The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutExhibit MIEC 35 Intervener Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from MSD 071911Wastewater and Rate Change Notice Exhibit MIEC 35 BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT MISSOURI INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS' AND BARNES -JEWISH HOSPITAL'S AND MR. ROBERT A. MUELLER'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Comes now the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers ("MIEC"),' by counsel, Barnes - Jewish Hospital (`BJH"), by counsel, and Mr. Robert A. Mueller ("Mr. Mueller") (collectively "Intervenors"), and file their Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("Motion to Compel") in the matter of the proposed Wastewater Rate Change Proposal submitted to the Rate Commission by the Staff of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("MSD") on May 10, 2011. This Motion to Compel is filed pursuant to the Operational Rules, Regulations and Procedures of the Rate Commission ("Operational Rules"), Section 5, Discovery Procedures. In support of their Motion to Compel, the Intervenors state as follows: BACKGROUND 1. On June 7, 2011, the MIEC submitted Discovery Request 1-1 to MSD: Referring to Exhibit MSD 1, please provide an electronic copy, with all formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District wastewater rate proposal performed by Black & Veatch. Please note whether or not any revised model has been made since May 10, 2011, and provide an electronic copy of the updated version. 2. On June 17, 2011, Ms. Jan Zimmerman of MSD responded to MIEC Discovery Request 1-1: Exhibit MSD 4, Exhibit 4a and Exhibit MSD 5 provide all the tables, detailed calculations and formulas underlying the rate 1 Covidien, an intervenor, is being represented by the MJEC in this 2011 MSD rate proceeding. 36709732 1 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice model used to develop the Rate Change Proposal (Exhibit MSD 1). No revisions have been made since its submittal to the Rate Commission. 3. Significantly, in its June 17, 2011 response, MSD did not object to providing the MIEC with an electronic copy of the May 10, 2011 wastewater rate proposal. 4. On July 1, 2011, after MIEC's counsel spoke with MSD's counsel, the MIEC submitted Discovery Request 2-1 to MSD: The MIEC's Discovery Request 1-1 dated June 7, 2011 requested MSD to provide an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal drafted by Black & Veatch. On June 17, 2011, MSD responded to MIEC 1-1, but MSD did not provide an electronic copy of the proposal as requested. The MIEC's request for the electronic copy of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal is renewed. Please provide the electronic copy of this document to the MIEC as soon as possible. 5. On July 6, 2011, MIEC's counsel submitted a letter to Ms. Susan Myers, MSD's counsel, regarding MIEC's continued attempts to receive a response to MIEC's Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1. This letter was submitted as Exhibit MIEC 19A. See Attachment A. 6. On July 8, 2011, representatives from MSD, Black & Veatch, Bryan Cave LLP, and Brubaker and Associates, Inc. conferenced via telephone to attempt to resolve the discovery dispute. MSD argued that Black & Veatch's electronic model of the 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal is proprietary, and therefore, cannot be provided to the MIEC. Among other things, the MIEC argued that Black & Veatch has provided electronic copies of similar documents in two 2010 rate cases and MSD, by withholding this information, is not providing essential data to consumers. The call concluded with Black & Veatch stating that it needed to speak internally before MSD would provide a formal response. 7. On July 11, 2011, Ms. Myers of MSD responded to Discovery Request 2-1: 3670973.2 2 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice The District objects to Question 2-1 of this Discovery Request and Question 1-1 of the MIEC June 7, 2011 Discovery Request. Pursuant to paragraph #7 [of] the July 28, 2010 and July 11, 2011 Rate Consulting Services Agreement between MSD and Black & Veatch, the Water/Sewer Rate Design Model ("Rate Model") used by MSD's rate consultant, Keith Barber (Black & Veatch Project Manager) is considered proprietary property of Black & Veatch and therefore MSD is prohibited from providing the Rate Model to any entity. 