In that case, we're going to get started. Let's go ahead and go on the record at this time. Good morning. This is the time set for the public comment and evidentiary hearing in the matter of the application of EPCOR Water Arizona Incorporated to extend its certificate of convenience and necessity for its San Tan Water District. This is docket number WDash01303ADash25Dash0226 My name is Donna Sansone and I am the administrative
law judge assigned to preside over this matter. We'll start with appearances. I will start by, taking the appearances for the company. Yes. Good morning, your honor. Greg Stein for EPGORE, appearing on behalf of Jason Gellman. And I also have Steve Camp, engineer developer services at council table. Thank you. And for staff? Good morning your honor, Bridget Humphrey on behalf of staff and with me at council table are staff's witnesses Vicki Wallace and Connor Tatz. Alright. Thank you. Now, before we move into public comment, I do want to ask if there's any procedural items or issues that need to
be addressed. I'll start with the company. Your honor, just the the issue that was, addressed off the record before that we have a few, exhibits, exhibits a two and a three that didn't make it into the exhibit binder. So though they're either being printed off right now, or I believe discussion was potentially just stipulating to the, submission of of the exhibits that had been filed before the hearing. Alright. And, staff, do you have any comment? Staff would agree with that that, proposal that we can either, but that we can utilize the online documents at least until the the hard copies
get here and we'll stipulate to the to admission of those. Steph has no other issues. Alright. That works for me. In that case, I believe it is time to move on to public comment. This is the time for any member of the public present to provide comments on this matter. Are there any members of the public who would like to provide comment today regarding EPCOR's application? I don't see any in the hearing room and I don't believe that we have any on the phone line at this time, so let the record reflect that no one has indicated a desire to speak.
Moving right along, at this time, would either party like to make an opening statement starting with the company? Yes, your honor. Briefly, this, might appear at the outset to be a a confusing CCNN application, but, really, it's only confusing, due to the large number of parcels, 20 plus, that are included in the application. Otherwise, it's a relatively straightforward cleanup application to include various parcels that for one reason or another were carved out of the company's existing Santan water CCNN.
So we've dubbed this the Santan carve out CCNN. There are simple connections here just, needed to serve these parcels. It it just simple extensions of existing main water lines. And as I mentioned before, this is just a water CCNN. Our understanding is that the parcels are, are already served or will be served by septic systems. And also, just getting ahead of the issue, there were a few items that in the staff report that we've submitted exhibits for or or wanted to clarify. And through,
mister Camp's testimony, we will be introducing an exhibit showing that the, the applicable water plant, has a certified operator, for some reason or another. ADEQ's records were showing, that there was not a certified operator, but, there is and his name is Jeremiah Foster. The second issue was, ADEQ noted that the that a well enclosure, or a or a existing well and wellhead needed to, have a a fence enclosure built. That has been done and is set forth as part of exhibit a three.
And the last issue was, excess water loss, believe 16.3%, which exceeded the acceptable water loss of of 10%. In for Santan, we recently finished our rate case with a decision in July 2025. As a compliance item in that matter, we're obligated to file a, water loss report no later than June 30. So that issue the water loss issue, that is identified in the staff report will be addressed as part of,
the water loss report to be filed, later this summer. Thank you. Thank you. And for staff, any opening? Just briefly, your honor, staff is in support of the company's application for the extension of the CCNN, as as requested. We haven't had a chance to discuss the three items that were brought up today, but I can't imagine that we would have any opposition to those since, we are now. It looks like they've all been covered, the, the certified operator, the well fence, and then the water loss, report. So we will stand by those, but, we're all in agreement. So thank you.
Thank you. We will now move into the presentation of witnesses and evidence. We'll start with the company. Is EPCOR ready to call our first witness? Yes, your honor. We have one witness, mister Steve Camp. Alright, mister Camp. You can come up to the witness stand just up here, and I will have our court reporter swear you in. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Go ahead, mister Snyder. And I know know I just said it, but, mister Camp, could you repeat your full name and business address for the record?
