WEBVTT 1 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:00:03.081 --> 00:00:21.770 Alright, looks like we have everyone here. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll call us to order. We're here today in docket number 20 six-00070. In ray petition of Limestone water utility office. 2 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:00:21.770 --> 00:00:41.770 Operating company LLC to elect and opt into an annual rate review mechanism and arm tariff pursuant to tennessee code annotated section 60 five-five-one oh 3D6. I'm Aaron Conquinn, the administrative judge assigned to this docket. The purpose of this proceeding today is to hear. 3 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:00:41.770 --> 00:00:55.721 No argument on the consumer advocates motion to dismiss limestone's petition for arm as premature. As you've just heard, this proceeding is being recorded on Webex. At this point I'll ask the parties to introduce themselves for the record. 4 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:00:55.721 --> 00:01:09.165 Vans Romeo with the consumer Advocate division of the Tennessee Attorney General. Sheilena Brown with the consumer advocate division. 5 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:01:09.165 --> 00:01:15.141 Melbourne along with Butler Snow. 6 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:01:15.141 --> 00:01:41.962 All right, that, that's all of our attorneys that are assigned in this that we'll be arguing today. Looks like we're ready to proceed with oral argument. Just for procedure purposes, we'll hear from the consumer advocate, then we'll hear limestone's response. And as the final word goes to the moving party, we'll hear a brief reply then from the consumer advocate. So we are ready for the consumer advocate. You can proceed. 7 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:01:41.962 --> 00:02:02.000 Thank you. May please the court I'm Vance Bowmell with the consumer advocate Division of the Tennessee Attorney Jungle, and this is the consumer advocates motion to dismiss limestone's petition to opt in and elect and arm. 8 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:26.330 Or an annual rate review mechanism. Our argument is very simple and direct. Limestone should not be allowed to apply for an arm and elect an arm until a final order has been issued in the case upon which Limestone is basing the calculations, the methodologies underline the arm. 9 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:02:26.330 --> 00:02:52.490 And the law allowing an arm, allowing utilities to request an arm makes it clear that the arm must be based upon a methodology adopted in its most recent rate case, and the right case we're talking about is not finished, therefore, this petition is premature and should be dismissed. Now the right case. 10 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:02:52.490 --> 00:03:12.240 Based upon which life zone is basing its request for an arm is TPOC docket 20 four-0044. This case was divided by the commission into two phases. Now phase one has been completed according to the commission. 11 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:32.240 And an order was issued 10 July 2025, and so refers to this in its response to the consumer advocates mostly to dismiss is the 2025 rate case order, but, and that they do that even though the rate case was by NO means completely. 12 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:03:32.240 --> 00:03:50.490 In July of 2025, and in particular, the commission ordered a phase two, which had not yet be gone as the time of that order and was in fact, phase two was only generally sketched out as to the procedure. 13 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:03:50.490 --> 00:04:09.900 Now Limstone is arguing that even though NO written order has been issued for phase two, there was an oral decision on 7 May 2026 and that this oral decision combined with a so called rate case order is sufficient to base an arm on. 14 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:04:09.900 --> 00:04:28.499 This argument by limestone, however, ignores long standing practice at TPOC and its predecessor agencies of in great cases of making a rather brief oral decision at the conclusion of a hearing. 15 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:04:28.499 --> 00:04:44.519 And then following that brief oral decision, which usually takes the form of emotion by a commissioner, they follow that with a much longer more detailed. Now, the brief oral motion and the decision. 16 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:04:44.519 --> 00:05:00.089 Generally sets out the main points of decision in almost a bullet point fashion. That's not to say there's anything wrong with that decision. It's been done many times and we have NO problem with it. 17 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:05:00.089 --> 00:05:20.743 But it isn't until you get a written order that you can see how all the parts in the oral decision are related and what evidence the decision was based on and what the different decision positions of the parties were. Now, of course, the main reason for use. 18 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:05:20.743 --> 00:05:36.479 Being a brief oral decision 1st is that the commission is usually up against a very tight timeline in a lot of these cases. It could be a six month time limit for a rate case, a hundred and 20 days for an arm. 19 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:05:36.479 --> 00:05:53.009 Or the procedural schedule sets a date and the hearing has to be held by that time. Now, the later written order is generally not written to the deadlines recognized by the party such as six month, a hundred 20 days. 20 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:05:53.009 --> 00:06:11.219 Now that I just referred to, previously, and this allows the commission to be have a much more detailed and adventure to say much sweated over reviewed and re reviewed order from the commission because there's NO secret that. 21 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:06:11.219 --> 00:06:27.149 Parties are looking at this order to see, you know, if everything is alright and that if there's any issue for appeal. Now Lionstone, however, wants to ignore this long standing practice of an oral decision followed by a later. 