[Speaker 9] (0:00 - 0:01)
Clicked the wrong button.

[Speaker 1] (0:01 - 0:02)
It looks like it's working now.

[Speaker 9] (0:06 - 0:10)
Great. Okay, now it all checks out.

[Speaker 1] (0:24 - 1:48)
Okay, looks like the systems are go. Got everybody here. Let me put that notice up on the screen share now.

All right, everyone, let's get on the record. This is docket 5820UR117, the application of Superior Water, Light and Power Company for authority to adjust retail electric gas and electric gas and water rates. This is Michael Newmark, Administrative Law Judge for the PSC.

We're connected through Zoom with parties and commission staff in attendance. We've made the connection actually isn't for the public. So we don't really expect people from the public to join us.

We will be holding a public hearing session Monday, September 9th at 2 and 6 p.m. up in the Doug Finn Conference Room, the government center building up in Superior. We'll take public comments for the record. We'll also accept written comments up until Thursday, September 12th through the internet or by US mail.

At this point, we have three comments in writing on file so far. So those are the deadlines and future schedule for the public to be aware of. Okay, yeah, that's good.

So let's move on then to appearances. We just do this in alpha order, starting with Citizens Utility Board.

[Speaker 7] (1:49 - 1:54)
Good morning, Your Honor. Cara Coburn-Ferris with the Citizens Utility Board.

[Speaker 1] (1:55 - 1:56)
Okay, City of Superior.

[Speaker 4] (1:57 - 2:05)
Good morning, Your Honor. City Attorney Frog Crow with the City of Superior, accompanied by Mayor Jim Payne, paralegal Star Bowers.

[Speaker 1] (2:06 - 2:09)
Thank you. Enbridge, City Attorney. Enbridge Energy LP.

[Speaker 5] (2:11 - 2:18)
Morning, Your Honor. Richard Savickle with the law firm of Martin and Squires here on behalf of Enbridge Energy Limited Partners.

[Speaker 1] (2:18 - 2:32)
All right, let's go off the record for a sec. Just curious, Attorney Savickle, your mic's a little on the low end. I don't know if it's just maybe being good just to get closer to it might solve the problem there.

[Speaker 5] (2:33 - 2:35)
All right, I just moved it. Is that a little better?

[Speaker 1] (2:36 - 2:44)
Yeah, that sounds a little better. I think you may have some questions today, so we wanna make sure we can hear you loud and clear. Thank you, Your Honor.

All right, and Public Service Commission.

[Speaker 3] (2:45 - 2:50)
Stephanie Bedford, Assistant General Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission.

[Speaker 1] (2:50 - 2:54)
Last but not least, the applicant, Superior Water, Light, and Power Company.

[Speaker 6] (2:55 - 3:03)
Good morning, Your Honor. David Muller, General Counsel for Superior Water, Light, and Power with me in the room are the witnesses that we have for testimony.

[Speaker 1] (3:04 - 6:14)
Perfect, all right, thanks. So let me mention with the service list, that's the list we'll use to issue future documents, including the final decision. So I just wanna make sure that list is correct.

We have any errors or omissions to note? No, okay, great, thanks. So next point of business here is just to review that offered evidence list, the list I sent out earlier yesterday, in the morning yesterday.

I didn't, I wanna point out that there, I did notice an error regarding the CUB filings, that, and I've changed the live version, the word version of this document to reflect that CUB did issue a refiled version of the Singletary's Direct, and we're also anticipating CUB Singletary Exhibit 3. So I already put that on the list. Did wanna mention though, just in the future, that there may have been a little confusion about the process, but I think the most important thing to think about when there is a refile required, it's the ERATA that really, in terms of the timing of filing and the process involved of requesting refilings, there's no, let me see, there's a deadline at which ERATA must be filed, but as soon as you notice a problem with a filing that needs correction, party and staff can just file that ERATA right away.

And also if an exhibit's coming in like the Singletary 3, that could also have been refiled with the ERATA. That gives parties a chance between the filing and now to digest what's going on and ask any questions or formulate any objections. It's not really necessary to file the revised version of the testimony until after the hearing.