Steve Camp, EPCOR. 5656 West Tulave Boulevard In Glendale, Arizona 85306. And and you said EPCOR is your employer. Can you, state for the record your position or role at EPCOR? Engineer and developer services. K. Was the current CCNN application, to for extension of water service for the Santan carve out parcels, is that part of your position or role at at EPCOR? It was. K. You have three exhibits in front of you. Two of the exhibits may have procedural issue and stipulate to it to admission later on,
so I I think everybody else just has copies of the application right now. Can you look at what's been marked as exhibit a one? I think I have a two and a three or Oh, I apologize. In the binder. Okay. Yeah. Is that in the back? It's just the front. The the one that's marked application. Okay. Exhibit a one? Yeah. And I apologize. If it's not marked as exhibit a one, it's intended to be the company's a one, but the the 280 page application. Oh, okay. Yes. And do you have that document and the exhibits in front of you? Correct.
I do. Okay. And looking at the first page, do you recognize what that document is? It's the application for the CCN expansion. Okay and you earlier described your your your duties thank you, your duties at EPCOR. Is is one of those duties to prepare and file the the CCNN application you have in front of you? Correct, yeah. Part of the team we did, yeah. Yeah. And was that document, prepared under did you prepare that document or was prepared under your direction? It was. K. If I asked you any questions about the contents of the application,
would your answers be as set forth within the application? Correct. Do you have any changes or additions to the contents of the application? I know we talked excuse me. We oh, man. Not not necessarily. This time? I could I could ask you. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm you know, we had a we had a few. We had, the, the legal description. Yeah. And looking at page two of the application, which and, footnote one, are you aware that Parcel 21029007, V As In Victor, Has was subsequently split into five different parcels after the filing of this application?
Yeah. Almost immediately after. And after splitting those parcels into five separate parcels, are they still owned by the same owner? They are. And on page three of the application, lines three and lines 20, the references to Maricopa County were those intended to be Pinal County? Yes. Okay. Besides those clarifications or changes, are there any other modifications you would make to the application? No. K. At this time, we request, admission of, the company's exhibit a one. Any objection from staff? No objection,
your honor. Alright. Exhibit a one is hereby admitted. Thank you. And your honor, I may approach I have copies of, at least one copy of exhibits a two and a three for Go ahead. And I just wanna make sure staff has, at least able to view copies of those exhibits digitally. I'm pulling that up as we speak. Okay. You do don't have them bait stamped, do you? Your exhibits. I don't I don't have copies with these, Steve. Okay. Never mind. They they they stamp to the top. I think one I think they might be February and February. Let's see. 283, 285 Okay.
Great. 284. Yeah. Yeah. 286. I believe that they are. 281. Yeah. Thank you very much. And I can get those. Thank you, your honor. Mister Camp, looking at exhibit a two, do you recognize what this document is? It's a certified operator certification for Jeremiah Foster. And I know you didn't prepare this document, but was it filed, at your direction in this case? When I mean, I I contact Jeremiah Foster, and he's a certified record, you know, certified operator record. This is an ADEQ form right here. And what what was the reason the company filed this exhibit in this case?
Well, at that point, ADEQ didn't have a certified operator for the system for some reason. And it was in response to, an item that was noted in the staff's report. Right. Correct. K. And then I I think I'll move for admission of of the two together. Mister Kemp, could you take a look at exhibit a three? Yep. Do you recognize, what that series of documents is? It's just some security and fencing measures around, we had a well site and some, looks like, you know, some electrical equipment. Do you know the reason why, this exhibit was filed in this case?
There's another reason why, ADEQ had requested this and, requested that, we we do this. And was it in response to an item noted in the staff's report? Yeah. It was. Your honor, at this time, I'd move for admission of exhibits a two and a three. Any objection from staff? No objection. Alright. Exhibits a two and a three are hereby admitted. Thank you. Mister Camp, do you have anything else that you'd like to add as part of your testimony? Not at this. No. Thank you. Mister Camp's available for questioning. Any questions or any cross from staff at this time? Just briefly, your honor.
