Montezuma Rimrock Water Company, LLC

Status
Prior
Docket Number
W-04254A-12-0204
W-04254A-12-0205
W-04254A-12-0206
W-04254A-12-0207
W-04254A-11-0323
W-04254A-08-0361
W-04254A-08-0362
Assigned Staff
No Staff assigned

 

On Thursday, May 31, 2012, pursuant to Decision No. 71317(link is external), Montezuma Rimrock Water Company, LLC (“Montezuma” or the "Company") filed, under Docket No. W-04254A-12-0207, an application(link is external) for a permanent increase in rates ("Rate Application") with the Arizona Corporation Commission ("ACC" or “Commission”).  During the test year ended December 31, 2011 ("Test Year"), Montezuma provided water service to 202 metered customers.

Also on Thursday, May 31, 2012, Montezuma filed three separate financing applications seeking the following:

1)  the approval of a loan agreement(link is external) (Docket No. W-04254A-12-0204) in which Montezuma promises to pay Rask Construction (“Rask”) the sum of $68,592 with interest for Rask’s installation of a water line from a well on Tieman to Well No. 1 on Towers (“Rask Financing”);

2)  the approval of a loan agreement(link is external) (Docket No. W-04254A-12- 0205) in which Montezuma promises to pay Patricia Olsen the sum of $21,377 with interest for the purchase of the Well No. 4 site and a company vehicle (“Olsen Site and Vehicle Financing”); and,

3)  the approval of a loan agreement(link is external) (Docket No. W-04254A-12-0206) in which Montezuma promises to pay Sergei Arias the sum of $15,000 with interest for the purchase of an 8,000-gallon hydro-pneumatic tank to provide additional water storage to Montezuma's system ("Arias Tank Financing").

On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Montezuma filed amendments(link is external) to the Company's Rate Application in response to ACC Staff's letter of insufficiency(link is external) filed on Monday, July 2, 2012.

According to the amendments to Montezuma's Rate Application, the Company is seeking an increase of $76,800 over test year operating revenues of $101,276.  Under Montezuma's proposed level of operating revenue, the Company's ratepayers would see a monthly increase of $32.00.  Montezuma is also requesting a monthly surcharge of $6.57 per customer to recover legal fees that have been incurred during the proceeding.

On Friday, November 2, 2012, ACC Staff issued a letter of sufficiency(link is external) informing Montezuma that the Company's rate Application has met the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R14-2-103.

On Thursday, November 8, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned to the case issued a Procedural Order(link is external) scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the matter and requiring Montezuma to file written direct testimony by Thursday, December 6, 2012..

On Friday, November 9, 2012, RUCO filed an Application to Intervene(link is external) in the matter.

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Montezuma filed a response(link is external) to ACC Staffs request(link is external)of comments/replies to Staff Report due on January 25, 2013 and the deadline for new discovery requests on February 6, 2013.

On Friday, November 23, 2012, the ALJ assigned to the case issued a procedural order(link is external)granting RUCO's request to intervene in the matter and denying Montezuma's request for an extension from dates proposed by ACC Staff.

On Monday, November 26, 2012, Montezuma filed amendments(link is external) to the Company's Rate Application.

On Monday, December 3, Montezuma filed a request for a procedural conference(link is external)stating that "MRWC understands that small water companies are not required to submit testimony and in the past have not been required to submit testimony."

On Friday, December 7, 2012, the ACC's Chief Administrative Law Judge ("CALJ") issued a Procedural Order(link is external) vacating the dates for the evidentiary hearing and the filing of written testimony established in the ALJ's Procedural Order dated November 8, 2012.  Pursuant to the CALJ's order, the evidentiary hearing originally scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 1200 W. Washington in Phoenix, would be convened for the purpose of taking public comment on MRWC's rate and financing applications.

On Monday, December 17, 2012, the ALJ assigned to the matter responded to a request from intervenor John Dougherty, and issued a Procedural Order(link is external)  vacating the date for a procedural conference, scheduled for Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

On Thursday, January 31, 2013, the ALJ assigned to hear the matter responded to a request from one of the intervenors in the case and issued a Procedural Order(link is external) that reschedules the procedural conference (originally set for February 7, 2013) for 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 25, 2013, at 1200 W. Washington in Phoenix.

Customers of MRWC had the opportunity to express their opinions on the company's pending rate application and financing requests on Thursday, February 7, 2013 during the scheduled public comment meeting.  Commissioner Brenda Burns attended the meeting.

On Monday, February 25, 2013, the parties to the case discussed how they believed the case should be handled during the scheduled procedural conference.

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the ALJ assigned to the case issued a Procedural Order(link is external)that consolidated the rate case Docket Nos. (W-04254A-12-0204, -0205, -0206, and -0207); the complaint case docket (Docket No. W-04254A-11-0323); and the A.R.S. § 40-252 case dockets (Docket Nos. W-04254A-08-0361 and -0362).  The ALJ scheduled the evidentiary hearing on the matter for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 3, 2013, 1200 W. Washington in Phoenix.

On Thursday, February 28, 2013, the ALJ assigned to the case issued a Procedural Order(link is external) that corrected a typographical error in her procedural order issued on Tuesday, February 26, 2013.

On Thursday, March 7, 2013, the ALJ assigned to the case issued a Procedural Order(link is external)that granted Mr. Dougherty’s 2nd Motion to Amend his complaint by adding Allegation XVII.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, RUCO filed notice(link is external) of its withdrawal as an intervenor in the case due to a combination of workload and staffing constraints.