IV. Procedural History
By Resolution ALJ 176-3101, dated November 21, 2002, the Commission preliminary designated the captioned applications as "ratesetting" with hearings indicated. A Prehearing Conference (PHC) was held on January 8, 2003, to establish issues and a hearing schedule. At that time, the Antelope Valley District and Kern River Valley District general rate applications were consolidated. Subsequent to the PHC, Commissioner Wood issued a January 28, 2003 Scoping Memo and Ruling setting a schedule that included public participation hearings (PPHs) and an evidentiary hearing (EH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Galvin was designated the principal hearing officer.
On April 7, 2003, and prior to the PPHs, ORA distributed two reports on the requested rate increases. The first report addressed the Antelope Valley District and the second addressed the Kern River Valley District. Respectively, these reports are Exhibits 8 and 9 in this proceeding. Based on these reports, ORA recommended an increase in the Antelope Valley District rates of 1.7% in each test and attrition year, 2003 through 2006.2 ORA also recommended an increase in the Kern River Valley District rates of 1.0% in each test and attrition year, 2003 through 2006.3
On April 9, 2003, ALJ Galvin conducted two PPHs in Lancaster for the Antelope Valley District. Attendance was light with only two of the five attending customers speaking. One person was dissatisfied with CWS' repair of broken pipes, and the other was dissatisfied with water quality and the planned rate increase.
On April 10, 2003, the ALJ conducted two PPHs in Lake Isabella for the Kern River Valley District. Attendance was heavy with 35 of the more than 100 attending customers speaking. Those customers were almost uniformly critical of CWS' current and proposed rates, saying that their rates are already higher than those of surrounding areas and that the increases would far exceed inflation over the years, discourage outside watering, and become unaffordable for senior and fixed income customers. There was also great concern about water quality.
Apart from input of the PPH speakers, the Commission received approximately 100 letters (which included duplicative letters addressed to the various Commissioners) protesting the Antelope Valley District proposed rate increase. The Commission also received a dozen letters protesting the Kern River Valley proposed rate increase. Those writing letters voiced the same concerns expressed at the PPHs.
On April 28, 2003, and subsequent to the PHC and PPHs, CGA filed a petition to intervene in the Antelope Valley District proceeding. CGA alleged that the requested rate increase is defective and not justified, and that CWS failed to make system improvements and upgrades used as the basis, in part, for the Commission's approval of the prior Antelope Valley District rate increase application, A.99-05-023.
2 This increase represented normalizing a calculated 30.8% decrease in 2003; a 20.2% increase in 2004; a further 16.8% increase in Attrition Year 2005; and, a 0.7% increase in Attrition Year 2006. 3 This increase represented normalizing a calculated 5.3% decrease in 2003; a 2.3% increase in 2004; a further 4.9% increase in Attrition Year 2005; and, a 2.2% increase in Attrition Year 2006.