8. Notably, July 11, 2011 was the first time that MSD had provided a written objection to MIEC Discovery Request 1-1. Moreover, MSD references two Rate Consulting Services Agreements in its response — one dated July 28, 2010 and the other dated July 11, 2011, the same day MSD filed the objection. It is the Intervenors' understanding that, to date, MSD has not provided copies of these Rate Consulting Services Agreements with Black & Veatch to the Rate Commission.2 9. On July 12, 2011, representatives from MSD, Black & Veatch, and Bryan Cave LLP conferenced via telephone in another attempt to resolve the discovery dispute. MSD stated that its position had not changed: MSD will not provide an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal drafted by Black & Veatch because it is proprietary. Black & Veatch also stated that if the MIEC wanted to run another scenario using Black & Veatch's model, the MIEC would be responsible for paying for Black & Veatch's costs. MIEC's counsel asked a series of questions regarding Black & Veatch's proposed arrangement, and Black & Veatch responded to these questions via e-mail on July 12th. See Attachment B. In short, Black & Veatch informed the MIEC that the MIEC would be responsible for paying $240.00 per hour for Black & Veatch to run any new scenarios with the model. 2 On July 13, 2011, the MIEC requested in its Third Data Request to MSD that, among other things, MSD provide copies of the July 28, 2010 and July 11, 2011 Rate Consulting Services Agreements between MSD and Black & Veatch. 3670973.2 3 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice 10. On July 13, 2011, BJH submitted a letter to MSD indicating that BJH is interested in receiving an electronic copy of MSD's 2011 Wastewater Rate Proposal. This letter was submitted as Exhibit BJH 21. See Attachment C. 11. On July 18, 2011, Mr. William Stannard of Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., Mr. Michael Gorman of Brubaker and Associates, Inc., and Ms. Billie LaConte of Drazen Consulting Group, Inc. filed rebuttal testimony on behalf of the Rate Commission, the MIEC, and BJH, respectively. All three experts discussed how MSD's refusal to provide the electronic model significantly limits the ability of the Rate Commission and the Intervenors to evaluate MSD's proposal and hinders the transparency of the entire process.3 APPLICABLE PROCEDURES 12. Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Operational Rules, the MIEC, BJH, and Mr. Mueller, as intervenors, are permitted to request additional information and answers from MSD regarding any element of the Proposed Rate Change. On June 7, 2011, the MIEC properly submitted Discovery Request 1-1 to MSD. On June 17, 2011, MSD provided a response to Discovery Request 1-1, but did not provide any objections. On July 11, 2011, MSD objected to providing the information that the MIEC properly requested in Discovery Request 1-1. This Motion to Compel is raised in response to MSD's objection to Discovery Request 1-1. 13. According to Section 5(0 of the Operational Rules, "[a]ny person who fails to answer relevant and otherwise proper questions regarding their testimony, to make themselves available for questioning in technical conferences, or to provide other information properly requested pursuant to these discovery procedures shall be subject to having their testimony 3 See, e.g., Exhibit L&B 30, Testimony of William Stannard, pg. 14, lns. 13 — 27; Exhibit BJH 31, Testimony of Billie LaConte, pg. 3, lns. 1— 5, and pg. 8, ins. 3 — 11; and Exhibit MIEC 29, Testimony of Michael Gorman, pg. 3, lns. 3 —16, and pg. 4, Ins. 14 — 23. 3670973.2 4 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice disregarded by the Commission." (emphasis added.) MSD has not provided information properly requested pursuant to these discovery procedures, so pursuant to Section 5(f) of the Operational Rules, the Rate Commission has the ability to disregard MSD's testimony. 14. For the reasons discussed below, the Intervenors are filing this Motion to Compel to request that the Rate Commission require that MSD produce an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal drafted by Black & Veatch. The Intervenors request that the Rate Commission require MSD to produce an electronic copy of the 2011 Wastewater Rate Proposal immediately. ARGUMENT I. The Rate Commission and the Intervenors Need to Review the Actual Model to Confirm the Reliability of the Model. 15. Black & Veatch has developed an electronic model designed to input historic data provided by MSD. The model then generates data that is disseminated and relied upon by MSD to establish its 2011 Wastewater Rate Proposal. An example of the output generated by the model is provided in MSD Exhibit 4. 