HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 121 - Transcript of the Second Technical Conference May 20, 2015 Rebuttal Testimony REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6 THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
8 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
9 MAY 20, 2015
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 2
1 I N D E X
2
Testimony of Mr. Gorman Page
3
Questions by Ms. Meyers. . . . . . . 25
4 Questions by Mr. Arnold. . . . . . . 34
Questions by Mr. Schneider. . . . . .50
5 Questions by Mr. Brockmann. . . . . .52
6 Testimony of Ms. Lemoine
7 Questions by Ms. Meyers. . . . . . . 54
Questions by Mr. Neuschafer. . . . . 56
8 Questions by Mr. Tomazi. . . . . . . 59
Questions by Mr. Schneider. . . . . .65
9 Questions by Mr. Brockmann. . . . . .68
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 3
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
Commissioners:
3 Steven Chodes
George Tomazi
4 Mark Schoedel
Mike O'Connell, III
5 Russell Hawes
Leonard Toenjes
6 Eric Schneider
John L. Stein
7 Nancy Bowser
Paul Brockmann
8 Chan Mahanta
Steve Mahfood
9
Representing Metropolitan Sewer District:
10
Susan Meyers
11
Representing Rate Commission:
12
John Fox Arnold
13 Lisa O. Stump
Lashly & Baer
14 714 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
15
Representing Missouri Industrial Energy
16 Consumers (MIEC):
17 Brandon Neuschafer
Bryan Cave, LLP
18 One Metropolitan Square
St. Louis, MO 63102
19
Representing Homebuilders' Association:
20
Nick Burkhart
21
Court Reporter:
22 Jeanne M. Pedrotty, CCR/CSR
Missouri CCR #618
23 Illinois CSR #084-003893
Midwest Litigation Services
24 711 North Eleventh Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
25 (314) 644-2191
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 4
1 (Starting time of the hearing: 8:55)
2 MR. TOENJES: Good morning. It's nine
3 o'clock. We will call the meeting of the Rate
4 Commission of St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District to
5 order for our 2015 Waste Water and Storm Water Rate
6 Change Proceedings. We will start with the roll call.
7 I will take the roll call this morning. Ms. Bowser?
8 MS. BOWSER: Here.
9 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Brockmann?
10 MR. BROCKMANN: Here.
11 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Hawes?
12 MR. HAWES: Here.
13 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Chodes?
14 MR. CHODES: Here.
15 MR. TOENJES: Ms. Kelly. Mr. Stein?
16 MR. STEIN: Present.
17 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Schneider.
18 MR. SCHNEIDER: Here.
19 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Toenjes -- here. Mr.
20 Tomazi.
21 MR. TOMAZI: Here.
22 MR. TOENJES: Mr. O'Connell?
23 MR. O'CONNELL: Here.
24 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Schoedel?
25 MR. SCHOEDEL: Here.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 5
1 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Mahfood? Mr. Williams?
2 Mr. Mahanta.
3 MR. MAHANTA: Present.
4 MR. TOENJES: All right. We have a quorum,
5 so we will begin our meeting. My name is Leonard
6 Toenjes, and I am the Chairman of the Rate Commission
7 of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and will
8 serve as chair of this proceeding. Present are Nancy
9 Bowser, Paul Brockmann, Russell Hawes, Steven Chodes,
10 Jack Stein, Eric Schneider, George Tomazi, Mike
11 O'Connell, Mark Schoedel, and Chad Mahanta. Delegates
12 of the Rate Commission Charter Plan of the district
13 was approved by the voters of St. Louis and St. Louis
14 County at a special election on February 9th, 1954,
15 and amended at a general election on November 7th,
16 2000. An amendment to the charter plan established
17 the Rate Commission to review and make recommendations
18 to the District regarding changes in waste water
19 rates, storm water rates, and tax rates proposed by
20 the District. The charter plan requires the Board of
21 Trustees of the District to select organizations to
22 name delegates to the Rate Commission to ensure fair
23 representation of all users of the district services.
24 The Rate Commission representative organizations are
25 to represent commercial/industrial users, residential
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 6
1 users, and other organizations interested in the
2 operation of the district, including organizations
3 focusing on environmental issues, labor issues,
4 socioeconomic issues, community neighborhood
5 organization, and other nonprofit organizations. The
6 Rate Commission currently consists of representatives
7 of associated general contractors of Missouri, St.
8 Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association, the
9 Engineers Club of St. Louis, League of Women Voters,
10 Missouri Botanical Garden, Education Plus, Missouri
11 Industrial Engineer Consumers, Mound City Bar
12 Association, St. Louis County Municipal League, St.
13 Louis Council of Construction Consumers, Lutheran
14 Senior Services, West St. Louis County Chamber of
15 Commerce, North County Inc., Greater St. Louis Labor
16 Council, and Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
17 Upon receipt of a rate change notice from
18 the District, the Rate Commission is to recommend to
19 the Board of Trustees changes in a waste water, storm
20 water, or tax rate necessary to pay first interest and
21 principal falling due on bonds issued, finance assets
22 of the District. Second, cost of operation and
23 maintenance. And third, such amount as may be
24 required to cover emergencies and anticipated
25 delinquencies.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 7
1 Further, any change in a rate recommended
2 to the Board of Trustees by the Rate Commission is to
3 be accompanied by a statement that the proposed rate
4 change first is consistent with constitutional,
5 statutory, or common law as amended from time to time.
6 Second, enhances the District's ability to provide
7 adequate sewer and drainage systems and facility or
8 related services. Third, is consistent with and not
9 in violation of any covenant or provision relating to
10 any outstanding bonds or indebtedness of the District.
11 Fourth, does not impair the ability of the District to
12 comply with applicable federal or state laws or
13 regulations as amended from time to time. And fifth,
14 impose as fair and reasonable burden on all classes of
15 ratepayers, the Rate Commission received a rate change
16 notice from the District on February 26, 2015.
17 Understand the procedural schedule adopted by
18 the Rate Commission, any person affected by the rate
19 change proposal had an opportunity to submit an
20 application to intervene in these proceedings.
21 Applications to intervene have been filed by the
22 Homebuilders Association of St. Louis and Eastern
23 Missouri and Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers.
24 These applications have been granted.
25 The Rate Commission originally had until
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 8
1 June 26th, 2015 to issue its report on the proposed
2 rate change notice to the Board of Trustees of the
3 District. The Rate Commission requested an additional
4 45 days to issue its report. And on May 14th, 2015,
5 the District Board of Trustees granted the Rate
6 Commission's request. The Rate Commission must now
7 issue its report on or about August 10th, 2015.
8 On February 26th, 2015, the District
9 submitted to the Rate Commission prepared direct
10 testimony of Brian Hoelscher, Susan M. Meyers, Richard
11 Underfer, Jonathan Sprague, Tim Snoke, Bethany Pugh,
12 Theresa Belleville, and William Stander.
13 On March 17th, 2015, the Rate Commission
14 submitted its first discovery request to the District.
15 On March 27th, 2015, the District filed its responses.
16 On March 30th, 2015, the Rate Commission submitted its
17 second discovery request to the District which the
18 District responded to on April 2nd, 2015. On April
19 3rd, 2015, the Rate Commission submitted its third
20 discovery request to the District to which the
21 District responded on April 13th, 2015.
22 On April 8th, 2015, the technical
23 conference was held on the record regarding the rate
24 setting documents and the District testimony filed
25 with the Rate Commission by the District. The purpose
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 9
1 of the technical conference was to provide the
2 District an opportunity to answer questions propounded
3 by members of the Rate Commission, then by any
4 intervenor, and finally by Lashly & Baer, legal
5 counsel to the Rate Commission. On April 10, 2015,
6 intervenor, Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers
7 submitted its first discovery request to the District
8 to which the District responded on April 20th, 2015.
9 On April 27th, 2015, the Rate Commission submitted its
10 fourth discovery request to the District, which the
11 District responded to on May 7th, 2015. On April 27,
12 2015, intervenor, Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers
13 submitted its second discovery request to the
14 District, which the District responded to on May 7th,
15 2015.
16 On May 1st, 2015, intervenor, Homebuilders
17 Association, submitted its first discovery request to
18 the District to which the District responded to on May
19 13, 2015. On May 12th, 2015, the Rate Commission
20 consultant and intervenor, Missouri Industrial Energy
21 Consumers, submitted rebuttal testimony. On May 13th,
22 2015, intervenor, Homebuilders Association, submitted
23 rebuttal testimony. On May 18th, 2015, the District
24 submitted it's first discovery request to intervenor,
25 Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 10
1 This technical conference will be held on
2 the record regarding the rebuttal testimony. Each
3 person submitting rebuttal testimony shall answer
4 questions propounded by member of the Rate Commission,
5 the District, then the intervenor, and finally by our
6 legal counsel. Following the technical conference,
7 the District, the intervenors, and the Rate Commission
8 consultant may submit prepared surrebuttal testimony
9 and schedules. A technical conference will be held on
10 the record regarding the surrebuttal testimony. At
11 that technical conference each person submitting
12 surrebuttal testimony shall answer questions
13 propounded by members of the Rate Commission, then by
14 the District, and the intervenors, and finally by our
15 legal counsel. Ratepayers who do not wish to
16 intervene will be permitted to participate in a series
17 of on the record public hearing sessions which began
18 on May 11th, 2015. Who is here on behalf of
19 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District?
20 MS. MEYERS: Susan Meyers.
21 MR. TOENJES: Who is here on behalf of the
22 Homebuilders' Association?
23 MR. BURKHART: Nick Burkhart.
24 MR. TOENJES: Who is here on behalf of the
25 Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 11
1 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Brandon Neuschafer.
2 MR. TOENJES: Also present is Pamela
3 Lemoine of Black & Veatch, consultant to the Rate
4 Commission, and John Fox Arnold and Lisa Stump of
5 Lashly & Baer, legal counsel to the Rate Commission.
6 Under the Rate Commission's operational rules,
7 no person shall be required to answer questions for a
8 total period of more than three hours. And the time
9 shall be evenly divided among all the participants
10 desiring to ask questions. Following questions by
11 members of the Rate Commission, I will attempt to
12 allocate time equally among the participants and our
13 legal counsel. To the extent that the District or the
14 intervenors, or legal counsel has not completed the
15 questions at the expiration of that person's allotted
16 time, and to the extent that time remains, such person
17 will be permitted to propound additional questions
18 until the three hours has expired.
19 Are there any procedural matters? Ms.
20 Stump, you have one I believe.
21 MS. STUMP: Yes, I do. You all have before
22 you and was sent to you a proposed resolution that
23 would adopt a revised procedural schedule for the rest
24 of these proceedings. As you will recall in early
25 April, the intervenor, MIEC, filed a request to seek
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 12
1 modification of the procedural schedule and to stay
2 the current proceedings. The Rate Commission met on
3 April 17th, to consider that request. At that time
4 you passed a resolution authorizing the request for
5 the 45-day extension from the Board of Trustees, and
6 also setting the date for this submission of the
7 rebuttal testimony and for this pre-hearing
8 conference. The resolution also provided that the
9 Rate Commission would consider the additional changes
10 to the procedural schedule at the meeting today.
11 So that is what is set forth in front of
12 you. On May 14th, the Board of Trustees did grant the
13 45 days. So now you have until August 10th to submit
14 your report. In front of you is the revised
15 procedural schedule and resolution to approve it.
16 This is similar to the schedule that was originally
17 proposed by MIEC in their request in April. I want to
18 point out a couple of things. So let's walk through
19 the schedule for a minute, if we can, so you all can
20 see what it is you would be approving and make any
21 changes that you would like.
22 After today, the next thing that would be
23 on the calendar is the submission of surrebuttal
24 testimony, and that would be due on June 5th. The
25 next event is June 9th, there is a daytime public
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 13
1 hearing. That was originally the hearing that was
2 designed to put the documents into evidence and to be
3 the final daytime public hearing. Because that
4 hearing session has already been advertised as a
5 public hearing, it would be our suggestion that you
6 leave that on the calendar as a daytime public
7 hearing, and it would be treated the same as those
8 night time ones and the other sessions that you're
9 having. So we would no longer do the evidence at that
10 time, but would you still have just a standard public
11 hearing where the public can comment.
12 Then, June 17th would be the next date for
13 technical conference similar to this one, but it would
14 be on the surrebuttal testimony that would be filed at
15 the beginning of June, and that would carry over to
16 the 18th or 19th if needed. Then on June 26th would
17 about the present hearing conference where you all
18 would attend along with the respective parties and the
19 issues are discussed. Then under the proposed
20 calendar, the parties would submit prehearing
21 conference reports on July 8th. And I want to point
22 out here that your current rules provide that within
23 five business days of the conference, the reports are
24 due, but because of the July 4th holiday, we're
25 suggesting that they be due on July 8th and resolution
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 14
1 in fact waives that requirement of your procedural
2 rules in the event that you adopt this schedule.
3 And then finally, on Friday July 10th, we
4 would suggest that there be a new public hearing
5 session in the morning to allow for the submission of
6 evidence and closing statement and to wrap up the
7 proceedings. And then after that has been completed,
8 the Rate Commission could begin its deliberations.
9 This schedule in front of you provides
10 for deliberations any time from July 10th through July
11 31st. We would suggest -- and we can talk about it a
12 little later, whether you want to go ahead and set
13 times and dates for those meetings, but there would be
14 a three-week period. I understand it's at the height
15 of the vacation season, but unfortunately, that's just
16 the way that the schedule works out. And then that
17 would allow one additional week, the first week of
18 August, for us to finalize the report and make any
19 changes, and certainly any meetings if they are
20 necessary at those later dates. And the report would
21 be issued no later than the 10th. One thing that --
22 so that's the procedural schedule.
23 And the other thing that the resolution
24 would approve is a topic that you all can discuss is
25 whether any additional public notice is needed or
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 15
1 desired as a result of these changes to the schedule.
2 The resolution leaves it to the discretion of the
3 Public Affairs Committee to make any decisions as to
4 what additional public notice would be needed or
5 desired, but you all probably want to go ahead and
6 discuss that and let me give you some options on that.
7 First of all, what the charter says is
8 that the Rate Commission shall have at least one
9 public hearing to be held on the record regarding the
10 proposed rate change. And then it says not less than
11 five business days prior to such public hearing the
12 Rate Commission shall cause such notice of written
13 mail, publication, or electronic medium. So the
14 charter doesn't require to you do any additional
15 publication with the additional July 10th public
16 hearing that you are going to have, but in the past
17 the Rate Commission has done two different things.
18 One is that you have done a complete new publication
19 of the schedule. And two, the Rate Commission has --
20 in 2011, you did a short additional publication of the
21 additional public hearing time. And I'm going to pass
22 these just so you can see. This is just a draft that
23 would be based on the one that was in 2011. So you
24 can see it's just a lot shorter.
25 So really on publication you have three
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 16
1 options. You can not publish any more and we can just
2 continue the June hearing over to July date. You can
3 do a complete publication of the changes to the
4 technical conference that are still left, and to add
5 the new hearing, or you can do a short publication. I
6 will note that the first time around when we published
7 -- when the Rate Commission published the hearing,
8 they -- the cost -- the original publication occurred
9 three times in the Post and three times in the
10 American. And the total cost of that was $35,000.
11 Now, if you publish again, it's not going to be
12 lengthy. And as you know, the ads are based upon
13 space. So the cost would likely be less than that,
14 but that is something for you to consider.
15 In enacting the resolution today, you don't
16 have to make that decision. The resolution delegates
17 it to your Public Affairs Committee, but just
18 something that you all may want to discuss. So I put
19 before you for consideration the resolution on the
20 revised procedural schedule. Anybody have any
21 questions about the schedule?
22 MR. TOENJES: Let's open up the discussion
23 among the rate commissioners.
24 MR. BROCKMANN: What was the cost of the
25 shorter version? What do we expect it to be?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 17
1 MS. STUMP: I don't have the cost. I can
2 try to get that for you shortly through an e-mail to
3 my secretary I can ask her.
4 MR. TOEJNES: I would also be curious where
5 we are budget-wise this year. Where are we in the
6 budget?
7 MR. BROCKMANN: I don't know that answer.
8 I think we are right at budget.
9 MS. STUMP: I can get the cost. Again,
10 making that decision is not imperative to passing the
11 resolution.
12 MR. TOENJES: So the first issue is looking
13 at the resolution.
14 MS. STUMP: And the schedule.
15 MR. TOENJES: And the schedule. So let's
16 deal with that issue first and we'll worry while this
17 other information is being accumulated. So the
18 schedule as it's proposed, and the resolution, what
19 sort of discussion needs to be held on this? Any
20 discussion on the new schedule?
21 MR. BROCKMANN: Other than understanding
22 the Rate Commission needing dates, I consider we set
23 those to have a better plan. And we typically have
24 least four meetings on the Rate Commission meetings to
25 consider the Rate Commission report.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 18
1 MS. STUMP: John and I have talked about
2 this. It's been four or five. So I would suggest
3 that you schedule four or five in advance and then --
4 MR. BROCKMANN: With some time allotted.
5 MS. STUMP: In between for us because for
6 those of you that are new to the process, we will come
7 to you with kind of an issue determination check list
8 that helps flush out the issues; you all at your
9 meetings discuss where you are on them, how you feel
10 about them, where you are headed. And then, as Mr.
11 Brockmann mentioned, we go back and we incorporate
12 your comments and make changes and bring it back to
13 you. And then you approve certain parts of the report
14 and we get through them.
15 MR. TOMAZI: Do I understand that we still
16 have to produce a public hearing notice -- yeah,
17 public hearing notice for the July 10th public hearing
18 to be held here?
19 MS. STUMP: No. We don't believe that you
20 have to do that. We believe we can take the June 10
21 -- we can continue that hearing -- continue that over
22 to July 8th and not publish it. That's another
23 important part to make it will be published as far as
24 the Sunshine Law is concerned because it's a meeting
25 of Rate Commission, so that will happen. The Sunshine
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 19
1 Law and these agendas will be posted for all --
2 everything that's going to happen from here on out.
3 It's just the issue out there whether you want to make
4 an additional publication in the newspaper of these
5 meetings.
6 MR. TOMAZI: Because if we choose to have a
7 publication of the public hearing on July 10th, then
8 if by then we've had the opportunity to put together
9 the rest of the dates for our technical conference,
10 but the Rate Commission meetings between July 10th and
11 July 31, we could include them in the same notice,
12 couldn't we?
