Everyone is ready. Alright. Let's go ahead and go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for the hearing, and public comment in the matter of the application of EPCOR Water Arizona Inc. To extend its extend its certificate of convenience and necessity for its Sonoran Wastewater District, Luke 303 Wastewater Service Area. Docket number is WS01303A250201. I'm administrative law judge Elizabeth Beatty, and I've been assigned to preside over this matter. I will go ahead and take appearances from the parties now,
beginning with EPCOR. Yes. Good morning, your honor. Oh. It it's on. Sorry. Can you hear me? Sorry. Good morning, your honor. Greg Stein for EPCOR Water, Arizona. I also have Steve Camp, engineering manager, with me at council table. Alright. Good morning, mister Stein. And for staff? Good morning, your honor. Nicole Leighton on behalf of staff. And that council table with me are Connor Tatz, which for the court reporter, c o n n e r t a t z, and Wesley D'Mello. Alright. Thanks, miss Layton. Before we go ahead and move on to public comment,
is there any procedural issue that needs to be addressed from the company? No, your honor. From staff? No, your honor. Alright. Thank you. Makes it a little easier. Alright. We'll go ahead and move on to the public comment. This is the time for any member of the public to come forward and provide comment on this matter. Is there anybody here today or online, that would like to provide comment in this matter? Okay. Hearing and seeing none, let the record reflect that nobody has, appeared both online or in person to provide comment. Alright. So we will go ahead and proceed to opening statements.
Would APOR like to make an opening statement? Yes, your honor. Very briefly, this is a standard CCNN extension. This is wastewater only to three parcels in the to extend the Sonoran Wastewater District. The parcels will have a number of buildings, in total to be used as warehouses. The the infrastructure will be developer funded. This, otherwise, I think EPCOR has demonstrated in this proceeding and in past proceedings that it's a fit and proper entity to provide the service, and the application,
in that portion, you should be granted. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, mister Stein. And, does staff have an opening comment or statement? Briefly, your honor. Thank you. Staff does agree that the application should be granted and recommends that your honor also make that recommendation to the commission. And that is because staff, has found that EPCOR has the capability to serve the extension area and is a fit and proper entity to do so. Thank you. Alright. Thanks, miss Layton. So we will go ahead and move on to the evidence portion of the hearing.
Is EPCOR ready to call their first witness? Yes, your honor. EPCOR calls, mister Steve Camp. And for the court reporter, Camp is spelled normally c a m p. Okay. Good morning, mister Camp. If you can take a seat up here, we'll 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. Good morning, mister Camp. Can you please state your full name and business address for the record? Steve Camp. 5656 West Tulave Boulevard, Glendale, Arizona 85306.
And who is your employer, employer, and what is your role or position, at your employer? EPCOR and, engineering, developer services. Can you briefly describe, your duties in your role as, as a project as a engineering manager? So I receive a lot of the, or most the, CCN applications, review those, and, I also, go over the, any kind of, reports we may get for developer funded projects. And the application that is the subject of this hearing, is that part of your duties and responsibilities in your role at EPCOR?
It is. K. And the, if you could turn, the packet in front of you, I think on the back of the second page starts, what EPCOR has marked as exhibit a one. Do you recognize that document? Yes. And what is it? It's the application for the, CCN expansion. And was contents of the application, would your answers be substantially similar to what appears in the application itself? It would. K. Do you have any modifications or changes to anything set forth in the application? No changes. Okay. Your honor, at this time, at this time, I'm gonna ask you any questions about the contents of the application, would your answers be substantially similar to what appears in the application? It would. Do you have any modifications or changes to anything set forth in the application? No changes. K. Your honor, at this time, EPCOR moved for admission of exhibit a one.
K. Does staff have any objections to the exhibit marked as, exhibit a one? No objection. Alright. Hearing no objection. Exhibit a one is hereby admitted. And lastly, mister Camp, do you have anything, that else that you'd like to add to the application for purposes of the hearing? No. Yeah. Mister Camp is available for cross examination. Does staff have cross examination? I do have a few questions. Thank you. Good morning, mister Camp. Good morning. Did you have the opportunity to review the staff report that's marked as as as exhibit s one? It is up there if you need to reference it.
