Alright. Great. Alright. Let's, go ahead and go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for a pre hearing conference in the matter of the application of Napa Apache Electric Cooperative Inc, an Arizona nonprofit corporation for determination of the current fair value of its utility plant and property, and for the establishment of just and reasonable rates and charges designed to realize a reasonable rate of return on the fair value of the plan and properties. And for related approvals, docket number E01787A240278.
I'm administrative law judge Chris Nichols, and I have been assigned to preside over this matter. Let's begin by taking appearances of the parties beginning with the applicant, Nav Apache Electric Cooperative Inc. Good morning, your honor. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. This is Megan Grable of Osborne Maladon on behalf of Nav Apache Electric Cooperative. Also with me from my firm is Elias Ancharski, and with us from the cooperative is Josh Adams. Good morning to you all. And who do we have today on behalf of staff?
Good morning, your honor. Robert Reidenour on behalf of staff. Also online is Bridget Humphrey, and joining us is Britt Baxter, Jacob Vaughn, and Taylor Schell. Good morning to all as well. Alright. So the purpose of today's, pre hearing conference is to give the parties an opportunity to address any procedural matters that we need to take care of in advance of the hearing to begin on October 20. I see that according to the settlement agreement, the parties have reached an agreement on all issues. So my question is where does that leave us for purposes of a hearing schedule?
Have the parties discussed a tentative schedule in terms of how much time will be needed and who will be testifying and what the schedule might look like in that regard? I'll begin with, miss Grable. Thank you, your honor. Natapatchie does not think that hearing needs to be very long. As as we noted, we have reached a settlement on all issues. We've stipulated the admission of all of the exhibits. And so we intended to put on one witness, Josh Adams, who's here today, to testify in support of the settlement agreement. We will also have a rate consultant available if your honor has questions that detailed
questions that, miss perhaps mister Adams is unable to answer. But but we suspect you can probably get it if you're in done privately. Thank you, miss Gravel. Mister Ridenour. Thank you, your honor. We intend to put on Renell Palladino as our settlement witness, and we will have all other witnesses to file pre filed testimony available for any questions that you or the other side may have. Alright. I think that sounds reasonable. With respect to any, pre filed testimony that's been submitted so far, do the parties anticipate any last minute corrections or other changes to any testimony or schedules,
miss Grable? Navajo Patchy does not. No. Mister Ridenhauer? Staff does not either, your honor. And I presume there are no objections to any exhibits that have been filed so far, missus Grable. No, your honor. They're not. As I said, it's stipulated to be shouldn't be clear. No, your honor. Alright. So, I do believe that an issues matrix was required by the the procedural order, originally filed setting the hearing. I realize that the parties have settled on all issues, but I wonder if the parties were still planning on filing an issues matrix, miss Grable. We hadn't discussed it, your honor,
but we can certainly put one together if you would like one. You know, given that there were initially some, some issues upon which staff recommended some adjustments, I think it would be helpful just to have a a pretty, cursory 30,000 foot level, issues matrix. Mister Ridenour, any objection to that? No objection, your honor. Miss Grable, would that be alright? We can get that done. Thank you. And anytime in advance of the hearing would be just fine. Now I wonder, were there any issues as to which staff recommended an adjustment, compared to what was proposed in the initial application
that the settlement agreement didn't adopt staff's position, miss Gravel? I think that's hard to answer, your honor. So, the answer is I believe that we reflected some of them in rate base, but we didn't take certain recommendations because they were inconsistent with the policy. We can talk about that. I think the settlement agreement spells some of those out. Mr. Adams, do you have any other recollection? No. That's pretty much it. Thank you, miss Graebel. Yeah. Sorry to put you on the spot there. It just seemed to me as I was reviewing the filings in this case that, the company had pretty much adopted all of, staff's recommendations, but I'll I'll take another look at the settlement agreement.
Mister Ridenour, is that your recollection as well? That is our our recollection also, your honor. Okay. Do, do the parties intend to introduce any exhibits that haven't been, haven't been introduced as of yet, miss Graebel? We only have five intended exhibits, your honor, and they have all been either prefiled to our testimony, the rate application, and notices, and then, of course, the settlement support the the supplement rating. Thank you. And, mister Reiten, are any additional exhibits you anticipate at this time? No, your honor. Honor. They have all been filed already. Alright. Well, it sounds like we're stipulating to the exhibits that have been submitted so far.
Any other procedural issues that we need to address before the hearing begins, miss Grable? Not from Quadrant's perspective. Not Not from staff, your honor. Great. Well, jeez, that was easy. Thank you all for your participation today. I'll see you all on Monday, and this proceeding is adjourned. Have a good morning. Thank you, Rob. Bye.