Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT MOTION REGARDING COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE FOR BRIEFS REGARDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

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 JOINT MOTION REGARDING COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE FOR BRIEFS REGARDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT document copy is embedded.

Joint Motion Regarding Common Briefing Outline for Briefs Re Feir-feis 03-12-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 03-12-18
JOINT MOTION REGARDING COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE FOR BRIEFS REGARDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU AND SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION TO JOINT MOTION FOR PROMPT REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND DECISION

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 JOINT RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU AND SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION TO JOINT MOTION FOR PROMPT REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND DECISION document copy is embedded.

Joint Response of Cawc, Copb, Mcfb & Svwc to Joint Motion to Swrcb 04-05-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 04-05-18
JOINT RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU AND SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION TO JOINT MOTION FOR PROMPT REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND DECISION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CITY OF MARINA’S MOTION TO STRIKE

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 RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CITY OF MARINA’S MOTION TO STRIKE document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, California American Water respectfully requests that the Commission deny Marina’s Motion to Strike in its entirety.

RESPONSE OF CAL-AM TO CITY OF MARINA’S MOTION TO STRIKE 10-24-17.pdf by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 10-24-17

RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CITY OF MARINA’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER’S COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES

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 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER’S COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES document copy is embedded. 

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER’S COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES 7-11-17.pdf by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-11-17
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER’S COMMENTS ON JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Attachment a 7-11-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

ATTACHMENT A

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE THIRD WATER PLUS MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

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 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE THIRD WATER PLUS MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT document copy is embedded. DISCUSSION
As set forth in the 2015 MTD Ruling, “a motion ‘must concisely state the … law supporting its motion’… and ‘requires the Commission to determine whether the party bringing the motion prevails solely on undisputed facts and matters of law.’”3 For a third time, Water Plus cannot establish entitlement to the relief it seeks because the Motion does not cite supporting law and does not establish the existence of undisputed facts and matters of law.
Regarding the accusations of data tampering, specificallyWater Plus’s assertions of “insufficient” and corrupted data and flawed analysis regarding the model used for the environmental review of the MPWSP, Administrative Law Judge Weatherford already ruled twice that these claims do not provide justification for dismissing California American Water’s application.4 In the instant Motion, Water Plus (again) does not establish its credentials to assess the hydrological analysis and (again) fails to provide a credible expert witness to defend its statements. The statements made byWater Plus simply are not undisputed facts or matters of law. Indeed, Water Plus fails to cite any law supporting dismissal of the application based on its specious allegations regarding corrupt data and flawed analysis by the Commission’s consultants.
Furthermore, it remains true that “[e]ven if the allegations made byWater Plus were both entirely correct and uncontroverted, those allegations only go to the sufficiency of the CEQA document, which the Commission can weigh when it decides whether or not to certify the EIR.”5 There is no basis for the Commission to dismiss the application outright based on Water Plus’s unfounded accusations.
Water Plus’s contentions regarding the validity of the Return Water Settlement and purported violations of the Agency Act also do not establish a basis for dismissing California American Water’s application. First, Water Plus again “fails to state the law supporting the ruling requested”6 on the return water and Agency Act issues. Second, Water Plus’s arguments are nothing more than an improper and untimely attack on the Return Water Settlement.7 Water Plus already filed its comments on the Return Water Settlement on June 28, 2016. The Joint Consolidated Reply Comments in Support of the Joint Motion for Approval of the Settlement Agreement on Desalination Plant Return Water, filed July 29, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, explained that there is ample law to support use of return water to prevent export of water from the Salinas Groundwater Basin.8 Water Plus is not entitled to a new round of comments on the Return Water Settlement or a sur-reply under the guise of a motion to dismiss. Water Plus’s arguments, however unmeritorious, regarding the Return Water Settlement can be addressed in the context of proceedings on the Return Water Settlement. A motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle for analyzing Water Plus’s defective return water theories.
The Commission has characterized the standard for granting a motion to dismiss as follows:
The question becomes whether the Commission and the parties would be squandering their resources by proceeding to an evidentiary hearing when the outcome is a foregone conclusion under the current law and policy of the Commission.9
Water Plus has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that the outcome it espouses is a “foregone” conclusion under the current law and policy of the Commission. Instead, Water Plus ignores its burden, fails to provide any legal justification for dismissing the current proceeding, and highlights several triable issues of fact.
Early in this proceeding, Administrative Law Judge Weatherford denied a motion to dismiss filed by Marina Coast Water District:
I deny the motion to dismiss because there is good cause for the Commission to proceed with an examination of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project proposed in A.12-04-019. The people and entities in the Monterey Division service area of the Applicant face the risk of losing -- in less than five years -- most of the water supply that presently serves them….Given the overarching public interest in finding a source or sources of replacement water for the Monterey Peninsula as soon as practicable, it is reasonable to proceed with A.12-04-019.10
This reasoning is still applicable. California American Water urges the Commission to deny Water Plus’s Motion and proceed with its evaluation of the MPWSP.

