WEBVTT 1 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.707 Alright, good. 2 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:00:04.707 --> 00:00:22.010 I Almost forgot to wait for the announcement there. Good morning, everyone. We're here today for a status conference in docket number 20 six-00036 in ray joint application of Limestone water Utility operating company LLC and the City of God. 3 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:00:22.010 --> 00:00:53.789 Injunction for approval of the acquisition of and to operate the Salsbury distribution water system and to transfer or issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity. I'm Aaron Conclan, the administrative judge in this docket. The status conference has been scheduled and is is being conducted in accordance with the uniform Administrative Procedures act. And as you've just heard the announcement, the status conference is also being recorded so at this time I'll have the parties give their introductions. 4 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:00:54.464 --> 00:00:58.530 I've got Karen. 5 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:00:58.530 --> 00:01:13.248 Shelina Chattergy Clark Campbell, Vanceboromell, and Nico. Sorry. Yeah, and Rosie's on the line as well. Alright. 6 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:01:13.248 --> 00:01:22.147 Melbourne alone and Jonathan Allen with other snow, behalf of climbstone. 7 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:01:22.147 --> 00:01:56.560 All right. And also note for the record, we have several staff online as well. The purpose of this status conference is to discuss the status of the case and of course to finalize a procedural schedule, which will allow us to address the consumer advocates motion for entry of a procedural schedule and the joint applicant's response as well as the consumer advocates notice of deficiencies and the minimum filing guidelines and motion for extension excuse me, motion to extend time for hearing. Before we talk about the. 8 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:01:56.560 --> 00:02:10.568 Procedural schedule. I want to take a moment to clarify the joint applicant's representation. Mr. Malone, you, do you represent both of the joint applicants Limestone and City of grand junction? Is that right? 9 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:02:10.568 --> 00:02:26.366 I represent Limestone of the grand junction may, they may enter into a co representation agreement or not. That's still in in discussion. 10 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:02:26.366 --> 00:02:45.950 Okay, that was, that was the one of the things I wanted or kind of the thing I wanted to address. We have in other dockets where there are, like this and utility acquisitions where there's co representation, we ask for a joint representation conflict waiver. 11 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:02:45.950 --> 00:03:07.866 To be filed in the docket. So if that, if that is in fact gonna be the case where we have joint representation, if we could get that on file, and the alternative, if there's a city attorney that's gonna enter an appearance on behalf of of grand junction, that would be helpful as well. 12 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:03:07.866 --> 00:03:10.471 Taken care of. 13 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:03:10.471 --> 00:03:28.250 Alright, and you you know helpful and as soon as well on that would be would be great. Alright, I appreciate that and we'll move on to the procedural schedule issue. I'll let everyone know that I have. 14 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:03:28.250 --> 00:04:00.347 Thoroughly read and examined the consumer advocates motion, the joint applicant's response as well as the the filing on the notices of deficiencies and the motion to extend time as well as the response to that filing as well. I want to give the parties an opportunity to present their positions at this point. So we'll hear since it's the consumer advocates motions, and you can discuss both motions and both filings jointly is fine. We'll hear from the consumer advocate. 15 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:04:00.347 --> 00:04:16.770 Thank you, your honor of No we followed a spreadsheet with our motion to reset the clock, on our latest motion. And we can drill down into that and and go and go through that if we need to. I'm holding up a piece of paper, you can't really see it. We've got. 16 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:04:16.770 --> 00:04:36.539 Columns of red, which are bad, Columns of yellow, we've got some other columns that are that are green, some things that we believe are still missing. We respectfully disagree with the company that the minimum of requirements have been agreed with. And we're not aware of any waiver that's been requested or waiver that's been granted by the ALJ or the commission. 17 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:04:36.539 --> 00:04:56.539 So that's something that we are concerned about. We'd like to see those mfrs completely complied with, a larger issue with respect to this is the acquisition adjustment, and I'm gonna use brocheal language that we that we've sometimes used when we take the can down the road and I. 18 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:04:56.539 --> 00:05:19.829 I think a concern that we have is that we have some experience now with kicking the can down the road with this company with livestone. In the right case when we kicked down the can, get the can down the road with the into the right case, you've got what, a dozen transactions that had to be gone through and do the acquisition cost all during that rate case. And that right case. 19 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:05:19.829 --> 00:05:39.829 You know, did not go as smoothly as I think everyone expected it to. It was probably, just as an observer, that was a rough case and I think the order reflects that how much time was spent on the acquisition adjustments. Our concern is now is that we we after. 