
Barbara Crowley, Second Member. The Committee will hold a series
of hearings on topics that will be addressed in the report. The
at
on topics tO
addressed in the BFR and to assistare to s the Committeeit be in developing
be
policy recommendations. .
The Committee requests the participation of oil producers,
and marketers, natural gas producers; intrastate and
interstate natural gas utilities and pipeline companies; electric
utilities; third -party power producers; major fuel users in all
E.ectors of the economy; federal, state and local government
agencies; emergency planners and other interested parties. The
Committee invites participants ;.o prepare written testimony to be
presented at the hearings.
The hearings will be conducted informally. To the extent
possible, hearing participants will have the opportunity to
respond to one another's presentations. Expert witnesses in
several subject areas will also make presentations.
The Committee may hold additional hearings on topics other than
those listed .:n Part IV of this notice. The Committee also
anticipates holding at least one hearing on the draft Biennial
Fuels Report prior to adoption by the full Commission.
III. TENTATIVE HEARING TOPICS SCHEDULE
i. Topic: Natural Gas Supply and Price Outlook
Location: Los Angeles, California
Date: May 28 - 29, 1987
California utilities currently obtai^ natural gas from
three principal geographical areas: Southwestern U.S.,
Canada, and California. Because of resource depletion in
the traditional Southwestern U.S. and California supply
areas, California may have to look to other areas to meet
future needs.
The hearing will investigate these topics:
a) The long-term perspective on gas supply and price
from domestic and foreign sources, with a specific
emphasis upon California Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), Rocky Mountain, Gulf Coast and Canadian supply
regions.
b) Long-term transportation rates for natural gas
pipelines that might bring gas to California.
C) Federal Income Tax Reform Act changes applicable to
the natural gas industry and the impact of these
changes upon exploraticn, development and production
of new and existing natural gas reserves.
2. Topic: The Impact of Increased U.S. Oil Imports on
California's Vulnerability and Security
Location: Sacramento, California
Date: June 8, 1987
Recent national stadies, as well as CEC analysis, PIO pct
that imported oil caill constitute a growing share of U.S.
energy supplies. The increased naticnal dependence on
imported oil has renewed concern _-eg aiding u.S. energy
vulnerability and national security. Many experts
recommend that concerted act -.on be undertaken to reduce
U.S. reliance on oil imports.
The hearing will invest' -gate these topics:
a) The expected chancres in world oil trade as they
relate to the ,security of supplies. Relevant
considerations are the projected rate of growth in
imports given expected levels of oil prices and the
share of world oil production to be supplied by
members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (oPEC). Also of interest to the Commission
will be the importance of supply from those countries
bordering on the Persian Gulf.
b) .he likelihood oit possible disruption scen<Lrios and
:he relative magnitude of the accoynan;:,ig losses of
petroleum supply.
c) The_eypected impacts of an oil supply disruption on
both California and the nation as a whole.
d) Actions that could be taken to reduce vulnerability
to oil supply disruptions. Appropriate measures
include those taken in advance to reduce the
likelihood and possible severity of a disruption as
well as courses of action to take during an actual
supply shortfall.
3. Topic: Petroleum and Natural Gas Price Forecasts
Location: Sacramento, California
Date: June 9, 1987
Staff will present its proposed 20 -year crude oil price
forecast. The hearing will also consider the relationship
between oil and natural gas prices and methodologies for
determining natural gas end-use prices. The Committee
`r•.ites comments and alternative forecasts from the oil
?ndustry and other interested parties.
4. Topic: Gas Competition in California
Location: Bakersfield, California
Date: June 16, 1987
Major changes in the structure and operation of natural
gas markets have occurred in recent years, with
accompanying changes in California and federal government
regulations of the gas industry. The Committee wishes to
mN;n1nrP the imniications of these changes for the optimal
balance between gas regulation and reliance on competitive
market forces.