Yes. And did you also happen to review, staff's notice of errata, that was filed yesterday marked as exhibit s two? I it was filed yesterday? Yes. I didn't look at this one yet. Okay. I'll give you a moment if you wanna read it. Okay. It pretty much is the same as the application. Yes. So do you agree with staff's conclusions and recommendations? I do. K. And do you agree with that, corrected connection count that's in the nose of errata? Oh, yes. Yeah. We went over this. Yeah. Alright. I have no further questions.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you, miss Slayton. Good morning, mister Kemp. How are you this morning? Good. Good. I do have some questions for you, and I apologize they may be more for my own educational purposes. So the first one is regarding, EPCOR, their aquifer protection permit. So my understanding is that, they are permitted to expand to 4,250,000 gallons per day, but is expected to reach eight point, zero million gallons per day at full build out. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And then can you just explain to me what fill full build out means in
that context? Is it the full build out of the, proposed infrastructure? It'd be full build out of the Luke plant, but, really, I don't but, you know, I I'm not I don't oversee the APP. So Okay. Understood. And just so just to confirm, you're not familiar with that process. Is that correct? Familiar with the APP process, but not intimately familiar with the APP for Luke. Okay. Understood. Alright. Okay. And then another just educational question. Can you just explain what a sub out is? And if you wanna refer to the application,
it's on page four. So the sub out would just be a a future sewer connection. Okay. And then is that, where would that be located? It'd be usually located along the mainline. Okay. And is this to address future growth in that area? Correct. Okay. Let's see. And then also in the application on page six, EPCOR states, that no other provider can extend its service as economically as EPCOR. Can you just explain a little bit what EPCOR means by that? Let me go you're on page six. Where's the is it,
six of the applications. So I don't see page numbers on here. I just see the zeros oh, the zero zero six at the top here? Yes. I believe so. Okay. That was a d 006. Okay. Okay. And where where are you at? Let's see here. It could be oh, okay. It looks like it is the second full sentence of that page. It begins with no other wastewater provider. Can you repeat that? The sentence begins with no other wastewater provider. Do you see where I'm at? Okay. Okay. And what was the question again now?
I see that. Just if you can explain, what FCOR means by economically, within that context. Well, there's another wastewater provider in the area. Don't know if I can give a Okay. Is that We just yeah. We there's no other wastewater provider in that area. Okay. No. I think that explains. Yeah. We have we have, we have, services to the north of these properties. We have services to the South and also to the West and to the East. So they're because they're surrounded by EPCOR service and so we'd have to run some kind of service line through our territory then. Okay. Another provider would need to run.
Okay. Understood. Let's see. And then I wanted to confirm that there were no amendments needed to EPCOR's mag two zero eight plan to accommodate for any of the extensions. Of these. No. Okay. And then, will the company need to obtain any Maricopa County environmental services department approval, to construct or approval of construction for the proposed facilities? Are you asking me? Yes. Can you repeat it again? Yes. Will the company need to obtain any of those, approvals from Maricopa County, either for the approval to construct or approval of construction for any of the extension
areas? You're talking about for the expansion for the collection system to hook those. So they would typically apply for the ATC for their expansion if it's developer funded. Okay. Understood. They would typically apply with EPCOR. We would issue some kind of capacity assurance form, and then they would turn that into Maricopa County to get their approval. Okay. And that would be through the developer. Is that correct? Okay. Got it. Alright. On page 11, and we're gonna hope that that's zero zero eleven. So Yes. Okay. Yes. And number 30. So the application shows a total of nine customers at year five of the project.
Are there any additional customers expected, at the completion of the project? Not on not on this area. When when they do expand this line, it'll also be able to expand the line up to other parts of our service territory that we do serve. Okay. And then I I understand. So I'm actually gonna go to Exhibit 4 A. Where is 4 A? 4 A will be Okay. Alright. Let's see. And I'm flipping with you, so it might take me a moment. Okay. Page 40. Thanks. And okay.
