Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

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 DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT document copy is embedded. Summary This decision certifies and applies the combined Final Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement, adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and authorizes a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for California-American Water Company’s (Cal-Am) Modified Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project at a size of 6.4 million gallons per day. It also addresses four proposed settlement agreements. The Commission adopts two of these settlement agreements (Brine Discharge Settlement and Return Water Settlement). This decision declines to adopt the Comprehensive Settlement but does adopt the framework set forth in that agreement based on the proceeding record independent of the proposed settlement. The fourth settlement agreement is rejected (Sizing Settlement).
This decision finds that water rate relief bonds issued by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District will provide savings to customers on the Monterey Peninsula. It directs Cal-Am to prepare progress reports during construction of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, and publish them on its website. It discusses the need for water supplies in Cal-Am’s Monterey District, reviewing demand and supply estimates and selecting estimates supported by the best evidence. The decision takes into account and apportions between ratepayers and Cal-Am the risks associated with various water supplies. Compliance conditions are imposed in the decision. The settlement agreements submitted, and other relevant documents are attached as appendices. To the extent they are not otherwise discussed here, any and all outstanding motions are deemed denied. The proceeding is closed.

Date of Issuance 9/20/2018
DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

APPENDIX B
Parties Position on Supply and Demand

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 OPPOSITION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO THE MOTION OF THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ET AL. 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 OPPOSITION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO THE MOTION OF THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ET AL. FOR PROMPT REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND DECISION document copy is embedded.

Opposition of Mprwa & Mpwmd to Motion of Mcwd to Swrcb 04-05-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 04-05-18
OPPOSITION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO THE MOTION OF THE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ET AL. FOR PROMPT REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND DECISION

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 FOURTH AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND RULING OF THE ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 31, 2018

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 FOURTH AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND RULING OF THE ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 31, 2018 document copy is embedded. Summary The statutory deadline to complete this proceeding is extended to December 31, 2018. IT IS RULED that the statutory deadline for this proceeding is December 31, 2018.

Fourth Amended Scoping Memo & Ruling Deadling to December 31, 2018 03-14-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 03/07/18 

FOURTH AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND RULING OF THE ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 31, 2018

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE AND REQUESTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE AND REQUESTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS document copy is embedded. Summary A status conference will be held on:

February 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
Commission Courtroom
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California

The purpose is to discuss the potential of opening a Phase 3 for this proceeding. The parties have raised issues where we believe there may be value to examining potential additional, alternative, supplemental and/or temporary water supply options to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).1 However, we do not believe the parties have provided sufficient information for us to pursue a Phase 3 at this time. Therefore, we direct the parties to provide additional information as set forth below.

IT IS RULED that:
1. A status conference shall be held at 1:30 p.m. on February 27, 2018 in the Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California for the purpose of hearing proposals from parties on the remaining schedule for the proceeding and whether a Phase 3 with additional evidentiary hearings should commence.
2. Parties shall file and serve a Joint Case Management Statement by 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018.

Aljs' Ruling Setting Status Conference 02-08-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 02/08/18
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE AND REQUESTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE document copy is embedded. IT IS SO RULED, including that parties shall use the following outline for their briefs:

Index

Table of Authorities

Summary

I. Introduction

II. Present and future public convenience and necessity of the project

A. Reasonableness of the projection of demand and proposed plant size

1. Estimates and analysis of demand

(a) Future use by existing customers

(b) Growth, including legal lots of record, Pebble Beach, and economic recovery of hospitality industry

2. Estimates and analysis of supply alternatives

(a) The potential expansion of Pure Water Monterey, including amounts and costs of available water

(b) Availability of water for purchase, including from Marina Coast Water District

3. Need for and appropriateness of proposed plant and plant size

(a) Potential methods of reduction from proposed size

(i) Postponement of one or more wells

(ii) Operation of plant at lower rate

(iii) Construction in modular increments

(iv) Other

B. Cost and financing issues

1. Reasonableness of proposed cost cap

2. Financing issues

3. Apportionment of risk (e.g., between shareholders and ratepayers in the form of shared costs, adjustments in rate of return, removal of items from rate base, or other) in the event production is insufficient in whole or part of a significant plant component during the operating life of the MPWSP (e.g., slant wells)

C. Feasibility and desirability of using solar and renewables

D. Section 1002 Factors

1. Community values

2. Recreational and park areas

3. Historical and aesthetic values

III. Legal Principles in Support of and in Opposition to MPWSP

A. Site restrictions, including California American Water’s access to CEMEX site

B. Agency Act

IV. Settlements

A. Comprehensive Settlement Agreement

B. Sizing Settlement Agreement
C. Return Water Settlement Agreement
D. Brine Settlement Agreement
V. Other
VI. Conclusion.

