2. Procedural Background
This complaint arises from issues decided in a general rate case proceeding, wherein the Commission authorized Alisal Water Corporation dba Alco Water Service (Alco) to include the Rosehart Industrial Park Water System into its certificated service area, to charge Rosehart customers for water service, and to include the Rosehart subdivision properties under Alco's existing tariff rules. (Application (A.) 10-02-006; Decision (D.) 11-03-005.) The facts are undisputed that following the Commission's authorization, Alco filed an Advice Letter 146 on April 12, 2011 that requested approval "to make effective the tariff sheets attached to Advice Letter 146, which included the Rosehart Area Map."1 On April 27, 2011, the Commission's Water & Sewer Advisory Branch wrote to Alco and advised it had processed the advice letter and the attached revised tariff sheets.2 Alco has begun to supply and charge Rosehart customers, including BudSco Chemical Enterprises, Inc. (BudSco), for water service and BudSco has not challenged the amount of its water charges.
Nevertheless, on January 19, 2012, BudSco sued Alco, alleging that there is uncertainty as to the manner in which defendants own the well and bill Rosehart customers, and that this uncertainty possibly violates the express terms of D.11-03-005. Specifically, BudSco points to a document from the Monterey County Assessor indicating that the Adcocks, rather than Alco, own the well from which the water is derived for Rosehart customers, and that the Adcocks' alleged ownership violates the Commission's ban on commercial/family transactions.
As a result, BudSco asks the Commission to resolve the following four issues: (1) Who are the rightful owners of the well from which BudSco draws water and is charged a fee? (2) Does defendants' well ownership violate the Commission's ban on family/commercial transactions set forth in the D.11-03-005? (3) If defendants discontinue BudSco's water service for nonpayment, must the Commission analyze the applicable California laws to determine the possible increased fire risk at the locations where BudSco warehouses Ag Chemicals; and (4) Must defendants explain the $14.24 late charge on BudSco's 11/30-12/30/11 water bill? Along with its complaint, BudSco enclosed a check for $1,217.13 for the Commission to hold in order to maintain water service during the pendency of this dispute. Although BudSco requested that its complaint be handled under the Commission's expedited complaint process (ECP), the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the complex legal issues mandated that the complaint should be handled under the full adjudicatory process rather than an ECP.3
On March 5, 2012, Alco answered the complaint, denying BudSco's allegations and setting forth 13 separate affirmative defenses.4 Simultaneously with its answer, Alco moved to dismiss BudSco's Complaint for four reasons: (1) the complaint constitutes an improper collateral attack on D.11-03-005 as it raises the very issues advanced by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and resolved by the Commission in Alco's general rate case (A.10-02-006); (2) assuming the complaint is a procedurally proper vehicle, it is vague, ambiguous, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) the complaint improperly names Robert T. Adcock, who is deceased, and Patricia Adcock as defendants as neither individual fits within the definition of a utility required by Public Utility Code Sections 216 and 1702; and (4) the $14.24 charge has been explained so there is nothing left to litigate.
On March 22, 2012, BudSco responded to Alco's Motion to Dismiss, denying that it was making a collateral attack on D.11-03-005. Instead, BudSco asserts it is seeking Commission assistance in determining whether Alco is conducting its business in accordance with D.11-03-005. BudSco seeks this request as it appears that the water system facilities and well are owned by Adcock family members, an association that possibly runs afoul of the Commission's restriction on transactions between Alco and members of the Adcock family. BudSco points to the Monterey County Assessors Record as of December 21, 2011 which provides that the Adcocks are owners of record. If Alco is in fact the owner, BudSco asks why has Alco waited 13 years to change the record. Finally, BudSco seeks a decision whether the $14.24 charge must be explained and detailed on the customer bills.
On April 6, 2012, Alco replied to BudSco's response.
1 Alco's Answer to Complaint at 3, Exhibit 13.
2 Id., Exhibit 14.
3 See e-mail ruling of ALJ Mason, dated March 15, 2012.
4 The defenses include, inter alia, failure to state a claim or claims, failure to allege that Alco has committed an act in violation of any law, or has acted unreasonably, failure to mitigate BudSco's injury, vagueness, waiver, estoppel, and lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the Adcocks.
