On June 3, 2005, Arizona-American Water Company ("Arizona-American" or "Company") filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission ("ACC" or “Commission”) an application for a rate increase for its Paradise Valley Water District (“District”). The application requested approval for the District of a public safety surcharge for investments by the Company related to improvement of fire flow facilities; an Arsenic Cost Recovery Mechanism for investments required by the Company to comply with federal water arsenic reduction requirements; and approval of a conservation surcharge that would be imposed for usage in the highest consumption block.
On July 28, 2006, the Commission issued Decision No. 68858, approving the Company’s requests, including a public safety surcharge (to fund the aforementioned fire flow facilities) and a high block surcharge. Since that time, there have been numerous filings in this docket regarding the surcharges.
On January 16, 2008, The Town of Paradise Valley ("Town"), through its Town Manager, filed a letter and a rate design agreement dated January 4, 2008 (“Rate Design Agreement”). The Rate Design Agreement is intended to resolve certain inequities associated with the rate design and public safety surcharge which were approved in Decision No. 68858. The proposed Rate Design Agreement attached to the Town’s letter includes signature pages signed by representatives of the Town, Sanctuary on Camelback Mountain, the Camelback Inn, and the Scottsdale Renaissance (collectively, “Resorts”). The signature pages also appear to be signed by representatives of Clearwater Hills Improvement Association, Camelhead Estates II HOA, and Finisterre HOA. The January 16, 2008, letter from the Town encourages the Commission to reopen Commission Decision No. 68858 and modify the District’s rate design consistent with the Rate Design Agreement.
At a Commission Staff Meeting noticed for and held on February 27, 2008, the Commission voted to reconsider Decision No. 68858 pursuant to A.R.S. § 40-252 for the limited purpose of reviewing the Rate Design Agreement.
On February 28, 2008, a Procedural Order was issued setting a procedural conference for the purpose of allowing the parties to Decision No. 68858 an opportunity to discuss an appropriate procedural schedule for reconsideration of Decision No. 68858, which was reopened for the limited purpose of reviewing the proposed Rate Design Agreement.
On February 29, 2008, the Resorts jointly filed a Motion to Intervene.
On March 4, 2008, the Town filed a Motion to Intervene.
No objections were filed to the Motions to Intervene filed by the Town and the Resort.
Because RUCO was a party to the original Arizona-American rate case proceeding, as were Arizona-American and ACC Staff, there was no need for RUCO to intervene.
On March 10, 2008, a procedural conference was held as scheduled. With the exception of, the Paradise Valley Country Club, all parties to Decision No. 68858, including Arizona-American and ACC Staff, appeared through counsel.
Counsel for the Resorts and the Town also appeared. As there were no objections to the Motions to intervene filed by the Town and the Resort, the requested interventions were granted.
On March 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned to the case issued a Procedural Order that established the dates and times for an evidentiary hearing on the matter and the filing of written testimony.
The evidentiary hearing on the matter was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 2008, at the Commission's Phoenix offices at 1200 W. Washington.
Written direct testimony and associated exhibits from the Town and the Resorts in support of the proposed Rate Design Agreement was filed on March 28, 2008.
Written direct testimony and associated exhibits from RUCO, Arizona-American and ACC Staff regarding the proposed Rate Design Agreement was filed on April 25, 2008.
Written rebuttal testimony and associated exhibits from all parties to the instant proceeding was filed on Friday, May 9, 2008.
During the evidentiary hearing, held on Thursday and Friday May 15th and 16th, 2008, attorneys for RUCO, the Town, Resorts, ACC Staff, and Arizona-American cross examined the expert witnesses that filed written testimony in the case. Witnesses for the Company, the Town and the Resorts also responded to questions posed by ACC Commissioners Bill Mundell and Kris Mayes on the first day of the hearing.
Closing briefs from the attorneys for the parties to the case were filed on Friday, June 13, 2008.
After the filing of the closing legal briefs, the ALJ assigned to the case will weigh all of the evidence presented during the proceeding, including public correspondence and comment from ratepayers, and write a Recommended Opinion and Order ("ROO"). The ROO will then be voted on at a scheduled open meeting by the five ACC Commissioners. The Commissioners can either accept, reject or amend the ROO in order to arrive at a final decision on the proposed Rate Design Agreement. Because the proceeding is not subject to the Commission's time clock rules, RUCO has no estimate as to when the ROO will be voted on as a final decision.
