Note 2 Regulatory Matters (Continued):
Refund of Water Right Lease Revenues:
In 1994, SCW entered into a contract to lease to the City of Folsom, 5,000 acre-feet per year
of water rights from the American River. SCW included all associated revenues in a non-operating
income account. In a decision issued on March 16, 2004, the CPUC ordered SCW to refund 70 percent
of the total amount of lease revenues received since 1994, plus interest, to customers. Pursuant to
the order, SCW recorded a $6.2 million regulatory liability with a corresponding charge against
non-operating income, net of taxes, during the fourth quarter of 2003. A final amount of the refund
was approved by the CPUC in June 2004 and SCW adjusted its estimate to the approved refund amount
of $5.2 million. Management disagreed with the CPUCs decision and filed an appeal to the
decision. The CPUC denied SCWs request for an appeal. SCW filed with the Supreme Court of
California to hear the matter, which was also denied in February of 2005. Subsequently, the Company
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Pursuant to the order, the apportionment of any lease revenues that SCW may collect from
January 2004 forward, will be determined by a later decision. Therefore, beginning in the first
quarter of 2004, all amounts billed to the City of Folsom are included in a regulatory liability
account and no amounts have been recognized as revenue for 2004 and 2005 until all uncertainties
about this matter are resolved with the CPUC. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2005, SCW
recorded an additional $286,000 and $572,000 in the regulatory liability account, respectively. In
addition, in 2004 SCW began making refunds to customers pursuant to the March 16, 2004 CPUC order.
Refunds of approximately $142,000 and $261,000 were provided to customers during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2005, respectively. The refunds will be made over a 9-year period.
CCWC Other Regulatory Assets/Liabilities:
Fountain Hills Sanitary District (FHSD) is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona
that provides sanitary sewer service to customers residing within CCWCs water service area. In
connection with its sanitary system, FHSD constructed a recharge system whereby it recharges
treated effluent through multiple aquifer storage and recovery wells. In order for FHSD to secure
an Aquifer Protection Permit for its recharge system, FHSD requested CCWC to permanently cease
using one of its wells. As a possible replacement for this well, FHSD constructed a new well
adjacent to the community center (Community Center Well). However, this well was not able to
produce an equivalent amount of water to CCWCs well that was taken out of production.
Accordingly, in February 2005, CCWC entered into an agreement with FHSD whereby CCWC agreed to
permanently remove from service this well and in return CCWC received a settlement fee of
$1,520,000 from FHSD. Pursuant to the agreement, CCWC will: (i) permanently remove from service and
cap this well, and cap another well which had never been used as a potable source of supply; (ii)
relinquish any legal claim or interest that CCWC may otherwise possess in the Community Center
Well; and (iii) grant an option to FHSD to acquire one of the wells at a future date at fair market
value. The removal of these two wells from service did not have a significant impact on CCWCs
water supply.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, CCWC has recognized a net gain of $760,000 related to
this settlement agreement and has established a regulatory liability for the remaining $760,000
pending Arizona Corporation Commissions (ACC) review of this matter.
Except as discussed above, there were no other significant changes in regulatory matters
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2005.
16
Note 3 Earnings Per Share / Capital Stock:
Earnings per share for all periods presented have been calculated and presented in accordance
with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 128, Earnings Per Share. Basic
earnings per Common Share are based upon the weighted average number of Common Shares outstanding
and net income. Diluted earnings per Common Share are based upon the weighted average number of
Common Shares including both outstanding shares and shares potentially issuable in connection with
stock options and stock units granted under Registrants 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the 2003
Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan, and net income. At June 30, 2005 and 2004 there were 688,045 and
498,320 options outstanding, respectively, under these Plans. At June 30, 2005 and 2004, there
were also approximately 30,300 and 31,500 stock units outstanding, respectively, pursuant to the
2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan. Outstanding stock options and stock unit awards, including
those issued for dividend equivalent rights, issued by the Registrant represent the only dilutive
effect reflected in diluted weighted average shares outstanding. The difference between basic and
diluted EPS is the effect of stock options and stock units that, under the treasury share method,
gives rise to common stock equivalents. The following table summarizes the calculation of basic EPS
and diluted EPS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Three Months |
|
For The Six Months |
|
|
Ended June 30, |
|
Ended June 30, |
(in thousands, except per share data) |
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding |
|
|
16,773 |
|
|
|
|
15,248 |
|
|
|
16,769 |
|
|
|
|
15,236 |
|
Assumed exercise of stock options |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Assumed stock units are converted to
Common Shares |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average diluted shares |
|
|
16,834 |
|
|
|
|
15,269 |
|
|
|
16,821 |
|
|
|
|
15,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available for common shareholders |
|
$ |
5,735 |
|
|
|
$ |
6,710 |
|
|
$ |
9,499 |
|
|
|
$ |
7,856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.57 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, Registrant issued 8,588 and 25,454
common shares, which totaled approximately $237,000 and $595,000 under the Registrants Common
Share Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan and 401(k) Plan, respectively. During the six months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, Registrant issued 20,685 and 49,666 common shares, which totaled
approximately $555,000 and $1,204,000, under the Registrants Common Share Purchase
and Dividend Reinvestment Plan and 401(k) Plan, respectively. In addition during the three and six months ended
June 30, 2005, Registrant repurchased 12,897 and 21,506 common shares, respectively, under the
Registrants Common Share Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan, 401(k) Plan and anniversary
stock grant program, which were used to satisfy the requirements of these plans.
During the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, AWR paid quarterly dividends to the
shareholders, totaling approximately $3.8 million or $0.225 per share and $3.4 million or $0.221
per share, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, AWR paid quarterly
dividends to the shareholders, totaling approximately $7.5 million or $0.450 per share and $6.7
million or $0.442 per share, respectively.
17
Note
4 Credit Facility: In June 2005, AWR amended and restated its credit agreement which
increased its borrowing limit under the revolving credit facility to $85 million and extended the
maturity date to June 2010. Up to $20 million of this facility may be used for letters of credit.
As of June 30, 2005, an aggregate of $49 million in cash borrowings are included in current
liabilities and approximately $11.2 million of letters of credit were outstanding under this
facility.
Note
5 Derivative Instruments: During 2002, SCW entered into block-forward power purchase
contracts that qualified as derivative instruments under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended by SFAS Nos. 138 and 139. Contracts with Pinnacle
West Capital Corporation (PWCC) which became effective in November 2002 have not been designated
as normal purchases and normal sales and, as a result, have been recognized at fair market value on
the balance sheets as of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004. This resulted in a pre-tax unrealized
gain of $459,000 and a pre-tax unrealized loss of $76,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2005
and 2004, respectively, and a pre-tax unrealized gain of $3,474,000 and $481,000 for the six months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, due to continued increases in energy prices. On a
monthly basis, the related asset or liability is adjusted to reflect the fair market value at the
end of the month. As this contract moves forward in time and is settled, the realized gains or
losses are recorded in power purchased for resale, and the unrealized gains or losses are reversed.
The market prices used to determine the fair value for this derivative instrument were estimated
based on independent sources such as broker quotes and publications. Settlement of this contract
occurs on a cash or net basis through 2006 and by physical delivery through 2008. Registrant has no
other derivative financial instruments.
Note
6 Income Taxes
As a regulated utility, SCW treats certain temporary differences as flow-through adjustments
in computing its income tax provision consistent with the income tax approach approved by the CPUC
for ratemaking purposes. Flow-through adjustments increase or decrease tax expense in one period,
with an offsetting increase or decrease occurring in another period. Giving effect to these
temporary differences as flow-through adjustments typically results in a greater variance between
the effective tax rate (ETR) and the statutory federal income tax rate in any given period than
would otherwise exist if SCW were not required to account for its income taxes as a regulated
enterprise. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2005, the recognition of the federal
benefit of state taxes was adjusted to conform to the flow-through method reflected in the tax calculation for
ratemaking purposes, which partially defers the recognition of the benefit to the subsequent tax year. This
resulted in additional income taxes of $389,000, which was partially offset by other favorable
flow-through adjustments applicable to the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004.
In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the Act) was signed into law and
provides a new federal income tax deduction from qualified U.S. production activities, which is being phased in from 2005 through 2010. Under the Act, qualified production activities include
Registrants production of electricity and potable water. In December 2004, the FASB issued FASB
Staff Position No. 109-1 and proposed that the deduction should be accounted for as a special
deduction in accordance with SFAS No. 109. As such, the
special deduction had no effect on
deferred tax assets and liabilities existing at the enactment date. Rather, the impact of the
deduction is to be reported in the period in which the deduction is claimed on Registrants tax
return. Further guidance from
tax authorities (including Treasury Regulations) with respect to the deduction is pending. During
the first quarter of fiscal 2005, Registrant completed its initial evaluation of the provisions of
the Act and determined that the amount of the benefit for the three and six months ended June 30,
2005 was not material.
18
Note 7 Stock Incentive Plans: Registrant applies Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB)
No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, in accounting for its stock options under its
2000 Stock Incentive Plan. Accordingly, no compensation cost for the Plan has been recognized for
options granted at fair value at the date of grant. Registrant has also adopted the disclosure only
requirements of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.
At the May 2004 Annual Meeting, the shareholders adopted the 2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Plan (New Directors Plan). The New Directors Plan provides the non-employee directors with
supplemental stock-based compensation. Pursuant to the New Directors Plan, directors are entitled
to receive stock options and stock unit awards. As of June 30, 2005, an aggregate of 27,000 stock
options have been granted to the directors under the New Directors Plan. Registrant also applies
APB No. 25 in accounting for the directors stock options. The directors stock options were
granted at fair value at the date of grant; therefore no compensation cost has been recognized for
these options. The stock units are a non-voting unit of measurement which is deemed for bookkeeping
and payment purposes to represent outstanding AWR common shares. Upon adoption of the New
Directors Plan in May 2004, Registrant began recording compensation expense on the stock unit
awards. As of June 30, 2005, the directors have been credited with approximately 30,300 stock
units. Stock units will be paid only in AWR common shares on the date that the participant
terminates service as a director.
