For Santa Cruz Water Company Inc, and Global Water Palo Verde Utilities Company Inc, for the establishment of just and 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 number W20446A250022 and SW20445A250023. I'm administrative law judge Chris Nichols and I have been assigned to preside over this
matter. Let's begin with appearances, beginning with the applicants. Good morning, your honor. Robert Metley, regulatory counsel for Global Water Resources Inc. I'm here representing today Global Water Santa Cruz Water Company Incorporated and Global Water Palo Verde Utilities Company, Incorporated. Sitting with me is my co counsel, Michael Patton from the law firm of Snell and Wilmer. Good morning to you both. For Arruco. Good morning, your Honor. Sarah Barriosko for the Residential Utility Consumer Office and with me is Chief Counsel Dan Pazewski.
Good morning. And for staff. Good morning, your honor. Bridget Humphrey on behalf of staff. With me at council table is co counsel Rob Ridenour. Good morning. Alright. The purpose of today's pre hearing conference is to give the parties an opportunity to discuss any procedural matters that we need to get to in advance of our hearing that starts on Monday, December 15. Let's start with pre filed testimony. I believe that Global Waters rejoinder testimony, if any, is due by the end of the day. As are any corrections or revisions to any any pre filed testimony other than the
rejoinder testimony. Objections to previously filed testimony are also due today I believe, but objections to any rejoinder testimony will be accepted through the beginning of the hearing. With all that said, does any party anticipate filing any corrections or supplements to their pre filed testimony or any objections to any, pre filed testimony from another party? Mister Ametli. Your honor, no no corrections, and no objections at this time. Thank you. Miss Barrias Kuhl? Yes, your honor. As we've, alerted the company and staff to expect,
Ruko will be filing, supplemental schedules today, that reflect, some of our alignment with respect to staff positions. And we will also be delivering to the hearing division today, confidential copies of those schedules as well as a USB drive that contains those updated schedules and our work papers. Thank you, miss Barrios. Cool. Any other, additional, schedules, pre filed testimony, or any, objections to any other party's, pre filed testimony at this time? No, your honor. Thank you. And miss Humphrey? Yeah. Staff has no, additional testimony and no objections. And no objection to Ruko,
adding the the additional schedules today? That's correct. Mr. Medley, any objection to Ruko filing supplemental schedules today? No objection your honor. Great. All right. Exhibits and exhibit lists aren't due until the end of the day, but does anyone intend to offer any exhibits that haven't already been filed somewhere in the docket other than Global's rejoinder testimony and the supplemental schedules just, mentioned by miss Barrios Kuhl? Your honor, the parties consulted yesterday, so we had a discussion on on various issues. One of the things that we will be filing is a a video,
a drone video, and then we're going to mark it for identification. We are going to upload it this week so that the parties can have an opportunity to review it to see if there's any objections to it, and then we're gonna be presenting it as part of our case in chief. Thank you, mister Mele. Anything other than the, drone video? At at this point, no, your honor. But I do believe we are going to be preparing some poster boards that we will mark as exhibits. Alright. Thank you, mister Medley. Miss Barrios, cool. Any additional exhibits from Ruka other than what you've already mentioned?
No, your honor. But Ruka will be reserving all objections to any exhibits that we have not yet had the opportunity to see filed in the docket. Understood. And miss Humphrey? Yes. Staff staff has nothing additional to move. Staff is does have concerns about the, about the video. Would it be possible for us to get it by Thursday so that we have a chance to meet and confer with staff on Friday? Mister Mettler? Yes. Thank you. And then we go to request the same courtesy so we could also prepare for our our, cross examination in connection with the video. And staff also reserves its right to object to the video as well.
