6. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Park filed comments on October 6, 2006, identifying specific errors in the proposed decision; we have made changes to the decision as appropriate.

DRA filed comments on October 10, 2006. DRA does not identify any factual, legal or technical error in the proposed decision as required by Rule 14.3(c). Rather, DRA offers argument (as well as new factual assertions) in support of a volumetric surcharge, both on the merits of its preferred methodology and on the policy ground that requiring evidence and formal settlement procedures in support of settlements of non-contentious matters is contrary to the Commission's policy of encouraging settlement on non-contentious matters. DRA's argument and offer of new factual assertions is improper under Rule 14.3(c) and is accorded no weight. DRA's policy argument reflects a misunderstanding of our settlement rules and policy: Regardless of whether an issue is undisputed or if is disputed but settled, the Commission will resolve it on the basis of the record, the law, and the public interest; the parties' agreement to a particular resolution does not substitute for an adequate basis.