20 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:05:39.829 --> 00:06:02.009 That experience after the huge amount of the rate increase that's attributable to acquisition adjustments. In a period of time when we're talking about affordability of whether consumers can afford the rates. If we continue to kick the cat down the road on each and every acquisition to the next rate case, it's gonna have another snowball effect. Again, we're gonna have. 21 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:06:02.009 --> 00:06:17.279 Even larger and larger issues with the revenue requirement and it's just gonna have a snowball effect. Now, that consumer advocate, the customers, the commission need to be able to go into these things with their eyes open. 22 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:06:17.279 --> 00:06:33.809 About what the adjustment is going to be. And if we keep kicking the can down the road, we're gonna have more and more problems with affordability. Now, if, you know, again, speaking frokenly, it's. 23 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:06:33.809 --> 00:06:53.809 It's a concern that the company's bitten off more than it can chew. Now, this even costs the commission $4 million to address issues that couldn't be tackled by the company with with respect to just one of their acquisitions. And we've seen a cycle where seeing acquisitions keep concoming and coming and coming. 24 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:06:53.809 --> 00:07:14.328 So again, the mfrs need to be complied with. We need to quick kicking the can down the road and look at these issues now. Wrestle with them now instead of wrestling with them later. They're just gonna I think they're gonna be easier to handle if we wrestle with them now. My final point, make sure I guess I'm missing. 25 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:07:15.008 --> 00:07:33.409 My final point is, Yeah, with the rules, it's it's, there's a shallow there. This has to be required, right? This has to be filed. If you file this type of receiving, you have to file these type of documents. And again, we're not aware of any. 26 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:07:33.409 --> 00:07:37.250 Hey Ryan, can you, can you excuse me, I'm. 27 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:07:37.250 --> 00:07:39.426 Excuse me, Melbourne. 28 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:07:39.426 --> 00:08:05.069 We haven't seen a waiver requested or granted by the commission or the hearing officer. And so they these are our concerns with having additional time. We're all dealing with. I know the staff is dealing with art reg as well with all the deadlines. I think our request is reasonable, it's just simple compliance with mfrs and to have more time to wrestle with these issues and not kick the can down. 29 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:08:05.069 --> 00:08:08.828 Thank you. 30 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:08:08.828 --> 00:08:14.311 Alright, we'll hear from the joint applicants. 31 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:08:14.311 --> 00:08:40.019 Thank you. I won't take time here to address the chart that Ryan held up. We have already done that. And I think when you look at our response, most if not all items identified in that chart, were in fact a part of the original filing. 32 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:08:40.019 --> 00:08:56.309 If there are questions that the consumer advocate have related to the filing and follow up and so forth, those are appropriate for discovery. 33 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:08:56.309 --> 00:09:11.939 And if, if there's a clarification necessary or something the consumer advocate doesn't understand the company's proposal or part and parcel of the company's proposal, there is an avenue and opportunity. 34 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:09:11.939 --> 00:09:29.009 To address any clarifications or misunderstandings and that's via the discovery process. And even though this petition has been filed for quite some time. 35 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:09:29.009 --> 00:09:44.969 The John applicants haven't received any informal or formal requests from the consumer advocate's office. I want to spend most of my time on a phrase that the consumer advocate used. 36 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:09:44.969 --> 00:10:03.059 In its motion and notice and continues to use here this morning, and that is kicking the can down the road. The joint applicants submitted the joint application. 37 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:10:03.059 --> 00:10:19.709 In the same manner that it has previously submitted joint applications, and in particular with respect to the acquisition adjustments in previous dockets. 38 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:10:19.709 --> 00:10:34.949 Involving Limestone. Limestone made it clear that it was not seeking acquisition adjustments, but the consumer advocate requested that. 39 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:10:34.949 --> 00:10:50.579 A Lionstone nonetheless file information related to an acquisition adjustment. And Lionstone did that in previous cases and Lionstone did that in this case. 40 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:10:50.579 --> 00:11:07.589 In previous cases, Limestone and the consumer Advocates office have settled these joint applications with that approach and the commission has approved. 