Thank you. And miss Marley, I appreciate you, circulating that by the end of the day tomorrow. As for organization and scheduling, is there anything special we need to do in terms of the order of presentation or, can we proceed in the typical fashion of the applicants and then Ruko and then, staff. Mister Metley? We we can proceed. I guess after this we can talk about potentially stipulating to some testimonies, but, we can proceed in order. Miss Barrios Goole? I think we'll be able to do that, your honor, but subject to our cost of capital witness,
Chris Walters, is going to need a date certain. Ideally, that would occur on the seventeenth or eighteenth. When counsel conferred yesterday, it was my understanding the consensus is that we wouldn't need an entire day for cost of capital. So, that may be that mister Walters needs to be taken slightly out of order in order to accommodate him. And our analyst, miss Brown, also has, a conflict and is not available after 03:00 on the eighteenth. So we may need some slight adjustment to accommodate that, but otherwise, we don't see any issues. Okay. Thank you, miss Barrios.
Cool. And, yeah. We'll get to the specific days that witnesses will be testifying on in just a moment, but we will go over that. As for just the the general, order of presentation, I did hear you say Ruko is okay with, the the companies first and then Ruko is second, staff third. Yes, your honor. Okay. And miss Humphrey, staff alright with that, order presentation as well? Staff is is is on board with that. Alright. So, digging into the details in terms of what the hearing is gonna look like, I do have some concern about our our our ability to get through everything that
we need to get through in five days. I think the the schedule that was adopted was a schedule that was proposed by the companies and staff and it was, agreed to, tentatively by Ruko. In retrospect, I wish I would have scheduled a few more hearing days so I'm just wondering, given the number of witnesses or potential witnesses that we have, based on the number of witnesses that have provided pre filed testimony, do the parties have any concern about us actually being able to get through everything that we need to in, in a single week, mister Metley? Your honor,
in in consultation with the other parties, we we did discuss potentially time frames for cross examination of witnesses, and I believe the consensus was we are confident we can get it done within, you know, five days. Great. How many witnesses do the companies plan on calling? And actually, if you could identify those witnesses, that would be quite helpful. Did you want me to start? Yes, please. Putting aside, we we we have two potential witnesses that the parties were okay with stipulating to, you know, based upon consideration of his honor.
But, right now, I have 11 witnesses, not well, 10 witnesses. I counted mister Bourassa twice because of his revenue requirement and cost of capital. But eight of them to be testifying and and preferably two of them not to be defying due to stipulation. Did you want me to go through them in order, your honor? Yes, please. Okay. We're gonna call mister Ron Fleming first and then mister Christopher Krieger. Robert Kuda, Theresa Valentine, John Corwin, Michael Liebman, Tom Barassa and then Jake Lenderking. Alright. So,
Kelsey Puro and Steven Brill are not expected to testify at this time? If if if that's okay with your honor. Of course. Pardon me. If I may, your honor, my understanding was there was an additional rebuttal witness of the of the company by the name of Thuneman. I'm I'm not aware of of Gudeman. The I think it's Jason Thuneman. Thuneman with a t. My apologies. No. No. He was he was a former he was a a former employee that we we referenced some testimony in a previous rate case, but we had no intention of calling him as a rebuttal witness. I'll I'll have to look at that.
Well, I have rebuttal testimony for him, but perhaps it was misfiled as an and it was meant to be an attachment. I don't have it with me today, so I'll I'll look at that. Thank you. It it's it's my recollection that we attach mister Thuneman's testimony as an exhibit to one of the other testimonies. It was either mister Krieger or mister Kuda. Thank you. And mister Mele, if you just take a look and if there's any opportunity for confusion there about whether that is being presented as an exhibit or an attachment or whether that's being
presented as pre filed testimony in this case. If you could just file something clarifying that point? Yes I can your honor. Thank you. Alright, so that's as you said, eight witnesses. How how long do you think it will take, the companies to get through their case in chief? I I would have to ask Stefan Ruko that, depending upon the cross examination. We we don't anticipate other than possibly mister Fleming and mister Krieger, I don't anticipate having them do a overview. You know, typically, they'll go through overview. We're we're not gonna do that. So, it would really depend upon the cross examination as to how long the case would
go. Okay. Mister Medley, I you know, this isn't your first rodeo. I mean, based on what you've seen before from, from Ruko and from staff, would you expect that we'll be able to get through, all those witnesses in two days? Maybe two and a half days, your honor, depending upon public comment. You know, typically, you know, we don't start the case until after lunch if given the the so that's a half a day. So a a a day and a half. I don't anticipate we would have a problem getting it done in two full days. But, again, that would depend upon, you know, how much time each witness is under cross.
