Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. SJW GROUP (766829) 10-Q published on Apr 26, 2019 at 2:40 pm
Reporting Period: Mar 30, 2019
On September 14, 2018, the CPUC issued OII No. 18-09-003 to which San Jose Water Company was named as Respondent. The OII will determine whether the company unlawfully overcharged customers over a 30-year period by failing to pro-rate service charges when increases occurred during a billing period, and whether the company double-billed service charges during one billing period when allegedly switching from billing such charges in advance to billing in arrears. The OII resulted from a report by the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (“CPED”), dated August 16, 2018, recommending an investigation into San Jose Water Company’s billing practice. CPED calculated a refund obligation of approximately $2,061 for the years 2014 to 2016 that had been the subject of San Jose Water Company’s Advice Letter 510. CPED calculated a further refund obligation of approximately $1,990 for the years 1987 to 2013. CPED also asserted that the company double-billed its customers during a billing period when it allegedly converted from billing in advance to billing in arrears, assumed that such double-billing occurred in January 2011, and calculated a refund obligation of approximately $4,935. The OII notes these estimates and identifies the proper refund amount as an issue in the proceeding. The OII also identifies the CPUC’s authority to consider imposing penalties on San Jose Water Company in amounts ranging from five hundred dollars to fifty thousand dollars per offense, per day. San Jose Water Company continues to cooperate with the CPUC to resolve these issues. On October 15, 2018, San Jose Water Company filed a response to the OII with the CPUC, in which the company stated that it believes it would not be appropriate for the Commission to require refunds extending prior to June 2011, that no double billing has occurred and that no penalties should be imposed on the company. The company believed its potential loss was limited to the refund amount agreed to in the partial GRC settlement of $2,020. Such amount will be refunded to customers through Advice Letter No. 530 which was effective February 8, 2019. A prehearing conference on the matter was concluded on January 7, 2019, and a scoping memorandum outlining the remaining part of the proceeding scheduled was issued on February 11, 2019. The scoping memorandum outlined the following issues to be determined: (1) Did San Jose Water Company overbill its customers for water service during the period from January 1987 to June 2011, (2) If San Jose Water Company overbilled its customers during the above period, should the Commission fine San Jose Water Company or impose some other form of penalty on it, and (3) Is this action subject to any statute of limitations including, but not limited to, Section 736 of the Public Utilities Code. On March 8, 2019, the assigned CPUC commissioner issued a scoping ruling in the OII confirming the scope determined at the prehearing conference. On March 18, 2019, witnesses for CPED and for the customer group Water Rate Advocates for Transparency, Equity, and Sustainability (“WRATES”) submitted testimony in the OII. The CPED witness updated their refund calculation to approximately $1,847 for the years 1987 to 2011. The WRATES witnesses supported refunds both for those years and for the alleged double-billing but did not propose specific refund amounts. Both CPED and WRATES witnesses supported imposition of a penalty. San Jose Water Company submitted its rebuttal testimony on April 8, 2019. The CPUC is expected to issue a final decision in the matter in September of 2019. San Jose Water Company is unable to determine an estimate of additional refunds that may be required or loss that may be incurred at this time, if any.
