STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

October 20, 2000

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN INVESTIGATION 98-03-013

This is the revised draft decision of Commissioner Duque dealing with the award of attorneys' fees to California-American Water Company. Since the revision is substantive, the Commission is again circulating the document for public review and comments.

When the Commission acts on the revised draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.

Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the revised draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are newly revised, effective April 24, 2000, so please read them carefully and note the filing dates, the limitations on content of comments, and the requirement of service on all other parties. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Since parties have already commented on all other matters, this round of comments is limited to the revisions in this revised draft decision. Finally, comments must be served separately on the Administrative Law Judge and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.

/s/ LYNN T. CAREW

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

LTC:eap

Attachments

Decision REVISED DRAFT DECISION OF COMMISSIONER DUQUE
(Mailed 10/20/2000)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Investigation on the Commission's own motion into whether existing standards policies of the Commission regarding drinking water quality adequately protect the public health and safety with respect to contaminants such as Volatile Organic Compounds, Perchlorate, MTBE, and whether those Standards and policies are being Uniformly compiled with by Commission regulated utilities.

Investigation 98-03-013 (Filed March 12, 1998)

FINAL OPINION RESOLVING
MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND

MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM PROCEEDING

Table of Contents

Title Page

FINAL OPINION RESOLVING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND 1

MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM PROCEEDING 1

I. Background 2

II. Motion of Cal-Am to Compel Compliance With Prior Discovery Ruling and to Award Sanctions 3

A. Response of the EL&L Group 6

B. Responses Supporting Cal-Am's Motion 9

C. Discussion 11

III. Suburban's Motion to Compel Answers to Data Requests 17

A. RK&M Response 18

B. Discussion 18

IV. The Motions to Withdraw by the EL&L Group and RK&M 19

A. Opposition to the Purported Withdrawal of EL&L 20

B. Opposition to the Purported Withdrawal of RK&M 23

C. Discussion 24

D. Conclusions 28

V. Comments on Draft Decision 29

Findings of Fact Error! Bookmark not defined.

Conclusions of Law Error! Bookmark not defined.

O R D E R 33

I. Background

Two prior opinions have been rendered in this proceeding, Decision (D.) 99-06-054 resolving jurisdiction, as modified on rehearing by D.99-09-073, and D. _________, resolving water quality issues. This third final decision resolves pending motions and closes this proceeding.

After the close of the taking of evidence in this proceeding, four motions were filed. The EL&L Group¹ and Rose, Klein and Marias (RK&M) filed pleadings that requested, in effect, that these law firms be allowed to withdraw as parties to this proceeding. Shortly after the EL&L and RK&M filings, California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) filed a motion to compel the EL&L Group to comply with that portion of the May 3 Scoping Memo which had ordered the EL&L Group to answer Cal-Am's data requests. Finally, Suburban Water Systems (Suburban) filed a motion to compel RK&M to answer the additional questions set forth by the Assigned Commissioner in the May 3 Scoping Memo.

Parties opposing the requests to withdraw by the EL&L Group and RK&M indicated that one basis for their opposition was that none of the law firms had answered any of the data requests propounded by other parties (and similar questions posed by the Commission) seeking to determine the factual basis for the firms' allegations that the regulated utilities had violated safe drinking water regulations and caused injury to customers. Thus, in their responses to the firms' motions to withdraw, many parties addressed both the discovery and withdrawal issues.

Since the alleged noncompliance with the discovery order occurred first, the discussion below addresses the motions to compel before considering the question of withdrawal. We have done this in the interest of providing a comprehensible discussion of the many arguments that the parties have made regarding both issues.