Okay. Thank you, mister Medley. Alright. Miss Barrios Cool. I believe, Ruko plans to call four witnesses. Is that right? Your honor, yes. Because the, customer service adjustment is no longer at issue, we don't believe that it's necessary for the, miss Wick or mister Madsen to testify. So we would call the four witnesses, Chris Walters, who's our cost of capital witness, Jeffrey Mitchellick who is an analyst of with RUCO, Crystal Brown who's an analyst with RUCO and Baylor Tsai, also another analyst. I think Mr. Tsai's testimony will be,
relatively brief. I can't speak as to the exact order in which we'll present the witnesses at this time. I think some of that will have to do with mister Walters' schedule. Okay. How long do you expect it might take to, to get through Ruko's witnesses? I think it I think it does it does depend on, on what cross examination staff may have. Staff may have. The company has said they have some relatively limited, cross examination for our witnesses. So I'm I think that we could do it in a day. I'm hoping not to be overly optimistic. Ruggo does share some of your concern with your honor about whether we can get
this done. We wanna make sure everyone has the ability to fully present their case. And then, of course, your honor's questions are all answered. So I would say if I'm if I'm estimating it correctly, we could get through those witnesses in a day, subject to what the cross examinations and your honor's questions have for those witnesses. Thank you. Alright. Miss, Humphrey, looks like, staff plans to call five witnesses. That's correct. We have two engineering witnesses, Catterson and, Thayer, and, two fraud witnesses, which would be Jones and our, I always forget Eli's letter. Ethan's last name,
Yanoski, and then mister Parcel. None of our witnesses has any scheduling issues at this time for the week of hearing. The parties did discuss the issue of whether five days will be enough, and we do have concerns in that regard. I believe staff's witnesses can be done in a day, again, depending on cross examination. But I I want to let you know that both mister Reitnauer and I will be out of of the office the last two weeks of December. So if we do have to schedule some new days, they will be in January. And mister Reidenour has just been given two hearings during that January.
So, it's possible that we may be able to divvy up responsibility and go that week, but we should keep that in mind. I I certainly shall, and, good luck, mister Jordan. And we have no we may have staff witness out. So, you know, those last two weeks of December, everybody has to use up their leave. So Alright. So, mister Metley, you may have already mentioned this. If you have, I apologize, that it it it didn't, stick. Do any of, the company's planned witnesses have any scheduling issues? They do not, your honor. Thank you. Okay. So hopefully we can, wrap up with the company by the end of the sixteenth or
early on the seventeenth. Alright. And, miss Barrios Cool, you mentioned that mister Walters and miss Brown both have some scheduling issues. So did you have, some thoughts on when might be a good time to schedule those two witnesses? I would I would suggest to, start with mister Walters, once we're done with the company because his availability is good on the seventeenth and eighteenth. So we'll sort of begin with him, get get him out of the way, so to speak, and then, we'll proceed with our other witnesses. Alright. With miss Brown appearing,
either the seventeenth in the morning of the eighteenth or on the nineteenth if needed, depending on how we go along. Alright. Do you expect that Ms. Brown would be available to testify? I mean, I don't I don't wanna put you in a position where I'm telling you, you know, what what order to present your witnesses in, but, if if Ms. Brown has a lack of availability after, you know, mid afternoon on the eighteenth, it might be better if she went, sooner rather than later. But I'll leave that up to you and and hopefully we can make that work without any incident. I I I understand that, your honor. I suspect that we'll definitely keep that in mind so that we don't run into
any unnecessary conflicts. I I do wanna alert you, your honor. I do have, some significant cross for a few of the staff witnesses, as I believe just mister Pozewski. I we're still, working on some of those things, so I don't know how long it's going to be. But I would be concerned if, we weren't in a position for staff to start the case their case until the nineteenth. I think in that scenario, we would definitely need some additional hearing days. Understood. Alright. And miss Humphrey, I recall you saying that none of your witnesses have any, have any scheduling issues that are available throughout?
