Telephonic Procedural Conference - W-01717A-25-0184 - Ponderosa Utility Corporation W-01717A-26-0053 - Ponderosa Utility Corporation

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 21 min 1 speaker 8 agenda items transcribed 18 hours ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of this telephonic procedural conference for Ponderosa Utility’s rate increase and debt authority?

Elizabeth Beatty 0:00

headings go on the record. Uh good morning again. Uh I'm administrative law judge Elizabeth Beatty and I've been assigned to preside over this matter. Uh this is the time set for the telephonic procedural conference for docket numbers W zero one seven one seven A. twenty five zero one eight four and W zero one seven one seven eight. twenty six zero zero five three. In the matter of the applications filed for Ponderosa Utility Corporation for approval of a rate increase and authority to incur long term debt. Um, so we'll go ahead and and take appearances on the record and we'll go ahead and begin with staff.

Sean Botkin 0:37

Governor Sean Botkin for Utility Staff.

Elizabeth Beatty 0:41

Thank you. And for the company?

Steve Wien 0:44

Your Honor. Steve Wien, uh representing Ponderosa.

Elizabeth Beatty 0:50

Thank you. Um, so as I kind of stated earlier, my only concern was to make sure that the parties were in agreement about the procedural schedule. Um and to see if any changes needed to be made. Um so I guess I'll go ahead and begin with Ponderosa. Um, Mr. Wien, uh I guess what is your understanding about the procedural schedule?

Eli Gollup 1:10

You're morning Eli Golli.

Elizabeth Beatty 1:12

I'm sorry.

Eli Gollup 1:15

Uh Eli Gollup for a staff attorney here.

Elizabeth Beatty 1:20

Hi, good morning, Mr. Gollum. Uh we have uh Mr. Bodkin on the line as well. Uh for staff, so we we went ahead and began, but um

Eli Gollup 1:32

Okay.

Elizabeth Beatty 1:35

I wasn't sure if somebody else was trying to speak there. Um

Steve Wien 1:38

Your Honor, you had you had asked if if my my uh response to the procedural order setting the new schedule Your honor, I am fine with that schedule. It works for the company.

Elizabeth Beatty 1:53

Okay. And are you referring to the the schedule that was set in the April thirteenth procedural order?

Steve Wien 2:02

Yes, your honor. And the way I understand it the staff report would be due on or before June tenth. Uh Ponderosa's response would be two weeks later. We are fine with that.

Elizabeth Beatty 2:15

Okay. And then I guess I'll ask staff and I I'm not sure if this is for Mr. Botkin or Mr. Gollup. Um Is that your understanding as well?

Sean Botkin 2:26

Your Honor, this this is Mr. Botkin. Yes, that's our understanding as well.

Elizabeth Beatty 2:30

Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure because The the um The memorandum that was issued at the same time. And I think there may have been some crossover or overlap and when those were issued. I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page. Um so it sounds like no changes need to be made to that procedural order. Um is that correct and

How did the parties confirm agreement on the existing procedural schedule and deadlines?

Elizabeth Beatty 2:50

I'll start with Mr. Wien.

Steve Wien 2:53

That's my understanding. Uh Mr. Gold may wanna confirm that with staff, so I I just wanna make sure we're all on the same page. Right.

Elizabeth Beatty 3:04

And and um Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Bollow.

Eli Gollup 3:09

Sure. Uh Your Honor, staff's position is uh Um well because of being treated as a new applic uh application stuff. I'm sorry,

Briton Baxter 3:17

sir. Say that again, please.

Eli Gollup 3:18

Yep. Sure. Uh staff's position is obviously the The amended application is a new application. And it's being treated as such. So, therefore, the department is in the process of completing a sufficiency review. Um And will issue a staff report. Um following the you know, the the appropriate Uh timeline specified in the rules. So that's pretty much that's position at this point.

Elizabeth Beatty 3:53

Okay. And so my understanding would be then But uh Would wanna vacate that April thirteenth. Excuse me, procedural order that sets the Staff report deadline for June. Is that correct?

Eli Gollup 4:10

That's correct, Your Honor. And I apologize for being a few minutes late. I'm in the top hearing in Tucson.

Elizabeth Beatty 4:16

No, I I understand. Um So I guess I'll go back to Mr. Wien and um see what his response would be to that.

Steve Wien 4:25

Um, your honor right.

Elizabeth Beatty 4:31

Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Wien.

Steve Wien 4:33

Right. Yeah. I I guess my response to that is to say that I'm I'm somewhat disappointed with that position. The the What the amendment was is basically a true up and and the court may recall. This is not an entirely new rate application. This is an amendment because of the fact that We notiш during the discovery процес.

Why does staff consider the amended application a new case rather than a simple amendment?

Steve Wien 5:01

Um that that some of the numbers didn't match up. Uh on and we couldn't figure out why until we talked to the new accountants or the For the company and what they had done is Uh oddly, strangely Uh if Instead of having a test year instead of having an accounting year that matched up the calendar year, uh