Alright. Let's go ahead and go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for a prehearing conference in the consolidated matter of the applications of Global Water Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc, and Global Water Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc, for the establishment of just in reasonable rates and charges for utility service designed to realize a reasonable rate of return on the fair value of their property and for certain related approvals. Docket numbers W20446A250022 and SW20445A250023.
I'm administrative law judge Chris Nichols, and I have been assigned to preside over this matter. Let's go ahead and get started by taking appearances of the parties beginning with, applicant. Good morning, your honor. Robert Metley, regulatory counsel for Global Water Resources Inc, on behalf of Global Water Santa Cruz Water Company Inc, and Global Water Palo Verde Utilities Company Inc. And on the line with me is Michael Patton with the law firm of Osborne Malagat. Good morning to you both. Who do we have for Ruko this morning?
Good morning, your honor. Sarah Barrios Cool, and with me in the room is our chief counsel, Daniel Povetsky, and we represent the residential utility consumer office. Good morning to you both as well. And for staff? I can't couldn't remember. There we go. Couldn't remember if I had was muted or unmuted myself. This is Bridget Humphrey on behalf of staff along with co counsel Ben Caillieros. We also have several piece people from, staff present, including mister Baxter. Great. Well, good morning to you all as well. So the purpose of today's prehearing conference is to discuss any procedural issues,
in advance of the hearing set to commence on Monday, August 3. So first and foremost, there is, pending an unopposed motion to withdraw. So Palo Verde seeks to withdraw its application because the parties have agreed that, Santa Cruz and Palo Verde, their application should be bifurcated and that the Palo Verde application should be withdrawn and refiled in 2027. So as I read the motion to withdraw, it appears that the parties would like the the Palo Verde application withdrawn now rather
than as part of the decision issued by the commission. But I just wanted to make sure that that's what the parties intended because it it looks like the withdrawal of the Palo Verde application is one of many terms in the settlement agreement, each of which were presumably bargained for. And as you all are aware, the commission doesn't necessarily always adopt settlement agreements in their entirety. So, you know, some terms can be added or removed or modified. So before I take action on that, I just wanted to make sure that we're not jumping the gun here by adopting
a single term from a settlement agreement while the others remain in play. So, with that, I'll I'll turn to, mister Metley or or or mister Patton. Can you help enlighten us on on this issue? Thank you, your honor. Mister Metley here. It was our understanding that the the the motion to withdraw, was part of the settlement agreement. I know, the concerns of the parties was that if the motion to withdraw was granted, the parties wanted to make sure that, Global Water Palo Verde was still bound, by the terms of the settlement agreement,
and and that was always our intent. I preferably, if we could withdraw the motion prior to the hearing, that would be fine. Any alternative, yeah, we we could wait. I'm I'm just guessing if we're gonna go forward with the hearing, it was our intent that we would just be litigating the the Santa Cruz piece. So that's why I would think that the granting the motion to withdraw prior would be preferable. Thank you, mister Metley. And that makes sense to me.
I just as I said, I wanted to make sure because parties often, express in their in their filings and during the hearing that, you know, hey. If we don't if the commission doesn't adopt all the material terms, then we reserve the right to pull out of the settlement agreement. But if I grant the motion to withdraw, that's at least part of the settlement agreement that, that can't be walked back. So I just wanted to make sure that the company is still that the company is comfortable with, with withdrawing the Palo Verde application, again, while while the rest of the settlement agreement remains in play in terms of the
issue. So it it sounds like the company is comfortable with that? Yes, you are. Okay. Alright. That takes care of that. And, the second, well, I guess, before I move on, I just wanted to make sure the other parties didn't have, anything that they wanted to add to the discussion. Miss Barrios Cool, anything that Ruko wanted to add to the discussion here on that issue? No, your honor. I I appreciate you identifying that timing issue, but mister Metley has, accurately represented that that our concern is just to make sure that Calabrio, remains bound,
by those terms, and and we rest on mister Metley's, assurances in the terms of the settlement agreement in that respect. Thank you, miss Barrio. It's cool. Miss Humphrey, anything to add here? Briefly, your honor. Yeah. Thank you. And I and I and I I think your point is well taken, as far as the timing issue. However, with with the company's agreement, that that they're willing to proceed in that matter, proceed in the matter of going ahead and doing the withdrawal now, we don't have any objection. Okay. Great. Thank you. Alright. So moving on to exhibits. So as a general matter,
I'm interested in whether the parties intend to offer all of the exhibits previously filed in this matter or just those supporting the settlement agreement and, and in addition to that, whether the parties intend to stipulate to each other's exhibits. Mister Metley? Yes, your honor. Thank you. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed that all of the prefiled exhibits, today up to the settlement exhibits would be admitted by stipulation. Okay. And you said up to. Does that that I presume that includes the the,
testimony in the settlement agreement itself. Well, it's my understanding that it was the the exhibits. We I would we would certainly agree to stipulate to all of them. I I think the the intent of the settlement agreement was just to ensure that all of the existing exhibits were admitted by stipulation, but I would the company would certainly stipulate to all of the settlement exhibits as well. Thank you, mister Metley. Miss Barrios Cool? That makes perfect sense from Rupert's perspective, your honor. Excellent. And, miss Humphrey?
