V. Other Issues

Young also argues that the beginning rate base for the Redwood Valley District should be $901,214, as set forth in D.00-05-047 (approving the merger between Cal Water and Dominguez), and that the rate base allocations should be the same here as in that decision. However, Cal Water points out that the amount and allocations set forth in D.00-05-047 cover only Armstrong, Noel Heights, Rancho del Paradiso, and Lucerne, because Coast Springs and Hawkins were not included in Redwood Valley at the time of the merger application filed by Cal Water and Dominguez. We agree that D.00-05-047 does not accurately reflect the beginning rate base for the Redwood Valley District as it is constituted in this application, and we adopt the amount agreed to by Cal Water and ORA, as reflected in the appendices.

Young also recommends that some Coast Springs service connection moratorium-related issues be addressed here. For instance, Young argues that Cal Water has failed to make attempts to lift the moratorium or to increase the water supply, and has thereby violated past Commission decisions and should be penalized. Cal Water argues that this issue is not part of the proceeding because the issue was not specifically set forth in the Scoping Memo and because Young presented no testimony on this issue. Cal Water also believes it has made efforts to lift the service moratorium as instructed by the Commission.

Neither Cal Water nor ORA addressed the issue of the Coast Springs moratorium in their direct or rebuttal testimony. Young intervened late in the case but before the hearings and did not present testimony concerning the Commission's moratorium-related directives. Nor did the Scoping Memo set forth moratorium-related issues.⁶ Also, Young has an active complaint regarding the moratorium before the Commission. (See Case 03-06-038.) Thus, we do not resolve the Coast Springs moratorium-related issues here.

However, in order to fully assess Cal Water's progress with respect to the moratorium, in the next Redwood Valley general rate case, we direct Cal Water to present direct testimony in the form of a separate exhibit demonstrating all of its efforts toward lifting the Coast Springs moratorium, including but not limited to showing that the company is in full compliance with D.03-03-037, D.99-07-041, and any other Coast Springs moratorium-related decisions the Commission may issue between now and the next general rate case. Cal Water shall also attach a copy of the cover page and ordering paragraphs of this decision as an exhibit to this testimony.

Finally, Young contends that Cal Water is not permitted to file a general rate case application for Coast Springs until 2004 or to seek a rate increase until 2005. We disagree. In D.99-07-041, the Commission adopted Dominguez and Coast Springs' stipulation that Dominguez purchase and operate Coast Springs. The parties agreed that "Dominguez should not apply for a general change in rates for Coast Springs before 2004." D.99-07-041, 1999 LEXIS 509 *6. The parties agreed that rates should remain effective until at least 2004. Id. at *9. This agreement is consistent with filing a general rate case application prior to 2004, with new rates becoming effective in 2004.