LR1/GW2/vm1 8/28/2017 FILED

8-28-17
03:00 PM

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American Water

Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Application 12-04-019
and Authorization to Recover All Present
and Future Costs in Rates.

ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

RULING SETTING ISSUES AND SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER
EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND REQUIRING SUBMISSION
OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SUMMARY
This Ruling states the issues for further evidentiary hearing, sets the
schedule for the service of proposed testimony, and sets the date for hearing. It
addresses possible settlement of the issues presented herein. It requires that all
future proposed testimony not only be served on the service list but also be
electronically submitted to the Commission using the protocols and format for
Supporting Documents.
The evidentiary hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on October 25, 2017 in the
Commission Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. It will
continue on October 26, and October 30 through November 3, 2017, if needed.
1. Background
On August 7, 2017, an assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law
Judges Ruling set a prehearing conference (PHC), and identified eight issues for
further evidentiary hearings (EHs). The issues are remaining disputed issues of

194614962 -1-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

material fact (other than those addressed in the separate but parallel California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process) that need to be updated or heard before a proposed decision
related to the applied-for certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN)
is prepared and published. The PHC was held to discuss the schedule for the
remainder of this proceeding, and address anything else necessary for the
efficient and equitable completion of this matter. The statutory deadline to
complete this proceeding is June 30, 2018.
On August 16, 2017, a Joint PHC Statement was served by 25 parties,
including California American Water Company (applicant). On August 16, 2017,
separate or supplemental PHC Statements or email notices were served by six
parties. The PHC was held at 1:00 p.m. on August 18, 2017. Parties addressed
multiple issues including the EH schedule (e.g., single or bifurcated EH, dates for
proposed opening testimony, number of rounds of proposed testimony), the
briefing schedule (e.g., one round of briefs after publication of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS), or two rounds of briefs with one after the EH on CPCN issues and the
second after the FEIR/FEIS), changed circumstances (e.g., reduced demand and
possible new supply), issues, the potential for settlement, and the desirability of
an update to the briefing outlines.
2. Discussion
We now address issues, schedule, consideration of settlements, and
electronic submission of supporting documents.
2.1 Issues
Testimony will be heard on the nine issues stated below. These include
the eight identified in the August 7, 2017 ruling and one raised at the PHC.

-2-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

The ninth issue pertains to four factors required by Pub. Util. Code
Section 1002 to be addressed, among others, as bases for granting a CPCN. The
four factors are: community values, recreational and park areas, historical and
aesthetic values, and influence on the environment. Testimony on these factors
has been heard but parties should be permitted to update their position and new
parties should be heard. Parties have addressed influence on the environment
in comments on the draft EIR/EIS, and will address it again in briefs after
publication of the FEIR/FEIS. The Commission will consider the environmental
factor when it considers the FEIR/FEIS. Therefore, testimony should be on the
remaining three issues: community values, recreational and park areas, and
historical and aesthetic values.
The issues below are not stated with specificity. Testimony can expand
their parameters but testimony outside those parameters will not be heard. The
issues are:
1. Demand: updated estimates and analysis of demand
including but not limited to:
a. use by existing customers
b. status with respect to legal lots of record
c. status with respect to Pebble Beach
d. status with respect to economic recovery of hospitality
industry
2. Supply: updated estimates and analysis of supply
including but not limited to:
a. Plans for expansion of the Pure Water Monterey (PWM)
project, if any
b. Can expansion of the PWM project provide water to
applicant in excess of 3,500 acre-feet per year, in what
amounts, and at what cost

-3-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

c. Is water available for purchase by applicant from

Marina Coast Water District, in what amounts, and at
what cost
3. Costs: updated estimates and analysis of costs for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
4. Project Financing: updated information and analysis of
project financing
5. Downsizing: feasibility and costs of MPWSP being
downsized including but not limited to:
a. Postponement of one or more wells
b. Operation of plant at lower rate until demand
materializes
c. Construction in modular increments including but not
limited to whether the MPWSP can be authorized at a
level smaller than 6.4 million gallons per day with the
option for applicant to later request authority to add
increments if and as demand increases
6. Solar and Renewables: Feasibility and desirability of a
desalination project configuration that includes the plant
being energized by a combination of purchased electricity
(including some or all renewables) and on site solar panels
7. CEMEX Site: status of applicants access to land at the
CEMEX site if CEMEX ends operation and the land is
transferred to another entity
8. Settlement Agreements: Are modifications needed, if any,
to any pending Settlement Agreement?
9. Section 1002 Factors: In determining whether or not to
grant the CPCN (in whole, in part, or not at all) what
consideration should the Commission give to:
a. Community values
b. Recreational and park areas
c. Historical and aesthetic values

-4-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

2.2 Schedule
The adopted schedule is:

ITEM DATE
Service of proposed direct testimony by applicant September 15, 2017
Service of proposed testimony by intervenors September 29, 2017
Service of proposed rebuttal testimony by applicant October 13, 2017
9:30 a.m. on October 25,
2017, continuing October
Evidentiary Hearing (EH) 26 and October 30 through
November 3, 2017, if
needed
No later than the last day
Parties agree to outline for briefs on CPCN issues
of EH
Three weeks after the close
File and serve opening briefs on CPCN issues
of EH
Two weeks after opening
File and serve reply briefs on CPCN issues
briefs
Parties agree on outline for briefs on FEIR/FEIS or
March 1, 2018
submit disputes to Administrative Law Judge
Publication of FEIR/FEIS About March 16, 2018
Ten days after publication
File and serve opening briefs on FEIR/FEIS issues
of FEIR/FEIS
Seven days after filing of
File and serve closing briefs on FEIR/FEIS issues opening briefs on
FEIR/FEIS issues

Parties shall note that the adopted dates for service of proposed testimony
are the last dates for that service. A party may serve its proposed testimony
before the last date for that service, particularly if the party faces other
constraints.

