6.) The issue of applicant’s culpability for population growth and the resulting increase in water cost is beyond the scope of the proceeding. Even if relevant (which it is not), a utility under Commission jurisdiction has a duty to provide reasonable service to its customers. (Public Utilities Code Section 451.) PWN/RL fail to show that applicant’s provision of water service was anything other than in compliance with its statutorily required public utility obligation. Finally, are many factors that can result in population growth in a particular area, all of which are beyond the control of applicant (e.g., demographic trends, economic cycles, zoning decisions, government policies). PWN/RL separately call for a formal Commission investigation into applicant’s responsibility for the water demand that was fed by its production of water. We see no need. Moreover, PNW/RL fail to realistically explain what it would recommend be done with the results even if the investigation found applicant contributed in some way to the growth in water demand. In short, we are not convinced by the showing and arguments of PWN/RL. Moreover, PWN/RL’s hyperbolic claims diverted the limited time and resources of parties and the Commission from important work, as explained more below. Amortization We with applicant, District, and ORA that the recovery should be over the shortest time reasonably feasible. We also agree with applicant that we must mitigate rate shock to the degree possible. We find that amortization over five years is the best balance. Applicant’s authorized 2015 annual revenue requirement is about
6.) The issue of applicant’s culpability for population growth and the resulting increase in water cost is beyond the scope of the proceeding. Even if relevant (which it is not), a utility under Commission jurisdiction has a duty to provide reasonable service to its customers. (Public Utilities Code Section 451.) PWN/RL fail to show that applicant’s provision of water service was anything other than in compliance with its statutorily required public utility obligation. Finally, are many factors that can result in population growth in a particular area, all of which are beyond the control of applicant (e.g., demographic trends, economic cycles, zoning decisions, government policies). PWN/RL separately call for a formal Commission investigation into applicant’s responsibility for the water demand that was fed by its production of water. We see no need. Moreover, PNW/RL fail to realistically explain what it would recommend be done with the results even if the investigation found applicant contributed in some way to the growth in water demand. In short, we are not convinced by the showing and arguments of PWN/RL. Moreover, PWN/RL’s hyperbolic claims diverted the limited time and resources of parties and the Commission from important work, as explained more below. Amortization We with applicant, District, and ORA that the recovery should be over the shortest time reasonably feasible. We also agree with applicant that we must mitigate rate shock to the degree possible. We find that amortization over five years is the best balance. Applicant’s authorized 2015 annual revenue requirement is about
170876982.docx