STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
May 3, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 00-03-004
This proceeding was filed on March 2, 2000, and is assigned to Commissioner Duque and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Prestidge. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Prestidge.
Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.
Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:k47
Attachment
ALJ/TOM-POD/k47
PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed May 3, 2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WTA-Campbell Technology Park, LLC,
Complainant, vs. San Jose Water Company, Defendant. |
Case 00-03-004 (Filed March 2, 2000) |
OPINION ON COMPLAINT
Brian T. Cragg, Attorney at Law, for Goodin, MacBride,
Squeri, Ritchie & Day, for WTA-Campbell
Technology Park, LLC, Complainant.
Robert A. Loehr, Attorney at Law, for San Jose
Water Company, Defendant.
I. Summary
Complainant WTA-Campbell Technology Park, LLC (WTA) brings this complaint against San Jose Water Company (SJWC) seeking the opportunity for a refund of a portion of the funds WTA has advanced to SJWC for the utility's installation of a 16-inch main pipe necessary for fire flow purposes. We find that Rule 15 of SJWC's tariffs applies to this case, and direct SJWC to prepare a revised main extension agreement in accordance with this decision. Under the revised agreement, SJWC shall, for a 10-year period following completion of the 16-inch main, refund to WTA a pro-rata amount of the main's cost. Based on criteria set forth in today's decision, this amount shall be reasonably determined and assessed on subsequent commercial users who obtain service through the 16-inch main, which service would not have been available absent the facilities contributed by WTA.