41 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:11:07.589 --> 00:11:22.829 These applications with the same approach that the joint advocance took in this case. So when the consumer advocate talks about kicking the can down the road. 42 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:11:22.829 --> 00:11:38.639 The joint applicants are only doing what they've been directed to do by the commission. And that is to address the acquisition rules and to respond accordingly. 43 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:11:38.639 --> 00:11:54.809 When they are not seeking an adjustment but reserving the possibility or the avenue to seek that in the next rate proceeding, the consumer advocate has signed settlement agreement after settlement agreement over that approach. 44 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:11:54.809 --> 00:12:12.299 And the commission has approved order after order with that approach. So these joint applicants have relied on both the position of the consumer advocate, and orders from the commission. 45 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:12:12.299 --> 00:12:27.959 That not only was this approach, one that the joint applicants could take, but that it was the appropriate approach. If you, I think the consumer advocate referred this morning to. 46 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:12:27.959 --> 00:12:45.419 The right case order. There's nothing in the right case order that directs Limestone to handle acquisition adjustment differently that it has handled them in the past. 47 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:12:45.419 --> 00:13:01.139 And that have been approved in the commission's orders. If the commission wants Limestone to handle those differently, the commission can, can, can guide Limestone to that approach. 48 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:13:01.139 --> 00:13:18.479 But I would think, in this case, it's inappropriate for the consumer advocate to have agreed to this approach on multiple, in multiple dockets, in multiple years, and then all of a sudden say. 49 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:13:18.479 --> 00:13:37.139 This approach is not compliant with the rules. This approach is not consistent with the public interests. This approach kicks the can down the road. The 200 applicants have relied upon the orders of the commission and has in fact complied. 50 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:13:37.139 --> 00:13:54.569 So the consumer advocate says that the company hasn't, the two applicants haven't requested a waiver. There was NO waiver requested in the previous cases that the consumer advocate settled. 51 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:13:54.569 --> 00:14:14.569 And the commission approved because the consumer advocate, and I believe the commission wanted Limestone to address the issues even though it wasn't requesting an acquisition adjustment to set the stage for if an acquisition. 52 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:14:14.569 --> 00:14:36.139 Position adjustment was pursued later and only a couple more points. This approach is not hidden or embedded in the joint application. In every join application that has been submitted by limestone. 53 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:14:36.139 --> 00:14:54.809 Has taken this approach. This information is, is, is disclosed in broad daylight. And in fact, if you look at the settlement agreements that have been entered into between Limestone and the consumer Advocates office. 54 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:14:54.809 --> 00:15:14.669 This very thing is highlighted in each paragraph of those settlement agreements. So for the consumer advocate to file this, this notice of deficiency and to represent to the commission today that what the joint applicant applicants have done. 55 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:15:14.669 --> 00:15:32.969 It's just ignore and run rough shot over the commission's rules is regrettable. Let me close with a with a so therefore, this is not a deficiency. You you can't call something a deficiency. 56 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:15:32.969 --> 00:15:49.619 When you have agreed to a time after time after time and the commission has approved it, it might be many things, but it's not a deficiency. And lastly, let me say this in. 57 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:15:49.619 --> 00:16:07.229 Advocating for its motion and its notice of deficiency, the consumer advocate have raised a number of issues that are not relevant to this joint application. They've raised issues that are relevant in the right case. 58 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:16:07.229 --> 00:16:23.159 And I don't think the consumer advocate filed a reconsideration or an appeal of the commission's rate case order. So to to show up here today and and to start bringing up. 59 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:16:23.159 --> 00:16:41.909 You know, the, the financing agreement, the rate case order, the joint applicants have filed a joint application on an acquisition. They've complied with the commission's rules and the state law, and while the consumer advocate. 60 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:16:41.909 --> 00:17:00.359 May seek a longer schedule. The fact of the matter is disjoint application complies with the rules and the requirements of the commission. In fact, the consumer advocate didn't even raise the notice of notice of deficiency. 61 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:17:00.359 --> 00:17:26.784 Until after the hearing officer advised the parties about the rule and the 120 day deadline, only at that point did we get a notice of deficiency from the consumer advocate in this claim of kicking the can down the road, which is language that isn't upfront to the commission's orders. Thank you. 62 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:17:26.784 --> 00:17:32.966 All right, like this is the consumer motion, so we'll we'll give you the last word. 63 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:17:32.966 --> 00:17:48.539 Just a couple of final thoughts. You know, settlements are made to avoid litigation, right? Save customers money, they're not precedents. Nothing binds our hand if we sign a settlement. 