Cal-Am Water Company's Response to the Third Water Plus Motion to Dismiss 6-15-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 6-15-17
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO THE THIRD WATER PLUS MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

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 JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER document copy is embedded. INTRODUCTION In accordance with Rule 11.1(e) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) of the California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”), California-American Water Company (“Cal-Am”), Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, the City of Pacific Grove (“Pacific Grove”), Monterey County Farm Bureau (“MCFB”), Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (“MPRWA”), Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”), Planning and Conservation League Foundation (“PCL”), and Salinas Valley Water Coalition (“SVWC”) (collectively “Joint Parties”)1 hereby respond to the Motion for Party Status of Citizens for Just Water (“CJW Motion”). As discussed in more detail below, the motion of Citizens for Just Water (“CJW”): (1) is untimely, (2) addresses topics that have already been considered in this proceeding, and (3) raises issues that are properly addressed in the environmental review of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (“MPWSP”). The Joint Parties urge the Commission to deny the CJW’s request to become a party to this proceeding. CONCLUSION In determining whether to grant a motion for party status, particularly one filed so late in a proceeding, the assigned ALJ must balance the interests of the entity seeking party status with the burden on the existing parties and the process if the entity is allowed to enter the proceeding. As discussed above, CJW did not provide good cause for the failure of it and its members to participate in a more timely fashion. Granting CJW’s motion would prejudice existing parties and could cause a delay in this already lengthy proceeding, in which a final decision is now not expected until sometime in March 2018 at the earliest.20 The issues that CJW seeks to address by becoming a party have either already been considered or are more properly considered during environmental review of the MPWSP, where party status is not necessary to participate. Finally, the interests that CJW purports to represent are already well represented in this proceeding. The Joint Parties urge the assigned ALJ to deny CJW’s motion.

1 Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.8(d), counsel for all Joint Parties other than Cal-Am have authorized counsel for Cal-Am to sign this Joint Motion on their behalf.

20 Third Amended Scoping Memo, p. 4. Noting it “is possible that the proposed decision will be held and additional time will be required before the Commission reaches its final decision,” the Third Amended Scoping Memo extended the statutory deadline for this proceeding to June 30, 2018.

Joint Response to Motion for Party Status of Citizens for Just Water 11-30-16 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 11-30-16
JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT MOTION FOR A SEPARATE PHASE 2 DECISION

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 JOINT MOTION FOR A SEPARATE PHASE 2 DECISION document copy is embedded. …the Joint Parties propose the following schedule: 

May 9, 2016 Supplemental Testimony
May 19, 2016 Rebuttal Testimony
Week of May 23, 2016 Limited Evidentiary Hearing (if needed) and/or Possible Settlement
June 1, 2016 Opening Briefs and/or Comments on Settlement
June 8, 2016 Reply Briefs and/or Reply Comments on Settlement
July 2016 Proposed Decision
August 18, 2016 Final Decision
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Joint Parties request that upon a showing the Commission issue a separate Phase 2 decision on the following issues: (1) authorizing the Water Purchase Agreement for the GWR Project, (2) moving up the construction of the Monterey pipeline and pump station, and (3) addressing limited financing and cost recovery for the Monterey pipeline and pump station facilities.

Joint Motion for a Separate Phase 2 Decision 4-18-16

Filing Date 04-18-16
JOINT MOTION FOR A SEPARATE PHASE 2 DECISION

Notice to all Parties California American Water Co. Application A.12-04-019: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) MPWSP EIR/EIS Schedule

ABSTRACT: “On March 14, 2016, CalAm submitted an amended application with a revised project description which will be included in the draft EIR/EIS. The coordinated EIR/Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and amended application, among other events, have led to a revised schedule, as set forth below. These dates are subject to change in the event of unforeseen circumstances,” according to the Notice.

