Form 10-Q
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
x
|
Quarterly report pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 or
|
|
|
o
|
Transition report pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the transition period from _________ to ___________
|
Commission file
number
|
333-47647
|
|
|
American States Water Company
|
|
(Exact Name of Registrant
as Specified in Its Charter)
|
California
|
|
95-4676679
|
|
|
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
|
630 East Foothill Boulevard, San Dimas
|
|
91773
|
|
|
|
(Address of
Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
(Zip Code)
|
(909) 394-3600
|
|
(Registrants
Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
|
Not Applicable
|
|
(Former Name,
Former Address and Former Fiscal Year, if Changed Since Last Report)
|
Commission file
number
|
000-01121
|
|
|
Southern California Water Company
|
|
(Exact Name of Registrant
as Specified in Its Charter)
|
California
|
|
95-1243678
|
|
|
|
(State or
Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
|
630 East Foothill
Boulevard, San Dimas
|
|
91773
|
|
|
|
(Address of
Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
(Zip Code)
|
(909) 394-3600
|
|
(Registrants
Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
|
Not Applicable
|
|
(Former Name,
Former Address and Former Fiscal Year, if Changed Since Last Report)
|
Indicate by check mark whether Registrant
(1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
|
American States
Water Company
|
Yes
x
No
o
|
|
Southern
California Water Company
|
Yes
x
No
o
|
As of November 8, 2002, the number of Common
Shares outstanding, no par value with stated value of $2.50, of American States
Water Company was 15,167,149 shares.
As of November 8, 2002, all of the 110 outstanding
Common Shares of Southern California Water Company were owned by American States
Water Company.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMERICAN STATES WATER
COMPANY
and
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
FORM 10-Q
INDEX
|
|
Page No.
|
|
|
|
Part
I
|
Financial
Information
|
|
|
|
Item 1:
|
Financial
Statements
|
|
1
|
|
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets of American States Water Company as of September
30, 2002 and December 31, 2001
|
|
2-3
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of American States Water Company for the Three Months
Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
4
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of American States Water Company for the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
5
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of American States Water Company for the Twelve
Months Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
6
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flow of American States Water Company for the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
7
|
|
|
Consolidated
Balance Sheets of Southern California Water Company as of September
30, 2002 and December 31, 2001
|
|
8-9
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of Southern California Water Company for the Three Months
Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
10
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of Southern California Water Company for the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
11
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Income of Southern California Water Company for the Twelve
Months Ended September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
|
|
12
|
|
|
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flow of Southern California Water Company for the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2002 September 30, 2001
|
|
13
|
|
|
Notes to
Financial Statements
|
|
14-18
|
|
Item 2:
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operation
|
|
19-42
|
|
Item 3:
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks
|
|
43
|
|
Item 4.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
|
43
|
|
Part
II
|
Other
Information
|
|
|
|
Item 1:
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
43-45
|
|
Item 2:
|
Changes
in Securities
|
|
45-46
|
|
Item 3:
|
Defaults
Upon Senior Securities
|
|
46
|
|
Item 4:
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
|
46
|
|
Item 5:
|
Other Information
|
|
46
|
|
Item 6:
|
Exhibits
and Reports on Form 8-K
|
|
47
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
48
|
|
|
Certifications
|
|
49-50
|
|
i
PART I
Item 1. Financial Statements
General
The basic financial statements included
herein have been prepared by Registrant, without audit, pursuant to the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Certain information and footnote disclosures
normally included in financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such
rules and regulations, although Registrant believes that the disclosures are adequate
to make the information presented not misleading. In the opinion of management,
all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of results for the interim period
have been made.
It is suggested that these financial statements
be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto in the latest
Annual Report on Form 10-K of American States Water Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Southern California Water Company.
Filing Format
This quarterly report on Form 10-Q is a combined
report being filed by two separate Registrants: American States Water Company (hereinafter
AWR) and Southern California Water Company (hereinafter SCW).
For more information, please see Note 1 to the Notes to Financial Statements
and the heading entitled General in Item 2 - Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation. References in
this report to Registrant are to AWR and SCW, collectively unless otherwise
specified. SCW makes no representations as to the information contained in this
report relating to AWR and its subsidiaries, other than SCW.
1
AMERICAN STATES
WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
|
September 30, 2002
|
|
December 31, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Utility Plant, at cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
$
|
684,248
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
645,185
|
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
39,136
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
723,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
683,710
|
|
|
Less - Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(204,955
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
(190,656
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
518,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
493,054
|
|
|
Construction work in progress
|
|
|
39,964
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,788
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
558,393
|
|
|
|
|
|
539,842
|
|
|
Other Property and Investments
|
|
|
24,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
11,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,496
|
|
|
Accounts receivable-Customers, less reserves
of $1,035 in 2002; $972 in 2001
|
|
|
14,106
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,557
|
|
|
Other accounts receivable
|
|
|
5,676
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,306
|
|
|
Unbilled revenue
|
|
|
15,223
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,141
|
|
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost
|
|
|
1,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
970
|
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts - current
|
|
|
5,486
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,333
|
|
|
Prepayments and other
|
|
|
2,035
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,493
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
65,296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Charges and Other Long-Term Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory tax-related assets
|
|
|
14,510
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,843
|
|
|
Other deferred charges
|
|
|
20,211
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,186
|
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
|
25,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,493
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,068
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,522
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$
|
697,758
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
683,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes
are an integral part of these financial statements
2
AMERICAN STATES
WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
CAPITALIZATION AND
LIABILITIES
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
|
September 30, 2002
|
|
December 31, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
208,095
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
199,982
|
|
|
Preferred shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
|
Preferred shares subject to mandatory
redemption requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
245,190
|
|
|
|
|
|
245,692
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
453,285
|
|
|
|
|
|
447,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable to banks
|
|
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
Long-term debt and preferred
shares due within one year
|
|
|
760
|
|
|
|
|
|
800
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
18,139
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,931
|
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
7,074
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,389
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
5,023
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
Reserves for potential disallowance
of power costs
|
|
|
6,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,948
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
13,452
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,623
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,836
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,636
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances for construction
|
|
|
69,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,436
|
|
|
Contributions in aid of construction
|
|
|
46,510
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,723
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes-net
|
|
|
57,418
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,444
|
|
|
Unamortized investment tax credits
|
|
|
2,814
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,882
|
|
|
Regulatory tax-related liability
|
|
|
1,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,773
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,386
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,316
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
179,637
|
|
|
|
|
|
172,574
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization and Liabilities
|
|
$
|
697,758
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
683,764
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
$
|
55,866
|
|
|
|
$
|
55,412
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
5,529
|
|
|
|
|
3,807
|
|
Other
|
|
|
217
|
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,612
|
|
|
|
|
59,410
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
|
14,205
|
|
|
|
|
12,791
|
|
Power purchased for pumping
|
|
|
3,327
|
|
|
|
|
3,367
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
|
3,645
|
|
|
|
|
4,758
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
|
1,831
|
|
|
|
|
1,697
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
|
(428
|
)
|
|
|
|
(2,920
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
4,883
|
|
|
|
|
4,398
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
|
7,848
|
|
|
|
|
6,956
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
4,622
|
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
2,546
|
|
|
|
|
1,767
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
|
5,207
|
|
|
|
|
6,739
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
|
2,062
|
|
|
|
|
1,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,748
|
|
|
|
|
46,038
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
11,864
|
|
|
|
|
13,372
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
|
(53
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
|
12,021
|
|
|
|
|
13,319
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
|
4,382
|
|
|
|
|
3,865
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
7,639
|
|
|
|
|
9,454
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
(21
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for Common Shareholders
|
|
$
|
7,639
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding
|
|
|
15,154
|
|
|
|
|
15,120
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Diluted Shares
|
|
|
15,170
|
|
|
|
|
15,257
|
|
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
|
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
4
AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
$
|
143,722
|
|
|
|
$
|
138,052
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
14,574
|
|
|
|
|
10,940
|
|
Other
|
|
|
603
|
|
|
|
|
579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,899
|
|
|
|
|
149,571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
|
32,523
|
|
|
|
|
29,941
|
|
Power purchased for pumping
|
|
|
7,767
|
|
|
|
|
6,793
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
|
13,973
|
|
|
|
|
15,106
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
|
5,427
|
|
|
|
|
5,124
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
|
(6,243
|
)
|
|
|
|
(11,480
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
12,811
|
|
|
|
|
13,034
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
|
24,291
|
|
|
|
|
22,474
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
13,728
|
|
|
|
|
13,463
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
6,632
|
|
|
|
|
6,066
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
|
12,355
|
|
|
|
|
13,577
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
|
5,967
|
|
|
|
|
5,865
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129,231
|
|
|
|
|
119,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
29,668
|
|
|
|
|
29,608
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
326
|
|
|
|
|
(223
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
|
29,994
|
|
|
|
|
29,385
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
|
13,113
|
|
|
|
|
11,761
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
16,881
|
|
|
|
|
17,624
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
(29
|
)
|
|
|
|
(63
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for Common Shareholders
|
|
$
|
16,852
|
|
|
|
$
|
17,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding
|
|
|
15,135
|
|
|
|
|
15,120
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.16
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Diluted Shares
|
|
|
15,153
|
|
|
|
|
15,257
|
|
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
0.65
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.65
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
5
AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
|
Twelve
Months Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
$
|
187,144
|
|
|
$
|
178,662
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
18,885
|
|
|
|
14,645
|
|
Other
|
|
|
813
|
|
|
|
799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206,842
|
|
|
|
194,106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
|
40,190
|
|
|
|
39,061
|
|
Power purchased for pumping
|
|
|
10,565
|
|
|
|
8,744
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
|
18,530
|
|
|
|
18,977
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
|
7,150
|
|
|
|
6,816
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
|
(9,444
|
)
|
|
|
(14,553
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
16,939
|
|
|
|
17,227
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
|
36,927
|
|
|
|
30,489
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
18,216
|
|
|
|
17,528
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
9,206
|
|
|
|
8,975
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
|
14,158
|
|
|
|
16,700
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
|
7,654
|
|
|
|
7,747
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170,091
|
|
|
|
157,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
36,751
|
|
|
|
36,395
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
(389
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
|
36,790
|
|
|
|
36,006
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
|
17,087
|
|
|
|
15,330
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
19,703
|
|
|
|
20,676
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
(84
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for Common Shareholders
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
$
|
20,592
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding
|
|
|
15,131
|
|
|
|
15,120
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.36
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Diluted Shares
|
|
|
15,146
|
|
|
|
15,240
|
|
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
|
$
|
0.87
|
|
|
$
|
0.87
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of
these financial statements
6
AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW STATEMENTS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
|
Nine Months
Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
16,881
|
|
|
$
|
17,624
|
|
Adjustments for non-cash items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
13,728
|
|
|
|
13,463
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
|
4,757
|
|
|
|
5,736
|
|
Other - net
|
|
|
(1,747
|
)
|
|
|
(1,116
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(3,549
|
)
|
|
|
(3,346
|
)
|
Prepayments
|
|
|
458
|
|
|
|
892
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
|
(6,243
|
)
|
|
|
(11,480
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
4,208
|
|
|
|
6,415
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
|
1,685
|
|
|
|
3,425
|
|
Unbilled revenue
|
|
|
(3,082
|
)
|
|
|
(3,576
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
2,085
|
|
|
|
5,753
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided
|
|
|
29,181
|
|
|
|
33,790
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction expenditures
|
|
|
(32,312
|
)
|
|
|
(33,799
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Used
|
|
|
(32,312
|
)
|
|
|
(33,799
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of securities
|
|
|
1,100
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
Receipt of advances and contributions
|
|
|
4,954
|
|
|
|
3,934
|
|
Repayments of long-term debt, net of redemption of preferred shares
|
|
|
(2,422
|
)
|
|
|
(449
|
)
|
Refunds on advances for construction
|
|
|
(3,455
|
)
|
|
|
(4,463
|
)
|
Changes in notes payable to banks
|
|
|
(6,000
|
)
|
|
|
(7,000
|
)
|
Common and preferred dividends paid
|
|
|
(9,869
|
)
|
|
|
(9,890
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used)
|
|
|
(15,692
|
)
|
|
|
2,132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
(18,823
|
)
|
|
|
2,123
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of period
|
|
|
30,496
|
|
|
|
5,808
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of period
|
|
$
|
11,673
|
|
|
$
|
7,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of
these financial statements
7
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
BALANCE SHEETS
ASSETS
(Unaudited)
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
(in thousands)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Utility Plant, at cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
$
|
647,051
|
|
|
$
|
607,988
|
|
Electric
|
|
39,136
|
|
|
|
38,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
686,187
|
|
|
|
646,513
|
|
Less - Accumulated depreciation
|
|
(194,972
|
)
|
|
|
(181,371
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
491,215
|
|
|
|
465,142
|
|
Construction work in progress
|
|
38,590
|
|
|
|
46,042
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529,805
|
|
|
|
511,184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Property and Investments
|
|
9,351
|
|
|
|
9,446
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
6,231
|
|
|
|
26,079
|
|
Accounts receivable-Customers, less
reserves of $998 in 2002; $498 in 2001
|
|
13,566
|
|
|
|
10,228
|
|
Other accounts receivable
|
|
5,471
|
|
|
|
5,202
|
|
Intercompany receivable
|
|
7,299
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unbilled revenue
|
|
14,935
|
|
