W-02023A-25-0087

A timeline of key events and submissions in the Joshua Valley Utility Company rate case proceeding includes:

- August 31, 2016: The previous rate adjustment went into effect; these rates remained unchanged until the current application 1, 1.
- December 31, 2024: End of the test year used for financial and operational data in the rate application 1, 2, 1.
- April 25, 2025: The rate application, including attachments and supporting documentation, was electronically filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) 2, 2.
- April 25, 2025: Property tax schedules and miscellaneous expenses, including privileged legal invoices (available for ACC staff review), were also submitted as part of the filing 2, 2.
- [Pending]: Customer notification of the rate adjustment application was scheduled, with a notarized cover letter and notice method to be attached to the record. The exact date of notification is to be provided in future filings 2.
- Upon customer notification: Customers are given 15 days from receipt of notice to submit comments or concerns to the ACC for consideration 1, 1.
- Docket No. W-02023A-25-0087: The application is available for public inspection online and at specified physical locations. All filings and public comments are added to the docket for review by commission staff before a decision is made. The ACC may decide on the application with or without a formal hearing 1, 1, 2.

This timeline summarizes the main procedural steps and scheduled events to date in the proceeding.

Docket No. W-02023A-25-0087 concerns the Joshua Valley Utility Company's application to the Arizona Corporation Commission for a significant rate increase for its water division. The company claims the increase is necessary due to rising operating expenses, system repairs, and improvements, noting that current rates have been in effect since August 31, 2016. According to unaudited test year results, the company reported an operating loss of $125,770 and is requesting a revenue increase of $308,773, equating to a 73% increase in total revenues. The application proposes to include approximately $290,000 of post-test year plant and seeks to recover rate case expenses via a customer surcharge. Public comments indicate strong opposition, especially among fixed-income retirees, citing concerns over affordability and the size of the increase—approximately doubling water bills for some customers. The Commission's staff report is expected by August 6, 2025, with a final decision anticipated by November 19, 2025 1 2 3.

The financial and timeline risks and concerns discussed in this docket regarding Joshua Valley Utility Company's requested rate adjustment include:

Financial Risks and Concerns:
- The company is operating at an operating loss of $125,770 for the unaudited test year and is requesting a revenue increase of $308,773, or 73% of total revenues, which will significantly impact customers’ bills 1, 1.
- The request is based on unaudited test year results, leading to concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the financial picture presented. At least one customer (a retired auditor) specifically questioned the lack of audited financials and opposed the increase, stating it would double their bill 2.
- Several customers on fixed incomes, particularly retirees, expressed that a dramatic rate increase would cause hardship and be a financial burden 3, 4, 5, 2.
- Customers also raised concerns about company spending decisions, such as the installation of an expensive generator project, and questioned whether such expenditures were necessary or prudent, especially when emergency backup power was already available from the electric utility 6.
- The company cites rising operational costs, a 96% increase in the potable water industry producer price index since 2014, increased water treatment costs, and the need for system repairs and improvements as reasons for the requested adjustment 7, 7.
- There are proposals for new surcharges to recover rate case expenses and plans to include about $290,000 of post-test year plant improvements in the rate base 7, 7.
- There is little anticipated customer growth, meaning cost increases will be borne by the current customer base without significant offset from expanding revenues 7, 7.

Timeline Risks and Concerns:
- Customers are advised to submit comments or intervene within 15 days of notice receipt to ensure their concerns are considered in the commission’s recommendations 1, 1.
- The commission may act on the application without a hearing, which could shorten the window for customer input or challenge 1, 1.
- All filings and decisions are available online, usually within 24 hours of docketing, but those who do not intervene may not receive further direct notice about proceedings unless they sign up to follow the docket, potentially missing key developments or opportunities to provide input 1, 1.

In summary, the main financial risks involve a large proposed rate increase, potential hardships for fixed-income customers, and questions about the necessity of some expenditures. Timeline concerns center on short deadlines for customer participation and the possibility of decisions being made without a public hearing.

The docket for Joshua Valley Utility Company identifies the following areas of growth and related key considerations:

1. Customer Base Growth:
- The customer base has increased by about 90 customers since the last test year (ended December 31, 2011).
- However, the company does not anticipate significant customer growth over the next several years, indicating limited expected expansion in service population in the near future 1, 1.

2. System and Infrastructure Improvements:
- The company is improving tanks, installing meters, and making other system improvements.
- These improvements are driven by the need to address aging infrastructure, meet regulatory requirements, and enhance service reliability.
- The company is proposing to include approximately $290,000 of post-test year plant additions, reflecting investment in the system after the test year to support ongoing operations and improvements 1, 1.

3. Rate Adjustment Considerations:
- The company is operating on rates authorized from a test year ending December 2014, which are now substantially lower than typical rates for similar water companies.
- Since 2014, the potable water industry producer price index has increased 96%, and the cost of water treatment has risen significantly.
- The company proposes a revenue increase to address these higher operating expenses and to finance system repairs and improvements 1, 2.

Key considerations related to these growth areas include:
- Financing of anticipated construction and system improvements.
- Regulatory approval of rate adjustments to support infrastructure investment.
- Impact on a largely fixed-income, retirement community customer base, which has expressed concern over the magnitude of proposed rate increases 3, 4, 3, 5.
- Ongoing efforts to promote water conservation through rate design (e.g., inverted tier rates) 1, 1.

The main stakeholders in this docket (Arizona Corporation Commission Docket No. W-02023A-25-0087 regarding Joshua Valley Utility Company’s application for a rate increase) are:

- Joshua Valley Utility Company: The applicant, seeking approval for a rate increase. The company is requesting a revenue increase of $308,773 (73% of total revenues) due to operating losses and the need for system repairs and improvements 1, 1.

- Arizona Corporation Commission: The regulatory body reviewing the application and considering customer input and other evidence before making a decision 1, 1, 1.

- Customers/Residents (mainly in Meadview, AZ): Several customers have filed official comments opposing the proposed rate increase. Their positions are as follows:
- Cheryl Rae: Opposed; argues the proposed increase is excessive and harmful to the low-income, retirement community and claims Joshua Valley Utility already charges high rates 2.
- Brian Kolvenbach: Opposed; states the increase would cause financial hardship, especially as he is on a fixed income 3, 3.
- Another resident (name not specified): Opposed; objects to the scale of the increase, suggests prior management was profitable with more employees, questions the necessity of expensive projects, and claims the increases are extreme for a retirement community 4.

There is no evidence in the excerpts of any customers or other stakeholders explicitly supporting the proposed rate increase. The company's position is in favor of the increase, while documented customer input is uniformly opposed. The Arizona Corporation Commission remains neutral as the decision-making authority.