REVISED SCHEDULE

Task	Completion Date
Preparation of the draft EIR/EIS	-----------------------------------
Draft EIR/EIS Issued for Public Comment	December 21, 2016
End of the 45 day Public Review/Comment Period	February 4, 2017
Final EIR/EIS Distributed	September 25, 2017
30 Day Review Federal Review Period	October 25, 2017
EIR/EIS Certification plus Notice Of Determination and Record Of Decision	November 8, 2017

 The Notice to all Parties document copy is embedded. 

CalAm Notice to All Parties Draft-New Schedule

Notice to all Parties
California American Water Co. Application A.12-04-019: Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
MPWSP EIR/EIS Schedule

REFERENCES:  STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)

Desal project faces another delay, could result in water rationing

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 03/17/16, 8:09 PM PDT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 AMENDED APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U210W)

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 AMENDED APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U210W) document copy is embedded. Through this Amended Application, California American Water provides an updated project description reflecting the proposed project configuration. California American Water does so by providing updated versions of Appendices B (Project Schedule), C (Project Map), E (Project Cost Estimate), and H (Project Description) (individually and collectively, “Updated Appendices”), which are included as Attachments hereto… Finally, the Application, showing changes in red-lined and clean fashion, will be posted to the “watersupplyproject.org” website under the documents tab.

Amended Application of California-American Water Company 3-14-16

Filing Date 3-14-16
AMENDED APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U210W)

APPENDIX B 3-14-16

APPENDIX B (Updated)

APPENDIX C 3-14-16

APPENDIX C (Updated)

APPENDIX E 3-14-16

APPENDIX E (Updated)

APPENDIX H 3-14-16

APPENDIX H (Updated)

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

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 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION The Commission should disregard Water Plus’ unfounded accusations and deny its motion to dismiss California American Water’s Application 12-04-019.

Cal-Am's Response to Water Plus’ Motion to Dismiss 10-09-15

Filing Date 10-09-15
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION October 2015 Agenda Item: Request by California American Water Co. (Cal-Am) to amend permit condition associated with monitoring criteria used to determine type and extent of pump test effects as part of test slant well feasibility study, at the site of CEMEX sand mining facility, Marina, Monterey County. (TL-SF)

Ccc Addendum Tu15a 10 2015

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Addendum to A-3-MRA-14-0050 and 9-14-1735 – California American Water Company Test Well

ABSTRACT: RE: 15. PERMIT AMENDMENTS. a. Permit No. 9-14-1735-A1 and A-3-MRA-14-0050-A1 (California American Water Company, Marina) Request by California American Water Co. (Cal-Am) to amend permit condition associated with monitoring criteria used to determine type and extent of pump test effects as part of test slant well feasibility study, at the site of CEMEX sand mining facility, Marina, Monterey County. (TL-SF) . The California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider the aforementioned PERMIT AMENDMENT agenda item at the Commission’s Tuesday, October 6, 2015 meeting at the Long Beach Convention & Entertainment Center, Long Beach, CA. Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions. The SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION is reproduced; the STAFF REPORT: MATERIAL AMENDMENT document copy is embedded.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION October 2015 Agenda
Weiss Associates
Environmental Science, Engineering and Management

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION

In November 2014, the Commission approved California American Water’s (“Cal-Am’s”) proposal to construct, operate, and decommission a test slant well and associated monitoring wells and other infrastructure near the shoreline of Monterey Bay in the City of Marina. The proposed project was to be used to conduct a pumping test program for up to about two years to obtain data regarding the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristics in aquifers underlying the project area, which are within the coastal portion of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, a regionally important source of agricultural and municipal water supply. In addition to the independent value of these data, information developed from the project is meant to help determine whether a similar subsurface intake system at or near this location could provide source water for a seawater desalination facility Cal-Am is separately proposing as part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, which is the subject of an application and environmental documents being reviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). The CPUC’s review includes modeling, monitoring, and data analysis by the Hydrogeology Working Group (“HWG”), which consists of several licensed hydrogeologists representing stakeholders in the area.

The Commission’s approval included Special Condition 11, which required Cal-Am to install onsite and offsite monitoring wells and equipment, and established allowable thresholds for changes in groundwater levels and salinity to prevent the project’s pumping tests from causing adverse effects on nearby agricultural wells. If these thresholds were reached during the pumping test at the most distant onsite monitoring well, Cal-Am was to shut down the test and request a determination from the HWG and the Commission’s Executive Director as to whether the pumping test was causing the changes. If any part of the change was determined to be due to the pumping test, Cal-Am was to not re-start the pumping test until receiving an amendment to its coastal development permit.

