GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4 10/27/2017

FILED
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10-27-17
11:23 AM

Application of California-American Water

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

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES RULING GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING THE REST OF THE MOTION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY TO STRIKE TESTIMONY AND TO SHORTEN RESPONSE TIME

On October 12, 2017, California-American Water Company (applicant)

filed a motion to strike testimony and shorten response time. By e-mail Ruling
on October 17, 2017, the response time was shortened. Several parties filed
timely responses. After giving full consideration to the motion and responses,
this ruling grants the motion to strike in part, and denies the rest of the motion.
Discussion
We remind the parties that environmental impacts or influences on the
environment are being addressed through the environmental review process
(California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)). Parties have an opportunity to be heard on environmental
issues through the CEQA/NEPA process. Parties will have an additional
opportunity to address environmental concerns in briefs after publication of the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)/Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS). The Commission will consider the environmental factors when
it considers the FEIR/FEIS. Testimony allowed for purposes of these hearings
should not include litigation of the environmental impacts. Therefore to the
extent that the applicants motion to strike is denied (or an objection to proposed

197986627 -1-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7ek4

testimony is overruled) the permitted testimony will only be considered for

purposes of assessing the 9 issues within the scope of these evidentiary hearings
as they are listed in the August 28, 2017 Assigned Commissioner and
Administrative Law Judges ruling.
To the extent the proposed testimony subject to the motion to strike
references airborne electromagnetic (AEM) or Electrical Resistivity Tomography
(ERT) data or imaging, the motion will be granted and the proposed testimony
will be stricken:
1. In the June 30, 2017 list of proposed issues, Just Water
specifically proposed including AEM to evaluate
groundwater resources (including modeling of fresh water
reserves and salt water intrusion). (Proposed Issue 6.) The
adopted list of issues in the August 28, 2017 Ruling did not
include AEM, groundwater resources, groundwater
modeling, fresh water reserves, or salt water intrusion.
Comments or discussion on AEM/ERT are properly
considered in the CEQA portion of the proceeding.
2. In the June 30, 2017 list of proposed issues, MCWD
proposed including testimony on "recent scientific
research" in support of their proposed issues regarding
"legal feasibility." (Proposed Issues 36 - 41) This was their
wording for AEM/ERT. AEM/ERT was not included in
the 9 issues allowed for further hearing by the
August 28, 2017 Ruling.
To the extent testimony is stricken as legal argument it will not be
considered fact evidence but may be included in briefs as support for a partys
position. Again, to the extent testimony remains in the record, it will be given
consideration only as to the 9 issues set out in the August 28, 2017 ruling and it
will be given weight accordingly.

-2-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7ek4

The ruling as to each specific item listed in Appendix A to

California- American Water Companys Motion to Strike Testimony and to
Shorten Response Time is set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
The Rebuttal Testimony of Peter M. Leffler submitted by
California-American Water Company should be withdrawn or limited solely to
rebuttal of testimony that remains in the record subsequent to this ruling. The
amended Rebuttal Testimony of Peter M. Leffler is to be served on all parties and
the service list no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 27, 2017 consistent with
the direction provided to the Applicant during the evidentiary hearing on
October 26, 2017. On Monday, October 30, 2017 California-American should
provide hard copies of this testimony, five copies to be provided to the assigned
Administrative Law Judges and sufficient copies for each of the parties.
Notice of the Hydro Working Group Report and link to the report and
supporting documents was served and filed on October 12, 2017. Parties will
have an opportunity to provide written comments on this report to be filed and
served with opening briefs and reply comments to be filed and served with reply
briefs.

IT IS SO RULED.

Dated October 27, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ JEANNE M. MCKINNEY for JEANNE M. MCKINNEY for

Gary Weatherford Robert W. Haga
Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge

/s/ DARCIE L. HOUCK

Darcie L. Houck
Administrative Law Judge

-3-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

Exhibit 1
Cal-Am Motion to Strike- Appendix A
A.12-04-019
Item Location of Sustain/Overrule Basis/ Scoping Issue
# Testimony
Citizens for Just
Water Direct
1 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Not fact
Water-Hofmann testimony/Argument
Pg. 3
2 -4 Citizens for Just Overrule Supply/Demand
Water
Hofmann pg 4-5,
7
5 Just Water- Sustain A. Legal Conclusion
Hoffman pg 8-9
6-7 Citizens for Just Overrule Supply/Demand/Costs
Water-Hoffman
8 Citizens for Just Overrule Supply/Demand/Costs
Water- Hoffman
9-13 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental issue
Water- Hoffman B. Legal Conclusion
C. Outside Scope of
Identified Issues
16- Citizens for Just Overrule Supply
17 Water
Hoffman
18 Citizens for Just 1. Sustain 1.
Water- Hoffman 2. Sustain A. Outside of Scope of
3. Overrule Identified Issues
B. Environmental Issue 2.
A. Argument
3.
A. Community values

