Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC previews rate proposal: staff plans revenue increases to fund WESIP and capital projects
Summary
Staff previewed a rate proposal to be formally considered on May 8 that would increase revenues to fund WESIP and other capital needs (staff cited a roughly 15% overall water revenue increase and 9% for wastewater across the coming fiscal years) and described a conservation-focused tiered structure and reduced fixed monthly service charge for single-family customers.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff told the commission on April 18 that a formal rate proposal would be before the commission on May 8 to support the Water System Improvement Program (WESIP) and other capital programs.
Scott McDonald, assistant general manager for business services, said staff is proposing increases in customer revenues to fund capital work: staff estimated roughly 15% additional revenue for water and 9% for wastewater across the coming fiscal years to meet capital obligations and the five‑year capital improvement program. Staff said the goal is to preserve affordability and promote conservation: the proposal includes a tiered conservation rate structure for single-family residential customers, maintains a uniform rate for most nonresidential classes and proposes a lower monthly fixed service charge to move to volume-based pricing.
Staff also said 88% of current customers fall into the first two tiers under the proposed structure and that the proposal will include a wastewater capacity charge (staff cited an updated calculation that reduced a previously published estimate). McDonald said the staff will finalize the rate report after the Rate Fairness Board hearing and bring the formal proposal to the commission for consideration on May 8.
Commissioners asked about equity and compliance with court-ordered mandates (transcript referenced a court mandate and cost-allocation methodology). Staff said they had a cost-allocation approach that allocates costs to those who should pay them and that further discussion on affordability and low-income support would continue at subsequent public meetings.
No formal vote on the rate proposal occurred at this meeting; staff committed to provide the full rate report to commissioners and to participate in the Rate Fairness Board hearing scheduled before the May 8 commission meeting.
