1. Statement of Ratepayer Share
San Gabriel alleges that in stating its 67% - 33% allocation of settlement proceeds, the Decision understates the share of proceeds actually allocated to ratepayers. This argument does not challenge our allocation, per se, but asserts that the Decision misstates the allocation ratios it adopts. San Gabriel says that over a 30-year project life it will recover over $8 million of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs from the County of San Bernardino, and that these funds will offset customers' rates. San Gabriel argues this $8 million should be considered in determining the allocation percentages and that, based on a calculation offered in the application for rehearing, the correct statement of the ratepayer share would be 83.1% to ratepayers, rather than 67%. (SG Reh. App., pp. 5 - 6.)
These payments from the County to San Gabriel reimburse the costs of operating and maintaining the Plant F-10 facilities that were needed to remediate the contamination. Consequently, the Decision describes these funds as "revenue neutral for ratemaking purposes."6 (Decision 07-04-046, p. 80.) It would not be reasonable to conclude, as San Gabriel proposes, that revenue-neutral reimbursements for operation and maintenance costs, to be paid periodically over the next 30 years, should be included in calculating current net proceeds.
Further, in its comments on the ALJ's proposed decision San Gabriel said:
The compensation the County paid pursuant to this agreement, amounting to about $8.6 million, is the only amount of contamination settlement proceeds at issue in this proceeding.
The accompanying footnote provides the following clarification:
This amount does not include the County's ongoing reimbursement of all O&M costs for the treatment plant, which never have been included in rates.
(Comments of San Gabriel Valley Water Company on Proposed Decision of Administrative Law Judge Barnett (February 26, 2007) p. 5 and footnote (fn.) 3.) San Gabriel now argues in its rehearing application that the prospective O&M reimbursements should be included in calculating the allocation percentages. However, we have found the funds to be revenue neutral and San Gabriel's comments in the passage above explain that those funds are not settlement proceeds at issue in the proceeding. The argument does not identify an error in the Decision and is without merit.
6 The Decision reports that for the period May 2000 to December 2004 the County reimbursed the costs entirely in the amount of $1,242,057. (D.07-04-046, p. 80.)