-1-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

19 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental Issue

Water B. Outside of Scope of
Hofmann Identified Issues
20- Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental Issue
23 Water- Hofmann B. Outside of Scope of
Identified Issues
24- Citizens for Just Overrule Supply/Community
25 Water- Hofmann Values
26- Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental Issue
28 Water - B. Outside of Scope of
Hofmann Identified Issues
29 Citizens for Just Sustain1 A. Environmental Issue
Water- Hofmann B. Outside of Scope of
Identified Issues
30- Citizens for Just Overrule Community Values
36 Water- Hofmann
37 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Water - B. Outside the Scope of
Hofmann Identified Issues
38- Citizens for Just Sustain A. Argument
39 Water -
Hofmann
40 Citizens for Just Overrule Supply
Water- Hofmann
41 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Outside the Scope of
Water- Hofmann Identified Issues
42 Citizens for Just Overrule Supply/Community
Water-Hofmann Values
43 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Outside the Scope of
Water- Hofmann Identified Issues
44- Citizens for Just Sustain A. Legal Conclusion
46 Water- Hofmann

1This portion of the testimony addresses the hydro working group. All Parties will have an
opportunity to provide comment and reply comments on the hydro working group report
dated October 12, 2017 at the same time the parties file briefs and reply briefs.

-2-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

47 Citizens for Just Overrule Community Values

Water- Hofmann
48 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Argument
Water -
Hofmann
49 Citizens for Just Overrule A. Supply
Water -
Hofmann
50 Citizens for Just Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Water - B. Legal Conclusion
Hofmann C. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
51- Citizens for Just Overrule Community Values
53 Water- Hofmann
54 Citizens for Just Overrule Cemex Site
Water -
Hofmann
City of Marina
Direct
55 City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Delgado/Long B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
56- City of Marina Overrule Community
57 Delgado/Long values/Supply
58 City of Marina- Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Delgado/Long B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
59 City of Marina Overrule Supply
Delgado/Long Costs
60 City of Marina Sustain A. Legal Conclusion
Delgado/Long B. Outside of the Scope of
Issues Identified
C. Previously Covered
Issue
61- City of Marina Overrule Supply
64 Delgado/Long

-3-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

65 City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental Issue

Delgado/Long B. Outside Scope of
Identified Issues
66 City of Marina Overrule Supply
Delgado/Long Community values
67- City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental Issue
68 Delgado/Long B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
69- City of Marina Overrule Community values
73 Delgado/Long
74- City of Marina Overrule Solar and Renewables
75 Delgado/Long
76 City of Marina Overrule in Strike the following
Delgado/Long part/Sustain in language: The Projects
part Draft EIR/EIS
acknowledges this issue
and concedes that these
Project impacts are
inconsistent with an
Executive Order by the
Governor and other
laws addressing climate
change. However,
instead of addressing
these impacts, which
are deemed significant
and unavoidable the
Draft EIR/EIS proposes
that the impacts be
authorized as is rather
than mitigated.
A. Environmental Issue
B. Outside Scope of
Identified Issues
Remainder of this section
Community Values;
Solar and Renewables

-4-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

77 City of Marina Overrule Community Values

Delgado/Long
78 City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental issue
Delgado/Long B. Outside of Scope of
Identified Issues
79- City of Marina Overrule Community values
87 Delgado/Long Costs
88 City of Marina Overrule except A. environment goes to
Delgado/Long sustain as to environmental issue
environmental Remainder of this section
Community Values
89 City of Marina Overrule Community values
Delgado/Long
90 City of Marina Overrule General Community value
Abrams *correction to on Supply
the record
ruling.
Objection to
item 91 is
sustained see
below.

91- City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental Issue

98 Abrams B. Outside of Parameters
of Identified issues
99- City of Marina Overrule Supply only- not intended to
100 Abrams go to environmental impacts

101- City of Marina Sustain A. Environmental Issue

111 Abrams B. Outside of the Scope of
Identified Issues

-5-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

112 City of Marina 112 Sustain in part Recommendations 1, 2,

Abrams Overrule in part and 4 stricken
A. Environmental
issues
B. Outside Scope of
Identified Issues

Recommendation 3
Supply
113 City of Marina- Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Abrams B. Outside of the Scope of
Identified Issues
MCWD Direct
114 MCWD- Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Hopkins B. Outside of the Scope of
Identified Issues
115- MCWD- Overrule Modifications to
117 Hopkins Settlement
Supply
118 MCWD- Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Hopkins B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
C. Issue Previously
Covered
119 MCWD - Sustain A. Environmental Issue
Hopkins B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
120- MCWD- Overrule Supply
121 Hopkins
122- MCWD- Knight Sustain A. Environmental Issue
128 B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
129- MCMD Van Overrule Supply
142 Der Maaten Demand
Modification to
Settlement

-6-
A.12-04-019 GW2/RWH/DH7/ek4
Evidentiary Hearings October 26 and 27; October 30-31, November 1-3, 2017

143- MCWD- Nelson Overrule Supply

149 Community Values
Water Plus
Direct

150- Water Plus - Overrule

151 Weitzman
152- Water Plus - Sustain A. Environmental Issues
172 Weitzman B. Outside the Scope of
Identified Issues
C. Legal Conclusions

(END OF EXHIBIT 1)

-7-