b) The Decision's allocation of the Mid-Valley settlement proceeds is not based on Southern California Water Co.

San Gabriel argues that the allocation of the contamination settlement proceeds adopted in D.07-04-046 is "based on" an "incomplete and faulty" reading of Southern California Water Co. and that the circumstances in that case are different from the instant Mid-Valley settlement matter and that it, therefore, "creates no precedent." (SG Reh. App., pp. 10, 11.) These arguments mischaracterize the Decision's reference to Southern California Water Co. The Decision observes:

Following Southern California Water Co., we could award all the gain from damages received from contamination suits to the ratepayers, but we believe the better course is to allocate the net proceeds between ratepayers and shareholders.

(D.07-04-046, p. 82.) In other words, we explicitly did not follow Southern California Water Co. Further, both Southern California Water Co. and D.07-04-046 state our policy of allocating contamination proceeds on a case by case basis. (D.07-04-046, pp. 82 - 83; Southern California Water Co. [D.04-07-031], supra, at p. 23, Ordering Paragraph 5 (slip op.).) San Gabriel's claim of erroneous reliance on Southern California Water Co. is without merit.