6. Appeal of Presiding Officer's Decision
On June 16, 2010, PAWW appealed the Presiding Officer's Decision directing PAWW to prepare a water supply augmentation plan for its Whiskey Shoals service area. PAWW offered two procedural challenges to the Presiding Officer's Decision, both of which have been cured.5
Substantively, PAWW did not dispute that the data it submitted showed that the water supply for its Whiskey Shoals service territory is inadequate, nor did PAWW dispute that augmenting the Whiskey Shoals water supply is feasible.6 These data were supplied by PAWW, the owner and operator of the Whiskey Shoals subsystem, and these data provide the factual basis for requiring the water augmentation study. These PAWW-supplied data provide sufficient factual basis for requiring PAWW to study potential remedies for the lack of supply. PAWW cannot reasonably contend that it has "never presented its case" when its own previous presentation on the adequacy of the Whiskey Shoals water supply, as reflected in the record of this proceeding, forms the factual basis for today's decision.
PAWW's sole substantive issue is whether the water supply augmentation study should begin now or after its next general rate case.
The general rate case, however, is too late to develop and adopt a water supply augmentation plan. Preparing the plan will require information on prospective customer counts and study of supply options and costs. These data and analyses must be assembled and evaluated well in advance of a general rate case filing, when customers and the Commission will scrutinize PAWW's recommendations and ratemaking impacts thereof. Waiting until a general rate case is filed to begin preparing a plan will prevent reasoned customer comment or Commission action.
PAWW also contends that the Whiskey Shoals water supply augmentation study will impose "costly obligations upon PAWW." The need to determine customer interest in service connections, as well as prepare and evaluate possible water supply augmentation, is an extant responsibility of PAWW as a certificated provider of public utility water service. Any significant new capital or expense proposal can be included in the upcoming general rate case.
Therefore, we find that the procedural issues raised in the appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision have been cured and that the substantive issues are without merit.
5 PAWW contended that the single finding of fact in the Presiding Officer's Decision was inadequate; additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law have been added to today's decision. PAWW also observed that the proceeding had not been formally submitted for Commission consideration and this was completed on June 23, 2010, as indicated in the Commission's Daily Calendar for June 24, 2010.
6 In fact, augmenting the Whiskey Shoals subsystem supply with a new well is contemplated by the settlement agreement approved in D.10-06-027.