22 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:06:27.149 --> 00:06:42.179 Written decision which contains extensive citations to the record, and Lifestyle wants to rely on the phase one written order in the very brief phase two decision. Now. 23 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:06:42.179 --> 00:06:58.379 We have a good example. This was brought to my attention actually yesterday by people in our division that the way an oral motion can differ, marketedly from a later written decision. 24 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:06:58.379 --> 00:07:18.269 And, someone in Rosalie Gunsher in our office is going to show an exhibit from the decision in phase one and this is dated, I believe 11 April 2024. 25 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:07:18.269 --> 00:07:47.083 Bye, and it has NO reference to commercial rates and and I think this will be apparent if she can pull it up, it's highlighted here and and so in that if if you were looking at this, if one was to try to rely on this oral, you know, well, I say oral decision it was an oral motion, and then there was some attachments to the. 26 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:07:47.083 --> 00:08:11.029 Statement it was, you know, it was written as a motion. There's nothing about commercial rates and it wasn't until the written order, which was dated 10 July 2025. It does have a, and Rosalie, could you pull up? 27 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:08:11.029 --> 00:08:29.320 It won't let us share because he's restricted. It won't if we could share the screen. Oh judge conflict. We would like to share that, but we're unable to because we're restricted. Is it possible for you to unrestrict that? 28 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:08:29.320 --> 00:08:33.986 Let me see if I can. 29 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:08:33.986 --> 00:08:37.762 Oh, we certainly didn't mean to put you on the spot. I. 30 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:08:37.762 --> 00:08:51.561 That's ok. Miss Gunger, I've just changed you to a presenter, so see if you can try to share that now. 31 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:08:51.561 --> 00:08:59.881 Okay so did we have the 1st one that showed NO co. 32 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:08:59.881 --> 00:09:04.040 We did not we did not see the 1st one. 33 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:09:04.040 --> 00:09:22.109 Oh, she's looking at that now. Is that it? Yeah. Okay, so, and, and again, I recognize this is a difficult thing to do in this, this format, if it was that we were cheapoke we could hand this out and everyone. 34 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:09:22.109 --> 00:09:38.939 But the point I it's really not debatable or it's it's simply that there was nothing about commercial rates in the initial decision and then more in the written order. And the point of this is to show that. 35 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:09:38.939 --> 00:09:54.449 Until you get a written order, you know, you could be very off base and in relying on the, that initial oral decision at at usually at a at the conclusion of a hearing. 36 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:09:54.449 --> 00:10:11.189 And this situation, I'll call it a problem because of the motion to dismiss here that we're bringing this up, lights just went out here, but we got it. Thank you. 37 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:10:11.189 --> 00:10:28.229 The T POC general Council on the oral motion in phase two stated that it was provided on, and I quote, provided only as a courtesy and does not supplement or replace the official action of the commission. 38 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:10:28.229 --> 00:10:43.259 As will be memorialized and written order, and that that's what, you know, we're saying that needs to be presented by our Lionstone. They need to have an official action. 39 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:10:43.259 --> 00:10:59.459 Of the commission memorialized in a written order and argue that arms could be complicated enough with the many terms and and disputed. 40 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:10:59.459 --> 00:11:19.459 Positions of the parties without worrying whether a later written order will come to question the arm request that was before filed before the case is concluded. And here's an example of an arm. Now you might think that, well, there's been a number of arms. 41 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:11:19.459 --> 00:11:41.249 They're pretty straightforward, you get the same categories, but in this limestone case, we have a unique issue of a $4 million grant from the legislature to build a super plant. How will this be accounted for? Now, at the moment there are NO costs to be charged against it, but it's something we may well want to explore. 42 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:11:41.249 --> 00:11:56.249 In discovery and and maybe reach a resolution about how to handle this with the parties, but if given the the hundred and 20 day deadline and the fact that this was. 43 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:11:56.249 --> 00:12:13.469 Case was actually filed 4 August with the clocks running. It it really becomes very difficult to, to do the kind of work you need. Again, as I was saying with a possible change in in positions. 