The revisions will just reflect what's in the ERATA. So I know this time there was a little bit of a more substantial changes, but I think we can manage with using the ERATA without having to refile during the process of the hearing. So just something for everyone to note in the future that ERATAs can come in as soon as you notice a mistake, as soon as you notice a revision's required, but you really don't need to file the revised version until afterwards.

And one other reason for that would be that there may be other corrections we need to make so we can just put them all into the single revised version if possible. So that's just something to note. Otherwise, I don't think I had any other mistakes that I noticed.

So let me open it up to the parties. So just for the applicant first, any errors or omissions or questions about the comments that I had on the list?

[Speaker 6] (6:14 - 6:24)
Just on the, thank you, Your Honor, David Muller for the company. Young 8 should be removed. We had done a replacement, Young 8-R.

[Speaker 1] (6:26 - 6:28)
Oh, oh yes, okay, thanks.

[Speaker 6] (6:29 - 6:32)
I just, nothing else to modify, just remove that one.

[Speaker 1] (6:33 - 7:22)
So sometimes I leave those in in case, I'm not sure why the change was made so that we have both in front of us here in case parties have questions to ask as to what the difference is between the two. But so let me just ask if there's any objections to the filing of 8-R. Versus exhibit 8 or if there are any questions about the difference?

No, nothing. Okay, yeah, so I'll just omit. I'll just delete it now.

Okay, so no other questions about the comments either. Okay, so we'll move on to Citizens Utility Board. I think I covered most of it.

Any other questions?

[Speaker 7] (7:25 - 7:56)
Just a clarification, Your Honor, on ERADA. So unless it's substantive, it can wait until, like if it's a minor typo or something like that, that we might be correcting eventually, but that would just all come in the final ERADA that we would file before the pre-hearing ERADA.

[Speaker 1] (7:57 - 8:56)
Okay, I guess let me just try to rephrase what I was saying. So the ERADAs can come in at any time before the deadline that we set for ERADA. So when you notice the mistake, you could go ahead right away and file an ERADA.

And you can file as many ERADAs as you want or you need if you find a mistake later on. And then we'll use the ERADA and compare it to the original while we are at the hearing. That's just to make things a little easier in terms of filing requirements.

But I mean, it doesn't really do any harm to file that revised version. It's just that there may be other corrections to make. So just to make this, so we're all on the same page.

We would just have the ERADA. We can work off of the ERADA in the future. That's the perfectly acceptable way of doing it.

[Speaker 7] (8:58 - 9:17)
Okay. And then with respect to the Exhibit Cubs Singletary 3 that you, apologies if there was confusion there, but we plan on holding off on filing that until after the hearing, so.

[Speaker 1] (9:18 - 11:03)
Yeah, in this case, there's really no harm with that because it's just an existing filing that the applicant has already provided. So I'm assuming there'll be no objections. There's no controversy with that.

So the fact that you identified it in the ERADA and you offered it in the ERADA as being a new exhibit, I think that's acceptable. Everyone's on notice that it's coming in and it's nothing that people haven't seen before. So in this situation, that's really not a problem.

I think there may be other scenarios where this wouldn't be okay. And that, for example, would be if you're creating a new exhibit, then you would need to offer it under a request to offer additional evidence. So there'd be just a different process there if you're introducing new information.

What we're doing here is kind of a shortcut for that, but I think the proper way you're gonna do all belt and suspenders would be to say, hey, we're offering this new exhibit. It should have been indirect. So now we need to request permission to file it late.

And again, that'll give you the process by which people can review it, agree to it or object to it. And we can take care of that in due course and hopefully sooner rather than later. So I'm not expecting any objections to Singletary 3.

It's an initial data request response. So I might as well just ask now if there's anyone that would object to that offer of, what was it, IDR 46, I think?

[Speaker 7] (11:04 - 11:05)
Correct, 46.

[Speaker 1] (11:06 - 12:00)
Yeah, so I'm not hearing any. So yeah, so that'll be fine. So it's just a matter of giving people enough advance notice.

In this case, you did that. It's just that because people already seen that document, know what it is, doesn't raise any due process issues. But if it was something new, it would have to have been filed before.

And since it was out of time or out of the sequence of the rounds of testimony, you'd wanna file a request to offer additional evidence. Okay, does that make sense? Okay, all right.

