VII. Comments on Proposed Decision

On March 12, 2004, the principal hearing officer's proposed decision addressing the proposed settlement was filed with the Commission and served on the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. The initial comments were received from ORA (March 30. 2004) and CWS (April 1, 2004). With the ALJ's permission, ORA also filed reply comments (April 7, 2004).

ORA suggests minor corrections in many of the ratesetting appendices (tariff sheets) set forth in Attachment D; and with these corrections, ORA indicates it supports the proposed settlement. All of ORA's corrections are necessary and they have been made.

In its comments, CWS also supports the settlement. The company, however, reviews the procedural delays in this proceeding that have resulted in a final decision after the start of the 2004 test year. CWS asks for additional language authorizing the company "to earn the return for all of test year 2004 approved by the Commission." Comment at two. ORA opposes this request and argues that no memorandum account has been created for this purpose and such authorization would result in retroactive ratemaking. We decline to grant CWS's request. We do not believe the decision cited by the company, In re California Water Service Co. (Redwood Valley District), D.03-10-072 (March 16, 2004), directly supports this request. As ORA also points out, the company was granted an interim rate increase, effective October 30, 2003, pursuant to Section 455.2 of the Public Utilities Code. This interim ratesetting procedure is designed to mitigate the consequences of delay in these cases, and this procedure has been applied here to the company's benefit. We do not need to do more.