16. It is critical that the Rate Commission and the Intervenors be afforded the opportunity to review Black & Veatch's model itself because the model needs to be verified and confirmed. 17. The Intervenors are unable to evaluate the validity of the output without analyzing the formulas and calculations that were created to generate the output. In other words, reviewing Exhibit 4 without seeing the electronic model is similar to reviewing Exhibit 4 in a vacuum. Among other concerns, it is unclear how the data was generated, whether there were any errors in the calculations of the electronic formulas, and whether any assumptions were made in 3670973.2 5 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice creating the model. No party, besides MSD, has the ability to validate the formulas and the model used by Black & Veatch. 18. Black & Veatch has offered to run new scenarios using its model if the MIEC pays Black & Veatch a fee of $240.00 per hour. See Attachment B. In its response, Black & Veatch, and ultimately MSD, miss the point of the MIEC's request. It is critical that the Intervenors be allowed to review, analyze, and evaluate Black and Veatch's actual model — and not the numbers that appear from a model that cannot be verified as to its accuracy. MSD's attempt at a "quick fix" solution is unacceptable, especially since no party is being provided access to evaluate Black & Veatch's model. II. Black & Veatch has Provided Electronic Copies of Similar Documents in Previous Rate Cases. 19. In 2010, Black & Veatch provided electronic copies of similar documents in two rate cases: (1) Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in Kansas City, Kansas; and (2) the City of Newark, Delaware. See Attachment A. 20. The Intervenors assert that is commonplace for parties to request and receive these models with formulas intact in utility rate cases. See, e.g., Attachment C. 21. The Intervenors are confused and frustrated as to why Black & Veatch is not providing similar information to the Rate Commission and the Intervenors in this proceeding as it did in 2010 with BPU and the City of Newark. The parties in this rate case are entitled to receive similar information as the parties in other recent rate cases. 22. To the extent that MSD and Black & Veatch assert that the model and the formulas is proprietary, the MIEC, Brubaker and Associates, Inc., BHT, Drazen Consulting Group, Inc., and Mr. Mueller are willing to commit to protect the confidentiality of Black & Veatch's model. 3670973.2 6 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice III. MSD's Refusal to Provide an Electronic Copy of the Model Violates MSD's Commitment to Provide Information to its Consumers and the Rate Commission. 23. Transparency is an essential part of any rate proceeding. It is imperative that members of the public — the ratepayers funding MSD's proposed rate increase — be provided with all of the necessary information in advance of the rate increase being approved. Significantly, the Rate Commission and the Intervenors are entitled to review all of the information that MSD has used to generate its proposed rate increase. There is no question that MSD's decision to deny the Intervenors or any other party access to review an electronic copy of the Black & Veatch model shields key information from the public, the Rate Commission, and the Intervenors. 24. MSD needs to provide the necessary data to support its proposal for an increase in wastewater revenues of approximately $130 million to take place over a four-year period. The least that MSD could do is provide all of the formulas that it used to justify its proposed 60% increase in wastewater collections. MSD is proposing a significant rate increase with financial ramifications that will impact the residents of St. Louis. By not affording the Rate Commission and the Intervenors the opportunity to verify or confirm the electronic model, MSD is effectively withholding critical information that it has used as a foundation for this proposed rate increase. CONCLUSION 25. Without a copy of the Consent Decree in hand, the Intervenors are struggling to find the necessary support provided by MSD to justify such a sizeable rate increase. It is both frustrating and unthinkable that MSD would not agree to provide the Intervenors with an electronic version of the model that it relies upon to justify its proposed rate increase. How will MSD successfully be able to show that its proposed rate increase is legitimate without use of its electronic model? And how will the Rate Commission, the Intervenors, and the public be able to 3670973.2 7 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice understand MSD's justification for its numbers underlying the proposed rate increase? These questions may be better addressed or resolved if MSD provides an electronic copy of its proposal. 