That's yeah. That's correct. And we normally, we'll do the engineering witness first, and or or we may start with Parcel, but I I I would prefer to keep that, fairly loose depending on what time we do have. We'll have to, I think, be a little flexible in in terms of the order of our witnesses, at at the time of hearing subject to, you know, everyone's being able to work together on that. Thank you, miss Humphrey. Alright. I don't have a whole lot else. I do wanna put the parties on notice that I do have some questions about the hypothetical capital structure that's,
proposed by the company. There is some testimony in the record already. Like I said, I'm going to have some questions. It may be helpful, to have the parties do some direct, just to help flesh out the record on that point and specifically my questions are, why not use the true capital structure of either the companies themselves at a 100% equity or impute the capital structure of GWRI which I think is like 28% equity. If we are going to use a hypothetical capital structure, why is 55% equity appropriate as opposed to 40% equity,
50% equity, 60% equity? I would like to beef up the record on that point because it does have a substantial effect on revenue requirement and ultimately rates. Alright. Any other issues that we need to address before we adjourn today? Mister Metley? No no issues, your honor, but we we did track down I'm sorry. Confirm this. Oh, yeah. We did confirm that the the the testimony of Jason Thuneman was a an attachment. It was attached to mister Krieger's rebuttal testimony
as Krieger attachment o five. Thank you, mister Merley. Sir And your honor, the other thing just to to confirm, whether or not, miss Puro and mister Brill's testimony would be stipulated to? Miss Ruko or or miss Barrios Cool. That's alright. I've been called first things. So I hope you're not. I I appreciate the company clarifying that on Thuneman. No. Nothing, further, your honor, except that we will be filing our list of witnesses and exhibits, as your honor indicated. Those are due later today. The the company has also, started,
and we appreciate its efforts to start an issue matrix. That's still being circulated between the parties, so we're anticipating that that will also be filed at some point. Okay. Do the parties anticipate that'll be, filed some point today, or might that be something that's not ready until the end of the week? I I anticipate perhaps today, but I think that question's better, to miss you know, post to mister Metley because he's been leading the charge on that. Alright. Any other procedural issues, miss Barrio School? No, your honor. Thank you. And miss Humphrey, anything we need to get to today and specifically, whether staff would be willing to stipulate to the testimony of miss Puro and mister
Brill? Yes. Staff is willing to to stipulate to that testimony. We do not, we do not have anything in addition to that today. I think and and I guess, ah, the third thing, the issues matrix. We are hopeful that we will get that in today. We're working on it. We're aware that you need to see it as soon as possible. So sooner rather than later is our goal. Thank you, miss Humphrey. And and your honor, just one one point of order of clarification for the record. Because missus Wake and mister Madsen are their testimony relates to the CSA, and isn't necessary,
we we assume we understand that you've excused them. But we'll still be marking their testimony as an exhibit for the completeness of the record. And because none of the parties have raised any objections to prewritten testimony, we expect that those would be admitted. Miss Humphrey? That that's fine with staff. Mister Medley? Yeah. No objection. Great. Alright. I think that's it for today. Thank you all very much for showing up today and, and for your thoughts and I look forward to seeing you all, next Monday, December 15. We're adjourned. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, your honor.