Good morning, mister Camp. Good morning. Did you review the staff report in this case? I did. And are you familiar with the recommendation staff is making? Top of my head, maybe not. But I might need to look at them. But, yes. If you could take a quick look at those k. You should have that should be in front of you as exhibit s one. Okay. Let's see if that refreshes your recollection. Yep. Okay. And do you find the the recommendations of staff in that document? The recommendations of staff? In as part of the staff report? Correct. And, have you now that you've read those that document or reviewed that document,
does that bring back to mind, mind, what the recommendations of staff were? Yes. And is the company in agreement with those recommendations as part of a as a condition or part of the, Yes. We are. Season. Thank you. Nothing further, your honor. Alright. Thank you. I have a few questions for you, mister Kemp. Throughout its application, the company lays out the development plans for various parcels that the company is seeking to provide service to through a CCNN extension, the Carter, Millennia, New Waves, Nexstar developments. Aside from what's already been detailed in the application,
does the company anticipate that there will be any additional housing units built within the extension area, or will it just be what's been included in the application thus far? It it'll be what's included in the application. Alright. We have a couple other parcels in there that weren't in this application, but we'd like to find the future. And, in its application, the company provides estimates for the construction cost for each of the four developments. However, there is less information about the construction cost related to that singular parcel, requesting service, that would be parcel number two one zero two nine dash zero zero five v.
I believe it's under private ownership. In the application, the company does note that while no new common facilities would be necessary to serve this parcel, an extension of the water main would be necessary, which would be constructed pursuant to a main extension agreement if the CCNN app extension application is approved. But I do wanna ask at this time, has the company and the owner of that, parcel taken any steps towards entering into a main extension agreement, or is the company waiting until after the decision is issued in the system? We'd be waiting till after that. Okay.
And, does the company have an estimate of the approximate cost of construct construction for the extension of the water main to serve that parcel? Let me look up the part. Which parcel was it again? I believe it is 210 Dash 29 Dash 005 B. So that would be, the one parcel that's outside of those four main development, companies. This is that private ownership. Single parcel that's up okay. Mhmm. The customer would be responsible for those costs. Okay.
Alright. But at this time, there isn't an approximate cost that's been estimated. We don't we don't have an approximate cost with that one. No. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright. In its application, which has already been marked as exhibit a nine and entered into evidence, specifically at the bottom, I have, page nine, if you'd like to look at it for reference. The company notes that it has included a copy of its franchise agreement with Pinal County which, was attached as exhibit 14 to that, what we've marked as exhibit a one. Additionally, on that same page, the company through a footnote indicated that quote,
to the extent that some or all of the requested extension area is or will be included within the municipal boundaries of the newly incorporated San Tan Valley, EPCOR will obtain a franchise to include the relevant portions of the extension area. My question related to that footnote is, does the company have any update on whether any parts of the requested extension area will be included within the municipal boundaries of San Tan Valley? I I don't know that I can answer that one. I don't maybe Greg has any additional information on that.
I don't know whether it is. I think we would we would look into it. We're currently, discussing the matter with the the town of San Tan Valley to execute a a franchise stream. It just has not been done yet given the Okay. Recent incorporation. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Now I'll preface my next question by noting that this is just a clarifying question, so I I make sure that I'm understanding the information provided in the company's application. So in the application, the company generally states that it provides water and or wastewater services to over 281,000
customers throughout Arizona. However, in exhibit 13 of its application, which includes that proposed form of notice and mailing list to the municipalities within five miles of the proposed extension area, EPCOR notes that it, quote, delivers water and wastewater services to more than 670,000 people, including service to municipalities and unincorporated areas of Pinal County. I just wanna confirm the difference between these figures from the way that I was reading it. The 28, 281,000
customers is those that actually have a customer account with EPCOR, whereas that 670,000 number may be an estimate actual number of people that are using EPCOR services throughout Arizona is my, inference, I guess. Is that correct from the best of your knowledge? I I don't know if I can answer that right now, but, I mean, that did you say the 690 was were referencing to the number of people they serve? Yeah. It it sounded like, it specified that the 670,000 people Okay.