I'm actually gonna flip to page 43 of that exhibit or page page two of that exhibit, page 43. So it says let me see here. Okay. In the second paragraph and, I believe the second sentence of that paragraph, it says the project for the 303 West, is anticipated to service roughly 7,347 people. Are there any other similar estimates for the other projects at this time? I I don't no. I I I don't have that data.
You're asking if there's any can you repeat it one more time? So I understand in the, and it might help actually if I just reference exhibit four C as well. I believe in in that with reference to Evergreen. It was unknown at the time of the engineering report, who the customers would be. So I'm just trying to understand if there's any additional information on either the customers or the number of people that will be served in the extension. No. I don't have that information. Okay. Alright. Okay. And were you are you familiar with how the,
daily demands were calculated, the projected daily demands? Yeah. I believe those were well, let me go back to it. It's been a while since I looked at it. Yeah. Yeah. So we have our developer services, guide, and we typically use 25 gallons per thousand square foot of warehouse space. Okay. And then I noticed that that was in, both the 303 East and Evergreen, but I just wanted to confirm that that was the same calculation used for the 303 West. Right. Okay. Right. Alright. Okay. I wanna turn to page, 63, and I'll tell you, it's exhibit four b,
page one. Okay. And there is on the third paragraph paragraph second sentence, it states that there is another, acre of land excuse me. A 146.79 acres of land to the north. I just wanted to confirm that I wasn't misunderstanding and that that that portion or that, yeah, that portion of land is not included in that in this application. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Alright. And I apologize. Just a few more here. In the engineering report for Evergreen in Exhibit 4 C To the page. It's I believe it's page 160.
Okay. Okay. And in under, subsection one c, zoning and land use, I believe it says, yes. The Evergreen is proposed to be annexed into the city of Glendale. I just wanna make sure that that wouldn't have any impact on this application. Is that correct? No. It it doesn't. We there's just some agreement with Glendale. They wanna be annexed in before they hook up to our system. Okay. And the company has franchise agreements with the city of Glendale? Okay. Understood. Okay. I have one kind of random question out of curiosity. Do you know when, properties property reserve requested service from EPCOR?
Do I know when they requested it? Yes. There was, the request for services were, submitted with the application, and that was the only undated letter. So out of curiosity Okay. If Can can you guide me to that so I can see it? It is exhibit 10. So I believe they begin on page two fifty eight. Two fifty eight? Two fifty eight. And I believe it is k. The second request. For which one now? Property reserve. K. This one. I don't have the date here. Didn't realize there's no date. Okay. I can look back, and I can get it for you if you need that.
Okay. No. Not It's, yeah. Not crucial just Okay. Out of curiosity or if you have a kind of a rough estimate if it was submitted around the same time of the other requests. It was definitely later than 2022, but it would have been close to the November 2024 date. Okay. Alright. And then, has EPCOR issued notice to the municipalities? We have. Okay. And, what date did EPCOR issue that? Do you know? It was within ten days of, when we submitted the application. Okay. Alright. I believe those were all of my questions. Thank you, mister Camp. Alright. Thank you.
Does EPCOR have any, follow-up questions? Your honor, I I think I just have two or three questions just for clarification purposes. Mister Camp, do you remember when the judge was asking you questions about full build out in relation to the aquifer protection permit? Yes. So when it comes to the aquifer protection permit expanding to treat 8,000,000 gallons per day, what how the way you understand full buildout is that that is infrastructure either at the plant or off-site that will be sufficient to allow the plant to treat up to 8,000,000 gallons per day?