If Registrant had elected to adopt the optional recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 for its
stock options and stock units under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the New Directors Plan, net
income and earnings per share applicable to common shareholders would have been changed to the pro
forma amounts indicated below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Three Months |
|
|
For The Six Months |
|
|
Ended June 30, |
|
|
Ended June 30, |
(dollars in thousands, except EPS) |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to common
shareholders: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
$ |
5,735 |
|
|
$ |
6,710 |
|
|
|
$ |
9,499 |
|
|
$ |
7,856 |
|
Add: Stock-based compensation
expense included in reported net
income, net of tax |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
Less: Stock-based compensation
expense determined under the
fair-value accounting method, net
of tax |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(497 |
) |
|
|
|
(672 |
) |
|
|
(909 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma |
|
$ |
5,681 |
|
|
$ |
6,674 |
|
|
|
$ |
8,884 |
|
|
$ |
7,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.57 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
Pro forma |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
|
$ |
0.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
Pro forma |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.53 |
|
|
$ |
0.49 |
|
19
Note 8 Employee Benefit Plans: The components of net periodic benefit costs, before
allocation to the overhead pool, for Registrants pension plan, postretirement plan, and
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005
and 2004 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement |
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
Benefits |
|
|
SERP |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of Net Periodic Benefits
Cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Cost |
|
$ |
933 |
|
|
$ |
701 |
|
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
Interest Cost |
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
906 |
|
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Expected Return on Plan Assets |
|
|
(922 |
) |
|
|
(830 |
) |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of Transition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of Prior Service Cost |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Amortization of Actuarial (Gain) Loss |
|
|
313 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Pension Cost |
|
$ |
1,453 |
|
|
$ |
907 |
|
|
|
$ |
282 |
|
|
$ |
270 |
|
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement |
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
Benefits |
|
|
SERP |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of Net Periodic Benefits
Cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Cost |
|
$ |
1,866 |
|
|
$ |
1,402 |
|
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
Interest Cost |
|
|
2,176 |
|
|
|
1,812 |
|
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
Expected Return on Plan Assets |
|
|
(1,844 |
) |
|
|
(1,660 |
) |
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
(128 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of Transition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of Prior Service Cost |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
Amortization of Actuarial (Gain) Loss |
|
|
626 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Pension Cost |
|
$ |
2,906 |
|
|
$ |
1,814 |
|
|
|
$ |
564 |
|
|
$ |
540 |
|
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A decrease in the discount rate from 6.25% to 5.75%, and the update of mortality rate
tables resulted in increases in pension and other postretirement benefits between the two periods
presented. Registrant expects to contribute $4,430,000 and $933,000 to pension and postretirement
plans in 2005, respectively. No contributions were made during the three and six months ended June
30, 2005.
Note 9 New Accounting Pronouncements:
In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections A Replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement
No. 3. SFAS 154 primarily requires retrospective application to prior periods financial
statements for the direct effects of changes in accounting principle, unless it is impracticable to
determine either the period-specific effects or the cumulative effect of the change. SFAS 154 is
effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2005, and early adoption is permitted. Registrant is required to adopt the provision
of SFAS 154, as applicable, beginning in fiscal 2006.
20
Note 9 New Accounting Pronouncements (Continued):
In March 2005, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset
Retirement Obligations, which clarifies that an entity is required to recognize a liability for
the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value can be reasonably
estimated even though uncertainty exists about the timing and (or) method of settlement.
Registrant is required to adopt Interpretation No. 47 by the end of 2006. Registrant is currently
evaluating the impact Interpretation No. 47 will have on its results of operations and financial
condition.
In December 2004, the FASB issued a revision to SFAS No. 123, Share-Based Payment, (SFAS No.
123R) which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, (SFAS No.
123). SFAS No. 123R requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee
stock options, to be recognized in the income statement based on fair values. The pro forma
disclosures previously permitted under SFAS No. 123 no longer will be an alternative to financial
statement recognition. In April 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission deferred the adoption
date of SFAS No. 123R to the beginning of the fiscal year that begins after June 15, 2005, (January
1, 2006 for calendar year companies) from a July 1, 2005 adoption date previously set by the FASB.
Registrant expects to adopt this standard on January 1, 2006. Based on stock option grants made in
2005 and currently anticipated for 2006, Registrant estimates it will (assuming the modified
prospective method is used) recognize expense for stock options for the year ending December 31,
2006 in an amount consistent to that disclosed in Note 7 which summarizes the pro forma impact of
recognizing stock expense under the fair value accounting method. Registrant assumes that stock
options will be granted in 2006 upon similar terms to options granted in 2005, which provide for
continued vesting of the options following termination of employment, unless the grantee is
terminated for cause. If these assumptions change, the impact of recognizing stock expense under
the fair value accounting method will differ from amounts disclosed in Note 7.
In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (the Act) was signed into law and
provides a new federal income tax deduction from qualified U.S. production activities, which will
be phased in from 2005 through 2010. During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, Registrant completed
its initial evaluation of the provisions of the Act. See Note 6 for further information.
Note 10 Contingencies:
Water Quality-Related Litigation:
In 1997, SCW was named as a defendant in nineteen lawsuits that alleged that SCW and other
water utilities, delivered unsafe water to their customers in the San Gabriel Valley and Pomona
Valley areas of Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs in these actions sought damages, including general,
special, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees on certain causes of action, costs of
suit, and other unspecified relief.
On August 4, 2004, SCW was ordered dismissed from all nineteen Los Angeles County cases. The
order was issued by the Trial Judge presiding over these matters, and followed a lengthy legal
proceeding dating back to April 1997 when the first of the cases was filed by over 140 customers in
the San Gabriel Valley, alleging their water had caused personal injuries of varying types and
degrees. The Court found SCW did not violate established water quality standards and dismissed the
cases after allowing reasonable time and opportunity for the plaintiffs to prove otherwise. SCW has
long asserted that it meets or exceeds the requirements to provide water within the standards
established by the health authorities. On September 21, 2004, SCW received notice that several
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the trial courts order to dismiss SCW. SCW is unable to predict the
outcome of this appeal.
21
Note 10 Contingencies (Continued):
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 much of the
costs incurred above the self-insured amounts for defense against these lawsuits, subject to a
reservation of rights. In addition, the CPUC has issued certain decisions, which authorize SCW to
establish a memorandum account to accumulate costs for future recovery, to comply with certain
contamination remediation requirements for future recovery. SCW was also dismissed from three
similar lawsuits in Northern California in 2004; the plaintiffs in those cases have not filed an
appeal.
Aerojet:
On October 25, 1999, SCW sued Aerojet for causing the contamination of eastern portions of the
Sacramento County groundwater basin. On October 10, 2003, Registrant entered into a confidential
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Aerojet for the settlement of legal actions brought by
SCW. The MOU set forth the financial terms and the structure of a settlement to cover, over time,
capital and litigation related costs incurred by SCW resulting from the contamination. The MOU and
the settlement embodied therein were found to be binding by the Sacramento Superior Court on
January 18, 2004. On October 12, 2004, Registrant reached a final settlement with Aerojet based on
the terms of the MOU. Under the terms of the settlement, Aerojet paid SCW $8.7 million in the first
quarter of 2004. Aerojet has also agreed to pay SCW an additional $8 million, plus interest
accruing beginning January 1, 2004, over a five year period beginning in December 2009. The $8.7
million payment and guaranteed future payments have been applied directly to reduce SCWs costs of
utility plant and purchased water by $16 million and $735,000, respectively. Prior to the MOU,
Aerojet had reimbursed SCW $4.3 million in capital costs and $171,000 for additional water supply
costs.
Aerojet has also agreed to reimburse SCW $17.5 million, plus interest accruing from January 1,
2004, for its past legal and expert costs. The recovery of the $17.5 million is contingent upon the
issuance of land use approvals for development in a defined area within Aerojet property in Eastern
Sacramento County and the receipt of certain fees in connection with such development.
Aerojet will also transfer its remediated groundwater to the Sacramento County Water Agency,
which will provide treated water for distribution to SCW and other water purveyors affected by the
contamination. SCW has entered into an agreement with Sacramento County Water Agency to receive
water as outlined above. SCW and Aerojet have also signed three separate agreements requiring
Aerojet to pay for certain transmission pipelines and upgrades to SCWs Coloma Treatment Plant as a
contingency plan, should additional wells be impacted. Aerojet has reimbursed SCW for the cost of
these capital improvements. The pipelines are now in service and the upgraded treatment facilities
are expected to be fully operational by the end of 2005.
In 2000, the CPUC authorized the establishment of a memorandum account into which SCW was
allowed to record costs it incurred in prosecuting the contamination suits filed against the State
and Aerojet. The CPUC also authorized SCW periodically to seek recovery of such recorded costs from
ratepayers. In that regard, SCW sought interim cost recovery and was authorized to increase rates,
effective April 28, 2001, in an amount sufficient over a six-year period to offset approximately
$1.8 million in such legal and expert costs recorded in the memorandum account that had been
incurred on or before August 31, 2000. As of June 30, 2005, approximately $15.1 million in legal
and consulting related costs, including the unamortized portion of the $1.8 million, have been
recorded as a deferred charge and included in Regulatory Assets on the SCW balance sheets.
22
Note 10 Contingencies (Continued):
On July 21, 2005, the CPUC authorized SCW to collect the balance of the Aerojet litigation
memorandum account of approximately $21.3 million, through a rate surcharge, which will continue
for no longer than 20 years. As a result of this decision, SCW, among other things, was ordered
to: (i) impose a surcharge in the Arden-Cordova customer service area to amortize the balance
totaling $21.3 million in the memorandum account and consequently, SCW will reflect an increase of
approximately $6.2 million in its regulatory assets to include previously expensed carrying costs
and record a corresponding gain in its results of operations during the third quarter of 2005; (ii)
restore the appropriate plant accounts by approximately $1.1 million with a corresponding decrease
in depreciation expense during the third quarter of 2005, due to the full reimbursement from
Aerojet on capital expenditures, and (iii) keep the memorandum account open until it is fully
amortized; however, no costs shall be added to the memorandum account, other than cumulative
interest charges approved by the decision. Furthermore, it is managements intention to offset any
settlement proceeds from Aerojets proposed land development, first against the guaranteed $8
million note from Aerojet and then against the balance in the memorandum account at the time of
receipt of the settlement payments.
Other Water Quality Litigation:
Perchlorate and/or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) have been detected in five wells
servicing SCWs San Gabriel System. SCW filed suit in federal court, along with two other affected
water purveyors and the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA), against
some of those responsible for the contamination. Some of the other potential defendants settled
with SCW, other water purveyors and the WQA (the Water Entities) on VOC related issues prior to
the filing of the lawsuit. In response to the filing of the Federal lawsuit, the Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) defendants filed motions to dismiss the suit or strike certain portions
of the suit. The judge issued a ruling on April 1, 2003 granting in part and denying in part the
defendants motions. A key ruling of the court was that the water purveyors, including the
Registrant, by virtue of their ownership of wells contaminated with hazardous chemicals are
themselves PRPs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).
Registrant has, pursuant to permission of the court, amended its suit to claim certain
affirmative defenses as an innocent party under CERCLA. Registrant is presently unable to predict
the outcome of this ruling on its ability to fully recover from the PRPs future costs associated
with the treatment of these wells. In this same suit, the PRPs have filed cross-complaints against
the Water Entities, the Metropolitan Water District, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and
others on the theory that they arranged for and did transport contaminated water into the Basin for
use by Registrant and the other two affected water providers and for other related claims.
On August 29, 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Unilateral
Administrative Orders (UAO) against 41 parties deemed responsible for polluting the groundwater
in that portion of the San Gabriel Valley from which two of SCWs impacted wells draw water. SCW
was not named as a party to the UAO. The UAO requires that these parties remediate the
contamination. The judge in the Federal lawsuit has appointed a special master to oversee mandatory
settlement discussions between the PRPs and the Water Entities. EPA is also conducting settlement
discussions with several PRPs regarding the UAO. The Water Entities and EPA are working to
coordinate their settlement discussions in order to arrive at a complete resolution of all issues
affecting the Federal lawsuits and the UAO. Registrant is presently unable to predict the ultimate
outcome of these settlement discussions.
23
Note 10 Contingencies (Continued):
Condemnation of Properties
The laws of the State of California and the State of Arizona provide for the acquisition of
public utility property by governmental agencies through their power of eminent domain, also known
as condemnation, where doing so is in the public interest. In addition, however, the laws of the
State of California also provide: (1) that the owner of the utility property may contest whether
the condemnation is actually in the public interest; and (2) that the owner is entitled to receive
the fair market value of its property if the property is ultimately taken.