|
|
11,940
|
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost
|
|
1,065
|
|
|
|
883
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts - current
|
|
5,486
|
|
|
|
3,333
|
|
Prepayments and other
|
|
1,930
|
|
|
|
2,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,983
|
|
|
|
59,975
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred Charges and Other Long-Term Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory tax-related assets
|
|
14,510
|
|
|
|
15,843
|
|
Other
deferred charges
|
|
19,186
|
|
|
|
15,433
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
25,347
|
|
|
|
22,493
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,043
|
|
|
|
53,769
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
$
|
654,182
|
|
|
$
|
634,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of
these financial statements
8
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
BALANCE SHEETS
CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES
(Unaudited)
|
September 30,
|
|
December 31,
|
(in thousands)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
shareholders equity
|
$
|
202,447
|
|
|
$
|
196,107
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
236,571
|
|
|
|
236,804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
439,018
|
|
|
|
432,911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and preferred shares due within one year
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
17,494
|
|
|
|
13,548
|
|
Intercompany payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Taxes payable
|
|
7,160
|
|
|
|
5,599
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
4,878
|
|
|
|
1,877
|
|
Reserves for potential disallowance of power costs
|
|
6,388
|
|
|
|
7,948
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
13,091
|
|
|
|
13,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,271
|
|
|
|
42,670
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances for construction
|
|
59,200
|
|
|
|
58,570
|
|
Contributions in aid of construction
|
|
46,246
|
|
|
|
43,493
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes-net
|
|
55,894
|
|
|
|
52,075
|
|
Unamortized investment tax credits
|
|
2,814
|
|
|
|
2,882
|
|
Regulatory tax-related liability
|
|
1,739
|
|
|
|
1,773
|
|
|
|
165,893
|
|
|
|
158,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization and Liabilities
|
$
|
654,182
|
|
|
$
|
634,374
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of
these financial statements
9
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND
2001
(Unaudited)
|
Three Months Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands, except
per share amounts)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
$
|
54,052
|
|
|
$
|
53,674
|
|
Electric
|
|
5,529
|
|
|
|
3,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,581
|
|
|
|
57,481
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
14,025
|
|
|
|
12,620
|
|
Power
purchased for pumping
|
|
3,187
|
|
|
|
3,222
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
3,645
|
|
|
|
4,758
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
1,831
|
|
|
|
1,697
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
(428
|
)
|
|
|
(2,920
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
4,505
|
|
|
|
4,105
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
7,003
|
|
|
|
6,679
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
4,387
|
|
|
|
4,176
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
2,488
|
|
|
|
1,730
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
5,283
|
|
|
|
6,664
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
1,939
|
|
|
|
1,886
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,865
|
|
|
|
44,617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
11,716
|
|
|
|
12,864
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
(81
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
11,857
|
|
|
|
12,783
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
4,127
|
|
|
|
3,513
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
7,730
|
|
|
|
9,270
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for
Common Shareholders
|
$
|
7,730
|
|
|
$
|
9,270
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
Number of Shares Outstanding
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
$
|
70,273
|
|
|
$
|
84,273
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
$
|
40,000
|
|
|
$
|
33,000
|
|
The accompanying notes
are an integral part of these financial statements
10
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND
2001
(Unaudited)
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
(in
thousands, except per share amounts)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
$
|
138,854
|
|
|
$
|
133,313
|
|
Electric
|
|
14,574
|
|
|
|
10,940
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
153,428
|
|
|
|
144,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
31,999
|
|
|
|
29,616
|
|
Power purchased for pumping
|
|
7,444
|
|
|
|
6,509
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
13,973
|
|
|
|
15,106
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
5,427
|
|
|
|
5,124
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
(6,243
|
)
|
|
|
(11,480
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
11,955
|
|
|
|
12,226
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
21,719
|
|
|
|
21,642
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
13,038
|
|
|
|
12,532
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
6,448
|
|
|
|
5,910
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
12,698
|
|
|
|
13,243
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
5,612
|
|
|
|
5,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,070
|
|
|
|
116,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
29,358
|
|
|
|
28,250
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
289
|
|
|
|
(303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
29,647
|
|
|
|
27,947
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
12,307
|
|
|
|
10,936
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
17,340
|
|
|
|
17,011
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for
Common Shareholders
|
$
|
17,340
|
|
|
$
|
17,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number
of Shares Outstanding
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
106
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
$
|
157,636
|
|
|
$
|
160,481
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
$
|
100,000
|
|
|
$
|
96,509
|
|
The accompanying notes
are an integral part of these financial statements
11
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER
COMPANY
STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
Twelve Months Ended September 30,
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
$
|
180,746
|
|
|
$
|
172,658
|
|
Electric
|
|
18,885
|
|
|
|
14,645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
199,631
|
|
|
|
187,303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased
|
|
39,494
|
|
|
|
38,594
|
|
Power purchased for pumping
|
|
10,105
|
|
|
|
8,393
|
|
Power purchased for resale
|
|
18,530
|
|
|
|
18,977
|
|
Groundwater production assessment
|
|
7,150
|
|
|
|
6,816
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
(9,444
|
)
|
|
|
(14,553
|
)
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
15,840
|
|
|
|
16,205
|
|
Administrative and general expenses
|
|
34,007
|
|
|
|
29,375
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
17,215
|
|
|
|
16,343
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
8,949
|
|
|
|
8,753
|
|
Taxes on income
|
|
14,521
|
|
|
|
16,127
|
|
Other taxes
|
|
7,126
|
|
|
|
7,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163,493
|
|
|
|
152,388
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
36,138
|
|
|
|
34,915
|
|
Other Income/(Loss)
|
|
(32
|
)
|
|
|
(351
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before interest charges
|
|
36,106
|
|
|
|
34,564
|
|
Interest Charges
|
|
15,948
|
|
|
|
14,733
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
20,158
|
|
|
|
19,831
|
|
Dividends on Preferred Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Available for Common Shareholders
|
$
|
20,158
|
|
|
$
|
19,831
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
104
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Common Share
|
$
|
183,255
|
|
|
$
|
190,683
|
|
Dividends Declared Per Common Share
|
$
|
130,000
|
|
|
$
|
131,359
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes
are an integral part of these financial statements
12
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
CASH FLOW STATEMENTS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Unaudited)
|
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
$
|
17,340
|
|
|
$
|
17,011
|
|
Adjustments for non-cash items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
13,038
|
|
|
|
12,532
|
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits
|
|
5,050
|
|
|
|
5,780
|
|
Other - net
|
|
(2,011
|
)
|
|
|
(1,204
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
(3,338
|
)
|
|
|
(3,071
|
)
|
Prepayments
|
|
380
|
|
|
|
667
|
|
Supply cost balancing accounts
|
|
(6,243
|
)
|
|
|
(11,480
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
3,946
|
|
|
|
6,681
|
|
Intercompany payable
|
|
(7,325
|
)
|
|
|
(4,858
|
)
|
Taxes payable
|
|
1,561
|
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
Unbilled revenue
|
|
(2,995
|
)
|
|
|
(3,484
|
)
|
Other
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
|
5,575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided
|
|
21,348
|
|
|
|
27,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction expenditures
|
|
(31,684
|
)
|
|
|
(33,333
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Used
|
|
(31,684
|
)
|
|
|
(33,333
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
Receipt of advances and contributions
|
|
4,850
|
|
|
|
3,934
|
|
Repayments of long-term debt, net of redemption of preferred shares
|
|
(273
|
)
|
|
|
(206
|
)
|
Refunds on advances for construction
|
|
(3,089
|
)
|
|
|
(3,896
|
)
|
Changes in notes payable to banks
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,000
|
)
|
Common and preferred dividends paid
|
|
(11,000
|
)
|
|
|
(10,230
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Provided (Used)
|
|
(9,512
|
)
|
|
|
7,602
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
(19,848
|
)
|
|
|
1,872
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of period
|
|
26,079
|
|
|
|
1,545
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of period
|
$
|
6,231
|
|
|
$
|
3,417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial
statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
AMERICAN STATES WATER
COMPANY
AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
American States Water Company (AWR), incorporated in
1998, is the parent company of Southern California Water Company (SCW), American States
Utility Services, Inc. (ASUS) and Chaparral City Water Company (CCWC). More than 90% of
AWRs assets consist of the common stock of SCW. SCW is a public utility company engaged
principally in the purchase, production, distribution and sale of water in California. In
addition, SCW distributes and sells electric energy in several mountain communities in
California. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the term Registrant applies to both AWR
and SCW, collectively.
1.
|
The consolidated
financial statements included herein have been prepared by AWR, without audit, pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Certain
information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for annual financial
statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations.
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires management to
make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities
and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting
period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the opinion of management,
all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring items and estimates necessary for
a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods, have been made. It is
suggested that these consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with
the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in the 2001
Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 5, 2002. Certain prior year amounts have
been reclassified to conform to current year presentation.
|
|
|
2.
|
Basic earnings per
common share are calculated pursuant to SFAS No. 128 - Earnings per Share - and are
based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during each period and net
income after deducting preferred dividend requirements. Under the American States Water
Company 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, stock options representing 68,153 common shares were
granted to certain eligible employees on May 1, 2000, stock options representing an additional
68,486 common shares were granted on January 2, 2001, and stock options representing 116,775
common shares and 1,050 restricted stock shares were granted on February 4, 2002. As a result,
fully diluted earnings per share amounts are shown. Earnings per share also reflect a
three-for-two split of Registrants common shares payable on June 7, 2002 to holders of
record on May 15, 2002.
|
|
|
3.
|
New water
rates with an annual increase of approximately $2.5 million for seven ratemaking
districts in SCWs Region I and step increases of approximately $1.7 million
for SCWs Region III were effective in January 2001. An attrition increase
of approximately $2.8 million for Region II was in effect from February 2001. Step
increases of approximately $321,600 for four of seven ratemaking districts in SCWs
Region I were implemented in January 2002.
|
|
|
4.
|
As permitted
by the CPUC, SCW has historically maintained water and electric supply balancing
accounts to account for under-collections and over-collections of revenues designed
to recover such costs. Costs have been recorded in income and charged to balancing
accounts when such costs were incurred. The balancing accounts were reversed when
such costs were recovered through rate adjustments or through refunds of previously
incurred costs. SCW accrued interest
|
14
|
on its supply cost balancing accounts at the
rate prevailing for 90-day commercial paper. CCWC does not maintain a supply cost
balancing account.
|
|
|
|
Water
Balancing Account - On November 29, 2001, the CPUC ordered water
utilities with existing water supply balancing accounts to cease booking amounts
to such accounts. In its place, water utilities are now required to establish a
memorandum account for water supply costs that are included in rates. As a result,
the income statements of SCW will no longer include entries reflecting differences
between actual unit water supply costs included in rates and actual water supply
costs. SCW will not be entitled to recover any deferred costs for providing water
service unless it is within its general rate case cycle and is earning less than
its authorized rate of return on a weather normalized basis. As a result, any changes
in water supply costs as well as any future authorized revenue increases for supply
expenses may directly impact earnings. The negative impact this CPUC order has had
on registrants basic earnings per share for the quarter, nine and twelve months
ended September 30, 2002 was $0.04, $0.05 and $0.01, respectively. SCW may not
be able to recover the under-collection of supply costs if it is earning a rate
of return in excess of that allowed. SCW had a net under-collection position of
$2.8 million in its water supply balancing account at September 30, 2002 principally
related to pre-November 29, 2001 activities. Of this amount, approximately $0.5
million is currently included in rates. SCW anticipates recovering the remaining
amount as part of a general rate case filed for the third quarter of 2002.
|
|
|
|
Electric
Balancing Account -Electric power costs incurred by SCWs Bear
Valley Electric division continue to be charged to a balancing account. The amount
of the under-collection in the electric balancing account was $27.6 million at September
30, 2002. This is a result of the cumulative differences between wholesale purchased
power costs and the $24 per megawatt hour (MWh) authorized in rates up to July 2002
for collection of purchased power costs from customers. The CPUC has approved two
of SCWs Advice Letters for recovery, over a five-year period, of approximately
$11.1 million in aggregate in under-collected power costs, which resulted in an
overall rate increase of 29% for customers of BVE.
|
|
|
|
On August
17, 2001, SCW filed an application with the CPUC seeking recovery of an average
cost of $87 per MWh for electric energy purchased pursuant to power purchase contracts
with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation.
On July 17, 2002, the CPUC approved a settlement agreement reached among SCW, all
intervening parties and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), which
permits SCW to recover $77 per MWh of purchased power costs through rates, effective
immediately thereafter. SCW will only be allowed to include up to a weighted annual
energy purchase cost of $77 per MWh each year for 10 years in its balancing account.
To the extent SCWs actual average annual weighted cost for purchased power
is less than $77 per MWh, the differential will recover amounts included in the
electric supply balancing account. Conversely, to the extent that actual average
annual weighted costs for power purchased exceed the $77 per MWh amount, SCW will
not be able to include these amounts in its balancing account and such amounts will
be expensed against income. SCW has a balance of $6.4 million in reserves as of
September 30, 2002 against potential non-recovery of electric power costs. In addition,
the settlement extended the previously approved surcharges for an additional five
years to allow SCW an opportunity to collect amounts remaining in its electric cost
balancing account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on estimates,
management believes that continuation of the $0.022 per kilowatt-hour surcharge
will allow for full recovery of amounts included in the electric balancing account.
See the sections entitled Liquidity and Capital Resources,
Electric Energy Situation in California, and Regulatory
Matters included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for information
on additional actions being taken by SCW to recover these costs.
|
15
|
CCWC, subject
to regulation by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), does not maintain balancing
accounts and increases in costs are normally recovered through general rate case
applications.
|
|
|
|
5.
|
In July 2001,
the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations,
and SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. SFAS No. 141 eliminated
the pooling-of-interests method of accounting, effective June 30, 2001. After that,
all business combinations must be recorded under the purchase method of accounting.
SFAS No. 142 primarily addresses the accounting for goodwill and intangible assets
subsequent to their initial recognition. The major provisions of SFAS No. 142 (i)
prohibit the amortization of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets, (ii)
require that goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles assets be tested annually
for impairment (and in interim periods if certain events occur indicating that the
carrying value of goodwill and/or indefinite-lived intangible assets may be impaired),
(iii) require that reporting units be identified for the purpose of assessing potential
future impairments of goodwill, and (iv) remove the forty-year limitation on the
amortization period of intangible assets that have finite lives
|
|
In October
2000, AWR completed the acquisition of the common stock of CCWC for an aggregate
value of $31.2 million, including the assumption of approximately $12 million in
debt. As of September 30, 2002, AWR had $12.3 million in goodwill included in Other
Property and Investments. Registrants reporting units are generally consistent
with the principal business units identified in Note 6. The amount represents the
difference between the purchase price of the common equity of CCWC and CCWCs
book equity at the time of closing and was being amortized over a period of 40 years.
Registrant adopted the provisions of SFAS 142 and ceased amortization on January
1, 2002. In 2001, $331,073 was amortized against the goodwill.
|
|
|
|
SFAS No. 142
requires that goodwill be tested annually for impairment using a two-step process.