We staff agrees. I think that's the, most efficient way to go is to stipulate all of it. Alright. Great. Alright. More specifically, I do have a few questions about the company's exhibits just for kinda housekeeping purposes. So it looks like, the hearing division has received three tranches of exhibits from the company. So, on 12/10/2025, the company filed exhibits a one through a 30. On December 2025. The company filed a supplement that I think was supposed to attach exhibits a 31
and a 32, but it looks like only a 32 was attached. I think a 31 was supposed to be a copy of the customer notice. And then on 07/13/2026, the company filed a supplement, and attached to that supplement were exhibits a 32 through 35. So, I might be missing something here, but it it looks like we're missing a 31, which I think was supposed to be the customer notice. And then we also have two different exhibit a 30 twos. Mister Metley, can you shed some light here?
Please I mean, if you need to take a quick peek at at what's been filed so far, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure all of our ducks are in a row here. Oh, thank you. I'm I'm looking at my exhibit list, and it it was my understanding that we initially only we originally filed a third a one a one through a 30, and then we filed a supplement, which was just a 31, the notice to customers. I don't have any record of a a 32.
So the the intent would be and we could refile up to a 31. A 31 would include the notice to customers that you've referenced, and then a 32 through a 35 would be the settlement, exhibits. A 32 being the settlement agreement, a 33 being the testimony of Ron Fleming, a 34 being the testimony of Christopher Krieger, and a 35 being the testimony of Tom Barrasso. Thank you, mister Metley. And that's so that's consistent with the the, the 07/13/2026 filing in terms of,
exhibits a 32 through a 35. But that 12/16/2025, I think it has, a 31 and a 32 bolded as though they are new exhibits, I'll put only a 32 is attached, but there is certainly an an a 32 attached there. So, so, yeah, if you could just, take a look at that, and if, if any amendment or or, change to that needs to be made, then, I would appreciate it if you could do that sooner rather than later. And then that way, you know, I especially given the global settlement here,
I don't anticipate that any of the parties are gonna have an objection. But, in the event that it results in, I mean, at least the customer notice being being filed for the first time, you know, just as a procedural matter. You know, the other parties need an opportunity to object to that. So, yeah, if you could take care of that sooner rather than later, I would appreciate it. Yes. We will, your honor. Thank you. Alright. I guess I'll just go around the the room here. Miss Barriosko, is is there anything that Ruka wanted to add on that point? Not on that point, your honor. Great. Miss Humphrey? No, your honor. Okay.
Alright. So let's move on to our hearing schedule and witnesses. My I I'm not sure whether the parties intend to or I guess which witnesses the parties intend to have, testify at the hearing. It it looks like the company probably intends to have, mister Fleming, mister Krieger, and mister Bourassa testify at hearing mister Metley. Is that correct? That's correct, your honor. Okay. And then, I other witnesses, the company's other witnesses that have previously filed testimony that will be available if necessary?
Does your does your honor have any specific with we can certainly make them available. Does does your your honor know now which witnesses he has may have questions for? You know, at this point, I think, for certain, I would definitely like to hear about the, the basis for the, the capital structure, but I think that's something that mister, that's something that I mentioned previously and I think is actually identified in mister Baraza's, witness, summary. So I I expected that's something that the the company planned on providing testimony on anyway. In addition to that, I I can't think of anything at the moment that I'm going to need to
call, one of the other witnesses to testify other than mister Fleming, mister, Krieger, and mister, Barraza, but it's possible something may come up. And if it does, I will I'll try to, provide all the parties with notice of, you know, what additional witnesses I would like to call other than, you know, those that, seemingly the party's intent. I guess, I'm kinda putting the cart before the horse here. I I presume that staff is just planning on having mister Baxter testify, on behalf of the settlement agreement and Ruko, with having miss Volhaver,
testify in support of the settlement agreement. But, if if between now and, and August 3, there are any additional witnesses that I think ought to testify, I will I'll certainly let the parties know so that they have as much, notice as possible. Does that sound alright? That sounds good, your honor. This is Sarah Barto with Cole from Rugo. Just, two caveats from our end. If you're going to have questions for Ruko's cost of capital expert who provided, you know, testimony prior to the settlement. It would be helpful for us to know sooner rather than later because he has,
another matter, I think, pending before the Illinois, Public Utility Commission, that we'd have to sort of work around, as well as dealing with the time difference. And, with respect to miss Ballhaber, she's just unavailable on the afternoon of Friday, August 7, but I I think it's possible we'll be done by then. So I just wanted to put those things on your radar. Thank you, miss Barrio. It's cool. I I likewise expect that we will be able to conclude before August 7, but I I appreciate the notice. As for cost of capital, I mean,
I do think it would be helpful to hear from all the parties on on cost of capital. I I don't know that that necessarily needs to come from, your cost to capital expert. I guess I'm just interested in hearing why the parties believe that the agreed upon hypothetical capital structure is reasonable and in the public interest. So if do you think that that's something that can be, accomplished with without, without having to to call your expert? Or I I mean, I I could probably ask some friendly questions of mister Barracka on that,
your honor. So, yes, I do think it it can be accomplished. In terms of, you hearing that from a Rugo witness, that would be, except for a very high overview, likely outside of miss Paul first Paul Heber's 10. So I'll I'll touch bases with, mister Walters about that. Because my if my recollection, sir, he supported that capital structure in his direct testimony, but, I'd have to go back and make sure my recollection is correct. Thank you, miss Barrios. Cool. Just before I move on, any, any additional issues, from Ruko in terms of,
in terms of the hearing schedule and and witness availability and so forth? No. Thank you, Eric. Alright. Alright. And I I will, will let's see. Why don't we head back to the, company? Mister Metli, any any additional issues that the the company foresees in terms of, hearing schedule or witness availability? No, your honor. The company will make witnesses available. Alright. And, miss Humphrey, I I presume that staff was just having mister Baxter or planning on having mister Baxter testify in support of the settlement agreement. Was staff planning on calling any additional witnesses?