44 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:12:13.469 --> 00:12:33.469 In light of this later written order, so for all these reasons, we urge you to dismiss limestone's requests for an arm as being premature since NO final order has been issued. And I would also add that limestone's proposal to suspend it. 45 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:12:33.469 --> 00:12:49.589 Until I think September 21 is not well taken. They don't cite any authority for this. This, you know, we have a hundred and 20 day statutory deadline that they, they really were serious about this. 46 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:12:49.589 --> 00:13:09.589 They should have explained, you know, is this a tolling or a suspension or whatever because again this is very important, you know, could set a precedent of of how arms will be handled and whether they can be paused like that. So again, we urge you to. 47 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:13:09.589 --> 00:13:17.060 You dismiss, this petition for an arm is premature. Thank you. 48 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:13:17.060 --> 00:13:28.523 Thank you mr. Mel. Mr. Moan, you're ready to proceed. You're on mute, so we can't hear you quite yet. 49 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:13:30.284 --> 00:13:49.109 You might regret, letting me know I was on mute. Let me start where mr. Bravel ended about the suspension and enough providing NO authority. 50 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:13:49.109 --> 00:14:04.109 Perhaps we didn't because that was not an issue raised in the, the, the motion but a Tennessee law is replate with courts. 51 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:14:04.109 --> 00:14:28.803 Determining that that courts or regulators should treat statutes that have timelines in there as directory rather than jurisdiction. Garrett versus Department of safety, 07:17, Southwest second, two 90. 52 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:14:29.762 --> 00:14:58.123 Murray versus wood, nine, well that's unreported, so I'll just stay with the reporting case. And then also a Castillo versus Rex MD, 07:15 southwest 3rd 03:21 as a 2025 Supreme court decision. 53 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:14:59.302 --> 00:15:31.200 I don't want, I I respect the, the motion that the consumer advocate has filed that's different than saying I agree with it. And I'm gonna largely stand on our written response to that motion and not be repetitive here. That's gonna be my aim anyway. 54 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:15:31.781 --> 00:15:42.899 Mr. Bramel brought up two primary arguments this morning. 55 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:15:42.899 --> 00:15:59.669 And and one is just what he described as a long standing practice at the commission of having, three motions and then having those motions fleshed out in a written order. 56 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:15:59.669 --> 00:16:16.769 Well, I I don't know if I would characterize motions brief or not because it depends. But we do know this when the commission deliberates. 57 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:16:16.769 --> 00:16:32.609 Parties often parties are allowed to take action upon those deliberations, whether that's. 58 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:16:32.609 --> 00:16:47.999 Changing the terror or putting rights into effect or or or whatever the agency is acting upon, the permission's long standing practice considers the action taken. 59 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:16:47.999 --> 00:17:14.024 During deliberations. So we know that. We also know that when parties comply with the deliberations with some filing, we also know that the commission determines at that point whether or not. 60 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:17:14.024 --> 00:17:21.809 The, the, the party making that filing actually complies with the order. 61 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:17:21.809 --> 00:17:38.459 Now if mr. Ramel was correct, you wouldn't be able to comply with the deliberations because he said there's there's some brief summary, so there wouldn't be enough information there to comply. 62 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:17:38.459 --> 00:17:55.799 But we know that's not correct, because we know time and again, parties file responsive pleadings complying with the deliberations of the commission. 63 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:17:55.799 --> 00:18:15.202 So mr. Bramel's whole discussion about motions and summaries and how brief they are and tight time frames, it's neither him or there because of how the commission operates. 64 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:18:15.743 --> 00:18:33.239 Mr. Barnell also said that he gave an example of a situation where you might have a filing that attempts to comply with. 65 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:18:33.239 --> 00:18:49.139 Deliberations, and that filing might have an error in it that's later corrected. But the most important part of that example. 66 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:18:49.139 --> 00:19:05.939 Is that there is a process to correct it. It's not left in place, and if, if that correction results in, let's just for the sake of a hypothetical, let's say that resulted. 67 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:19:05.939 --> 00:19:21.269 In a an overcharge, well when that correction is made, the overcharge has to be accounted for. So the fact that there might from time to time be an error. 68 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:19:21.269 --> 00:19:38.219 And an attempt to comply with with the commission deliberations is like pulling one of a thousand orders and you pull one where, where the correction was needed. 