In early 2015, Cal-Am completed installation of project components and in February 2015 started its pumping test. It ran until June 5, 2015, when monitoring detected that groundwater levels were approaching the allowable threshold. Cal-Am stopped the test, conferred with the HWG and the Commission’s Executive Director, who determined that the pumping test had resulted in a small percentage of the overall groundwater decrease, and applied for the required permit amendment on July 27, 2015.

Cal-Am’s proposed amendment would modify Special Condition 11. The primary modification would keep the same numerical groundwater and salinity thresholds as previously approved, but would provide that they be compared to regional trends rather than be based on a static value at a single location. This modification is in recognition of monitoring data collected from early 2015 until the present that show the pumping test resulted in minimal effects at the monitoring well that were not evident at more distant monitoring sites, and that those minimal effects could readily be distinguished from other regional influences, such as municipal and seasonal agricultural groundwater pumping, that were causing much greater changes. The proposed modification specifically acknowledges these regional influences and direct the HWG and the Executive Director to consider them in their analyses. Other proposed changes to Special Condition 11 would provide additional clarity to the condition language (e.g., referring to “groundwater” rather than “water”).

As part of its review, Commission staff obtained the services of an independent licensed hydrogeologist to evaluate the relevant modeling and monitoring data and to review Cal-Am’s proposed modification. That review resulted in conclusions that the threshold values and monitoring approach were appropriate for preventing impacts to agricultural groundwater users further inland and that the pumping test was not expected to cause any measurable effect on those groundwater users.

Recommendation
Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed Findings and modifications to  Special Condition 11.

Ccc Cal Am Tu15a-10-2015

STAFF REPORT: MATERIAL AMENDMENT

Application No.: 9-14-1735-A1 and A-3-MRA-14-0050-A1
Applicant/Appellant: California American Water Company
Project Location: At the site of the CEMEX, Incorporated sand mining facility, Lapis Road, City of Marina, Monterey County. (APN #203-011-001 and #203-011-019)
Description of Previously Approved Project: Construct and operate a test slant well and associated monitoring wells to both develop data and assess the feasibility of the project site as a potential long-term water source for a desalination facility.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WEATHERFORD’S RULINGS REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS

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 RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WEATHERFORD’S RULINGS REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS document copy is embedded.  

Response of California-American Water Company to Alj's Ruling 7-28-15

Filing Date 7-28-15
RESPONSE OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WEATHERFORD’S RULINGS REQUESTING DATA ON RATEMAKING AND GEOSCIENCE PATENTS

Attachment 1 7-28-15

ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment 2 7-28-15pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

   Attachment 4 7-28-15

ATTACHMENT 4

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 REVISED COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE

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 REVISED COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE document copy is embedded. COMMON OUTLINE FOR BRIEFING ON LEGAL & POLICY ISSUES 

I. INTRODUCTION
II. PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OF PROJECT
A. Projection of Demand and Plant Size and Operations
B. Environmental Impacts of the MPWSP & Required Mitigation Measures and Conditions
1. Brine Discharge
2. Coastal Erosion
3. Other Environmental Impacts and Mitigations Including Groundwater, Terrestrial, Marine, and Cumulative
4. Seawater Intake System
C. Groundwater Predictive Models
D. Cost and Financing Issues
1. Cost Caps
2. Financing Issues
3. Ownership (public or private) and Costs
4. Other Cost Issues
E. Benefits and Overriding Policy Considerations as Compared to Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of the Project
F. Legal Principles in Support of and in Opposition to MPWSP
1. Site Restrictions and Source Water Issues Relating to the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, including Hydrogeologic Work and Water Rights
2. Other Legal Principles
G. Consideration of Alternative Projects
H. Jurisdictional Issues Related to the Governance Committee
I. Other CPCN Factors
II. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ISSUES
III. CONCLUSION

Revised Common Briefing Outline 6-05-15

Filing Date 6-05-15
REVISED COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE

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 COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE and ATTACHMENT 1 documents copies are embedded.

