In that case, we're going to go on the record. Good morning. This is the time set for the public comment and evidentiary hearing in the matter of the application of Summit IG, LLC for a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide point to point telecommunication services in Arizona. This is docket number TDash21366ADash25Dash0202. My name is Donna Sansone, and I'm the administrative law judge assigned to preside over this matter.
I'm gonna start by taking the appearances of the parties. I'll begin with the company, Summit IG. Good morning. Can you hear me? Me? Yeah. Okay. Good morning, your honor. Jennifer Cranston with the law firm of Gallagher and Kennedy, appearing on behalf of the applicant, Summit IG, LLC. Thank you, miss Cranston. And do you have any witnesses with you today? I do. Our witness is Thomas Gunerman, and he is on the Webex. Excellent. Thank you. And for staff? Morning, your honor. Eli Golub, staff attorney. We've got Wesley DeMello as our witness today. We have only one exhibit two that we're proposing,
which is exhibit s one, the staff report. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, mister Golob. At this time, are there any procedural issues or items that we need to address starting with the company? Not that I'm aware of. And for staff? No, your honor. In that case, we can move on to public comment. This is the time for any member of the public present to provide comments in this matter. Are there any members of the public who would like to provide comment today regarding Summit IG's application? Seeing none in the hearing room, and I do not see that we have any callers waiting to speak on the
phone. Let the record reflect that no one has indicated a desire to speak. We'll move into opening statements. Miss Cranston, would the comp Cranston, would the company like to make an opening statement at this time? We'll waive opening. Thank you, your honor. And, for staff? Staff waves, your honor. I just wanna note that, we are in agreement with the company as far as this application is concerned, and and staff, is supporting it. Thank you. Alright. Thank you so much. In that case, we'll move into the presentation of witnesses and evidence. Is Summit IG ready to call its first witness?
Yes, your honor. We call Thomas Gunderman. He is on the Webex. Alright. And, mister Gunderman, if you could please come on camera and unmute your microphone. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me? Yes. We can. And, mister Gunderman, I'm gonna have our, court reporter swear you in. Great. Good morning. Will you 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. Miss Cranson, whenever you're ready, you can proceed. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, mister Gunnerman.
Can you please state your full name and business address for the record? Yes. Thomas Gunnerman. Business address is 22365 Broderick Drive, Suite 250 in Sterling, Virginia. ZIP is 20166. Thank you. What is your position with Summit IG LLC? I am the vice president and general counsel. And can you please provide a brief overview of your educational and professional background? Sure. I have a BA from Colgate University and a JD from Syracuse University College of Law. I've been a practicing attorney since 2012,
and I'm predominantly working in, the telecommunications field. Thank you. You should have six doc documents in front of you that were pre marked as applicants exhibits a one through a six. Do you have those documents before you? Yes. So we're just gonna walk through those documents pretty quickly. If you turn to exhibit a one, that should be the application and request for limited waiver of contract filing requirement and modification of publication requirement, which was filed by Summit IG on 09/11/2025.
Is that correct? Yes. It is. Exhibits two and or I'm sorry. A two and a three should be applicants' responses to staff's first set of data requests and a supplement to those responses which were filed on September 24 and 12/15/2025, respectively. Is that accurate? Yes. It's accurate. Thank you. Is exhibit a four the company's responses to staff's second set of data requests filed in the docket on 02/03/2026?
Yes. It is. And can you please confirm that exhibit a five is a 03/19/2026 notice of amendment to Summit IG's application? Yes. It is. And then the last exhibit, a six, should be the company's 05/20/2026 response to staff's report. Is that correct? Yes. That is correct. And is it correct that some of the information provided in some of the exhibits has been updated by other exhibits? For example, exhibit a one, which is Summit's initial application,
was updated by exhibit a five to confirm that the company is seeking a CCNN for both point to point service and wholesale service. Yes. That is correct. And similarly, exhibit a three is a supplement to exhibit a two providing additional information regarding the business relationship a certificated to provide telecommunications services in Arizona. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. Other than the updates provided in those various filings, do you have any other corrections or revisions to the information provided in exhibits a
one through a six? Yes. We do have one. It's a supplement for exhibit a one attachment, a 17. This is related to, a recent, authorization we received in the state of Wisconsin to add to our existing list of states containing authorizations. Do you require further details on that? It was recently received in February. That's perfect. Thank you. With that update, do you adopt exhibits a one, a two, a three, a four, a five, and a six as part of your testimony here today? I do.
