Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference - W-20446A-25-0022 - Global Water - Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc. SW-20445A-25-0023 - Global Water-Palo Verde Utilities Company - Jul 22, 2026

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 24 min 8 agenda items transcribed 7 hours ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of this pre‑hearing conference and who are the parties involved?

Chris Nichols 0:00

Let's go ahead and go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for a pre-hearing conference in the consolidated matter of the applications of Global Water, 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 numbers W204 I'm Administrative Law Judge Chris Nichols, and I have been assigned to preside over this matter. Let's go ahead and get started by taking appearances of the parties, beginning with the applicant.

Robert Metley 0:55

Good morning, Your Honor. Robert Metley, Regulatory Counsel for Global Water Resources, Inc., on behalf of Global Water Santa Cruz Water Company, Inc., and Global Water Palo Verde Utilities Company, Inc. And on the line with me is Michael Patton with the law firm of Osborne Maladon.

Chris Nichols 1:16

Good morning to you both. Who do we have for RUCO this morning?

Sarah Barrios-Cool 1:21

Sarah Barrios- Good morning, your honor Sarah barrios cool and with me in the room is our chief counsel Daniel pesky and we represent the residential utility consumer office. Daniel

Chris Nichols 1:31

Pesky, Good morning to you both as well, and for staff.

Bridget Humphrey 1:44

Sarah Barrios- I couldn't remember. There we go. Couldn't remember if I had muted or unmuted myself. This is Bridget Humphrey on behalf of staff, along with co-counselor Ben Calleros. We also have several people from staff present, including Mr. Baxter.

Chris Nichols 2:01

Great. Well, good morning to you all as well. So the purpose of today's pre-hearing conference is to discuss any procedural issues in advance of the hearing set to commence on Monday, August 3rd. So first and foremost, there is pending an unopposed motion to withdraw. So Palo Verde seeks to withdraw its application because the parties have agreed that Santa Cruz and Palo Verde, their application should be bifurcated and that the Palo Verde application should be withdrawn and refiled in 2027. So as I read the motion to withdraw, it appears that the parties would like the the Palo Verde application withdrawn now, rather than as part of the decision issued by the commission. But I just wanted to make sure that that's what the parties intended, because it looks like the withdrawal of the Palo Verde application is one of many terms in the settlement agreement, each of which were presumably bargained for.

Chris Nichols 3:05

And as you all are aware, the commission doesn't necessarily always adopt settlement agreements in their entirety. So, you know, some terms can be added or removed or modified. So before I take action on that, I just wanted to make sure that we're not jumping the gun here by adopting a single term from a settlement agreement while the others remain in play. So with that, I'll turn to Mr. Metley or Mr. Patton. Can you help enlighten us on this issue?

Robert Metley 3:38

Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Metley here. It was our understanding that the motion to withdraw was part of the settlement agreement. I know the concerns of the parties was that if the motion to withdraw was granted, the parties wanted to make sure that Global Water Palo Verde was still bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. And that was always our intent.

Why is Global Water‑Palo Verde seeking to withdraw its application and how does it relate to the settlement?

Robert Metley 4:05

Preferably, if we could... withdraw the motion prior to the hearing, that would be fine. The alternative. Yeah, we could wait. I'm just guessing if we're going to go forward with the hearing. It was our intent that we would just be litigating the Santa Cruz piece. So that's why I would think that the granting the motion to withdraw prior would be preferable.

Chris Nichols 4:37

Thank you, Mr. Matt Lee. And that makes sense to me. As I said, I wanted to make sure because parties often express in their filings and during the hearing that, hey, if the commission doesn't adopt all the material terms, then we reserve the right to pull out of the settlement agreement. But if I grant the motion to withdraw, that's at least part of the settlement agreement that can't be walked back. So I just wanted to make sure that the company is still