Right. According to what we have in our master plan, that would be the entire service area. Okay. And then also if you could and I apologize. My version is doesn't have page numbers, but it's exhibit 10, the request for service letters. Mhmm. If you could flip to, I was gonna look at pages two and four. Okay. Page two from Suburban Land Reserve is dated 01/07/2022. Correct? And the property reserve letter is undated? Correct. But to your understanding, Suburban Land Reserve and Property Reserve are development arms of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter day Saints. Is that correct? Correct. They're the same address. Yeah. And the the the addresses are identical on page two and page four at the bottom of page two and the top of page four. Okay. Yeah. Let's do that accurate here. Right. Correct. Yeah. Suite 300 Suite 301. And based on that comparison, is it your understanding that the the, the second letter was likely submitted in conjunction with the first letter? I think what happened was the the the second letter this the property reserve letter
was submitted later, closer to the the date that we got the request for service for Evergreen Because at that point, I believe we still had the property owner. We thought it was suburban land reserves. That's why we got another, request for service letter for our property reserve. Okay. That makes sense. It does. But no issue with whether the property owner requested service or not? No. No. It's it's almost like they're interchangeable, those two companies. Okay. Nothing further, your honor. Does staff have anything else? No, your honor. Thank you.
Alright. I believe that concludes your testimony. Thank you, mister Kim. Alright. And And just to confirm, EPCOR doesn't have any other witnesses. Is that correct? Nothing further from EPCOR. You're right. Thank you so much. Is staff ready to call their first witness? Yes, your honor. Staff calls Connor Tatz. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, mister Tatz. And if you can take a seat up here, and we'll have you sworn in as well. 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. Good morning, mister Tatz. Can you please state state your name for the record?
My name is Connor Tatz. And by whom are you employed, and what is your position? I'm employed by the Arizona Corporation Commission as a utilities intern engineer. Okay. And so since you're you're an intern, does that mean that you're still in school? Yes. And when will you be graduating? I should be graduating in about a month. Right. And what is the degree you'll be receiving? Civil engineer. K. And have you taken, courses that are specifically related to utilities or wastewater utilities specifically? Yes. I have completed all my waste water and water,
courses. Okay. And in your capacity as utilities intern engineer, were you assigned to evaluate this application? Yes. I was. And what did your evaluation of the application consist of? It consisted of an analysis of the company, EPCOR, as a fit entity and also of the Luke 303 water reclamation facility, including compliance checks of all their systems, a data request from the company, an analysis of the current loop three zero three system, and then an analysis of it with the additions from the extension plus company growth
to ensure sufficient capacity both now and in the future. Thank you. And did you prepare the engineering memo attached to the staff report, which has been marked as exhibit s one? Yes. I did. And you should also have Exhibit s two in front of you. Notice of errata that was filed yesterday. What is that notice of errata address? So that notice of errata addresses an incorrect statement I made in the conclusion when making a conclusion about the Luke 303 Water Reclamation Facility. I gave the number for the for EPCOR's entire,
systems connections, which was $281,000 when I meant to give the amount for just Luke three 03, which is twenty five twenty eight connections. Okay. Thank you. And are there any other corrections that need to be made to the engineering memo? No. And do you adopt the engineering memo as corrected by the notice of Arata as part of your testimony today? Yes. I do. Okay. And with respect, to that correction was made to the the customer connection number, When you were analyzing the wastewater system capacity, was that incorrect number of total customers throughout EPCOR service territory involved in your calculations
at all? No. That was not used in my calculations. Okay. So your capacity analysis is still valid despite that initial incorrect statement of customer number? Yes. Thank you. And is there currently sufficient treatment treatment capacities to serve existing customers? Yes. There is. And do you believe EPCOR will have sufficient treatment capacity to serve the extension area in the future? Yes. I do. Is this wastewater system currently in compliance with ADEQ? Yes. And are other or are EPCOR's other wastewater systems currently in compliance with ADEQ?
They have four systems that are not in compliance. Okay. Are you aware of and satisfied by the measures EPCOR is taking to bring those systems into compliance? Yes. I am. And do you believe approval of the requested CC and an extension is in the public interest? Yes. I do. So you'd recommend approval of the application? Yes. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. And does EPCOR have any cross? Your honor, miss Layton informed me that this is mister Tatz's first time testifying, so I might try to do twenty, thirty, forty minutes of. I'm joking. No no cross examination.