The first step is to identify a potential impairment and, in transition, this step
must be measured as of the beginning of the fiscal year. The second step of the
goodwill impairment test measures the amount of the impairment loss, which is also
measured as of January 1, 2002, if any. Registrant completed this two-step process
in the first quarter ended March 31, 2002 and has determined that no impairment
of this goodwill exists.
|
|
|
|
The following
table reflects Registrants net income and earnings per share adjusted for
amortizations for the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002, and
2001, respectively:
|
16
|
Three Months
|
|
Nine Months
|
|
Twelve Months
|
($000s except for earnings per
|
Ended Sept. 30,
|
|
Ended Sept. 30,
|
|
Ended Sept. 30,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(share amounts)
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
2002
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available for common shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported earnings
|
$
|
7,639
|
|
|
$
|
9,433
|
|
|
$
|
16,852
|
|
|
$
|
17,561
|
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
$
|
20,592
|
|
Add back goodwill amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
166
|
|
|
|
312
|
|
Less: Tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
(107
|
)
|
|
|
(138
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted earnings
|
$
|
7,639
|
|
|
$
|
9,48`2
|
|
|
$
|
16,852
|
|
|
$
|
17,702
|
|
|
$
|
19,712
|
|
|
$
|
20,766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported basic earnings per share
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
$
|
1.16
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.36
|
|
Add amortization net of taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted basic earnings per share
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
$
|
1.17
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported diluted earnings per share
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
$
|
1.15
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.35
|
|
Add amortization net of taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted diluted earnings per share
|
$
|
0.50
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
|
$
|
1.11
|
|
|
$
|
1.16
|
|
|
$
|
1.30
|
|
|
$
|
1.36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 2001,
the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, which
requires businesses to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement
obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When the liability is initially
recorded, the entity capitalizes a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the
related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value
each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the
related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity either settles the obligation
for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss upon settlement. FASB No. 143 is
effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. Registrant is reviewing
the provisions of this Statement, but does not expect it to have a material impact
on its financial statements.
|
|
|
|
In August
2001, the FASB also issued SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal
of Long-Lived Assets and Discontinued Operations, which addresses the financial
accounting and reporting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets. Registrant
does not expect this Statement to materially impact its financial statements.
|
|
|
|
In June 2002,
the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal
Activities. This pronouncement is effective for exit or disposal activities that
are initiated after December 31, 2002, and requires these costs to be recognized
when the liability is incurred and not at project initiation. Registrant is reviewing
the provisions of this Statement, but does not expect it to have a material impact
on its financial statements.
|
|
|
6.
|
AWR has three
principal business units: water and electric distribution units, through its SCW
subsidiary, a water service utility operation conducted through its CCWC unit, and
a non-regulated activity unit through the ASUS subsidiary. All activities of SCW
currently are geographically located within California. All activities of CCWC are
located in the state of Arizona. Both SCW and CCWC are regulated utilities. On a
stand-alone basis, AWR has no material assets other than its investments in its
subsidiaries. The tables below set forth information relating to SCWs water
and electric operating segments, CCWC, and non-regulated businesses, consisting
of ASUS and AWR corporate expenses. Included in the amounts set forth, certain assets,
revenues and expenses have been allocated. The identifiable assets are net of respective
accumulated provisions for depreciation.
|
17
(dollars in thousands)
|
For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2002
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
54,052
|
|
|
$
|
5,529
|
|
|
$
|
1,813
|
|
|
$
|
218
|
|
|
$
|
61,612
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
16,452
|
|
|
|
547
|
|
|
|
578
|
|
|
|
(506
|
)
|
|
|
17,071
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
502,402
|
|
|
|
27,402
|
|
|
|
28,573
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
558,393
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
4,019
|
|
|
|
368
|
|
|
|
235
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,622
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
12,032
|
|
|
$
|
434
|
|
|
$
|
230
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
12,711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
For The Three Months Ended September 30, 2001
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
53,674
|
|
|
$
|
3,807
|
|
|
$
|
1,738
|
|
|
$
|
191
|
|
|
$
|
59,410
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
19,064
|
|
|
|
464
|
|
|
|
611
|
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
20,111
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
473,698
|
|
|
|
27,172
|
|
|
|
28,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529,679
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
3,814
|
|
|
|
362
|
|
|
|
310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,486
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
10,850
|
|
|
$
|
820
|
|
|
$
|
254
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
For The Nine Months Ended September 30, 2002
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
138,854
|
|
|
$
|
14,574
|
|
|
$
|
4,867
|
|
|
$
|
604
|
|
|
$
|
158,899
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
41,457
|
|
|
|
1,599
|
|
|
|
1,500
|
|
|
|
(1,532
|
)
|
|
|
42,023
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
502,402
|
|
|
|
27,402
|
|
|
|
28,573
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
558,393
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
11,935
|
|
|
|
1,103
|
|
|
|
690
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,728
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
31,904
|
|
|
$
|
1,401
|
|
|
$
|
613
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
33,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
For The Nine Months Ended September 30, 2001
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
133,313
|
|
|
$
|
10,940
|
|
|
$
|
4,739
|
|
|
$
|
579
|
|
|
$
|
149,571
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
40,715
|
|
|
|
778
|
|
|
|
1,624
|
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
43,185
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
473,698
|
|
|
|
27,172
|
|
|
|
28,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529,679
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
11,448
|
|
|
|
1,084
|
|
|
|
931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,463
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
33,040
|
|
|
$
|
1,882
|
|
|
$
|
471
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
35,393
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
For The Twelve Months Ended September, 2002
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
180,746
|
|
|
$
|
18,885
|
|
|
$
|
6,398
|
|
|
$
|
813
|
|
|
$
|
206,842
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
53,778
|
|
|
|
(3,119
|
)
|
|
|
1,790
|
|
|
|
(1,540
|
)
|
|
|
50,909
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
502,402
|
|
|
|
27,402
|
|
|
|
28,573
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
558,393
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
15,751
|
|
|
|
1,464
|
|
|
|
1,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,216
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
46,310
|
|
|
$
|
1,774
|
|
|
$
|
693
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
48,792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
For The Twelve Months Ended September 30, 2001
|
|
|
|
SCW
|
|
CCWC
|
|
Non-
|
|
Consolidated
|
|
|
|
|
Water
|
|
Electric
|
|
Water
|
|
Regulated
|
|
AWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
$
|
172,658
|
|
|
$
|
14,645
|
|
|
$
|
6,004
|
|
|
$
|
799
|
|
|
$
|
194,106
|
|
Operating income before income taxes
|
|
49,090
|
|
|
|
1,952
|
|
|
|
1,923
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
53,095
|
|
Identifiable assets
|
|
473,698
|
|
|
|
27,172
|
|
|
|
28,809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529,679
|
|
Depreciation expense
|
|
14,909
|
|
|
|
1,434
|
|
|
|
1,185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,528
|
|
Capital additions
|
$
|
45,325
|
|
|
$
|
2,650
|
|
|
$
|
667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
48,642
|
|
18
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation
Forward-Looking Information
Certain matters
discussed in this report (including the documents incorporated herein by reference)
are forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe harbor
from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
These forward-looking statements can generally be identified as such because the
context of the statement will include words such as Registrant believes,
anticipates, expects or words of similar import. Similarly,
statements that describe Registrants future plans, objectives, estimates or
goals are also forward-looking statements. Such statements address future events
and conditions concerning capital expenditures, earnings, litigation, rates, water
quality, regulatory matters, adequacy of water supplies, the California energy situation,
liquidity and capital resources, opportunities related to operations and maintenance
of water systems owned by governmental entities and other utilities and providing
related services, and accounting matters. Actual results in each case could differ
materially from those currently anticipated in such statements, by reason of factors
such as utility restructuring, including ongoing local, state and federal activities;
future economic conditions, including changes in customer demand and changes in
water and energy supply cost; future climatic conditions; litigation developments;
and legislative, regulatory and other circumstances affecting anticipated revenues
and costs. See the section entitled Risk Factors for more information.
General
American States
Water Company (AWR), incorporated in 1998, is engaged in the business of holding,
for investment, the stock primarily of utility companies. AWRs principal investment
is the stock of Southern California Water Company (SCW). SCW is a California public
utility company engaged principally in the purchase, production, distribution and
sale of water (SIC No. 4941). SCW also distributes electricity in one customer service
area (SIC No. 4911). SCW is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) and was incorporated on December 31, 1929. SCW is organized into three water
service regions and one electric customer service area operating within 75 communities
in 10 counties in the State of California and provides water service in 21 customer
service areas. Region I incorporates 7 customer service areas in northern and central
California; Region II has 4 customer service areas located in Los Angeles County;
Region III incorporates 10 water customer service areas in eastern Los Angeles County,
and in Orange, San Bernardino and Imperial counties. SCW also provides electric
service to the City of Big Bear Lake and surrounding areas in San Bernardino County
through its Bear Valley electric service division.
SCW served
248,354 water customers and 21,906 electric customers at September 30, 2002, or
a total of 270,260 customers, compared with 268,061 total customers at September
30, 2001.
SCWs
utility operations exhibit seasonal trends. SCWs water utility operations
have a diversified customer base. Revenues derived from commercial and residential
water customers accounted for approximately 87.8%, 89.0% and 91.2% of total water
revenues for the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002, respectively,
as compared to 87.1%, 89.0% and 91.1% for the three, nine and twelve months ended
September 30, 2001, respectively.
AWR also owns
two other subsidiaries. American States Utility Services, Inc. (ASUS) contracts
to lease, operate and maintain water and wastewater systems owned by others and
to provide related services, such as billing and meter reading, to approximately
90,000 accounts. Chaparral City Water Company (CCWC) is an Arizona public utility
company serving 11,683 customers as of September 30, 2002, compared with 11,438
customers at September 30, 2001, in the town of Fountain Hills, Arizona and a portion
of the City of Scottsdale, Arizona. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) regulates
CCWC.
Neither AWR
nor ASUS is directly regulated by either the CPUC or the ACC.
19
Results of Operation
Basic earnings
per common share for the three months ended September 30, 2002
decreased by 19.4%
to $0.50 per share as compared to $0.62 per share for the comparable period last
year. As compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2001, basic earnings decreased
by 4.3% to $1.11 per share from $1.16 per share. Basic earnings per common share
for the twelve months ended September 30, 2002 also decreased by 4.5% to $1.30 per
share from $1.36 per share as compared to the twelve months ended September 30,
2001. The decreases in the recorded results primarily reflect the impact of lack
of water rate increases authorized by the CPUC for SCW, increased supply costs,
higher interest expenses and various other reasons as discussed below. Earnings
per share reflect a three-for-two split of Registrants common shares to holders
of record on May 15, 2002.
Fully diluted
earnings for the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 were $0.50,
$1.11 and $1.30 per share, respectively, as compared to $0.62, $1.15 and $1.35 per
share for the comparable periods of 2001. For further information, see the section
entitled Liquidity and Capital Resources included in Part
I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operation.
As compared
to the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2001, revenues from water
operations increased by 0.8%, 4.1% and 4.7%, respectively, for the same periods
ended September 30, 2002. Although water sales volumes increased by
3.4%, 4.2%
and 3.3%, respectively, for each of the comparable periods ended September 30, 2002,
the increase was partially offset by decreases in positive surcharges authorized
by the CPUC to amortize previous under-collections, the majority of which expired
in December 2001. The nine and twelve-month comparisons were also affected by various
increases in rates authorized by the CPUC. Step increases in the customer service
areas that comprise SCWs Region I were effective January 1, 2002. Attrition
increases for the customer service areas that comprise SCWs Region II were
effective January 27, 2001. Rate increases to recover increased electric power
costs incurred for pumping of water were effective in the second and the fourth
quarters of 2001. See the section entitled Regulatory Matters
included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation for more information.
Revenues from
electric operations increased by 45.2%, 33.2% and 29.0%, respectively, for the three,
nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 as compared to the same periods
ended September 30, 2001. The increases reflect (i) a rate increase of 12.5% effective
May 24, 2001 to recover previously under-collected energy costs, (ii) an additional
14.8% increase effective August 23, 2001, and (iii) another rate increase in July
2002 authorized by the CPUC to allow SCW to recover up to a weighted annual energy
purchase cost of $77 per megawatt hour each year. The three-month comparison is
also impacted by an increase of 8.0% in kilowatt-hour sales principally to residential
customers. The nine-month increase in electric revenues also reflects a 3.8% increase
in kilowatt-hour sales due to higher utilization of snow making machines at ski
resorts in the area during the first quarter this year. See the section entitled
Regulatory Matters and Electric Energy Situation in
California included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for more information.
Purchased
water costs increased by 11.1%, 8.6% and 2.9%, respectively, for the three, nine
and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 as compared to the same periods ending
in 2001 due principally to increases in the volume of purchased water. During each
of the comparable periods for 2002, additional purchased water was necessary to
replace pumped water supply lost due to wells being removed from service as a result
of water quality issues and mechanical problems, particularly in SCWs Orange
County and San Dimas customer service areas. The twelve-month comparison also reflects
refunds received from Registrants wholesale water suppliers in December 2001
of approximately $770,000. There was no similar refund in the twelve months ended
September 2001.
20
On November
29, 2001, the CPUC ordered water utilities with existing water supply balancing
accounts to cease booking amounts to such accounts. In its place, water utilities
are now required to establish a memorandum account for water supply costs that are
included in rates. For additional information on this order, see Note 4 to Notes
to Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 in Financial Statements.
This CPUC order reduced Registrants basic earnings per share for the
three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 by $0.04, $0.05 and $0.01,
respectively.
Cost of power
purchased for pumping increased by 14.3% and 20.8% for the nine and twelve months
ended September 30, 2002, respectively, due to the rate increases implemented in
the first quarter of 2001 by SCWs energy suppliers, in particular Southern
California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In 2001, the CPUC
approved a portion of SCWs Advice Letters to increase revenues by approximately
$1.4 million annually to recover the costs of purchased power for certain of its
water ratemaking districts. For further information, see the sections
entitledRegulatory Matters and Electric Energy Situation in
California included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.
Costs of power
purchased for resale to customers in SCWs Bear Valley Electric division decreased
by 7.5% and 2.4%, respectively, for the nine and twelve months ended September 30,
2002. Each of these decreases was due primarily to the significantly high cost for
spot market energy purchased from December 2000 to March 2001. The decreases were
offset partially by additional accruals of $2.2 million for purchased power costs
based on adjusted invoices received by SCW in April 2002 from Dynegy Power Marketing,
Inc. for power and ancillary services applicable to prior periods, and a one-time
sale of energy on the spot market, resulting from a one-month overlap of energy
purchase agreements, that generated a $644,000 gain in April 2001. As compared to
the three months ended September 2001, cost of power purchased for resale decreased
by 23.4% for the third quarter of 2002 due principally to an additional accrual
of $802,000 based on adjusted invoices received by SCW from Dynegy Power Marketing,
Inc. in August 2001 for power and ancillary services applicable to December 2000
and January 2001. There was no similar accrual for the same period of 2002. For
further information, see the sections entitled Liquidity and Capital Resources,
Regulatory Matters and Electric Energy Situation in California
included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.
Groundwater
production assessments for the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30,
2002 increased by 7.9%, 5.9% and 4.9%, respectively, as compared to the same periods
in 2001 reflecting increased sales volumes provided from pumped water sources and
increased groundwater production assessments, partially offset by revenues from
leases of unused water rights to third parties in Registrants Barstow customer
service area. A one-time adjustment made in the first quarter of 2002 to account
for a retroactive billing by water purveyors for rate increases effective July 2001
also affected the nine and twelve-month comparisons.
A positive
entry for the provision for supply cost balancing accounts reflects recovery of
previously under-collected supply costs. Conversely, a negative entry for the provision
for supply cost balancing accounts reflects an under-collection of previously incurred
supply costs. The negative entries for 2001 and 2002 primarily reflect untimely-recovery
of electric power costs discussed previously. At September 30, 2002, Registrant
had a combined net under-collected position of $30.3 million in both its water and
electric balancing accounts primarily due to the increases in energy costs. For
further information, see the sections entitled Accounting for Supply Costs,
Liquidity and Capital Resources, Regulatory Matters
and Electric Energy Situation in California included in Part
I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation.
Other operating
expenses increased by 11% for the three months ended September 30, 2002 as compared
to the same period of last year due to increased water treatment costs, chemical
costs and
21
higher labor costs. Other operating expenses
decreased by 1.7%, respectively,
for the nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 as compared to the same
periods of last year. The decreases were primarily due to a refund for a sewer service
overpayment, reimbursement received during the second quarter of 2002 from one of
the settling parties for expenses incurred in the San Gabriel basin to meet water
quality standards, and a decrease in the accrual for bad debt during the first quarter
of 2002.