In support of the new application, SJW Group has made certain regulatory commitments, which are subject to PURA approval, that are designed to demonstrate that the Merger is in the public interest, including many which go beyond those included in the previous application. In this regard, the new application includes a commitment for CTWS’s Connecticut utilities not to file a general rate case for new base rates to become effective prior to January 1, 2021, as well as providing a one-year bill credit for
customers. In addition, SJW Group has committed that CTWS’s Connecticut utilities will not seek recovery in rates, of the merger premium or other costs incurred in connection with the Merger. With respect to employees, the new application provides that there will be no layoffs as a result of the merger and that, for at least three years following completion of the Merger, CTWS’s Connecticut utilities will maintain their current combined staffing levels. To enhance the independence and local control of CTWS and its Connecticut utilities, the new application provides that each of their boards of directors will have a majority of independent directors and a majority of directors who reside in New England. SJW Group has also committed to certain “ring-fencing” measures to enhance CTWS’s separateness from SJW Group and to mitigate the risk that CTWS would be negatively impacted in the event of a bankruptcy or other adverse financial developments affecting SJW Group or its affiliates, including the creation of a special purpose entity to hold SJW Group’s interest in CTWS. In addition, the new application provides that CTWS and its Connecticut utilities will be subject to a limitation on dividends in the event of certain credit rating downgrades or if payment of a dividend could result in CTWS being unable to maintain its weighted average consolidated equity ratio at or above a specified minimum. Additional commitments cover maintenance of Connecticut Water’s headquarters in Connecticut, environmental measures, operational matters, customer service and additional measures to support local control.
On March 28, 2019, San Jose Water Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement (the “Note Purchase Agreement”) with certain affiliates of MetLife, Inc., Brighthouse Financial, Inc. and New York Life Insurance (collectively the “Purchasers”), pursuant to which the company sold an aggregate principal amount of $80,000 of its 4.29% Senior Notes, Series M (the “Notes”) to the Purchasers. The Notes are unsecured obligations of San Jose Water Company, due on April 1, 2049. Interest is payable semi-annually in arrears on April 1st and October 1st of each year. The Note Purchase Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants for as long as the Notes are outstanding. The Notes are also subject to customary events of default, the occurrence of which may result in all of the Notes then outstanding becoming immediately due and payable. The closing occurred simultaneously with the signing of the Note Purchase Agreement. As of March 31, 2019, San Jose Water Company was in compliance with all such covenants.
Pursuant to the agreements related to the Merger and commitments made by SJW Group as part of the application for PURA approval of the Merger, SJW Group has committed to certain “ring-fencing” measures to enhance CTWS’s separateness from SJW Group and to mitigate the risk that CTWS would be negatively impacted in the event of a bankruptcy or other adverse financial developments affecting SJW Group or its non-ring-fenced affiliates. These commitments may change as a result of further development of the PURA proceeding and would become effective upon the closing of the Merger.
In order to satisfy the ring-fencing commitments, SJW Group will form a wholly-owned special purpose entity (“SPE”) to own the capital stock of CTWS, and the SPE, CTWS and their subsidiaries (collectively, the “CTWS Entities”) will adopt certain measures designed to enhance their separateness from SJW Group, with the intention of mitigating the effects on the CTWS Entities of any bankruptcy of SJW Group and its affiliates other than the CTWS Entities (collectively, the “Non-CTWS Entities”). As a result of these ring-fencing measures, in certain situations, SJW Group will be restricted in its ability to access assets of the CTWS Entities as dividends or intracompany loans to satisfy the debt or contractual obligations of any Non-CTWS Entity, including any indebtedness or other contractual obligations of SJW Group. In addition, the ring-fencing structure may negatively impact SJW Group’s ability to achieve certain benefits, including synergies and economies of scale to reduce operating costs of the combined entity, that it anticipates to result from the Merger.
This ring-fenced structure would also subject SJW Group and the CTWS Entities to certain governance, operational and financial restrictions following the closing of the Merger. Accordingly, SJW Group will be restricted in its ability to direct the management, policies and operations of the CTWS Entities, including the deployment or disposition of their respective assets, declarations of dividends, strategic planning and other important corporate issues. Further, the CTWS Entities’ directors will have considerable autonomy and, as described in our commitments, have a duty to act in the best interest of the CTWS Entities consistent with the ring-fencing structure and applicable law, which may be contrary to SJW Group’s best interests or be in opposition to SJW Group’s preferred strategic direction for the CTWS Entities. To the extent they take actions that are not in SJW Group’s interests, the financial condition, results of operations and prospects of the combined company may be materially adversely affected.