Comments on the Proposed Decision

The alternate draft joint decision of Carl Wood and Geoffrey Brown was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code Section 311(g) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on September 11, 2003 by Hillview Water Company and the Water Division.

The Respondents' comments reargue its position on many issues. Rule 77 provides, "Comments shall focus on factual, legal or technical errors in the proposed decision. Comments which merely reargue positions taken in briefs will be accorded no weight and are not to be filed". Notwithstanding that, we address a few of the points raised by the Respondents in their comments. The Respondents assert that the supply and storage fees charged by Hillview were always intended to be and treated as non-refundable contributions. They assert that there is no factual basis for recharacterizing such fees as advances. To the contrary, the evidentiary record overwhelmingly support that the fees were collected as advances, which are subject to refund under Tariff Rule 15. The Administrative Law Judge reaches the same conclusion. On page 19, the proposed decision of ALJ Ryerson states "Because Forrester testified that Hillview collected the fees pursuant to Paragraph C.1.b., which required them to be refunded as advances, the company's admitted failure to do so violated the refund schedule provided in Paragraph C.2.c." The Respondents also address the customer lists in their comments. They point out that the customer list prepared by the Water Division was marked for identification, but not offered into evidence. We note this correction, however, it does not change our overall decision to adopt alternative means for refund purposes. The Respondents also point out the alternate decision finds that they have violated Rule1 erroneously. We accept the Respondents suggestion and have accordingly modified the Conclusion of Law. Although we have concluded that the Respondents have violated Sections 491 and 825 as well as Tariff Rule 15, we do not conclude that the Respondents have violated Rule 1.

The Water Division, in its comments, states that it supports the alternate draft decision as opposed to the proposed decision. It proposes a couple of changes to the alternate draft decision. First, with respect to the refund to the supply and storage fees, the Water Division states that the Commission should allow customers to make a refund claim with a statement under penalty of perjury in lieu of a written proof of payment such as a cancelled check. We have modified the decision accordingly.

With respect to the refunds, the Water Division also suggests that each customer should be paid, initially, a lump sum, representing the past due payment of 2 ½ percent of the total amount of the fee annually, calculated from the date on which each installment should have been paid, under the Tariff rule. Because Hillview is a relatively small water company with limited financial resources, we do not order Hillview to make the lump sum payments at this time. Instead, we order Hillview to provide an estimate of the total past due amounts and demonstrate how this amount would impact its rate base and revenue requirement in its general rate case application. The Commission will address the past due payments in that general rate case. The Water Division also suggests that customers should be allowed interest on past due amounts. Again, because Hillview is a small water company with limited financial resources, we will not require the company to include interest on past due amounts.

We reject all other points raised by the parties in their comments, except as modified herein.