Administrative
and general expenses increased by 12.8%, 8.1% and 21.1%, respectively, for the three,
nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 reflecting an increase in the accrual
for pension plan expense, increased accrual for self-insured workers compensation,
higher labor costs, and increased outside service expenses. The twelve-month comparison
also reflects the accrual of $7.7 million in reserves booked during the comparable
period of 2002 for potential non-recovery of electric power costs incurred to serve
customers at SCWs Bear Valley Electric customer service area. The reserves
with a balance of $6.4 million at September 30, 2002 were established to offset
future impacts to earnings for the difference between the authorized rates and SCWs
actual costs under its energy purchase agreements. For further information,
see the sections entitled Regulatory Matters and Electric Energy
Situation in California in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.
Depreciation
expense increased by 3.0%, 2.0% and 3.9%, respectively, for the three, nine and
twelve months ended September 30, 2002 reflecting, among other things, the effects
of recording approximately $38 million in capital additions during 2001, depreciation
on which began in January 2002. The comparisons were also impacted by the elimination,
effective January 1, 2002, of amortization of the goodwill recorded in Registrants
acquisition of CCWC. For further information, see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial
Statements included in Part I, Item 1 in Financial Statements.
As compared
to the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2001, maintenance expense
increased by 44.1%, 9.3% and 2.6%, respectively, due principally to the termination
of Registrants cash preservation program in August 2002 following the CPUCs
approval of rate increases permitting SCW to begin recovery of power costs,
and costs of approximately $408,000, incurred most significantly in connection with
the trucking of water, in SCWs Wrightwood customer service area due to a sudden
and unexplained drop in groundwater level in the area during the early part of the
third quarter of 2002. The cash preservation program was initially implemented in
2001 to control costs and temporarily limit capital and maintenance expenditures
principally to those projects that were believed necessary to meet public safety
and health requirements or otherwise provide for continued service.
Taxes on income
decreased by 22.7%, 9.0% and 15.2%, respectively, as compared to the three nine,
and twelve months ended September 30, 2001, due to lower pre-tax operating income
of 21.9%, 8.0% and 10.4%, respectively, for the comparable periods ended September
30, 2002. The twelve-month comparison was also affected by a book-to-tax adjustment
recorded in December 2001.
Other taxes
increased by 3.2% and 1.7%, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2002 reflecting additional property taxes resulting from higher assessed values,
and increases in payroll taxes. For the twelve months ended September 30, 2002,
other taxes decreased by 1.2% due to an adjustment to the accrued property taxes
in December 2001 based on actual property tax statements, partially offset by increases
in payroll taxes.
As compared
to the three, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2001, respectively, the
change in other income for the same periods ended September 30, 2002 reflects the
sale of a parcel of non-operating property in Region II of SCW in the first quarter
of 2002, and recording certain non-regulated expenses to administrative and general
expenses of ASUS, a non-regulated subsidiary. The twelve-month comparison was also
impacted by the write-off of expenses associated with the termination of the acquisition
of Peerless Water Company in the fourth quarter of 2001.
22
Interest expense
increased by 13.4%, 11.5% and 11.5%, respectively, for the three, nine and twelve
months ended September 30, 2002 as compared to the same periods ended September
30, 2001. The increases reflected the issuance of $50 million in long-term debt
by SCW in December 2001, partially offset by a reduction in short-term borrowing.
Accounting for Supply Costs
As permitted
by the CPUC, SCW has historically maintained water and electric supply balancing
accounts to account for under-collections and over-collections of revenues designed
to recover such costs. Costs have been recorded in income and charged to balancing
accounts when such costs were incurred. The balancing accounts were reversed when
such costs were recovered through rate adjustments or through refunds of previously
incurred costs. SCW accrued interest on its supply cost balancing accounts at the
rate prevailing for 90-day commercial paper. CCWC does not maintain a supply cost
balancing account.
On November
29, 2001, the CPUC ordered water utilities with existing water supply balancing
accounts to cease booking amounts to such accounts. In its place, water utilities
are now required to establish a memorandum account that works in a manner similar
to the balancing account. As a result, the income statements of SCW will no longer
include entries reflecting differences between actual unit water supply costs included
in rates and actual water supply costs. SCW will not be entitled to recover any
deferred costs for providing water service unless it is within its general rate
case cycle and is earning less than its authorized rate of return on a weather normalized
basis. As a result, any changes in water supply costs as well as any future authorized
revenue increases for supply expenses may directly impact earnings. The negative
impact this CPUC order has had on registrants basic earnings per share for
the quarter, nine and twelve months ended September 30, 2002 was $0.04, $0.05 and
$0.01, respectively. SCW may not be able to fully recover the under-collection
of supply costs if it is earning a rate of return in excess of that allowed. SCW
had a net under-collection position of $2.8 million in its water supply balancing
account at September 30, 2002 related to pre-November 29, 2001 activities. Of these
amounts, recovery of approximately $0.5 million is currently included in rates.
SCW anticipates recovering the remaining amount in this balancing account as well
as the under-collection tracked in the water supply cost memorandum account as part
of a rate case application filing submitted in October 2002.
Electric power
costs incurred by SCWs Bear Valley Electric division will continue to be charged
to a balancing account. The under-collection in the electric balancing account is
$27.6 million at September 30, 2002. On July 17, 2002, the CPUC approved a settlement
agreement among SCW, all intervening parties and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates
of the CPUC, which allows SCW to recover up to a weighted annual energy purchase
cost of $77 per megawatt hour each year for 10 years in its balancing account. For
further information, see the sections entitled Regulatory Matters
and Electric Energy Situation in California included in Part
I, Item 2 in Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.
Critical Accounting Policies
Critical accounting
policies are those that are important to the portrayal of the financial condition
and results of Registrant, and require the most difficult, subjective or complex
judgments of management. The need to make estimates about the effect of items that
are uncertain is what makes these judgments difficult, subjective and/or complex.
Management makes subjective judgments about the accounting and regulatory treatment
of many items. The following are examples of accounting policies that are critical
to the financial statements of Registrant. For more information regarding the significant
accounting policies of Registrant, see Notes to Financial Statements in
Part 1, Item 1.
Management
believes that regulation and the effects of regulatory accounting have the most
significant impact on the financial statements. When Registrant files for adjustments
to rates, capital
23
assets, operating costs and other matters are subject to review,
and disallowances could occur. Regulatory disallowances in the past have not been
frequent but have on occasion significantly impacted Registrants results of
operations.
|
Water and
electric operations of Registrant in the State of California are subject to regulation
by the CPUC and, in the State of Arizona, the ACC regulates the water operations
of Registrant. The accounting policies of Registrant conform to generally accepted
accounting principles applicable to rate-regulated enterprises and reflect the effects
of the ratemaking process. As such, Registrant is allowed to defer as regulatory
assets, certain costs that otherwise would have been expensed if it is probable
future recovery from customers will occur. If rate recovery is no longer probable,
Registrant is required to write off the related regulatory asset.
|
|
|
|
Registrants
income tax calculations require estimates due principally to the regulated
nature of its operations, the multiple states in which Registrant operates, and
potential future tax rate changes. Registrant uses the asset and liability method
of accounting for income taxes under which deferred tax assets and liabilities are
recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the
financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their
respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted
tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. A change in the regulatory
treatment, or significant changes in tax-related estimates or assumptions, could
have a material impact on the financial position and results of operations of Registrant.
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
is computed at composite rates considered sufficient to amortize costs over the
estimated remaining lives of assets. Depreciation studies are performed periodically
and prospective changes in rates are estimated to make up for past differences.
These studies are reviewed and approved by either the CPUC or the ACC. Changes in
estimates of depreciable lives or changes in depreciation rates mandated by regulations
could impact results of operations of Registrant in periods subsequent to the change.
|
|
|
|
As prescribed
by the CPUC under its Uniform System of Accounts for Water Utilities, SCW is allowed
to capitalize a portion of general costs such as engineering, supervision, general
office salaries and expenses, legal expenses, insurance, injuries and damages, pensions
and benefits, taxes and allowance for funds used during construction, as overhead
construction costs included in Registrants Utility Plant. All overhead construction
costs are charged to jobs on the basis of the amounts of such overhead expenses
reasonably applicable thereto, so that each job bears its equitable proportion of
such costs and its direct costs.
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources
AWR
AWR funds
its operating expenses and pays dividends on its outstanding Common Shares primarily
through dividends from its subsidiaries, principally SCW. AWR has a Registration
Statement on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for issuance,
from time to time, of up to $60 million in Common Shares, Preferred Shares and/or
debt securities. As of September 30, 2002, approximately $31.1 million remained
for issuance under this Registration Statement.
During 2001,
AWR maintained a $25 million credit facility, $20 million of which was outstanding
at December 31, 2001. This credit facility expired on January 2, 2002. In June 2002,
AWR established a new revolving credit facility of $75 million, which matures in
June 2005. As of September 30, 2002, an aggregate of $14 million was outstanding,
$13 million of which was used to fund SCWs operations and $1 million was used
to fund ASUS activities.
24
On April 19,
2002, AWR completed the redemption of all of its outstanding 4%, 4-1/4% and 5% series
of preferred shares.
SCW
SCW funds
the majority of its operating expenses, payments on its debt, and dividends on its
outstanding Common Shares through internal sources. Internal sources of cash flow
are provided primarily by retention of a portion of earnings, amortization of deferred
charges and depreciation expense. Internal cash generation is influenced by factors
such as weather patterns, environmental regulation, litigation, changes in supply
costs, and timing of rate relief. For further information, see the sections entitled
Risk Factors and Electric Energy Situation in California
included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.
SCW also relies
on external sources, including equity investments and short-term borrowing from
AWR, long-term debt, contributions-in-aid-of-construction, advances for construction
and install-and-convey advances, to fund the majority of its construction expenditures.
In January 2001, SCW issued $20 million of long-term debt in a public offering with
the proceeds used to reduce bank borrowings. On March 30, 2001, AWR made an additional
$25 million equity investment in SCW. On November 14, 2001, SCW filed a Registration
Statement with the SEC for issuance, from time to time, of up to $100 million in
debt securities. In December 2001, SCW issued $50 million of long-term debt under
this Registration Statement that initially reduced bank borrowings incurred to fund
capital expenditures and power purchase costs.
CCWC
CCWC funds
the majority of its operating expenses, payments on its debt and dividends, if any,
through internal sources. CCWC also relies on external sources, including long-term
debt, contributions-in-aid-of-construction, advances for construction and install-and-convey
advances, to fund the majority of its construction expenditures.
ASUS
ASUS funds
its operating expenses primarily through contractual management fees and investments
by AWR.
Contractual Obligations and Other
Commitments
In addition
to contractual maturities, Registrant has certain debt instruments that contain
annual sinking fund or other principal payments. Registrant believes that it will
be able to refinance debt instruments at their maturity through public issuance,
or private placement, of debt or equity. Annual principal payments are generally
made from cash flow from operations.
The following
table reflects Registrants contractual obligations and commitments to make
future payments pursuant to contracts as of September 30, 2002. All obligations
and commitments are obligations and commitments of SCW unless otherwise noted.
25
($ in thousands)
|
|
Payments/Commitments Due by Period (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Less than 1 Year
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
4-5 Years
|
|
After 5 Years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes/Debentures (2)
|
|
$
|
185,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
173,100
|
|
Private Placement Notes (3)
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,000
|
|
Tax-Exempt Obligations (4)
|
|
|
20,721
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
218
|
|
|
|
20,131
|
|
Other Debt Instruments (5)
|
|
|
2,510
|
|
|
|
174
|
|
|
|
584
|
|
|
|
451
|
|
|
|
1,301
|
|
Other Commitments (6)
|
|
|
76,947
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chaparral City Water Company (7)
|
|
|
9,119
|
|
|
|
499
|
|
|
|
1,684
|
|
|
|
620
|
|
|
|
6,316
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
$
|
322,897
|
|
|
$
|
760
|
|
|
$
|
15,053
|
|
|
$
|
1,289
|
|
|
$
|
228,848
|
|
(1) Excludes interest, dividends, commitment
and facility fees.
(2) The Notes and Debentures are issued
under an Indenture dated as of September 1, 1993. The Notes and Debentures do not
contain any financial covenants that Registrant believes to be material or cross
default provisions.
(3) The private placement notes are issued
pursuant to the terms of Note Agreements with substantially similar terms. The Note
Agreements contain restrictions on the payment of dividends, minimum interest coverage
requirements, maximum debt to capitalization ratio and a negative pledge. Pursuant
to the Note Agreements, SCW must maintain a minimum interest coverage ratio of two
times interest expense. SCW does not currently have any outstanding mortgages or
other encumbrances on its properties. For further information on the dividend restrictions,
see discussion included in Part II, Item 2 in Changes in Securities
..
(4) Consists of obligations under a loan
agreement supporting $8 million in debt issued by the California Pollution Control
Financing Authority, $6 million in obligations supporting $6 million in certificates
of participation issued by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District and $6.7 million
of obligations incurred by SCW with respect to its 500 acre foot entitlement to
water from the State Water Project (SWP). Except as described below, these obligations
do not contain any financial covenants believed to be material to Registrant or
any cross default provisions. SCWs obligations with respect to the certificates
of participation issued by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District are supported
by a letter of credit issued by Wells Fargo Bank. In regards to its SWP entitlement,
SCW has entered into agreements with various developers for 422 acre-feet, in aggregate,
of its entitlement to water from the SWP. For further information, see the section
entitled Regulatory Matters-Disallowance of Costs included in
Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation.
(5) Consists of $1.6 million outstanding
under a fixed rate obligation incurred to fund construction of water storage and
delivery facilities with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, $0.6 million
outstanding under a variable rate obligation incurred to fund construction of water
delivery facilities with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District and an aggregate
of $0.4 million outstanding under capital lease obligations. These obligations do
not contain any financial covenants believed to be material to Registrant or any
cross default provisions.
(6) Other commitments of Registrant consist
of (i) $75 million syndicated revolving credit facility, expiring in June 2005,
(ii) a $966,534 irrevocable letter of credit, which is reviewed at the end of each
year for adjustment, for its self-insured workers compensation plan, (iii) an amount
of $296,000 with respect to a $6,296,000 irrevocable letter of credit issued by
Wells Fargo Bank to support the certificates of participation of Three Valleys Municipal
Water District (the other $6,000,000 is reflected under tax-exempt obligations),
(iv) an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $400,000 that expires on October
2003 for the deductible in Registrants business automobile insurance policy
(v) an irrevocable letter of
26
credit that expires June 30, 2005 for its energy scheduling
agreement with Automated Power Exchange; the amount of the credit is $585,000 for
the months from November to March, and $270,000 to cover the months from April to
October, and (vi) outstanding performance bonds of $14,790 to secure performance
under franchise agreements with governmental agencies. The syndicated revolving
credit facility contains restrictions on prepayments, deposition of property, mergers,
liens and negative pledges, indebtedness and guaranty obligations, transactions
with affiliates, minimum interest coverage requirements, a maximum debt to capitalization
ratio, and a minimum debt rating. Pursuant to the Credit Agreement, AWR must maintain
a minimum interest coverage ratio of 3.25 times interest expense, a maximum total
funded debt ratio of 0.65 to 1.00 and a minimum debt rating of Baa1 or BBB+.