13 MS. STUMP: You could. They are little
14 different because it not a meeting where the public
15 can comment. So your deliberation rating meeting will
16 be a meeting of the Rate Commission so there will be a
17 Sunshine Law component, but there is not going to be
18 meeting where the public can come.
19 MR. TOMAZI: Okay. That's fine.
20 MR. BROCKMANN: To get discussion started,
21 I propose the dates -- these are all July -- 13th,
22 16th, 20th, 23, 27 and 30th.
23 MR. TOEJNES: Please run those again.
24 MR. BROCKMANN: 13th, 16th, 20th, 23rd,
25 27th, and 30th. Obviously, the last two, if needed.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 20
1 MR. TOEJNES: I want to cross out the 23rd
2 because I will not be there.
3 MR. BROCKMANN: Okay.
4 MR. TOENJES: The 13, 16, 27 --
5 MR. BROCKMANN: Does that give you enough
6 space?
7 MS. STUMP: It does. And the other thing
8 will be whether you want to start with a meeting right
9 after the public hearing on the 10th. That's another
10 -- if that doesn't work. It is the Friday -- you
11 know, it is a Friday after the 4th of July, so
12 whatever --
13 MR. STEIN: Personally, I would prefer not
14 to do it on that date. We have the public hearing in
15 the morning. We are also going to be looking at
16 conference reports that were just filed earlier in the
17 week. And I think it would be a benefit to have the
18 extra couple days to digest all that before we start
19 on Monday.
20 MS. STUMP: Great. So 13th, 16th, 20,
21 27th, and 30th.
22 MR. TOENJES: Sticking 13th, 16th, 20th,
23 27th, and 30th. Motion?
24 MR. BROCKMANN: I'll make that a motion for
25 those five days for the deliberation hearing.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 21
1 MR. STEIN: I'll second.
2 MR. TOENJES: Motion made and seconded that
3 the deliberation hearing will be scheduled for July
4 13, 16, 20th, 27th, and 30th. All in favor?
5 (Whereupon, all members agreed.)
6 MR. TOEJNES: Opposed? Abstained? Thank
7 you. Now, we still need to talk about the revised
8 calendar and the resolution to adopt this revised
9 procedural schedule. Is there any discussion on that
10 particular item? I believe we still need a motion to
11 adopt or not adopt this revised procedural schedule.
12 MR. STEIN: I'll make the motion to adopt.
13 MR. TOENJES: Motion made and seconded --
14 MS. STUMP: The motion is to approve the
15 resolution.
16 MR. TOENJES: Any further discussion on the
17 motion? All in favor signify by saying "Aye".
18 Opposed? Abstain?
19 (Whereupon, all members said "Aye".)
20 MR. TOEJNES: All right. Motion carried.
21 Thank you.
22 MS. STUMP: And Mr. Chair, sometime before
23 we adjourn today, I will have that cost on the
24 publication from the short notice in 2011 for you.
25 MR. TOENJES: Did we want to discuss that
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 22
1 the point -- that particular issue of the decision to
2 buy additional or wait until we have the cost. Let's
3 wait until we have the cost. All right. Second
4 procedural matter, if we're okay with that, as far as
5 revised procedural schedule. We have had a
6 resignation from the Rate Commission. And that is Ms.
7 Slack, who is our secretary, has resigned from the
8 Rate Commission. She has taken on a job in the St.
9 Louis County government and has a conflict of interest
10 in serving on the Rate Commission anymore. So she has
11 offered her resignation. The bar association is
12 presenting a new person who has not been appointed or
13 finalized at this point. So we need to elect or
14 appoint a new secretary to the Rate Commission. So I
15 will throw the floor open for nominations at this
16 point. Ms. Stump, would you elaborate on the duties
17 of the secretary?
18 MS. STUMP: The duties of the secretary
19 include performing the duties of the chair of the
20 commission in the event both the chair and vice-chair
21 are absent in any scheduled meeting. Keep or
22 supervise the keeping of the minutes or transcript of
23 all scheduled meetings and hearings of the Commission,
24 including the reporting of all votes of the commission
25 members, certify all reports, requests, and other
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 23
1 formal actions issued or taken by the Commission. And
2 that is it.
3 MR. TOENJES: Thank you.
4 MR. BROCKMANN: I nominate Eric Schneider.
5 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Brockmann. Are
6 there any other nominations? Then we'll show the
7 floor open for further nomination, and close the floor
8 to nomination at this point. All right. All in favor
9 of Mr. Schneider as secretary?
10 (Whereupon, all members said, "Aye".)
11 MR. TOENJES: Any opposed?
12 Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. I
13 appreciate it. I heard -- well, thank you.
14 MR. STEIN: Just a point of information, do
15 we know what the sponsoring organization is going to
16 do to replace Ms. Slack?
17 MS. STUMP: They have suggested an
18 alternative individual and they -- the District has
19 indicated that we need the formal letter from them,
20 but as soon as we receive that letter, that person
21 will be present.
22 MR. HOELSCHER: The recommendation actually
23 came from Annette Slack and we need the recommendation
24 to come from the Rate Commission organization, so
25 we're assuming that will happen, but we haven't
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 24
1 received that from the Mound City Bar Association yet.
2 MS. STUMP: When they do get here, they
3 will be provided with all the documentation that you
4 all have received so far including the transcripts.
5 MR. TOEJNES: Are there any further
6 procedural matters for us to be discussed.
7 MS. STUMP: Can I bring up one issue for
8 today's schedule? The consultant for intervenor
9 Homebuilders Association is not -- he is not
10 available until one o'clock today. So, normally we
11 would proceed with the intervenors' consultants going
12 before the rate consultant, but since he is not
13 available until one today, I would suggest that we
14 proceed with Ms. Lemoine prior to his testimony if you
15 all are okay with that.
16 MR. TOENJES: So we start with Mr. Gorman,
17 then Ms. Lemoine, and then Mr. Burkhart; is that
18 accurate?
19 MS. STUMP: That is correct.
20 MR. TOENJES: Any objection to that from
21 any of the rate commissioners? All right. There
22 being no further procedural matters, Mr. Neuschafer,
23 are you ready to present those persons for whom you
24 filed testimony on behalf of the Missouri Industrial
25 Energy Consumers?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 25
1 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes, I am.
2 MR. TOENJES: Then please proceed.
3 MR. NEUSCHAFER: My name is Brandon
4 Neuschafer. I represent the Missouri Industrial
5 Energy Consumers. And on behalf of the intervenor
6 MIEC, we'll present Mr. Michael P. Gorman.
7 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Gorman, is the testimony
8 you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
9 nothing but the truth?
10 MR. GORMAN: It is.
11 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. Does any member
12 of the Rate Commission have any questions for Mr.
13 Gorman at this time? Hearing none, Ms. Meyers, do you
14 have any questions for Mr. Gorman on behalf of the
15 District?
16 MS. MEYERS: Yes, we do.
17 MR. TOENJES: Please proceed.
18 Examination.
19 QUESTIONS BY MS. MEYERS:
20 Q. Good morning.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I am going to start with a few questions
23 from your rebuttal testimony that you provided. We're
24 going to start with Page 11 and it runs over -- I'm
25 sorry. Page 12 and runs over into page 13.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 26
1 Specifically on lines 13 through 16 on Page 12, would
2 you -- the question was, "Please explain why you
3 believe MSD's projected volumes for waste water are
4 downwardly biased due to projected decline for FY17,
5 and explain how you propose to correct this projection
6 of waste water volumes." In the second sentence of
7 your answer beginning on Page 12 line 20 and carrying
8 over to Page 13 line 2, you state, "As shown as line
9 two, MSD's projections show significant decline in
10 waste water volume per account in FY17 2.1 percent and
11 decline in volume per account in FY18 through FY20 of
12 0.4 percent. The decline in FY17 is much more
13 significant than MSD's projected decline for FY18
14 through FY20." You state that MSD has not supported
15 drastic one-time volume decline estimate for FY17. So
16 my question is is it your testimony that MSD did not
17 support its projection for a significant one-time
18 decrease in waste water volume per account per FY2017?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, did you review rate
21 proposal MSD Exhibit 1 in entirety prior to preparing
22 your testimony?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So let me direct you to MSD Exhibit 1 table
25 4.3 on Page 4-7. You don't have the proposal with
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 27
1 you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Again, we're on page 4-7 of the MSD rate
4 proposal, table 4-3. Line 4 of that table shows that
5 the metered account volume declines only slightly
6 between 2016 and the projection for 2017; is that
7 correct?
8 A. It is. Yes.
9 Q. But line 6, there is actually two separate
10 line 6's on that table, but line 6 that is titled,
11 "Subtotal on metered customers" shows a significant
12 decline in the volume on the unmetered account side
13 between 2016 and 2017; is that correct?
14 A. That is, yes.
15 Q. So from 11.5 million in 2016 down to 10.3
16 million in 2017. Is that what that table indicates?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So let me call your attention back to the
19 MSD rate proposal section 4.3 Page 4-5. So it's the
20 next yellow tabbed page I have there. The third
21 paragraph of that section -- and I apologize, but I'm
22 going to go ahead and read that paragraph into the
23 record -- sets forth as follows. "The District
24 engaged Vertex Business Services to assist in
25 analyzing the relationship of water usage between
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 28
1 metered and unmetered residential customers. This
2 analysis was performed by members of Vertex Analytics
3 and Consulting practice using a combination of actual
4 district data and multi-varying analytics. The
5 analysis determined the demographic drivers of water
6 volume among metered customers then applied those
7 drivers to unmetered customers with identical matching
8 demographic profiles. Based on this analysis, the
9 unit water consumption estimates of gallons per day
10 was used to recalibrate billable waste water volumes
11 based upon property attributes both applicable to
12 unmetered single family and multi-family customers.
13 Additional detail regarding this analysis can be found
14 in Appendix 7.1.4 of the rate proposal." Do you see
15 that portion of the proposal?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Okay. Now, having reviewed that portion of
18 the proposal, whether you agree with the recalibration
19 or not, MSD did, in fact, have that analysis performed
20 to support its recalibration and lowering of projected
21 billed volumes on the unmetered account for 2017, did
22 we not?
23 A. You made a projection of reduced usage for
24 unmetered customers, yes, but as I say in my
25 testimony, I don't think that supports the projection
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 29
1 for reduced volume in the rate filing.
2 Q. So appendix 7.1.4, it's your testimony that
3 does not support our analysis?
4 A. It is an analysis that describes how you
5 got to your result. But it is largely based on
6 projections and assumptions. It is not based on
7 actual metered data in the water level or at MSD level
8 that would support that reduction in assumed water
9 flow for unmetered customers. And I reach that
10 conclusion by also looking at water sales for St.
11 Louis water district. And while their metered sales
12 were declining, the District's total water sales for
13 2014 were not. That would suggest that unmetered
14 water sales were not declining in line with metered
15 water sales. It's difficult information to find, but
16 there was just no proof that there is a significant
17 and material reduction in water flow for unmetered
18 customers in this filing or in other information I
19 tried to pull together by relevant other sources to
20 support this projection. I predominantly relied on
21 pumping information from the St. Louis water district
22 to show that there hasn't been significant change in
23 the pumping levels. They are experiencing a reduction
24 in the use per customer for metered customers, but
25 because the pumping isn't changing significantly but
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 30
1 meter use is going down, that suggests use by
2 unmetered customers is either going up or staying the
3 same.
4 So with that information, I don't believe
5 your analysis accurately supports the notion that
6 unmetered customers' volume is declining in a very
7 significant way. And that's predominantly my concern
8 here. It's not a little adjustment. It's a very
9 significant adjustment for unmetered water use. And I
10 just was not able to find any evidence to support the
11 assumptions MSD made, and include that projection from
12 the rate plan.
13 Q. Now, directing your attention to Page 19
14 and 20 of your rebuttal testimony.
15 A. I'm there.
16 Q. I'd like to ask you about your direct
17 testimony set forth on those pages regarding the
18 estimated increase in utility cost. It's our
19 understanding that you have a significant amount of
20 experience with these types of costs; is that correct?
21 A. Well, rate change proceedings for detailed
22 projection. Yes.
23 Q. And in your testimony at Page 19 through
24 20, you state MSD's proposed utility expense annual
25 escalation factor of 5.5 percent is not reasonable; is
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 31
1 that correct?
2 A. It is, yes.
3 Q. And instead, on Page 20, line 5, of your
4 direct testimony, you state that you support a 3.0
5 percent escalation factor applied every other year; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Let me hand you a new exhibit. So we need
9 an Exhibit number -- 108. And Todd is handing out
10 this exhibit to the Rate Commission. And I'll wait
11 until everybody has a copy before we get started. So
12 this will be Exhibit MSD 108. Everybody has MSD 108.
13 This is an article that was recently published in the
14 St. Louis Post Dispatch concerning a rate increase
15 approved on April 29th of 2015, for Ameren by the
16 Missouri PSC. I would like to direct your attention
17 to the first sentence of the sixth paragraph on the
18 first page. Mr. Gorman, could you please read that
19 sentence aloud?
20 A. I'm sorry. The first sentence of the sixth
21 paragraph?
22 Q. It starts with "Wednesday".
23 A. "Wednesday's decision marks the sixth time
24 Ameren has won a general rate increase since 2007,
25 which has driven up electricity price for Missouri
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 32
1 customers nearly 50 percent since then. But the
2 increase Wednesday is less than half of the $264
3 million increase Ameren initially requested in July."
4 Q. So according to the Post Dispatch, Ameren
5 has raised electric rates by nearly 50 percent in
6 eight years from 2007 to 2015. Is that article
7 accurate in depicting that?
8 A. I'd have to verify the numbers, but Ameren
9 has filed nearly annual rate cases probably, more like
10 18-month cycle rate cases over the last seven or eight
11 years. And the reason they have done that is there's
12 been significant capital improvement to generate by
13 rural mandates. Those mandates have those capital
14 expenditures and retrofits have to be made by 2015.
15 It is now 2015. Ameren projected expenditures going
16 forward are now directed at modernizing distribution
17 and distribution systems, which is the basis of my
18 adjustments in this case. Not what's happened in the
19 past. In the past, which have been more rate cases
20 than every two years, but remember what Ameren is
21 suggesting was going to happen going forward based on
22 capital budget and projection changes in cost. And
23 their projected changes going forward suggest rate
24 increases showing in the rate base growth of two
25 percent a year through 2019. But, generally, those
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 33
1 rate base increases are often offset by changes in
2 other cost of service including growth in number of
3 customers and sales per annum. So, our projections
4 and rate changes going forward, and we do them for a
5 lot of industrial customers for Ameren Missouri is
6 that rate increase likely will be changing about every
7 two years for the next five to ten-year period. And
8 an increase will likely be something in the area of
9 three percent. And that will also reflect changes in
10 fuel cost.
11 So I am aware of Ameren's rate history over
12 the last ten years. I have been involved in the rate
13 cases probably every rate case for the last 20 years,
14 but we're also involved in projecting changes in cost
15 of service for Ameren going forward. In this case, I
16 use Ameren's own budget and projections for changes in
17 capital much like MSD is doing in this case for
18 projecting a need for changes in its own rates. So I
19 am aware of this, but the basis of my adjustment is
20 based on Ameren's own budget level of capital
21 improvement going forward, not what has happened in
22 the last five years.
23 Q. With regard to utility increases over the
24 last eight years, the annual rate increases have been
25 closer to five and a half percent per year level that
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 34
1 MSD is requesting rather than three percent every
2 other year level that you're representing in your
3 testimony; is that correct?
4 A. Historically, that's correct, yes, but my
5 projections are not based on historical change in
6 cost, but with very explicit changes in their invested
7 capital. And this happened over the last eight years.
8 Rather, these rates will be in effect prospectively,
9 so my adjustment suggests Ameren's projected budgeting
10 and changes in rates that will be necessary to support
11 that level of capital.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gorman. I have no further
13 questions.
14 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Meyers. Mr.
15 Burkhart, do you have any questions for Mr. Gorman on
16 behalf of the Homebuilders' Association?
17 MR. BURKHART: I do not.
18 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Arnold or Ms. Stump, do
19 you have any questions of Mr. Gorman on behalf of the
20 Rate Commission?
21 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. John
22 Arnold. I do have some questions if I may.
23 EXAMINATION
24 QUESTIONS BY MR. ARNOLD:
25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Gorman.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 35
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. We meet again?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I'm going to try and be brief. I
5 understand you have got travel commitments.
6 A. I appreciate that.
7 Q. We'll move through this as quickly as
8 possible. Could you turn in your testimony to Page 5?
9 A. I'm there.
10 Q. All right. And with respect to caption --
11 MR. TOENJES: Which particular exhibit are
12 we referring to? Your testimony is Exhibit --
13 THE WITNESS: 102.
14 MS. STUMP: Mr. Arnold, can you speak a
15 little louder.
16 Q. (By Mr. Arnold) Thank you. Paygo
17 (phonetic) financing Page 5, and I'm particularly
18 interested in line 16 through the bottom of the page
19 where you describe your proposal that the amount of
20 CIRP funded by debt would be increased for a
21 particular period and then tapered off later on.
22 A. You want me to explain that?
23 Q. Yes, sir.
24 A. It's difficult to really lay out the plan
25 and put it in percentage terms. But the concern I
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 36
1 have is all along there has been rate revenue funding
2 as well as bond funding of capital improvement
3 programs, capital investment, and replacement programs
4 CIRP. And each time a CIRP program gets larger, the
5 amount of rates that have to be increased to support
6 that level for capital improvement. And initially the
7 target for the amount of Paygo funding or rate revenue
8 funding component has been a more policy driven
9 perspective with, I think, everybody in the case
10 understanding that eventually the debt service
11 coverage requirement is really going to dictate how
12 much of the CIRP is going to have to be funded by
13 current rate revenue. The amount of rate revenue
14 funding is essentially the coverage of debt service.
15 In making a debt service calculation, correct funding
16 level has been rather large. And as bond increases,
17 the amount outstanding debt increases, the debt
18 service increases. And instead of targeting a certain
19 percentage of funded by revenue funding, it's strictly
20 going to be controlled by adjusting rates to produce
21 enough internal cash or cash available for rate
22 revenue funding to meet debt service coverage
23 requirements.
