4. Appeals of the Presiding Officer's Decision

Timely appeals of the presiding officer's decision were filed by Salinas and Cal Water on February 20, 2009, and DRA on February 23, 2009.

Salinas asserts that the presiding officer's decision erred because it failed to resolve A.07-04-010 filed by Cal Water and Advice Letter 120 filed by Alco. Salinas also asserts that the presiding officer's decision fails to provide sufficient and definitive requirements for Alco's improved customer service and construction of the water storage tank.

We find no factual or legal error in the presiding officer's decision regarding A.07-04-010 or Advice Letter 120. The July 19, 2007, ruling by the ALJ specifically coordinated I.07-06-020 and A.07-04-010, stating that Cal Water's application would be inactive pending the outcome of this investigation. Resolution of Advice Letter 120 is outside the scope of this proceeding.

Regarding Salinas's comments on the customer service requirements and the storage tank construction, we find no factual or legal error in the presiding officer's decision. However, we want to assure Salinas that our Public Advisor's Office will ensure that all consumer information is distributed in the appropriate language. As to the storage tank, because Alco does not have complete control over all aspects of its construction, setting deadlines creates artificial expectations. However, the presiding officer's decision requires Alco to provide quarterly progress reports, including any reasons for construction delays. This information will allow the Commission to determine whether the delays are within Alco's control and what, if any, action is necessary.

DRA's appeal is based on the calculations used to determine adequate water supply in the presiding officer's decision. We cannot enforce requirements that have not yet been adopted by the Commission. Nevertheless, if GO 103 is revised after this decision is issued, Alco will be subject to the new provisions of the GO. DRA errs in its calculation of various water supply requirements because some calculations fail to include Alco's stand-by wells, as required, and other calculations incorrectly include the fire-flow requirement. For these reasons, we find no factual or legal error.

Cal Water's appeal focuses on the criteria set forth in D.91-02-039. The issue is outside the scope of this proceeding and as stated above, Cal Water's application will be considered in a separate proceeding. Therefore, we find no factual or legal error in the presiding officer's decision.