14.D. PG Agha-MLCP Agreement OCR Document

7/31/2019 14.D. PG Agha-MLCP Agreement OCR Document

1/23

Regular Agenda Item No. 14DAdministrative Report


2/23



3/23



4/23



5/23



6/23



7/23



8/23

Regular Agenda Item No. 14DAttachment 1


9/23



10/23



11/23



12/23



13/23



14/23



15/23



16/23



17/23

Monterey County HeraldLetter to the EditorJune 12, 2012:

Agha opposes Narigi on panel

I am concerned that the Technical Advisory Committee of the mayors joint powers agency is too little

technical and too much political.

It is one thing to have George Riley on it, a student of water issues and stimulant for addressing

important policy questions. But it is quite another to have John Narigi on it, the political kingpin for the

hospitality industry. He is not a water expert. He has been making biased bureaucratic comments about

my Peoples desalination project and our list of questions that was answered with the help of the best

engineers and consultants.

The Peoples Project has received a great evaluation from the independent consultant with the ultimate

findings of no fatal flaws. Narigis history on water is essentially political and he has acknowledged his

preference for the Cal Am proposal in public. He is also known to be closely connected to the DeepWater Desal. How do you expect an objective evaluation of the desal proposals with his inexperience

and inability to make an educated independent evaluation? His project preferences are widely known.

I am concerned that the Peoples Project will not get a fair hearing. I believe he should recuse himse lf

because in our opinion he does not stand for the best interest of the ratepayers. This is clear due to his

bias toward Cal Am, which made a deal to reduce his groups water rate and push the burden towards

ratepayers.

Nader Agha

Pacific Grove



18/23

City of Pacific Grove Prehearing Conference Statement

A.12-04-019

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American ) Application 12-04-019

Water Company (U210W) for Approval ) (Filed April 23, 2012)of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply )

Project and Authorization to Recover )

All Present and Future Costs in Rates )____________________________________)

PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

Thomas FrutcheyCity Manager

City of Pacific Grove

300 Forest AvenuePacific Grove, CA 93950

Telephone: (831) 648-3181

Facsimile: (831) 657-9361

Email: [email protected]

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

June 4, 2012



19/23

City of Pacific Grove Prehearing Conference Statement

A.12-04-019

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of California-American ) Application 12-04-019

Water Company (U210W) for Approval ) (Filed April 23, 2012)of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply )

Project and Authorization to Recover )

All Present and Future Costs in Rates )____________________________________)

PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT

OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

Introduction

The City of Pacific Grove (City) hereby submits its Prehearing Conference Statement for

the scheduled June 6, 2012 Prehearing Conference in accord with Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) Weatherfords Ruling of May 11, 2012, and Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Practice and

Procedure (Rules) of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission).

Issues to Define the Scope of the Hearing

The City believes there are a number of issues worthy of in-depth analysis. However,

rather than repeat issues already identified by other interveners, including the Monterey

Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA), of which the City is a member, the City

identifies here only the following additional issues it requests be addressed in the hearing:

Development of a desalination projectas one major component of the Projectappears

necessary. In order to best serve the ratepayers, and maximize the chances that the replacement

water is available on time, the City believes that the principal competitive project proposals must



20/23

Page 2

all be vetted using four main criteria: technical feasibility; on-time deliverability; cost to

ratepayers; and governance.

Given the likely costs of the water generated by one or more of the three major

components of the proposed project will represent a significant increase over current costs and

require a significant increase in rates, small projects that were previously rejected should be re-

examined, as they may now be cost-competitive. Examination of small projects should not

provide a basis to delay approval or delivery of the proposed project, but may offer opportunities

to reduce its scale or cost provided those alternates are achievable in a timely manner. The City

is prepared to discuss one or more small project opportunities that appear promising.

The lack of any role for representatives of local ratepayers in governance is still a matter

of concern. Such a role can be accomplished through either a public partner or through the

ongoing decision-making structure. A public partner may insulate the risk of operational

disruptions and public health impacts, may ensure the lowest cost financing and thereby

minimize rate impacts, and may best address concerns over growth inducement. Involving the

cities in ongoing Project decision-making ensures that the ratepayers interests are represented,

and such interests adequately balance the interests of investors. We believe that such public

involvement in governance must include binding applicationas to the projects design, financing,

construction, and operation.

The Project faces a number of actual and potential legal hurdles that create risk of

litigation and delay. The Commission is uniquely able to design a review and approval process



21/23

Page 3

that enables collaboration and compromise among the various parties to address outstanding

issues, develop mutually acceptable solutions, and minimize litigation risk.

Workshop

In view of the complexities of the issues and need for timely resolution, the City supports

holding a workshop, preferably in Monterey County, which will tend to increase participation of

local interested parties and their acceptance of developed solutions.

Settlement

The City is willing to participate in settlement discussions, with or without mediation,

and is committed to ensuring they are productive.

Schedule

The proposed schedule does not identify the timing of environmental review. A

completed environmental review, including public comments and responses, is critical to

formulation of mitigation and alternatives, which may constrain the selection and costs of the

options available for evaluation in the formal proceedings. In order to ensure that environmental

considerations are incorporated into the formal proceedings, a final environmental document

should be published before testimony and evidentiary hearings.

Conclusion

The City looks forward to working with all interested parties to achieve the best and most

timely solution for the Monterey Peninsula.



22/23

Page 4

Dated: June 4, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Thomas Frutchey

Thomas Frutchey

City ManagerCity of Pacific Grove

300 Forest Avenue

Pacific Grove, CA 93950



23/23


Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	l-a-paterson
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

14.D. PG Agha-MLCP Agreement OCR Document

Documents