24 So I suspect that the debt service
25 obligation -- the debt service is necessary to
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 37
1 maintain financial standing of the utilities so they
2 have enough cash to support their outstanding cash and
3 support their AA bond rating, which has been something
4 I think all parties in this case have been embracing
5 throughout this process, but I also see in the
6 forecast that from fiscal year 20 up to about fiscal
7 year 24, we're hitting a peak in the current program
8 that is the largest period of annual capital
9 expenditures from the District. And because we're
10 hitting the peak, I think there needs to be particular
11 attention to the rate impact customers will have to
12 pay to support that level of peak period funding. And
13 because it's unique, when you hit the peak period, I'm
14 recommending that you manage the amount of Paygo
15 funding initially to mitigate rate increases because
16 you're going to lose that discretion going forward
17 because of the debt service coverage requirement.
18 So, in 2020, I'm recommending that amount
19 of Paygo funding be capped at $100 million, which is
20 nearly two and a half times the amount of CIRP funding
21 recovered. That's actually the highest level of Paygo
22 funding, including in the last general rate case.
23 So for this case, I'm simply recommending a
24 more balanced approach in targeting the amount of CIRP
25 funding paid for by Paygo current rate revenue funding
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 38
1 and amount of additional debt the District takes on.
2 Because we are hitting the peak. And after we hit the
3 peak, because all the outstanding debt will be issued
4 and the debt will still be an obligation of the
5 District. The amount of percentage of the CIRP that
6 continues after that will be increased on Paygo basis
7 because of that debt service obligation. So you will
8 be using less debt later than you are currently based
9 on my estimates because of that debt service and
10 intent to maintain minimum debt service obligation. I
11 don't know if I'm articulating this very well.
12 Q. I understand your testimony. Is it fair to
13 say based on what you have just outlined that when the
14 ratepayers have their bills increased to pay either
15 for Paygo or for debt service, that by increasing the
16 debt service you increase the total long term debt per
17 customer in the District?
18 A. That's true, yes.
19 Q. And that's one of the things which rating
20 agencies look to as one of the metrics with respect to
21 whether or not it's a AA or A, and thereby impacting
22 the interest rate which the District may be able to
23 obtain in the bond market?
24 A. I think the rating agencies certainly look
25 at whether or not the amount of debt relative to the
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 39
1 population is manageable by the population, but they
2 also consider whether the rates the utility is
3 charging those customers is affordable -- the
4 customers can afford to pay the bills. If customers
5 can't pay their bills, then the utility is not going
6 to recover forecasted revenue and pay debt service
7 obligations.
8 Q. Thank you. You spoke with Ms. Meyers just
9 a moment ago about Ameren's projected increases, and
10 in your testimony on page 7 --
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. -- lines 4 through 9, you talk about the
13 projected increase. And what I'm interested in is if
14 the increases were every other year according to your
15 testimony rather than every year; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that -- do you have an opinion whether
18 that's a common practice among utilities?
19 A. Well, it depends on the time period you're
20 talking about. When I first got into this business
21 many years ago, utilities generally filed rate cases
22 about every three years. During the 1990s there was a
23 movement to deregulate most utilities. Rate case
24 filings were infrequent during the '90s. Around 2000,
25 utilities started spending significant amounts of
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 40
1 capital again. That caused rate case filings by
2 utilities companies. They had to adjust their rates
3 as quickly as possible to reflect their outstanding
4 invested capable in order to maintain their credit
5 ratings. So from a period around 2000 to through
6 2015, we saw frequent rate case filings by electric
7 utilities. Around later in that period we started
8 seeing frequent rate case filings by water and gas
9 utilities because they are modernizing their
10 infrastructure systems as well. So, but the rate case
11 frequently started increasing for those utilities.
12 And really it is utilities specific factor, but I'm
13 kind of generalizing to try to answer your question,
14 but we've looked at Ameren, we looked at Laclede,
15 which are the two major utility suppliers to MSD. We
16 look at restrictions they have for filing rates. We
17 look at capital investments they plan to make and
18 drivers for a need for a rate increase for both of
19 those two utilities. And in doing that, we felt we
20 were conservative in saying they'll come in and get
21 three percent increase every other year for at least
22 the period for FY20 forecast period. I say that on
23 the heels of a very significant rate activity of those
24 utilities over the last five to ten years, but that's
25 not expected to continue going forward because they
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 41
1 reached their peek in the capital program and now
2 should be, from environmental compliance on generation
3 increases, modernizing transmission and distribution
4 investments. So they are not growing the capital
5 programs as much going forward, but they are still
6 growing rate base, but they are growing a bigger rate
7 base. So just the math, if you add $100 million to
8 -- $100 to $1000 rate base, you're doing ten
9 percent. So the level of capital improvement is still
10 high. It should be the focus that the percent change
11 in their invested capital starts to slow and their own
12 projections are for reduction in the growth of their
13 rate base.
14 Q. I'll call your attention to Pages 8 and 9.
15 At the bottom of Page 8, you say, "With these credit
16 metrics, my proposed revised rates will support MSD
17 A1, AAA, AA+ bond rating."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When you looked at metrics, did you
20 consider the debt per capita or debt per customer?
21 A. I was predominantly focusing on debt
22 service coverage. It's my understanding that the
23 level of debt for MSD right now where capita is not in
24 an area that it is threatened it's current status.
25 Q. With respect to that response, you have a
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 42
1 footnote at the bottom of Page 9 referring to MSD
2 popular annual financial for the FY14 on Page 17. And
3 I inquired is that exhibit in this proceeding? Does
4 anyone know? Rather than delay -- if it isn't, will
5 the District enter it as an exhibit. Thank you.
6 MS. MEYERS: Did Mr. Gorman refer to that
7 from the exhibit submitted for testimony?
8 MR. ARNOLD: There is no reference to
9 exhibit number with respect to this document.
10 MS. MEYERS: It's it's Exhibit MSD 26.
11 Q. That's fine. Thank you.
12 A. Should I file a redacted --
13 Q. No. Mr. Gorman, beginning at the bottom of
14 Page 10 and continuing on Page 11, you're discussing
15 customer accounts, and I'll refer to economic data
16 showing a stronger economy going forward. And then
17 with the following question beginning on line 11. "In
18 response you refer to analytics about an increase in
19 single family housing permits." Is that fairly put?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, not waste water, think storm water.
22 If there is an increase in the number of single family
23 homes in the district, do you have an opinion whether
24 or not that would impact the -- what's the word --
25 the value of homes upon which assessment might be
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 43
1 made?
2 A. The existence of storm water service?
3 Q. Right.
4 A. If the utility services probably do have
5 impact. I haven't looked at that specifically.
6 Q. If you increase the number of households,
7 you also increase the number of ratepayers unless they
8 are simply moving around?
9 A. If you're increasing population, you are
10 increasing ratepayers.
11 Q. Thank you. You and Ms. Meyers spoke about
12 this. May I call your attention to Page 16 beginning
13 at Line 6. And I wonder if you could read into the
14 record line 16 or line 6 through 14?
15 A. "MSD's unjustified projections shift more
16 waste water cost allotted on volume to metered
17 customers from nonmetered customers. The shift could
18 result in MSD collecting more revenue if it's
19 projection of volume to metered customers understated
20 accurate meter billable volume. By understating
21 billable metered customers, MSD has the opportunity to
22 collect more waste water revenue over forecasted
23 period. In contrast, by understating the amount of
24 volume for nonmetered customers, MSD does not have the
25 same opportunities as nonmetered customers are charged
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 44
1 a fixed rate. That is nonmetered customers are not
2 impacted by actual waste water volume."
3 Q. All right, sir. The unmetered customers
4 are largely found in the city of St. Louis?
5 A. That's my understanding.
6 Q. And metered customers are largely found in
7 that portion of the District which is in St. Louis
8 County?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
11 it's inequitable to allocate cost on this basis?
12 A. I think MSD had made a -- done a pretty
13 good job of allocating cost across functional
14 capacity, volume capacity, and number of customers.
15 So I think what they have done here in allocating
16 revenue department is reasonable and valid.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 A. Although I think they understated volume.
19 Although I believe they understated the volume
20 component of -- for unmetered customers.
21 Q. Page 17, in the paragraph beginning on line
22 11, you state that it's important for the District to
23 exercise every opportunity to mitigate the waste water
24 user charge. Have you had an opportunity to look at
25 Ms. Lemoine's testimony?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 45
1 A. I have. I didn't review it in preparing
2 for this hearing.
3 Q. In her testimony, she refers to the
4 Environmental Protective Association's financial
5 capability frame work, are you familiar with that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. All right. Now, you and Ms. Meyers spoke
8 about the expense adjustments beginning on line 19
9 going over to 20, but I want to refer specifically to
10 the exhibit which she introduced. She had you read
11 the sixth paragraph in this reprint from the morning
12 paper?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Your testimony, if I understand
15 it correctly, has to do with the escalator for utility
16 expense?
17 A. The adjustment we were talking about.
18 Q. I asked you to look at Exhibit MSD 108, and
19 tell me whether or not the paragraph which you read
20 into the record refers to utility expenses? It does
21 not, does it?
22 A. It refers to which has driven up
23 electricity price for Missouri customers?
24 Q. Right. A general increase. Now, utility
25 expense would certainly play a factor in an increase
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 46
1 in the rate, but this document does not say that
2 utility expense rose by this amount. It says the
3 general rate rose by that amount; is that correct?
4 A. Well, the article refers to rates that MSD
5 will have to pay to receive utility service.
6 Q. And that's your testimony, the article
7 refers to what Ameren is up to?
8 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat your question?
9 Q. Okay. If you look at the first line in
10 that paragraph, it refers to a general rate increase.
11 I'm not arguing about that.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. But we don't know that the increase, the
14 components which represented the increase in utility
15 expense was that great, do we? It's a part of the
16 rate increase, but you testified that much of the rate
17 increase had to do with the cost of capital
18 improvements.
19 A. Well, capital improvement impact the level
20 of rate increase.
21 Q. I understand.
22 A. And I think Ms. Meyers was getting at my
23 adjustment to MSD's expense.
24 Q. That's correct, but that's not the question
25 to which you were responding in your testimony. You
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 47
1 were limiting the increase to utility expenses?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Okay. So, the utility expenses could be
4 three percent rather than 50 percent together with the
5 capital improvement and still result in a general rate
6 increase of over half?
7 A. MSD's utility expense will be the rates
8 they have to pay and building units those rates are
9 applied to. So the rate change of Ameren will impact
10 MSD's utility expense directly. The only offset to a
11 rate increase will be change in billing units, the
12 number AWH or capacity and energy actually from Ameren
13 -- purchased from Ameren.
14 Q. That's correct. But with that knowledge,
15 it is your testimony that three percent every other
16 year rather than 5.5 percent annually is more in tune
17 with what's going on?
18 A. That's correct, yes.
19 Q. Thank you. If I may, on Page 23, question
20 beginning on line 12. And you're discussing the
21 proposed flat rate increase for the storm water
22 property assessment. And I wonder if you would read
23 your response beginning on line 14 through line 18.
24 A. My answer to question; "No. MSD has failed
25 to provide the justification for assessing storm water
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 48
1 charges based on uniform assessed property value tax
2 across its service territory. This tax is implemented
3 in adjustments. Certain customers would pay too much
4 for storm water service and other customers would not
5 pay the cost of storm water service. MSD's proposal
6 is simply not equitable and should be adjusted."
7 Q. I'm asking you to look at Page 24, where
8 you're considering whether this is a balanced and
9 equitable assessment. I ask you to read into the
10 record your testimony beginning at line 8 and going to
11 line 15.
12 A. Further storm water cap table charge should
13 not be uniform across all of MSD's service territory
14 to the extent MSD is modernizing storm water service
15 in some areas and developing infrastructure for other
16 areas for the first time. These other areas should
17 pay for storm water service infrastructure. Other
18 areas of service territory, which had more modern
19 storm water system have already incurred the cost of
20 those systems and should not be required to subsidize
21 MSD's cost of providing the same service to other
22 customers in its service territory. This
23 cross-subsidization within service territory is, I
24 feel, imbalanced and should not be allowed."
25 Q. Thank you. We've seen the yellow, green,
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 49
1 and pink maps. Yellow is primarily the City of St.
2 Louis. I'm looking at Page 5-4. It shows up a couple
3 places.
4 A. I'm there.
5 Q. And in the yellow area, in addition to
6 paying what's been shorthanded the regulatory fee of
7 .0197, those customers have also been paying for .0682
8 on CMI.
9 A. Is that on this table?
10 Q. May I approach?
11 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 Q. (By Mr. Arnold) And the green area which
14 is largely the county of St. Louis east of 270 has
15 been paying the same amount?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Is that the money which was used for
18 capital improvements, which these ratepayers have
19 already provided?
20 A. It's the existing payment for storm water
21 service, yes.
22 Q. Right. But the District's rate proposal
23 suggestion that OCMI was used for capital purposes for
24 the yellow and green, but not necessarily the pink,
25 which is only paying the 24 plus the regulatory.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 50
1 A. Are you asking me is there more equitable
2 charge for storm water service.
3 Q. Yes, sir.
4 A. There could be. I would have to look at
5 specifics for that, but I only responded for the
6 District's proposed ten percent uniform property
7 charge. I suspect there is a way of modifying to more
8 equitably charge customers for the cost of storm water
9 service, but I'm not prepared here to tell you how to
10 adjust these charges. Rather I'm simply opposing
11 uniform property value in terms of that.
12 Q. Is it fair to say it's your opinion that
13 the uniform assessment proposed to be levied would
14 result in ratepayers who have already paid for their
15 capital improvement subsidizing capital improvements
16 in an area where the ratepayers have not done so?
17 A. Yes. That is the concern I have, yes.
18 Q. Thank you, sir.
19 A. Thanks.
20 Q. Safe travels.
21 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Does
22 any member of the Rate Commission have further
23 questions for this witness?
24 EXAMINATION
25 QUESTIONS BY MR. SCHNEIDER:
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 51
1 Q. Mr. Gorman, is it your testimony that the
2 level accounts for population in the District estimate
3 by MSD are correct?
4 A. The number projected accounts, I took issue
5 with the continued decline past the point of 2016, in
6 those declines because there are going -- there is
7 projected to be significant property additions within
8 the service territory in St. Louis. So I think they
9 will add new accounts. And conservatively, I think
10 the additional accounts should offset loss of
11 accounts. That supports the flat level of accounts
12 over --
13 Q. Is that from the Moody analytic report?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When it mentions the St. Louis area, does
16 that contain the exact same area that the MSD area is?
17 A. It's not exact, but it's very close.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. TOENJES: Any other questions for Mr.
20 Gorman? Mr. Gorman, I have one question. In the
21 testimony you were just talking about on Page 24, and
22 the equitable distribution of CIRP expense, would it
23 be your testimony that imposition of impervious rate
24 would resolve this issue of inequitable investment in
25 a storm water system in different service areas within
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 52
1 the District?
2 A. At the time the impervious charge was
3 proposed, we did not oppose that charge because there
4 was a cost causation and a relationship between that
5 means of assessing storm water charges on customers.
6 So it is an effort to try to ascribe the cost the
7 customer requires MSD to incur in order to provide
8 storm water service. So there is price and cost of
9 providing the service relationship with that factor.
10 So I think that is a good starting point for
11 developing the cost base meaning of equitably
12 allocating storm water charges across customers.
13 MR. TOENJES: Thank you.
14 EXAMINATION
15 QUESTIONS BY MR. BROCKMANN:
16 Q. Based on the comments, would that also
17 apply to what Mr. Arnold was just saying of people
18 that already have different levels of storm water
19 service that have been higher than others? So even
20 though you're doing it based on impervious service,
21 there is still other areas within the District which
22 have had far better improvements storm water-wise than
23 others?
24 A. Yes. That would be a concern. So it may
25 require something other than a uniform storm water
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 53
1 charge across all the areas within MSD service
2 territory.
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. TOENJES: Any further questions for Mr.
5 Gorman? Mr. Neuschafer, do you have any further
6 question for Mr. Gorman?
7 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do not.
8 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Gorman.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10 MR. TOENJES: I am going to suggest that we
11 take a ten minute -- 12-minute break and reconvene at
12 10:35.
13 (Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
14 MR. TOENJES: We will reconvene. At this
15 point it's 10:35. Mr. Arnold, are you ready to
16 present those persons for whom you filed testimony on
17 behalf of the Rate Commission.
18 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to
19 present to the Commission Pamela Lemoine of the firm
20 of Black & Veatch serving as rate consultant to the
21 Rate Commission?
22 MR. TOENJES: Ms. Lemoine, is the testimony
23 you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and
24 nothing but the truth?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 54
1 MR. TOENJES: Does any member of Rate
2 Commission have any questions for Ms. Lemoine?
3 MR. TOMAZI: At this time, I would like to
4 hold any questions until I heard her testimony.
5 MR. MAHFOOD: I would just ask if we can
6 move the microphone a little closer. Thank you very
7 much?
8 MR. TOENJES: Any further questions. Ms.
9 Meyers, do you have any questions for Ms. Lemoine on
10 behalf of the District?
11 MS. MEYERS: Yes, we do.
12 MR. TOENJES: Please come forward.
13 EXAMINATION
14 QUESTIONS BY MS. MEYERS:
15 Q. Good morning.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Okay. With regard to your direct testimony
18 in response to question number 25 that's on Page 11,
19 specifically line 10, I'm going to quote directly from
20 your testimony. It says, "The District's rate
21 proposal requires substantial additional debt to be
22 incurred over a short period of time with continued
23 issues of debt in FY2021 through 2024 and beyond in
24 order to continue to fund the projects required by the
25 consent decree." Is it your understanding that MSD is
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 55
1 asking the Rate Commission to approve debt funding for
2 projects starting from FY2017 through FY2020 only?
3 A. That's correct. Yes.
4 Q. In the rate proposal which is MSD Exhibit
5 1 -- I don't have any pages to direct you to
6 specifically. Didn't MSD say that it was including
7 projections beyond the proposed rate cycle of FY2017
8 through FY2020 for purposes of transparency only?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. So, in conclusion, you understand that the
11 eight-year rate projections that MSD provided in the
12 rate, MSD rate proposal, MSD Exhibit 1, appendix 7.6.3
13 is a possible scenario provided for transparency
14 purposes only?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to direct you to your
17 response to question 36 on Page 20. In response to
18 question 36 Page 20 Line 4, you state that the
19 District's proposed taxpayer funding for storm water
20 services not equitable because it will, and I quote,
21 "charge customers based on the value of the property,
22 which has no relation to the property's burden on the
23 storm water system." So let me ask you this. Are
24 there other public storm water utilities across the
25 country that recover their cost via property or other
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 56
1 types of taxes?