The Committee is interested in the following craest-ons:
a) How has the balance between regulation and
competition changed in recent years and how might it
change further?
b) What potential problems and opportunities might
confront energy policy makers in the future?
C) In what areas might additional potential exist for
allowing competitive market forces to reduce the need
for detailed regulatory prescription?
5. Topic: Potential for Methanol Use in California and its
' pact on Air Quality
Location: Los Angeles, California
Date: June 17, 1987
The Energy Commission has identified that tae development
of methanol as an alternative transportation fuel offers a
potential means for reducing the state's long -run
dependence on petroleum. Methanol can draw on a wide
range of fuel stocks including coal, car. be competitive
with. oil if oil prices- rise signif icant.iy, and provides
benefits to air quality.
The hearing will investigate these topics:
a) Methanol as a substitute fuel for petroleum in mobil
and stationary sources.
b) Methanol's ability to improve air quality.
C) Methanol supply sources at the state, national and
international level.
d) Potential demand for methanol.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATED TO HEARING NOTICES
An additional notice for each hearing specifying time, locations
and a more detailed list of issues to be addressed will be
distributed at a later date.
For further information on how to participate in these
proceedings, contact Christopher Heard of the Commission's Public
Adviser's Office at (916) 324-3009 or toll free at (800) 822-
6228.
Questions of a legal or procedural nature should be addressed. to
John Chandley, Counsel, at (1916) 324-3256 Technical questions
should be directed to Dennis Eoff, the Project Manager, at (916)
324-3193.
Date
RAB:BC:TG:jg
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RICHARD A. BILAS, Commissioner
and Presiding Committee Member,
Fuels Planning Committee
S
BARBARA CROWLEY, vice Chair
and Second Committee Member
Fuels Planning Committee_ -
GEORGE DEUKME11AN. Cc erncr
STATE OF CALIF%-_WN1A--THE RESOURCES AGENCY -
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 NINTH STREET ?t
SACRAMENTO. CALWORNiA 458-14
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -
Energy Resources Conservation RK
and Development Commission
In the matter of: } Hearing Notice
} and
} Committee Order
1987 Biennial Fuels Report } Docket 87 -BFR -1
NOTICE OF
NATURAL GAS SUPPLY AND PRICE OUTLOOK
HEARING
As indicated in the INITIAL NOTICE OF BIENNIPL FUELS REPORT
HEARINGS, the Fuels Planning Committee compL-ise3 of, Commissioner
Bilas, Presiding Member, and ice Chair consider theard outlookwfortnatural
Member, will hold a hearing to
The hearing will be held:
gas supplies and prices.
Thursday and Friday, May 28 and 29, 1987
10 a.m. - 5 p.m.
California Museum of Science and Industry
700 State Drive, Exposition Park
Los Angeles, California
The purpose of this hearing is to take testimony and comments on
the long-term prospect for natural gas supplies and prices from
domestic avid foreign sources, long-term transportation rates for
natural gas pipelines serving California, and Federal Income Tax
Reform Act changes applicable to the natural gas industry.
Natural Gas Supplies and Price
California utilities currently obtain natural gas from three
principal geographical areas: Southwestern U.S., Canada, and
California. Because of resource depletion in the traditional
Southwestern U.S. and California supply areas, California may
have to look to other areas to meet future needs.
Expert witnesses will present testimony covering natural gas
supply and price forecasts for four areas from which additional
supplies may be obtained: California offshore, Gulf Coast, Rocky
Mountains and Canada. These witnesses will assess gas supply at
various price levels, discuss possible constraints to resource
development, and assess potential gas availability to California
from their respective study areas.
r
The Committee requests Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern
California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company to
provide written and oral testimony on their respective gap supply
and price forecasts. This testimony should discuss the basic
assumptions and concepts underlying their forecasts and
assignment of supplies to core and noncore supply portfolios.
