2. Procedural Background

The Commission bifurcated Park's general rate case (GRC) application (A.) 06-01-004 into two phases, the first of which addressed the amount of the rate increase, the authorized return on equity, and rate of return on ratebase. (See Decision (D.) 06-08-015.) Phase 2, the subject of this opinion, addresses whether the Commission should adopt a low-income program for Park to mitigate the impact of rate increases on eligible customers as well as the structure of such a program.

Pursuant to scoping ruling, Park served its "Supplemental Report on Low-Income Program" (Report), in which it set forth the program parameters of its proposal, on July 7, 2006. In a telephonic conference on July 24, 2006, Park and the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) informed the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Park intended to revise its proposal to change the surcharge for non-qualifying customers from a flat rate to a volumetric charge. The parties requested that the ALJ stay the time for DRA to serve its responsive testimony on the basis that, with that change, DRA did not intend to oppose Park's proposal. The ALJ excused DRA from serving responsive testimony pending the filing, by Park, of a motion to admit its revised Report into evidence and DRA's responsive filing indicating its support of the motion. Accordingly, Park served its revised Report on July 28, 2006, and concurrently filed a motion for its receipt into evidence; DRA filed in support of the motion on August 3, 2006. We grant Park's motion and admit the Report into the evidentiary record.

By ruling dated August 15, 2006, the ALJ directed Park to provide a declaration of a competent witness providing additional information related to Park's proposed subsidy rate design and discount amount; Park filed the declaration on August 18, 2006.