2 A. I'm not aware of any storm water utility
3 per se that does, but there are certainly cities and
4 communities that do fund their storm water related
5 expenses through their general fund, which would be
6 normally property tax based or some other sort of tax,
7 so forth.
8 Q. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank
9 you.
10 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Neuschafer, do you have
11 questions for Ms. Lemoine?
12 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes, we do.
13 MR. TOENJES: Please come forward.
14 EXAMINATION
15 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER:
16 Q. Thank you for joining us today. I just
17 have a few questions. Have you personally worked on
18 behalf the Rate Commission prior to this rate
19 proceeding?
20 A. No, I have not.
21 Q. Have Black & Veatch worked for the Rate
22 Commission prior to this rate proceeding?
23 A. No, they have not.
24 Q. Have you personally worked on behalf of MSD
25 in the past?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 57
1 A. I have not.
2 Q. And how about Black & Veatch?
3 A. Black & Veatch has in the past.
4 Q. What kind of work has Black & Veatch done
5 on behalf of MSD?
6 A. My prior answer was with regard to rate
7 setting matters. Black & Veatch served as MSD's prior
8 rate consultant. Black & Veatch in another division
9 does do engineering work for the District.
10 Q. And so I see appended to your testimony
11 what's a long list of other matters and clients on
12 which you have worked. Those appear to me to be in
13 the capacity of representing utilities; is that
14 correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Do you have experience representing the
17 interest of customers?
18 A. As I do my rate work, serving on behalf of
19 the interest of the customers is an integral part of
20 the rate setting process in order to balance the needs
21 of financial stability for the utilities as well as
22 affordability for the customers.
23 Q. Okay. As we look at the work that MSD has
24 included in its proposals that needs to be done
25 pursuant to the EPA consent decree, you indicated that
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 58
1 Black & Veatch provides the type of services at least
2 to some extent that MSD is going to need over the next
3 10 to 15 years to comply with the consent decree?
4 A. That's not an area in which I work.
5 Q. Not you particularly?
6 A. I don't know the specifics, but certainly
7 there would be opportunities, yes.
8 Q. For like engineering or construction type
9 services?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And does Black & Veatch, to your knowledge,
12 expect to bid on that sort of work in the future?
13 A. I'm not involved in that part of the
14 organization so I wouldn't be able to answer that.
15 Q. Okay. I want to understand just a little
16 bit of what you did to prepare your testimony. Did
17 you perform an analysis of MSD projections on its
18 levels of revenue versus its historical revenue
19 sources?
20 A. I reviewed the District's rate proposal,
21 the historical data that was in it, methodologies and
22 calculations used, and the basis for their projections
23 based on that review.
24 Q. And so the analysis that you prepared was
25 based on the information that was provided by MSD?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 59
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And your ultimate conclusion on their
3 projected levels of revenue was -- could you explain
4 the ultimate conclusion?
5 A. Based on my review of the historical and
6 projections for the number of customers, use per
7 customer, and other sources, it appeared to be
8 reasonable and in line with what I have seen other
9 utilities experience as well.
10 Q. Okay. That's all I have at this time.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Neuschafer.
13 Mr. Burkhart, do you have questions for Ms. Lemoine at
14 this time?
15 MR. BURKHART: I do not.
16 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Arnold, do you have any
17 further questions for Ms. Lemoine?
18 MR. ARNOLD: I do not sir.
19 MR. TOENJES: Does any member of the Rate
20 Commission have further questions for this witness.
21 EXAMINATION.
22 QUESTIONS BY MR. TOMAZI:
23 Q. I have several, Ms. Lemoine. One is on
24 Page 4 of your testimony, line 17 through 21. You
25 comment, of course, on the District incurring
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 60
1 significant debt, and then you add a comment here
2 about determining whether it is possible to provide
3 some relief to the District and its customers by going
4 back to the EPA. And I think you touched on this a
5 little bit later in your testimony. Could you tell us
6 briefly what experience, if any, some of these other
7 communities who have been under a consent decree have
8 done or been able to do or to some extent how
9 difficult it's been for them to get any concessions
10 from the EPA.
11 A. There have been utilities who have or are
12 in the process of trying to do that. There are a
13 number of factors that go into whether or not that's
14 possible. It is a lengthy and time-consuming and, you
15 know, expensive pursuit to do that. But there have
16 been some that have done it. Some of the factors,
17 depending on the specifics of what's in the consent
18 decree, whether there are explicit allowances for
19 getting relief or if it's more understated. In
20 addition, when regulators are perhaps willing to look
21 at it, they do want to see that utilities have moved
22 forward in a very diligent and meaningful way with the
23 program as such. So they would evaluate any changed
24 conditions from the time the consent decree was
25 signed, and that would play into whether or not that
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 61
1 would be possible or not.
2 Q. Okay. Is there any indication of any
3 receptiveness on the part of EPA to even consider
4 these?
5 A. They would say I'm trying to think of how
6 they would say it.
7 Q. Maybe specifically, as it relates to the
8 community's ability to pay for a huge amount of debt
9 and capital improvements?
10 A. They do recognize affordability. There's
11 been a lot of discussion over the past few years that
12 EPA has heard. They came out in December of 2014,
13 with financial capability frame work that basically
14 reaffirmed the guidance and approach they used for
15 assessing financial capability and affordability, but
16 it went much further in recognizing other factors that
17 communities can bring forth to the EPA to help more
18 fully describe the affordability matters beyond what
19 is in their explicit guidance for determining that.
20 And what they are, at times when indications are such,
21 willing to look at adjustments to the schedule, things
22 like that. They don't diminish or reduce the
23 regulatory requirement per se, but it would be more a
24 matter of looking at schedule.
25 Q. The next question deals with the following
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 62
1 page, which is I guess Item 4, where it's your opinion
2 on the storm water proposed storm water tax change.
3 And I know you touched on this a little bit with Ms.
4 Meyers. Do you have an opinion as to the cost to
5 someone like the District of going through a tax rate
6 as is proposed by the District versus an impervious
7 area of fee and putting that sort of thing in place?
8 A. The only information I have with regard to
9 the difference in cost is related to testimony that
10 the District has provided, or information they have
11 provided, regarding the cost of maintaining and
12 updating the impervious area charge, billing that
13 charge as opposed to property tax charge.
14 Q. Okay. Page 11 question 25, which gets back
15 to the issue of bonded indebtedness. You have in here
16 three ranges; stronger, mid-range and weak. And would
17 you read, if you will, starting with line 15 through
18 the end of Page 11?
19 A. Starting with the word "this".
20 Q. It begins with -- well, as shown in Exhibit
21 PRL2, the District total -- could you read the rest
22 of that?
23 A. "As shown in Exhibit PRL2, the District's
24 total outstanding debt as outlined in the District's
25 rate model and MSD79 is expected to increase from
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 63
1 $1,126,611,100 in fiscal year 2015 to $2,821,292,412,
2 an increase of 250 percent over the nine-year period.
3 This results in overall debt per capita level that
4 increases from $854 in fiscal 2015 to $2139 in fiscal
5 year 2014. Bond rating agencies consider the overall
6 debt burden of the utility itself as one of several
7 factors when determining a utility debt rating. As an
8 example, Fitch issued updated rating criteria on July
9 31, 2013, in which it categorizes various criteria as
10 stronger, mid-range, or weaker. Fitch considers debt
11 per capita of $500 or less to be stronger, around $550
12 as mid-range, and $600 or greater as weaker. While
13 those single criteria drives utilities' credit rating,
14 the high level of debt required by the District to
15 credit CIRP is a concern. It is recommended that the
16 high level of debt be balanced with strong ratings and
17 other important criteria such as debt service coverage
18 and liquidity, cash on hand."
19 Q. Almost as an aside, you have in here,
20 "Given the District's good marks for its financial
21 management of that which it is currently doing." And
22 looking at the three ranges that you gave here, do
23 these very simply break down to AAA, AA+, AA or
24 something of that range?
25 A. Not in and of themselves, but as a
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 64
1 component of others.
2 Q. And the reason I'm kind of beating on that
3 is previously in the 2014 MSD budget, there was a page
4 that I mentioned last time that indicated that the
5 debt capacity per MSD co-financial advisors as of that
6 time was $1400 per customer. There is a fairly
7 significant difference in those ranges. And I'm just
8 -- I'm very curious as to if there is a more
9 definitive way to come up with what is a more palpable
10 level of debt service. You do mention 47 percent is
11 covered by what they are doing.
12 A. So just to clarify, I believe in the 2014
13 budget that was $1400 per customer.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Is that what you indicated? Which would be
16 per account basis, which you would anticipate that
17 number to be higher than on per capita basis. Fitch
18 does have a metrics also related to debt per account.
19 Q. I got you.
20 A. I don't recall what those numbers are.
21 Q. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And let's
22 see. There was one other back here. Yeah. Because
23 on Page 19, very top of the page it mentioned the
24 District has a good financial plan and it is doing a
25 good job of managing its financial resources. And
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 65
1 then we come back to, of course, the issue of
2 impervious area versus tax rate, which I think we've
3 already covered. I think that's all I have at the
4 moment.
5 EXAMINATION.
6 QUESTIONS BY MR. STEIN:
7 Q. Ms. Lemoine, I'd like to go back to the
8 financial capability frame work that you mentioned in
9 your testimony. When was that promulgated by EPA?
10 A. It's a memorandum. It's not something that
11 was promulgated. It was December of 2014, I believe.
12 Q. Do you know if that document is available
13 on the web site or through some other mechanism?
14 A. Yes. It should be available on their web
15 site.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. TOENJES: Could we ask you to provide
18 that document and put it in as part of the record?
19 MR. ARNOLD: We'll do that. Thank you.
20 MR. TOENJES: Any further questions from
21 any of the Rate Commissioners for Ms. Lemoine.
22 EXAMINATION
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. SCHNEIDER:
24 Q. Ms. Lemoine, I want to go back to your Page
25 12, your testimony here, two questions kind of come up
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 66
1 from that chart. Mr. Gorman testified recommended
2 that to increase the level of debt in the capital plan
3 in the FY2020 from 75 percent to 80 percent. Do you
4 agree with that recommendation by Mr. Gorman?
5 A. I haven't evaluated what the impact of that
6 would be. When you're doing financial planning, it's
7 important to look at all measures and balance the
8 needs of both ultimate level of rates, the level of
9 debt that you are carrying, and balance all of those
10 needs. So I wouldn't be able to say definitively
11 that's good or not good. But in my understanding from
12 reviewing the rate proposal, MSD1, is that there is
13 some fluctuation in that percentage. I don't believe
14 it's a hard percentage, but it's a target. That's
15 what you want to do when you're doing financial
16 planning is to balance and levelize all those various
17 needs.
18 Q. Again, your testimony on bottom of Page 12,
19 you say high level of debt required of District to
20 complete CIRP is a concern; is that correct?
21 A. Certainly all utilities across the country
22 that are understand consent decrees are faced with
23 large capital projects. And that is a certain for all
24 of them that are required to undertake those programs.
25 So it makes it even more important to maintain strong
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 67
1 metrics, keep a debt rating which will at least reduce
2 the cost of interest on the debt that you're
3 incurring, and balance both the needs of the current
4 customers as well as future customers by having a mix
5 of cash and debt.
6 Q. Back to the exhibit, you calculate debt to
7 capita, which is debt decided by populus. You use
8 zero population growth in FY2015 to FY2024. Mr.
9 Gorman thought it would increase in MSD service
10 customers. Why did you keep a flat population?
11 A. I didn't have information available to me
12 at that time to definitively make a statement as far
13 as I what felt the population growth would be. So for
14 conservative calculation, I held it flat. Certainly
15 as population grew, then that debt per capita would
16 decrease.
17 Q. So at the time you didn't have the
18 information, have you gathered any more information
19 been populated growth?
20 A. I have not.
21 Q. Okay. And then finally, on your testimony
22 you talk about the your summary, I'll read it
23 directly. It's on Page 5, line 7. You say, "I
24 recommend the District provide capital spending plan
25 for storm water to reflect the timing of the storm
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 68
1 water tax charge." Would you mind explaining in a
2 little more in depth that comment please?
3 A. It appeared to me as I was reviewing the
4 rate model and information in it, that the new rate
5 structure or new tax structure for storm water was
6 being incorporated for the entire fiscal year. And my
7 understanding of the tax process is it's a calendar
8 year. So it was my feeling in reality they would
9 probably in that fiscal year see half of their revenue
10 from the old plan and half from the new plan.
11 Q. How would that affect the rates?
12 A. Because it would be the tax proposals -- it
13 wouldn't affect the tax proposals, but it would affect
14 the amount of money available in that first year for
15 capital projects.
16 Q. Would it affect capital from the schedule?
17 A. Yes. I believe that's what would be
18 adjusted.
19 Q. Thank you. No further questions.
20 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
21 Any other questions for Ms. Lemoine?
22 EXAMINATION
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. BROCKMANN:
24 Q. It was mentioned earlier about the cost of
25 MSD to maintain data base for impervious service
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 69
1 areas. Are you familiar with other municipalities
2 across the country and how they maintain their data
3 base for improvement service? Is it done in the
4 utility itself? Is it far broader municipalities? By
5 that I mean the city to town using GIS for possibility
6 of shared data based or things like that?
7 A. Certainly using GIS. And so depending on
8 the service -- depending on where the utility is
9 located, and agreements they may have with, say,
10 county governments or so forth. I have seen utilities
11 maintain that independently themselves. And then in
12 other utilities there is sharing of that data.
13 Ultimately, the utility would need to take that data
14 and again incorporate that into their system for
15 billing customers on impervious area base charge. But
16 maintenance of the impervious area itself varies
17 depending on the utility and what is available.
18 Q. There's been some past sharing of data
19 between MSD and St. Louis County on building permits
20 and things like that. I'm wondering if that data base
21 could eventually been expanded to have shared service
22 to keep cost down if we're relying on property tax
23 rate, which we're relying on the county to provide for
24 this rate increase. It would seem to use the data
25 that the county has to share to do impervious services
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 70
1 also.
2 A. I'm not familiar with that data base, but
3 depending on the information that's in it, the level
4 of detail, it's possible.
5 MR. TOENJES: Any further questions for this
6 witness? Hearing none. Thank you, Ms. Lemoine.
7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Mr.
8 Burkhart, can you fill us in on where we are with
9 respect to testimony on behalf of the Homebuilders.
10 MR. BURKHART: Absolutely. Unfortunately,
11 Mr. Berkin is not available until one o'clock. He has
12 a short window of availability today from one to 1:45.
13 I don't know if there are any questions. I would not
14 anticipate a huge number, but that is his availability
15 unfortunately.
16 MR. TOENJES: So, Ms. Stump, at this point
17 I would see that our options are to adjourn and
18 reconvene at one o'clock, or would another option be
19 submission of written questions to the Homebuilders'
20 witness and having those in the record. Tell us what
21 our options are before we make any decision of what to
22 do.
23 MS. STUMP: I believe that that's your
24 first option, but the other factor in this is whether
25 anybody has any questions that they would like to ask
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 71
1 him. If not, then that kind of resolves the issue.
2 If they do, we could do it in written questions, or
3 the Homebuilders could offer to provide him at the
4 date of surrebuttal technical conference if that's
5 acceptable to the other parties. I guess the first
6 question would be if anyone has questions that they
7 want to ask him in the first place.
8 MR. TOENJES: Ms. Meyers, do you have
9 questions for the Homebuilders.
10 MS. MEYERS: The District does have a few
11 question, but not very many.
12 MR. TOENJES: So there are some questions.
13 Mr. Neuschafer?
14 MR. NEUSCHAFER: MIEC does not have any
15 questions.
16 MR. TOENJES: All right. Any members of
17 the Rate Commission have questions for the
18 Homebuilders? So the District has some questions. So
19 at this point --
20 MS. STUMP: It's up, I think, partly to the
21 District. If they want to ask them and you want to
22 have it done at one o'clock, or if they would be
23 willing to do them in writing, or if he could be
24 offered on the June 17th date.
25 MR. TOENJES: June 17?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 72
1 MS. STUMP: I guess I'll lean back and ask
2 these --
3 MR. BURKHART: We're certainly open. I
4 understand this is an inconvenience. So I think Mr.
5 Berkin is tentatively available. I would certainly
6 have to confirm with him on the 17 this if that's an
7 option or if you want to do written testimony. I
8 think that's certainly fine as well.
9 MS. MEYERS: The District certainly doesn't
10 want to make everybody come back at one o'clock to
11 ask.
12 MR. TOENJES: You will not; the
13 Homebuilders would be. Let me clarify that.
14 MS. MEYERS: Thanks for that clarification.
15 MR. TOENJES: The District is amply
16 represented today.
17 MS. MEYERS: And we are agreeable -- we
18 would prefer if he is available for surrebuttal, just
19 to ask them in person. If that's not a possibility,
20 then we're agreeable to asking them in writing.
21 MR. BURKHART: We'll have to confirm that
22 Mr. Berkin is available on the 17th. I believe he is
23 right now, but I certainly have to check and get back
24 to you. I can call him if you want to take a short
25 break to confirm.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 73
1 MR. TOENJES: We'll take a short break, if
2 you can reach him.
3 MS. STUMP: Mr. Chair, would you like for
4 me to present back on the cost of the --
5 MR. TOENJES: Please do.
6 MS. STUMP: As I stated, the cost of the
7 original publication, which ran for three times in the
8 Post and three times in the American was $35,000. If
9 the Rate Commission chooses to do a short ad, which
10 would be a quarter page ad as a draft public notice,
11 the cost would be -- to do three times each would be
12 approximately around $17,000. If the Rate Commission
13 wants to do the short ad and do it only one time on a
14 Saturday, the cost would be -- well, a Saturday in
15 the Post would be about $7500, and then once in the
16 American would be about $750. So it's around $8250,
17 if you want to run it once. So those are some costs
18 that you can consider. Ultimately, you have delegated
19 this to the Public Affairs Committee and Mr.
20 Brockmann. So I would say --
21 MR. TOENJES: And this is in regard to the
22 June 9th -- July 10.
23 MS. STUMP: Thank you.
24 MR. TOENJES: Any comments from the
25 commissioners on the direction on this?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 74
1 MR. BROCKMANN: We'll do -- we have another
2 meeting before we have to make another decision.
3 MS. STUMP: It's been delegated to your
4 committee, so the Rate Commission no longer has to
5 make a final decision on it.
6 MR. TOENJES: It would be a variance in our
7 budget of whatever.