Although the City of Claremont, California located in SCWs Region III, has not initiated the
formal condemnation process pursuant to California law, the City has expressed various concerns to
SCW about the rates charged by SCW and the effectiveness of the CPUCs rate setting procedures. The
City hired a consultant to perform an appraisal of the value of Registrants water system serving
the City. Such value was determined by the consultant at $40 $45 million. SCW disagrees with
the Citys valuation assessment. Under California law, the condemning City would be required to
pay fair market value for the water system. As of June 30, 2005, management believes that the fair
market value of the system far exceeds the $33 million recorded net book value of the Claremont
water system.
Except for the City of Claremont, Registrant has not been, within the last three years,
involved in activities related to the condemnation of any of its water customer service areas or in
its Bear Valley Electric customer service area; however, on April 12, 2005, the Town Council of the
Town of Apple Valley voted 5-0 to authorize Town staff to prepare a Request for Proposal for an
evaluation of the feasibility and potential cost of and a timeframe for the potential takeover of
SCWs Apple Valley water systems as well as the water systems of another utility serving the Town.
SCW has not received any formal notice from the Town of its intention to condemn the Registrants
Apple Valley water systems. Management is unable to predict what the results of the Towns
evaluation might be and what action, if any, the Town might take as a result of the evaluation.
However, SCW will vigorously defend itself should the Town determine to proceed towards condemning
its Apple Valley water systems. As of June 30, 2005, the recorded net book value of the Apple
Valley water systems is approximately $2.2 million.
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Adjudication:
In 1997, the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit
against multiple defendants, including SCW, the City of Santa Maria, and several other public water
purveyors. The plaintiffs lawsuit seeks an adjudication of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.
After some procedural rulings by the superior court, the lawsuit is now a full basin adjudication
involving all entities owning 10 acres or more within the Basin boundaries approximately 1,400
defendants. The plaintiffs stated objective in the adjudication lawsuit is to have the superior
court impose and oversee the implementation of a Basin management plan that ensures the long term
integrity and reliability of the Basin water resources. To protect its groundwater supply so that
sufficient water production rights continue to be available to meet SCWs customers needs in the
Santa Maria customer service area, SCW has been vigorously defending its water rights in the
adjudication lawsuit.
24
Note 10 Contingencies (Continued):
As of June 30, 2005, SCW has incurred costs in defending its rights in the Basin, including
legal and expert witness fees, which have been deferred in Utility Plant for rate recovery. A
settlement has been reached, subject to CPUC approval. The settlement, among other things, if
approved, would preserve SCWs historical pumping rights and secure supplemental water rights for
use in case of drought or other reductions in the natural yield of the Basin. Management also
believes that the recovery of these costs through rates is probable; however, management cannot
give assurance that the CPUC will ultimately allow recovery of all or any of the costs that have
been incurred by SCW in this lawsuit.
Other Litigation:
Registrant is also subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Other
than those disclosed above, no other legal proceedings are pending, which are believed to be
material. Management believes that rate recovery, proper insurance coverage and reserves are in
place to insure against property, general liability and workers compensation claims incurred in
the ordinary course of business.
Note 11 Business Segments: 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 contracted services unit through the ASUS subsidiary. All activities of SCW
are geographically located within California. All activities of CCWC are located in the state of
Arizona. All activities of ASUS are conducted in California, Arizona and Texas. 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 operating
segments, CCWC and ASUSs contract services businesses as well as the operations of its
wholly-owned subsidiary, FBWS. 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. Capital additions reflect capital expenditures paid in cash and exclude property
installed by developers and conveyed to the Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 |
|
|
SCW |
|
CCWC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Water |
|
Electric |
|
Water |
|
Other* |
|
Eliminations |
|
AWR |
|
|
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
51,797 |
|
|
$ |
6,091 |
|
|
$ |
1,753 |
|
|
$ |
890 |
|
|
|
($35 |
) |
|
$ |
60,496 |
|
Operating income (loss)
before income taxes |
|
|
15,093 |
|
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
(930 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,339 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
|
4,006 |
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,744 |
|
Identifiable assets |
|
|
610,249 |
|
|
|
39,995 |
|
|
|
36,488 |
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
687,424 |
|
Depreciation and
amortization expense |
|
|
4,903 |
|
|
|
512 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,696 |
|
Capital additions |
|
|
14,628 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
|
|
1,450 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 |
|
|
SCW |
|
CCWC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Water |
|
Electric |
|
Water |
|
Other* |
|
Eliminations |
|
AWR |
|
|
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
51,897 |
|
|
$ |
5,449 |
|
|
$ |
1,704 |
|
|
$ |
319 |
|
|
|
($25 |
) |
|
$ |
59,344 |
|
Operating income
(loss) before income
taxes |
|
|
17,922 |
|
|
|
(911 |
) |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
(1,449 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,685 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
|
3,763 |
|
|
|
434 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,427 |
|
Identifiable assets |
|
|
551,764 |
|
|
|
37,681 |
|
|
|
32,245 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
621,862 |
|
Depreciation and
amortization expense |
|
|
4,526 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,073 |
|
Capital additions |
|
|
15,783 |
|
|
|
552 |
|
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,107 |
|
25
Note 11 Business Segments (Continued):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 |
|
|
SCW |
|
CCWC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Water |
|
Electric |
|
Water |
|
Other* |
|
Eliminations |
|
AWR |
|
|
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
91,951 |
|
|
$ |
13,561 |
|
|
$ |
3,096 |
|
|
$ |
1,717 |
|
|
|
($35 |
) |
|
$ |
110,290 |
|
Operating income (loss)
before income taxes |
|
|
22,904 |
|
|
|
4,342 |
|
|
|
1,266 |
|
|
|
(1,484 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,028 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
|
7,956 |
|
|
|
814 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,404 |
|
Identifiable assets |
|
|
610,249 |
|
|
|
39,995 |
|
|
|
36,488 |
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
687,424 |
|
Depreciation and
amortization expense |
|
|
9,765 |
|
|
|
1,007 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,331 |
|
Capital additions |
|
|
32,077 |
|
|
|
1,360 |
|
|
|
2,038 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,834 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 |
|
|
SCW |
|
CCWC |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Water |
|
Electric |
|
Water |
|
Other* |
|
Eliminations |
|
AWR |
|
|
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
89,358 |
|
|
$ |
13,076 |
|
|
$ |
3,008 |
|
|
$ |
601 |
|
|
|
($48 |
) |
|
$ |
105,995 |
|
Operating income
(loss) before income
taxes |
|
|
24,272 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
(2,336 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,177 |
|
Interest expense, net |
|
|
7,552 |
|
|
|
772 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,748 |
|
Identifiable assets |
|
|
551,764 |
|
|
|
37,681 |
|
|
|
32,245 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
621,862 |
|
Depreciation and
amortization expense |
|
|
9,054 |
|
|
|
718 |
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,250 |
|
Capital additions |
|
|
26,928 |
|
|
|
2,338 |
|
|
|
1,243 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,592 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes amounts from AWR and ASUSs contracted services. Beginning on October 1, 2004, it
also includes ASUSs wholly-owned subsidiary FBWS. |
Note 12 Subsequent Event: As more fully discussed in Notes 2 and 10, on July 21, 2005, the
CPUC authorized SCW to collect the balance of the Aerojet litigation memorandum account of
approximately $21.3 million, through a rate surcharge, which will continue for no longer than 20
years.
26
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operation
ForwardLooking 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 and other regulatory matters,
adequacy of water supplies, SCWs ability to recover electric, natural gas and water supply costs
from ratepayers, contract operations, liquidity and capital resources, and accounting matters.
Actual results in each case could differ materially from those currently anticipated in such
statements, by reason of factors such as changes in utility regulation, including ongoing local,
state and federal activities; recovery of regulatory assets not yet included in rates; future
economic conditions, including changes in customer demand and changes in water and energy supply
costs; future climatic conditions, including the recent wet winter in the Southern California and
Phoenix areas; and legislative, legal proceedings, regulatory and other circumstances affecting
anticipated revenues and costs.
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the accompanying unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto and the consolidated
financial statements and the notes thereto contained in our 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
General
American States Water Company (AWR) is the parent company of Southern California Water
Company (SCW), American States Utility Services, Inc. (ASUS) and its subsidiary, Fort Bliss
Water Services Company (FBWS), and Chaparral City Water Company (CCWC). AWR was incorporated
as a California corporation in 1998 as a holding company for SCW.
SCW is a California public utility company engaged principally in the purchase, production and
distribution of water. SCW also distributes electricity in one customer service area. SCW is
regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and was incorporated on December
31, 1929. SCW served 252,260 water customers and 22,787 electric customers at June 30, 2005, or a
total of 275,047 customers, compared with 273,386 total customers at June 30, 2004. SCWs utility
operations exhibit seasonal trends. Due to changes in weather, water revenues are higher during the
summer months and lower during the cooler months of each year. Although SCWs water utility
operations have a diversified customer base, residential and commercial customers account for the
majority of SCWs water sales and revenues. Revenues derived from commercial and residential water
customers accounted for approximately 83.0% and 87.9% of total water revenues for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2005, respectively, as compared to 84.7% and 89.3% for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2004, respectively.
CCWC is an Arizona public utility company serving 12,813 customers as of June 30, 2005,
compared with 12,367 customers at June 30, 2004.
ASUS contracts, either directly or through wholly-owned subsidiaries, with various
municipalities, the U.S. Government and private entities to provide water and wastewater services,
including billing and meter reading, water marketing and the operation and maintenance of water and
wastewater systems. On October 1, 2004, ASUS commenced operation of the water and wastewater
systems at Fort Bliss located near El Paso, Texas, through FBWS, pursuant to the terms of a 50-year
contract with the U.S. Government.