64 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:17:48.539 --> 00:18:06.569 I can imagine the firestorm out I would receive if I, if I tried to hold a utility down while you've signed a settlement two years ago and and this your position's changed. It just wouldn't fly. It wouldn't fly to any courtroom or administrative hearing room in the United States. 65 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:18:06.569 --> 00:18:24.359 You know, as far as the timing, our original motion was just to get more time cause we have deadlines that we're facing just like the staff is facing. But as we looked at it, that's when we came up across. 66 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:18:24.359 --> 00:18:50.848 The deficiency, so as far as the timing that's that's I I own that, but I don't think that undermines our emotion at all. So you're being asked to if you look at the rule, you're being asked to make a determination on the public interests, and I don't think you can close your eyes and hope for the best unless you have all the information that the rule requires. So, with that I'll I'll close it. 67 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:18:50.848 --> 00:19:08.729 Alright, I thank you thank you all for your presentations. You've done a great job of presenting the positions of your respective clients and you should be committed for that. At this time I'm going to, just kind of walk through what. 68 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:19:08.729 --> 00:19:28.729 What the rules have and kind of get get to the point where we can set a procedural schedule going forward. We'll start with rule twelve twenty-04-14-point oh eight one that requires the commission to approve or deny an application for acquisition. 69 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:19:28.729 --> 00:20:00.359 Within 120 days of filing a complete application for good cause this period can be extended by the rule rule to an excuse me, for an additional 60 days. In this docket, the application was filed on April 2420 206a hundred and 20 days after that filing is August 22 of 2026, which each of the parties proposed scheduling schedules extend beyond that date. 70 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:20:00.359 --> 00:20:20.359 Extending the additional 60 days, that's the a hundred and 80 day mark from the date of filing is October 2120 26. We've recognized that the commission does not have a published date for a commission conference, in October of 2026. So this would make the 14 September. 71 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:20:20.359 --> 00:20:54.439 2026 commission conference the closest conference date prior to a deadline counting from the date of filing without consideration of whether it's a completed application or not. The consumer advocate has raised questions concerning whether the minimum filing guidelines relative to utility acquisition cases have been met and argues that the deficiencies were set the clock for calculation of the deadline established in the rule and the joint applicants have responded with some clarifications concerning. 72 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:20:54.439 --> 00:21:24.319 The number of the issues raised and indicates that those deficiencies do not and should not reset the clock. The commission has one other class of of cases that relies upon the calculation of a deadline from the filing of a completed application. Those matters are matters for an application for a CCN for a competing local exchange carrier. 73 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:21:24.319 --> 00:21:44.319 Frankly, the, it's not very a useful comparison. The deadline in that matter is established by statute at 60 days. It's an extremely tight window, and the rules concerning that what's required in the application are pretty. 74 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:21:44.319 --> 00:22:08.239 Straightforward it's is is an element there or not. So it's not really helpful in this matter when there are minimum filing guidelines that, that maybe open to interpretation on whether the provided information meets that or not. So what constitutes a completed application in the utility acquisition rules is not, it's not. 75 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:22:08.239 --> 00:22:36.709 Not defined outside of the inclusion of the minimum filing guidelines and as we've seen from the filings, reasonable minds can differ on whether the requirements of mfgs have been met. So I'm gonna rule on the on the motion for a procedural schedule on other grounds and decline to rule on whether the joint application was complete on 24 April 2026 when it was filed or sometime later. Instead, I'm going to look at. 76 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:22:36.709 --> 00:22:52.559 The demands of the, the on commission staff, we have a number of dockets with deadlines at or near the September commission conference date. And as, everyone on this call knows, we've had. 77 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:22:52.559 --> 00:23:12.559 A number of dockets that are reaching or have recently reached, their their deadlines and are currently in the schedule pipeline for scheduling or have just recently been completed. Commission staff re. 78 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:23:12.559 --> 00:23:28.109 Resources are, are strained due to staffing issues. The strain on the resources makes it difficult to complete the analysis required to have this docket prepared for a September hearing. 