15. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the judge in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). Comments were timely filed by DRA on November 22, 2010. Great Oaks was granted an extension to November 29, 2010, and reply comments were filed by DRA on December 9, 2010.38 Some changes and clarifications have been made where needed based upon the comments. Where parties only reargue litigation positions and do not indicate legal or factual errors those comments have been ignored. Great Oaks claims in comments that its constitutional rights were violated and it was denied due process. The record shows that the company was allowed great latitude in presenting its case; we delayed at Great Oaks' request consideration of cost of capital to be concurrent with its general rate case, and we properly considered and appropriately weighed all of Great Oaks' testimony and arguments. These claims are unsubstantiated hollow rhetoric.
38 Service was properly made to Great Oaks as listed on the service list used for all other service. Great Oaks' general counsel claimed not to receive the proposed decision. The assigned ALJ allowed an extension to file comments and also granted DRA 10 pages for its reply and rescheduled reply comments to December 9, 2010. DRA's opening comments were extremely brief and Great Oaks did not reply on December 9, 2010 beyond its late-filed opening comments.