26. The timeline is very compressed in this rate case, especially since all of the parties have to evaluate such an enormous proposal in a few months. The rebuttal testimony was due on Monday, July 18, 2011. Due to MSD's position regarding this issue, the Intervenors were unable to evaluate the validity of the Black & Veatch model relied upon by MSD prior to the submission of its testimony. The Intervenors respectfully reserve the right to submit supplemental rebuttal testimony and/or surrebuttal testimony regarding the applicability and validity of the Black & Veatch model. 27. WHEREFORE, the Intervenors request that their Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be granted, and that the Rate Commission require MSD to provide the Intervenors with an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 Black & Veatch MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal immediately, and that the Rate Commission provide any additional relief as appropriate. 3670973.2 8 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice Dated: July 19, 2011 Respectfully submitted, BRYAN CAVE, LLP By Diana Vuylsteke, #42419 John R. Ki chuh, #56407 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2543 (Diana) Telephone: (314) 259-2313 (John) Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 john.kindschuh@bryancave.com dmvuylsteke@bryancave.com ATTORNEYS FOR MISSOURI INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS SANDBERG, PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, ene ert, #49781 0 ' - _ on Avenue, 15th Floor St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1313 Telephone: (314) 446-4238 Facsimile: (314) 241-7604 llangeneckert@sandbergphoenix.com ATTORNEYS FOR BARNES -JEWISH HOSPITAL By rt A. Mueller 16 Ladue Crest Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 Telephone: (314) 432-1177 ramreco@sbcglobal.net 3670973.2 9 Wastewater and Rate Change Notice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been emailed this 19th day of July, 2011, to all parties on the service list in this case. 3670973.2 10 Attachment A Exhibit MIEC 19A July 6, 2011 John Kindschuh Direct 314-259-2313 Fax: 314-259-2020 john.kindschuh@bryancave.com VIA E-MAIL Susan Myers General Counsel Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2555 Re: MIEC Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1 Dear Susan: Please allow this letter to serve as another attempt by the MIEC to receive a response to MIEC's Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1 and to receive an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal drafted by Black & Veatch. The MIEC requests a written response from MSD to this letter by 5:00 pm on Thursday, July 7, 2011. The MIEC submitted Discovery Request 1-1 on June 7, 2011 to MSD requesting the following: Referring to Exhibit MSD 1, please provide an electronic copy, with all formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District wastewater rate proposal performed by Black & Veatch. Please note whether or not any revised model has been made since May 10, 2011, and provide an electronic copy of the updated version. Jan Zimmerman of MSD responded to Discovery Request 1-1 on June 17, 2011 by stating: Exhibit MSD 4, Exhibit 4a and Exhibit MSD 5 provide all the tables, detailed calculations and formulas underlying the rate model use dot develop the Rate Change Proposal (Exhibit MSD 1). No revisions have been made since its submittal to the Rate Commission. In its response, MSD did not provide the MIEC with an electronic copy of the Black & Veatch wastewater proposal. Significantly, MSD did not object to providing the MIEC with this information in its response. Bryan Cave LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway Suite 3800 St Louis. MO 63102.2750 Tel (314) 259.2000 Fax (314j259.2020 www.bryancave.cor Bryan Cave Offices Atlanta Charlotte Chicago Dallas Hamburg Hong Kong Irvine Jefferson City Kansas City London Las Angeles New York Paris Phoenix San Francisco Shanghai Singapore St. Louis Washington, DC Bryan Cave International Trade A TRADE CUNSUtr(N6 SUBSrDiAAT Of NON•LAWYER PROfg$iORALS www.brya n cavetrade.com Bangkok Beijing Jakarta Koala Lumpur Manila Shanghai Singapore Tokyo 3667361.1 Susan Myers July 6, 2011 Page 2 Bryan Cave LLP On July 1, 2011, we spoke via telephone regarding MSD's response to Discovery Request 1-1. You indicated that you had spoken with Jan Zimmerman, and she did not have