79 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:23:28.109 --> 00:23:48.109 So I'm gonna exercise the authority of rule twelve twenty-01-01- .05, which permits the commission to waive the requirements of any rule, to waive the deadline established in rule twelve twenty-oh four-14-point. 80 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:23:48.109 --> 00:24:10.079 Point to zero eight, and I'm going to set this matter for a targeted hearing date of November second 2026 at the commission conference scheduled for that date. Working backward from that, that puts our settlement deadline at October twelve. 81 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:24:10.079 --> 00:24:30.079 2026, which is 21 days prior to that hearing. We can use the the general outline many many, a couple of the dates have been passed in the original proposed schedule from the consumer advocates, so we're, we're gonna do. 82 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:24:30.079 --> 00:24:46.305 To tweak that a little bit, we'll go back to 1st discovery request. I was looking quickly at the docket, correct me if I'm wrong, but the consumer advocate has not issued its 1st discovery request at this point. Is that correct? 83 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:24:46.305 --> 00:24:48.568 No, sir, we have not. 84 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:24:48.568 --> 00:25:08.269 Okay, let's do that by 9 July if we can Limestone can respond to those by 30 July, then we can turn around for a second discovery request by the. 85 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:25:08.269 --> 00:25:32.089 Consumer advocate on 6 August with responses from the joint applicants on 20 August. I think 10 September will be a good date for consumer advocates pre filed testimony. And at this point I'll ask. 86 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:25:32.089 --> 00:25:47.385 Because the consumer advocates schedule did not include discovery from the joint applicants. Mr. Malone, do you anticipate that you will need a discovery requests to the consumer advocate? 87 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:25:47.385 --> 00:25:55.490 I don't know. It depends on how the case unfalls. I think we ought to include it in the schedule. 88 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:25:55.490 --> 00:26:11.819 Let's let's include that then let's see following let's see, we were at 10 September for the consumer advocates pre filed testimony. Let's set. 89 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:26:11.819 --> 00:26:29.579 Sip 17 September for discovery from the joint applicants with responses let me look at my calendar. I can't read what I wrote there. 90 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:26:29.579 --> 00:26:52.079 Oh. Let's see Response is 1 October, and rebuttal testimony on. 91 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:26:52.079 --> 00:27:12.079 8 October, and then that gets us to the settlement deadline of 12 October, and we will keep the pre hearing motions and status conference, pre hearing status conference on the dates that were in the. 92 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:27:12.079 --> 00:27:39.531 Consumer advocates proposed schedule, that's October 16 promotions and October 22 for the status conference and that gets us to November second for the hearing date. Any questions or any, any, any tweaks that looking at your calendars we might might need to make to that? 93 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:27:39.531 --> 00:27:57.329 I have a question, the way the schedule unfalls sumer Advocate will have had our testimony since April and so has a fair amount of time to prepare. 94 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:27:57.329 --> 00:28:27.166 Their testimony. I'm wondering if another week could be added to our opportunity to respond to that because we we will not have had their testimony for nearly as long and we we don't know what that testimony will be at the at this stage, and I realized they have to incorporate discovery and so forth, but, but still I think a more equitable schedule would, would give us an additional week. 95 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:28:27.166 --> 00:28:43.450 Well, I mean advocate didn't have, we don't know what our testimony's gonna be either. We haven't done discovery. You know, the whole reason of our our motion or initial motion is because we haven't had time to look at this document. I just just want to point that out for the record for any kind of changes made. 96 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:28:43.450 --> 00:28:57.247 Mr. Merloan, are you referring to the time period between the filing of the testimony and the, the date for discovery requests? 97 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:28:57.247 --> 00:29:03.366 Yeah, from, from that date. Okay. 98 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:29:03.869 --> 00:29:16.289 Let me, let me get my calendar back open here. 99 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:29:16.289 --> 00:29:31.439 Let's see. September ten is the date for the consumer advocates testimony and we have the 17th there for. 100 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:29:31.439 --> 00:29:50.369 If we push that to 09:24 for the requests responses, then get pushed to. 101 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:29:56.226 --> 00:30:10.265 I'm I'm ok with the with the date for the drs of the 17th and the responses on the, on the 1st. I I just think somehow that we should we should. 102 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:30:10.265 --> 00:30:24.710 Giving us another week, and I don't know how that go ahead. 