8 MS. STUMP: Right. And as I would suggest
9 that if you want to publish that we -- you know,
10 probably the sooner the better. It doesn't have to be
11 today. I believe to get it in the Post, it's pretty
12 quick process. So if you want to wait a little bit --
13 MR. BROCKMANN: I'll call a meeting of
14 public affairs people.
15 MR. TOENJES: I think the Rate Commission
16 would appreciate whatever decision the Public Affairs
17 Committee decides to make. Anybody have any objection
18 to allowing them to make that determination.
19 MR. MAHFOOD: No objections. I would just
20 say as much publicity and information we can get out,
21 I'm for, within the thought of cost savings, of
22 course.
23 MR. TOENJES: Are you saying three days
24 verse you one day.
25 MR. MAHFOOD: Yes. That's just how I feel
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 75
1 about it.
2 MR. SCHOEDEL: Any other commissioners have
3 any comments getting the best bang for the buck. I
4 don't think the element she is talking about, $3000 is
5 really getting the word out to the people that really
6 need to hear it.
7 MR. BROCKMANN: I guess I would like to
8 have a few minutes.
9 MR. HOELSCHER: It won't be today, but we
10 can have them contact as soon as he is available all
11 the options. We'll get to it as soon as we can. It
12 might still be today.
13 MR. TOENJES: So we'll let the District and
14 our committee collaborate on taking your concerns into
15 account.
16 MR. HOELSCHER: And we'll provide the cost
17 and ideas for any options you want to look at.
18 MR. TOENJES: Is that sufficient, Mr.
19 Schoedel?
20 MR. SCHOEDEL: Yes.
21 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Burkhart?
22 MR. BURKHART: Yes. I did get a hold of
23 Mr. Berkin. He apologized and said he is available on
24 the 17th.
25 MR. TOENJES: Unlimited time?
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 76
1 MR. BURKHART: He said right now his
2 schedule is open. So whatever works for the
3 Commission and the District.
4 MR. TOENJES: What time are we scheduleD to
5 start on June 17th?
6 MS. STUMP: Nine o'clock.
7 MR. TOENJES: Put that in granite.
8 MR. BURKHART: I'll put that in granite.
9 MR. TOENJES: That will be the first item
10 on the agenda for June 17th. If everyone -- unless
11 there are people who want to come back at one o'clock
12 today to listen to Ms. Meyers' questions? With all
13 due respect, Ms. Meyers, I think the people are ready
14 to wait until the 17th.
15 MS. MEYERS: I understand.
16 MR. TOENJES: Are there any other matters
17 before the Rate Commission before we entertain a
18 motion to adjourn. In that case, the Chair will
19 entertain a motion to adjourn until nine a.m. on June
20 17th. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? All
21 in favor signify by saying "aye". Opposed? Abstain?
22 Meeting is adjourned.
23 (WHEREIN, the hearing was concluded at
24 11:12.)
25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 77
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF MISSOURI )
) ss.
3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS )
4 I, Jeanne M. Pedrotty, a Certified Court Reporter (MO)
5 and Certified Shorthand Reporter (IL), do hereby
6 certify that the witness whose testimony appears in
7 the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that
8 the testimony of said witness was taken by me to the
9 best of my ability and thereafter reduced to
10 typewriting under my direction; that I am neither
11 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the
12 parties to the action in which this deposition was
13 taken, and further that I am not a relative or
14 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
15 parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise
16 interested in the outcome of the action.
17
18 ____________________________
19 Jeanne M. Pedrotty
20
21
22
23
24
25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
A
AA 37:3 38:21
41:17 63:23,23
AAA 41:17 63:23
ability 7:6,11
61:8 77:9
able 30:10 38:22
58:14 60:8
66:10
absent 22:21
Absolutely 70:10
Abstain 21:18
76:21
Abstained 21:6
acceptable 71:5
accompanied 7:3
account 26:10,11
26:18 27:5,12
28:21 64:16,18
75:15
accounts 42:15
51:2,4,9,10,11
51:11
accumulated
17:17
accurate 24:18
32:7 43:20
accurately 30:5
action 77:12,16
actions 23:1
activity 40:23
actual 28:3 29:7
44:2
ad 73:9,10,13
add 16:4 41:7
51:9 60:1
addition 49:5
60:20
additional 8:3
11:17 12:9
14:17,25 15:4
15:14,15,20,21
19:4 22:2 28:13
38:1 51:10
54:21
additions 51:7
adequate 7:7
adjourn 21:23
70:17 76:18,19
adjourned 76:22
adjust 40:2 50:10
adjusted 48:6
68:18
adjusting 36:20
adjustment 30:8
30:9 33:19 34:9
45:17 46:23
adjustments
32:18 45:8 48:3
61:21
adopt 11:23 14:2
21:8,11,11,12
adopted 7:17
ads 16:12
advance 18:3
advertised 13:4
advisors 64:5
affairs 15:3
16:17 73:19
74:14,16
affect 68:11,13
68:13,16
afford 39:4
affordability
57:22 61:10,15
61:18
affordable 39:3
agencies 38:20
38:24 63:5
agenda 76:10
agendas 19:1
ago 39:9,21
agree 28:18 66:4
agreeable 72:17
72:20
agreed 21:5
agreements 69:9
ahead 14:12 15:5
27:22
allocate 11:12
44:11
allocating 44:13
44:15 52:12
allotted 11:15
18:4 43:16
allow 14:5,17
allowances 60:18
allowed 48:24
allowing 74:18
aloud 31:19
alternative 23:18
amended 5:15
7:5,13
amendment 5:16
Ameren 31:15,24
32:3,4,8,15,20
33:5,15 40:14
46:7 47:9,12,13
Ameren's 33:11
33:16,20 34:9
39:9
American 16:10
73:8,16
amount 6:23
30:19 35:19
36:5,7,13,17
37:14,18,20,24
38:1,5,25 43:23
46:2,3 49:15
61:8 68:14
amounts 39:25
amply 72:15
analysis 28:2,5,8
28:13,19 29:3,4
30:5 58:17,24
analytic 51:13
analytics 28:2,4
42:18
analyzing 27:25
Annette 23:23
annual 30:24
32:9 33:24 37:8
42:2
annually 47:16
annum 33:3
answer 9:2 10:3
10:12 11:7 17:7
26:7 40:13
47:24 57:6
58:14
anticipate 64:16
70:14
anticipated 6:24
anybody 16:20
70:25 74:17
anymore 22:10
apologize 27:21
apologized 75:23
appear 57:12
appeared 59:7
68:3
appears 77:6
appended 57:10
appendix 28:14
29:2 55:12
applicable 7:12
28:11
application 7:20
applications 7:21
7:24
applied 28:6 31:5
47:9
apply 52:17
appoint 22:14
appointed 22:12
appreciate 23:13
35:6 74:16
approach 37:24
49:10 61:14
approve 12:15
14:24 18:13
21:14 55:1
approved 5:13
31:15
approving 12:20
approximately
73:12
April 8:18,18,21
8:22 9:5,8,9,11
11:25 12:3,17
31:15
area 33:8 41:24
49:5,13 50:16
51:15,16,16
58:4 62:7,12
65:2 69:15,16
areas 48:15,16
48:16,18 51:25
52:21 53:1 69:1
arguing 46:11
Arnold 2:4 3:12
11:4 34:18,21
34:22,24 35:14
35:16 42:8
49:13 50:21
52:17 53:15,18
59:16,18 65:19
70:7
article 31:13 32:6
46:4,6
articulating
38:11
ascribe 52:6
aside 63:19
asked 45:18
asking 48:7 50:1
55:1 72:20
assessed 48:1
assessing 47:25
52:5 61:15
assessment 42:25
47:22 48:9
50:13
assets 6:21
assist 27:24
associated 6:7
association 3:19
6:8,12 7:22
9:17,22 10:22
22:11 24:1,9
34:16
Association's
45:4
assumed 29:8
assuming 23:25
assumptions
29:6 30:11
attempt 11:11
attend 13:18
attention 27:18
30:13 31:16
37:11 41:14
43:12
attorney 77:14
attributes 28:11
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
August 8:7 12:13
14:18
authorizing 12:4
availability
70:12,14
available 24:10
24:13 36:21
65:12,14 67:11
68:14 69:17
70:11 72:5,18
72:22 75:10,23
aware 33:11,19
56:2
AWH 47:12
aye 21:17,19
23:10 76:21
a.m 76:19
A1 41:17
B
back 18:11,12
27:18 60:4
62:14 64:22
65:1,7,24 67:6
72:1,10,23 73:4
76:11
Baer 3:13 9:4
11:5
balance 57:20
66:7,9,16 67:3
balanced 37:24
48:8 63:16
bang 75:3
bar 6:11 22:11
24:1
base 32:24 33:1
41:6,7,8,13
52:11 68:25
69:3,15,20 70:2
based 15:23
16:12 28:8,11
29:5,6 32:21
33:20 34:5 38:8
38:13 48:1
52:16,20 55:21
56:6 58:23,25
59:5 69:6
basically 61:13
basis 32:17 33:19
38:6 44:11
58:22 64:16,17
beating 64:2
began 10:17
beginning 13:15
26:7 42:13,17
43:12 44:21
45:8 47:20,23
48:10
begins 62:20
behalf 10:18,21
10:24 24:24
25:5,14 34:16
34:19 53:17
54:10 56:18,24
57:5,18 70:9
believe 11:20
18:19,20 21:10
26:3 30:4 44:19
64:12 65:11
66:13 68:17
70:23 72:22
74:11
Belleville 8:12
benefit 20:17
Berkin 70:11
72:5,22 75:23
best 75:3 77:9
Bethany 8:11
better 17:23
52:22 74:10
beyond 54:23
55:7 61:18
biased 26:4
bid 58:12
bigger 41:6
billable 28:10
43:20,21
billed 28:21
billing 47:11
62:12 69:15
bills 38:14 39:4,5
bit 58:16 60:5
62:3 74:12
Black 11:3 53:20
56:21 57:2,3,4
57:7,8 58:1,11
Board 5:20 6:19
7:2 8:2,5 12:5
12:12
bond 36:2,16
37:3 38:23
41:17 63:5
bonded 62:15
bonds 6:21 7:10
Botanical 6:10
bottom 35:18
41:15 42:1,13
66:18
Bowser 3:7 4:7,8
5:9
Brandon 3:17
11:1 25:3
break 53:11,13
63:23 72:25
73:1
Brian 8:10
brief 35:4
briefly 60:6
bring 18:12 24:7
61:17
broader 69:4
Brockmann 2:5
2:9 3:7 4:9,10
5:9 16:24 17:7
17:21 18:4,11
19:20,24 20:3,5
20:24 23:4,5
52:15 68:23
73:20 74:1,13
75:7
Bryan 3:17
buck 75:3
budget 17:6,8
32:22 33:16,20
64:3,13 74:7
budgeting 34:9
budget-wise 17:5
building 47:8
69:19
burden 7:14
55:22 63:6
Burkhart 3:20
10:23,23 24:17
34:15,17 59:13
59:15 70:8,10
72:3,21 75:21
75:22 76:1,8
business 13:23
15:11 27:24
39:20
buy 22:2
C
C 3:1
calculate 67:6
calculation 36:15
67:14
calculations
58:22
calendar 12:23
13:6,20 21:8
68:7
call 4:3,6,7 27:18
41:14 43:12
72:24 74:13
cap 48:12
capability 45:5
61:13,15 65:8
capable 40:4
capacity 44:14
44:14 47:12
57:13 64:5
capita 41:20,23
63:3,11 64:17
67:7,15
capital 1:7 32:12
32:13,22 33:17
33:20 34:7,11
36:2,3,6 37:8
40:1,17 41:1,4
41:9,11 46:17
46:19 47:5
49:18,23 50:15
50:15 61:9 66:2
66:23 67:24
68:15,16
capped 37:19
caption 35:10
carried 21:20
carry 13:15
carrying 26:7
66:9
case 32:18 33:13
33:15,17 36:9
37:4,22,23
39:23 40:1,6,8
40:10 76:18
cases 32:9,10,19
33:13 39:21
cash 36:21,21
37:2,2 63:18
67:5
categorizes 63:9
causation 52:4
cause 15:12
caused 40:1
Cave 3:17
CCR 3:22
CCR/CSR 3:22
certain 18:13
36:18 48:3
66:23
certainly 14:19
38:24 45:25
56:3 58:6 66:21
67:14 69:7 72:3
72:5,8,9,23
CERTIFICATE
77:1
Certified 77:4,5
certify 22:25
77:6
Chad 5:11
chair 5:8 21:22
22:19,20 73:3
76:18
Chairman 5:6
34:21 53:18
70:7
Chamber 6:8,14
Chan 3:8
change 4:6 6:17
7:1,4,15,19 8:2
15:10 29:22
30:21 34:5
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
41:10 47:9,11
62:2
changed 60:23
changes 5:18
6:19 12:9,21
14:19 15:1 16:3
18:12 32:22,23
33:1,4,9,14,16
33:18 34:6,10
changing 29:25
33:6
charge 44:24
48:12 50:2,7,8
52:2,3 53:1
55:21 62:12,13
62:13 68:1
69:15
charged 43:25
charges 48:1
50:10 52:5,12
charging 39:3
chart 66:1
charter 5:12,16
5:20 15:7,14
check 18:7 72:23
Chodes 3:3 4:13
4:14 5:9
choose 19:6
chooses 73:9
CIRP 35:20 36:4
36:4,12 37:20
37:24 38:5
51:22 63:15
66:20
cities 56:3
city 6:11 24:1
44:4 49:1 69:5
77:3
clarification
72:14
clarify 64:12
72:13
classes 7:14
clients 57:11
close 23:7 51:17
closer 33:25 54:6
closing 14:6
Club 6:9
CMI 49:8
Coalition 6:16
collaborate
75:14
collect 43:22
collecting 43:18
combination
28:3
come 18:6 19:18
23:24 40:20
54:12 56:13
64:9 65:1,25
72:10 76:11
comment 13:11
19:15 59:25
60:1 68:2
comments 18:12
52:16 73:24
75:3
Commerce 6:15
commercial/in...
5:25
commission 3:11
4:4 5:6,12,17
5:22,24 6:6,18
7:2,15,18,25
8:3,6,9,13,16
8:19,25 9:3,5,9
9:19 10:4,7,13
11:4,5,11 12:2
12:9 14:8 15:8
15:12,17,19
16:7 17:22,24
17:25 18:25
19:10,16 22:6,8
22:10,14,20,23
22:24 23:1,24
25:12 31:10
34:20 50:22
53:17,19,21
54:2 55:1 56:18
56:22 59:20
71:17 73:9,12
74:4,15 76:3,17
commissioners
3:2 16:23 24:21
65:21 73:25
75:2
Commission's
8:6 11:6
commitments
35:5
committee 15:3
16:17 73:19
74:4,17 75:14
common 7:5
39:18
communities
56:4 60:7 61:17
community 6:4
community's
61:8
companies 40:2
complete 15:18
16:3 66:20
completed 11:14
14:7
compliance 41:2
comply 7:12 58:3
component 19:17
36:8 44:20 64:1
components
46:14
concern 30:7
35:25 50:17
52:24 63:15
66:20
concerned 18:24
concerning 31:14
concerns 75:14
concessions 60:9
concluded 76:23
conclusion 29:10
55:10 59:2,4
conditions 60:24
conference 8:23
9:1 10:1,6,9,11
12:8 13:13,17
13:21,23 16:4
19:9 20:16 71:4
confirm 72:6,21
72:25
conflict 22:9
Congratulations
23:12
consent 54:25
57:25 58:3 60:7
60:17,24 66:22
conservative
40:20 67:14
conservatively
51:9
consider 12:3,9
16:14 17:22,25
39:2 41:20 61:3
63:5 73:18
consideration
16:19
considering 48:8
considers 63:10
consistent 7:4,8
consists 6:6
constitutional
7:4
construction
6:13 58:8
consultant 9:20
10:8 11:3 24:8
24:12 53:20
57:8
consultants
24:11
Consulting 28:3
Consumers 3:16
6:11,13 7:23
9:6,12,21,25
10:25 24:25
25:5
consumption
28:9
contact 75:10
contain 51:16
continue 16:2
18:21,21 40:25
54:24
continued 51:5
54:22
continues 38:6
continuing 42:14
contractors 6:7
contrast 43:23
controlled 36:20
copy 31:11
correct 24:19
26:5 27:7,13
30:20 31:1,6
34:3,4 36:15
39:15 44:9 46:3
46:24 47:14,18
49:16 51:3 55:3
55:9 57:14,15
59:1 66:20
correctly 45:15
cost 6:22 16:8,10
16:13,24 17:1,9
21:23 22:2,3
30:18 32:22
33:2,10,14 34:6
43:16 44:11,13
46:17 48:5,19
48:21 50:8 52:4
52:6,8,11 55:25
62:4,9,11 67:2
68:24 69:22
73:4,6,11,14
74:21 75:16
costs 30:20 73:17
Council 6:13,16
counsel 9:5 10:6
10:15 11:5,13
11:14 77:11,14
country 55:25
66:21 69:2
county 5:14 6:12
6:14,15 22:9
44:8 49:14
69:10,19,23,25
couple 12:18
20:18 49:2
course 59:25
65:1 74:22
Court 3:21 77:4
covenant 7:9
cover 6:24
coverage 36:11
36:14,22 37:17
41:22 63:17
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
covered 64:11
65:3
co-financial 64:5
credit 40:4 41:15
63:13,15
criteria 63:8,9,13
63:17
cross 20:1
cross-subsidiza...