So, Cobb, we have there any questions there? We've taken care of, how about City Superior? Just a couple of filing issues there.

And thanks for, yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 4] (12:00 - 12:43)
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, you're fine. I guess my own, this is Frank Rell, City Attorney.

My comment or my reaction to your comment online is an inclination to simply remove the exhibit. Obviously, it wasn't offered previously by the city in the other layers of testimonials. And I think I can remove it without impacting the substance of the mayor's statement for the state rates certainly aren't anything I can educate the commission about through an exhibit anyway.

So, for what it's worth, that's my inclination at this point in time.

[Speaker 1] (12:43 - 15:30)
Well, that's not necessary. So, I think these are two different scenarios. So, and I'm sorry if I'm confusing everybody even more.

Let's go off the record because this is just getting very detailed. Sorry, Debbie, for your fingers there. So, we're talking about a totally different situation here.

As we were talking about before, Singletary 3 should have been offered in direct because that was basically a citation they had to a document that wasn't offered in evidence. They want the commission to see that document. So, they're gonna need to offer it as an exhibit.

But that reference occurred in direct. So, that's why it's sort of late. We're sort of making an exception to the timing requirements here.

That's totally different from what's going on with the city. The city, I think, is making legitimate cerebral cerebral and it's offering an exhibit to support the statements that the mayor is making there. So, it's not late.

There's nothing wrong with that. There's no procedural issues there. I think the only problem I'm having is that when we're offering that exhibit in testimony, we just do it with these certain ways of doing it.

So, it's kind of like, instead of being on the stand and offering it as a shortcut, we're using this written format. So, you don't need to withdraw that exhibit. That's not necessary.

I mean, it has information that the commission can use. The commission can't refer to any information that's not in the record. So, even if commissioners know the rates of other utilities, it can't use that as a basis to make its decision unless it's in the record.

So, all I'm asking you to do is just modify that cerebuttal to properly introduce the exhibit. So, just the basic, just explain. And it might be useful just to do this on the stand if the mayor's taking the stand.

So, that might be just the easier way to do that. So, just to have the witness sort of explain what this document is and then connect the statement that the mayor's making on page four to what the exhibit shows. So, there should be that nexus that the exhibit means something.

If that's something that you don't want to do, then yeah, you can remove the exhibit, but it's not, don't remove it because you're thinking there's a due process issue. It has nothing to do with the CUB issue, so.

[Speaker 4] (15:31 - 15:34)
Okay, I appreciate the clarification very, very much.

[Speaker 1] (15:34 - 15:52)
Okay, so just, so I guess by the time we get to Payne, either, if you do want to have him fill in the gaps there on the stand, that's fine. Otherwise, we'll, you'll just either do the refiling. Okay, anything else from the city?

[Speaker 4] (15:54 - 15:55)
Nothing, your honor, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (15:55 - 16:02)
Okay, and yeah, let's get back on the record. Anything from Enbridge?

[Speaker 5] (16:02 - 16:09)
Your honor, just a question. What does, and what's the acronym NRE referred to? I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (16:09 - 16:39)
Okay, yeah, sorry, it's our little world here. So, it's not record, not record evidence. So, so any citation, I'm allowing parties to put citations in the testimony, but if it's not something that's offered for the record, it needs to be have this disclaimer so that commissioners or future reviewers of the case don't get confused as to what was in the record or not.

So, I can't remember, I think it was the data request response.

[Speaker 5] (16:40 - 16:46)
Yeah, and it's not needed. So, I will likely just do that in a revision of the testimony.

[Speaker 1] (16:46 - 16:54)
And if you look at the other parties' testimony, they do include those disclaimers. So, you can just copy the format.

[Speaker 5] (16:54 - 16:56)
Very good, thank you, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (16:56 - 16:58)
Okay, and commission staff?

[Speaker 3] (17:02 - 17:04)
No questions from commission staff, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (17:05 - 18:48)
Thanks, all right. So, we have all the questions, comments identified. So, I can say that once we have documents, the documents on the offered evidence list verified under oath, I can accept them for the record.

So, they've been offered and accepted pending verification. And let me say, and revision, of course, revisions according to the comments. So, we can go through the party, the witness list here and see if there are witnesses we can excuse for lack of cross-examination.