27
Consolidated
Results of Operations Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 (dollars in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 MOS |
|
|
3 MOS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENDED |
|
|
ENDED |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
6/30/2005 |
|
|
6/30/2004 |
|
|
CHANGE |
|
|
CHANGE |
|
OPERATING REVENUES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water |
|
$ |
53,551 |
|
|
$ |
53,576 |
|
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
Electric |
|
|
6,091 |
|
|
|
5,449 |
|
|
|
642 |
|
|
|
11.8 |
% |
Other |
|
|
854 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
167.7 |
% |
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
60,496 |
|
|
|
59,344 |
|
|
|
1,152 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased |
|
|
12,277 |
|
|
|
12,802 |
|
|
|
(525 |
) |
|
|
-4.1 |
% |
Power purchased for pumping |
|
|
2,184 |
|
|
|
2,415 |
|
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
-9.6 |
% |
Groundwater production assessment |
|
|
1,843 |
|
|
|
1,338 |
|
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
37.7 |
% |
Power purchased for resale |
|
|
2,710 |
|
|
|
2,538 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
% |
Unrealized gain on purchased power contracts |
|
|
(459 |
) |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(535 |
) |
|
|
-703.9 |
% |
Gain on sale of water rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,675 |
) |
|
|
5,675 |
|
|
|
-100.0 |
% |
Supply cost balancing accounts |
|
|
(550 |
) |
|
|
3,598 |
|
|
|
(4,148 |
) |
|
|
-115.3 |
% |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
5,218 |
|
|
|
5,283 |
|
|
|
(65 |
) |
|
|
-1.2 |
% |
Administrative and general expenses |
|
|
11,495 |
|
|
|
11,497 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
0.0 |
% |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
5,696 |
|
|
|
5,073 |
|
|
|
623 |
|
|
|
12.3 |
% |
Maintenance |
|
|
2,522 |
|
|
|
2,609 |
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
-3.3 |
% |
Taxes on income |
|
|
4,808 |
|
|
|
5,086 |
|
|
|
(278 |
) |
|
|
-5.5 |
% |
Other taxes |
|
|
2,221 |
|
|
|
2,105 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
49,965 |
|
|
|
48,745 |
|
|
|
1,220 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
10,531 |
|
|
|
10,599 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
-0.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (LOSS) NET |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
538 |
|
|
|
(590 |
) |
|
|
-109.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTEREST CHARGES |
|
|
4,744 |
|
|
|
4,427 |
|
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
7.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
5,735 |
|
|
$ |
6,710 |
|
|
$ |
(975 |
) |
|
|
-14.5 |
% |
|
|
|
Net income for the three months ended June 30, 2005 decreased 14.5% to $5.7 million,
equivalent to $0.34 per common share on a basic and fully diluted basis, compared to $6.7 million
or $0.44 per share for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Impacting the comparability in the
results of the two periods is a favorable decision issued by the CPUC in 2004 that resulted in a
$5.7 million pre-tax gain on the sale of water rights during the second quarter of 2004. This gain
added approximately $0.20 per share to the second quarter of 2004.
Excluding the effects of the gain on sale of water rights, results for the three months ended
June 30, 2005 increased by approximately $0.10 per share as compared to the three months ended June
30, 2004. The increase in recorded results reflects a significant decrease in the provision for
supply cost balancing account. In May 2004, SCW recorded a cumulative $2.7 million regulatory
liability with a corresponding charge booked to the provision for supply cost balancing account as
a result of the advice letters filed for the memorandum supply cost accounts for Regions I and II
that had net over-collection balances covering 2001, 2002, 2003 and parts of 2004 years. During
the second quarter of 2005, (i) there was no similar charge for over-collection, and (ii) an
approximate $1.3 million under-collection in Region IIIs 2004 memorandum supply cost account was
approved by the CPUC, which was recorded as a credit to the provision.
28
Operating Revenues
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, revenues from water operations remained unchanged
compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004. Water revenues reflect rate increases in 2004 and
2005 covering almost all of SCWs water customers which contributed $2.7 million in increased
revenues, offset by a decrease of 12.2% in billed water consumption resulting from changes in
weather conditions. Differences in temperature and rainfall in Registrants service areas impact
sales of water to customers, causing fluctuations in Registrants revenues and earnings between
comparable periods.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, revenues from electric operations increased by 11.8%
to $6.1 million compared to $5.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The increase
reflects primarily a rate increase approved by the CPUC and effective on April 15, 2005 related to
the 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generation facility. There was also a 3.2% increase in kilowatt-hour
consumption.
Registrant relies upon rate approval by state regulatory agencies in California and Arizona,
in order to recover operating expenses and provide for a return on invested and borrowed capital
used to fund utility plant. Without such adequate rate relief granted in a timely manner, revenues
and earnings can be negatively impacted.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, other operating revenues increased by 167.7% to
$854,000 compared to $319,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to
approximately $543,000 of additional revenues associated with the operation of the water and
wastewater systems at Fort Bliss, located near El Paso, Texas that commenced on October 1, 2004
pursuant to the terms of a 50-year contract between FBWS and the U.S. Government.
Operating Expenses
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, 44.6% of the Companys supply mix was purchased
water as compared to 45.5% purchased water for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Purchased
water costs decreased by 4.1% to $12.3 million compared to $12.8 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2004. The decrease is due primarily to a decline in customer demand resulting from lower
consumption, partially offset by supplier rate increases.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, the cost of power purchased for pumping decreased by
9.6% to $2.2 million compared to $2.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due to a
decrease in kilowatt usage caused by a decrease in customer demand.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, groundwater production assessments increased by
37.7% as compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 due to increases in assessment rates
levied against groundwater production, effective July 2004. Pump tax rates increased in Regions II
and III by approximately 11% and 15%, respectively. In addition, SCW received $628,000 for leasing
temporary surplus water rights during the three months ended June 30, 2004 which was recorded as a
reduction to groundwater production assessments as compared to $233,000 received for the three
months ended June 30, 2005.
Changes in the water resource mix between water supplied from purchased sources and that
supplied from Registrants own wells can increase/decrease actual supply-related costs relative to
that approved for recovery through rates, thereby impacting earnings either negatively or
positively. Registrant has the opportunity to change the supply-related costs recovered through
rates by application to the appropriate regulatory body. Registrant believes that its applications
for recovery of supply-related costs accurately reflect the water supply situation as it is known
at the time. However, it is impossible to adequately protect earnings from adverse changes in
supply costs related to unforeseen contamination or other loss of water supply.
29
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, cost of power purchased for resale to customers
in SCWs Bear Valley Electric division increased by 6.8% to $2.7 million compared to $2.5 million
for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due to an increase in kilowatt usage. In addition, the
costs for the period in 2004 reflect a $114,000 refund received in April 2004 from Southern
California Edison. Partially offsetting these increases is a refund received in April of 2005 of
$247,000 from Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, Inc. (Mirant Marketing) based on a revised order
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued in November 2004. This refund
decreased the cost of power purchased for resale, with a corresponding increase in the supply cost
balancing account included in the statement of income. There was no net impact on earnings.
Unrealized gain and loss on purchased power contracts represents gains and losses recorded for
SCWs purchased power agreements with Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PWCC), which qualify as
derivative instruments under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities. The $459,000 pretax unrealized gain on purchased power contracts for the three months
ended June 30, 2005 is due to an increase in the current forward market prices since March 31,
2005. Unrealized gains and losses at Bear Valley Electric will continue to impact earnings during
the life of the contract with PWCC, which terminates in 2008.
For the three months ended June 30, 2004, Registrant recorded a $5.7 million pre-tax gain on
the sale of water rights reflecting a favorable CPUC decision in 2004. The $5.7 million represented
settlement proceeds received in May 2004 from the City of Santa Monica relating to the sale and the
assignment of rights regarding the Charnock Groundwater Basin.
A decrease of $4.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2005 in the provision for
supply cost balancing accounts as compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 primarily
reflects: (i) the recording in May 2004 of a cumulative $2.7 million regulatory liability with a
corresponding charge booked to the provision for supply cost balancing account as a result of the
advice letters filed for the memorandum supply cost accounts for Regions I and II that had net
over-collection balances covering 2001, 2002, 2003 and parts of 2004 years there was no similar
charge during the second quarter of 2005; (ii) approval by the CPUC in June 2005 of an approximate
$1.3 million under-collection in Region IIIs 2004 memorandum supply cost account; (iii) a decrease
in amortization of $450,000 related to pre-November 29, 2001 water supply cost balancing accounts
and electric balancing account; and (iv) a decrease of $277,000 in the electric supply cost amounts
written off over $77 per MWh. These decreases were offset by a net change in the current period of
$525,000 in the over-collections of the memorandum supply cost accounts.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, other operating expenses decreased by 1.2% to $5.2
million compared to $5.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due to an impairment loss
of $482,000 that was recorded at the end of the second quarter of 2004 related to the Charnock
Groundwater Basin assets being removed from rate-base pursuant to the CPUC order in 2004. There was
no similar write-off in 2005. Partially offsetting the decrease resulting from the absence of this
write-down were: (i) higher labor costs in 2005 which increased by approximately $392,000; and (ii)
higher operating expenses of $203,000 at ASUS due to the commencement of operations of the water
and wastewater system at Fort Bliss.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, administrative and general expenses remained flat at
$11.5 million. There were increases due to: (i) an approximate $345,000 increase in pensions and
benefits caused by actuarial assumption changes in the discount rate and mortality tables, and
increases of approximately $558,000 in various other benefit costs, (ii) an approximate $170,000 increase
in general office labor
costs, (iii) an approximate $335,000 increase in injuries and
damages insurance, and (iv) an approximate $237,000 increase in various miscellaneous expenses. These
increases are offset by a $1.1 million decrease in outside services in connection with new business
development and various other areas. Registrant believes that prudent administrative expenses approved in
advance by state regulators to be incurred in the operation and management of its regulated
subsidiaries will be recovered through water and electric rates.
30
Amounts included in each general rate case are estimated for future years. Overages from
those estimates are not covered in rates.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, depreciation and amortization expense increased by
12.3% to $5.7 million compared to $5.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 reflecting,
among other things, the effects of recording approximately $71 million in additions to utility
plant during 2004, depreciation on which began in January 2005. Registrant anticipates that
depreciation expense will continue to increase due to Registrants on-going construction program at
its regulated subsidiaries. Registrant believes that depreciation expense related to property
additions approved by the appropriate regulatory agency will be recovered through water and
electric rates.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, maintenance expense decreased by 3.3% to $2.5
million compared to $2.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due principally to a
decrease in required maintenance at CCWC, partially offset by an increase in maintenance expenses
for ASUS due to the Fort Bliss operations which began in October 2004. Maintenance expense
increases for regulated activities are included in each general rate case and are covered in rates,
unless disallowed as not reasonable or prudent. FBWS bears the risk of increases in maintenance
and all other costs above those authorized in the contract for operation of Fort Bliss, unless FBWS
is entitled to an equitable adjustment for such matters as an increase in labor rates, changes in
circumstances or differing site conditions from those anticipated at the time of execution of the
contract.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, taxes on operating income decreased by 5.5% to $4.8
million compared to $5.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004. The decrease in taxes
on operating income resulted from a decrease in pretax operating income of 5.9% offset by a slight
increase of the effective tax rate (ETR) applicable to the three months ended June 30, 2005 to
45.4% as compared to a 45.2% ETR applicable to the three months ended June 30, 2004. The variance
between the ETR and the statutory tax rate is primarily the result of differences between book and
taxable income that are treated as flow-through adjustments in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Flow-through adjustments increase or decrease tax expense in one period, with an offsetting
increase or decrease occurring in another period. During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the
recognition of the federal benefit of state taxes was adjusted to conform to the flow-through
method reflected in the tax calculation for ratemaking purposes, which partially defers the
recognition of the benefit to the subsequent tax year. This resulted in additional income taxes of
$389,000, which was substantially offset by other favorable flow-through adjustments such that the
ETRs applicable to the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 remained relatively unchanged.
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, other taxes increased by 5.5% to $2.2 million
compared to $2.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 reflecting additional property
taxes resulting from higher assessed values, and increases in payroll taxes based on increased
labor costs.
Other Income (Loss)
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, other net income (loss) was a loss of $52,000 as
compared to income of $538,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2004. This was largely due to a
reduction in SCWs estimate of customer refunds associated with lease revenues from the City of
Folsom adjusted in June 2004.
31
Interest Charges
For the three months ended June 30, 2005, interest expense increased by 7.2% to $4.7 million
compared to $4.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to increases in
short-term borrowings and higher interest rates on short-term borrowings.