48:23
CSR 3:23
curious 17:4 64:8
current 12:2
13:22 36:13
37:7,25 41:24
67:3
currently 6:6
38:8 63:21
customer 29:24
38:17 41:20
42:15 52:7 59:7
64:6,13
customers 27:11
28:1,6,7,12,24
29:9,18,24 30:2
30:6 32:1 33:3
33:5 37:11 39:3
39:4,4 43:17,17
43:19,21,24,25
44:1,3,6,14,20
45:23 48:3,4,22
49:7 50:8 52:5
52:12 55:21
57:17,19,22
59:6 60:3 67:4
67:4,10 69:15
cycle 32:10 55:7
D
D 2:1
data 28:4 29:7
42:15 58:21
68:25 69:2,6,12
69:13,18,20,24
70:2
date 12:6 13:12
16:2 20:14 71:4
71:24
dates 14:13,20
17:22 19:9,21
day 28:9 74:24
days 8:4 12:13
13:23 15:11
20:18,25 74:23
daytime 12:25
13:3,6
deal 17:16
deals 61:25
debt 35:20 36:10
36:14,15,17,17
36:22,24,25
37:17 38:1,3,4
38:7,8,9,10,15
38:16,16,25
39:6 41:20,20
41:21,23 54:21
54:23 55:1 60:1
61:8 62:24 63:3
63:6,7,10,14,16
63:17 64:5,10
64:18 66:2,9,19
67:1,2,5,6,7,15
December 61:12
65:11
decided 67:7
decides 74:17
decision 16:16
17:10 22:1
31:23 70:21
74:2,5,16
decisions 15:3
decline 26:4,9,11
26:12,13,15
27:12 51:5
declines 27:5
51:6
declining 29:12
29:14 30:6
decrease 26:18
67:16
decree 54:25
57:25 58:3 60:7
60:18,24
decrees 66:22
definitive 64:9
definitively
66:10 67:12
delay 42:4
delegated 73:18
74:3
delegates 5:11,22
16:16
deliberation
19:15 20:25
21:3
deliberations
14:8,10
delinquencies
6:25
demographic
28:5,8
department
44:16
depending 60:17
69:7,8,17 70:3
depends 39:19
depicting 32:7
deposition 77:7
77:12
depth 68:2
deregulate 39:23
describe 35:19
61:18
describes 29:4
designed 13:2
desired 15:1,5
desiring 11:10
detail 28:13 70:4
detailed 30:21
determination
18:7 74:18
determined 28:5
determining 60:2
61:19 63:7
developing 48:15
52:11
dictate 36:11
difference 62:9
64:7
different 15:17
19:14 51:25
52:18
difficult 29:15
35:24 60:9
digest 20:18
diligent 60:22
diminish 61:22
direct 8:9 26:24
30:16 31:4,16
54:17 55:5,16
directed 32:16
directing 30:13
direction 73:25
77:10
directly 47:10
54:19 67:23
discovery 8:14
8:17,20 9:7,10
9:13,17,24
discretion 15:2
37:16
discuss 14:24
15:6 16:18 18:9
21:25
discussed 13:19
24:6
discussing 42:14
47:20
discussion 16:22
17:19,20 19:20
21:9,16 61:11
76:20
Dispatch 31:14
32:4
distribution
32:16,17 41:3
51:22
district 1:6 3:9
4:4 5:7,12,18
5:20,21,23 6:2
6:18,22 7:10,11
7:16 8:3,5,8,14
8:15,17,18,20
8:21,24,25 9:2
9:7,8,10,11,14
9:14,18,18,23
10:5,7,14,19
11:13 23:18
25:15 27:23
28:4 29:11,21
37:9 38:1,5,17
38:22 42:5,23
44:7,22 51:2
52:1,21 54:10
57:9 59:25 60:3
62:5,6,10,21
63:14 64:24
66:19 67:24
71:10,18,21
72:9,15 75:13
76:3
District's 7:6
29:12 49:22
50:6 54:20
55:19 58:20
62:23,24 63:20
divided 11:9
division 57:8
document 42:9
46:1 65:12,18
documentation
24:3
documents 8:24
13:2
doing 33:17
40:19 41:8
52:20 63:21
64:11,24 66:6
66:15
downwardly
26:4
draft 15:22 73:10
drainage 7:7
drastic 26:15
driven 31:25
36:8 45:22
drivers 28:5,7
40:18
drives 63:13
due 6:21 12:24
13:24,25 26:4
76:13
duly 77:7
duties 22:16,18
22:19
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
E
E 2:1 3:1,1
earlier 20:16
68:24
early 11:24
east 49:14
Eastern 7:22
economic 42:15
economy 42:16
Education 6:10
effect 34:8
effort 52:6
eight 32:6,10
33:24 34:7
eight-year 55:11
either 30:2 38:14
elaborate 22:16
elect 22:13
election 5:14,15
electric 32:5 40:6
electricity 31:25
45:23
electronic 15:13
element 75:4
Eleventh 3:24
embracing 37:4
emergencies 6:24
employed 77:11
77:14
employee 77:14
enacting 16:15
energy 3:15 7:23
9:6,12,20,25
10:25 24:25
25:5 47:12
engaged 27:24
Engineer 6:11
engineering 57:9
58:8
Engineers 6:9
enhances 7:6
ensure 5:22
enter 42:5
entertain 76:17
76:19
entire 68:6
entirety 26:21
Environment
6:16
environmental
6:3 41:2 45:4
EPA 57:25 60:4
60:10 61:3,12
61:17 65:9
equally 11:12
equitable 48:6,9
50:1 51:22
55:20
equitably 50:8
52:11
Eric 3:6 5:10
23:4
escalation 30:25
31:5
escalator 45:15
essentially 36:14
established 5:16
estimate 26:15
51:2
estimated 30:18
estimates 28:9
38:9
evaluate 60:23
evaluated 66:5
evenly 11:9
event 12:25 14:2
22:20
eventually 36:10
69:21
everybody 31:11
31:12 36:9
72:10
evidence 13:2,9
14:6 30:10
exact 51:16,17
Examination
25:18 34:23
50:24 52:14
54:13 56:14
59:21 65:5,22
68:22
example 63:8
exercise 44:23
exhibit 26:21,24
31:8,9,10,12
35:11,12 42:3,5
42:7,9,10 45:10
45:18 55:4,12
62:20,23 67:6
existence 43:2
existing 49:20
expanded 69:21
expect 16:25
58:12
expected 40:25
62:25
expenditures
32:14,15 37:9
expense 30:24
45:8,16,25 46:2
46:15,23 47:7
47:10 51:22
expenses 45:20
47:1,3 56:5
expensive 60:15
experience 30:20
57:16 59:9 60:6
experiencing
29:23
expiration 11:15
expired 11:18
explain 26:2,5
35:22 59:3
explaining 68:1
explicit 34:6
60:18 61:19
extension 12:5
extent 11:13,16
48:14 58:2 60:8
extra 20:18
e-mail 17:2
F
faced 66:22
facility 7:7
fact 14:1 28:19
factor 30:25 31:5
40:12 45:25
52:9 70:24
factors 60:13,16
61:16 63:7
failed 47:24
fair 5:22 7:14
38:12 50:12
fairly 42:19 64:6
falling 6:21
familiar 45:5
69:1 70:2
family 28:12
42:19,22
far 18:23 22:4
24:4 52:22
67:12 69:4
favor 21:4,17
23:8 76:21
February 5:14
7:16 8:8
federal 7:12
fee 49:6 62:7
feel 18:9 48:24
74:25
feeling 68:8
felt 40:19 67:13
fifth 7:13
file 42:12
filed 7:21 8:15,24
11:25 13:14
20:16 24:24
32:9 39:21
53:16
filing 29:1,18
40:16
filings 39:24 40:1
40:6,8
fill 70:8
final 13:3 74:5
finalize 14:18
finalized 22:13
finally 9:4 10:5
10:14 14:3
67:21
finance 6:21
financial 37:1
42:2 45:4 57:21
61:13,15 63:20
64:24,25 65:8
66:6,15
financially 77:15
financing 35:17
find 29:15 30:10
fine 19:19 42:11
72:8
firm 53:19
first 6:20 7:4
8:14 9:7,17,24
14:17 15:7 16:6
17:12,16 31:17
31:18,20 39:20
46:9 48:16
68:14 70:24
71:5,7 76:9
fiscal 37:6,6 63:1
63:4,4 68:6,9
Fitch 63:8,10
64:17
five 13:23 15:11
18:2,3 20:25
33:7,22,25
40:24
fixed 44:1
flat 47:21 51:11
67:10,14
floor 22:15 23:7
23:7
flow 29:9,17
fluctuation 66:13
flush 18:8
focus 41:10
focusing 6:3
41:21
following 10:6
11:10 42:17
61:25
follows 27:23
footnote 42:1
forecast 37:6
40:22
forecasted 39:6
43:22
foregoing 77:7
formal 23:1,19
forth 12:11 27:23
30:17 56:7
61:17 69:10
forward 32:16
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
32:21,23 33:4
33:15,21 37:16
40:25 41:5
42:16 54:12
56:13 60:22
found 28:13 44:4
44:6
four 17:24 18:2,3
fourth 7:11 9:10
Fox 3:12 11:4
frame 45:5 61:13
65:8
frequent 40:6,8
frequently 40:11
Friday 14:3
20:10,11
front 12:11,14
14:9
fuel 33:10
fully 61:18
functional 44:13
fund 54:24 56:4
56:5
funded 35:20
36:12,19
funding 36:1,2,7
36:8,14,15,19
36:22 37:12,15
37:19,20,22,25
37:25 55:1,19
further 7:1 21:16
23:7 24:5,22
34:12 48:12
50:22 53:4,5
54:8 56:8 59:17
59:20 61:16
65:20 68:19
70:5 77:13
future 58:12 67:4
FY14 42:2
FY17 26:4,10,12
26:15
FY18 26:11,13
FY20 26:11,14
40:22
FY2015 67:8
FY2017 26:18
55:2,7
FY2020 55:2,8
66:3
FY2021 54:23
FY2024 67:8
G
gallons 28:9
Garden 6:10
gas 40:8
gathered 67:18
general 5:15 6:7
31:24 37:22
45:24 46:3,10
47:5 56:5
generalizing
40:13
generally 32:25
39:21
generate 32:12
generation 41:2
George 3:3 5:10
getting 46:22
60:19 75:3,5
GIS 69:5,7
give 15:6 20:5
25:8 53:23
Given 63:20
go 14:12 15:5
18:11 27:22
60:13 65:7,24
going 15:16,21
16:11 19:2,17
20:15 23:15
24:11 25:22,24
27:22 30:1,2
32:15,21,21,23
33:4,15,21 35:4
36:11,12,20
37:16,16 39:5
40:25 41:5
42:16 45:9
47:17 48:10
51:6 53:10
54:19 58:2 60:3
62:5
good 4:2 25:20
25:21 34:25
35:1 44:13
52:10 54:15,16
63:20 64:21,24
64:25 66:11,11
Gorman 2:2
24:16 25:6,7,10
25:13,14 31:18
34:12,15,19,25
42:6,13 51:1,20
51:20 53:5,6,8
66:1,4 67:9
government 22:9
governments
69:10
granite 76:7,8
grant 12:12
granted 7:24 8:5
great 20:20 46:15
greater 6:15
63:12
green 48:25
49:13,24
grew 67:15
growing 41:4,6,6
growth 6:8 32:24
33:2 41:12 67:8
67:13,19
guess 62:1 71:5
72:1 75:7
guidance 61:14
61:19
H
half 32:2 33:25
37:20 47:6 68:9
68:10
hand 31:8 63:18
handing 31:9
happen 18:25
19:2 23:25
32:21
happened 32:18
33:21 34:7
hard 66:14
Hawes 3:5 4:11
4:12 5:9
headed 18:10
hear 75:6
heard 23:13 54:4
61:12
hearing 4:1
10:17 13:1,1,3
13:4,5,7,11,17
14:4 15:9,11,16
15:21 16:2,5,7
18:16,17,17,21
19:7 20:9,14,25
21:3 25:13 45:2
70:6 76:23
hearings 22:23
heels 40:23
height 14:14
held 8:23 10:1,9
15:9 17:19
18:18 67:14
help 61:17
helps 18:8
high 41:10 63:14
63:16 66:19
higher 52:19
64:17
highest 37:21
historical 34:5
58:18,21 59:5
Historically 34:4
history 33:11
hit 37:13 38:2
hitting 37:7,10
38:2
Hoelscher 8:10
23:22 75:9,16
hold 54:4 75:22
holiday 13:24
Homebuilders
3:19 7:22 9:16
9:22 10:22 24:9
34:16 70:9,19
71:3,9,18 72:13
homes 42:23,25
hours 11:8,18
households 43:6
housing 42:19
huge 61:8 70:14
I
ideas 75:17
identical 28:7
III 3:4
IL 77:5
Illinois 3:23
imbalanced
48:24
impact 37:11
42:24 43:5
46:19 47:9 66:5
impacted 44:2
impacting 38:21
impair 7:11
imperative 17:10
impervious
51:23 52:2,20
62:6,12 65:2
68:25 69:15,16
69:25
implemented
48:2
important 18:23
44:22 63:17
66:7,25
impose 7:14
imposition 51:23
improvement 1:7
32:12 33:21
36:2,6 41:9
46:19 47:5
50:15 69:3
improvements
46:18 49:18
50:15 52:22
61:9
include 19:11
22:19 30:11
included 57:24
including 6:2
22:24 24:4 33:2
37:22 55:6
inconvenience
72:4
incorporate
18:11 69:14
incorporated
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
68:6
increase 30:18
31:14,24 32:2,3
33:6,8 38:16
39:13 40:18,21
42:18,22 43:6,7
45:24,25 46:10
46:13,14,16,17
46:20 47:1,6,11
47:21 62:25
63:2 66:2 67:9
69:24
increased 35:20
36:5 38:6,14
increases 32:24
33:1,23,24
36:16,17,18
37:15 39:9,14
41:3 63:4
increasing 38:15
40:11 43:9,10
incur 52:7
incurred 48:19
54:22
incurring 59:25
67:3
indebtedness
7:10 62:15
independently
69:11
indicated 23:19
57:25 64:4,15
indicates 27:16
indication 61:2
indications 61:20
individual 23:18
industrial 3:15
6:11 7:23 9:6
9:12,20,25
10:25 24:24
25:4 33:5
inequitable
44:11 51:24
information
17:17 23:14
29:15,18,21
30:4 58:25 62:8
62:10 67:11,18
67:18 68:4 70:3
74:20
infrastructure
40:10 48:15,17
infrequent 39:24
initially 32:3
36:6 37:15
inquired 42:3
integral 57:19
intent 38:10
interest 6:20 22:9
38:22 57:17,19
67:2
interested 6:1
35:18 39:13
77:16
internal 36:21
intervene 7:20,21
10:16
intervenor 9:4,6
9:12,16,20,22
9:24 10:5 11:25
24:8 25:5
intervenors 10:7
10:14 11:14
24:11
introduced 45:10
invested 34:6
40:4 41:11
investment 36:3
51:24
investments
40:17 41:4
involved 33:12
33:14 58:13
issue 8:1,4,7
17:12,16 18:7
19:3 22:1 24:7
51:4,24 62:15
65:1 71:1
issued 6:21 14:21
23:1 38:3 63:8
issues 6:3,3,4
13:19 18:8
54:23
item 21:10 62:1
76:9
J
Jack 5:10
Jeanne 3:22 77:4
77:19
job 22:8 44:13
64:25
John 3:6,12 11:4
18:1 34:21
joining 56:16
Jonathan 8:11
July 13:21,24,25
14:3,10,10
15:15 16:2
18:17,22 19:7
19:10,11,21
20:11 21:3 32:3
63:8 73:22
June 8:1 12:24
12:25 13:12,15
13:16 16:2
18:20 71:24,25
73:22 76:5,10
76:19
justification
47:25
K
keep 22:21 67:1
67:10 69:22
keeping 22:22
Kelly 4:15
kind 18:7 40:13
57:4 64:2 65:25
71:1
know 16:12 17:7
20:11 23:15
38:11 42:4
46:13 58:6
60:15 62:3
65:12 70:13
74:9
knowledge 47:14
58:11
L
L 3:6
labor 6:3,15
Laclede 40:14
large 36:16 66:23
largely 29:5 44:4
44:6 49:14
larger 36:4
largest 37:8
Lashly 3:13 9:4
11:5
law 7:5 18:24
19:1,17
laws 7:12
lay 35:24
League 6:9,12
lean 72:1
leave 13:6
leaves 15:2
left 16:4
legal 9:4 10:6,15
11:5,13,14
Lemoine 2:6 11:3
24:14,17 53:19
53:22 54:2,9
56:11 59:13,17
59:23 65:7,21
65:24 68:21
70:6