And so, I only require at this point, witnesses to take the stand if there's cross-examination questions. And it looks like there's very few in this case. Witnesses can be called if a party wishes, if the witnesses party wishes the witness to add testimony, which would be a response to surrebuttal or any other testimony that we get here today live.

So, that's an opportunity, but otherwise, I can just, I can excuse witnesses. If there's no questions, to verify the filings, the witnesses would need to file an affidavit of verification for the filings. So, it's up to parties if they want to do a verification or call their witness, but there could be reasons why you want to do one or the other, that's fine.

So, let me just ask for the applicant. I didn't see any cross-questions for the applicant. If that's, is that still the case?

Party, intervenors and staff, no questions?

[Speaker 6] (18:49 - 18:59)
That's correct, Your Honor. Subject to if there's any other questions that we need to raise as far as cross-examination from other testimony, but as of this point, no.

[Speaker 1] (19:01 - 19:12)
So, I'm prepared to let the applicant file its verifications by affidavit, or you can, we can just take them on the stand one at a time, it's up to you.

[Speaker 6] (19:13 - 19:14)
We'll do an affidavit, Your Honor.

[Speaker 1] (19:14 - 20:04)
Okay. So, just so you know, I don't know if we've, you've probably done this before. I can't remember, but just to have each witness separately file an affidavit with the reference numbers indicated in the affidavit, so we can match those up.

So, you want to use the refiled versions and an affidavit should be notarized. I need to say that nowadays, don't know why, but I need to say that. So, we have applicant off the books here.

So, I can excuse those witnesses for the applicant and we'll just expect those verification affidavits. How about CUB, any further testimony we need or other items from CUB?

[Speaker 7] (20:06 - 20:10)
No, we'll file by affidavit unless a question has come up.

[Speaker 1] (20:12 - 20:22)
City of Superior, additional testimony or reason to take our, oh, we may want to change that. That Sura bottle, we can do that now if you want.

[Speaker 4] (20:23 - 20:33)
Yeah, thank you, your honor. I think that I'd like to take a crack at cleaning up the Sury bottle. Obviously, I have Mayor Payne here in the room.

[Speaker 1] (20:33 - 20:45)
Okay, let's do that. So, we're on the record, let's swear in witness Payne, Mayor Payne, I'll ask you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[Speaker 2] (20:46 - 20:46)
I do swear.

[Speaker 1] (20:47 - 20:55)
All right, great. Go ahead, Attorney Patel, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 4] (20:57 - 21:02)
Thank you, thank you, your honor. Good morning, Mayor Payne. How are you employed, please?

[Speaker 2] (21:03 - 21:11)
I am the full-time mayor of Superior, Wisconsin. And how long have you been mayor for the City of Superior? About seven and a half years.

I was elected in April of 2017.

[Speaker 4] (21:11 - 22:03)
And you've been mayor for the city throughout your entire involvement with the proceeding that is playing out in front of Judge Newmar right now. Yes. And obviously recall drafting some days ago for filing with this commission, Sury bottle testimony on behalf of the City of Superior.

Yes. And I'm guessing you recollect making reference to and physically attaching to your rebuttal testimony, a two page and some change document entitled Wisconsin Water Utility Rates. Yes.

Would you explain for the commission, please, how you view the relevance of that exhibit and why it is that you chose that exhibit to attach to your Sury bottle testimony?

[Speaker 2] (22:03 - 23:04)
Yes, because the rate increase affects the, would affect the water utility in Superior, Wisconsin. And because are at least part of the conversation raised in some of the other testimony referred to comparing Superior Water, Light and Power to other utilities, many different types of utilities. I felt it was important that if they were going to be compared to other utilities, they should, it should be placed in context relating to the water utility.

It should be placed in context to how much other utilities in Wisconsin are charging their citizens. I believe obviously all Wisconsin citizens should be treated equally, but I don't believe, in fact, I know that they're, they are not assessed the same rates for water. Every utility assesses a different rate.

And in Superior, we are assessed the highest rates in the state and I wanted to.

[Speaker 7] (23:04 - 23:07)
I'm sorry, we are, I'm sorry. In Superior, we are assessed.