Consolidated
Results of Operations Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and
2004 (dollars in
thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 MOS |
|
|
6 MOS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENDED |
|
|
ENDED |
|
|
$ |
|
|
% |
|
|
|
6/30/2005 |
|
|
6/30/2004 |
|
|
CHANGE |
|
|
CHANGE |
|
OPERATING REVENUES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water |
|
$ |
95,048 |
|
|
$ |
92,318 |
|
|
$ |
2,730 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
% |
Electric |
|
|
13,561 |
|
|
|
13,076 |
|
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
Other |
|
|
1,681 |
|
|
|
601 |
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
179.7 |
% |
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
110,290 |
|
|
|
105,995 |
|
|
|
4,295 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water purchased |
|
|
19,963 |
|
|
|
21,683 |
|
|
|
(1,720 |
) |
|
|
-7.9 |
% |
Power purchased for pumping |
|
|
3,671 |
|
|
|
4,132 |
|
|
|
(461 |
) |
|
|
-11.2 |
% |
Groundwater production assessment |
|
|
3,764 |
|
|
|
3,160 |
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
19.1 |
% |
Power purchased for resale |
|
|
6,847 |
|
|
|
7,367 |
|
|
|
(520 |
) |
|
|
-7.1 |
% |
Unrealized gain on purchased power contracts |
|
|
(3,474 |
) |
|
|
(481 |
) |
|
|
(2,993 |
) |
|
|
622.2 |
% |
Gain on setlement for removal of wells |
|
|
(760 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(760 |
) |
|
|
-100.0 |
% |
Gain on sale of water rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,675 |
) |
|
|
5,675 |
|
|
|
-100.0 |
% |
Supply cost balancing accounts |
|
|
528 |
|
|
|
3,819 |
|
|
|
(3,291 |
) |
|
|
-86.2 |
% |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
10,287 |
|
|
|
9,720 |
|
|
|
567 |
|
|
|
5.8 |
% |
Administrative and general expenses |
|
|
21,624 |
|
|
|
20,576 |
|
|
|
1,048 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
% |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
11,331 |
|
|
|
10,250 |
|
|
|
1,081 |
|
|
|
10.5 |
% |
Maintenance |
|
|
4,988 |
|
|
|
4,936 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
% |
Taxes on income |
|
|
8,024 |
|
|
|
6,028 |
|
|
|
1,996 |
|
|
|
33.1 |
% |
Other taxes |
|
|
4,493 |
|
|
|
4,331 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
91,286 |
|
|
|
89,846 |
|
|
|
1,440 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
19,004 |
|
|
|
16,149 |
|
|
|
2,855 |
|
|
|
17.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (LOSS) NET |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
455 |
|
|
|
(556 |
) |
|
|
-122.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTEREST CHARGES |
|
|
9,404 |
|
|
|
8,748 |
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
9,499 |
|
|
$ |
7,856 |
|
|
$ |
1,643 |
|
|
|
20.9 |
% |
|
|
|
Net income for the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased 20.9% to $9.5 million, equivalent
to $0.57 and $0.56 per common share on a basic and fully diluted basis, respectively, compared to
$7.9 million or $0.52 and $0.51 per share, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2004.
The increase in recorded results reflects the significant increase in the unrealized gain on
purchased power contracts due to increasing energy prices. This unrealized gain added
approximately $0.12 per share to the six months ended June 30, 2005, as compared to the unrealized
gain of $0.02 per share for the same period of 2004. Additionally, rate increases in most of SCWs
service areas contributed to higher water revenues, offset by decreases in water consumption due to
changes in weather.
32
As discussed in the quarterly results, the increase in the six months recorded results
reflects a significant decrease in the provision for supply cost balancing account. In May 2004,
SCW recorded a cumulative $2.7 million regulatory liability with a corresponding charge booked to
the provision for supply cost balancing account as a result of the advice letters filed for the
memorandum supply cost accounts for Regions I and II that had net over-collection balances covering
2001, 2002, 2003 and parts of 2004 years. During the second quarter of 2005, (i) there was no
similar charge for over-collection, and (ii) an approximate $1.3 million under-collection in Region
IIIs 2004 memorandum supply cost account was approved by the CPUC, which was recorded as a
reduction to the provision.
Operating
Revenues
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, revenues from water operations increased by 3.0% to
$95.0 million, compared to $92.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. Higher water
revenues reflect rate increases covering almost all of SCWs water customers which contributed $7.5
million in increased revenues. This was partially offset by a decrease of 10% in billed water
consumption resulting from changes in weather conditions that resulted in a decrease in revenues.
Differences in temperature and rainfall in Registrants service areas impact sales of water to
customers, causing fluctuations in Registrants revenues and earnings between comparable periods.
For the
six months ended June 30, 2005, revenues from electric operations increased by 3.7% to
$13.6 million compared to $13.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. The increase
reflects a slight increase in kilowatt-hour consumption and a rate increase related to the
commencement of operations of an 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generation facility. The new rates went
into effect on April 15, 2005. The rate increase for this facility is expected to generate
approximately $2.7 million in additional annual revenues and is subject to refund.
For the six months
ended June 30, 2005, other operating revenues increased by 179.7% to $1.7
million compared to $601,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to approximately
$1.1 million of additional revenues associated with the operation of the water and wastewater
systems at Fort Bliss, located near El Paso, Texas that commenced on October 1, 2004 pursuant to
the terms of a 50-year contract between FBWS and the U.S. Government.
Operating
Expenses
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, 45.3% of the Companys supply mix was purchased water
as compared to 45.8% purchased water for the six months ended June 30, 2004. Purchased water costs
decreased by 7.9% to $20.0 million compared to $21.7 million for the six months ended June 30,
2004. The decrease is due primarily to a decline in customer demand resulting from lower
consumption.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, the cost of power purchased for pumping decreased by
11.2% to $3.7 million compared to $4.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily
to a decrease in KWh usage caused by lower customer demand.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, groundwater production assessments increased by 19.1%
as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to increases in assessment rates
levied against groundwater production, effective July 2004. Pump tax rates increased in Regions II
and III by approximately 11% and 15%, respectively. In addition, SCW received $628,000 for leasing
temporary surplus water rights during the six months ended June 30, 2004 which was recorded as a
reduction to groundwater production assessments as compared to $233,000 received for the six months
ended June 30, 2005. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in customer demand.
33
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, cost of power purchased for resale to customers in
SCWs Bear Valley Electric division decreased by 7.1% to $6.8 million compared to $7.4 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2004. The decrease was due primarily to two related events with
Mirant Marketing. The first event was the recording of additional one time costs for the six months
ended June 2004 that did not recur in the six months ended June 2005. The additional one time
costs booked in the first six months of 2004 was due to a refund to Mirant Marketing of $644,000
ordered by the FERC in March of 2004 for the one-time sale of excess energy in the spot market.
While this increased the cost of power purchased for resale, SCW also booked the refund payment to
Mirant Marketing in its supply cost balancing account; therefore, there was no net impact on
earnings in 2004. The second event was the result of a FERC order in November of 2004 in which FERC
ordered Mirant Marketing to reimburse $247,000 of the amount SCW had refunded to Mirant Marketing.
SCW received the reimbursement of $247,000 from Mirant Marketing in May of 2005. SCW recorded the
Mirant Marketing reimbursement in its supply cost balancing account which also resulted in no net
impact on earnings in 2005.
Unrealized gain and loss on purchased power contracts represents gains and losses recorded for
SCWs purchased power agreements with PWCC, which qualify as derivative instruments under SFAS No.
133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. The $3,474,000 pretax
unrealized gain on purchased power contracts for the six months ended June 30, 2005 is due to an
increase in the current forward market prices since December 31, 2004. Unrealized gains and losses
at Bear Valley Electric will continue to impact earnings during the life of the contract with PWCC,
which terminates in 2008.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, Registrant recorded a net pre-tax gain of $760,000 on
a settlement reached with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District (FHSD) in February 2005 for the
recapping of two CCWC wells in order to facilitate FHSDs ability to secure certain permits.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, CCWC agreed to permanently remove from service and cap one of
its wells, and cap another well which had never been used as a potable source of supply.
As discussed previously, for the six months ended June 30, 2004, Registrant recorded a $5.7
million pre-tax gain on the sale of water rights reflecting a favorable CPUC decision in 2004. The
$5.7 million represented settlement proceeds received in May 2004 from the City of Santa Monica
relating to the sale and the assignment of rights regarding the Charnock Groundwater Basin.
A decrease of $3.3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2005 in the provision for
supply cost balancing accounts as compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 primarily
reflects: (i) the recording in May 2004 of a cumulative $2.7 million regulatory liability with a
corresponding charge booked to the provision for supply cost balancing account as a result of the
advice letters filed for the memorandum supply cost accounts for Regions I and II that had net
over-collection balances covering 2001, 2002, 2003 and parts of 2004 years there was no similar
charge during the second quarter of 2005; (ii) approval by the CPUC in June 2005 of an approximate
$1.3 million under-collection in Region IIIs 2004 memorandum supply cost account; and (iii) a
decrease of $510,000 in amortization primarily related to pre-November 2001 water supply cost
balancing accounts and the electric balancing account. These decreases were offset by: (i) a net
change in the current period of $696,000 in the over-collections of the memorandum supply cost
accounts, and (ii) the net refunds to Mirant Marketing previously discussed in cost of power
purchased for resale in the Bear Valley Electric service area.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, other operating expenses increased by 5.8% to $10.3
million compared to $9.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to: (i)
higher labor costs as a result of higher wages which increased by approximately $803,000; (ii)
higher operating expenses of $360,000 at ASUS due to the commencement of operations of the water
and wastewater system at Fort Bliss; and (iii) increases in various other operating expenses.
These increases were offset by an impairment loss of $482,000 that was recorded at the end of the
second quarter of 2004 related to the Charnock Groundwater Basin assets being removed from
rate-base pursuant to a CPUC order in 2004.
34
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, administrative and general expenses increased by 5.1%
to $21.6 million compared to $20.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due to: (i)
approximately $637,000 increase in pensions and benefits due to actuarial assumption changes in
the discount rate and mortality tables, and increases of approximately $529,000 in various other benefit costs,
(ii) approximately
$335,000 increase in outside services related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements, and (iii)
approximately $344,000 increase in general office labor costs due to higher wages. These increases
were partially offset by a $1.1 million decrease in outside services in connection with new business
development and various other areas.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, depreciation and amortization expense increased by
10.5% to $11.3 million compared to $10.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 reflecting,
among other things, the effects of recording approximately $71 million in additions to utility
plant during 2004, depreciation on which began in January 2005. Registrant anticipates that
depreciation expense will continue to increase due to Registrants on-going construction program at
its regulated subsidiaries. Registrant believes that depreciation expense related to property
additions approved by the appropriate regulatory agency will be recovered through water and
electric rates.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, maintenance expense increased by 1.1% to $5.0 million
compared to $4.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due principally to increases in
maintenance expenses for ASUS due to the Fort Bliss operations which began in October 2004. FBWS
bears the risk of increases in maintenance and all other costs above those authorized in the
contract for operation of Fort Bliss, unless FBWS is entitled to an equitable adjustment for such
matters as an increase in labor rates, changes in circumstances or differing site conditions from
those anticipated at the time of execution of the contract.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, taxes on operating income increased by 33.1% to $8.0
million compared to $6.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due, in part, to an
increase in pretax operating income of 31.2%. In addition, the ETR applicable to the six months
ended June 30, 2005 increased to 45.5% as compared to a 44.9% ETR applicable to the six months
ended June 30, 2004. The variance between the ETR and the statutory tax rate is primarily the
result of differences between book and taxable income that are treated as flow-through adjustments in
accordance with regulatory requirements. Flow-through adjustments increase or decrease tax expense
in one period, with an offsetting increase or decrease occurring in another period. During the six
months ended June 30, 2005, the recognition of the federal benefit of state taxes was adjusted to
conform to the flow-through method reflected in the tax calculation for ratemaking purposes, which
partially defers the recognition of the benefit to the subsequent tax year. This resulted in
additional income taxes of $389,000, which was partially offset by other favorable flow-through
adjustments such that the ETR applicable to the six months ended June 30, 2005 increased by 0.6
percentage points (an approximately one percent increase) as compared to the ETR applicable to the
six months ended June 30, 2004.