As opposed to customers. I just wanna make sure that that was the difference between the numbers. I don't know if, Yeah. And we had discussed that internally before. I think it's an estimate based on the average number of people in a household. So if you have 281,000 customers, you're thinking two point whatever the percentage is, whatever the the tenth is, that many people, multiplied by the number of accounts, the 281,000 accounts. That that makes sense. Right. Okay. Thank you. And, I just wanna confirm that these numbers reflect the, total estimates for the number of customers and people serviced by EPCOR in all of
Arizona, not just in Pinal County. Is that correct? That sounds like that would be all of, yeah, all of EPCOR. Alright. Thank you. Another clarifying question. We've already touched on this briefly, but I I just wanna confirm that the additional, exhibits a one and or excuse me, a two and a three, those have been provided, as a direct result of some of those outstanding compliance issues that staff noted in the staff report. Is that correct? Correct. And I just wanna confirm that in addition to providing this documentation as evidence in
today's hearing, has the company also taken steps to work with ADEQ to resolve those compliance issues noted in that compliance status report? That's a that's a great question. I need to follow-up with our, with, our, regulatory folks. It's, I'm not sure, your honor, but I will make sure that we do touch base with mister Foster, to ensure that ADEQ does have the the record on its website to show that he is the operator and that the photographs have been provided, just to close the loop on those two items. Alright. Thank you. Now turning to,
the issue of water loss, which we also briefly have discussed, but I'll just remind you that in the staff report, which has been marked as exhibit s one, I believe you have a copy. We haven't admitted it just yet. But South calculated the water loss for EPCOR's San Tan Water District in 2024 to be, 16.3%, which is above the acceptable water loss of 10% or less that staff and the Arizona Department of Water Resources or ADWR typically sets as a compliance standard.
Does the company have any idea what's causing the water loss to be as high as it is? I don't know that I can answer that question. Okay. In operations, question. Okay. Anything to add? There's a lot of different reasons. Some of it may be old meters, which we do have a program where we're we're replacing the oldest ones. But, we we did I I didn't mention in my opening statement, but we recently filed a water loss reduction plan applicable to, the Rio Verde District, and we have implemented the, same aspects of the program within Santan the Santan District.
And, when we file the water loss reduction plan later this year, it will be, a very similar plan to what's already been submitted for Rio Verde. Okay. Alright. Thank you. I believe that those are actually all of my questions for this witness. I wanna ask, is there any redirect from the company? No redirect, your honor. Alright. And any cross from staff? No your honor, thank you. Alright, thank you. You can go ahead and step down. Thanks. And to confirm mister Stein the company has no additional witnesses at this time. Is that correct? That's correct, your honor. Thank you. Alright. Then let's move over to staff.
Staff, are you ready to call your first witness? We are, your honor. Staff calls Connor Tatz. Alright. Mister Tatz, you can come up here. And I will have the court reporter swear you in. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Alright. Go ahead, miss Humphrey. Good morning, mister Tatz. Would you state your name and your business address for the record? My name is Connor Tatz. I am a water wastewater engineer for the Arizona Corporation Commission at 1200 West Washington
Street. Were you assigned to review the application in this matter as part of your job description? And, when you when you reviewed the application, what did that review consist of? It consisted of an analysis of EPCOR as a company to be a fit and proper entity, and then an analysis of the San Tan Water District, both the current, production and storage analysis, and with the extension plus future growth to ensure they have adequate staff report that was prepared in this case? Yes. You did you prepare an engineering report as part of that staff report?