Lemoine's 44:25
lengthy 16:12
60:14
Leonard 3:5 5:5
letter 23:19,20
let's 12:18 16:22
17:15 22:2
64:21
level 29:7,7 33:20
33:25 34:2,11
36:6,16 37:12
37:21 41:9,23
46:19 51:2,11
63:3,14,16
64:10 66:2,8,8
66:19 70:3
levelize 66:16
levels 29:23
52:18 58:18
59:3
levied 50:13
limiting 47:1
line 26:7,8,8 27:4
27:9,10,10
29:14 31:3
35:18 42:17
43:13,14,14
44:21 45:8 46:9
47:20,23,23
48:10,11 54:19
55:18 59:8,24
62:17 67:23
lines 26:1 39:12
liquidity 63:18
Lisa 3:13 11:4
list 18:7 57:11
listen 76:12
Litigation 3:23
little 14:12 19:13
30:8 35:15 54:6
58:15 60:5 62:3
68:2 74:12
LLP 3:17
located 69:9
Locust 3:14
long 38:16 57:11
longer 13:9 74:4
look 38:20,24
40:16,17 44:24
45:18 46:9 48:7
50:4 57:23
60:20 61:21
66:7 75:17
looked 40:14,14
41:19 43:5
looking 17:12
20:15 29:10
49:2 61:24
63:22
lose 37:16
loss 51:10
lot 15:24 33:5
61:11
louder 35:15
Louis 1:6 3:14,18
3:24 4:4 5:7,13
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
5:13 6:8,9,12
6:13,14,15 7:22
10:19 22:9
29:11,21 31:14
44:4,7 49:2,14
51:8,15 69:19
77:3
lowering 28:20
Lutheran 6:13
M
M 3:22 8:10 77:4
77:19
Mahanta 3:8 5:2
5:3,11
Mahfood 3:8 5:1
54:5 74:19,25
mail 15:13
maintain 37:1
38:10 40:4
66:25 68:25
69:2,11
maintaining
62:11
maintenance
6:23 69:16
major 40:15
making 17:10
36:15
manage 37:14
manageable 39:1
management
63:21
managing 64:25
mandates 32:13
32:13
maps 49:1
March 8:13,15
8:16
Mark 3:4 5:11
market 38:23
marks 31:23
63:20
matching 28:7
material 29:17
math 41:7
matter 22:4
61:24
matters 11:19
24:6,22 57:7,11
61:18 76:16
mean 69:5
meaning 52:11
meaningful
60:22
means 52:5
measures 66:7
mechanism
65:13
medium 15:13
meet 35:2 36:22
meeting 4:3 5:5
12:10 18:24
19:14,15,16,18
20:8 22:21 74:2
74:13 76:22
meetings 14:13
14:19 17:24,24
18:9 19:5,10
22:23
member 10:4
25:11 50:22
54:1 59:19
members 9:3
10:13 11:11
21:5,19 22:25
23:10 28:2
71:16
memorandum
65:10
mention 64:10
mentioned 18:11
64:4,23 65:8
68:24
mentions 51:15
met 12:2
meter 30:1 43:20
metered 27:5,11
28:1,6 29:7,11
29:14,24 43:16
43:19,21 44:6
methodologies
58:21
metrics 38:20
41:16,19 64:18
67:1
Metropolitan 1:6
3:9,18 4:4 5:7
10:19
Meyers 2:3,7
3:10 8:10 10:20
10:20 25:13,16
25:19 34:14
39:8 42:6,10
43:11 45:7
46:22 54:9,11
54:14 62:4 71:8
71:10 72:9,14
72:17 76:12,13
76:15
Michael 25:6
microphone 54:6
Midwest 3:23
mid-range 62:16
63:10,12
MIEC 3:16 11:25
12:17 25:6
71:14
Mike 3:4 5:10
million 27:15,16
32:3 37:19 41:7
mind 68:1
minimum 38:10
minute 12:19
53:11
minutes 22:22
75:8
Missouri 3:15,22
3:24 6:7,10,10
6:16 7:23,23
9:6,12,20,25
10:25 24:24
25:4 31:16,25
33:5 45:23 77:2
mitigate 37:15
44:23
mix 67:4
MO 3:14,18 77:4
model 62:25 68:4
modern 48:18
modernizing
32:16 40:9 41:3
48:14
modification
12:1
modifying 50:7
moment 39:9
65:4
Monday 20:19
money 49:17
68:14
Moody 51:13
morning 4:2,7
14:5 20:15
25:20,21 34:25
35:1 45:11
54:15,16
motion 20:23,24
21:2,10,12,13
21:14,17,20
76:18,19,20
Mound 6:11 24:1
move 35:7 54:6
moved 60:21
movement 39:23
moving 43:8
MSD 26:14,16,21
26:24 27:3,19
28:19 29:7
30:11 31:12,12
33:17 34:1
40:15 41:16,23
42:1,10 43:18
43:21,24 44:12
45:18 46:4
47:24 48:14
51:3,16 52:7
53:1 54:25 55:4
55:6,11,12,12
56:24 57:5,23
58:2,17,25 64:3
64:5 67:9 68:25
69:19
MSD's 26:3,9,13
30:24 43:15
46:23 47:7,10
48:5,13,21 57:7
MSD1 66:12
MSD79 62:25
multi-family
28:12
multi-varying
28:4
Municipal 6:12
municipalities
69:1,4
N
N 2:1 3:1
name 5:5,22 25:3
Nancy 3:7 5:8
nearly 32:1,5,9
37:20
necessarily 49:24
necessary 6:20
14:20 34:10
36:25
need 21:7,10
22:13 23:19,23
31:8 33:18
40:18 58:2
69:13 75:6
needed 13:16
14:25 15:4
19:25
needing 17:22
needs 17:19
37:10 57:20,24
66:8,10,17 67:3
neighborhood
6:4
neither 77:10
Neuschafer 2:7
3:17 11:1,1
24:22 25:1,3,4
49:11 53:5,7
56:10,12,15
59:12 71:13,14
new 14:4 15:18
16:5 17:20 18:6
22:12,14 31:8
51:9 68:4,5,10
newspaper 19:4
Nick 3:20 10:23
night 13:8
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
nine 4:2 76:6,19
nine-year 63:2
nominate 23:4
nomination 23:7
23:8
nominations
22:15 23:6
nonmetered
43:17,24,25
44:1
nonprofit 6:5
normally 24:10
56:6
North 3:24 6:15
note 16:6
notice 6:17 7:16
8:2 14:25 15:4
15:12 18:16,17
19:11 21:24
73:10
notion 30:5
November 5:15
number 31:9
33:2 42:9,22
43:6,7 44:14
47:12 51:4
54:18 59:6
60:13 64:17
70:14
numbers 32:8
64:20
O
O 3:13
objection 24:20
74:17
objections 74:19
obligation 36:25
38:4,7,10
obligations 39:7
obtain 38:23
Obviously 19:25
occurred 16:8
OCMI 49:23
offer 71:3
offered 22:11
71:24
offset 33:1 47:10
51:10
okay 19:19 20:3
22:4 24:15
26:20 28:17
46:9 47:3 53:3
54:17 55:16
56:8 57:23
58:15 59:10
61:2 62:14
64:21 67:21
old 68:10
once 73:15,17
ones 13:8
one-time 26:15
26:17
open 16:22 22:15
23:7 72:3 76:2
operation 6:2,22
operational 11:6
opinion 39:17
42:23 44:10
50:12 62:1,4
opportunities
43:25 58:7
opportunity 7:19
9:2 19:8 43:21
44:23,24
oppose 52:3
opposed 21:6,18
23:11 62:13
76:21
opposing 50:10
option 70:18,24
72:7
options 15:6 16:1
70:17,21 75:11
75:17
order 4:5 40:4
52:7 54:24
57:20
organization 6:5
23:15,24 58:14
organizations
5:21,24 6:1,2,5
original 16:8
73:7
originally 7:25
12:16 13:1
outcome 77:16
outlined 38:13
62:24
outstanding 7:10
36:17 37:2 38:3
40:3 62:24
overall 63:3,5
o'clock 4:3 24:10
70:11,18 71:22
72:10 76:6,11
O'Connell 3:4
4:22,23 5:11
P
P 3:1,1 25:6
page 2:2 25:24
25:25,25 26:1,7
26:8,25 27:3,19
27:20 30:13,23
31:3,18 35:8,17
35:18 39:10
41:15 42:1,2,14
42:14 43:12
44:21 47:19
48:7 49:2 51:21
54:18 55:17,18
59:24 62:1,14
62:18 64:3,23
64:23 65:24
66:18 67:23
73:10
pages 30:17
41:14 55:5
paid 37:25 50:14
palpable 64:9
Pamela 11:2
53:19
paper 45:12
paragraph 27:21
27:22 31:17,21
44:21 45:11,19
46:10
part 18:23 46:15
57:19 58:13
61:3 65:18
participants 11:9
11:12
participate 10:16
particular 21:10
22:1 35:11,21
37:10
particularly
35:17 58:5
parties 13:18,20
37:4 71:5 77:12
77:15
partly 71:20
parts 18:13
pass 15:21
passed 12:4
passing 17:10
Paul 3:7 5:9
pay 6:20 37:12
38:14 39:4,5,6
46:5 47:8 48:3
48:5,17 61:8
Paygo 35:16 36:7
37:14,19,21,25
38:6,15
paying 49:6,7,15
49:25
payment 49:20
peak 37:7,10,12
37:13 38:2,3
Pedrotty 3:22
77:4,19
peek 41:1
people 52:17
74:14 75:5
76:11,13
percent 26:10,12
30:25 31:5 32:1
32:5,25 33:9,25
34:1 40:21 41:9
41:10 47:4,4,15
47:16 50:6 63:2
64:10 66:3,3
percentage 35:25
36:19 38:5
66:13,14
perform 58:17
performed 28:2
28:19
performing
22:19
period 11:8
14:14 33:7
35:21 37:8,12
37:13 39:19
40:5,7,22,22
43:23 54:22
63:2
permits 42:19
69:19
permitted 10:16
11:17
person 7:18 10:3
10:11 11:7,16
22:12 23:20
72:19
personally 20:13
56:17,24
persons 24:23
53:16
person's 11:15
perspective 36:9
phonetic 35:17
pink 49:1,24
place 62:7 71:7
places 49:3
plan 5:12,16,20
17:23 30:12
35:24 40:17
64:24 66:2
67:24 68:10,10
planning 66:6,16
play 45:25 60:25
please 19:23 25:2
25:17 26:2
31:18 54:12
56:13 68:2 73:5
pleased 53:18
plus 6:10 49:25
point 12:18
13:21 22:1,13
22:16 23:8,14
51:5 52:10
53:15 70:16
71:19
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
policy 36:8
popular 42:2
populated 67:19
population 39:1
39:1 43:9 51:2
67:8,10,13,15
populus 67:7
portion 28:15,17
44:7
possibility 69:5
72:19
possible 35:8
40:3 55:13 60:2
60:14 61:1 70:4
Post 16:9 31:14
32:4 73:8,15
74:11
posted 19:1
practice 28:3
39:18
predominantly
29:20 30:7
41:21
prefer 20:13
72:18
prehearing 13:20
prepare 58:16
prepared 8:9
10:8 50:9 58:24
preparing 26:21
45:1
present 4:16 5:3
5:8 11:2 13:17
23:21 24:23
25:6 53:16,19
73:4
presenting 22:12
pretty 44:12
74:11
previously 64:3
pre-hearing 12:7
price 31:25 45:23
52:8
primarily 49:1
principal 6:21
prior 15:11 24:14
26:21 56:18,22
57:6,7
PRL2 62:21,23
probably 15:5
32:9 33:13 43:4
68:9 74:10
procedural 7:17
11:19,23 12:1
12:10,15 14:1
14:22 16:20
21:9,11 22:4,5
24:6,22
proceed 24:11,14
25:2,17
proceeding 5:8
42:3 56:19,22
proceedings 4:6
7:20 11:24 12:2
14:7 30:21
process 18:6 37:5
57:20 60:12
68:7 74:12
produce 18:16
36:20
profiles 28:8
program 1:7
36:4 37:7 41:1
60:23
programs 36:3,3
41:5 66:24
projected 26:3,4
26:13 28:20
32:15,23 34:9
39:9,13 51:4,7
59:3
projecting 33:14
33:18
projection 26:5
26:17 27:6
28:23,25 29:20
30:11,22 32:22
43:19
projections 26:9
29:6 33:3,16
34:5 41:12
43:15 55:7,11
58:17,22 59:6
projects 54:24
55:2 66:23
68:15
promulgated
65:9,11
proof 29:16
property 28:11
47:22 48:1 50:6
50:11 51:7
55:21,25 56:6
62:13 69:22
property's 55:22
proposal 7:19
26:21,25 27:4
27:19 28:14,15
28:18 35:19
48:5 49:22
54:21 55:4,12
58:20 66:12
proposals 57:24
68:12,13
propose 19:21
26:5
proposed 5:19
7:3 8:1 11:22
12:17 13:19
15:10 17:18
30:24 41:16
47:21 50:6,13
52:3 55:7,19
62:2,6
propound 11:17
propounded 9:2
10:4,13
prospectively
34:8
Protective 45:4
provide 7:6 9:1
13:22 47:25
52:7 60:2 65:17
67:24 69:23
71:3 75:16
provided 12:8
24:3 25:23
49:19 55:11,13
58:25 62:10,11
provides 14:9
58:1
providing 48:21
52:9
provision 7:9
PSC 31:16
public 10:17
12:25 13:3,5,6
13:10,11 14:4
14:25 15:3,4,9
15:11,15,21
16:17 18:16,17
18:17 19:7,14
19:18 20:9,14
55:24 73:10,19
74:14,16
publication
15:13,15,18,20
15:25 16:3,5,8
19:4,7 21:24
73:7
publicity 74:20
publish 16:1,11
18:22 74:9
published 16:6,7
18:23 31:13
Pugh 8:11
pull 29:19
pumping 29:21
29:23,25
purchased 47:13
purpose 8:25
purposes 49:23
55:8,14
pursuant 57:25
pursuit 60:15
put 13:2 16:18
19:8 35:25
42:19 65:18
76:7,8
putting 62:7
Q
quarter 73:10
question 26:2,16
40:13 42:17
46:8,24 47:19
47:24 51:20
53:6 54:18
55:17,18 61:25
62:14 71:6,11
questions 2:3,4,4
2:5,7,7,8,8,9
9:2 10:4,12
11:7,10,10,15
11:17 16:21
25:12,14,19,22
34:13,15,19,22
34:24 50:23,25
51:19 52:15
53:4 54:2,4,8,9
54:14 56:8,11
56:15,17 59:13
59:17,20,22
65:6,20,23,25
68:19,21,23
70:5,13,19,25
71:2,6,9,12,15
71:17,18 76:12
quick 74:12
quickly 35:7 40:3
quorum 5:4
quote 54:19
55:20
R
R 3:1
raised 32:5
ran 73:7
range 63:24
ranges 62:16
63:22 64:7
rate 3:11 4:3,5
5:6,12,17,22,24
6:6,17,18,20
7:1,2,3,15,15
7:18,18,25 8:2
8:3,5,6,9,13,16
8:19,23,25 9:3
9:5,9,19 10:4,7
10:13 11:3,5,6
11:11 12:2,9
14:8 15:8,10,12
15:17,19 16:7
16:23 17:22,24
17:25 18:25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
19:10,16 22:6,8
22:10,14 23:24
24:12,21 25:12
26:20 27:3,19
28:14 29:1
30:12,21 31:10
31:14,24 32:9
32:10,19,23,24
33:1,4,6,11,12
33:13,24 34:20
36:1,7,13,13,21
37:11,15,22,25
38:22 39:21,23
40:1,6,8,10,18
40:23 41:6,6,8
41:13 44:1 46:1
46:3,10,16,16
46:20 47:5,9,11
47:21 49:22
50:22 51:23
53:17,20,21
54:1,20 55:1,4
55:7,11,12,12
56:18,18,21,22
57:6,8,18,20
58:20 59:19
62:5,25 65:2,21
66:12 68:4,4
69:23,24 71:17
73:9,12 74:4,15
76:17
ratepayers 7:15
10:15 38:14
43:7,10 49:18
50:14,16
rates 5:19,19,19
32:5 33:18 34:8
34:10 36:5,20
39:2 40:2,16
41:16 46:4 47:7
47:8 66:8 68:11
rating 19:15 37:3
38:19,24 41:17
63:5,7,8,13
67:1
ratings 40:5
63:16
reach 29:9 73:2
reached 41:1
read 27:22 31:18
43:13 45:10,19
47:22 48:9
62:17,21 67:22
ready 24:23
53:15 76:13
reaffirmed 61:14
reality 68:8
really 15:25
35:24 36:11
40:12 75:5,5
reason 32:11
64:2
reasonable 7:14
30:25 44:16
59:8
rebuttal 1:8 9:21
9:23 10:2,3
12:7 25:23
30:14
recalibrate 28:10
recalibration
28:18,20
recall 11:24
64:20
receipt 6:17
receive 23:20
46:5
received 7:15
24:1,4
receptiveness
61:3
recognize 61:10
recognizing
61:16
recommend 6:18
67:24
recommendation
23:22,23 66:4
recommendati...