103 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:30:24.710 --> 00:30:35.810 My my question is you you're fine with the the date for the discovery requests and responses. Is it the testimony that you're looking for another week for then? 104 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:30:35.810 --> 00:30:38.788 Yes. 105 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:30:38.788 --> 00:30:45.829 And to clarify, is that filing of your testimony? So currently that's ten eight. Okay. 106 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:30:45.829 --> 00:30:48.450 Okay right. Another week puts us at. 107 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:30:48.450 --> 00:31:03.770 15 October, which is after the settlement deadline, which which is is fine if that's fine with you guys. Yes. 108 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:31:03.770 --> 00:31:23.449 Well, that usually does not work, because usually Intervenos want to see the revertal testimony before they engage in in settlement discussions. 109 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:31:27.291 --> 00:31:30.949 The willing to move our. 110 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:31:30.949 --> 00:31:44.650 Testimony date or drs request. So if all that's left for you to have your extra week is to have settlement due at the same time as your rebuttal, then that's just where it needs to go. 111 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1222010880) 00:31:47.488 --> 00:32:15.811 Well, now that Karen's in control with the schedule, I think maybe we, maybe you need to look at the whole schedule because all I'm asking for is equitable time between the submission of the consumer advocates testimony and the submission of our testimony. Given the Thank you pardon. I said I'm fine with giving you another. 112 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:32:15.811 --> 00:32:28.608 Week, we're just saying the settlement agreement will have to be due at the same time as rebuttal, which has happened in other dockets. So it's not unusual, it's not unheard of. 113 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:32:32.290 --> 00:32:48.069 And in other cases, we've actually worked out a settlement where the resolution of the settlement was handled in the rebuttal testimony of the company, so it's not that it's not possible Melvin. 114 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:32:48.069 --> 00:33:06.649 Let me ask this question original in the original schedule that the consumer advocate filed discovery requests were gonna be issued on 18 June, which was. 115 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:33:06.649 --> 00:33:28.291 Oh, about ten days ago, is, is it possible to have those issued I hate to push them back too much further cause we have a holiday week on the 7th. 116 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:33:28.291 --> 00:33:48.068 I don't think so. We have lots of drs that are due this week. We have a holiday on Friday and you're giving us less than a week from your decision that we are now gonna have this, we are now having this procedural schedule when we still disagree that they have given us all the information. 117 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:33:50.630 --> 00:33:58.789 So we are definitely gonna have to revise what we are going to say because we still don't have sufficient information. 118 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:33:59.647 --> 00:34:25.589 Alright, I'm I'm I'm gonna do this I'm gonna, it it doesn't give much more time, but I'm gonna set the joint applicant's testimony date on the same date as the settlement deadline date, so that would be 12 October. 119 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:34:25.589 --> 00:34:44.159 If there's an opportunity to resolve, hopefully the parties can, work through that as they as the joint applicants examines their, their, pre filed testimony. 120 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:34:44.159 --> 00:35:00.899 If, if this this schedule becomes unworkable for whatever reason, then please, please request another status conference, and we can revisit it. 121 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:35:00.899 --> 00:35:20.899 We we've already waived the, for, for good cause, we've we've already waived the, the deadline counting from the date of filing. So if, if further good cause exists this for us to push it out farther. 122 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:35:20.899 --> 00:35:47.149 We can revisit it. I'd rather not do that, but if it's absolutely necessary, we will revisit it. Melbourne I apolo I apologize that you know given a week doesn't doesn't seem possible with the with the settlement deadline lying where it does. But I I think there's. 123 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:35:47.149 --> 00:36:11.239 Room there to, to get everything we need done, in that time period. I know that there may also be some drs from commission staff as well, somewhere in this process. So, those will, those will come where they, they, where they may and that may help clarify issues for all parties as well, so. 124 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:36:11.239 --> 00:36:21.029 Any, any other questions or or comments? 125 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:36:21.029 --> 00:36:23.389 No, sir. 126 "Aaron Conklin" (2121829376) 00:36:25.786 --> 00:36:58.691 Alright, well I'll get this on on paper for everyone and, and give it out as soon as possible. I anticipate that I'll have it on have it in the docket file by before we get to the holiday so that everyone has, has it to look at and put on their calendars. So I appreciate everyone's willingness to get together and for your presentations today today, I, I appreciate the hard work you guys do every day. So, at this point we'll be adjourned. Thank you everybody. 127 "Nico Orantes" (1705683200) 00:36:58.691 --> 00:37:02.819 Thank you. Thank you.