9. Assignment of Proceeding

John A. Bohn is the assigned Commissioner and Maribeth A. Bushey is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. The terms of the proposed settlement agreement require ratepayers, as a consequence of increased revenue requirement in Cal Water's Selma district, to fund $20,000 of the payments included in the proposed settlement agreement.

2. Ratepayers were not represented in the negotiations leading up to the proposed settlement agreement, and ratepayers have not agreed to the proposed settlement agreement.

3. Nelson opposes the proposed settlement agreement.

4. The Commission did not adjudicate or grant Nelson's request for reimbursement in D.85-06-132 or D.93-03-038.

5. The requirement that Cal Water file an advice letter prior to providing service to the Trend Homes property did not guarantee or authorize any payment to Nelson. The Commission merely directed staff to make "whatever recommendations [staff] deems appropriate for further Commission action on this issue."

6. The Commission authorized Cal Water to acquire the water system of Wesmilton Water Company in D.85-06-132 and determined the acquisition costs that would be properly included in revenue requirement and assessed to ratepayers; such costs did not include any reimbursement of Nelson's payment to the former owners.

7. Trend Homes did not agree to pay Nelson $40,000, nor did the Commission order Trend Homes to make such a payment.

8. Cal Water has no authorized tariff on file that requires a payment for the benefit of Nelson as a prerequisite to receiving water service.

9. Cal Water has provided no ratemaking justification for assessing the Emmetts or Selma district ratepayers any amounts for the benefit of Nelson.

Conclusions of Law

1. Cal Water and the Emmetts have not met their burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed settlement agreement is reasonable in light of the record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest.

2. Requiring the Emmetts to pay a fee for the benefit of Nelson prior to obtaining water service from Cal Water would violate Pub. Util. Code §§ 532, 451, and 453.

3. The Commission determined the ratemaking treatment for the costs of acquiring the Wesmilton system in D.85-06-132, and Cal Water has presented no justification for altering this determination.

4. Cal Water's application does not support its requested relief and should be dismissed.

5. No hearings are necessary.

6. Today's decision should be made effective immediately.

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Joint Motion of California Water Service Company and John and Lucretia Emmett for Adoption of Settlement Agreement is denied.

2. This application of California Water Service Company is dismissed.

3. Application 08-11-009 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated November 20, 2009, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President