[Speaker 2] (23:07 - 23:21)
I'm sorry, we are charged the highest water rates for individual water usage for water users. And so I wanted to provide just some evidence that documented that.

[Speaker 4] (23:21 - 23:33)
And with regard to the exhibit, the information contained within the exhibit itself, the rates obvious, the rate chart itself, I assume that was information you gleaned from public databases?

[Speaker 2] (23:34 - 23:47)
Yes, the PSC actually offers a fairly user-friendly tool that allows you to produce data of all kinds about utilities in Wisconsin. So it's fairly easy to use the PSC's own website to create this data.

[Speaker 4] (23:48 - 23:57)
And can you further swear that you made no efforts to manipulate the data that you were able to access from the commission as you put this exhibit together?

[Speaker 2] (23:59 - 24:05)
Yes, I can swear that this is just generated by the tool. Thank you, Mayor.

[Speaker 4] (24:08 - 24:18)
No, the city would offer the Payne exhibit as an attachment to the Mayor's Surrebuttal submitted last week.

[Speaker 1] (24:19 - 24:52)
All right, perfect. So let me just ask to button this up, Mayor Payne, Witness Payne. So you filed the Surrebuttal and the exhibit Payne 1.

And it's that, are those filings complete and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, Your Honor. I just had a clarifying question.

There are a number of utilities highlighted in exhibit Payne 1 with like a yellow highlight. Just curious what was being communicated. I'm assuming you put in those highlights.

Is that right?

[Speaker 2] (24:53 - 25:25)
I did not, Your Honor. This was generated by one of our city councilors and for a number of uses. Only about, I think, a month or a month and a half ago, and we've been researching water utilities for a number of reasons.

And so the highlighted sections have relevance for a different issue. Okay, so, okay, that probably just says what I need to say. Full disclosure, Your Honor, it was just easier to use this document rather than run it.

Again, I had this document on my computer.

[Speaker 1] (25:26 - 25:44)
Okay, no worries. Okay, so now we understand. So no, so the highlights on this exhibit just have no connection to this case.

Okay. Correct. All right, so we have the witness there.

Let's have any opportunity for cross-examination. We'll start with the applicant on that.

[Speaker 6] (25:46 - 25:57)
A couple of questions, Your Honor. Mayor Payne, you said that somebody else created this document, but you had just said on the record that you created this document. I just wanted to clarify who created this document.

[Speaker 2] (26:00 - 26:20)
I apologize if I said that I created it. I submitted it. This was created by Counselor Jenny Van Sickle, but again, using the PSC's tool.

I could create it. I've since learned to create it, but this specific document was run by her. So I could create it today.

I did not create this specific document.

[Speaker 6] (26:22 - 26:30)
Okay, thank you. And does this document include other footnotes or other things that are on the PSC's website that you would?

[Speaker 2] (26:31 - 26:32)
No, not that I'm aware of.

[Speaker 6] (26:32 - 26:39)
All right, let me rephrase. I'm sorry. Has this document been modified from anything that was taken from the PSC's website?

[Speaker 2] (26:40 - 26:42)
Beyond the highlights, no, not that I'm aware.

[Speaker 6] (26:49 - 27:02)
And then maybe one final question. Does the water rates, to your knowledge, do the water rates incorporate everything that is paid for for water usage in various municipalities and Superior Water Light and Power?

[Speaker 2] (27:03 - 27:08)
Do you mind elaborating on that a little bit? I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

[Speaker 6] (27:08 - 27:25)
Yeah, sure. Do the water rates incorporate other things that pay for water in various municipalities across the state of Wisconsin? For example, if taxes pay for certain aspects of water rates, does the document incorporate those rates or those expenses?

[Speaker 2] (27:27 - 27:44)
I guess I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the specifics of every municipality's water rate and certainly admit that there are going to be many unique features to every single utility, but I don't know how these other rates are constructed. I know what people are paying.

[Speaker 6] (27:45 - 27:54)
So is it fair to say that it's not always a direct comparison on apples to apples with every single municipality and Superior Water Light and Power?

[Speaker 2] (27:55 - 27:58)
I'm arguing that it's fair to say that it's dollar for dollar.

