Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 5.1 In May 2016, the Bellflower City Council approved a request for proposal to seek bids for the purchase of Bellflower Municipal. The City received four responses, including one from California American Water. A citywide election then occurred, where voters approved the decision to sell Bellflower Municipal to California American Water. In September 2018, California American Water filed its initial Application. Cal Advocates filed a protest in October 2018. Following the January 7, 2019 Prehearing Conference, California American Water filed an Amended Application on January 22, 2019. In April 2019, the Commission issued a Scoping Memorandum,6 which was followed by a public 4 Quoting the Amended Application, pp. 2-4. 5 Asset Purchase Agreement, at Section 3. 6 xxxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M281/K394/281394942.PDF. participation hearing in May 2019.7 The Commission held evidentiary hearings on June 5 and 6, 2019, followed by the submission of Opening and Reply Briefs. On March 30, 2020, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision Denying the Application (“Proposed Decision”).8 Following issuance of the Proposed Decision, ex parte meetings took place between all parties and Commissioners and/or Commissioners’ staff. In June 2020, all parties filed Comments on the Proposed Decision, and in July 2020, all parties filed Reply Comments. On July 8, 2020, California American Water filed a Motion to Reopen the Record.9 The Public Advocates Office opposed the Motion to Reopen the Record.10 On August 5, 2020, the Commission granted the Motion to Reopen the Record and ordered California American Water to submit further valuation evidence and ordered all parties to engage in settlement discussions.11 That ruling was subsequently amended twice to, among other things, provide clarity on the procedure for California American Water to provide additional evidence.12 In July 2021, California American Water provided supplemental direct testimony that included a condition-based assessment and a system valuation.13 As of the date of this Settlement Agreement, Cal Advocates has not conducted discovery related to California American Water’s supplemental direct testimony. All parties elected to focus their efforts on settlement discussion with the assistance of an Administrative Law Judge assigned to facilitate Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 5.1 In May 2016On December 14, 2021, PG&E filed the Bellflower City Council approved a request for proposal Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2021 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, A.00-00-000 (“2021 NDCTP Application”). A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, SLO County, TURN and WEM each filed timely protests or responses to seek bids for the purchase of Bellflower Municipal2021 NDCTP Application, to which PG&E responded on January 24, 2022. The City received four responses, including one from Southern California American Water. A citywide election then occurred, where voters approved the decision to sell Bellflower Municipal to California American Water. In September 2018, California American Water filed its initial Application. Cal Advocates Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a protest in October 2018motion for party status on February 15, 2022. Following During the January 7telephonic prehearing conference held on February 17, 2019 Prehearing Conference2022, California American Water filed an Amended Application on January 22, 2019. In April 2019, the Commission issued a Scoping Memorandum,6 which was followed by a public 4 Quoting the Amended Application, pp. 2-4. 5 Asset Purchase Agreement, at Section 3. 6 xxxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M281/K394/281394942.PDF. participation hearing in May 2019.7 The Commission held evidentiary hearings on June 5 and 6, 2019, followed by the submission of Opening and Reply Briefs. On March 30, 2020, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision Denying the Application (“Proposed Decision”).8 Following issuance ALJ”) Xxxxx granted party status to SCE and to DHK. At the prehearing conference the parties specified issues agreed to be within the scope of proceeding, and those issues lacking consensus as to whether they were appropriately included within the scope of the Proposed Decisionproceeding. On April 19, ex parte meetings took place between all parties 2022, Commissioner Xxxxx issued the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Commissioners Ruling (“Scoping Memo”) which established the issues to be considered in the 2021 NDCTP. The Scoping Memo also requested comments on (1) whether the 2021 NDCTP should be consolidated with A.00-00-000, the Joint Application of SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the 2021 NDCTP (“SONGS NDCTP”); and (2) whether the Commission should conduct a site visit and/or Commissioners’ staffpublic participation hearing for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”). In June 2020PG&E, all parties TURN, SCE, NCTC, SLO County, WEM and A4NR each filed Comments comments on the Proposed DecisionScoping Memo on April 29, 2022.1 yak tityu tityu yak tilhini Northern Chumash Cultural Preservation Kinship (“YTT Kinship”) and Xxxxx Xxxxx moved for party status on March 7, 2022, and in July 2020April 22, all respectively; these motions were granted by email ruling on May 20, 2022. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates. To enhance their understanding of the issues, the Settling Parties submitted, and PG&E responded to, a substantial number of data requests. On May 31, 2022, A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, TURN SLO County, and WEM each served direct testimony. PG&E served rebuttal testimony addressing the issues raised by those parties who filed Reply Commentsdirect testimony on June 30, 2022. On July 87, 20202022, California American Water filed a Motion to Reopen the Record.9 The Public Advocates Office opposed the Motion to Reopen the Record.10 On August 5, 2020, the Commission granted the Motion to Reopen the Record and ordered California American Water to submit further valuation evidence and ordered all parties to engage in settlement discussions.11 That ruling was subsequently amended twice to, among other things, provide clarity on the procedure for California American Water to provide additional evidence.12 In July 2021, California American Water provided supplemental direct testimony that included a condition-based assessment and a system valuation.13 As of the date of this Settlement Agreement, Cal Advocates has not conducted discovery related to California American Water’s supplemental direct testimony. All parties elected to focus their efforts on settlement discussion with the assistance of XXX Xxxxx issued an Administrative Law Judge assigned Judge’s Ruling Noticing Date and Time of Public Participation Hearing and Authorizing PG&E to facilitate Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”Deviate from The Notice Requirement Timelines of Rule 13.1(b).. On August 10, 2022, XXX Xxxxx canceled the public participation hearing,2 and subsequently rescheduled public participation hearings for January 26 and 31, 2023.3

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 5.1 In May 2016On December 14, 2021, PG&E filed the Bellflower City Council approved a request for proposal Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2021 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, A.00-00-000 (“2021 NDCTP Application”). A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, SLO County, TURN and WEM each filed timely protests or responses to seek bids for the purchase of Bellflower Municipal2021 NDCTP Application, to which PG&E responded on January 24, 2022. The City received four responses, including one from Southern California American Water. A citywide election then occurred, where voters approved the decision to sell Bellflower Municipal to California American Water. In September 2018, California American Water filed its initial Application. Cal Advocates Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a protest in October 2018motion for party status on February 15, 2022. Following During the January 7telephonic prehearing conference held on February 17, 2019 Prehearing Conference2022, California American Water filed an Amended Application on January 22, 2019. In April 2019, the Commission issued a Scoping Memorandum,6 which was followed by a public 4 Quoting the Amended Application, pp. 2-4. 5 Asset Purchase Agreement, at Section 3. 6 xxxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M281/K394/281394942.PDF. participation hearing in May 2019.7 The Commission held evidentiary hearings on June 5 and 6, 2019, followed by the submission of Opening and Reply Briefs. On March 30, 2020, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision Denying the Application (“Proposed Decision”).8 Following issuance ALJ”) Xxxxx granted party status to SCE and to DHK. At the prehearing conference the parties specified issues agreed to be within the scope of proceeding, and those issues lacking consensus as to whether they were appropriately included within the scope of this proceeding. On April 19, 2022, Commissioner Xxxxx issued the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (“Scoping Memo”) which established the issues to be considered in the 2021 NDCTP. The Scoping Memo also requested comments on (1) whether the 2021 NDCTP should be consolidated with A.00-00-000, the Joint Application of SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the 2021 NDCTP (“SONGS NDCTP”); and (2) whether the Commission should conduct a site visit and/or public participation hearing for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”). PG&E, TURN, SCE, NCTC, SLO County, WEM and A4NR each filed comments on the Scoping Memo on April 29, 2022.1/ yak tityu yak tilhini Northern Chumash Cultural Preservation Kinship (“YTT Kinship”) and Xxxxx Xxxxx moved for party status on March 7, 2022, and April 22, respectively; these motions were granted by email ruling on May 20, 2022. 1/ The Commission elected not to consolidate PG&E's NDCTP with the SONGS NDCTP in Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling issued on May 24, 2022, in A.00-00-000. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates (“DCEs”). To enhance their understanding of the Proposed Decisionissues, ex parte meetings took place between all parties and Commissioners and/or Commissioners’ staff. In June 2020, all parties filed Comments on the Proposed DecisionSettling Parties submitted, and in July 2020PG&E responded to, all a substantial number of data requests. On May 31, 2022, A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, TURN, SLO County, and WEM each served direct testimony. PG&E served rebuttal testimony addressing the issues raised by those parties who filed Reply Commentsdirect testimony on June 30, 2022. On July 87, 20202022, California American Water filed a Motion to Reopen the Record.9 The Public Advocates Office opposed the Motion to Reopen the Record.10 On August 5, 2020, the Commission granted the Motion to Reopen the Record and ordered California American Water to submit further valuation evidence and ordered all parties to engage in settlement discussions.11 That ruling was subsequently amended twice to, among other things, provide clarity on the procedure for California American Water to provide additional evidence.12 In July 2021, California American Water provided supplemental direct testimony that included a condition-based assessment and a system valuation.13 As of the date of this Settlement Agreement, Cal Advocates has not conducted discovery related to California American Water’s supplemental direct testimony. All parties elected to focus their efforts on settlement discussion with the assistance of XXX Xxxxx issued an Administrative Law Judge assigned Judge’s Ruling Noticing Date and Time of Public Participation Hearing and Authorizing PG&E to facilitate Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”Deviate from The Notice Requirement Timelines of Rule 13.1(b).. On August 10, 2022, XXX Xxxxx canceled the public participation hearing,2/ and subsequently rescheduled public participation hearings for January 26 and 31, 2023.3/