69 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:19:38.219 --> 00:19:55.649 And you omit the most important part is there's a process for that correction. There's, there's some harm to the consumer in that instance. And lastly, the 3rd thing Mr. Mello said. 70 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:19:55.649 --> 00:20:13.863 Was that the general council of the commission noted that the motion was provided to the parties as a courtesy. 71 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:20:14.823 --> 00:20:33.479 But mr. Barrel is overlooking entirely the fact that the deliberations are in a transcript. So the fact that the agency made that motion publicly available. 72 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:20:33.479 --> 00:20:51.359 It's not dispositive whether that was a courtesy or not, because the transcript is available and it is that transcript upon which the courts have determined. 73 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:20:51.359 --> 00:21:08.361 That if that transcript has findings of facts and conclusions of law, then that transcript satisfies the requirements of the statute. 74 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:21:09.062 --> 00:21:24.989 You know, there's a I was gonna quote a whole saying that stated in litigation all the time. I mean, you know. 75 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:21:24.989 --> 00:21:42.839 I'm not going to do that. I'm just gonna say this. There's a re, there must be a reason mr. Bramel didn't talk about what the courts had decided. He didn't he didn't mention that. 76 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:21:42.839 --> 00:22:01.589 He talked about the statute and the suspension and we've given some cases about that, but he didn't talk about the fact. He said it was a long standing policy of the commission to issue brief deliberations and I I don't know I would probably take issue with that. Sometimes the deliberate to the brief. 77 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:22:01.589 --> 00:22:17.999 Sometimes they're not, but what he didn't mention is that there's a long standing holding by the courts that if an agency, and the court was talking specifically about the commission, that if an agency. 78 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:22:17.999 --> 00:22:33.419 Oh, Makes its decisions based on findings of facts and conclusions of law that satisfies the requirements for a written order. So. 79 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:22:33.419 --> 00:22:51.359 What the courts have stated is that the transcript evidencing the decisions of the commission, they meet the requirements of the statute. I don't. 80 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:22:51.359 --> 00:23:07.139 Let me close and say this. There are dockets in which. 81 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:23:07.139 --> 00:23:24.149 Okay. When a party files to comply with the deliberations where the consumer advocate has filed and said, hey, nope, that filing doesn't comply. They didn't do that in this case. 82 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:23:24.149 --> 00:23:29.281 I didn't do that in this case. 83 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:23:30.444 --> 00:23:42.929 Limestone took the deliberations of the 1st of all, I don't even think as we said in her response I don't even think you need it. 84 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:23:42.929 --> 00:24:02.929 The phase two water, but we haven't because I don't think 2nd phase two negates the methodology that the commission established in phase one. But for the sake of argument, Limestone filed a complic complied with the deliberate. 85 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:24:02.929 --> 00:24:05.284 Issues. 86 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:24:07.725 --> 00:24:24.239 On 8 June, the commission issued a letter saying this is to acknowledge receipt of your original terriff and your revised tariff, which reflects the phase two adjustments per the commission's approved rate increase. 87 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:24:24.239 --> 00:24:42.089 And includes the additional information explaining the MRU methodology. The terraft filing is consistent with the decision in this matter from the commission conference on June one. So not only do the courts. 88 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:24:42.089 --> 00:24:57.509 Have the courts declared that the transcript is sufficient, the commission has said that Linestone complied with the commission's order. So two things have happened. 89 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:24:57.509 --> 00:25:28.646 The order in phase one has been issued. That means all that was necessary to establish the methodology. But even for the sake of argument, if we needed the order in phase two, we have it, and we have compliance with that order via the commission's 8 June letter saying you have complied with the deliberations of the commission in phase two. 90 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:25:29.442 --> 00:25:32.424 Thanks. 91 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:25:33.064 --> 00:25:39.782 Thank you mr. Mong. Mr. Ramelle, you get the last word. 92 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:25:39.782 --> 00:25:57.869 Judge Conclin you're on mute. Oh, thank you. Thank you Judge Conquin. The consumer advocate certainly recognizes that actions can be taken based on an oral decision. That that's not an issue. Well, we're, and that happens all the time. 93 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:25:57.869 --> 00:26:16.679 What we're saying is that there's something unique about an arm when you have a statute that says that you have to have a methodology from your last, from your most recent rate case. And, and that's a very different. 