[Speaker 6] (28:06 - 28:10)
No further questions, Your Honor. Okay, yeah, thanks.

[Speaker 1] (28:11 - 28:19)
And about other interveners and commission staff?

[Speaker 3] (28:19 - 28:21)
No questions from commission staff, Your Honor.

[Speaker 1] (28:22 - 28:54)
Okay, all right. All right, that's fine. So we have that in the record and we can excuse this witness.

Thanks very much. Oh, actually, let me ask, is there any redirect questions? No, Your Honor, thank you.

No, okay, all right. So that's fine and you're excused, thanks. And of course, stay with us.

Just excusing the witness. Okay, so how about Enbridge Energy? Any need to take witness Manny on the stand?

[Speaker 5] (28:55 - 29:05)
We're not aware of any other party. Thank you, Your Honor. We are unaware of any other party that has questions for Ms. Manny at this time.

[Speaker 1] (29:05 - 29:08)
Okay, so we can, will you be providing an affidavit then?

[Speaker 5] (29:09 - 29:15)
We will be providing an affidavit. We do have a couple of questions for a staff witness.

[Speaker 1] (29:16 - 29:21)
Right, right, I understand. Okay, great, thanks. Okay, so move on to commission staff.

[Speaker 3] (29:23 - 29:33)
As long as everyone's here, I think we're gonna have our witnesses verify their testimony and exhibits on the stand, especially in light of the fact that we do have one witness. We anticipate we'll be receiving questions.

[Speaker 1] (29:34 - 29:39)
Yes, that's your prerogative. So yes, go ahead and call your first witness.

[Speaker 3] (29:40 - 29:43)
The commission calls witness Justin Adams to the stand.

[Speaker 1] (29:47 - 29:59)
Let's see if I can, you're popping up here on my screen. There you are, okay, great. Raise your right hand.

You swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do.

[Speaker 9] (30:00 - 30:01)
All right, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (30:02 - 30:04)
Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

[Speaker 9] (30:05 - 30:06)
My name is Justin Adams.

[Speaker 3] (30:07 - 30:10)
And what is your position at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin?

[Speaker 9] (30:11 - 30:13)
I'm a public utilities financial analyst.

[Speaker 3] (30:15 - 30:20)
Did you file or cause to be filed direct testimony and two exhibits in this docket?

[Speaker 9] (30:21 - 30:21)
I did.

[Speaker 3] (30:22 - 30:28)
Are the statements and representations in the testimony and exhibits you filed in this case true and correct?

[Speaker 9] (30:29 - 30:29)
They are.

[Speaker 3] (30:30 - 30:35)
Do you have any additions or modifications to your testimony or exhibits at this time?

[Speaker 9] (30:36 - 30:37)
I do not.

[Speaker 3] (30:37 - 30:40)
Your honor, the witness is available for cross-examination.

[Speaker 1] (30:41 - 30:49)
Any questions? Not hearing anything, okay. Well, thanks very much.

You're excused. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (30:52 - 30:54)
The commission calls Michael Garcia to the stand.

[Speaker 1] (30:56 - 31:30)
I'm just gonna adjust the screen here. Should be, there we go. Just gonna start the video.

Okay, perfect. All right, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do, your honor. All right, you may need to speak up a little bit, especially if you'll have to be answering some questions. Just check on your microphone.

Okay, I understand, thank you. All right, go ahead, attorney Bedford.

[Speaker 3] (31:31 - 31:33)
Please state your name for the record.

[Speaker 1] (31:34 - 31:35)
Michael Garcia.

[Speaker 3] (31:36 - 31:39)
And what is your position at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin?

[Speaker 8] (31:40 - 31:43)
I am a public utilities rate analyst.

[Speaker 3] (31:43 - 31:49)
Did you file or cause to be filed direct and cerebral testimony and exhibits in this docket?

[Speaker 8] (31:50 - 31:50)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (31:51 - 31:57)
Are the statements and representations in the testimony and exhibits you filed in this case true and correct?

[Speaker 8] (31:58 - 31:58)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (31:59 - 32:04)
Do you have any additions or modifications to your testimony or your exhibits at this time?

[Speaker 8] (32:05 - 32:06)
I do not.

