Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________________, and reply comments were filed on ________________.
1. In D.98-12-077, we issued MHC a CPCN and approved its rates.
2. No party has identified a disputed issue of material fact.
3. No hearing is necessary.
1. Interference with municipal authority due to MHC's Commission-approved rates being applicable within MHC's service territory rather than the City's water and sewer rates violates no statute or regulation.
2. The City's allegations in Count 1 fail to describe a violation of a statute or regulation.
3. Count 1 is properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4. MHC's compliance with the Commission's order setting MHC's rates is required by §§ 451 and 454, and, even if such compliance renders MHC's rates inconsistent with those that would be charged pursuant to the City's rent control ordinance, is not a violation of a statute or regulation.
5. The City has failed to allege in Count 2 a violation of a statute or regulation upon which relief can be granted pursuant to § 1702, and Count 2 should be dismissed.
6. The time to file an application for rehearing of D.98-12-077 has expired.
7. D.98-12-077 imposes no requirement that MHC obtain resale authority from the City.
8. MHC must provide its customers with adequate and efficient service, as required by § 451.
9. The City has not alleged that MHC is failing to provide adequate service.
10. The City has not cited any Commission precedent finding that collecting Commission-approved water and sewer rates without the use of separate billings in the name and style of the water and sewer corporation is grounds for CPCN revocation.
11. The proper billing of a City-imposed user tax is a matter for the City to enforce, consistent with its ordinances and authority.
12. The City did not identify any law or regulation directing that MHC must litigate causes of action against the City in any particular court.
13. The factual allegations in count 3 fail to meet the requirements of § 1702, and Count 3 should be dismissed.
14. This Commission's jurisdiction over issuing CPCNs to public utilities, and establishing their rates, is exclusive.
15. This Commission has no authority over the rates and terms and conditions of sales of water and sewer services by the City.
16. Complainant has not alleged "any act or thing done or omitted to be done ... in violation, or claimed to be in violation of, any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission."
17. This complaint should be dismissed, effective immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. This complaint is dismissed.
2. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
