Comments on the Draft Decision
The draft decision of ALJ Victor Ryerson in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code Section 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules and Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on _____________, and reply comments were filed on _____________.
1. By joint motion the parties have asked the Commission to adopt a written settlement agreement to resolve issues raised by the amended application, and by Blue & Gold's protest thereto.
2. The written settlement agreement would conclude this application proceeding by granting applicant Marine Services a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to operate scheduled and on-call vessel common carrier services between points yet to be designated on San Francisco Bay and its tributary waters under contract(s) with governmental agencies or private entities.
3. The settlement agreement contains no limitation on the number of vessels or services that Marine Services could commence to operate under the authority of the CPCN.
4. The settlement agreement contains no limitation on the length of time within which Marine Services could commence the operation of vessel common carrier services under the authority of the CPCN.
5. The settlement agreement would automatically entitle the protestant and any other qualified vessel common carrier to institute service on the same terms and conditions as Marine Services, i.e., without limitations on the time or number of operations on the time in which they may be commenced.
6. The settlement agreement purports to bind the Commission to adopt new certificating procedures of a general nature, and to grant other relief beyond the scope of the application.
7. The settlement agreement extends to substantive issues which may come before the Commission in other or future proceedings.
8. The settlement agreement purports to bind the Commission to grant authority to operate entirely new vessel services without conducting any review of the potential environmental effects of those services.
1. The settlement agreement is overbroad.
2. Carrying out the terms of the settlement agreement would negate certain of the Commission's constitutional and statutory regulatory responsibilities.
3. Carrying out the terms of the settlement agreement could amount to rulemaking without due process.
4. Carrying out the terms of the settlement agreement would violate our Rule 51.1(a).
5. Carrying out the terms of the settlement agreement could violate the California Environmental Quality Act.
6. The settlement agreement should not be approved in its present form.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The joint motion of Marine Services Express, Inc. (applicant), and Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. (protestant) to apply our settlement rules (Rules of Practice and Procedure 51 et seq.) to this proceeding is granted.
2. The joint motion of applicant and protestant to adopt their written settlement agreement dated August 10, 2000, is denied.
3. Applicant and protestant shall have 60 days from the effective date of this order to renegotiate their settlement agreement so as to be consistent with the guidelines set forth in our opinion, and to resubmit their revised settlement to us for approval. Alternatively, the applicant may revise its application by such date.
4. If no action is taken in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the application shall be dismissed.
This order is effective immediately.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