(7) Consists of $8.1 million of obligations
under a loan agreement supporting Industrial Development Revenue Bonds due in 2006
and a $1.1 million repayment obligation to the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
The loan agreement contains provisions that establishes a maximum of 65% debt in
the capital structure, limits cash distributions when the percentage of debt in
the capital structure exceeds 55% and requires a debt service coverage ratio of
two times. The Bureau of Reclamation obligation does not contain any financial covenants
believed to be material to Registrant or any cross default provisions.
Under the terms of its power purchase contracts
with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation,
SCW is required to post security, at the request of the seller, if SCW is in default
under the terms of the contract and the future value of the contract is greater
than the future value of contracts of a similar term on the date of default. SCW
will be in default under the terms of these contracts if its debt is rated less
than BBB- by Standard & Poors Ratings Service (S&P)
or Fitch, Inc. (Fitch) or less than Baa3 by Moodys Investor Services,
Inc (Moodys). SCW currently has a rating of A+ by S & P and
A2 by Moodys. Fitch does not rate SCW.
S&P debt ratings range from AAA (highest
rating possible) to D (obligation is in default). Moodys debt ratings range
from Aaa (best quality) to C (lowest quality). Securities ratings are not recommendations
to buy, sell or hold a security and are subject to change or withdrawal at any time
by the rating agency.
Electric Energy Situation in California
Background
Information
The electric
energy environment in California has changed as a result of the December 1995 CPUC
decision on restructuring of Californias electric utility industry and state
legislation passed in 1996. On January 17, 2001, the Governor of the State of California
proclaimed a state of emergency in California due to shortages of electricity available
to certain of Californias utilities (resulting in blackouts), the unanticipated
and dramatic increases in electricity prices and the insufficiency of electricity
available from certain of Californias utilities to prevent disruption of electric
service in California. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
also implemented a number of changes to the tariff for the California Independent
Operator System (Cal ISO) beginning in December 15, 2000 in an attempt
to stabilize the market. The reasons for the high cost of energy are under investigation
but are reported to include, among other things, limited supply caused by a lack
of investment in new power plants to meet growth in demand, planned and unplanned
outages of power plants, decreased availability of hydroelectric power from the
Pacific Northwest due to lower than usual precipitation and higher demand for electricity
in the region, transmission line constraints, increased prices for natural gas,
the fuel used in many of the power plants serving the region, and a dysfunctional
power market.
On July 17,
2002, the FERC extended and modified the mitigation measures that were set to expire
on September 30, 2002, citing delays in construction of new generation resources
in California and throughout the West, delays in adopting a new market design and
market rules by the Cal ISO, transmission line constraints, constraints on natural
gas pipeline capacity and a dysfunctional power
27
market. It remains unclear how long
the FERC will leave its mitigation measures in place. The premature termination
of such mitigation measures could result in a substantial increase in spot market
prices and the prices of long-term contracts for power and capacity. In addition,
FERC is considering a number of market reforms. One of the reforms that has been
suggested by the Cal ISO is the imposition of an available capacity obligation (ACAP)
on all load-serving entities. The purpose of the ACAP obligation is to ensure that
all load-serving entities have sufficient power resources to meet their maximum
possible load. If an ACAP obligation is adopted, SCW could be required to procure
substantial additional power and capacity. The cost of procuring this additional
power and capacity could have a material adverse impact on SCW if SCW is not permitted
to recover the costs of procuring this additional power and capacity from its ratepayers
on a timely basis.
Power
Supply Arrangements at SCWs Bear Valley Electric Service Area
All electric
energy sold by SCW to customers in its Bear Valley Electric customer service area
is purchased from others. In May 2000, SCW entered into a one-year, block forward
purchase contract with Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (DYPM) for 12 MWs of electric
energy at a price of $35.50 per MWh. This contract expired April 30, 2001.
SCW entered
into a five-year, block forward purchase contract with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing
LP (Mirant) for 15 MWs of electric energy at a price of $95 per MWh
beginning April 1, 2001 through December 31, 2006. On December 20, 2001, SCW filed
a complaint with FERC seeking to reduce the amount charged by Mirant under the terms
of this contract to a just and reasonable price. A hearing was conducted on this
matter in October 2002. Management does not anticipate a quick resolution of this
matter.
In June 2001,
SCW executed an agreement with Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PWCC) for an additional
8 MWs of electric energy to meet peak winter demands. The contract provided for
pricing of $75 per MWh from November 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002, $48 per MWh from
November 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, and $36 per MWh from November 1, 2003 to March
31, 2004. The average minimum load at SCWs Bear Valley Electric customer service
area has been approximately 12 MWs. The average winter load has been 18 MWs with
a winter peak of 38 MWs when the snowmaking machines at the ski resorts are operating.
In September
2002, SCW entered into a series of purchased power contracts with PWCC. Under the
agreements, SCW will sell 15 MWs to PWCC of electric energy at a price of $95 per
MWh beginning November 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006, and the 8 MWs of electric
energy covered under the energy purchase agreement with PWCC discussed previously.
In return, PWCC will supply SCWs BVE customer service area with 15 MWs of
electric energy at a price of $74.65 per MWh beginning November 1, 2002 through
December 31, 2008, and an additional 8 MWs at $74.65 per MWh beginning on November
1, 2002 through March 31, 2003 and each succeeding November 1 through March 31 period
through March 31, 2008 and November 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008.
Under the
terms of a contract with DYPM that expired on April 30, 2002, DYPM provided electric
energy to SCW in excess of the amounts it purchased under the forward block purchase
contracts previously described, acted as scheduling coordinator and provided other
ancillary services. DYPM has requested payment of an additional $5.6 million for
these services for the period June 1, 2000 to February 28, 2002 based on revised
invoices received by SCW in April 2002. The amounts set forth in the revised invoices
are included in the electric supply balancing account at September 30, 2002. SCW
disputed the revised invoices. On November 1, 2002, DYPM accepted a payment of $3.5
million from SCW as payment in full for the additional charges reflected in the
revised invoices.
SCW is a party
to the FERC proceedings in which refunds are being sought on purchases of power
from the California Power Exchange and the Cal ISO Management is unable to predict
whether or
28
not it will be entitled to receive any refunds
as a result of these proceedings
or any other investigations into the causes of the California energy crisis.
Transmission
Constraints
Demand for
energy in SCWs Bear Valley Electric customer service area generally has been
increasing. However, the ability of SCW to deliver purchased power to these customers
is limited by the ability of the transmission facilities owned by Southern California
Edison Company to transmit this power. In order to meet these increasing energy
demands, SCW is considering the construction of a gas-fueled generator facility
owned by SCW. An Advice Letter was filed to seek the CPUCs authorization.
If approved, it will result in further increases in electric energy prices for customers
of SCWs Bear Valley Electric customer service area. For more information,
see the section entitled Rate Matters-Changes in Rates included
in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operation.
Construction Program
SCW maintains
an ongoing distribution main replacement program throughout its customer service
areas based on the priority of leaks detected, fire protection enhancement and a
reflection of the underlying replacement schedule. In addition, SCW upgrades its
electric and water supply facilities in accordance with industry standards, local
requirements and CPUC requirements. SCWs Board of Directors has approved anticipated
net capital expenditures of approximately $55.4 million for 2002, only $20.4 million
of which was spent as of September 30, 2002 due to the cash preservation plan implemented
in 2001and discontinued in August 2002.
CCWC has a
net capital budget of $1.4 million for 2002. AWR and ASUS have no material capital
commitments. However, ASUS actively seeks opportunities to own, lease or operate
water and wastewater systems for governmental entities, which may involve significant
capital commitments.
Regulatory Matters
Rate
Regulation
SCW is subject
to regulation by the CPUC, which has broad powers with respect to service and facilities,
rates, classifications of accounts, valuation of properties, the purchase, disposition
and mortgaging of properties necessary or useful in rendering public utility service,
the issuance of securities, the granting of certificates of public convenience and
necessity as to the extension of services and facilities and various other matters.
CCWC is subject to regulation by the ACC.
Rates that
SCW and CCWC are authorized to charge are determined by the CPUC and the ACC, respectively,
in general rate cases and are derived using rate base, cost of service and cost
of capital, as projected for a future test year in California and using an historical
test year, as adjusted in Arizona. Rates charged to customers vary according to
customer class and rate jurisdiction and are generally set at levels allowing for
recovery of prudently incurred costs, including a return on rate base. Rate base
generally consists of the original cost of utility plant in service, plus certain
other assets, such as working capital and inventory, less accumulated depreciation
on utility plant in service, deferred income tax liabilities and certain other deductions.
For information on accounting for water supply and power costs, see the section
entitled Accounting for Supply Costs included in Part I, Item
2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operation and Note 4 to the Notes to Financial Statements
in Part I, Item 1.
29
Neither AWR
nor ASUS are directly regulated by the CPUC. The CPUC does, however, regulate certain
transactions between SCW and its affiliates. The ACC also regulates certain transactions
between CCWC and its affiliates.
The 22 customer
service areas of SCW are grouped into 9 water districts and 1 electric district
for ratemaking purposes. Water rates vary among the 9 ratemaking districts due to
differences in operating conditions and costs. SCW monitors operations on a regional
basis in each of these districts so that applications for rate changes may be filed,
when warranted. Under the CPUCs practices, rates may be increased by three
methods: (i) general rate case increases (GRCs), (ii) offsets for certain
expense increases including but not limited to supply cost offset and balancing
account amortization, and (iii) advice letter filings related to certain plant additions
and other operating cost increases. GRCs are typically for three-year periods,
which include step increases for the second and third year. Rates are based on a
forecast of expenses and capital costs. GRCs have a typical regulatory lag
of one year. Offset rate increases and advice letter filings typically have a two
to four month regulatory lag.
Changes
in Rates
New water
rates with an annual increase of approximately $2.5 million for seven ratemaking
districts in SCWs Region I and step increases of approximately $1.7 million
for SCWs Region III were effective in January 2001. An attrition increase
of approximately $2.8 million for Region II was in effect from February 2001. Step
increases of approximately $321,600 for four of seven ratemaking districts in SCWs
Region I were implemented in January 2002.
As of September
30, 2002, SCW had accrued approximately $27.6 million in under-collected purchased
power costs included in the electric balancing account. In May 2000, SCW filed an
Advice Letter with the CPUC for recovery over a five-year period of approximately
$2.4 million in under-collected power costs and removal of a negative amortization
authorized by the CPUC in 1997. The CPUC issued a final order on May 24, 2001 authorizing
an overall rate increase of 12.5%, with a condition of conducting a subsequent audit
on the expenses included in the electric balancing account. The audit has been conducted
and provided to the CPUC in October 2001.
On August
23, 2001, the CPUC also approved a second Advice Letter filed by SCW on April 9,
2001 seeking recovery, over five years, of an additional under-collection of $8.7
million for energy costs. Rates in SCWs BVE customer service area have increased
by approximately 14.8% as a result.
On August
17, 2001, SCW filed an application with the CPUC seeking recovery of an average
cost of $87 per MWh for electric energy purchased pursuant to power purchase contracts
with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation.
On February
8, 2002, a settlement agreement among SCW, all intervening parties and the Office
of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) was filed with the CPUC that will permit SCW to recover
$77 per MWh of purchased power costs through rates. SCW will be allowed to include
its actual purchased power costs up to an average annual weighted cost of $77 per
MWh each year for 10 years in its balancing account. To the extent SCWs actual
average annual weighted cost for purchased power is less than $77 per MWh, the differential
will offset amounts included in the electric supply balancing account. Conversely,
to the extent that actual average annual weighted costs for power purchased exceed
the $77 per MWh amount, SCW will not be able to include these amounts in its balancing
account and such amounts will be expensed against income. SCW has previously established
approximately $8.2 million in reserves against potential non-recovery of electric
power costs. In July 2002, $1.7 million was written off against the reserve based
on the settlement. In addition, the settlement extended the previously approved
surcharges for an additional five years to allow SCW an opportunity to collect amounts
remaining in its electric cost balancing account. Management believes that the settlement
will allow for full recovery of amounts included in the balancing account. The settlement
also requires SCW to pursue its complaint filed with
30
FERC in which SCW has requested
FERC to reduce the prices in its power purchase contract with Mirant to a just and
reasonable price. If FERC rules a price reduction, SCW is required to file an Advice
Letter to notify the CPUC within 30 days of the ruling. On July 17, 2002, CPUC
approved the settlement agreement with new rates effective immediately thereafter.
For further information, see the section entitled Electric Energy Situation
in California included in Part I, Item 2 in Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation and Note
4 to the Notes to Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1.
In March 2001,
the CPUC approved SCWs Advice Letters to increase costs of purchased power
incurred to pump water for its water customers by $761,351 included in base water
rates for each of its ratemaking districts. In April 2001, SCW filed additional
Advice Letters by ratemaking areas to increase water rates by approximately $2.3
million company-wide to recover additional electric base rate increases, authorized
recently by the CPUC for the Southern California Edison Company and the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company. The CPUC approved in the fourth quarter of 2001 increases
of approximately $672,900 in base water rates. For further information, see the
section Electric Energy Situation in California included in
Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation. The remaining Advice Letters filed by SCW
to recover increased power costs used for pumping were rejected by the CPUC due
to the change in procedures for collections of water supply costs on November 29,
2001. See the section entitled Accounting for Supply Costs included
in Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation and Note 4 to Notes to Financial Statements
in Part I, Item 1.
Pending
Rate Changes
An Advice
Letter filed by SCW on November 13, 2001 requested the authority to increase rates
in its Metropolitan district to offset an increase in rate base due to its infrastructure
replacement program and offset increased costs by using a price index. SCW has filed
a motion to amend a prior decision to clarify certain contradictory paragraphs in
that order that would allow for the requested increase. On October 24, 2002, the
CPUC approved SCWs motion to amend the language and SCW simultaneously filed
an Advice Letter to increase rates by $2.7 million annually.
In April 2002,
SCW filed for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) seeking the
CPUCs authorization to construct an 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generator facility
on a portion of its property in the City of Big Bear Lake . The capital cost of
the generator facility is estimated to be approximately $13 million, which, if approved
by the CPUC, will generate an annual revenue increase of about $2.4 million.
In October 2002, SCW filed an Application to
increase water rates in the customer
service areas that comprise Region III. Included in the same Application SCW also
requested rate increases applicable to SCWs entire customer base to recover
costs associated with the general office functions of SCW. With a proposed return
on equity of 12.45%, the new water rates in these filings, if fully approved by
the CPUC, will generate an annual increase in revenues of approximately $19.8 million
for the Region III customer service areas, and $6.0 million for all the other customer
service areas of SCW. A final decision on these applications is not anticipated
until the third quarter of 2003. SCW is also planning to file a Notice of Intent
to increase water rates in SCWs Region II customer service areas in the fourth
quarter of 2002.
In 1993, the
CPUC disallowed $1.6 million of costs incurred in construction of a water treatment
facility in SCWs Clearlake customer service area and Registrant wrote off
the disallowed amount at that time. Based on new water quality standards, in 2000,
SCW re-applied to the CPUC for inclusion of the disallowed amount in rate base.
A draft decision issued on March 30, 2001 by the CPUC would have allowed SCW to
include $500,000 of the $1.6 million in the regulated rate base. An alternate draft
decision issued by one of the CPUC Commissioners proposed to deny the relief sought
by SCW in its
31
application. An Administrative Law Judge subsequently reopened the
proceeding in August 2001 requiring additional information. A final order is not anticipated until 2003.
A final order is not anticipated until 2003.
Other
Regulatory Matters
On November
29, 2001, the CPUC adopted an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to evaluate existing
practices and policies, to determine whether new procedures or policies for processing
offset rate increases and balancing accounts should be made and to determine whether
the new memorandum account procedures adopted on November 29, 2001 should be made
permanent. For information on the new procedures, see Note 4 to Notes to Financial
Statements in Part I, Item 1. A draft decision on the OIR is scheduled
to be on the Commissions agenda on November 21, 2002.
There are
no active regulatory proceedings affecting CCWC or its operations.
Environmental Matters
1996
Amendments to Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
On August
6, 1996, amendments (the 1996 SDWA amendments) to the Safe Drinking Water Act (the
SDWA) were signed into law. The 1996 SDWA revised the 1986 amendments to the SDWA
with a new process for selecting and regulating contaminants. The U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) can only regulate contaminants that may have adverse health
effects, are known or likely to occur at levels of public health concern, and the
regulation of which will provide a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
The EPA has published a list of contaminants for possible regulation and must update
that list every five years. In addition, every five years, the EPA must select at
least five contaminants on that list and determine whether to regulate them. This
law allows the EPA to bypass the selection process and adopt interim regulations
for contaminants in order to address urgent health threats. Current regulations,
however, remain in place and are not subject to the new standard-setting provisions.
The DOHS, acting on behalf of the EPA, administers the EPAs program in California.
The 1996 SDWA
amendments allow the EPA to base primary drinking water regulations on risk assessment
and cost/benefit considerations and on minimizing overall risk. The EPA must base
regulations on best available, peer-reviewed science and data from best available
methods. For proposed regulations that involve the setting of maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs), the EPA must use, and seek public comment on, an analysis of
quantifiable and non-quantifiable risk-reduction benefits and costs for each such
MCL.
SCW and CCWC
currently test their wells and water systems according to requirements listed in
the SDWA. Water from wells found to contain levels of contaminants above the established
MCLs is treated to reduce contaminants to acceptable levels before it is delivered
to customers or the wells are shut down. Since the SDWA became effective, SCW has
experienced increased operating costs for testing to determine the levels, if any,
of the constituents in SCWs sources of supply and additional expense to lower
the level of any contaminants in order to meet the MCL standards. Such costs and
the costs of controlling any other contaminants may cause SCW to experience additional
capital costs as well as increased operating costs. The CPUC and ACC ratemaking
processes provide SCW and CCWC with the opportunity to recover prudently incurred
capital and operating costs associated with water quality. Management believes that
such incurred and expected future costs should be authorized for recovery by the
CPUC and ACC, as appropriate.
Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rules
The EPA has
adopted Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules (ESWTR), which require increased
surface-water treatment to decrease the risk of microbial contamination. These
rules apply to
32
each of SCWs five surface water treatment plants
and CCWCs surface water treatment plant. It Registrant anticipates that all plants will achieve
compliance within the three year to five-year time frames identified by EPA.
Regulation
of Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products
SCW and CCWC
are also subject to regulations concerning disinfectant/disinfection by-products
(DBPs). Stage I of the regulations were effective in November 1998 with full
compliance required for systems serving 10,000 or more persons by 2002 and for systems
serving fewer than 10,000 persons by 2004. Stage I requires reduction of trihalomethane
contaminants from 100 micrograms per liter to 80 micrograms per liter. SCW implemented
modifications to the treatment process in its Bay Point and Cordova systems, the
only two systems impacted by this rule, to achieve compliance and a third SCW plant
will require treatment modifications in order to comply with this rule by 2004.
The EPA is
not allowed to use the new cost/benefit analysis provided for in the 1996 SDWA amendments
for establishing the Stage II rules applicable to DBPs but may utilize the
regulatory negotiating process provided for in the 1996 SDWA amendments to develop
the Stage II rule. The final rule is not expected until 2004.
Ground
Water Rule
On May 10,
2000, the EPA published the proposed Ground Water Rule (GWR), which establishes
multiple barriers to protect against bacteria and viruses in drinking water systems
that use ground water. The proposed rule will apply to all U.S. public water systems
that use ground water as a source. The proposed GWR includes system sanitary surveys
conducted by the state to identify significant deficiencies; hydrogeologic sensitivity
assessments for undisinfected systems, source water microbial monitoring by systems
that do not disinfect and draw from hydrogeologically sensitive aquifer or have
detected fecal indicators within the systems distribution system; corrective action;
and compliance monitoring for systems which disinfect to ensure that they reliably
achieve 4-log (99.99%) inactivation or removal of viruses. The GWR is scheduled
to be issued as a final regulation in 2003. While no assurance can be given as
to the nature and cost of any additional compliance measures, if any, SCW and CCWC
do not believe that such regulations will impose significant compliance costs, since
they already currently engage in disinfection of their groundwater systems.
Regulation
of Radon and Arsenic
The regulation
on arsenic was published in January 2001 with a new federal standard of 10 parts
per billion (ppb). Compliance with an MCL of 10 ppb will require implementation
of wellhead treatment remedies for eight affected wells in SCWs system and
three wells in CCWCs system. However, the EPA subsequently withdrew the pending
arsenic standard for a sixty-day review to seek independent reviews of both the
science behind the standard and of the cost estimates to communities of implementing
the rule. On October 31, 2001, EPA announced that the arsenic standard in drinking
water would be 10 parts per billion (ppb). The effective date for utilities to comply
with the standard will be January 2006. In California, the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment is currently preparing a Public Health Goal for arsenic
that may result in California adopting a lower MCL for arsenic.
The EPA has
proposed new radon regulations following a National Academy of Sciences risk assessment
and study of risk-reduction benefits associated with various mitigation measures.
The National Academy of Sciences study is in agreement with much of EPAs original
findings but has slightly reduced the ingestion risk initially assumed by EPA. EPA
established an MCL of 300 Pico Curies per liter based on the findings and has also
established an alternative MCL of 4000 Pico Curies per liter, based upon potential
mitigation measures for overall radon reduction. The final rule has been delayed
and
33
most likely will not be published until late 2003. SCW and
CCWC currently monitor
their wells for radon in order to determine the best treatment appropriate for affected
wells.
Voluntary
Efforts to Provide Treated Surface Water Below Minimum Surface Water Treatment Requirements
SCW is a voluntary
member of the EPAs Partnership for Safe Water, a national program designed
to further protect the public from diseases caused by cryptosporidium and other
microscopic organisms. As a volunteer in the program, SCW commits to treat surface
to levels much lower than the minimum operating requirements governing surface water
treatment, optimize surface water treatment plant operations and seeks to have its
surface water treatment facilities perform as efficiently as possible.
Unregulated
Contaminants Monitoring Rule
EPA has revised
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), as required by the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The data generated by the UCMR will be used to
evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List, a list of contaminants EPA is considering for possible new drinking water
standards. This data will help to ensure that future decisions on drinking water
standards are based on sound science.
A tiered approach
will be utilized with the three monitoring lists to provide the maximum capability
to monitor up to the statutory limit of no more than 30 contaminants in any 5-year
monitoring cycle. Therefore, as List 3 contaminants are found to occur in public
water systems, they may move up to List 2, and likewise, List 2 contaminants may
move up to List 1, in 2004, when the UCMR is revised again. The law requires that
EPA publish a new contaminant-monitoring list every 5 years.
Fluoridation
of Water Supplies
SCW is subject
to State of California Assembly Bill 733, which requires fluoridation of water supplies
for public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections. Although
the bill requires affected systems to install treatment facilities only when public
funds have been made available to cover capital and operating costs, the bill requires
the CPUC to authorize cost recovery through rates should public funds for operation
of the facilities, once installed, become unavailable in future years.
Ammonium
Perchlorate Action Level Activities
In January
1997, the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) established an action
level of 18 parts per billion (ppb) for ammonium perchlorate. Action levels are
advisory in nature and are not enacted into law. In January 2002, SCW was informed
that DOHS has reduced the action level from 18 ppb to a level of 4 ppb, based upon
new reference dosage for health risk information from EPA. The Governor in California
recently signed into law a bill requiring DOHS to establish a MCL for ammonium perchlorate
by January 1, 2004. SCW has removed eight wells from service in four separate systems
since they contained ammonium perchlorate in amounts in excess of this reduced action
level. On March 8, 2002, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) published a draft Public Health Goal for perchlorate at 6 ppb. This is the
first step to establishment of an MCL in California. SCW is continuing to periodically
monitor all its wells to determine that levels of ammonium perchlorate are below
the action level currently in effect.
Matters
Relating to SCWs Arden-Cordova Water System
In January
1997, SCW was notified that ammonium perchlorate in amounts above the state-determined
action level had been detected in three of its wells serving its Rancho-Cordova
water system. Aerojet-General Corp. has, in the past, used ammonium perchlorate
in oxidizing rocket fuels. SCW took
34
the three wells detected with ammonium perchlorate
in excess of the 1997 action levels out of service. In April 1997, SCW found ammonium
perchlorate in three additional wells and, at that time, removed those wells from
service until it was determined that the levels were below the state-determined
action level. Those wells were returned to service. SCW periodically monitors these
wells to determine that levels of ammonium perchlorate are below the action level
currently in effect. Following the reduction in the action level for ammonium perchlorate
in January 2002, SCW removed three wells from service since they contained ammonium
perchlorate in amounts in excess of this reduced action level.
In February
1998, SCW was informed that nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) had been detected in amounts
in excess of the EPA reference dosage for health risks in four of its wells in its
Rancho-Cordova water system. The wells have been removed from service. Since then,
additional wells were also removed from service due to the contamination. In February
2002, DOHS increased the action level from 2 parts per trillion (ppt) to 10 ppt.
Management is investigating the impact, if any, that the increase in the action
level may have on its abilities to put certain wells back into service. NDMA is
an additional by-product from the production of rocket fuel and it is believed that
such contamination is related to the activities of Aerojet.
Aerojet has
reimbursed SCW for constructing a pipeline to interconnect with the City of Folsom
water system to provide an alternative source of water supply in SCWs Rancho-Cordova
customer service area and has reimbursed SCW for costs associated with the drilling
and equipping of two new wells. As of September 30, 2002, Aerojet had previously
reimbursed SCW $4.5 million of the approximately $20.7 million in costs SCW has
incurred. The remainder of the costs is subject to further reimbursement pending
outcome of the litigation. Reimbursements received from Aerojet reduce SCWs
costs of utility plant and purchased water. For further information regarding litigation
related to contamination of ground water in Sacramento County, see the section entitled
Other Water Quality Litigation included in Part II, Item 1
in Legal Proceedings.
The EPA issued
an order to Aerojet in August 2002 that requires Aerojet to ultimately restore the
contaminated aquifer and minimize further loss of water supply wells, and requires
Aerojet to provide an alternative water supply if more water supply wells are lost.
Matters
Relating to SCWs Culver City Water System
The compound,
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), an oxygenate used in reformulated fuels, has
been detected in the Charnock Basin, located in the city of Santa Monica and within
SCWs Culver City customer service area. At the request of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the City of Santa Monica and the California Environmental
Protection Agency, SCW removed two of its wells in the Culver City water system
from service in October 1996 to help in efforts to avoid further spread of the MTBE
contamination plume. Neither of these wells has been found to be contaminated with
MTBE. SCW is purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD) at an increased cost to replace the water supply formerly pumped from the
two wells removed from service.
On September
22, 1999, the U.S. EPA and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
ordered Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company and Equilon Enterprises LLC
to provide replacement drinking water to both SCW and the City of Santa Monica due
to MTBE contamination of the Charnock Basin drinking water. The EPA has ordered
Shell Oil to reimburse SCW for water replacement costs. The agencies are continuing
to investigate the causes of MTBE pollution and intend to ensure that all responsible
parties contribute to its clean up. SCW is unable to predict the outcome of the
EPAs enforcement efforts. In March 2002, SCW reached a settlement agreement
with the City of Santa Monica, in which SCW assigned its rights against all the
potentially responsible parties, who stored, transported and dispensed gasoline
containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in underground storage tanks, pipelines
or other related infrastructure, and its water rights in the Charnock Basin to the
City of
35
Santa Monica and Santa Monica took over the
prosecution against the potentially
responsible parties in exchange for an assignment payment. The settlement agreement
is pending the CPUCs approval.
Matters
Relating to SCWs Yorba Linda Water System
The compound
MTBE has been detected in three wells serving SCWs Yorba Linda water system.
Two of the wells are standby wells and the third well has not shown MTBE above the
DOHS secondary standard of 5.0 ppb at this time. SCW has constructed an interconnection
with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to provide for additional
supply in the event the third well experiences levels of detection in excess of
the DOHS standard.
SCW has met
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Orange County Water District,
the City of Anaheim, the DOHS and three potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
to define the extent of the MTBE contamination plume and assess the contribution
from the PRPs. The PRPs have voluntarily initiated a work plan for regional
investigation. While there have not been significant disruptions to the water supply
in Yorba Linda at this point in time, no assurances can be given that MTBE contamination
will not increase in the future.
Matters
Relating to SCWs Los Osos Water System
The compound
MTBE has been detected in a well serving SCWs Los Osos water system. For some
time SCW has been working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well
as the owner of a service station. Although the owner of the service station has
attempted remediation with funds provided through the California Underground Storage
Tank Fund (CUSTF), it appears there will be insufficient funds from
the CUSTF to complete remediation sufficient to return the well to service. In order
to prevent the running of the statute of limitations, on August 12, 2002 SCW filed
suit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo
against the operators and owners of the service station facility, and Chevron USA
Products, Inc., the supplier.
Security
Since the
tragic events of September 11, 2001, water utilities, including Registrant, have
been advised to increase security at key facilities in order to avoid contamination
of water supplies and other disruptions of service. Registrant has implemented a
number of steps to address this concern, including engaging a security firm to develop
further protection measures and an ongoing review of new industry and regulatory
agency security measures. Although Registrant has not experienced any material increase
in costs related to these measures, management is unable to predict what, if any,
additional measures will be implemented and what such measures may cost. Registrant
intends to seek recovery of any such costs from the CPUC and the ACC.
Water
Supply
SCWs
Water Supply
For the three
months ended September 30, 2002, SCW supplied a total of 27,921,000 ccf of water
as compared to 26,962,000 ccf for the three months ended September 30, 2001. Of
the total 27,921,000 ccf of water supplied during the third quarter of 2002, approximately
52.0% came from pumped sources and 44.5% was purchased from others, principally
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and its member agencies.
The remaining 3.5% of total supply came from the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(the Bureau). For the three months ended September 30, 2001, 53.8%, 43.6% and 2.6%
was supplied from pumped sources purchased from MWD and the Bureau, respectively.
36
For the nine
months ended September 30, 2002, SCW supplied a total of 68,665,000 ccf of water,
55.6% of which came from pumped sources, 41.8% was purchased and 2.6% was supplied
by the Bureau. During the nine months ended September 30, 2001, SCW produced 65,384,000
ccf of water. Of this amount 58.2% came from pumped sources, 40.0% was purchased
and the remainder was provided by the Bureau.