Yes. And is that attached to our staff report as exhibit two? Yes. And exhibit two is, in fact, the engineering report. Correct? Yes. It is. And does that was that report prepared by you or at your direction? Yes. It was. Do you have any corrections or modifications to your engineering report? I do not. And are you adopting the engineering report as part of your sworn testimony here today? Yes. There has been a little bit of testimony this morning about, the compliance status of EPCOR. Did you review the exhibit a two and exhibit a three that were discussed this
morning? I have reviewed them. And at this point, do you believe that EPCOR is now in compliance with ADEQ and ADWR? Yes. I believe they do. They are. They've showed proof of the operator and of the fencing. And as to the issue of water loss, you did you conduct analysis of the water loss in this case? I did. And you've heard the testimony this morning that that, you concluded that there was a 16.3% water loss. Is that correct? Yes. And are you aware that, that the company was ordered in its rate case to address the water loss as
part of that matter? I was not. Are you aware of it now? Yes. And having learned of that this morning, would would you, would you prefer to see the, the decision in this case contain a recommendation about water loss, or would you be satisfied with the order in the from the prior rate case, requiring the company to fire file the water loss information in that docket? As long as the one in the rate case was a water loss report and then, if they still were above 10%, a detailed water loss reduction plan within eighteen months of that decision matter,
then, yes, I am good with dropping this, recommendation for the previous one. Thank you. And in your evaluation, did you also determine whether F Corp was in compliance with the corporation commission? Yes. I did. They were in compliance. Great. Thank you. As part of your analysis, did you evaluate whether, of course, Santan Water District has sufficient production and storage capacity to serve both the existing customers and the parcels that are to be added pursuant to the CCNN application? Yes,
I did. And what conclusion if any did you reach? We concluded that they have sufficient storage and production capacity for both current customers and for the extension plus future growth. And based upon that information, do you believe that, the company is a, fit and proper entity in terms of engineering ability and and issues, to provide service to the CCN area, and that that the granting of the CCN extension would be reasonable and in the public in this case.
Yes, I do. I have no further questions. Your honor, mister mister Tatz is available for cross. Alright. Any cross from the company at this time? No cross, your honor. Thank you. Okay. Mister Tatz, I do have just a couple of questions for you. You already talked about, that staff concluded that the company had sufficient production and storage capacity, but I do wanna ask, did staff account for water loss when making that calculation or conclusion? Yes. We did. Alright. And then, is there anything else that staff would like to add related to the discussion surrounding
the reasons for the potential water loss that has not already been discussed through testimony or has been presented in one of the exhibits? No. I don't think so. Okay. And then, my final questions are related to those documented compliance issues. I believe we've already covered the ADEQ compliance issues, but, I do want to talk a little bit about the water loss, compliance issue with ADWR. Specifically, my questions are related to potential steps that staff is aware of the company taking to address those compliance issues.
So my first question is I wanna ask if whether that's, something that you would be able to answer to or if I would need to be asking staff's next witness about, steps that staff specifically is aware of the company taking towards addressing I am not aware of specific steps that the company is taking to address the water loss issues. I do know from a preliminary 2025 report that they got it reduced to 14.98% from January 2025 to September 2025, which is a slight reduction in the loss percentage.
But, I am not aware of the exact steps the company is taking. Okay. Thank you. Alright. I believe that those are all of my questions for this witness. Are there any additional questions or, any redirect from staff at this time? And just one question, your honor. With regard to the water law, the steps that the company is taking to address water loss, is that something that would normally become aware become available to staff when they actually file that report in June 2026, or should it is it something that would come earlier?
I'm not sure. Okay. Me neither. I I believe it would be in the report or at least, if the report showed that they're still over 10%, they'd have to file that, detailed water loss reduction plan, and I think that would more so detail the steps. Right. Thank you. That's all I have, your honor. Alright. Thank you. Any additional or any cross from the company at this time? No, your honor. Thank you. Alright. I believe that's all we have then, mister Tatz. You can go ahead and sit down. Thank you. Staff now calls Vicky Wallace. Alright. Thank you. Miss Wallace, you can go ahead and come up to witness stand,
and then the court reporter will swear you in. Good morning. Good morning. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Alright. Go ahead, miss Humphrey. Thank you. Would you please state your name and your business address for the record? I'm Vicky Wallace, and I work at 1200 West Washington Street. That here in Phoenix? Phoenix, Arizona 85007. Well, then I I can never remember the ZIP code. And where are you employed,
and what is your job title? I'm employed in the utilities division, and I'm an executive consultant three. As part of your duties, were you assigned to evaluate the application for the CC and N extension in this matter? Yes. I was. And can you tell us briefly what your review consisted of? I re I reviewed the rationale behind the company filing the position and staff's review of the application and what we felt that the company, was able to prove so that we could
recommend approval of the application. You should have in front of you a notebook which contains exhibit s one. Do you have that? Yes. And can you tell us what s one is? It's the staff report in this matter. And was that staff report prepared by you or your direction? Yes, it was. Do you have any corrections or modifications to that staff report? Not at this time. And are you adopting the staff report as part of your sworn testimony here today? Yes. I am. Your honor, we would move the admission of exhibit s one.