[Speaker 3] (32:07 - 32:09)
Your honor, the witness is available for cross.

[Speaker 1] (32:09 - 32:57)
All right, so I just wanted to note, I know there's a couple of number changes with the exhibits. We don't need to get into details about that, but I just wanted to make sure the record, we have the correct number of exhibits and maybe I have the wrong number here. So let's just go off the record.

So I think I was asking staff to refile, but I think the numbers are really five and six. Is that, because you do already have a Garcia four or did I, am I forgetting something here?

[Speaker 8] (32:57 - 33:09)
Your honor, that's correct. I believe you asked me to renumber Garcia R1 and Garcia R2 to be Garcia four and Garcia five.

[Speaker 1] (33:10 - 34:17)
Right, but you already have a Garcia four in existence. I think it's- Oh yes, that is correct, your honor. Okay, yeah, so let me, I didn't catch that until just now.

So let me just, I'm going to change that, not that much. Okay, so we're going to go up to Garcia six now. So let's get it back on the record.

So I just wanted to know for the record that, well, let me ask you, well, I can just know for the record, we'll be expecting six Garcia exhibits with the renumbering of what was filed as Garcia R1 and Garcia R2 will be renumbered to respectively as Garcia five and Garcia six. So that's all we need. Just want to make sure I got the right numbers here.

Okay, great. So now the witness is available for cross. So let's have questions.

We'll start with the applicant and just ask if there are any questions from Superior.

[Speaker 6] (34:19 - 34:20)
No, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (34:21 - 34:26)
Okay, and we'll just go down the list here. So Citizens Utility Board, any questions?

[Speaker 7] (34:27 - 34:28)
No questions, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (34:28 - 34:32)
All right, so now we're at Enbridge. I think we have some questions, so go ahead.

[Speaker 5] (34:32 - 35:19)
Thank you, your honor. Mr. Garcia, my name is Richard Savico. I'm attorney for Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership in this case.

Just a couple of brief questions. Now, first, are you familiar with Enbridge Energy Limited Partnerships witness Kavita Maney's rebuttal testimony regarding revenue allocations to classes in this case? Yes, I am familiar with that rebuttal testimony.

Okay, and then specifically with respect to that and your surrebuttal, you indicate that Ms. Maney offered an updated version of SWLP's proposed revenue allocation. Do you recall that?

[Speaker 8] (35:20 - 35:20)
Yes, I do.

[Speaker 5] (35:21 - 35:30)
And did you find that revenue allocation which follows SWLP's proposal to be reasonable?

[Speaker 8] (35:32 - 35:36)
Yes, I did find that allocation offered to be reasonable.

[Speaker 5] (35:38 - 35:52)
Okay, thank you. And then in the event that revenue requirement is different than staff's recommendation, do you find that her proportional scaling method to adjust each class's rate increase to be reasonable?

[Speaker 8] (35:54 - 35:57)
Yes, I do find her methodology to be reasonable.

[Speaker 5] (35:58 - 36:01)
Okay, thank you. I've got no further questions, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (36:02 - 36:06)
All right, thank you. And that's all of our interveners. Any redirect?

[Speaker 3] (36:07 - 36:09)
No redirect, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (36:09 - 36:18)
All right, thanks very much, then you're excused. Thank you, your honor. All right, take care.

All right, next witness.

[Speaker 3] (36:19 - 36:22)
The commission calls Eric Griffin to the stand.

[Speaker 1] (36:31 - 36:40)
All right, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes.

All right, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (36:40 - 36:42)
Please state your name for the record.

[Speaker 6] (36:42 - 36:43)
Eric Griffin.

[Speaker 3] (36:44 - 36:47)
And what is your position at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin?

[Speaker 6] (36:48 - 36:49)
A public utility auditor.

[Speaker 3] (36:50 - 36:55)
Did you file or cause to be filed direct and cerebral testimony in this docket?

[Speaker 6] (36:55 - 36:56)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (36:57 - 37:00)
Did you also file or cause to be filed three exhibits in this docket?

[Speaker 6] (37:02 - 37:02)
Yes, I did.

[Speaker 3] (37:03 - 37:09)
Are the statements and representations in the testimony and exhibits you filed in this case true and correct?