an electronic copy of the information requested in Discovery Request 1-1. You also stated that you were going to speak with Keith Barber of Black & Veatch to inquire further about the MIEC's request, but he would not be available until July 5, 2011 because of holiday travels. We also discussed the possibility of arranging a conference among Black & Veatch, Brubaker and Associates ("BAI"), and legal counsel to further discuss the MIEC's discovery request and MSD's response. During our conversation, I also informed you that I would be submitting a discovery request later that day renewing the MIEC's request for the electronic copy of the information requested in Discovery Request 1-1. Accordingly, on July 1, 2011, the MIEC submitted Discovery Request 2-1 to MSD: The MIEC's Discovery Request 1-1 dated June 7, 2011 requested MSD to provide an electronic copy, with formulas intact, of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal drafted by Black & Veatch. On June 17, 2011, MSD responded to MIEC 1- 1, but MSD did not provide an electronic copy of the proposal as requested. The MIEC's request for the electronic copy of the May 10, 2011 MSD Wastewater Rate Proposal is renewed. Please provide the electronic copy of this document to the MIEC as soon as possible. On July 6, 2011, I received a call from Jan Zimmerman regarding the MIEC's Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1. Ms. Zimmerman informed me that the electronic copy of the Black & Veatch document is proprietary, and MSD is not willing to provide the information to the MIEC. I also spoke with Ms. Zimmerman about arranging a conference as soon as possible among Keith Barber and his team from Black & Veatch, Michael Gorman and his team from BAI, MSD staff, MSD's legal counsel, and the MIEC's legal counsel to further discuss the MIEC's need for the information and Black & Veatch's objection that the information requested is proprietary. Ms. Zimmerman said that she would speak with you about coordinating a conference. Later in the afternoon on July 6, 2011, you contacted me via telephone and informed me that MSD will not be providing the information to the MIEC requested in Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1 because the information is proprietary. You indicated that you had spoken with representatives from Black & Veatch, and Black & Veatch informed you that they have not provided similar information in other rate cases. You asked me to provide you with a list of rate cases when Black & Veatch provided parties with similar information. You also stated that you were not willing to schedule a conference among the parties; rather, you wanted to share this letter with Black & Veatch prior to committing to scheduling a conference. Per your request, I have provided Jan Zimmerman with a copy of this letter. In response to your request, Black & Veatch has provided electronic copies of similar documents in two 2010 rate cases: (1) Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in Kansas City, Kansas; and (2) the City of Newark, Delaware. The MIEC appreciates your assistance in contacting Black & Veatch to encourage Black & Veatch to provide this information in the format requested in this rate case. BAI is willing to 3667361.1 Susan Myers July 6, 2011 Page 3 Bryan Cave LLP assert that this information has been provided in other rate proceedings with commitments that the proprietary work product will be protected. The MIEC is willing to commit that Black & Veatch's model's confidentiality will be protected in this rate case. The MIEC and other parties in this rate case are significantly prejudiced if they do not receive this information. Importantly, the information contained in the Black & Veatch electronic model is historical data for MSD. It is imperative that this data and the associated calculations are provided and reviewed by the parties as soon as possible. The procedural schedule for this rate case is already compressed; in an effort to meet these deadlines, the MIEC appreciates MSD's cooperation in providing information that has been distributed in other rate cases. As we discussed, the MIEC would like to schedule a conference among Keith Barber and his team from Black & Veatch, Michael Gorman and his team from BAI, MSD's legal counsel, and the MIEC's legal counsel as soon as possible, but by no later than Friday, July 8, 2011. If MSD is still unwilling to provide the requested information, the MIEC will be forced to file,a Motion to Compel immediately and will have to involve the Rate Commission. We look forward to receiving a written response from MSD to this letter prior to 5:00 pm tomorrow, Thursday, July 7, 2011. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, /s/ John R. Kindschuh John Kindschuh Cc: Michael Gorman, Brubaker and Associates Diana M. Vuylsteke, Esq. Jan Zimmerman 3667361.1 Kindschuh, John R. Attachment B Page 1 of 1 From: Susan Myers [SMYERS@stimsd.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:03 PM To: Kindschuh, John R.; lostump@lashlybaer.com; Jan Zimmerman Subject: FW: Response to Questions from John Kindschuh Response received from Jack Grimaldi regarding questions raised during the teleconference this morning, Susan M. Myers General Counsel Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 768-6366 (314) 768-6279 (FAX) From: Grimaldi, Jack [mailto:GrimaldiJ@BV.COM] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:08 PM To: Susan Myers Cc: Barber, Keith D.; Boltz, Nickie Subject: Response to Questions from John Kindschuh Susan: In response to the questions posed by John this morning: What is the fee to run scenarios? B&V would perform the services at $240.00 an hour. What is the length of time normally required to run scenarios? Depending on the scope of the request it generally takes only a few hours for each scenario. Who would run the scenarios? Keith Barber would run the scenarios as he is most familiar with the case and model. This should result in quicker turnaround and lower costs. Would B&V be open to Mike Gorman and/or other consultants being present when different scenarios are run? There is no reason for anyone to be present. Our typical practice both for MSD and with our other clients is that Keith receives either email communications and/or telephone calls and runs scenarios and communicates the results to the client. This is the most efficient and time efficient way to do this. What information would MIEC and other parties receive? MIEC and other parties to the rate case would receive data output but not the COS Model. The data would be presented in the format previously provided in Discovery Response MSD-4. What agreement would be required to proceed? B&V would require at a minimum a letter agreement reflecting the party responsible for payment. Considering the cost that would be incurred in fighting over the model we believe proposing to run scenarios would save the most time and be the best way to go. If John has any other questions, let me or Keith know. Thanks. Jack Grimaldi, Senior Attorney Black & Veatch Corporation 11401 Lamar Avenue, Overland Park, KS 66211 (913) 458-2354 P ( grimaldij@BV.com Building a World of Difference.® Please consider the environment before printing my email Please note that the information and attachments in this email are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy or print the message or its attachment. Notify me at the above address, and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. 7/18/2011 Attachment C Exhibit BJH 21 SANDBERGPHOENi 6 & VON GONTARD P.C. / Usa C. Langeneckert Of Counsel 600 Washington Avenue - 15th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101-1313 Tel: 314.448.4238 Fax 314.241.7604 ftangenedcert@sandbergphoenix.com www.sandbergphoenix,com July 12, 2011 Susan Myers, Esq. General Counsel Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Stmt St. Louis, MO 63103 Re: MSD 2011-2012 Rate Increase Case--MIEC Discovery Request 1-1 and 2-1 Dear Ms. Myers: Please consider this as notification that Intervenor Barnes -Jewish Hospital ("SJH') is• also interested in receiving the Black & Veatch wastewater rate proposal for MSD itt electronic format with all formulas intact and has been watching the dispute relating to the above- referenced DRs with interest. It is imperative that we receive this information ill order to enable the utility rate consultant for B3H, Drazen Consulting Group ("DCGI"), to evaluate the rate increase request. Furthermore, it is coMmonplace for parties to request and receive these models with formulas intact in utility rate increase oases in Missouri. DCGI is willing to commit that any information that is designated as proprietarywork product will be protected and that it will be used for the sole purpose of verification and testing of the numbers in this case. We look forward to receiving this information in the near future so that there is sufficient time for review so that it may be discussed in Ms. LaConte's rebuttal testimony. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. LCL/eh cc: All parries of record 3039341\1 Yours very truly, Lisa C. Langeneckert SANOBERG PHOENIX & voii GONTARD P.C. Sr. Louts, MO CAWIw Atr, IL EowARomu.E, IL Membri of The Network of Thal Law Rents