3. Discussion

The Commission has approved Alco's expansion into the Salinas future growth area and an OII has determined Alco's fitness to serve.

Cal Water cites D.91-02-039 which states that any competitor may request a hearing "to demonstrate that it is better qualified to serve the public interest" and that the Commission will entertain such requests "from public agencies as well as from competitive regulated utilities." D.91-02-039 established nine criteria to determine which of two competing utilities should serve a disputed area.

The circumstances surrounding the dispute in D.91-02-039 can be distinguished from the circumstances here. In that case, the area in dispute had not been previously granted to either of the competing parties. That is not the case here. Alco's Advice Letter 107 to serve additional customers in the section of the Salinas future growth area contiguous to its existing territory was approved by DWA prior to Cal Water's Application being filed. Therefore, the expanded service territory in dispute became Alco's when Advice Letter 107 was accepted by DWA. Furthermore, DWA's acceptance of Advice Letter 107 was affirmed by Resolution W-4630 after full Commission review.

Cal Water's Application was not dismissed earlier primarily because of the pending OII the Commission issued to examine Alco's competence to serve its expanded service territory. Ultimately, in D.09-04-035, the Commission found that it was in the public interest for Alco to serve additional customers in its newly filed territory.

Alco's first full general rate case has been filed and a decision issued. Alco has been ordered to also file its next general rate case as a full application rather than an advice letter, which means the general rate case is subject to a higher level of scrutiny.

As the background of this proceeding demonstrates, Alco's ability to serve the customers in its expanded service territory has been examined multiple times and will continue to be reviewed in full, in future general rate cases. We do not find it reasonable or necessary to subject Alco to the additional scrutiny sought in Cal Water's Application. We do not find it reasonable or necessary to re-litigate the issue. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for Cal Water's Application to remain open. Cal Water's Application is dismissed.