III. The Allegations of the Complaint
WTA complains that SJWC has violated Rule 15 of its tariffs by requiring the $686,600 it advanced to install the 16-inch main to be nonrefundable. WTA also complains that SJWC has violated Pub. Util. Code § 761 because its interpretation of Rule 15 is improper.3
WTA requests the following relief:
"Applying the `special facilities' provision of Rule 15, § C.2.c., for a period of 10 years following completion of a 16-inch main to service Applicant's Campbell Technology Park development, Utility shall refund a pro-rata amount, reasonably determined, assessed on subsequent commercial users who obtain service through the 16-inch main that otherwise would not have been available absent the facilities contributed by Applicant." (Complaint at p. 9.)
SJWC claims that Rule 15 does not apply because the extension was required specifically to meet the fire flow requirements for WTA's development at the Campbell Technology Park. SJWC also argues that granting WTA's requested relief would impose on SJWC new and burdensome accounting functions. SJWC states it has treated other developers similarly to WTA, and thus, the different treatment of WTA based on this request would result in discriminatory treatment of customers. SJWC also believes that the complaint procedure is not an appropriate vehicle to seek relief that would establish policy changes affecting the entire water industry.
3 WTA also alleges that SJWC violated Rule 15 by failing to consider projected revenues from other customers served by means of the 16-inch main, in determining whether or not the water main would be self supporting. In its brief, WTA states that it was unable to present sufficient evidence to conclusively show that the expected revenues from the 16-inch main qualified it for the type of refund appropriate for a self-supporting facility. Therefore, WTA is not seeking an automatic, 40-year refund to which self-supporting facilities would be entitled.