5:17
recommended
7:1 63:15 66:1
recommending
37:14,18,23
reconvene 53:11
53:14 70:18
record 8:23 10:2
10:10,17 15:9
27:23 43:14
45:20 48:10
65:18 70:20
recover 39:6
55:25
recovered 37:21
redacted 42:12
reduce 61:22
67:1
reduced 28:23
29:1 77:9
reduction 29:8
29:17,23 41:12
refer 42:6,15,18
45:9
reference 42:8
referring 35:12
42:1
refers 45:3,20,22
46:4,7,10
reflect 33:9 40:3
67:25
regard 33:23
54:17 57:6 62:8
73:21
regarding 5:18
8:23 10:2,10
15:9 28:13
30:17 62:11
Regional 6:8
regulations 7:13
regulators 60:20
regulatory 49:6
49:25 61:23
related 7:8 56:4
62:9 64:18
77:11
relates 61:7
relating 7:9
relation 55:22
relationship
27:25 52:4,9
relative 38:25
77:13
relevant 29:19
relied 29:20
relief 60:3,19
relying 69:22,23
remains 11:16
remember 32:20
repeat 46:8
replace 23:16
replacement 1:7
36:3
report 8:1,4,7
12:14 14:18,20
17:25 18:13
51:13
Reporter 3:21
77:1,4,5
reporting 22:24
reports 13:21,23
20:16 22:25
represent 5:25
25:4
representation
5:23
representative
5:24
representatives
6:6
represented
46:14 72:16
representing 3:9
3:11,15,19 34:2
57:13,16
reprint 45:11
request 8:6,14,17
8:20 9:7,10,13
9:17,24 11:25
12:3,4,17
requested 8:3
32:3
requesting 34:1
requests 22:25
require 15:14
52:25
required 6:24
11:7 48:20
54:24 63:14
66:19,24
requirement
14:1 36:11
37:17 61:23
requirements
36:23
requires 5:20
52:7 54:21
residential 5:25
28:1
resignation 22:6
22:11
resigned 22:7
resolution 11:22
12:4,8,15 13:25
14:23 15:2
16:15,16,19
17:11,13,18
21:8,15
resolve 51:24
resolves 71:1
resources 64:25
respect 35:10
38:20 41:25
42:9 70:9 76:13
respective 13:18
responded 8:18
8:21 9:8,11,14
9:18 50:5
responding
46:25
response 41:25
42:18 47:23
54:18 55:17,17
responses 8:15
rest 11:23 19:9
62:21
restrictions
40:16
result 15:1 29:5
43:18 47:5
50:14
results 63:3
retrofits 32:14
revenue 36:1,7
36:13,13,19,22
37:25 39:6
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
43:18,22 44:16
58:18,18 59:3
68:9
review 5:17
26:20 45:1
58:23 59:5
reviewed 28:17
58:20
reviewing 66:12
68:3
revised 11:23
12:14 16:20
21:7,8,11 22:5
41:16
Richard 8:10
right 5:4 17:8
20:8 21:20 22:3
23:8 24:21
35:10 41:23
43:3 44:3 45:7
45:14,24 46:12
47:2 49:22
71:16 72:23
74:8 76:1
roll 4:6,7
rose 46:2,3
rules 11:6 13:22
14:2
run 19:23 73:17
runs 25:24,25
rural 32:13
Russell 3:5 5:9
S
S 3:1
Safe 50:20
sales 29:10,11,12
29:14,15 33:3
Saturday 73:14
73:14
savings 74:21
saw 40:6
saying 21:17
40:20 52:17
74:23 76:21
says 15:7,10 46:2
54:20
scenario 55:13
schedule 7:17
11:23 12:1,10
12:15,16,19
14:2,9,16,22
15:1,19 16:20
16:21 17:14,15
17:18,20 18:3
21:9,11 22:5
24:8 61:21,24
68:16 76:2
scheduled 21:3
22:21,23 76:4
schedules 10:9
Schneider 2:4,8
3:6 4:17,18
5:10 23:4,9,12
50:25 65:23
68:20
Schoedel 3:4
4:24,25 5:11
75:2,19,20
se 56:3 61:23
season 14:15
second 6:22 7:6
8:17 9:13 21:1
22:3 26:6
seconded 21:2,13
76:20
secretary 17:3
22:7,14,17,18
23:9
section 27:19,21
see 12:20 15:22
15:24 28:14
37:5 57:10
60:21 64:22
68:9 70:17
seeing 40:8
seek 11:25
seen 48:25 59:8
69:10
select 5:21
Senior 6:14
sent 11:22
sentence 26:6
31:17,19,20
separate 27:9
series 10:16
serve 5:8
served 57:7
service 33:2,15
36:10,14,15,18
36:22,24,25
37:17 38:7,9,10
38:15,16 39:6
41:22 43:2 46:5
48:2,4,5,13,14
48:17,18,21,22
48:23 49:21
50:2,9 51:8,25
52:8,9,19,20
53:1 63:17
64:10 67:9
68:25 69:3,8,21
services 3:23
5:23 6:14 7:8
27:24 43:4
55:20 58:1,9
69:25
serving 22:10
53:20 57:18
session 13:4 14:5
sessions 10:17
13:8
set 12:11 14:12
17:22 30:17
sets 27:23
setting 8:24 12:6
57:7,20
seven 32:10
sewer 1:6 3:9 4:4
5:7 7:7 10:19
share 69:25
shared 69:6,21
sharing 69:12,18
shift 43:15,17
short 15:20 16:5
21:24 53:13
54:22 70:12
72:24 73:1,9,13
shorter 15:24
16:25
Shorthand 77:5
shorthanded
49:6
shortly 17:2
show 23:6 26:9
29:22
showing 32:24
42:16
shown 26:8
62:20,23
shows 27:4,11
49:2
side 27:12
signed 60:25
significant 26:9
26:13,17 27:11
29:16,22 30:7,9
30:19 32:12
39:25 40:23
51:7 60:1 64:7
significantly
29:25
signify 21:17
76:21
similar 12:16
13:13
simply 37:23
43:8 48:6 50:10
63:23
single 28:12
42:19,22 63:13
sir 35:23 39:11
44:3 50:3,18
59:18
site 65:13,15
sixth 31:17,20,23
45:11
Slack 22:7 23:16
23:23
slightly 27:5
slow 41:11
Snoke 8:11
socioeconomic
6:4
soon 23:20 75:10
75:11
sooner 74:10
sorry 25:25
31:20 46:8
sort 17:19 56:6
58:12 62:7
sources 29:19
58:19 59:7
space 16:13 20:6
speak 35:14
special 5:14
specific 40:12
specifically 26:1
43:5 45:9 54:19
55:6 61:7
specifics 50:5
58:6 60:17
spending 39:25
67:24
spoke 39:8 43:11
45:7
sponsoring 23:15
Sprague 8:11
Square 3:18
ss 77:2
St 1:6 3:14,18,24
4:4 5:7,13,13
6:7,9,12,12,14
6:15 7:22 10:19
22:8 29:10,21
31:14 44:4,7
49:1,14 51:8,15
69:19 77:3
stability 57:21
standard 13:10
Stander 8:12
standing 37:1
start 4:6 20:8,18
24:16 25:22,24
76:5
started 19:20
31:11 39:25
40:7,11
starting 4:1
52:10 55:2
62:17,19
starts 31:22
41:11
state 7:12 26:8
26:14 30:24
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
31:4 44:22
55:18 77:2
stated 73:6
statement 7:3
14:6 67:12
status 41:24
statutory 7:5
stay 12:1
staying 30:2
Stein 3:6 4:15,16
5:10 20:13 21:1
21:12 23:14
65:6
Steve 3:8
Steven 3:3 5:9
Sticking 20:22
storm 4:5 5:19
6:19 42:21 43:2
47:21,25 48:4,5
48:12,14,17,19
49:20 50:2,8
51:25 52:5,8,12
52:18,22,25
55:19,23,24
56:2,4 62:2,2
67:25,25 68:5
Street 3:14,24
strictly 36:19
strong 63:16
66:25
stronger 42:16
62:16 63:10,11
structure 68:5,5
Stump 3:13 11:4
11:20,21 17:1,9
17:14 18:1,5,19
19:13 20:7,20
21:14,22 22:16
22:18 23:17
24:2,7,19 34:18
35:14 70:16,23
71:20 72:1 73:3
73:6,23 74:3,8
76:6
submission 12:6
12:23 14:5
70:19
submit 7:19 10:8
12:13 13:20
submitted 8:9,14
8:16,19 9:7,9
9:13,17,21,22
9:24 42:7
submitting 10:3
10:11
subsidize 48:20
subsidizing
50:15
substantial 54:21
Subtotal 27:11
sufficient 75:18
suggest 14:4,11
18:2 24:13
29:13 32:23
53:10 74:8
suggested 23:17
suggesting 13:25
32:21
suggestion 13:5
49:23
suggests 30:1
34:9
summary 67:22
Sunshine 18:24
18:25 19:17
supervise 22:22
suppliers 40:15
support 26:17
28:20 29:3,8,20
30:10 31:4
34:10 36:5 37:2
37:3,12 41:16
supported 26:14
supports 28:25
30:5 51:11
surrebuttal 10:8
10:10,12 12:23
13:14 71:4
72:18
Susan 3:10 8:10
10:20
suspect 36:24
50:7
sworn 77:7
system 48:19
51:25 55:23
69:14
systems 7:7
32:17 40:10
48:20
T
tabbed 27:20
table 26:24 27:4
27:4,10,16
48:12 49:9
take 4:7 18:20
53:11 69:13
72:24 73:1
taken 22:8 23:1
53:13 77:8,13
takes 38:1
talk 14:11 21:7
39:12 67:22
talked 18:1
talking 39:20
45:17 51:21
75:4
tapered 35:21
target 36:7 66:14
targeting 36:18
37:24
tax 5:19 6:20
48:1,2 56:6,6
62:2,5,13 65:2
68:1,5,7,12,13
69:22
taxes 56:1
taxpayer 55:19
technical 8:22
9:1 10:1,6,9,11
13:13 16:4 19:9
71:4
tell 45:19 50:9
60:5 70:20
ten 33:12 40:24
41:8 50:6 53:11
tentatively 72:5
ten-year 33:7
term 38:16
terms 35:25
50:11
territory 48:2,13
48:18,22,23
51:8 53:2
testified 46:16
66:1
testimony 1:8 2:2
2:6 8:10,24
9:21,23 10:2,3
10:8,10,12 12:7
12:24 13:14
24:14,24 25:7
25:23 26:16,22
28:25 29:2
30:14,17,23
31:4 34:3 35:8
35:12 38:12
39:10,15 42:7
44:25 45:3,14
46:6,25 47:15
48:10 51:1,21
51:23 53:16,22
54:4,17,20
57:10 58:16
59:24 60:5 62:9
65:9,25 66:18
67:21 70:9 72:7
77:6,8
thank 21:6,21
23:3,5,12,13
25:11 34:12,14
34:21 35:16
39:8 42:5,11
43:11 44:17
47:19 48:25
50:18,21 51:18
52:13 53:8,9
54:6 56:8,16
59:11,12 64:21
65:16,19 68:19
68:20 70:6,7,7
73:23
Thanks 50:19
72:14
Theresa 8:12
thereto 77:15
thing 12:22
14:21,23 20:7
62:7
things 12:18
15:17 38:19
61:21 69:6,20
think 17:8 20:17
28:25 36:9 37:4
37:10 38:24
42:21 44:12,15
44:18 46:22
51:8,9 52:10
60:4 61:5 65:2
65:3 71:20 72:4
72:8 74:15 75:4
76:13
third 6:23 7:8
8:19 27:20
thought 67:9
74:21
threatened 41:24
three 11:8,18
15:25 16:9,9
33:9 34:1 39:22
40:21 47:4,15
62:16 63:22
73:7,8,11 74:23
three-week 14:14
throw 22:15
Tim 8:11
time 4:1 7:5,5,13
7:13 11:8,12,16
11:16 12:3 13:8
13:10 14:10
15:21 16:6 18:4
25:13 31:23
36:4 39:19
48:16 52:2 54:3
54:22 59:10,14
60:24 64:4,6
67:12,17 73:13
75:25 76:4
times 14:13 16:9
16:9 37:20
61:20 73:7,8,11
time-consuming
60:14
timing 67:25
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
titled 27:10
today 12:10,22
16:15 21:23
24:10,13 56:16
70:12 72:16
74:11 75:9,12
76:12
today's 24:8
Todd 31:9
TOEJNES 17:4
19:23 20:1 21:6
21:20 24:5
Toenjes 3:5 4:2,9
4:11,13,15,17
4:19,19,22,24
5:1,4,6 10:21
10:24 11:2
16:22 17:12,15
20:4,22 21:2,13
21:16,25 23:3,5
23:11 24:16,20
25:2,7,11,17
34:14,18 35:11
50:21 51:19
52:13 53:4,8,10
53:14,22 54:1,8
54:12 56:10,13
59:12,16,19
65:17,20 68:20
70:5,16 71:8,12
71:16,25 72:12
72:15 73:1,5,21
73:24 74:6,15
74:23 75:13,18
75:21,25 76:4,7
76:9,16
Tomazi 2:8 3:3
4:20,21 5:10
18:15 19:6,19
54:3 59:22
top 64:23
topic 14:24
total 11:8 16:10
29:12 38:16
62:21,24
touched 60:4
62:3
town 69:5
transcript 22:22
transcripts 24:4
transmission
41:3
transparency
55:8,13
travel 35:5
travels 50:20
treated 13:7
tried 29:19
true 38:18
Trustees 5:21
6:19 7:2 8:2,5
12:5,12
truth 25:8,8,9
53:23,23,24
try 17:2 35:4
40:13 52:6
trying 60:12 61:5
tune 47:16
turn 35:8
two 15:17,19
19:25 26:9 27:9
32:20,24 33:7
37:20 40:15,19
65:25
type 58:1,8
types 30:20 56:1
typewriting
77:10
typically 17:23
U
ultimate 59:2,4
66:8
Ultimately 69:13
73:18
Underfer 8:11
understand 7:17
14:14 18:15
35:5 38:12
45:14 46:21
55:10 58:15
66:22 72:4
76:15
understanding
17:21 30:19
36:10 41:22
44:5 54:25
66:11 68:7
understated
43:19 44:18,19
60:19
understating
43:20,23
undertake 66:24
unfortunately
14:15 70:10,15
uniform 48:1,13
50:6,11,13
52:25
unique 37:13
unit 28:9
units 47:8,11
unjustified 43:15
Unlimited 75:25
unmetered 27:12
28:1,7,12,21,24
29:9,13,17 30:2
30:6,9 44:3,20
updated 63:8
updating 62:12
usage 27:25
28:23
use 29:24 30:1,1
30:9 33:16 59:6
67:7 69:24
user 44:24
users 5:23,25 6:1
utilities 37:1
39:18,21,23,25
40:2,7,9,11,12
40:19,24 55:24
57:13,21 59:9
60:11,21 63:13
66:21 69:10,12
utility 30:18,24
33:23 39:2,5
40:15 43:4
45:15,20,24
46:2,5,14 47:1
47:3,7,10 56:2
63:6,7 69:4,8
69:13,17
V
vacation 14:15
valid 44:16
value 42:25 48:1
50:11 55:21
variance 74:6
varies 69:16
various 63:9
66:16
Veatch 11:3
53:20 56:21
57:2,3,4,7,8
58:1,11
verify 32:8
verse 74:24
version 16:25
versus 58:18 62:6
65:2
Vertex 27:24
28:2
vice-chair 22:20
violation 7:9
volume 26:10,11
26:15,18 27:5
27:12 28:6 29:1
30:6 43:16,19
43:20,24 44:2
44:14,18,19
volumes 26:3,6
28:10,21
voters 5:13 6:9
votes 22:24
W
wait 22:2,3 31:10
74:12 76:14
waives 14:1
walk 12:18
want 12:17 13:21
14:12 15:5
16:18 19:3 20:1
20:8 21:25
35:22 45:9
58:15 60:21
65:24 66:15
71:7,21,21 72:7
72:10,24 73:17
74:9,12 75:17
76:11
wants 73:13
waste 4:5 5:18
6:19 26:3,6,10
26:18 28:10
42:21 43:16,22
44:2,23
water 4:5,5 5:18
5:19 6:19,20
26:3,6,10,18
27:25 28:5,9,10
29:7,8,10,11,12
29:14,15,17,21
30:9 40:8 42:21
42:21 43:2,16
43:22 44:2,23
47:21,25 48:4,5
48:12,14,17,19
49:20 50:2,8
51:25 52:5,8,12
52:18,25 55:19
55:23,24 56:2,4
62:2,2 67:25
68:1,5
water-wise 52:22
way 14:16 30:7
50:7 60:22 64:9
weak 62:16
weaker 63:10,12
web 65:13,14
Wednesday
31:22 32:2
Wednesday's
31:23
week 14:17,17
20:17
went 61:16
West 6:14
we'll 17:16 23:6
25:6 35:7 65:19
72:21 73:1 74:1
75:11,13,16
we're 13:24 22:4
23:25 25:23
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
27:3 33:14 37:7
37:9 69:22,23
72:3,20
we've 19:8 40:14
48:25 65:2
William 8:12
Williams 5:1
willing 60:20
61:21 71:23
window 70:12
wish 10:15
witness 35:13
49:12 50:23
53:9,25 59:20
70:6,20 77:6,8
Women 6:9
won 31:24
wonder 43:13
47:22
wondering 69:20
word 42:24
62:19 75:5
work 20:10 45:5
57:4,9,18,23
58:4,12 61:13
65:8
worked 56:17,21
56:24 57:12
works 14:16 76:2
worry 17:16
wouldn't 58:14
66:10 68:13
wrap 14:6
writing 71:23
72:20
written 15:12
70:19 71:2 72:7
X
X 2:1
Y
yeah 18:16 64:22
year 17:5 31:5
32:25 33:25
34:2 37:6,7
39:14,15 40:21
47:16 63:1,5
68:6,8,9,14
years 32:6,11,20
33:7,12,13,22
33:24 34:7
39:21,22 40:24
58:3 61:11
yellow 27:20
48:25 49:1,5,24
Z
zero 67:8
$
$1,126,611,100
63:1
$100 37:19 41:7
41:8
$1000 41:8
$1400 64:6,13
$17,000 73:12
$2,821,292,412
63:1
$2139 63:4
$264 32:2
$3000 75:4
$35,000 16:10
73:8
$500 63:11
$550 63:11
$600 63:12
$750 73:16
$7500 73:15
$8250 73:16
$854 63:4
#
#084-003893
3:23
#618 3:22
0
0.4 26:12
0197 49:7
0682 49:7
1
1 26:21,24 55:5
55:12
1st 9:16
1:45 70:12
10 9:5 18:20
42:14 54:19
58:3 73:22
10th 8:7 12:13
14:3,10,21
15:15 18:17
19:7,10 20:9
10.3 27:15
10:35 53:12,15
102 35:13
108 31:9,12,12
45:18
11 25:24 42:14
42:17 44:22
54:18 62:14,18
11th 10:18
11.5 27:15
11:12 76:24
12 25:25 26:1,7
47:20 65:25
66:18
12th 9:19
12-minute 53:11
13 9:19 20:4 21:4
25:25 26:1,8
13th 8:21 9:21
19:21,24 20:20
20:22
14 43:14 47:23
14th 8:4 12:12
15 48:11 58:3
62:17
16 20:4 21:4 26:1
35:18 43:12,14
16th 19:22,24
20:20,22
17 42:2 44:21
59:24 71:25
72:6
17th 8:13 12:3
13:12 71:24
72:22 75:24
76:5,10,14,20
18 47:23
18th 9:23 13:16
18-month 32:10
19 30:13,23 45:8
64:23
19th 13:16
1954 5:14
1990s 39:22
2
2 26:8
2nd 8:18
2.1 26:10
20 1:9 20:20 26:7
30:14,24 31:3
33:13 37:6 45:9
55:17,18
20th 9:8 19:22,24
20:22 21:4
2000 5:16 39:24
40:5
2007 31:24 32:6
2011 15:20,23
21:24
2013 63:9
2014 29:13 61:12
63:5 64:3,12
65:11
2015 1:9 4:5 7:16
8:1,4,7,8,13,15
8:16,18,19,21
8:22 9:5,8,9,11
9:12,15,16,19
9:19,22,23
10:18 31:15
32:6,14,15 40:6
63:1,4
2016 27:6,13,15
51:5
2017 27:6,13,16
28:21
2019 32:25
2020 37:18
2024 54:23
21 59:24
23 19:22 47:19
23rd 19:24 20:1
24 37:7 48:7
49:25 51:21
25 2:3 54:18
62:14
250 63:2
26 7:16 42:10
26th 8:1,8 13:16
27 9:11 19:22
20:4
27th 8:15 9:9
19:25 20:21,23
21:4
270 49:14
29th 31:15
3
3rd 8:19
3.0 31:4
30th 8:16 19:22
19:25 20:21,23
21:4
31 19:11 63:9
31st 14:11
314 3:25
34 2:4
36 55:17,18
4
4 27:4 39:12
55:18 59:24
62:1
4th 13:24 20:11
4-3 27:4
4-5 27:19
4-7 26:25 27:3
4.3 26:25 27:19
45 8:4 12:13
45-day 12:5
47 64:10
5
5 31:3 35:8,17
67:23
5th 12:24
5-4 49:2
5.5 30:25 47:16
50 2:4 32:1,5
47:4
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 5/20/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
52 2:5
54 2:7
56 2:7
59 2:8
6
6 27:9,10 43:13
43:14
6's 27:10
63101 3:14,24
63102 3:18
644-2191 3:25
65 2:8
68 2:9
7
7 39:10 67:23
7th 5:15 9:11,14
7.1.4 28:14 29:2
7.6.3 55:12
711 3:24
714 3:14
75 66:3
8
8 41:14,15 48:10
8th 8:22 13:21,25
18:22
8:55 4:1
80 66:3
9
9 39:12 41:14
42:1
9th 5:14 12:25
73:22
90s 39:24