Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Administrative Law Judge's Ruling on Pending Motions and Other Subjects 02-13-13

Administrative Law Judge's Ruling on Pending Motions and Other Subjects 02-13-13

Ratings: (0)|Views: 332|Likes:
Published by SebViz2
ALJ's Ruling on Cal-Am 02-13-13
ALJ's Ruling on Cal-Am 02-13-13

More info:

Published by: SebViz2 on Feb 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
48806181
- 1 -GW2/jt2 2/13/2013
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of California-American WaterCompany (U210W) for Approval of theMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Projectand Authorization to Recover All Presentand Future Costs in Rates.Application 12-04-019(Filed April 23, 2012)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULINGON PENDING MOTIONS AND OTHER SUBJECTS1. Summary
This ruling grants in part and denies in part a motion to require quarterlyreporting of compliance and progress. It defers acting on a motion to establishcriteria for decision on desalination plant sizing. It grants a motion for officialnotice of facts and another to protect an Intervenor’s personal financialinformation from public inspection. It also notes the rejection of an unrequestedsubmission for filing. Further, it sets out guidelines in an attachment that Partiesare to follow in preparation for and during the Evidentiary Hearings scheduledto start on April 2, 2013; and it directs the Applicant to coordinate the timeallotment and sequencing of cross-examination.
2. Background
Four motions by Parties are pending. On December 12, 2012, the Planningand Conservation League Foundation (PCLF) moved to have the Commission“establish criteria to guide the decision on whether to downsize the desalination
F I L E D
02-13-1301:16 PM
 
A.12-04-019 GW2/jt2- 2 -project based on progress toward implementation of the GroundwaterReplenishment Project.”
1
On the same date PCLF moved to have theCommission require the Applicant (Cal-Am) “to publish quarterly reports on thestatus of its compliance with the … cease and desist order (Order WR 2009-0060)and on its progress toward implementing the desalination project as well asalternatives in the event that Cal-Am fails to complete the desalination project bythe cease and desist order’s December 31, 2016 deadline.”
2
Cal-Am responded toeach of those motions on December 27, 2012, proposing compromises
.
3
 On January 15, 2013, Cal-Am moved to have the Commission
:
 …take official notice of the following actions taken in a matteradjudicated by the Superior Court of California, County ofSan Francisco (“San Francisco Superior Court”): 1) the County ofMonterey’s (“County”) Complaint for Declaratory Relief, dated June 26, 2012; 2) the County’s Request for Dismissal with prejudiceof entire action of all parties and all causes of action filed, datedDecember 11, 2012; and 3) a print out of the San Francisco SuperiorCourt’s docket which shows that the matter was taken off thecalendar on December 13, 2012. [Footnotes omitted.]Copies of those documents are contained in Attachment 1 to Cal-Am’s motion.The law suit to which that motion refers sought judicial resolution of the issuewhether Monterey County Ordinance pertaining to the construction andoperation of desalination facilities (Chapter 10.72, Monterey County Code) is
1
PCLF’s Motion to Establish Criteria for Decision on Desalination Plant Sizing (filedDecember 12, 2012), hereinafter “Criteria Motion” at 1.
2
PCLF’s Motion to Require Quarterly Publication of Compliance and Progress Report(filed December 12, 2012), hereinafter “Quarterly Reporting Motion” at 1.
3
Cal-Am’s December 27, 2012 Response to PCLF’s Motion to Establish Criteria at 2-3,and Response to Quarterly Reporting Motion at 2-4.
 
A.12-04-019 GW2/jt2- 3 -preempted by authority of the California Public Utilities Commission, which theCommission has answered affirmatively in this proceeding in Decision 12-10-030,issued on October 31, 2012.On January 30, 2013, Citizens for Public Water filed a Motion for ProtectiveOrder concerning personal financial information of George T. Riley to be offeredin support of a revised Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation.On December 11, 2012, the Salinas Valley Water Coalition submitted to theCommission’s Docket Office for filing a Pre-Hearing Conference Statement andan attached “Exhibit ‘A’” (Technical Memorandum from Timothy Durbin toSalinas Valley Water Coalition, dated December 3, 2012).
4
The Docket Officerejected the filing on January 17, 2013 on the ground that the submission was notauthorized for filing.Each of the foregoing subjects is discussed below.Given the number of Parties, the time sensitivity of the proceeding and thecomplexity of the factual issues involved, it is imperative that preparation forand the conduct of the evidentiary hearings be as efficient as is practicable. Theguidelines set out in Attachment A are designed to help achieve that end.Toward the same end, I am directing Cal-Am to contact the Parties, obtaincross-examination time estimates and coordinate the sequencing of thecross-examinations. Parties are to cooperate in that undertaking and, wherepossible, to consolidate cross-examination questions to limit unnecessaryduplication. Cal-Am is directed to file and serve a compliance report proposing
4
The stated subject of the memorandum was “California-American Water Company --Comments on proposal to pump groundwater from the Salinas Valley basin.”

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->