Comments on Proposed Decision

The principal hearing officer's proposed decision was filed with the Commission and served on all parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. San Gabriel filed comments. ORA indicated its support for the proposed decision and filed a reply to San Gabriel's comments.

San Gabriel's comments largely reargue positions taken earlier, in some cases mischaracterizing the basis for an outcome, or the outcome itself. Most of those topics are adequately covered in the body of this order and need not be addressed further here. Instead, we have reviewed the proposed decision to ensure it is free of any claimed factual, legal and technical errors.⁶³ We have made clarifying additions on several topics pointed out by San Gabriel and noted below, and minor typographic corrections.

The proposed decision stated an intent to adopt an escalation year 2006/2007 rate base in accordance with the RCP, but inadvertently omitted to do so. Our adopted 2006/2007 rate base is now in Attachment A-2, and the corresponding references have been added to Finding of Fact 3 and Ordering Paragraph 5.

Similarly, the proposed decision stated an intent to allow San Gabriel to seek rate offsets for the payroll costs of two new positions in general office, but omitted specific authorization to do so. That omission has been corrected in Ordering Paragraph 3.

For each element of the adopted summary of earnings, San Gabriel would have us specify what escalation factors and methods Water Division must use to evaluate San Gabriel's advice letter filing for 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 escalation year rates. D.04-06-018 and the new RCP already provide that guidance, and we decline to reinterpret it here. To the extent San Gabriel seeks to have us revise or clarify the escalation factors or methods, or any other part of the adopted RCP, it should pursue its request in that still-open rulemaking proceeding where the rest of the water industry and other stakeholders may make their views known.

San Gabriel's comments indicate it believes the proposed decision did not decide the ratemaking treatment of the $3.5 million BPOU settlement award at issue in the proceeding, and that the proposed decision inadvisably postponed ("punted") San Gabriel's request to recover the pursuit-of-contaminators balance in its water quality litigation memorandum account. That is not the case, as the discussion already explains. To ensure our decision is not misinterpreted or mischaracterized, we have made minor wording changes in Conclusion of Law 6 and Ordering Paragraphs 6 and 7 to clarify those points.

Lastly, San Gabriel would have us identify the LA Division allocation percentages of general office rate base and expenses. We agree. As San Gabriel's comments point out, those percentages are 49.50% for test year 2005/2006 and 48.81% for escalation year 2006/2007.