[Speaker 6] (37:10 - 37:10)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (37:11 - 37:16)
And do you have any additions or modifications to your testimony or exhibits at this time?

[Speaker 1] (37:17 - 37:18)
No, I do not.

[Speaker 3] (37:19 - 37:21)
Your honor, the witness is available for cross-examination.

[Speaker 1] (37:22 - 37:36)
All right, any questions? Start with the applicant. No, your honor.

Interveners? No, okay. Then no questions.

Thanks very much, you're excused.

[Speaker 3] (37:39 - 37:42)
The commission calls Alex Hanna to the stand.

[Speaker 1] (37:52 - 37:59)
Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do.

Okay, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (38:00 - 38:02)
Please state your name for the record.

[Speaker 6] (38:03 - 38:03)
Alex Hanna.

[Speaker 3] (38:04 - 38:07)
What is your position at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin?

[Speaker 6] (38:08 - 38:11)
I am a public utility rates analyst.

[Speaker 3] (38:11 - 38:16)
Did you file or cause to be filed direct testimony in one exhibit in this docket?

[Speaker 8] (38:17 - 38:17)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (38:18 - 38:30)
Are the statements and representations in the testimony and the exhibit you filed in this case true and correct? Yes. And do you have any additions or modifications to your testimony or exhibits at this time?

[Speaker 1] (38:31 - 38:32)
No, I do not.

[Speaker 3] (38:33 - 38:35)
Your honor, the witness is available for cross-examination.

[Speaker 1] (38:36 - 38:45)
Okay, any questions? Start with the applicant. No, your honor.

No, interveners? No, all right. Thanks very much, you're excused.

[Speaker 3] (38:47 - 38:52)
And last of all, but not least, the commission calls Mitori to the stand.

[Speaker 1] (38:56 - 39:01)
You think with an H last name, you'd be sooner on the list, but no, not this time.

[Speaker 3] (39:02 - 39:05)
Well, I'm just going in the order of the offered evidence list.

[Speaker 1] (39:06 - 39:06)
Right, right.

[Speaker 3] (39:06 - 39:08)
So we can all follow along at home.

[Speaker 1] (39:08 - 39:16)
Yep, yep, there you go. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes. All right, go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (39:17 - 39:19)
Please state your name for the record.

[Speaker 9] (39:20 - 39:20)
Mitchell Horry.

[Speaker 3] (39:21 - 39:25)
And what is your position at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin?

[Speaker 9] (39:26 - 39:28)
Focus on energy performance manager.

[Speaker 3] (39:29 - 39:33)
And did you file or cause to be filed a direct testimony in this docket?

[Speaker 9] (39:34 - 39:34)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (39:35 - 39:40)
And are the statements and representations in the testimony you filed in this case true and correct?

[Speaker 9] (39:41 - 39:41)
Yes.

[Speaker 3] (39:42 - 39:45)
And do you have any additions or modifications to your testimony at this time?

[Speaker 9] (39:46 - 39:47)
I do not.

[Speaker 3] (39:48 - 39:50)
Your honor, the witness is available for cross.

[Speaker 1] (39:50 - 39:52)
All right, questions starting with the applicant.

[Speaker 6] (39:54 - 39:54)
No questions, your honor.

[Speaker 1] (39:55 - 41:43)
Interveners? None. Nothing, right?

And that's it. Thanks very much, you're excused. All right, so we've gotten through our witnesses and I don't think there's really anything else to address here.

Just wanted to make sure we have a schedule set for refiling testimony and for briefs, draft transcripts and corrections, the corrections process to the transcripts all in the pre-hearing conference memo. So you wanna refer to that for those items. I don't have the notice of hearing in front of me here.

So I'm just gonna turn that screen share off, but we will, hang on, actually, let me do that. Okay, it's always good to recap. So yes, we will be meeting in Superior Monday, September 9th, 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Government Center, and we will continue to receive written comments up until Thursday, September 12th through the internet or by U.S. mail. So with that, I think we have everything we need. And let me just ask if there's anything else we need to address before we adjourn. Nothing, all right.

Well, thank you very much, everybody. We're adjourned, have a great weekend.

[Speaker 9] (41:44 - 41:45)
Thanks. Thank you.