COMMON OUTLINE FOR BRIEFING ON LEGAL & POLICY ISSUES

I. INTRODUCTION
II. PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OF PROJECT
A. Reasonableness of the Projection of Demand and Plant Size and Operations
B. Environmental Impacts of the MPWSP & Required Mitigation Measures
1. Brine Discharge
2. Coastal Erosion
3. Other Environmental Impacts and Mitigations Including Groundwater, Terrestrial, Marine, and Cumulative
C. Cost and financing issues
1. Reasonableness of Cost Cap
2. Financing Issues
3. Other Cost Issues
D. Benefits and Overriding Policy Considerations as Compared to Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts of the Project
E. Legal Principles in Support of and in Opposition to MPWSP
1. Site Restrictions and Source Water Issues Relating to the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, including Hydrogeologic Work and Water Rights
2. CEQA Piecemealing
3. Other
F. Jurisdictional Issues Related to the Governance Committee
G. Other CPCN factors
III. CONCLUSION

Common Briefing Outline 5-26-15

Filing Date 5-26-15
COMMON BRIEFING OUTLINE

Attachment 1 5-26-15

ATTACHMENT 1

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT document is embedded.  CONCLUSION The Joint Parties respectfully request that the Commission disregard PTA’s requests: (1) that the Commission deviate from its review of the Settlement Agreement; and (2) that it now entertain new options which are beyond the scope of the proceeding and unrelated to the application of a Commission-regulated utility.

JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

Filing Date 02-21-14
JOINT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TRUST ALLIANCE’S MOTION CONCERNING THE PROJECT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document is embedded.  CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the Settling Parties respectfully request that those arguments submitted in opposition to the Sizing Agreement be disregarded and the Agreement be approved in its entirety.

Joint Closing Brief on Sizing Settlement Agreement

Filing Date 02-14-14
JOINT CLOSING BRIEF ON SIZING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT document, including Attachment 1, is embedded.  CONCLUSION As discussed above, MCWD’s opening brief includes several arguments that the Commission has already rejected, issues that will be addressed as part of the environmental review process, and flawed claims unsupported by law or fact. The Commission’s settlement process has been open and transparent. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest, and should be adopted by the Commission.

Joint Closing Brief in Support of Approval and Implementation of Settlement Agreement

Filing Date 02-14-14
JOINT CLOSING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

MPWSP Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan Attachment 1

Filing Date 02-14-14
Attachment 1
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION document is embedded. Importantly, “Thus, at this time, and based on its current information and understanding, Cal-Am does not believe Governor Brown’s proclamation of a drought State of Emergency, issued on January 17, 2014, directly impacts this proceeding.”
“It should, however, be noted that the proclamation emphasizes the uncertainties and instability of many of the State’s water sources. Importantly, the MPWSP, and in particular its desalination component, is critical to providing greater reliability in such a challenging environment.”

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING

Filing Date 02-07-14
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RESPONDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S QUESTION CONCERNING DROUGHT DECLARATION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT BRIEF ON GOVERNANCE COMMITTEEAND NON-IMPAIRMENT OF COMMISSION JURISDICTION

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT BRIEF ON GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND NON-IMPAIRMENT OF COMMISSION JURISDICTION document, including Attachment 1, is embedded. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the parties to this brief respectfully request that the Commission accept the Governance Committee as an essential component of the strategy to develop the MPWSP consistent with community values.

Joint Brief on Governance Committee and Non-impairment of Commission Jurisdiction

Filing Date 01-21-14
JOINT BRIEF ON GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND NON-IMPAIRMENT OF COMMISSION JURISDICTION

Attachment 1 Governance Committee

Filing Date 01-21-14
Attachment 1

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT OPENING BRIEF ON PLANT SIZING IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, JOINT OPENING BRIEF ON PLANT SIZING IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS document, (For: Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, California-American Water, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Both the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the City of Pacific Grove, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses), is embedded. Importantly, CONCLUSION As Mayor Burnnett postulated at the settlement hearing, “[w]hat public policy would be served if [the desalination plant] were sized” in a way that did not mean that on “the day that the plant comes on line, Cal-Am would need to file a new application for some other water supply project that would presumably not have the economies of scale….”113 The answer is clear: none.
The proposed sizing for the desalination plant is the product of careful analysis and planning, as well as extensive negotiations. By industry standards, it is exceptionally conservative in keeping the plant’s size to a minimum in light of reasonable estimates of future demand. Of course, the many variables that will determine future demand are difficult to predict with precision. However, a reasonable degree of caution is warranted to “insure” against the numerous and significant adverse consequences of undersizing the MPWSP, including provoking another moratorium, harming the area’s economy, loss of economies of scale and higher long-term water supply cost, increased environmental impacts, and unnecessary future conflicts between stakeholders in Monterey County. Moreover, any error in slightly oversizing plant would allow Cal-Am to reduce the desalination plant’s operating level to closer to normal industry standards. As such, the proposed sizing for the plant should be adopted.

Joint Opening Brief on Plant Sizing in Support of Approval and Implementation of Settlement Agreements

Filing Date 01-21-14
JOINT OPENING BRIEF ON PLANT SIZING IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS