Decision 01-09-029 September 6, 2001
Before The Public Utilities Commission Of The State Of California
Terril L. Graham, Complainant, vs. Atascadero Mutual Water Company, Defendant. |
Case No. 99-03-070 |
ORDER DENYING REHEARING OF
AND MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 01-06-027
TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR
I. INTRODUCTION
Terril L. Graham ("Graham") filed his initial complaint in this proceeding on March 31, 1999 against Atascadero Mutual Water Company ("AMWC"), alleging that AMWC was not providing water services to its shareholder members "at cost" and was failing to collect certain fees and surcharges from particular shareholders, thus requiring the remaining shareholders to partially subsidize the service provided to these particular shareholders. AMWC filed a timely answer to Graham's complaint on May 13, 1999 and on May 18, 1999 filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A prehearing conference was held on June 10, 1999 to identify the issues presented and to set a procedural schedule. The parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement on
July 2, 1999.
On July 12, 1999, Graham filed an amended complaint reiterating the issues discussed above and also alleging that AMWC was operating in violation of Public Utilities Code Section 2725 by charging excessive rates to its shareholders and by providing free services to particular shareholders. AMWC filed its answer to Graham's amended complaint on July 19, 1999 and indicated that it would not move for dismissal of Graham's amended complaint. An evidentiary hearing was held in Atascadero on September 10, 1999, after which the parties filed two rounds of briefs. The proceeding was submitted on December 27, 1999. Due to the parties' request to extend the briefing schedule, D.00-03-008 was issued on March 2, 2000, extending the statutory deadline under Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2(d) for resolution of this proceeding.
A Presiding Officer's Decision ("POD") was issued in this matter on March 2, 2001. The POD found that AMWC was a "mutual water company" within the meaning of the Public Utilities Code, that AMWC had been providing water to its shareholders and members "at cost," and that AMWC was not subject to Commission jurisdiction. Graham filed an appeal of the POD on April 2, 2001, and AMWC filed a response to the appeal on April 13, 2001.
On June 15, 2001, we issued D.01-06-027. The Decision found that AMWC had complied with Public Utilities Code Section 2705 by providing water only to its own shareholders or members "at cost" and that AMWC had not transmuted itself into a public utility by earning a profit on water sales. Graham filed a timely application for rehearing of D.01-06-027 on July 16, 2001. AMWC filed a response to the rehearing application on July 20, 2001.