94 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:26:16.679 --> 00:26:44.686 Requirement and we're not just talking about a decision where general parameters are laid out the revenue requirement is X and, you know, we find that appreciation should be such and such. We're we're talking about methodologies and, and that can be. 95 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:26:44.686 --> 00:26:55.564 It's really necessary to to have a fuller explanation of that, how all the parts worked and so and and furthermore. 96 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:26:55.564 --> 00:27:11.209 We are not. The consumer advocate is not looking for, and we don't think the statute, which sets forth the requirements for a number is looking for a bare minimum of findings of facts and conclusions of. 97 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:27:11.209 --> 00:27:30.539 Law. I mean, we're looking for methodologies and it's very, very specific. As we found before in the atmos case, which we cited, there, there were certainly findings of facts and conclusions of law that they decided what the rates would be. 98 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:27:30.539 --> 00:27:50.539 But there were NO methodologies in there. And our point is that as we illustrated with the citation, which miss Gunger called out, the oral decision had nothing. There was NO methodology, how are you gonna get a commercial rate? There was nothing there. 99 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:27:50.539 --> 00:28:07.199 And then this later it was put in and that that's what we're looking for. And as far as you know looking to the courts, certainly we respect the courts and, and the concept of of what goes into a decision, but. 100 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:28:07.199 --> 00:28:23.339 I don't mean this lightly, but we're hoping to avoid courts here if we can possibly do it. We, you know, we we want not an appeal. We we want to keep this in the agency to have a requirement that you have a final order. 101 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:28:23.339 --> 00:28:43.339 And everything's spelled out and and the case will flow smoothly. And furthermore, the council for lunch still said, well, there's there's not gonna be any contradiction to the phase one order and and. 102 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:28:43.339 --> 00:29:15.229 That may, you know, may not be contradiction. We're not talking about necessarily contradiction. We're talking about a full explanation of the many many components that go into rate making. And finally, we'd point out that the, the order that the lifestone is putting so much reliance on is dated what 10 July 2025. If they really believed in their argument in their argument this was sufficient. 103 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:29:15.229 --> 00:29:35.107 Why have they waited over a year to file a petition for an arm? It just, it doesn't add up. It's not sufficient and, and the case is not over, therefore, you should dismiss this petition as premature. Thank you. 104 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:29:36.159 --> 00:29:56.239 Thank you mr. mr. Bromel. I want to thank the parties for their briefs and their presentations today. Preliminarily I wanna at 1st address limestone's voluntary request that the commissions suspend limestone's armed petitioned until September 2120 26 and agreeing to a decision. 105 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:29:56.239 --> 00:30:23.419 On the armed petition on the merits 120 days from that date on or before January 1920 27. In docket number fourteen-00146 in her order establishing procedural schedule, the administrative judge explained that the commission then known as the tennessee Regulatory authority, has interpreted the 120 day deadline applicable to the determination on proposed alternative regular. 106 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:30:23.419 --> 00:30:43.419 Methods is a strict deadline for which the statute does not allow for a waiver. Holding to that interpretation, the commission is not authorized to suspend the petition or otherwise permit the adjudication of a petition for a proposed alternative alternative regulatory method. The commissioner's previous. 107 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:30:43.419 --> 00:31:00.479 Held that where an amended petition is filed or material changes are made to a petition such filings will be treated as a new petition under the statue, under the statute. Establishing the commencement of a new 120 day deadline. And you can refer to docket 21. 108 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:31:00.479 --> 00:31:20.479 Dash 00135 the order acknowledging filing as a new petition and setting new statutory deadline for that decision. We do not have an amended filing or a material change to consider in this docket at this time therefore the commissioner has NO statutory authority to suspend the petition in this. 109 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:31:20.479 --> 00:31:50.339 Matter. With that preliminary issue aside, the consumer advocates motion to dismiss limestone's petition is premature is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under commission rule 1220-01-02- .03 paragraph two, subparagraph E The basis for the motion is that the allegate allegations contain in the petition when considered alone and taken as true. 110 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:31:50.339 --> 00:32:10.339 Are insufficient to state a claim as a matter of law. In particular the consumer advocates motion for to dismiss, senders on whether the petition is right for just disability due to the order of memorializing the commission's decision in the phase two portion of the Limestone rate case, docket 20 four-000444. 111 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:32:10.339 --> 00:32:33.199 Are not having been filed. A written order satisfies the requirements of the uniform Administrative Procedures Act specifically Tennessee code annotated section four-5- 03:14, that the final decision or order rendered must be in writing and contained a statement of excuse me, a statement of the findings of fact and conclusions. 