d) Previous Commission Decisions Involving Allocation of Proceeds

San Gabriel argues that, if we are "unwilling to defer ruling" regarding the settlement proceeds, we "should at least consider" precedents that support a more even allocation of benefits. (SG Reh. App., p. 13.) Significantly, San Gabriel does not claim we were required to follow one or all of these decisions, but that we should consider them.

Each of the three decisions San Gabriel cites includes language cautioning against relying on it as precedent. (See: Re Great Oaks Water Co. [D.93-09-077] (1993) 51 Cal.P.U.C.2d 366, 368; Opinion on Bakman Water Company's General Rate Case for Test Year 2000 [D.03-10-002] (2003) __ Cal.P.U.C.3d __, p. 15 (slip op.); Re Southern California Gas Company [D.94-05-020] (1994) 54 Cal.P.U.C.3d 391, 405.) Because the decisions cited by San Gabriel each includes an explicit caution against applying its outcome in future proceedings, and because San Gabriel does not argue that we were legally required to follow these decisions, the argument that we should have considered these decisions does not identify grounds for granting rehearing.