Alright. Thank you. With that, I move for the admission of exhibits a one through a six, your honor. Any objection from staff? No objection, your honor. With no objection, exhibits a one, a two, a three, a four, a five, and a six are hereby admitted. Thank you, your honor. Mister Gunerman, can you please turn to exhibit a one? Okay. Thank you. Does that exhibit include a motion requesting waiver of the Commission's contract filing requirement? It does. And is it correct that in providing the services referenced in the tariff, which is also part of exhibit a one,
Summit IG anticipates entering into contracts on an individual case basis? Yes. And do you understand that if the commission grants the motion for a limited waiver that is, in included in exhibit a one, the company will be required to provide copies of those contracts if so requested by staff? Yes. We are aware. And that condition is acceptable to the company? It is. Now there's another document that has not yet been admitted, into evidence, but do you have in front of you, the staff report which was filed in the docket on 04/28/2026?
Yes. I do. And can you please turn to pages eight and nine of the report, which if you look at the bottom right hand corner, you will see they have Bates numbers, STF0013 and STF0014. Can you turn to the first one, page eight, s t STF zero zero one three? I have it open? Yep. Starting on that first page and then carrying over to the second, do you see that staff has included a set of seven recommendations in its report? I do. Yes. And does recommendation number two address resold long distance service providers?
It does. In, Summit IG's response to the staff report, which has been admitted as exhibit a six, does the company request that recommendation number two be removed and not adopted into the final order in this matter because the company will not be providing resold long distance service in Arizona? Yes. That is correct. Other than removing recommendation number two, does Summit agree with staff's six other recommendations? Yes. We do. And then if you turn to page nine,
which is s t f zero zero one four, do you see that staff has included, four recommended conditions in its report? Yes. I see them. And does the company's response in exhibit a six contain responses to some of those conditions? Yes. It does. For example, is the company requesting a revision to condition number two to extend the timeline for providing tariff services from three to five years? Yes. We are. And then in response to condition number four,
does the company is the company requesting that additional language be added to clarify the intent of the condition, which is to address a procedural issue rather than, a substantive issue? Yes. That is also correct. And does the company agree with staff's recommend recommended conditions one through four subject to the recommended and requested revisions to conditions two and four? Yes. We do. Alright. Thank you very much, mister Gunnerman. I now tender the witness for further questioning.
Thank you, miss Cranston. Mister Golub, any questions for this witness? I don't have any questions for this witness, your honor, but I would like to, you know, we could just, on the record, stipulate to those, three items, that the witness was just questioned on department, is fine with that and would stipulate to to that understanding. Does that work for you, miss Cranston? Of course, your honor. That way, I don't have to ask, staff's witness about them. Alright. Perfect. That works for me as well. So we can just have that stipulation on the record. Anything else, mister Golub? No, your honor.
Alright. In that case, I do have a couple of questions for you, mister Gonerman. I'm going to begin with some questions seeking clarification on different things mentioned in the company's exhibits and the staff report. I believe you already have the staff report in front of you, which is proposed exhibit s one. On page two specifically, staff notes that, quote, in its application, the company stated that it received approval to provide similar telecommunication service in the jurisdictions of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia.
However, I didn't see anywhere in the company's exhibits that they had been approved to provide telecommunication services in the state of Utah. To the best of your knowledge, was this potentially a typo, or is Summit IG actually authorized to provide telecommunication services in the state of Utah? It may technically be a typo. The applicant, which is specifically Summit IG LLC, is not certificated to provide service in Utah. However, we do have an affiliate, company called Summit IG Utah LLC that is certificated to provide services in Utah.
Alright. Thank you. And then, I wanted to briefly confirm my understanding of the organ organizational structure of all of the entities discussed throughout the application in the staff report. So it's my understanding that the ultimate parent company is, SDC Summit Holdings. Then underneath that, SDC is Summit Infrastructure Holdings LLC, and then underneath Summit Infrastructure Holdings LLC is both Summit IG LLC and Summit Infrastructure Group LLC. Is that correct? Yes. That is correct.