112 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:32:33.199 --> 00:33:06.259 Of law on which the decision is based. In this docket the commission's oral motion and vote while made on the record and preserved in a transcript of the proceedings do not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to satisfy the requirements of the UAPA. Further it is the date of the filing of the order that establishes the deadlines relative to filing for review of that order. It should be NO different with respect to the establishment of the contingent right to file an alternative regulatory method petition. The written. 113 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:33:06.259 --> 00:33:34.969 Order memorializing the commission's decision deliberated and approved on June 12026 has not been filed as of the time of this hearing. The commission's July 1020 25, excuse me, July 1020 25 order setting utility rates established much of the rate making methodology to establish rates. However, rate design is a critical part of the rate making methodology. The calculations necessary to determine where. 114 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:33:34.969 --> 00:33:54.969 Revenue deficiency and sufficiency are only part of the overall methodology as making these determinations without a method to collect or refund a deficiency or sufficiency is a pointless exercise. Limestone's rate case was unique in that the commission ordered a two phase process to recover the calculated revenue. 115 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:33:54.969 --> 00:34:14.969 Efficiency to alleviate the immediate impact on customers. What makes the circumstance, what makes the circumstances even more unique is that because the evidentiary record did not contain sufficient data for commercial sewer customers, the panel opened the rate design for hearing and consideration in 2nd phase. 116 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:34:14.969 --> 00:34:37.039 While it did not open other factors that were considered, it did reopen the rate design for hearing and consideration during 2nd phase. Because rate design is an important part of rate making methodology, the commission's written order on 2nd phase of the rate case is necessary to craft a complete methodology that would serve as the. 117 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:34:37.039 --> 00:35:12.524 Basis for a petition for an alternative regulatory method. Therefore I find that because a final order in phase two of limestone's limestone's rate case was not filed at the time of the filing of its arm petition and has not been filed as the date of this hearing, Limestone's petition to elect and opt into an arm is not just dishipable due to the doctrine of rightness. Therefore, I'm granting the consumer advocate's motion to dismiss is premature. This dismissal is without prejudice and the company may file a petition to elect and opt in opt into an arm when such a petition is right for consideration. 118 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:35:12.524 --> 00:35:35.899 Subject to the following notice requirement. The commission received NO advanced notice that Limestone was filing a petition for arm, and these petitions have a very short and strict deadline for adjudication as they previously discussed. The commission has finite resources to analyze and evaluate such petitions as well as other matters before it and a scheduled pattern of. 119 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:35:35.899 --> 00:35:55.899 Conferences for on which to adjudicate these matters. Therefore, similar to what is required in the commission's July 1020 25 order setting utility rates and commission rule twelve twenty-01-02- .23 paragraph two. Limestone is directed to give not less than. 120 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:35:55.899 --> 00:36:20.642 In 30 days written notice of its intention to file a petition to elect and opt into an arm. This notice should be filed with a docket clerk and will initiate a proceeding that requires the applicable filing fee but will not commence the calculation of time under Tennessee code annotated section 60 five-four-one oh three D are there any matters we need to discuss at this time? 121 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:36:20.642 --> 00:36:25.223 I'm down from the consumer advocate. Thank you. 122 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:36:27.243 --> 00:36:34.180 All right, seeing seeing none, I want to thank every you again Melbourne, you're on mute. 123 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:36:34.180 --> 00:36:36.869 I want to make sure I didn't miss. 124 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:36:36.869 --> 00:36:56.869 That last, the the purpose of that last rule reference, I want to make sure and you sent a limestone should provide 30 days notice of its arm, and then was there another requirement after that based on that last rule you. 125 "Melvin Joel Malone" (1014702592) 00:36:56.869 --> 00:36:57.822 Brett. 126 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:36:57.822 --> 00:37:17.719 No, NO, it's it's just 30 days notice that the the last part was just stating that that the filing of the notice opens the docket but does does not start the clock. It, that's kind of what the that is well it's exactly what the rule states that was recently adopted with regard to rate. 127 "Aaron Conklin" (2645583872) 00:37:17.719 --> 00:37:54.083 Cases that the intent of that was to apply to all cases under one oh three, but unfortunately we we added paragraph A at the end of the citations of the statute so it was only applicable to rate cases rather than arms. So does that, does that clarify? Thank you. Okay. All right. Again, I want to thank everyone for you your excellent briefs and your arguments in this matter. If there's nothing further will be adjourned. 128 "Nico Orantes" (1285940480) 00:37:54.083 --> 00:37:58.563 Thank you. Thank you.