2. Background
Great Oaks filed this General Rate Case (GRC) application for the total company on November 27, 2002. Resolution ALJ 176-3102 preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting and determined that hearings were necessary. The Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed a protest on December 23, 2002, objecting to the overall size of the proposed increase. Assigned Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown's February 10, 2003 Scoping Memo confirmed the category and need for hearing, set the scope of the proceeding, and established a schedule.
Great Oaks serves approximately 20,138 customers in a service territory covering roughly twenty-four square miles in Santa Clara County. Great Oaks is a privately held water corporation owned by the Roeder family. Great Oaks' application requests the overall rate increases shown in Appendix A, Table 1. In addition, Great Oaks seeks Commission approval of $2,647,000 in balancing memorandum account undercollections by a usage surcharge to be effective for 36 months. Great Oaks last filed a GRC in 1992.
Great Oaks modified its GRC request to propose a 10.56% return on equity, which it estimates would produce 9.42% and 9.73% rates of return on rate base for Test Years (TY) 2003 and 2004.
A prehearing conference was held on January 22, 2003. On January 27, 2003, Great Oaks filed a request for an interim surcharge subject to refund of $1,042,881 to permit recovery of increasing groundwater charges and purchased power costs. ORA filed a motion to suspend the proceeding on March 3, 2003, because Great Oaks did not provide timely notice to its customers of the requested rate relief. ORA filed a motion to dismiss Great Oaks' application on March 7, 2003 for failure to make a prima facie case in its application. On March 19, 2003 the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Great Oaks' request for a surcharge and ORA's motions to suspend and dismiss. Four days of evidentiary hearings were held from March 17 through 20, 2003.1 The parties filed a comparison exhibit and comments on April 10. The proceeding was submitted upon receipt of concurrent briefs on May 12, 2003. On September 30, 2003, the assigned ALJ ordered the parties to update the comparison exhibit. The update was provided on October 16, 2003.