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, other taxes increased by 3.7% to $4.5 million compared
to $4.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 reflecting additional property taxes
resulting from higher assessed values, and increases in payroll taxes based on increased labor
costs.
Other
Income (Loss)
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, other net income (loss) was a loss of $101,000 as
compared to income of $455,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2004. This was largely due to a
reduction in SCWs estimate of customer refunds associated with lease revenues from the City of
Folsom adjusted in June 2004.
35
Interest
Charges
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, interest expense increased by 7.5% to $9.4 million
compared to $8.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due primarily to increases in
short-term borrowings and higher interest rates on short-term borrowings. In addition, during the
first quarter of 2004 SCW recorded the recovery of carrying costs of approximately $168,000 on the
costs incurred in the water quality Order Instituting Investigation matter authorized by the CPUC
in March 2004. There was no corresponding recovery in 2005.
Critical
Accounting Policies
Critical accounting policies are those that are important to the portrayal of AWRs financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows, and require the most difficult, subjective or
complex judgments of AWRs 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. These judgments
are based on AWRs historical experience, terms of existing contracts, AWRs observance of trends
in the industry, information provided by customers and information available from other outside
sources, as appropriate. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions
or conditions.
The critical accounting policies used in the preparation of the Registrants financial
statements that we believe affect the more significant judgments and estimates used in the
preparation of our consolidated financial statements presented in this report are described in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation included in
our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. There have been no material
changes to the critical accounting policies since December 31, 2004.
36
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.
Net cash provided by operating activities was $32.9 million for the six months ended June 30,
2005 as compared to $29.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. The increase of $3.8
million was primarily attributable to (i) the receipt of $5.0 million in federal tax
refunds during the six months ended June 30, 2005 not received during the six months ended June 30,
2004; (ii) the receipt in the first quarter of 2005 of $1.5 million by CCWC in connection with a
settlement agreement with the Fountain Hills Sanitary District; (iii) the timing of pension and
postretirement plan contributions totaling $4.2 million which were made in May of 2004, but has
been delayed in the current year and are expected to be made in August 2005 (iv) the payment of
approximately $1.4 million to Southern California Edison in March of 2004 pursuant to a settlement
agreement, with no corresponding payment in 2005, and (v) changes in the timing of cash receipts
from customers accounts receivable and disbursements related to other working capital items. These
increases are offset by the receipt in the first quarter of 2004 of $8.7 million from Aerojet in
connection with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which accounted for the change in other
accounts receivable.
Net cash used in investing activities was $35.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005
as compared to $30.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004 due to higher capital
expenditures consistent with budgeted increases.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $3.7 million for the six months ended June 30,
2005 as compared to net cash used in financing activities of $4.3 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2004. The increase in net cash provided was due primarily to an increase of $6 million in
short-term bank borrowing against the revolving credit line and by a $3.0 million increase in
receipt of advances for and contributions in aid of construction. These increases were offset by a
$649,000 decrease in proceeds from the issuance of common shares.
In June 2005, AWR amended and restated its credit agreement which increased its borrowing
limit under its revolving credit facility to $85 million and extended the maturity date to June
2010. Up to $20 million of this facility may be used for letters of credit. As of June 30, 2005, an
aggregate of $49 million in cash borrowing included in current liabilities and approximately $11.2
million of letters of credit were outstanding under this facility.
Registrant anticipates that interest costs will increase in future periods due to the need for
additional external capital to fund its construction program, potential general market interest
rate increases and the April, 2004 downgrade of AWRs credit rating by Standard & Poors Ratings
Service (S&P) from A+ to A- with a negative outlook. S&P debt ratings range from AAA (highest
rating possible) to D (obligation is in default). 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. Registrant believes that costs associated with capital used to fund construction at its
regulated subsidiaries will continue to be recovered in water and electric rates charged to
customers.
37
SCW
Net cash provided by operating activities was $28.0 million for the six months ended June 30,
2005 as compared to $30.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004. The decrease of $2.0
million in cash provided by operations was primarily attributable to the receipt in the first
quarter of 2004 of $8.7 million from Aerojet in connection with the MOU. This was offset by: (i)
the timing of our pension and postretirement plan contributions which were made in May of 2004 and
totaled $4.2 million (2005s contributions are expected to be made in August 2005), (ii) the
payment of approximately $1.4 million to Southern California Edison in March of 2004 pursuant to a
settlement agreement, with no corresponding payment in 2005, and (iii) approximately $1.2 million
decrease in taxes paid in the first quarter of 2005 as compared to 2004. There were also changes
in the timing of cash receipts from customer accounts receivable and disbursements related to other
working capital items.
Net cash used in investing activities increased to $33.4 million for the six months ended June
30, 2005 as compared to $29.3 million for the same period of 2004 due to increased capital
expenditures consistent with budgeted increases.
Net cash provided by financing activities was $6.1 million for the six months ended June 30,
2005 as compared to net cash used in financing activities of $4.3 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2004, reflecting primarily an increase of $8.3 million in inter-company borrowings. There
was also a $1.8 million increase in receipt of advances for and contributions in aid of
construction.
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 from operating activities. Internal cash generation
is influenced by factors such as weather patterns, environmental regulation, litigation, changes in
supply costs and regulatory decisions affecting SCWs ability to recover these supply costs, and
timing of rate relief.
SCW also relies on external sources, including equity investments and short-term borrowings
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. SCW has a
Registration Statement on file with the SEC for issuance from time to time, of up to $100 million
of debt securities. As of June 30, 2005, $50 million remained for issuance under this Registration
Statement. Depending on market conditions, SCW plans to issue long-term debt during the third
quarter of 2005 to pay down borrowings from AWR. AWR intends to use any funds received from SCW to
pay down its borrowings under the revolving credit facility.
In February 2005, Moodys Investor Services (Moodys) changed the rating outlook for $175
million of senior unsecured debt at SCW from A2 negative to A2 stable. Moodys debt ratings range
from Aaa (best quality) to C (lowest quality). SCW currently has a debt rating of A- with negative
outlook by S&P. 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.
CCWC
CCWC funds the majority of its operating expenses, payments on its debt and dividends, if any,
through internal operating sources or loans from AWR. 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.
38
ASUS
ASUS funds its operating expenses primarily through management fees and investments by or
loans from AWR. In addition, ASUSs wholly-owned subsidiary, FBWS, commenced operation of the
water and wastewater systems at Fort Bliss pursuant to the terms of the 50-year contract with the
U.S. Government. The amounts charged by FBWS for water and wastewater services at U.S. Army Fort
Bliss are based upon the terms of the 50-year contract between FBWS and the U.S. Government. Under
the terms of this agreement, FBWS has agreed to own, operate and maintain the water and wastewater
systems at Fort Bliss for a net fixed price of $181,206 per month for operation and maintenance,
and $147,146 per month for renewals and replacements, for a period of two years. Prices will be
re-determined at the end of the two year period and every six years thereafter. In addition, prices
may be equitably adjusted for changes in law and other circumstances.
Contractual Obligations and Other Commitments
In addition to contractual maturities, Registrant has certain debt instruments that contain
annual sinking fund or other principal payments. Registrant believes that it will be able to
refinance debt instruments at their maturity through public issuance, or private placement, of debt
or equity. Annual principal and interest payments are generally made from cash flow from
operations.
The following table reflects Registrants contractual obligations and commitments to make
future payments pursuant to contracts as of June 30, 2005. All obligations and commitments are
obligations and commitments of SCW unless otherwise noted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ 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) |
|
$ |
173,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
173,100 |
|
Private Placement Notes(3) |
|
|
28,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,000 |
|
Tax-Exempt Obligations(4) |
|
|
18,861 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
18,448 |
|
Other Debt Instruments(5) |
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
893 |
|
Interest on Long-Term Debt(6) |
|
|
386,678 |
|
|
|
16,403 |
|
|
|
32,802 |
|
|
|
32,715 |
|
|
|
304,758 |
|
Advances for Construction(7) |
|
|
83,300 |
|
|
|
2,917 |
|
|
|
5,184 |
|
|
|
5,184 |
|
|
|
70,015 |
|
Purchased Power Contracts(8) |
|
|
41,766 |
|
|
|
11,973 |
|
|
|
23,947 |
|
|
|
5,846 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Obligations(9) |
|
|
42,215 |
|
|
|
42,215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water Purchase Agreements
(10) |
|
|
58,044 |
|
|
|
16,054 |
|
|
|
25,397 |
|
|
|
5,649 |
|
|
|
10,944 |
|
Operating Leases(11) |
|
|
4,214 |
|
|
|
1,766 |
|
|
|
2,036 |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
|
|
Employer Contributions(12) |
|
|
19,260 |
|
|
|
5,363 |
|
|
|
9,954 |
|
|
|
3,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
Chaparral City Water Co. (13) |
|
|
14,295 |
|
|
|
1,718 |
|
|
|
1,011 |
|
|
|
1,001 |
|
|
|
10,565 |
|
|
|
|
SUB-TOTAL |
|
$ |
871,688 |
|
|
$ |
98,638 |
|
|
$ |
100,936 |
|
|
$ |
55,391 |
|
|
$ |
616,723 |
|
|
|
|
Other Commitments(14) |
|
|
54,191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
$ |
925,879 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes dividends 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 were 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, a 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 |
39
|
|
|
|
|
expense. SCW does not currently have any outstanding mortgages or other encumbrances on its
properties. |
|
(4) |
|
Consists of obligations under a loan agreement supporting $7.9 million in
outstanding 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 $4.9 million of obligations incurred by SCW with respect to its
500 acre foot entitlement to water from the State Water Project (SWP). 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 500 acre-foot entitlement to water from the
SWP. |
|
(5) |
|
Consists of $1.2 million outstanding under a fixed rate obligation
incurred to fund construction of water storage and delivery facilities with the Three Valleys
Municipal Water District, $0.5 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 $0.3 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) |
|
Consists of expected interest expense payments assuming Registrants
long-term debt remains outstanding until maturity. Current interest rates were used to
estimate expected interest expense payments on variable long-term debt. |
|
(7) |
|
Advances for construction represent annual contract refunds to developers
for the cost of water systems paid for by the developers. The advances are generally
refundable at rates ranging from 10% to 22% of the revenue received from the installation for
which funds were advanced or in equal annual installments over periods of time ranging from 10
to 40-year periods. |
|
(8) |
|
Consists of the remaining balance of purchased power contracts through
December 2008. |
|
(9) |
|
Consists of non-cancelable commitments primarily for capital projects
under signed contracts. |
|
(10) |
|
Water purchase agreements consist of (i) contracts with various
governmental entities to purchase imported water for an aggregate remaining commitment of
$50.9 million which expire on an agreement-by-agreement basis between 2008 and 2012; (ii) a
remaining amount of $3 million under an agreement with the City of Claremont to lease water
rights that were ascribed to the City as part of the Six Basins adjudication (the initial term
expires in 2028 with an option to renew this agreement for 10 more years); and (iii) an
aggregate amount of $4.1 million of other water purchase commitments with other third parties.