Alright. Thank you. Now moving on to some questions related to the company's technical and managerial capabilities to provide the proposed services. I'd like to talk briefly about the relationship between Summit IG and Summit Infrastructure Group. Now in exhibit a, which has already been entered into evidence today, the company provides some information about the reorganization that resulted in these separate entities as well as a general overview of how these entities will operate. It's indicating customer projects in Arizona will be provided by Summit IG or Summit Infrastructure Group
based on specific circumstances of the projects, but customers will work with the brand name Summit IG overall. Can you please expound on how this works? For example, if I'm a company seeking Summit IG's private line services, who would I reach out to, and how would it be decided which company handles the project? Of course. So from a customer facing perspective, all of our customers would interact with the same broader Summit IG team, if that makes sense. As you referenced before, specifically with that entity or organization, while we have multiple affiliates that are underneath the Summit Infrastructure Holdings LLC,
all of our personnel and operations are ultimately consolidated up into the parent entities. We have different, subsidiary operating entities for various different purposes, but to further address your specific question, these two, entities within the state of Arizona, one is currently certificated, Summit Infrastructure Group LLC versus the current applicant entity, Summit IG LLC. At the immediate parent entity level of Summit Infrastructure Holdings LLC, apologize if I know it's a lot of similar names. We did a slight reorganization there from a tax standpoint where, we now, going forward, need to allocate certain revenues and perform certain services,
under those two entities. They are predominantly related to how construction services and those revenues are both, captured and monitored from a cap capital expenditure standpoint and then also revenue recognition. It's it's a little bit complicated. I'm happy to get into it, but it's largely related to how it impacts tax implications, for different services. But, ultimately, we need to provide certain, construction based services under one entity, when they are related to providing the specific services that we are in tariff for versus the other entity is more specifically related to to just providing the services.
However, when a customer interacts with us, it is still the same team and depending upon the scope of their project. And the easy way of thinking that is essentially if the project is going to involve a customized installation or construction, process, We'll dictate which one of our entities falls into it, but the overall branding, appearance, customer experience is going to be pretty seamless across the board. The only thing that would really, vary is just the legal entity on the specific contract or statement of work, etcetera. Okay. I appreciate that explanation. I don't think we need to get into the the tax differentials for our purposes
today, unless you're really passionate about it. But Happy to skip it if you are. That works for me. So you kind of touched on this a little bit through, my next question through your statements. Now outside of the financial resources that are provided by that ultimate parent company, both Summit IG, the applicant, and Summit Infrastructure Group, its affiliate, be sharing access to any other resources, such as infrastructure? It sounds like there may be some employees who are working, to provide services that are consistent. But is there any resource that their,
these entities will be sharing outside of potentially access to the parent company's financials? Potentially, yes. So we we have different operating entities for for the purposes that I described before, but, ultimately, the way we do our, financial reporting is on a consolidated basis. So, ultimately, while certain, assets within the applicable operating entities are attributed to those from a financing perspective, they all go up to a consolidated legal entity for purposes of our overall financial calculations. So, therefore,
we sort of view that all of those resources are fundamentally shared across the company even though specific entities, for instance, are the ones that employer employees versus another entity might be more specifically a, making this up in equipment purchasing division of of where we do our operations. Okay. Thank you. And do the company share any management personnel? Yes. We share all of our management personnel across the board. Alright. Thank you. Do the company share customers at at all? For example, would one project be assigned to Summit IG and another be assigned to Summit Infrastructure
Group for the same customer? It it is tech yes. Tentatively possible that we would be sharing customers. The nuances of how the contract works gets a little bit complicated, but what we do is we provision a contract to allow for, affiliate entities to either provision and or service, that customer underneath that contract. So, yes, there will be some sharing of customers between the entities, mostly because a customer really wants to be dealing with what they view as one company. That makes sense. Thank you. I'm now, going to ask you, another clarifying question. On page five of exhibit a one,
it's also included on page two of proposed exhibit s one. There's some discussion about the company's network operation center, which will be located in Sterling, Virginia and will operate twenty four days or twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Do you know how many employees will be assigned to work for that network operation center for the applicant? We do. So it's it's shared from all of our entities. We have five dedicated employees who operate the network operations center. Roughly not all on staff at the same time. There's a rotation based upon the twenty four seven nature of the of the,
the network operations center. But, yes, five employees. Alright. Thank you. Also, on page five of exhibit a one, with respect to questions about whether the company has a customer service center, the company responds, NA or not applicable. Can you explain this a bit? Where will customers reach out for assistance outside of network issues, like for general customer service or billing issues? So we are solely a commercial, customer, operations. We do not have any residential customers. So, therefore, all of our commercial relationships, I should say, all of our relationships with our customers are they're commercial customers.