Aljs' Ruling Regarding Joint Briefing Outline and Briefing Schedule 11-21-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 11-21-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING WATER PLUS THIRD 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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING WATER PLUS THIRD MOTION TO DISMISS document copy is embedded. SUMMARY On June 1, 2017, Water Plus filed a “Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Because of Prohibition of Groundwater Exportation and Data Tampering in Model Evaluation.” The motion is denied because (1) it does not state the law supporting the requested ruling; (2) triable issues of material fact remain; and (3) even interpreting the facts in the manner most favorable to Water Plus, Water Plus would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. IT IS RULED that the June 1, 2017 Water Plus Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding is denied.

Alj's Ruling Denying Water Plus Third Motion to Dismiss 12-04-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 12-04-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING WATER PLUS THIRD MOTION TO DISMISS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE document copy is embedded.  IT IS SO RULED, including that parties shall use the following outline for their briefs:
Index
Table of Authorities
Summary
I. Introduction
II. Present and future public convenience and necessity of the project
A. Reasonableness of the projection of demand and proposed plant size
1. Estimates and analysis of demand
(a) Future use by existing customers
(b) Growth, including legal lots of record, Pebble Beach, and economic recovery of hospitality industry
2. Estimates and analysis of supply alternatives
(a) The potential expansion of Pure Water Monterey, including amounts and costs of available water
(b) Availability of water for purchase, including from Marina Coast Water District
3. Need for and appropriateness of proposed plant and plant size
(a) Potential methods of reduction from proposed size
(i) Postponement of one or more wells
(ii) Operation of plant at lower rate
(iii) Construction in modular increments
(iv) Other
B. Cost and financing issues
1. Reasonableness of proposed cost cap
2. Financing issues
3. Apportionment of risk (e.g., between shareholders and ratepayers in the form of shared costs, adjustments in rate of return, removal of items from rate base, or other) in the event production is insufficient in whole or part of a significant plant component during the operating life of the MPWSP (e.g., slant wells)
C. Feasibility and desirability of using solar and renewables
D. Section 1002 Factors
1. Community values
2. Recreational and park areas
3. Historical and aesthetic values
III. Legal Principles in Support of and in Opposition to MPWSP
A. Site restrictions, including California American Water’s access to CEMEX site
B. Agency Act
IV. Settlements
A. Comprehensive Settlement Agreement
B. Sizing Settlement Agreement
C. Return Water Settlement Agreement
D. Brine Settlement Agreement
V. Other
VI. Conclusion.

Aljs' Ruling Regarding Joint Briefing Outline and Briefing Schedule 11-21-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 11-21-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING REGARDING JOINT BRIEFING OUTLINE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER’S SHOWING OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER’S SHOWING OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that:
1. The Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation filed by Citizens for Just Water is rejected for the reasons set forth.
2. Additional guidance is provided to Citizens for Just Water as set forth above.

Alj's Ruling on Citizens for Just Water's Showing of Significant Financial Hardship 11-20-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 11-20-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING ON CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER’S SHOWING OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 COMMENTS OF CITY OF MARINA ON STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SCHEDULE

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 COMMENTS OF CITY OF MARINA ON STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SCHEDULE document copy is embedded. 

Comments of City of Marina on Statement of Issues and Schedule 7-11-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-11-17
COMMENTS OF CITY OF MARINA ON STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SCHEDULE

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 COMMENTS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO 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 COMMENTS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES document copy is embedded. 

Comments of Citizens for Just Water to Joint Statement of Issues 7-10-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-10-17
COMMENTS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR FURTHER HEARINGS

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 SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR FURTHER HEARINGS document copy is embedded. 

IT IS RULED that:

1. A Prehearing Conference shall be held at 1:00 p.m. on August 18, 2017 in the Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California for the purpose of hearing proposals from parties on the remaining schedule for the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity portion of this proceeding, and anything else parties recommend for the Commission to efficiently and equitably complete this proceeding by June 30, 2018.

2. Parties may file and serve Prehearing Conference Statements and shall do so by 12 noon on August 17, 2017. Parties shall make all reasonable efforts to file one Joint PHC Statement. If unable to do so, parties should seek to agree with as much as possible of the Joint PHC Statement and concurrently file their own PHC Statement which states their differing or opposing views.

3. As the scheduling of this PHC may impact the August 17 and 18, 2017 evidentiary hearing in Application (A.) 15-07-019, this ruling is being served on parties to this proceeding and A.15-07-019.