During the
twelve months ended September 30, 2002, SCW supplied 87,384,000 ccf of water as
compared to 84,538,000 ccf supplied during the twelve months ended September 30,
2001. During the twelve months ended September 30, 2002, pumped sources provided
56.5% of total supply, 41.0% was purchased from MWD and its member agencies. The
remaining 2.5% of total supply came from the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(the Bureau) under a no-cost contract. For the twelve months ended September 30,
2001, 57.9%, 40.0% and 2.1%, respectively, was supplied from pumped sources, purchased
from MWD and the Bureau.
The MWD is
a water district organized under the laws of the State of California for the purpose
of delivering imported water to areas within its jurisdiction. Registrant has 57
connections to the water distribution facilities of MWD and other municipal water
agencies. MWD imports water from two principal sources: the Colorado River and the
State Water Project (SWP). Available water supplies from the Colorado River and
the SWP have historically been sufficient to meet most of MWDs requirements
and MWDs supplies from these sources are anticipated to remain adequate through
2002. MWDs import of water from the Colorado River is expected to decrease
in future years due to the requirements of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). In
response, MWD has taken a number of steps to secure additional storage capacity
and to increase available water supplies, by effecting transfers of water rights
from other sources.
Registrants
water supply and revenues are significantly affected, both in the short-run
and the long run, by changes in meteorological conditions. The average current water
outlook for California is near average with the statewide precipitation at 80% of
normal level and reservoirs at 81% of normal. However Southern California has experienced
one of the driest rainfall seasons since 1877. The South Coast basin received only
29% of normal. Current California river levels are also low particularly in coastal
regions and the southern Sierra, where August runoff was among the lowest in the
last 25 years. The impacts of a dry water year were minimized by generally good
storage in reservoirs and groundwater basins. Despite the low precipitation in the
Southland, the MWD, which provides water to 26 municipal water agencies, has stated
that it believes that there will be sufficient water available for both residential
users and business owners for at least the next 10 years.
Ninety percent
(90%) of water used in Southern California comes from the Sierra snow pack, which
is currently believed to be sufficient to supply water to the southern part of the
State . In addition, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is forecasting
normal rainfall for the Southwest United States in October-November-December and
above normal amounts for January-February-March. El Nino/Southern Oscillation conditions
have formed in the Pacific and the next Kelvin wave of warmer water is moving towards
South America. Also the Madden-Julian Oscillation, which has been weakening the
easterly winds, has itself weakened allowing strengthening of the current El Nino
conditions. The California Department of Water Resources also predicts an increased
chance of above-average precipitation in Southern California.
Groundwater
conditions remain at adequate levels in most of SCWs operating areas. Certain
of SCWs groundwater supplies have been affected to varying degrees by various
forms of contamination and mechanical problems caused by low water table, which,
in some cases, have caused increased reliance on purchased water in its supply mix.
A sudden and
unexplained drop in groundwater water supply severely impacted SCWs Wrightwood
customer service area in the second quarter of 2002. In response to this emergency
situation,
37
SCW undertook taken a number of steps
to provide water service, including
trucking water into the area from nearby sources, bringing a formerly shut down
well into service, taking steps to increase capacity at existing wells and expediting
the drilling and equipping of a new well. In taking these steps to meet water demand,
SCW experienced increased operating costs of approximately $450,000, most significantly
associated with the cost of trucking water. However, due to the actions of SCW
and conservation efforts of consumers the situation has stabilized. Management is
unable to predict the extent to which additional costs may be incurred or the extent
to which additional problems may be encountered. The cause of the unexplained and
sudden drop in groundwater supply has not been identified, but it may be drought-related.
CCWCs
Water Supply
Northern Arizona
has not had significant precipitation, with the Colorado River basin receiving only
18% of normal rainfall, placing it in extreme drought conditions. As of September
2002, however, Lake Powell was at 70% of normal level and Lake Mead was at 83% of
normal, even with the Colorado River inflows at only 53% of average. Outlook for
the next few months for this area indicate that the drought will persist.
Since CCWC
obtains its water supply from three operating wells and from Colorado River water
delivered by the CAP, this situation will be monitored closely over the next few
months. The majority of CCWCs water supply is obtained from its CAP allocation
and well water is used for peaking capacity in excess of treatment plant capability,
during treatment plant shutdown, and to keep the well system in optimal operating
condition.
CCWC has an
Assured Water Supply designation, by decision and order of the Arizona Department
of Water Resources, providing in part that, subject to its requirements, CCWC currently
has a sufficient supply of ground water and CAP water which is physically, continuously
and legally available to satisfy current and committed demands of its customers,
plus at least two years of predicted demands, for 100 years.
Notwithstanding
such a designation, CCWCs water supply may be subject to interruption or reduction,
in particular owing to interruption or reduction of CAP water. In the event of interruption
or reduction of CAP water, CCWC can currently rely on its well water supplies for
short-term periods. However, in any event, the quantity of water CCWC supplies to
some or all of its customers may be interrupted or curtailed, pursuant to the provisions
of its tariffs.
Risk Factor Summary
You should
carefully read the risks described below and other information in this Form 10-Q
in order to understand certain of the risks of our business.
Our liquidity,
and in certain circumstances, earnings, could be adversely affected by increases
in electricity prices in California.
Under California
law, we are permitted to file for a rate increase to recover electric power costs
not being recovered in current rates. Increases in electric power costs generally
have no direct impact on profit margins, unless recovery of these costs is disallowed,
but do affect cash flows and can therefore impact the amount of our capital resources.
Electric power costs increased substantially in California during the fall of 2000
until the summer of 2001. On July 17, 2002, the FERC extended and modified the mitigation
measures that were set to expire on September 30, 2002, citing delays in construction
of new generation resources in California and throughout the West, delays in adopting
a new market design and market rules by the Cal ISO, transmission line constraints,
constraints on natural gas pipeline capacity and a dysfunctional power market. It
remains unclear how long the FERC will leave its mitigation measures
38
in place. The
premature termination of such mitigation measures could result in a substantial
increase in spot market prices and the prices of long-term contracts for power and
capacity. In addition, Cal ISO has proposed a number of market reforms that could
require us to procure substantial additional power and/or capacity. This could also
result in an increase in the level and volatility of electric prices in California.
On July 17,
2002, the CPUC approved a settlement authorizing us to include $0.077 per kilowatt-hour
(KWh) in rates to recover our electric power costs. If our actual annual costs exceed
this amount, we cannot recover the excess and the amount will be expensed against
income. If our actual annual energy costs are less that $0.077 per KWh, we can use
this difference to collect amounts previously included in the balancing account.
The new rates have been in effect since July 17, 2002. As of September 30, 2002,
we have accrued $27.6 million in unrecovered power costs in our electric supply
balancing account and have approximately $6.4 million in reserves for possible
non-recovery of power costs.
Changes
in water supply costs, either unit cost change or supply mix change, will directly
impact the Companys earnings.
Prior to November
29, 2001, we recovered certain water supply costs through a balancing account mechanism.
Water supply costs include the cost of purchased water and power and groundwater
production assessments. The balancing account was not, however, designed to insulate
SCWs earnings against changes in supply mix. As a result, SCW was not permitted
to recover increased costs due to increased use of purchased water, which is generally
more expensive than groundwater, through the balancing account mechanism.
On November
29, 2001, the CPUC ordered SCW to suspend the use of the current water balancing
account, and instead started a memorandum account for each offsettable expense of
purchased water, purchased power and pump tax for its water service areas. We may
recover certain water supply costs based on the memorandum account if we are within
our rate case cycle and we are not earning an amount in excess of our authorized
rate of return. SCW may not otherwise recover increased costs due to increased unit
cost. Additionally, changes in water supply costs compared to the authorized amount,
as well as any future authorized offset increases may directly affect our earnings.
Significant
claims have been asserted against us in water quality litigation.
SCW and others
have been sued in twenty-two water quality related lawsuits alleging personal injury
and property damage as a result of the delivery of water that was allegedly contaminated.
Nineteen of the lawsuits involve plaintiffs who received water from the San Gabriel
Basin in Los Angeles County. The other lawsuits involve plaintiffs in Sacramento
County.
In March 1998,
the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Investigation as a result of water quality
lawsuits being filed against water utilities in California. On November 2, 2000,
the CPUC issued a final order concluding that the CPUC has jurisdiction to regulate
the service of water utilities with respect to the health and safety of that service;
that DOHS requirements governing drinking water quality adequately protect the public
health and safety; and that regulated water utilities, including SCW, have satisfactorily
complied with past and present drinking water quality requirements.
On February
5, 2002, the California Supreme Court ruled that water utilities regulated by the
CPUC may be sued for damages based on allegations that the utility failed to comply
with federal and state safe drinking water requirements. As a result, plaintiffs
may proceed on their claims against SCW to the extent that these claims are based
on violations of federal and state law.
SCW is unable
to predict the outcome of any of this litigation or the extent to which it will
be able to recover its litigation costs from ratepayers or other third parties.
39
Our operating
costs have increased and are expected to continue to increase as a result of groundwater
contamination.
SCWs
operations have been impacted by groundwater contamination in certain of its service
territories. We have taken a number of steps to address this contamination, including
the removal of wells from service, the construction of water treatment facilities
and securing alternatives sources of supply from other areas not affected by the
contamination.
In some cases,
potentially responsible parties have reimbursed us for our costs. In other cases,
we have taken legal action against parties that we believe to be potentially responsible
for the contamination.
Certain government
officials have suggested that water producers, such as SCW and CCWC, may have liability
under certain environmental statutes if their pumping operations affect the movement
of the contamination. SCW has been required to remove certain wells from service
because its pumping activities might affect the movement of contamination in other
service areas. Currently, neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor any other
governmental agency has identified the Company or, to our knowledge, any other water
producer, as a potentially responsible party. We cannot assure you, however, that
SCW or CCWC will not be identified as a potentially responsible party in the future.
Our future results of operations could be adversely affected if either SCW or CCWC
is required to pay clean-up costs and is not allowed to recover such costs in rates.
Environmental
regulation has increased, and is expected to continue to increase, our operating
costs.
SCW and CCWC
are subject to increasingly stringent environmental regulations that will result
in increasing capital and operating costs. These regulations include:
|
The 1996 amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act that require increased testing and treatment of water
to reduce specified contaminants to maximum contaminant levels
|
|
Approved regulations
requiring increased surface-water treatment to decrease the risk of microbial contamination;
these regulations affect SCWs five surface water treatment plants and one
CCWC plant
|
|
Additional
regulation of disinfection/disinfection byproducts; these regulations will potentially
affect two of SCWs systems
|
|
Additional
regulations expected to be adopted requiring disinfection of certain groundwater
systems
|
|
Currently
pending regulation of arsenic and radon
|
|
California
customer requirements to fluoridate public water systems serving over 10,000 customers
|
|
Changes in
the action level and the proposed adoption of MCLs for ammonium perchlorate; we
have removed 8 wells from service due to the presence of ammonium perchlorate above
action levels.
|
SCW and CCWC may be able to recover costs
incurred to comply with these regulations through the ratemaking process for their
regulated systems. We may also be able to recover certain of these costs under our
contractual arrangements with municipalities. In certain circumstances, we may be
able to recover costs from parties responsible or potentially responsible for contamination.
The adequacy of our water supplies depends
upon a variety of factors beyond our control.
The adequacy of our water supplies varies
from year to year depending upon a variety of factors, including:
40
|
Rainfall
|
|
The amount
of water stored in reservoirs
|
|
Availability
of Colorado River water
|
|
The amount
of water stored in reservoirs
|
|
The amount
of water used by our customers and others
|
|
Water quality,
and
|
|
Legal limitations
on use
|
|
|
Population
growth and increases in the amount
of water used have increased limitations on use to prevent over-drafting of groundwater
basins. The import of water from the Colorado River, one of SCWs important
sources of supply, is expected to decrease in future years due to the requirements
of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). We have also taken wells out of
service due to groundwater contamination.
CCWC obtains its water supply from operating
wells and from the Colorado River through the CAP. CCWCs water supply may
be subject to interruption or reduction if there is an interruption or reduction
in CAP water.
Water shortages may affect us in a variety
of ways:
|
They adversely
affect supply mix by causing us to rely on more expensive purchased water
|
|
They adversely
affect operating costs
|
|
They may result
in an increase in capital expenditures for building pipelines to connect to alternative
sources of supplies and reservoirs and other facilities to conserve or reclaim water
|
We may be
able to recover increased operating and construction costs for our regulated systems
through the ratemaking process. We may also be able to recover certain of these
costs under the terms of our contractual agreements with municipalities. In certain
circumstances, we may recover these costs from third parties that may be responsible,
or potentially responsible, for groundwater contamination.
Our
earnings are greatly affected by weather during different seasons.
The demand
for water and electricity varies by season. Therefore, the results of operations
for one period may not indicate results to be expected in another period. For instance,
most water consumption occurs during the third quarter of each year when weather
tends to be hot and dry. On warm days, use of water by residential and commercial
customers may be significantly greater than on cold days because of the increased
use of water for outdoor landscaping. Likewise the demand for electricity in our
Big Bear service area is greatly affected by winter snows. An increase in winter
snows reduces the use of snow making machines at ski resorts in the Big Bear area
and, as a result reduces electric revenues.
Variability
of weather from normal temperatures or changes in snow or rainfall can materially
impact results of operations. As a result, weather has been and will continue to
be one of the dominant factors in our financial performance.
Our business
is heavily regulated and, as a result, decisions by regulatory agencies and changes
in laws and regulations can significantly affect our business.
Our revenues
depend substantially on the rates that we are permitted to charge our customers
and our ability to recover our costs in these rates, including the ability to recover
the costs of purchased water, groundwater assessments and electric power costs in
rates. We have an Advice Letter pending before the CPUC to increase rates in our
Metropolitan district by $2.7 million annually to offset an increase in rate base
due to its infrastructure replacement program and offset increased costs by using
a price index. We also have filed for increased water rates to recover operating
costs from customers in Region III as well as
41
from all customers for costs associated
with general office activities. In addition, we are seeking CPUC authorization
to construct an 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generator facility to meet increasing
demand in our Bear Valley customer service area. The CPUCs resolution ordering
SCW to suspend the use of the current water balancing account, and instead to start
a memorandum account for our supply costs has and will directly impact our earnings.
We may recover certain water supply costs based on the memorandum account only if
we are within our rate case cycle and we are not earning an amount in excess of
our authorized rate of return.
We have been
adversely affected by electric restructuring in California and the escalation of
energy costs that we have recently begun recovering in rates. SCW has also filed
a complaint with FERC seeking a reduction of the rates in its power purchase contract
with Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P. to a just and reasonable price, and
is a party to proceedings in which load serving entities in California are seeking
recovery of costs incurred in connection with purchasing power in the spot market
from October 2000 through June 2001. There are also proceedings pending before FERC
to restructure the California energy markets.
Our business
requires significant capital expenditures.
The utility
business is capital intensive. On an annual basis, we spend significant sums for
additions to or replacement of property, plant and equipment. During calendar years
2001, 2000 and 1999, we spent $50,253,000, $45,982,000, and $51,578,000, respectively,
for these purposes. Our budgeted capital expenditures for calendar year 2002 for
these purposes are approximately $56,774,000.