No. Staff was not, planning on calling any additional witnesses. We do have the same caveat that Ruko had in that our cost of capital witness is an outside consultant. And if we needed to call him, we would need to make some prearrangements for that. But I think mister Baxter can handle all that testimony and and that and that shouldn't be a problem. That was that's certainly what we would propose. Alright. Great. Thank you, miss Humphrey. Let's see. It does look like I'm just moving on here to the issues matrix. It does look like, an issues matrix was ordered to be filed prior to the prehearing conference.
I do understand that perhaps the parties may have thought that that was no longer necessary given that they've, reached a settlement. I do think it would be helpful to have an issues matrix just identifying, each of the party's initial position on the disputed issues on any disputed issues, and then just the settlement position just for, ease of reference? Is that something that the parties can put together in the next week or so, mister Metley? Yes, your honor. If if my if my memory serves correctly, I think we we did prepare one. I'll have to look back. I'll I'll circulate it to the parties,
and we'll I'll update it and circulate it, and then we can get that that filed. Alright. Great. Miss Humphrey, does that sound like something that can be accomplished in the next, week or so as well? It does. And miss Barrios cool? Yes. It does, your honor. Thank you. Alright. Let's see. In terms of, order of presentation, I know that this has, sometimes been an issue in the past, sometimes not. I'll I'll just go straight to miss Barrowsko. Does, does Ruko have any preference in terms of whether we, order presentation in terms of of, the the company Ruko staff or the company staff Ruko?
Because this is a complete settlement, including all of the parties, your honor, we don't have, a preference for that order aside from it makes sense for the company, obviously, to present it witness it first. Understood. Mister Metley, any any preference by the company in terms of order presentation? No no, your honor. Other than us going first, no. We don't. And miss Humphrey? Staff would prefer to to follow the standard order, which is the company first, then Ruko, then staff. Okay. Bear with me just one moment here. Alright. Let's see if I've got anything else here before I open it up to the
parties for any additional procedural issues. I guess I am interested in, how long the company believes it will probably take, to present its case, mister Medley? Not not not long, your honor. We don't we don't anticipate, other than the three witnesses. I I I believe, mister Fleming may have a, an overview of his testimony, but it it it should be very short. And I don't, at this time, anticipate any summaries from mister Barrasso or mister Krueger. I'm sorry. You don't you don't anticipate any any what?
Any summaries, you you know, typically, when a a witness, you know, is asked, you know, you have an overview of your testimony. We we anticipate mister Fleming having a little, introduction. But other than that, we're just gonna be presenting our our our witnesses for cross examination. Understood. Okay. So, I imagine less than a day, perhaps half a day even for for the company? Yes. Alright. Thank you, mister Matley. Miss Humphrey, how long does, the staff anticipate that it will take, to accomplish mister Baxter's testimony? I can't imagine that it would take more than an hour.
K. And, miss Barrios Cool, as to miss, miss Volhaver? I I believe it'd be relatively short as well, your honor. I can't imagine that miss Paul Haber's testimony would take longer than mister Basterds. Alright. Great. Alright. So it looks like we may actually be able to wrap up in a day depending on, you know, what questions I have and what, what additional questioning is is necessary to, flesh out the record. Alright. With that, I will open it up to the parties, mister Metley. Is there, are there any other procedural issues or anything that we need to address at this
time? I don't believe so, your honor. Thank you. Alright. Miss Humphrey? No. I think there's a we had the discussion before you came on, your honor, this morning about, about an issue, but I think we can handle that offline if we need to. Alright. Thank you, miss Humphrey. And miss Barrios Cool? Nothing more from us, your honor. Thank you. Alright. Great. Well, thank you everyone for your participation today. I'll be on the lookout for, any, amendments to the company's exhibits, to clarify the issue that we discussed, and I'll be on the lookout for, an issues matrix as well.
And if as I said, the parties could get that probably within the next week or so, that would be very much appreciated. And with that, I will see you all bright and early on August 3, and we can go off the record. Thank you, Yurana. Great. Thank you,