Ac and Alj's Ruling Setting Prehearing Conference and Identifying Issues for Further Hearing 8-07-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 8-07-17
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND IDENTIFYING ISSUES FOR FURTHER HEARINGS

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 E-MAIL RULING GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND COMMENTS

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 GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND COMMENTS document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the dates for filing a Statement of Issues and comments are extended. The Statement of Issues shall be filed and served by June 30, 2017. Comments, if any, on a Statement of Issues shall be filed and served by July 11, 2017.

E-mail Ruling Granting Extension to File Statement of Issues and Comments 6-14-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 6-14-17
E-MAIL RULING GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND COMMENTS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING PARTIES TO IDENTIFY ISSUES FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING PARTIES TO IDENTIFY ISSUES FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that:
1. Parties shall by June 23, 2017 file and serve a Statement of Issues that complies with the requirements stated in the body of this ruling. Parties shall make a reasonable effort to present one joint Statement of Issues.
2. If more than one Statement of Issues is filed, parties may file and serve comments on the Statement of Issues of other parties, and those comments shall be filed and served within seven days of the date the Statement of Issues was filed.

Alj's Ruling Requesting Parties to Identify Issues for Further Evidentiary Hearings 6-09-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 6-09-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING REQUESTING PARTIES TO IDENTIFY ISSUES FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS

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 GRANTING MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the March 23, 2017 motion of the City of Marina for party status is granted.

E-mail Ruling Granting Motion of City of Marina for Party Status 3-29-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 3-29-17
E-MAIL RULING GRANTING MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS

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 MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS document copy is embedded. The City of Marina (“City” or “Marina”) respectfully moves for party status in Application (A.) 12-04-019, the application of California-American Water Company (“CalAm”) for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and related rate authorizations (“Application”). This Motion is filed and served pursuant to, and in compliance with, Rule 1.4(a)(4) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Motion of City of Marina for Party Status 3-23-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 3-23-17
MOTION OF CITY OF MARINA FOR PARTY STATUS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE PUBLIC WATER NOW’S NOTICE REGARDING SECTION 3.1 OF THE LARGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND EX PARTE SANCTIONS

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE PUBLIC WATER NOW’S NOTICE REGARDING SECTION 3.1 OF THE LARGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND EX PARTE SANCTIONS document copy is embedded. Summary The September 23, 2016, Joint Motion to Strike Public Water Now’s Notice Regarding Section 3.1 of the Large Settlement Agreement (LSA) is denied. All parties and interested persons are cautioned to follow ex parte statutes and rules, particularly as recently amended by Senate Bill 215 (Statues 2016, Chapter 807). This includes the prohibition on ex parte communication adopted in this matter. IT IS RULED that:
1. The September 23, 2016, Joint Motion to Strike Public Water Now’s Notice Regarding Section 3.1 of the Large Settlement Agreement is denied.
2. All parties and interested persons are admonished not to violate the ex parte rules, including the ex parte ban specific to this proceeding. Parties are advised that this includes new provisions recently added to the Public Utilities Code.

Alj's Ruling Denying Joint Morion to Strike Public Water Now's Notice 2-28-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 2-28-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE PUBLIC WATER NOW’S NOTICE REGARDING SECTION 3.1 OF THE LARGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND EX PARTE SANCTIONS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS AND REQUEST FOR DEFERRED 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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS AND REQUEST FOR DEFERRED HEARING document copy is embedded. Summary The July 22, 2016, Joint Motion to Strike Marina Coast Water District’s Consolidated Comments is denied. The Marina Coast Water District’s request for deferred hearing on motions to approve the Brine Discharge Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Agreement on Desalination Plant Return Water is denied. Parties may file motions for hearing and those motions, if any, shall follow the guidance in this Ruling. IT IS RULED that:

1. The July 22, 2016, Joint Motion to Strike Marina Coast Water District’s Consolidated Comments is denied.
2. The July 13, 2016, Marina Coast Water District request for deferred hearing on motions to approve the Brine Discharge Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Agreement on Desalination Plant Return Water is denied.
3. Parties may file motions for evidentiary hearing and those motions, if any, shall follow the guidance stated in this Ruling.
4. In any future motion for evidentiary hearing on environmental issues, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) shall clearly and specifically state the factual and/or legal circumstances that have changed since the last ruling that denied MCWD’s similar motion.

Alj's Ruling Denying Joint Motion to Strike Mcwd 2-28-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 2-28-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED COMMENTS AND REQUEST FOR DEFERRED HEARING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS, RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR, AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF COMMENT PERIOD

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 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS, RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR, AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF COMMENT PERIOD document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the February 8, 2017 motion of Marina Coast Water District for access to documents, recirculation of the January 13, 2017 Notice of Availability of the Commission’s draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, and re-commencement of the public comment period is denied.

Alj's Ruling Denying Mcwd's Motion 2-17-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 2-17-17
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS, RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR, AND RE-COMMENCEMENT OF COMMENT PERIOD