We obtain
funds for these capital projects from operations, contributions by developers and
others and advances from developers (which must be repaid). We also periodically
borrow money or issue equity for these purposes. In addition, we secured a syndicated
bank facility that we can use for these purposes. We cannot assure you that these
sources will continue to be adequate or that the cost of funds will remain at levels
permitting us to remain profitable.
Accounting Standards
In June of
2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 143, Accounting
for Asset Retirement Obligations, on the accounting for obligations associated
with the retirement of long-lived assets. Registrant believes that it will be subject
to the provisions of SFAS No. 143 and is currently analyzing the impact that implementation
of FASB No. 143 might have on its future financial statement presentation. The new
rule requires businesses to record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement
obligation in the period in which it is incurred. When the liability is initially
recorded, the entity capitalizes a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the
related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value
each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the
related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, an entity either settles the obligation
for its recorded amount or incurs a gain or loss upon settlement. SFAS No. 143 is
effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002.
In August
2001, the FASB also issued SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal
of Long-Lived Assets, which addresses the financial accounting and reporting for
the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets. Registrant does not expect this
Statement to materially impact its financial statements.
In June 2002,
the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal
Activities. This pronouncement is effective for exit or disposal activities that
are initiated after December 31, 2002, and requires these costs to be recognized
when the liability is incurred and not at project initiation. Registrant is reviewing
the provisions of this Statement, but does not expect it to have a material impact
on its financial statements.
42
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Registrant
has no derivative financial instruments, financial instruments with significant
off-balance sheet risks or financial instruments with concentrations of credit risk
except for the block-forward purchase power contracts that meet the normal purchase
exception rule under FASB 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities. Under the terms of its power purchase contracts with Mirant Americas
Energy Marketing, L.P. and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, SCW is required to
post security, at the request of the seller, if SCW is in default under the terms
of the applicable contract. In addition, SCWs liquidity, and in certain circumstances,
earnings could be adversely affected by increases in electricity prices in California.
For further information, see the section entitled Contractual Obligations
and Other Commitments and Risk Factor Summary included in
Part I, Item 2 in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Within ninety
days prior to the filing of this report, we carried out an evaluation, under the
supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures.
Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in our periodic reports filed or submitted under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the
time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commissions rules and
forms. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective. There
have been no significant changes in our internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date we carried out
this evaluation.
PART II
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Water
Quality-Related Litigation
SCW is a defendant
in twenty-two lawsuits involving claims pertaining to water quality. Nineteen of
the lawsuits involve customer service areas located in Los Angeles County in the
southern portion of the State of California that have been filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court: Robert Arenas, et al. v. Suburban Water Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. KC037559, Anthony John Bell, et al. v. City of Pomona, et al., Case No. KC038796,
Adler, et al. v. Southern California Water Company, et al., Case No. BC169892, Santamaria,
et al. v. Suburban Water Systems, et al., Case No. CIV180894, Georgianna Dominguez
et al. v. Southern California Water Company, et al., Case No. G021657, Anderson,
et al. v. Suburban Water Company, et al., Case No. KC028524, Abarca, et al. v. City
of Pomona, et al., Case No. K027795, Celi, et al. v. San Gabriel Valley Water Company,
Case No. GC020622, Boswell et al. v. Suburban Water Systems, et al., Case No. KC027318,
Demciuc et al. v. Suburban Water Systems, et al., Case No. C028732, Antoinette Adejare,
et al. v. City of Pomona, et al., Case No. KC031096, Almelia Brooks, et al. v. Suburban
Water System, et al., Case No. KC032915, Lori Alexander, et al. v. Suburban Water
Systems, et al., Case No. KC031130, David Arnold, et al. v. City of Pomona, et al.,
Case No. KC034636, Gilda Ambrose-Dubre, et al. v. City of Pomona, et al., Case No.
KC032906, Melissa Garrity Alvarado, et al. v. Suburban Water Systems et al., Case
No. KC034953 , Charles Alexander, et al. v. City of Pomona, et al., Case No KC035526,
Criner, et al. v. San Gabriel Valley Water Company, et al., Case No. GC021658, and
Donerson, et al. v. City of Pomona, et al., Case No. KC035987. The lawsuits filed
in Los Angeles County Superior Court are based on the allegations that SCW and the
other defendants have provided and continue to provide plaintiffs with contaminated
water from wells located in an area of the
43
San Gabriel Valley that has been designated
a federal superfund site, that the maintenance of this contaminated well water has
resulted in contamination of the soil, subsurface soil and surrounding air with
trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride and other solvents
and that plaintiffs have been injured and their property damaged as a result. Three
of the lawsuits involve a customer service area located in Sacramento County in
northern California that have been filed in Sacramento County Superior Court: Nathaniel
Allen, Jr. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 97AS06295, Daphne Adams,
et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 98AS01025, and Wallace Andrew
Pennington et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 00AS02622. The
lawsuits filed in Sacramento County Superior Court are based on the allegations
that SCW and other defendants have delivered water to plaintiffs that is contaminated
with a number of chemicals, including, TCE, PCE, carbon tetrachloride, perchlorate,
Freon-113, hexavalent chromium and other unnamed chemicals and that plaintiffs have
been injured and their property damaged as a result.
On September
1, 1999, the Court of Appeals in San Francisco held that the CPUC had preemptive
jurisdiction over regulated public utilities with respect to water quality matters
and ordered dismissal of a series of these lawsuits. On October 11, 1999, one group
of plaintiffs appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court. On February
4, 2002, the California Supreme Court concluded that (i) the CPUC had preemptive
jurisdiction over claims seeking injunctive relief and claims based on the theory
that a public utility regulated by the CPUC provided unsafe drinking water even
though it had complied with federal and state drinking water standards, but (ii)
the CPUC did not have preemptive jurisdiction over damage claims based on allegations
of violations of federal and state drinking water standards by public utilities
regulated by the CPUC. As a result, damage claims based on allegations of violations
of federal and state drinking water standards may proceed while the other claims
must be dismissed.
In light of
the breadth of plaintiffs claims, the lack of factual information regarding plaintiffs
claims and injuries, if any, the impact of the California Supreme Court decision
on plaintiffs claims and the fact that no discovery has yet been completed,
SCW is unable at this time to determine what, if any, potential liability it may
have with respect to these claims. Based upon the information currently available
to it, Registrant believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend these claims.
SCW is subject
to self-insured retention provisions in its applicable insurance policies and has
either expensed the self-insured amounts or has reserved against payment of these
amounts as appropriate. SCWs various insurance carriers have, to date, provided
reimbursement for costs incurred above the self-insured amounts for defense against
these lawsuits, subject to a reservation of rights.
Order
Instituting Investigation (OII)
In March 1998,
the CPUC issued an OII to regulated water utilities in the state of California,
including SCW. The purpose of the OII was to determine whether existing standards
and policies regarding drinking water quality adequately protect the public health
and whether those standards and policies were being uniformly complied with by those
water utilities. On November 2, 2000, a final decision from the CPUC concluded that
the Commission has the jurisdiction to regulate the service of water utilities with
respect to the health and safety of that service; that the California Department
of Health Services requirements governing drinking water quality adequately protect
the public health and safety; and that regulated water utilities, including SCW,
have satisfactorily complied with past and present drinking water quality requirements.
The CPUC had
previously authorized establishment of memorandum accounts to capture expenses related
to the OII. Under the memorandum account procedure, SCW may recover litigation costs
from ratepayers to the extent authorized by the CPUC. The CPUC has not yet authorized
SCW to recover any of its litigation costs. As of September 30, 2002, SCW had recorded
a net of $890,000 in this memorandum account. Management believes that these expenses
will be fully recovered but is unable to predict when, or if, the CPUC will authorize
recovery of all or any of the costs.
44
Other
Water Quality Litigation
On October
25, 1999, SCW filed a lawsuit against the California Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) alleging that the CRWQCB has willfully allowed portions
of the Sacramento County Groundwater Basin to be injected with chemical pollution
that is destroying the underground water supply in SCWs Rancho Cordova customer
service area. SCW and the CRWQCB have entered into mediation regarding this matter
but management cannot predict the likely outcome of this process or the likelihood
of a favorable outcome should this matter go to trial.
In a separate
case, also filed on October 25, 1999, SCW sued Aerojet-General Corporation (Aerojet)
for causing the contamination of the Sacramento County Groundwater Basin. A cross
complaint filed by Aerojet against SCW for negligence and constituting a public
nuisance was dismissed in October 2002.
The CPUC has
authorized memorandum accounts to allow for recovery of costs incurred by SCW in
prosecuting the suits filed against CRWQCB and Aerojet from customers, less any
recovery from the defendants or others. As of September 30, 2002, approximately
$10.7 million has been recorded in the memorandum accounts. The CPUC has authorized
SCW to increase rates, effective April 28, 2001, for recovery over a six-year period
of approximately $1.8 million, in expenses that were incurred on or before August
31, 2000. The remaining costs will be included in SCWs next General Rate Case
Application for its Region I customer service areas. Management believes these costs
are recoverable but cannot give assurance that the CPUC will ultimately allow recovery
of all or any of the remaining costs through rates.
The compound
MTBE has been detected in a well serving SCWs Los Osos water system. For some
time SCW has been working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well
as the owner of a service station. Although the owner of the service station has
attempted remediation with funds provided through the California Underground Storage
Tank Fund (CUSTF), it appears there will be insufficient funds from
the CUSTF to complete remediation sufficient to return the well to service. In order
to prevent the running of the statute of limitations, on August 12, 2002 SCW filed
suit in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Luis Obispo
against the operators and owners of the service station facility, and Chevron USA
Products, Inc., the supplier.
Electric
Service Litigation
SCW has been,
in conjunction with the Southern California Edison (Edison) unit of Edison International,
planning to upgrade transmission facilities to 115kv (the 115kv Project) in order
to meet increased energy and demand requirements for SCWs Bear Valley Electric
Service area. On December 27, 2000, SCW filed a lawsuit against Edison for declaratory
relief and seeking damages for breach of contract as a result of delays in the 115kv
Project. Subsequently Edison filed a cross-complaint against SCW for breach of contract,
anticipatory breach, and quantum meruit. Management cannot predict the likely outcome
of this matter.
Other
Litigation
Registrant
is also subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Other
than as disclosed above, no other legal proceedings are pending, which are believed
to be material.
Item 2. Changes in Securities
As of September
30, 2002, earned surplus amounted to $81,557,000.
45
Neither AWR
nor ASUS is subject to any contractual restriction on its ability to pay dividends.
SCWs maximum ability to pay dividends is restricted by certain Note Agreements
to the sum of $21 million plus 100% of consolidated net income plus the aggregate
net cash proceeds received from capital stock offerings or other instruments convertible
into capital stock after 1991.
AWRs
ability to pay dividends on its Common Shares is dependent upon the payment of dividends
from SCW. The ability of AWR, ASUS and SCW to pay dividends is also restricted by
its retained earnings, respectively, under California law.
CCWC is subject
to contractual restrictions on its ability to pay dividends. CCWCs maximum
ability to distribute dividends is limited to maintenance of no more than 55% debt
in the capital structure for the quarter immediately preceding the distribution.
The ability of CCWC to pay dividends is also restricted by Arizona law. Approximately
$3.9 million was available to pay dividends from CCWC to AWR at September 30, 2002.
There are
721,910 and 72,358 Common Shares authorized but unissued under the DRP and the 401(k)
Plan, respectively, at September 30, 2002. Shares reserved for the 401(k) Plan are
in relation to Company matching contributions and for investment purposes by participants.
During the third quarter of 2002, 18,027 common shares were issued pursuant to the
terms of the DRP and the 401(k) Plans.
There are
375,000 Common Shares reserved for issuance under Registrants 2000 Stock Incentive
Plan. Under the Plan, stock options representing a total of 253,413 Common Shares
upon exercise have been granted to certain eligible employees An additional 1,050
shares are subject to grants of restricted stock.
Registrant
implemented a three-for-two split of Registrants common stock payable on June
7, 2002 to holders of record on May 15, 2002. Fractional shares were paid in cash.
As a result of the stock split, the total number of Common Shares outstanding increased
from approximately 10.1 million to 15.1 million.
On April 5,
2002, Registrant redeemed the 4% and 4% series of $25 Preferred Shares at the redemption
price $27.00 and $26.50 per share, respectively, plus accrued and unpaid dividends
to the redemption date. Subsequently on April 19, 2002, the 5% Series was redeemed
at $25.25 per share plus accrued and unpaid dividends to the redemption date.
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
None.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a
Vote of Security Holders
No items were
submitted during the third quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report to
a vote of security holders through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise.
Item 5. Other Information
On October
28, 2002, the Board of Directors of Registrant declared a regular quarterly dividend
of $0.221 per common share. The dividend will be paid December 1, 2002 to shareholders
of record as of the close of business on November 8, 2002.
The certifications
of Registrants Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, were filed as correspondence with the Securities and Exchange Commission
concurrent with this Form 10-Q.
46
Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form
8-K
There are
no Exhibits during the period covered by this report.
No Reports
of Form 8-K were filed during the period covered by this report.
47
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to
the requirements of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized
and as its principal financial officer.
|
AMERICAN STATES WATER COMPANY and its subsidiary SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:s/
|
McClellan
Harris III
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClellan
Harris III Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary
|
Dated: November 12, 2002
48
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Floyd E. Wicks, Chief Executive Officer
of the Registrant, certify that:
1)
|
|
I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (this
quarterly report);
|
|
|
|
2)
|
|
Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
|
|
|
|
3)
|
|
Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;
|
|
|
|
4)
|
|
The Registrants
other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Section 240.13a-14of the General
Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for
the Registrant and we have:
|
|
|
|
|
|
a)
|
|
designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating
to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;
|
|
|
|
|
|
b)
|
|
evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
c)
|
|
presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5)
|
|
The Registrants
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a)
|
|
all significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data and have identified for the Registrants auditors any material weaknesses
in internal controls; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
b)
|
|
any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrants internal controls; and
|
|
|
|
|
6)
|
|
The Registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
|
|
Dated:
November 12, 2002
|
By:
|
/s/ FLOYD
E. WICKS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floyd E.
Wicks Chief Executive Officer
|
49
CERTIFICATIONS
I, McClellan Harris III, Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify that:
1)
|
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 (this quarterly report);
|
|
|
|
|
2)
|
|
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
|
|
|
|
|
3)
|
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this quarterly report;
|
|
|
|
|
4)
|
|
The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Section 240.13a-14of
the General Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934) for the Registrant and we have:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a)
|
designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating
to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b)
|
evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c)
|
presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
|
|
|
|
|
5)
|
|
The Registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee
of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a)
|
all significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data and have identified for the Registrants auditors any material weaknesses
in internal controls; and
|
|
|
b)
|
any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrants internal controls; and
|
|
|
|
|
6)
|
|
The Registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
|
|
Dated:
November 12, 2002
|
By:
|
/s/ McCLELLAN
HARRIS III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClellan
Harris III Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President- Finance,
and Corporate
Secretary
|
50