-5-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

2.3 Settlement
Parties are reminded of Commission Rules regarding settlements.
(Article 12 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rules 12.1
through 12.7.) In particular, the Commission encourages parties to consider
settlement of issues to the extent reasonable and feasible.
The Commission judges a settlement on the basis of whether it is
reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public
interest. (Rule 12.1(d).) To measure whether a settlement is reasonable in light of
the whole record the parties and the Commission must establish a record. In
many cases that record is the served proposed testimony of the parties witnesses
(e.g., received as evidence by stipulation with waiver of cross-examination). In
that light, it may be particularly timely to consider settlement between
October 13 and October 25, 2017. Parties may also file a written motion for
consideration of a settlement up to 30 days after the last day of hearing.
(Rule 12.1(a).)
2.4 Supporting Documents
The Commissions electronic filing system allows parties to formally file
official documents in formal proceedings. These are documents such as
applications, protests, responses, motions, briefs, comments on proposed
decisions, and other official pleadings. The Commissions electronic filing
system also allows electronic submission of supporting documents. These are
documents such as proposed testimony, work papers, workshop reports, and
other supporting material. Information on the filing of both official formal
documents and supporting documents is available on the Commissions web
page at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/.

-6-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

The Commission must now publish and maintain copies on the internet of
all prepared written testimony. (Pub. Util. Code Section 311.5(b). 1) The
Commission is doing this through its Supporting Documents filing system.
Therefore, in this proceeding effective immediately parties shall also
submit all prepared proposed written testimony to the Commissions Supporting
Document system using the instructions below, and shall do so when the
prepared written testimony is served on the service list. 2 Parties shall also
submit errata or updated prepared proposed written testimony to the
Supporting Documents filing system when the errata or updated testimony is
served on the service list. This requirement does not apply to prepared
testimony that was served before today, but applies to prepared testimony
served today and hereafter (beginning no later than with service by applicant of
its proposed testimony on September 15, 2017). In doing so, parties must adhere
to the following instructions, which are all available on the Commissions web
page:
Instructions For Submitting Supporting Documents
Naming Conventions For Supporting Documents
Disclaimer
In particular, parties must note that the Disclaimer says:

1The Commission shall publish and maintain the following documents on the internet:(5) A
docket card that lists, by title and date of filing or issuance, all documents filedincluding the
public versions of all preparedwritten testimony (Pub. Util. Section 311.5(b)(5).)
2 These instructions are for submitting supporting documents such as proposed testimony and
work papers in formal proceedings through the Commissions electronic filing system. Parties
must continue to separately follow all rules regarding the service of testimony on the service
list. Any document that needs to be formally filed (e.g., motions, briefs, comments) should be
submitted using Tabs 1 through 4 in the Commissions electronic filing system.

-7-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

The Supporting Document feature does not change or

replace the Commissions Rules of Practice and
Procedures. Parties must continue to adhere to all rules
and guidelines in the Commissions Rules of Practice
and Procedures including but not limited to rules for
participating in a formal proceeding, filing and serving
formal documents, and rules for written and oral
communications with Commissioners and advisors (i.e.
ex parte communications) or other matters related to
a proceeding.
The Supporting Document feature is intended to be
solely for the purpose of parties submitting electronic
public copies of proposed testimony, work papers and
workshop reports to the Commission (unless instructed
otherwise by the Administrative Law Judge), and does
not replace the requirement to serve documents on
parties in a proceeding.
Unauthorized or improper use of the Supporting
Document feature will result in the removal of the
submitted document by the Commission.
Supporting Documents are not the formal files of the
proceeding. The documents submitted through the
Supporting Document feature are for information only
and are not part of the formal file (i.e., record) unless
accepted into the record by the Administrative Law
Judge.
All documents submitted through the Supporting Documents feature shall
be in PDF/A format. The reasons for requiring PDF/A format are:
Security: PDF/A prohibits the use of programming or
links to external executable files. Therefore, it does not
allow malicious codes in the document.
Retention: The Commission is required by Resolution
L-204, dated September 20, 1978, to retain documents in
formal proceedings for 30 years. PDF/A is an
independent standard and Commission staff anticipates

-8-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

that programs will remain available for 30 years to read

PDF/A.
Accessibility: PDF/A requires text behind the PDF
graphics so the files can be read by devices designed for
those with limited sight. PDF/A is also searchable.
Supporting documents do not appear on the Docket Card. In order to find
supporting documents that have been submitted electronically, on the
Commission web page go to:
Proceedings, chose Find a Document, then choose:
E-filed Documents.
Select supporting documents as the document type
(do not choose testimony)
Type in the proceeding number and hit search.
Please refer all technical questions regarding submission of supporting

documents to:

Kale Williams (kale.williams@cpuc.ca.gov) 415-703-3251 or

Ryan Cayabyab (ryan.cayabyab@cpuc.ca.gov) 415-703-5999

IT IS RULED that:
1. The issues to be heard in further evidentiary hearing are those stated in the
body of this ruling. The schedule is as stated in the body of this ruling.
2. Parties are encouraged to consider settlement of some or all issues, and, if
settlement is undertaken, settlement shall be pursued in a manner consistent
with the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure.
3. Parties shall submit supporting documents, including written proposed

-9-
A.12-04-019 LR1/GW2/vm1

testimony, to the Commissions Supporting Documents filing system consistent

with the instructions in the body of this Ruling
Dated August 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ LIANE M. RANDOLPH /s/ GARY WEATHERFORD

Liane M. Randolph Gary Weatherford
Assigned Commissioner Administrative Law Judge

- 10 -