Alright, good.
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.
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.
I've got Karen.
Shelina Chattergy Clark Campbell, Vanceboromell, and Nico. Sorry. Yeah, and Rosie's on the line as well. Alright.
Melbourne alone and Jonathan Allen with other snow, behalf of climbstone.
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.
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?
I represent Limestone of the grand junction may, they may enter into a co representation agreement or not. That's still in in discussion.
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.
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.
Taken care of.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey Ryan, can you, can you excuse me, I'm.
Excuse me, Melbourne.
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.
Thank you.
Alright, we'll hear from the joint applicants.
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.
If there are questions that the consumer advocate have related to the filing and follow up and so forth, those are appropriate for discovery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the same manner that it has previously submitted joint applications, and in particular with respect to the acquisition adjustments in previous dockets.
Involving Limestone. Limestone made it clear that it was not seeking acquisition adjustments, but the consumer advocate requested that.
A Lionstone nonetheless file information related to an acquisition adjustment. And Lionstone did that in previous cases and Lionstone did that in this case.
In previous cases, Limestone and the consumer Advocates office have settled these joint applications with that approach and the commission has approved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All right, like this is the consumer motion, so we'll we'll give you the last word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No, sir, we have not.
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.
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.
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?
I don't know. It depends on how the case unfalls. I think we ought to include it in the schedule.
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.
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.
Oh. Let's see Response is 1 October, and rebuttal testimony on.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Merloan, are you referring to the time period between the filing of the testimony and the, the date for discovery requests?
Yeah, from, from that date. Okay.
Let me, let me get my calendar back open here.
Let's see. September ten is the date for the consumer advocates testimony and we have the 17th there for.
If we push that to 09:24 for the requests responses, then get pushed to.
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.
Giving us another week, and I don't know how that go ahead.
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?
Yes.
And to clarify, is that filing of your testimony? So currently that's ten eight. Okay.
Okay right. Another week puts us at.
15 October, which is after the settlement deadline, which which is is fine if that's fine with you guys. Yes.
Well, that usually does not work, because usually Intervenos want to see the revertal testimony before they engage in in settlement discussions.
The willing to move our.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So we are definitely gonna have to revise what we are going to say because we still don't have sufficient information.
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.
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.
If, if this this schedule becomes unworkable for whatever reason, then please, please request another status conference, and we can revisit it.
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.
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.
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.
Any, any other questions or or comments?
No, sir.
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.
Thank you. Thank you.