In some cases, the amount of the commitment is estimated based on current rates per acre-foot
of water purchased. These rates may be changed annually. |
|
(11) |
|
Reflects Registrants future minimum payments under non-cancelable
operating leases. |
|
(12) |
|
Consists of Registrants expected contributions (all by employer) for its
pension and postretirement plans. These amounts are subject to change based on, among other
things, the limits established for federal tax deductibility (pension plan). The estimated
minimum required contributions to the pension plan were computed by our actuary and are
subject to change based on the significant impact that return on plan assets and changes in
discount rates might have on such amounts. |
|
(13) |
|
Consists of $7.4 million of outstanding obligations under a loan
agreement supporting Industrial Development Revenue Bonds due in 2006 and a $0.2 million
outstanding repayment obligation to the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). The loan
agreement contains provisions that establish 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 obligation does not contain
any financial covenants believed to be material to Registrant or any cross default provisions.
In addition, CCWC has a long-term water supply contract with the Central Arizona Conservation
District (the District) through September 2033, and is entitled to take 6,978 acre feet of
water per year from the Central Arizona Project. The maintenance rate for such water delivered
is set by the District and is subject to annual increases. The estimated remaining commitment
under this contract is $5.6 million as of June 30, 2005. Furthermore, CCWC has entered into a
commitment with the District to purchase 1,931 acre feet per year of additional water rights
for an |
40
|
|
|
|
|
estimated amount of $1.1 million as of June 30, 2005. The price is subject to further adjustment
and is expected to increase annually until final written agreement is executed which is expected
later this year. |
|
(14) |
|
Other commitments consist of (i) $85 million syndicated revolving credit
facility, expiring in June 2010 of which $49.0 million is outstanding as of June 30, 2005,
(ii) 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), (iii) an
irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $700,000 that expires in October 2005 for the
deductible in Registrants business automobile insurance policy, (iv) an irrevocable letter of
credit that expires October 5, 2005 for its energy scheduling agreement with Automated Power
Exchange as security for the purchase of power; the amount of the credit is $585,000, (v)
outstanding performance bonds of $10,075 to secure performance under franchise agreements with
governmental agencies, and (vi) an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $3,600,000
pursuant to a settlement agreement with Southern California Edison Company (Edison) to cover
Registrants commitment to pay the settlement amount. All of the letters of credit are issued
pursuant to the syndicated revolving credit facility. The syndicated revolving credit facility
contains restrictions on prepayments, disposition of property, mergers, liens indebtedness
and guaranty obligations and, transactions with affiliates and contains a negative pledge,
minimum interest coverage requirements, a maximum debt to capitalization ratio, and a minimum
debt rating covenant. 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 Baa3 or BBB-. |
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. FBWS has capital commitments that are being funded by the U.S.
Government.
Under the terms of its power purchase contracts with Mirant Marketing and PWCC, 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 S&P or Fitch, Inc. (Fitch) or less than Baa3 by Moodys. SCW currently
has a senior unsecured debt rating of A- with negative outlook by S & P and A2 with a recent
upgrade from negative to stable outlook 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.
41
Bear Valley Electric Service of SCW
As of June 30, 2005, SCW had accrued $21.6 million in under-collected power costs, mostly
incurred during the energy crisis in late 2000 and 2001 in connection with providing service to its
Bear Valley Electric customers. SCW is authorized to include up to a weighted annual energy
purchase cost of $77 per MWh each year through August, 2011 in its electric supply cost balancing
account. To the extent that actual weighted average annual costs for power purchased exceeds the
$77 per MWh amount, SCW will not be able to include these amounts in its balancing account and such
amounts will be expensed, unless the CPUC approves the adjustments. In addition, SCW is permitted
to collect an additional surcharge from its customers of 2.2¢ per kilowatt hour through August 2011
to recover the under-collection in the electric balancing account, with a current balance of $21.6
million. In 2011, if amounts remain in the balancing account that have not been recovered through
this surcharge, an advice letter will be filed at that time for recovery of the remaining balance.
Power Supply Arrangements at SCWs Bear Valley Electric Service Area
During 2002, SCW entered into block-forward purchase power contracts that qualified as
derivative instruments under SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, as amended by SFAS Nos. 138 and 139. Contracts with PWCC which became effective in
November 2002 have not been designated as normal purchases and normal sales and, as a result, have
been recognized at fair market value on the balance sheets as of June 30, 2005 and December 31,
2004. This resulted in a pre-tax unrealized gain of $3,474,000 and $481,000 for the six months
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, due to continued increases in energy prices. On a
monthly basis, the related asset or liability is adjusted to reflect the fair market value at the
end of the month. As this contract is settled, the realized gains or losses are recorded in power
purchased for resale, and the unrealized gains or losses are reversed. The market prices used to
determine the fair value for this derivative instrument were estimated based on independent sources
such as broker quotes and publications. Settlement of this contract occurs on a cash or net basis
through 2006 and by physical delivery through 2008. Unrealized gains and losses on this contract
will continue to be recognized through the end of the contract in 2008. Earnings could be
significantly affected by these gains or losses depending on the changes in energy prices.
Registrant has no other derivative financial instruments.
Construction Program
SCW maintains an ongoing water distribution main replacement program throughout its customer
service areas based on the priority of leaks detected, fire protection enhancement and an
underlying replacement schedule. In addition, SCW upgrades its electric and water supply facilities
in accordance with industry standards, local requirements and CPUC requirements. As of June 30,
2005, SCW has unconditional purchase obligations for capital projects of approximately $26.8
million. In addition, SCWs Board of Directors also approved the 2005 net capital budget of
approximately $57.8 million primarily for upgrades to its water supply and distribution facilities.
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, Registrant spent $33,437,000 for these purposes.
CCWCs Board of Directors also approved the 2005 net capital budget of approximately
$1.4 million. During the six months ended June 30, 2005, CCWC spent $2,038,000 for these purposes.
42
Regulatory Matters
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 and FBWS are subject to regulation by
the ACC and the TCEQ, respectively.
Changes in Rates
The CPUC has approved SCWs advice letter requesting rate increases in Region I. The new rates
were effective June 8, 2005 and are expected to generate annual revenues of $2.3 million.
On November 2, 2004, SCW filed advice letters with the CPUC for step increases for Region II
in an amount of approximately $2.8 million and attrition increases of approximately $2.4 million
for Region III that were approved and became effective January 1, 2005.
On July 10, 2003, the CPUC approved the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCN) for construction of an 8.4 MW natural gas-fueled generation facility on a portion of its
property in the City of Big Bear Lake. The capital cost of the generating facility was
approximately $13 million. SCW filed for increased rates in the third quarter of 2004, using a
special filing called a Major Additions Adjustment Clause or MAAC filing. This request was
approved by the CPUC and the new rates became effective on April 15, 2005, which should result in
an estimated annual revenue increase of approximately $2.7 million. The rate increase for the
generation facility is all subject to refund pending final cost review.
Pending Rate Changes
In February 2005, SCW filed an application with the CPUC for rate increases in Region III. If
approved as filed, the rate increases will generate annual revenues approximating $15.6 million
starting in 2006. In addition, rates are expected to increase by $1.0 million in 2007 and 2008,
respectively. A decision on this application is expected in late 2005.
Other Regulatory Matters
In a CPUC decision issued on June 19, 2003 related to memorandum supply cost accounts, all
water utilities regulated by the CPUC are required to seek review of under- and over- collections
of supply-related costs, by filing an advice letter annually. As of June 30, 2005, SCW has filed
advice letters for Regions I and II for the period from November 29, 2001 to December 31, 2004 with
respect to an approximate $1.8 million cumulative net over-collection, which has been recorded as a
regulatory liability. In June 2005, the
CPUC approved the advice letters as filed related to the 2001, 2002 and 2003 years totaling $1.4
million over-collection which has been transferred to the supply cost
balancing accounts. An additional $223,000 of net over-collection related to the six months ended
June 30, 2005 has also been recorded as a regulatory liability at June 30, 2005.
SCW also filed advice letters with the CPUC for review of the activity in the Region III
memorandum supply cost account for the period from November 29, 2001 to December 31, 2004 totaling
a cumulative $4.3 million under-collection. A regulatory asset
with respect to this under-collection is not recorded until receipt of a CPUC decision authorizing
the recovery
43
of the under-collection.
In June 2005, the CPUC approved the transfer of an approximate $1.3 million
under-collection in Region IIIs 2004 memorandum supply cost
account into the
water supply cost balancing account as of June 30, 2005. The advice letters for the 2001-2003
years are still awaiting approval.
CCWC filed its rate case with the ACC in August 2004. CCWC is expecting the new rates will be
approved and effective in early 2006. The filed rate request, if approved by the ACC, would
increase CCWCs revenue requirement by approximately 29%.
On July 21, 2005, the CPUC authorized SCW to collect the balance of the Aerojet litigation
memorandum account of approximately $21.3 million, through a rate surcharge, which will continue
for no longer than 20 years. As a result of this decision, SCW, among other things, was ordered
to: (i) impose a surcharge in the Arden-Cordova customer service area to amortize the balance
totaling $21.3 million in the memorandum account and consequently, SCW will reflect an increase of
approximately $6.2 million in its regulatory assets to include previously expensed carrying costs
and record a corresponding gain in its results of operations during the third quarter of 2005; (ii)
restore the appropriate plant accounts by approximately $1.1 million with a corresponding decrease
in depreciation expense during the third quarter of 2005, due to the full reimbursement from
Aerojet on capital expenditures, and (iii) keep the memorandum account open until it is fully
amortized; however, no costs shall be added to the memorandum account, other than cumulative
interest charges approved by the decision. Furthermore, it is managements intention to offset any
settlement proceeds from Aerojets proposed land development, first against the guaranteed $8
million note from Aerojet and then against the balance in the memorandum account at the time of
receipt of the settlement payments.
Environmental Matters
Our regulated subsidiaries are subject to increasingly stringent environmental regulations
including the 1996 amendments to Federal Safe Drinking Water Act; enhanced surface water treatment
rules; regulation of disinfectant/disinfection by-products; and the long-term enhanced surface
water treatment rules; ground water treatment rule; contaminant regulation of radon and arsenic;
and unregulated contaminants monitoring rule.
Additional information on these requirements and other significant environmental matters are
described in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation
included in our 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Construction
activities at the new treatment plant in the Calipatria-Niland customer service area were completed
in the second quarter of 2005. As a result, management believes that all surface water plants in
SCW and CCWC are in compliance with the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule which becomes
effective on June 1, 2006. Except for this matter, there have been no other material changes in any
of the environmental matters discussed in the Form 10-K since December 31, 2004.