Any objection from the company? No objections. Thank you. Exhibit s one is hereby admitted. And did you evaluate the engineering report that was prepared by mister Tatz in this matter as part of your staff report? I did. In this case, did you evaluate whether EPCOR, and the San Tan Water District has the financial capability to provide service to the customers of the, of the area that requested for the CCNN extension. Yes. They didn't have any information to indicate that they were not. And have they been previously found to be competent to,
serve or have the financial capacity to serve customers? Customers through other customers. Definitely. And did you reach a conclusion as to whether Stan Tan Water the Stan Tan Water District does have the financial capacity to serve customers. Yes. It does. Would you agree or would staff agree that EPCOR is a fit and proper entity to provide water service overall and that the requested extension is in the public interest? I would agree with that. And are you making any recommendations as part of your, as part of your recommendation in this case? I believe that we have two recommendations.
A recommendation regarding the water report, and I apologize. And that the company be be required to charge their authorized rates at the time the services are provided. And do you have a position as to whether the decision in this case should direct the company, to file a water report, or are you satisfied that that that that has been handled in the previous rate case that's been discussed this morning? Yes. Which? Are you satisfied with the Well, I'm satisfied with what we're requesting in the report.
Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions. As a follow-up. I have I have no further questions to this witness, your honor. She's available for cross. Alright. Any cross from the company? No, your honor. Thank you. Okay. I have, just a couple of questions. I'm gonna start with, of course, application, what's been marked as exhibit one. Specifically, I'm looking at page 10 of that application. While you're searching for that, I'm I'm gonna kind of summarize what I what I'm looking at. The company explains that as the developers and property owners will be responsible for the
construction of any on-site facilities necessary to serve the extension areas, the company will not be directly obtaining the municipal, county, and state agency approvals required to construct the proposed facilities in the proposed extension area. The company indicates that if requested by the Commission, it will seek seek to provide those approvals, but does note that they may not all be obtained before the conclusion of this matter. As far as I can tell, staff did not comment on this at all in the staff report. So I do wanna ask, does staff believe it would be appropriate for the company to provide the evidence of
the approvals to the commission, or does staff believe that it's not necessary in this case? It's, are you talking about paragraph 28? In the company's application? Yes. That's correct. And I'm sorry, but what was your question? The question is, does staff believe it would be appropriate for the company to provide evidence of the approvals to the commission, or does staff believe that it's not necessary? It is not necessary in this case. When the developers and the property owners come to a decision in that matter, they will be filing a main extension agreement,
which, can only be approved after this application is approved. Okay. So Good to know. Alright. And, in exhibit 13 to EPCOR's application, so that would be exhibit 13 to our exhibit, what's been marked as a one, The company provided a copy of its proposed notice to the municipalities within five miles of the proposed extension area. In the staff report, staff indicates that EPCOR has provided the notice, but I do want to confirm that staff found that the notice provided by the company to those municipalities to be sufficient.
Yes. We did. Alright. And then, in my discussion earlier, or in my questioning earlier, mister Camp, we talked briefly about, whether there will be a need for a franchise agreement with San Tan Valley. And, essentially, I think where we landed was that right now, because it's so newly incorporated, that's still kind of in discussion. Does staff have any concerns related to a potential franchise agreement being necessary with San Tan Valley? I guess let me clarify my question. Do they have any, reservations about such an agreement not being executed before potentially a CCNN extension is granted
in this case? No. We don't have any concern with that. I'm sure the municipality that is issuing the franchise will want to collect their taxes. So, we normally don't have any issue with Okay. Thank you. Kind of thing. Now, in the engineering report, which we've already noticed is in exhibit two of the staff report marked as exhibit s one. Specifically on page ten and eleven of exhibit two, staff summarizes how service will be provided to each development and to that singular parcel.
