impact of its decisions. As such, the Commission’s obligation to serve the public interest does not equate to single-mindedly adopting those positions or policies that result in the lowest water rates possible for Golden State’s future SSCSA customers, irrespective of how those positions or policies impact housing prices and development more generally. Rather, the Commission must consider the broader ramifications of its decisions and, as U.S. Steel makes clear, it must issue a decision that adequately weighs all material issues, including the “economic effects of alternative approaches.” The Court in U.S. Steel explained that this duty is “inherent” in the requirement of [the Code] Section 1705 that a decision of the Commission “contain, separately stated, findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . on all issues material to the order or decision.” Moreover, DRA has agreed that the Commission should not ignore the effect of its decisions on housing prices. DRA has also concurred that the Commission has an obligation to act in the public interest and that, while the Commission’s “first obligation . . . is toward the customers,” the public interest also involves “the effect of various policies and proposals on housing prices”. And, here, the Commission’s obligation “toward the customers” is inextricably linked to the impact of its decisions on housing prices because Golden State’s future SSCSA customers will bear the burden of higher home prices—whether those increased housing costs result from including water infrastructure costs in home prices or from eventual housing shortages that result because the capital costs required to undertake a new development become oppressively high. Moreover, even if we were to decide that Rule 15 should apply here, the Joint Parties provide a persuasive argument that exception or deviation should be made in this instance. As Golden State’s witness explained, “the Commission has approved deviations from Rule 15 when appropriate, especially in the
impact of its decisions. As such, the Commission’s obligation to serve the public interest does not equate to single-mindedly adopting those positions or policies that result in the lowest water rates possible for Golden State’s future SSCSA customers, irrespective of how those positions or policies impact housing prices and development more generally. Rather, the Commission must consider the broader ramifications of its decisions and, as U.S. Steel makes clear, it must issue a decision that adequately weighs all material issues, including the “economic effects of alternative approaches.” The Court in U.S. Steel explained that this duty is “inherent” in the requirement of [the Code] Section 1705 that a decision of the Commission “contain, separately stated, findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . on all issues material to the order or decision.” Moreover, DRA has agreed that the Commission should not ignore the effect of its decisions on housing prices. DRA has also concurred that the Commission has an obligation to act in the public interest and that, while the Commission’s “first obligation . . . is toward the customers,” the public interest also involves “the effect of various policies and proposals on housing prices”. And, here, the Commission’s obligation “toward the customers” is inextricably linked to the impact of its decisions on housing prices because Golden State’s future SSCSA customers will bear the burden of higher home prices—whether those increased housing costs result from including water infrastructure costs in home prices or from eventual housing shortages that result because the capital costs required to undertake a new development become oppressively high. Moreover, even if we were to decide that Rule 15 should apply here, the Joint Parties provide a persuasive argument that exception or deviation should be made in this instance. As Golden State’s witness explained, “the Commission has approved deviations from Rule 15 when appropriate, especially in the
89008918.docx