They are all signed account executives. So every single one of our accounts has a dedicated account executive. Obviously, an account executive has multiple accounts, but that is actually one of our our primary relationship, with the customers through that account executive, and that person is available to them as the first point of contact. Additionally, I we didn't specify this in our report anywhere, but in our customer service agreements, we also create, including what's called an escalation table. An escalation table is a series of three to four contacts, aside from the network operation center where a customer can communicate with individuals in our
company on a escalating need basis. Alright. Thank you. Moving on to some questions related to the company's proposed rates and charges. Summit IG indicates that it intends to utilize individual case basis or ICB contracts with its customers. If the company's application is granted, does the company intend to keep the maximum rate charged within an ICB contract at or below the maximum rate of its commission approved tariff? It it depends upon the unique circumstance. Our our intent is to not exceed that. However, there are unique circumstances,
particularly when a heavy customized installation or construction cost is included. A number of customers elect to choose not to pay that as a separate one time fee, and they elect to try to amortize it into the monthly service charge. So so I try to say that differently. If it's a multiple $100,000 expense, they sort of bake that into the monthly charges. So it is theoretically possible on those ICB basis that the maximum rate would be exceeded in those unique circumstances. Okay. But to be clear,
the actual rate that's gonna be charged to these companies excel itself separate from any potential amortization that may be, you know, added to pay off those particular construction expenses, that rate would just the rate itself, not combined. It would Yes. You are correct. Alright. Thank you. Correct. Yes. And then, to confirm, Summit IG does not plan to offer any regulated telecommunication services within the state of Arizona outside of those requested in its application. Is that correct? That that is correct.
Alright. I believe that your attorney has asked my remaining questions, so I am, all done. Miss Cranston, do you have any additional questions or redirect for this witness at this time? No, your honor. And, mister Golub, any, final cross from staff? Just one question, your honor. My understanding, miss, is mister Gunnerman, is that, the company will be offering competitive services. Is that your understanding as well? Yes. Okay. Nothing further. Alright. Thank you. I believe that is all we have for mister Connerman. Thank you so much for your testimony. You can go ahead and mute your mic.
Great. Thank you. Miss, Cranston, does the company have any additional witness testimony to provide at this time? No other witnesses. Thank you. Before we move on to staff's testimony, we do actually have a call in user. It appears I have a mister David Bowen, on the screen, and I don't believe that he is here to participate with any of the parties. I'm going to, ask mister Bowen to, unmute himself. I can unmute you on the Webex here. Mister Bowen, are you here to provide public comment on today's matter concerning the applicant summit IG?
Mister Bowen, if you're able to, either unmute your telephone or you can push, I believe it is, star six, potentially. Mister Bowen, if you could please even confirm if you're just here to, just observe the hearing as opposed to provide comment public comment. I just want to ensure anyone who is here to provide comment public comment is able to do so. Not hearing anything. We can come back to mister Bowen at the very end of our hearing to see if, if there are any technical issues, if they're resolved, and we can go from there.
In that case, we will move on to the presentation of staff's, testimony evidence. Yes, your honor. Thank you. Staff calls Wesley DeMello to the stand. Mister DeMello, you're welcome to come up here. And then when you are ready, I will have our court reporters swear you in. Good morning. 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. Mister Golub, whenever you're ready. Thank you, your honor. Could you please state your name for the record? Wesley DeMello. Thank you.