Staff also provides the estimated costs as provided by EPCOR in their application for construction for each development. Ultimately, staff concludes that the system has the capacity to serve the proposed extension area at full build out. However, staff does not provide any comment related to the reasonableness of the cost of construction. So I do want to ask, does staff find the proposed construction costs to be reasonable? Normally normally, in this case, we as far as we can tell, the estimated cost appears to be reasonable.
Alright. Thank you. Does staff have any concerns about there not being a construction estimate for the mainline extension to serve that singular parcel? I believe that the construction costs for the developments were provided, but not for that singular parcel. Do staff have any concerns or reservations about that? No. As I mentioned earlier, the main extension agreement is not entered into until after the area has been approved because staff won't will not look in an extension if they don't have the certified area
in their Okay. Thank you. Now my final questions are, around the compliance issues that were, highlighted in the staff report. I guess, on the outset, we can talk about the ADEQ compliance issues that the company has already provided those additional exhibits a one and a three, to show, that they may be in compliance, or I believe that they provided it in response to staff requesting documentation to show those compliance issues. Does staff have any additional requests,
for the company related to the ADEQ compliance issues aside from what they've already provided today? Not at this this time. Okay. And, usually, we will ask them Okay. If we have anything. Alright. Thank you. And my last question is related to any steps that staff is aware of, the company taking related to the water loss issue and the ADWR compliance issue. Are you, aware of any steps that the company has taken to start reducing the water loss or work on that ADWR compliance issue at this time?
I believe, it it is my belief that they are always working on the water loss issue Okay. Because they have that sometimes, they have that throughout their system. So Okay. Alright. I just wanted to confirm because I know staff noted in their staff report that they, and and I can quote that while EPCOR does have some systems that are out of compliance with ADEQ and ADWR, staff recognizes that EPCOR has taken the appropriate steps to rest rectify the issues. Therefore, staff is not concerned with recommending approval of the requested CCNN extension.
So I just wanted to make sure if there were any specific steps that staff wanted to highlight or anything that they were aware of aside from, obviously, the exhibits that were provided today Right. Related to ADTU. Usually, my engineering staff will pretty well keep up with that on our the companies that we regulate. Okay. I appreciate that. I believe those are all of my questions. Any redirect from staff at this time? Nothing further, your honor. And any cross from the company? No, your honor. Thank you. Alright. In that case, you can go ahead and step down,
miss Wallace. I believe you're I hate you. With your testimony. And at this time, miss Humphrey, does staff have any additional witnesses? Staff closes its case, and we have no further witnesses. Alright. Thank you. In that case, let's move into closing statements at this time. I'll start with the company. Would you like to make a closing statement? Yes, your honor. Very briefly, I I think the evidence has shown, EPCOR is a fit and proper entity. It's in the public interest to grant the the requested extension. Staff has has testified to the same. This is a a cleanup to bring some parcels in that were, carved out of the existing San Tan Water CCNN,
and we've also addressed, the company has addressed the compliance issues noted in staff's report, and we will continue to address the the water loss issue, within the district, later this summer and and after that if if a detailed water, loss report is necessary. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. And from staff any closing? Just briefly your honor once again, staff does recommend adoption of the requested CCNN extension as proposed by the company and stands by its recommendations contained in the staff report.
We are, thankful to the company for their thorough job in getting us this information. Thank you. Alright. In that case, I believe we have admitted all of the exhibits, so I briefly just wanna confer with our, court reporter. I'm gonna have us briefly go off the record, and ask Jennifer, is there any, questions or anything that you need clarified before we go today? Alright. In that case, we can go back on the record. While we were off the record, I just confirmed with the court reporter whether they needed anything clarified, which, she did not.
So I will ask, is there anything else that we need to address before we adjourn starting with the company? Nothing from the company, your honor. And from staff? Nothing from staff. Thank you. Alright. In that case, I wanna thank you all for your participation today. This matter will be taken under advisement, and a recommended opinion and order will be issued for the commission's consideration at a future open meeting. With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.