IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: ‘ The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.’

ABSTRACT: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent; CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest, the Court ruled that the PUC did not have “the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee.” “Petitioner Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, a public agency, imposed a fee on a public utility’s customers for work it had undertaken to mitigate environmental damage caused by the utility. The agency’s fee was charged as a line item on the utility’s bill and was collected by the utility on behalf of the agency. The question before us is whether the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission), which is empowered to regulate the rates and charges of public utilities, had the authority to review the amount of the agency’s fee. We conclude that the PUC did not have such authority.” The Opinion document copy is embedded.

S208838 Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent;
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO., Real Party in Interest.
S208838
Cal.P.U.C. Decision Nos. 11-03-035 and 13-01-040

REFERENCE:
California Supreme Court clears way for user fee on Cal Am bills

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 01/25/16, 7:38 PM PST

PETITION FOR REVIEW: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Real Party In Interest. The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012, The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner

ABSTRACT:  RE: California Supreme Court Case S208838, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY), the California Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion as early as June 2015 on the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?  PETITION FOR REVIEW (Dated: February 22, 2013), Appendix Volume 1, Appendix Volume 2 and Appendix Volume 3 documents are embedded. ARGUMENTS include Petitioner Possesses Express Legislative Authority to Levy Taxes and Fees and to Collect User Fees through Utility Bills Issued by Cal-Am, The Commission Has No Jurisdiction Over Petitioner and Public Utilities Code Section 451 Does Not Vest the Commission With Jurisdiction to Review and Reject Charges Imposed By Government Entities and Collected Through a Utility Bill.   CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant this Petition for Review. Alternatively, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant review and transfer to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.

Petition for Review (x149365)

PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Petitioner, v. California Public Utilities Commission, Respondent, California-American Water Company, Real Party in Interest
The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No.B-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner
Dated: February 22, 2013

Appendix VOL 1 of 3 (X149366)

APPPENDIX VOLUME 1 0F 3

Appendix VOL 2 of 3 (X149367).pdf

 APPPENDIX VOLUME 2 0F 3

Appendix VOL 3 of 3 (X149368).pdf

APPPENDIX VOLUME 3 0F 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Real Party In Interest. The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner

ABSTRACT:  RE:  California Supreme Court Case S208838, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY), the California Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion as early as June 2015 on the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility? The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 and the document IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USER FEE are embedded. Additionally, briefs, including PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (PENDING) MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW, REAL PARTY'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW and REPLY OF PETITIONER MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT documents are embedded.

Decision 11-03-035

Decision 11-03-035 March 24, 2011

DECISION DENYING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION

Decision 13-01-040

Decision 13-01-040 January 24, 2013

ORDER MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 11-03-035 AND DENYING REHEARING, AS MODIFIED

A1001012 User Fee Application

Filing Date 01-05-10

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USER FEE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (PENDING)

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

02/25/2013

s208838 Answer of the Respondent to Petition for Writ of Review 04-02-13

Filing Date April 2, 2013

ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

s208838 Real Party's Answer to Petition 03-29-13

Filing Date April 2, 2013

REAL PARTY'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

S208838 REPLY OF PETITIONER MPWMD 04-29-13.pdf

Filing Date April 29, 2013

REPLY OF PETITIONER MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REFERENCES:

Supreme Court to rule on water district ‘user fee,’ By KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 13, 2015, 1A & 14A

ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL CASES
Monterey Peninsula Water Dist. v. Public Utilities Com., S208838. Original proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?

Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of June 24, 2013
#13-54
Monterey Peninsula Water Dist. v. Public Utilities Com., S208838. Original proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?

SUPREME COURT MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
S208838
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY)
Petition for review granted
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Werdegar, Corrigan, and Liu, JJ