The Committee also requests pipeline companies currently
supplying the California market to provide testimony on their
understanding of potential resources available to thew and their
tong -range gas supply and price forecasts from traditional and
new supply areas for California. The Committee is especially
interested in understanding how the pipeline companies perceive
their emerging roles as raerchants and transporters and how this
might affect long-range supply and price. Potential new
suppliers of gas and others with a knowledge of traditional and
potential new sources of supply are invited to present their
forecasts and concepts.
Natural Gas_Transportation
Under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 436, interstate
pipelines have the option to open their pipelines to
nondiscriminatory transportation. The three pipelines directly
serving California have accepted the FERC Order 43o and are in
various stages of implementation. In addition, the CPUC has
provides procedures for California gas utilities to transport gas
for others.
Nondiscriminatory transportation may allow California to obtain
supplies from east Texas, Louisiana or the Gulf Coast, areas that
were heretofore inaccessible because of regulatory constraints.
The Committee invites testimony on whether this will occur and,
i�L s-3, to what extent this would improve California's ability to
obtzAn adequate gas supplies in the long term.
An expert witness will provide testimony on interstate
transportation. The witness will examine current transportation
rates to bring supplies to California from the four areas studied
by staff's supply witilesses. Further, the transportation witness
will comment on the various pressures and influences which may
cause a change in transportation ratas ov::r the :text 20 years.
Several utilities, pipelines, producers and end-users have
participated in the formulation of ;he federal and state
transportation regulations and are currently using, attempting to
implement or have interest in developing transportation. programs.
The Committee invites comments from these and other interested
parties on the progress and lessons learned in developing and
implementing transportation programs. ,
Federal Tax Reform Act of 196
During 1986, new federal income tax legislation was enacted which
directly affects natural gas producers, pipelines and utilities.
The committee wishes to better understand how the new federal tax
laws will affect the operations of various components of the gas
industry. Gas utilities, pipelines and producers are requested
to provide the results of their analyses and insights on the long
term effects of tax legislation on supply and price.
An expert witness will provide an overview of the federal income
tax law changes on the natural gas industry. The testimony will
include such items as reduced income tax rates, repeal of
investment credits, changes in depreciation timing, and repeal of
special treatment on capital gains. Testimony will also include
the results of a financial analysis to determine the effects of
the new tax laws on a hypothetical company involved in
exploration, development and production.
General Information
The Committee will receive both written and oral testimony on
issues concerning this hearing, including staff sponsored
testimony. Written testimony (12 copies) may be delivered to the
Commission up to the. close of business on June 5, 1987.
Testimony should be submitted to:
California Energy Commission
Docket No. 87 -BFR -1
1516 Ninth Street, MS 4
Sacramento, CA 95814
If viewgraphs, charts, maps, slides, etc. are to be used in
presentations, please make hard copies available at the time of
presentation. As a courtesy to other hearing participants, we
request that extra copies of the testimony be made available at
the hearing.
Hearings will be conducted using legislative style procedures.
Witnesses will not be sworn or cross-examined, although the
Committee and staff may ask questions relating to the hearing
topic. For further information on how to participate in the
CEC's proceedings, please call Christophe,. Heard, the
Commission's Public Advisor, at (916) 324-3009 or toll free at
(800) 822-6228.
It is not required but it would be helpful if prospective
witnesses would notify Dale Bosi3y, Fossil Fuels office (916)
324-318s•by This 1w i198
hef ofheassistanceo inoschedu ing ewitness
hearing
presentations.
Questions of a legal or procedural nature should be addressed to
John Chandley, Counsel, at (916) 324-3256. For further
information on the hearing, or for a copy of staff sponsored
expert witness testimony, please contact Dale Bosley, Fossil
Fuels Assessment Office, {916} 324-3183 nr by mail at:
California Energy Commission
Assessments Division
1516 Ninth Street, MS 23
Sacramento, CA 95814 .