And could you please tell us who you're employed by and where you work? Yeah. I'm employed by the, the Arizona Corporation Commission as a public utility analyst in the utilities division. Okay. Thank you. And, could you just describe to us what your position entails and how long you've been, kinda what your train your training and experience in the area that this hearing is covering? Yeah. Well, my educational background, have a bachelor of arts in history and economics from the University of Arizona, and I've been working, with the with the Arizona Corporation Commission as a telecom and electrical analyst for the
last three years in October. Okay. Thank you. And you you're assigned to this case. Correct? Correct. And are you thoroughly familiar with the with the contents of the report of the staff report dated April 28, 2026? Yes. In fact, are you the author of the report? I am. Okay. Your honor, at this point, I'm I'm I'm moved for the introduction of, staff exhibit s one into the record. Any objection from the company? No objection, your honor. With no objection, exhibit s one is hereby admitted. Thank you, your honor. And as part of your employment,
you were asked to review this the the application issue. Is that right? Correct. Can you describe what you did as well as what you reviewed in the case? Yeah. We review the, the application in general along with the company's managerial, financial, and technical capabilities to operate within the state of Arizona. Okay. Thank you. And, and do you have a copy in front of you? If not, I will bring one up. I do not. Your honor, may I approach? Of course. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have in front of you, staff exhibit s one? I do. Thank you.
Was s one prepared by you, or at your direction? It was. Thank you. Aside from the matter the the understanding that was stipulated to earlier in this hearing, Do you have any changes, modifications, or corrections that you'd like to make to exhibit s one, the staff report? No. Okay. Thank you. And are you adopting the contents of exhibit s one as part of your testimony today? I am. Alright. Thank you. I have no further questions, your honor. Miss Cranson, any, cross at this time?
No. In light of, staff stipulation to the, three changes that we had requested, to staff's report, we don't have any questions. Thank you very much for your time and and support in this application. No problem. Alright. Thank you. In that case, I do have just a couple of questions for staff. I'm gonna start with some questions related to Summit IG's technical, managerial, and financial capabilities to provide the proposed services. Now on pages one and two of the staff report, staff generally describes what Summit IG's business plan is,
what services they will provide, and how the company plans to provide those services. Staff ultimately concludes on page three that Summit IG has the technical capability to provide the proposed services. However, staff doesn't exactly provide specifics on how or why the company's plan to provide these services, demonstrate their technical capability. Can you please provide some clarity on how staff came to their conclusion about the company's technical capability? For example, did staff find that the company is following a business model that staff has seen other companies successfully deploy for its private line and wholesale infrastructure and services?
Or how exactly does Summit IG's plans demonstrate their technical capability to provide the proposed services? Yeah. We've, this is a very similar model to, what a lot of other companies have, implored in the state. We kinda just take a look at their background and what they're doing in other states, and they have a successful track record in other states, no record of malfeasance, and, a successful business model to date. So that's primarily what we look at. Alright. Thank you. And then in its staff report, staff does not directly managerial capabilities? In staff data requests,
we get bios on the on the the managers of the company. So we review that, and then we back it up with with Internet searches. And, can you tell me what the conclusion was? Did they find that, the applicant has the managerial capability to provide these services? Staff believes the company has the managerial capabilities. And then aside from the years of experience, the company's key management team, through their resume review as you just described, are there any other factors that staff considered in coming to that conclusion? No. No. No. Just what I outlined. Thank you.
And then I just want to confirm that staff is not seeking a performance bond from the company in this case. Is that correct? I don't believe so. Alright. Turning to staff's review of the proposed rates and charges. After reviewing the proposed rates and charges, does staff believe that these proposed rates and charges are just and reasonable? We do. Moving to staff's review of complaint information. In the application, the company has asked about whether, quote, any of its officers, directors, partners, or managers happen or are currently involved in any formal or informal complaint proceeding before
any state or regulatory, state or federal regulatory commission, administrative agency, or law enforcement agency. Now on page four of the staff report, staff notes that it, quote, found no instances of any formal or informal complaint proceedings pending before any state or federal regulatory commission, administrative agency, or law enforcement agency involving Summit IG or any of its officers, directors, or managers. However, by the company's own admission, Summit IG, quote, does not have a board of directors, partners, or managers and is managed by Summit Infrastructure Holdings,
formerly known as Summit Infrastructure Group Incorporated as its sole member. So just for clarification's sake, when staff was conducting its review, did staff research whether there were complaints, if any, first specifically for the applicant Summit IG? No. We also review the the parent companies, and that's that's the primary thing we focus on. And, did you also review, so that would be Summit Infrastructure Holdings, the entity that's just above it? Correct. Alright. And then, when reviewing the records, did you also confirm whether its officers
had any, formal or informal complaints. We found no formal or or informal complaints on on any of its officers. Thank you. Now moving to questions related to staff's competitive services analysis. In the staff report, staff provided a general definition for what wholesale services to telecommunication carriers means. However, staff does not provide a similar definition for private line services. So for the record, would you mind please providing a brief description of what private line telecommunication services constitutes? It's just gonna be point to point with the intrastate.
