Comments on Draft Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________________, and reply comments were filed on ________________.
1. The Commission requires each Class A and Class B utility to file a WMP in its general rate case proceeding, which is typically filed every three years.
2. The WMP evaluates the long-term demand for water and water supplies and conservation programs available to meet that demand.
3. Water companies may seek to expand their service areas through advice letter filings.
4. The Commission requires water companies to prove the adequacy of supply prior to receiving authorization to serve additional areas.
5. The Commission has previously determined that Valencia has sufficient supply to serve its current customers in its approved service territory.
6. Valencia bears the burden of proving that it has adequate supplies to serve customers in any proposed additional service area.
7. The Commission adjudicates the extension of a utility's service territory and assures itself that adequate water is available to meet demand.
8. In Resolution W-4154, the Commission ordered Valencia to file an updated WMP by January 3, 2000, to enable the Commission and all interested parties to evaluate the effects of further expansion of its service area on its water supply.
9. On March 20, 2000, Valencia filed AL 88 seeking authority to expand its service area to serve 1,735 new dwelling units.
10. The Commission's approval of advice letters, including AL 88, can only occur after Commission approval of Valencia's WMP.
11. Given the interrelationship between the WMP and AL 88, the two filings need to be considered together in the analysis of whether there is a project under CEQA and whether there is an applicable exemption from CEQA.
1. The Commission's review and approval of Valencia's WMP and AL 88 is a project for CEQA purposes.
2. Approval of Valencia's WMP and AL 88 requires discretionary approval.
3. Approval of Valencia's WMP is an essential step in the approval of subsequent advice letters.
4. Expansion of Valencia's service area pursuant to the WMP and AL 88 has the potential to create a significant environmental impact.
5. The WMP is not exempt from CEQA review as a planning study for possible future actions.
6. The WMP is not exempt from CEQA as an Urban Water Management Plan.
7. The WMP is not exempt from CEQA as a ratesetting proceeding.
8. The record in this proceeding is not sufficient to determine the proper scope of the environmental review the Commission must perform.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Valencia Water Company (Valencia) shall file a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) consistent with Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which addresses the service area extensions proposed in the WMP and Advice Letter (AL) 88. Valencia shall file the PEA with the Commission within 60 days of the date of this order. Valencia shall also submit a copy of the revised Newhall Ranch Development Environmental Impact Report as soon as that document becomes available from Los Angeles County.
2. The assigned Administrative Law Judge shall take the necessary steps to include a California Environmental Quality Act review of AL 88 in this proceeding.
3. This proceeding shall remain open to address Valencia's 1999 WMP and AL 88.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