Alright. Thank you. Alright. Good morning, mister Tatz, and congratulations on your soon graduation. Thank you. I think I just have maybe I actually just have one question. In the staff report, it referenced 81 complaints so far, received in 2025. Is that specific to any wastewater system, or is that EPCOR as a whole? Are you able to show me where the Yes. Complaints are? Yes. Sorry. It is, I believe, page 11 of the staff report. And act well, before I I promise that. Your honor, if that's in the
overall staff report, that might be a better question for mister D'Amelo. Oh, okay. I'll reserve that question then. Alright. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any questions then. And just to confirm, does staff have anything else? I do not. Thank you. Alright. Well, mister Tatz, I believe that concludes your first, testimony. So congratulations, and I think we appreciate it. You could take a step down. Alright. Thank you. And is staff ready to call their second witness? Yes. Staff calls Wesley D'Mello. Okay. Mister D'Mello, if you can take a seat up here, and we'll have you sworn 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. Mister DeMello, can you please state your name for the record? Wesley DeMello. Sorry. I I pronounced that that first bit wrong. DeMello, not okay. By whom are you employed, and what is your position? I am employed by the Arizona Corporation Commission, and I'm my title is public utility analyst three. And in that capacity, were you assigned to evaluate this application? I was. What does your evaluation of the application consist of?
Primarily, sufficiency along with reviewing the engineering reports and the GIS reports to incorporate in my staff report. And was the staff report mark marked as exhibit s one prepared by you or under your supervision? Yes. It was. And does the notice of errata marked as exhibit s two make corrections to your staff report as well as the engineering memo? Yes. It does. Do you have any additional corrections or changes to make to the staff report? No. I do not. Do you adopt the staff report as corrected by the notice of errata as part
as as part of your sworn testimony today? I do. Your honor, I'll go ahead and move for admission of exhibits s one and s two. Okay. Any objections to exhibits s one and s two? No objection, your honor. Okay. Exhibit s one and s two are hereby admitted. Thank you. Mister DeMello, did you receive documentation from Appcor of request for service in the CCNN extension areas? In his application, yes. And what is your recommendation for rates to be charged in the CCNN CCNN extension areas once they're our customers?
Staff recommends that the tariff rates outlined in decision number 79342 be applied to these customers. K. And should there be another rate case and rates decision before customers are actually being served, That decision would supersede the current decision. Any whatever is resolved in the rate case would be the new pricing for those customers moving forward until that date. I mean, it's already in place. Okay. Thank you. And do you believe EPCOR is a fit and proper entity to provide waste for
our service to the extension area? Yes. I do. Do you believe approval through requested CCN extension is in the public interest. I do. So you recommend approval of the application? I would recommend approval of the application. Yes. I have no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And does, acquire any cross? No questions for mister DeMello. Alright. Good morning, mister DeMello. I think you might know. My question is so I'll just reference the staff report on page four. Let me take a look. Okay. I'm just I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but,
Okay. Okay. Four. And under consumer services and public Yeah. We get reports based off of the company, not specific to water or wastewater. So this would be EPCOR as a whole. Okay. Understood. And so, some of those complaints could be for some of the other systems previously identified? Yeah. Is that correct? Okay. Yes. Alright. I believe that's my only question. Does staff have any additional? No, your honor. Thank you. K. EPCOR? No, your honor. Alright. Thank you, mister Dimelo. Okay. Alright. And then, before we close the evidence portion of the hearing, I just wanna confirm that we have exhibits a one,
s one, and s two, admitted. Is there any additional, exhibit that has not been addressed? No, your honor. Okay. Alright. We will go ahead and move on to closing statements then. Would EPCOR like to make a closing statement? Your honor, extremely briefly. There are no controverted issues in this case. I think the evidence has demonstrated that EPCOR is a fit and proper entity, and it's the most economical service provider for this territory. It already has approval, to extend its mag service territory, and we believe the application should be granted. Thank you. Alright. Thank you,
mister Stein. Miss Layton, any closing from you? Staff recommends approval of, of course, application. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, miss Layton. Okay. And one last time, is there any procedural issue that needs to be addressed? And I'll start with the company. No, your honor. No, your honor. Alright. Well, I believe that, brings us to a close. I wanna thank everyone for taking the time to participate today. I will take this matter under advisement, and a recommended opinion and order will be issued, for a discussion at a future open meeting. This hearing is adjourned, and we can go off the record.