Water Supply
The adequacy of our water supplies varies from year to year depending upon a variety of
factors, including:
|
|
|
Rainfall |
|
|
|
|
Availability of Colorado River water and imported water from northern California |
|
|
|
|
The amount of water stored in reservoirs and groundwater basins |
|
|
|
|
The amount of water used by our customers and others |
|
|
|
|
Water quality |
|
|
|
|
Legal limitations on use |
44
Population growth and increases in the amount of water used have increased limitations on use
to prevent over-drafting of groundwater basins. The importation 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) and other limitations on the amount of water
that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is entitled to take from the
Colorado River. MWD is expected to increase its efforts to secure additional supplies from
conservation, desalination and water exchanges with the agricultural water users.
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. In addition, CCWCs ability to provide water service to new real estate
developments is dependent upon CCWCs ability to meet the requirements of the Arizona Department of
Water Resources regarding its assured water supply account.
Water shortages may affect the Company 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 supply, new wells to replace those that are no longer
in service or are otherwise inadequate to meet the needs of customers 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 from third
parties that may be responsible, or potentially responsible, for groundwater contamination.
Risk Factor Summary
The following risk factors, which are described more fully in our 2004 Annual Report on
Form 10-K, represent risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ
materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. There have
been no significant changes in risk factors since December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
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 liquidity and earnings could be adversely affected by changes in water supply costs; |
|
|
|
|
Our business entails a significant risk of litigation, brought on a variety of legal
theories, alleging that we have caused personal injury and property damage as a result of
the delivery of contaminated water; |
|
|
|
|
Our operating costs have increased and are expected to continue to increase as a result
of groundwater contamination; |
|
|
|
|
Environmental regulation has increased, and is expected to continue to increase our
operating costs; |
|
|
|
|
The adequacy of our water supplies depends upon a variety of factors beyond our control
described more fully in the Water Supply section; |
|
|
|
|
Our earnings are greatly affected by weather during different seasons; |
|
|
|
|
Our liquidity, and in certain circumstances, earnings, could be adversely affected by
increases in electricity and natural gas prices in California; |
|
|
|
|
Our business requires significant capital expenditures; and |
|
|
|
|
The expansion of our contract operations will expose us to different risks than those
associated with our utility operations. |
45
New Accounting Pronouncements
Registrant is subject to newly issued as well as changes in existing requirements issued by
the Financial Accounting Standard Board. Differences in financial reporting between periods could
occur unless and until the CPUC and the ACC approve such changes for conformity through regulatory
proceedings. See Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Registrant is exposed to certain market risks, including fluctuations in interest rates, and
commodity price risk primarily relating to changes in the market price of electricity. Market risk
is the potential loss arising from adverse changes in prevailing market rates and prices. There
have been no material changes regarding Registrants market risk position from the information
provided in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. The quantitative
and qualitative disclosures about market risk are discussed in Item 7A-Quantitative and Qualitative
Disclosures About Market Risk, contained in Registrants 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As required by Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act), we have carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the
participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and our Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), of the effectiveness, as of the end of the fiscal quarter covered by
this report, of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in
Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under
the Exchange Act. Based upon that evaluation, the CEO and the CFO concluded that disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of such fiscal quarter, were adequate and effective to
ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under
the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified
in the SECs rules and forms and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our
management, including our CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure.
(b) Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting
There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter
ended June 30, 2005 that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect our
internal control over financial reporting.
46
PART II
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Registrant is subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business. Other than
those disclosed in Registrants Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, no other legal
proceedings are pending, which are believed to be material. There have been no material
developments in any of these legal proceedings since the filing of this Form 10-K. Management
believes that rate recovery, proper insurance coverage and reserves are in place to insure against
property, general liability and workers compensation claims incurred in the ordinary course of
business.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
The shareholders of AWR have approved the material features of all equity compensation plans
under which AWR directly issues equity securities. AWR did not directly issue any unregistered
equity securities during the second quarter of 2005.
The following table provides information about repurchases of common shares by AWR during the
three months ended June 30, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
|
Maximum Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased as |
|
|
Shares That May Yet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of Publicly |
|
|
Be Purchased under |
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
|
Average Price Paid |
|
|
Announced Plans or |
|
|
the Plans or |
|
Period |
|
Shares Purchased |
|
|
per Share |
|
|
Programs(1) |
|
|
Programs |
|
April 1 30, 2005 |
|
|
997 |
(3) |
|
$ |
25.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA(2) |
May 1 31, 2005 |
|
|
11,720 |
(4) |
|
$ |
26.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA(2) |
June 1 30, 2005 |
|
|
180 |
(3) |
|
$ |
28.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA(2) |
Total |
|
|
12,897 |
|
|
$ |
26.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA(2) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
None of the common shares were purchased pursuant to any publicly announced stock repurchase
program. |
|
(2) |
|
None of these plans contain a maximum number of common shares that may be purchased in the open
market under the plans. |
|
(3) |
|
All of these Common Shares were acquired on the open market for new participants in the
Companys Common Share Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan. |
|
(4) |
|
Of this amount, 10,000 Common Shares were acquired on the open market for employees pursuant
to the Companys 401(k) plan. All of the Common Shares needed to meet the requirements of this plan
were purchased in the open market. The remainder of the Common Shares was acquired on the open
market for new participants in the Companys Common Share Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan. |
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
None
47
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Our annual meeting of shareholders was held on May 17, 2005. The following table presents the
voting results of the election of Class I directors at this meeting:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Votes For |
|
|
Votes Withheld |
|
James L. Anderson |
|
|
14,686,719 |
|
|
|
346,391 |
|
Anne M. Holloway |
|
|
14,722,847 |
|
|
|
310,262 |
|
Floyd E. Wicks |
|
|
14,809,604 |
|
|
|
223,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have one other class of directors, N.P. Dodge, Jr., Robert F. Kathol and Lloyd E. Ross,
whose terms will expire at the annual meeting in 2006.
Our shareholders also approved amendments to the 2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan and
the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan. The following table presents the results of the vote on these two
matters:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Plan |
|
Votes For |
|
|
Votes Against |
|
|
Abstentions |
|
2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan |
|
|
13,314,674 |
|
|
|
1,481,229 |
|
|
|
237,206 |
|
2000 Stock Incentive Plan |
|
|
8,448,106 |
|
|
|
1,382,250 |
|
|
|
247,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately 88.3% and 58.6% of our shareholders voted on the 2003 Non-Employee Directors
Stock Plan and the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, respectively. Of the 15,033,110 shares represented at
the annual meeting, 1 share and 4,954,973 shares, respectively, neither voted nor abstained from
voting on the 2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan and the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan,
respectively. There were 16,763,744 shares entitled to vote at the annual meeting.
Our shareholders also ratified the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our
independent auditors, with 14,797,423 voting in favor of the appointment, 134,960 opposing the
appointment, 100,726 abstaining from voting on the appointment and 1 share not voting on the
proposal.
Item 5. Other Information
(a) On August 1, 2005, the Board of Directors of Registrant declared a regular quarterly
dividend of $0.225 per common share. The dividend will be paid September 1, 2005 to shareholders of
record as of the close of business on August 11, 2005.
(b) There have been no material changes during the second quarter of 2005 to the procedures
by which shareholders may nominate persons to the Board of Directors of AWR.
48
Item 6. Exhibits
(a) The following documents are filed as Exhibits to this report:
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 for AWR (1) |
|
|
|
31.1.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 for SCW (1) |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 for AWR (1) |
|
|
|
31.2.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 for SCW (1) |
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (2) |
|
|
|
32.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (2) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Filed concurrently herewith. |
|
(2) |
|
Furnished concurrently herewith. |
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/ Robert J. Sprowls |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert J. Sprowls |
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, |
|
|
|
|
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary |
Dated: August 5, 2005
49
exv31w1
Exhibit 31.1
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for AWR
I, Floyd E. Wicks, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
|
1) |
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
of American States Water Company (referred to as the Registrant); |
|
2) |
|
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|
3) |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report; |
|
4) |
|
The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have: |
|
a) |
|
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles; |
|
|
c) |
|
evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and |
|
|
d) |
|
disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting. |
|
5) |
|
The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants
auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function): |
|
a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and |
|
|
b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls over financial
reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: August 5, 2005
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ FLOYD E. WICKS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floyd E. Wicks
Chief Executive Officer |
50
exv31w1w1
Exhibit 31.1.1
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for SCW
I, Floyd E. Wicks, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
|
1) |
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
of Southern California Water Company (referred to as SCW); |
|
|
2) |
|
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|
|
3) |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the SCW as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report; |
|
|
4) |
|
SCWs other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for SCW and have: |
|
a) |
|
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to SCW, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
evaluated the effectiveness of SCWs disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and |
|
|
c) |
|
disclosed in this report any change in SCWs internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during SCWs most recent fiscal quarter (SCWs fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, SCWs internal control over financial reporting. |
|
5) |
|
SCWs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the SCWs auditors and the
audit committee of SCWs board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): |
|
a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the SCWs ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and |
|
|
b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in SCWs internal controls over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: August 5, 2005
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ FLOYD E. WICKS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floyd E. Wicks |
|
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer |
51
exv31w2
Exhibit 31.2
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for AWR
I, Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
of American States Water Company (referred to as the Registrant);
2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;
4) The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:
|
a) |
|
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles; |
|
|
c) |
|
evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and |
|
|
d) |
|
disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting. |
|
5) |
|
The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants
auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function): |
|
a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and |
|
|
b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls over financial
reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: August 5, 2005
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ ROBERT J. SPROWLS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert J. Sprowls |
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief |
|
|
|
|
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
52
exv31w2w1
Exhibit 31.2.1
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for SCW
I, Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
|
1) |
|
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
of Southern California Water Company (referred to as SCW); |
|
|
2) |
|
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|
|
3) |
|
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of SCW as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; |
|
|
4) |
|
SCWs other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for SCW and have: |
|
a) |
|
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to SCW, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared; |
|
|
b) |
|
evaluated the effectiveness of SCWs disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and |
|
|
c) |
|
disclosed in this report any change in SCWs internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during SCWs most recent fiscal quarter (SCWs fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, SCWs internal control over financial reporting. |
|
5) |
|
SCWs other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to SCWs auditors and the audit
committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): |
|
a) |
|
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect SCWs ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and |
|
|
b) |
|
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in SCWs internal controls over financial reporting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dated: August 5, 2005
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ ROBERT J. SPROWLS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert J. Sprowls |
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief |
|
|
|
|
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
53
exv32w1
Exhibit 32.1
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of American States Water Company and Southern California
Water Company (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Floyd E. Wicks, Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
(1) |
|
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|
(2) |
|
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
/s/ Floyd E. Wicks
Floyd E. Wicks
Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 5, 2005
54
exv32w2
Exhibit 32.2
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
In connection with the Quarterly Report of American States Water Company and Southern California
Water Company (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Robert J. Sprowls,
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
(1) |
|
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|
(2) |
|
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
/s/ Robert J. Sprowls
Robert J. Sprowls
Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
Date: August 5, 2005
55