Date
RAB:BC:BW:jg
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RICHARD A. BILAS, Commissioner
and Presiding Committee Member,
Fuels Planning Committee
BARBARA CROcommitteeMember,
LEYVice Cha
and Second
Fuels Planning Committee
{
A
CI�"''iG CrA �N17TRIt� C�?v: TDnFPAN
April 23, 1981
T0. TfeGeneraloServicesrnia CountyoandyCityeofficDepartment
State officials:
0
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1PGandE) filed Application No-
on April 21, 1987 with the Calif arniasbbvc$21012tmillionmandlto modif�tsng
authority to increase its electric rate
its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause (ECAC) and Annual Energy Rate (AER) tariff
provisions effective August 1, 1987• In the alternative, PGandE requests
an increase of $216 million in electric rates.
In this proceeding, PGandE Proposes to modify its electric make
tariffs er
- Rate (AER) percentage to :zero ,;and to make 100 percent
reduce the Annual Energy expense subject t. Energy Cost Adjustment Clause -
of its fuel and energy related exp
(ECAC) and Energy Cost Balance Account (ECBA) treatment, effective August
poseslto
1987. If the requested modifications are approved, PGandE further prop
forgo the ECAC and the AER changes normally scheduled for August 1, 1987. Under
the only change to its electric revenues in this case would
bea$PGandE's proposal,
be a $210.2 million increase under the EleRAM increaseic eiseneededtment becausecofnism
changes
(ERAM) effective August 1, esti he ERAIti
in PGandE's electric sales esteidedslastsince
Becember�Pre last sec in PGandE's last
General Rate Case which was de
PGandE is proposing that if the
's ECAC and AER
Alternatively, in ApplicationNo. 87-04-035,
CPUC does not adopt the requested modifications to the Company
tariff provisions, PGandE would increase electric rates by $216 million of ec-
increase
r
tive August 1, 1987. That increase is composed of a $210r.2o i llioGandE�pr°P°Sete
and a $5.8 million AER increase1987nratethis
adjustmentalternate
andpinstead allow ECAC costs
to forgo the regular August 1. Company's next
to continue to flow into the
ECBAfor future rate recovery in the Compan,
regularly scheduled ECAC proceeding.
If the CPUC were to adopt PGandE's alternative proposal, the ERAM/AEF. rate
adjustment of $216 million would increase PGandE's electric revenues by approx-
G.4 per above the level in effect on April 21, 1987. The requested
imately p amount would increase PGandE's elec-
rate adjustment for the 210.2 million ERAM
tric revenues by a slightly lower percentage.
oposal to modify
the ECAC/AER provisions of its electric tariffs
PGandE's prscheduled for
and to forgo the ECAC and possibly AER rate changes normally
Au ust 1 1987 are due to the great. uncertainty surrounding the CPUC's gas in -
87 -04-040 filed April 20, 1987) and the
g
dustry restructuring Application No. as (L'EG) rates could have on
large impact the restructuring of electric utility g
ECAC and AER revenue requirements- It is not mown whether or hot: the CPUC- will
decide those -issues. Given the current schedule in that proceeding, the gas
rd restructuring issues probably will not be resolved until the 1987 ECI.0/AER=
ERAM forecast period has begun and the CPUC has issued its decision cn this
Application. Therefore, PGandE proposes to handle the procedural and revenue
requirementom the deferathelAugusttl,ough 1987the above
energ
procost
proposals
related changes.
The state, counties, and municipal corporations, and other interested
parties in the above mentioned filing will be furnished a copyof Application
it, upon
No 87-0X_035 and rlate7442, SaneFrancisco,bCalifornia r94120. Attention: Shirleyn
itten renes'- made to adE at
P. 0. Bo A. Woo.
This Notice is given in ac--ordance with the requirements of the California
Public Utilities Commission.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
(Case 1) we project that, beginning October 1, 1987, our gas
revenues would have to increase by approximately 5210-'
million (9.2%) on an annualized basis. This projection
includes an assumption that sales will decrease over current
levels.