Thank you. Now my next question is about the company's relationship with its affiliate, Summit Infrastructure Group. Now looking, in looking at CCNNs for competitive telecommunication companies, one of the things the commission is required to look at is ensuring that there, can be availability for competition in the telecommunications market, and there aren't any concerns related to market share. Now I believe staff indirectly addressed this, in their staff report through its competitive services analysis on pages four through seven. However, to confirm, does staff have any concerns with respect to the operation of both Summit IG and
Summit Infrastructure Group as it relates to the competitiveness of the private line market? No. We don't. Thank you. Alright. And I believe those are all of my questions. Mister Golub, any redirect at this time? No, your honor. And, miss Cranston, any, final cross examination from you? No. Thank you, your honor. Alright. Mister DeMello, I believe those are all of the questions we have for you. You can go ahead and step down. Mister Kolob, does staff have any other witness testimony they'd like to provide at this time? No, your honor. Alright. In that case, I'm gonna take a brief moment,
once again just to see, and confirm that, mister Bowen, does not have any public comment that he would like to give on Summit IG's application. I'm going to unmute. Mister Bowen, if you can hear me, if you could please unmute your, telephone, potentially through star six. I just wanna confirm that we are not missing any public comment at this time. Seeing that mister Bowen, either is not able to provide comment, or, would just like to observe, I believe that we have covered our bases to ensure that we've, allowed for public comment to be had if there was anyone who wanted to testify
or, excuse me, not testify, provide public comment in this matter. In that case, we can move into closing statements. Miss Cranston, would Summit IG like to make a closing statement at this time? Yes, your honor. Just briefly, I thank you for your time and attention today. We also thank staff again for its cooperation in processing the application. The applicant, Summit IG LLC, respectfully requests that the commission grant the company a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide point to point telecommunications services and wholesale services to telecommunications carriers in Arizona.
We further request that the decision entered in this matter confirm that the company services will be classified as competitive and include a waiver of r 14 dash two dash one one one five c three subject to the condition that Summit IG produce a contract upon staff request. Finally, pursuant to the testimony and stipulation heard today, we request that staff's recommendations be incorporated into the Commission's order with the following modifications: recommendation number two on the Bates numbered page STF0013
not be included in the order. The order. Second, condition number two on page STF0014 be revised to set a five year deadline for providing authorized telecommunications services. And third, condition number three on page STF zero zero one four be revised to include the language requested in exhibit a six on the page Bates numbered summit IG zero zero zero zero nine nine at lines 16 through 17. Thank you again for your help today.
Thank you, miss Grant. And mister Golub, any closing? Your honor, I'll waive closing. I will just note that staff is in agreement with, the, proposed the suggested changes that we had stipulated to, and that's all, your honor. Thank you so much. Now I believe we have admitted all of the exhibits offered for today. Before we finish up, I'm gonna briefly go off the record and just ask, our court reporter. At this time, do you have any questions or anything else that you would need clarified? Alright. In that case, we'll go back on the record.
While we were off the record, I confirmed with the court reporter, that she did not need anything clarified before we close-up today. Is there anything else that we need to address before we adjourn starting with miss Cranston? No, your honor. Mister Golub? No, your honor. In that case, I wanna thank you all for your participation today. This matter will be taken under advisement. Any recommended opinion and order will be issued for the commission's consideration at a future open meeting. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.