XI. Alleged Rule 1 Violation

On October 31, 2003, ORA filed a motion requesting that San Gabriel be sanctioned for violations of the Commission's Rule 1. ORA alleges that San Gabriel intentionally misled the Commission by falsely claiming that utility plant had been built and requesting recovery for such expenditures, falsely claiming wells have been shut down to justify funding for new construction, falsely claiming that it received far lower amounts in proceeds from condemned property than it actually had, and failing to disclose important facts relating to condemnation proceeds, and contributions and advances from developers thereby causing the need for rate increases to be overstated by a substantial amount. San Gabriel responded to these allegations on December 19, 2003.

We agree that the burden of proof required in rate case applications falls to the utility and in this specific case, the utility did not present their best case at the outset. Much of the utility's original application was supplemented, updated, or replaced by rebuttal testimony. Under the new GRC plan proposed in the Water Rate Case Rulemaking 03-09-005, ORA will have a short of amount of time to review GRC applications. San Gabriel's filings in this proceeding would not provide ORA a sufficient opportunity to review the application. We do not find at this time that San Gabriel intentionally misled the Commission, but will place the company on notice that with the rigid schedule proposed in the water case plant, San Gabriel will not be allowed to make its case through rebuttal testimony.