Saturday, August 27, 2016

Friday, August 26, 2016

City Administrator Chip Rerig: FRIDAY LETTER, August 26, 2016

FRIDAY LETTER August 26, 2016
Improved Community Planning and Building Applications and Handouts
Carmel Beach (south end)
Holman Highway 68 Roundabout Update
Highway 68 Roundabout weekly notifications:
www.tamcmonterey.org/programs/highway-projects/highway-68-roundabout/
City Staff Recruitment
Board and Commission Recruitment
Monthly Tourism Revenue Mixed
Centennial Friday 'Fact'

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Proceeding Number I.14-11-008 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT: Re: BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation And Order to Show Cause on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company with Respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas Distribution System Pipelines, the PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and APPENDIX A PG&E’s Measures to Continue to Improve Gas Distribution Recordkeeping and Promote Safety and APPENDIX B  PG&E’s Responses to Proposed Remedial Measures document copies are embedded. 
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 14.4(d) of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby submits this joint response to the Appeals of the Presiding Officer’s Decision (POD)1 filed by the Safety and Enforcement Division and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Third, PG&E explains why SED’s and Carmel’s proposals for calculating higher fines for specific incidents, including the Carmel incident, are inappropriate. SED’s and Carmel’s alternative proposals largely involve a mechanical application of fines at the top of the statutory range, while giving no consideration to the fact-specific criteria that must be considered under the Public Utilities Code and Commission precedent when determining an appropriate penalty. PG&E submits that the decision in this proceeding should consider the evidence of record and the relevant criteria for assessing a penalty—including factually comparable precedents, the relative severity of the incidents, PG&E’s commitment to continuous improvement, and the objective measures demonstrating PG&E’s general compliance with regulations.
Fourth, PG&E explains how SED and Carmel misconstrue the evidentiary record and the POD’s findings in challenging the fine imposed regarding the De Anza leak repair records.
CONCLUSION PG&E has an unwavering commitment to continuously improving not only its gas distribution system recordkeeping practices but also the safety of its distribution system, and complying with all applicable rules, regulations, and statutes. PG&E is also committed to continuing to work with the Commission to pursue these important goals. The many initiatives PG&E has undertaken to build state-of-the-industry infrastructure, achieve recordkeeping best practices, and minimize the risk of incidents on its gas distribution system demonstrate the durability and sincerity of PG&E’s commitment. 
PG&E acknowledges that more work remains to be done and that, at times in the past, its conduct has not measured up to the high expectations that the Company sets for itself. PG&E intends to continue doing exactly what it has been doing—focusing on safety, finding and fixing issues as they arise, and searching for innovative, effective, and technologically advanced solutions to the challenges that remain.
For the reasons stated above, PG&E submits that the arguments advanced on appeal by SED and Carmel for increasing the penalties imposed in the POD are unsupported by or contrary to the evidence of record, inconsistent with the governing legal standards, and accordingly should be rejected by the Commission. PG&E looks forward to working cooperatively with SED and the Intervenors in the meet-and-confer process to identify and consider further opportunities to continue improving its recordkeeping and other practices to better serve the public and promote the safety of its system.

Pg&e Company's Response i.14!11!008 7-18-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
FILED 7-18-16
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO RULE 14.4(D) OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE TO THE APPEALS OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION AND CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PG&E’s Measures to Continue to Improve Gas Distribution Recordkeeping and Promote Safety
APPENDIX B
PG&E’s Responses to Proposed Remedial Measures

Court of Appeal Opinion DISPOSITION Marina’s request for judicial notice, filed on January 20, 2016, is denied. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. A145604 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC13528312):

ABSTRACT: RE: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. A145604 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC13528312) Court of Appeal Opinion Humes, P.J., concurred Margulies, J. and Banke, J., filed 8/18/16. DISPOSITION Marina’s request for judicial notice, filed on January 20, 2016, is denied. California-American’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 9, 2016, is granted. The judgment is affirmed. Appeal Nos. A146166 and A146405 shall remain stayed until 30 days after the issuance of the remittitur in this case. The opening briefs in those stayed cases shall be due 40 days after the issuance of the remittitur in this appeal.
Court of Appeal Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE,
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.
A145604
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC13528312):

NOTES:
1st Appellate District
Case Summary

Trial Court Case:
CGC13528312
Court of Appeal Case:
A146166
Division:
1
Case Caption:
California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District
Case Type:
CV
Filing Date:
08/20/2015
Case Summary

Trial Court Case:
CGC13528312
Court of Appeal Case:
A146405
Division:
1
Case Caption:
California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District
Case Type:
CV
Filing Date:
09/23/2015
Cross Referenced Cases:
California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District
California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District

Case Summary

Trial Court Case:
CGC13528312
Court of Appeal Case:
A145604
Court of Appeal Opinion:
[PDF] [DOC]
   
Division:
1
Case Caption:
California-American Water Company v. Marina Coast Water District
Case Type:
CV
Filing Date:
06/30/2015
Oral Argument Date/Time:
07/06/2016   09:00 AM

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REGARDING AGENDAS AND EX PARTE BAN RELATIVE TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REGARDING AGENDAS AND EX PARTE BAN RELATIVE TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARING document copy is embedded. On September 1, 2016, the Commission will hold a workshop and a public participation hearing at the Sunset Center (Carpenter Hall), San Carlos Street at Ninth Avenue, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. IT IS RULED that a workshop and public participation hearing will be held on September 1, 2016, as described in the body of this ruling. The ban on ex parte communications in this proceeding does not apply to the workshop, but does apply to the public participation hearing.
FILED 8-19-16
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REGARDING AGENDAS AND EX PARTE BAN RELATIVE TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING CORRECTING ERROR IN PPH START TIME

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING CORRECTING ERROR IN PPH START TIME document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the correct time for the start of the September 1, 2016 public participation hearing is 3:00 p.m.
FILED 8-22-16
E-MAIL RULING CORRECTING ERROR IN PPH START TIME