In contrast to Case 1, we have requested that we be
allowed to negotiate transport rates with larger commercial
and industrial customers at higher rates than currently
permitted. Eased upon this proposal, (Case 2) we have asked
that, beginning October 1, 1987, we be allowed to increase
gas revenues by approximately (109 million (4.4%) on an
annualized basis.
A third case assumes that the current transporta-
tion rate ceiling will remain in effect and that we would
negotiate some transportation rtes at a price below the CPUC
established ceiling. if this were to occur, we are
projecting a total increase of $97.9 million (3.9%) on an
annualized basis.
PGandE is filing this Application in response to
CPUC decisions directing that rates and services to larger
commercial and industrial gas customers be separated into
transportation and gas purchasing. These customers would be
permitted to secure their own gas supply and pay PGandE a
transport charge. This charge would, within limits set by
the CPUC, be subject :.o negotiation.
-2-
1-71A-0IY10 C� S A-1,TE) 7T,El0 rRIC C�0' �T-'7-
PGTA!CK G. GO�GEN
April 27, 1987
TO: THE STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS
AND INTERESTED PARTIES
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PGandE) has
filed Application No. 87-04-040 in which it requests the
CALIFORNi., PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (Commission or CPUC)
to approve an increase in gas rates for residential customers
and a decrease in rates for small and medium commercial
customers. Rates for larger commercial customers and for
industrial customers will be, in part, subject to
negotiation; some of these rates may decrease and others may
increase. PGandE is proposing that these rates become
effective October 1, 1987. The effective date of these
proposed rates is dependent upon final Commission action in
this proceeding. This Application supersedes Application No.
87-01-032.
In a recent decision, the CPUC has set a ceiling on
the maximum rate which gas utilities may charge larger
commercial ar.d industrial customers for providing gas trans-
portation service. If this ceiling price is maintained, and
we do not negotiate any rates lower than the ceiling rate,.
-1-
The requested increase is primarily a result of
three tactors. These inclarge undercollection in
the
{1} a g
the June estimated Gas cost Balancing Account; and (2) a
forecasted decline in deliveries and associated revenues.
These factors are partially offset by a third factor, a
decline in the cost of gas from Spring 1986 prices, resulting
in a net $109 million increase.
If Case 1 is adopted, a typical residential
customer using 30 therms per month in summer months and 100
therms per month during winter months will see a monthly gas
bill increase in 1987 of $;.06, from $14.42 to $17.48 per
summer month and $8.71, from $41.10 to $49.81 per winter
month.
If Case 2 is adopted, the same customer will see a
monthly gas bill increase in 1987 of $2.42, from $14.42 to
$16.84, per summer month and, $6.88, from $41.10 to $47.98,
per winter month.
If Case 3 is adopted, this customer's gas bill will
increase by $2.31 from $14.42 to $16.73 and the winter bill
will increase by $6.58 from $41.10 to $47.68.
PGandE anticipates that the Commission will hold
hearings on the proposals in May, 1987. Parties at the
hearings may offer proposals to the Commission which differ
from those requested by the Utility. After considering all
proposals presented during the formal hearing process, the
Commission will issue a Decision. The actual rates adopted
=Z
by the Commission may significantly differ from those
requested by the utility, and may result -n an increase or
decrease in your individual rates.
If you wish to participate formally and need
advice, or if you wish copies of Public Staff Division's rate
proposals, please write to the Public Advisor, California
Public utilities Commission at 505 Van Ness Avenue, San
Francisco, California 94102.
A copy of the Application and related exhibits may
be examined at the office of the California Public Utilities
Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California
94102; at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street,
Room 3121, San Francisco, California 94106; or c/o Regional
vice Presidents in PGandE's Regional headquarters in Fresno,
Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San ,Tose and Santa Rosa.
This Notice is given in accordance with Rule 24of
the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public
Utilities Commission.
April 27, 1987
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
at
P TRICK G. GOLDEN