[15:20] thanks testing done atomic

[15:26] dominic [Bell dominic dot dot

[15:39] dot dot

[20:24] testing testing

[20:29] >>

[28:51] testing testing?

[28:54] ?

[28:58] Dominic [Bell

[29:32] ringing] [Bell ringing] [Bell

[29:32] dominic.

[29:35] [Bell

[29:53] ringing]

[29:58] >> good afternoon everyone I

[29:58] hope everyone's doing well

[30:00] today is DECEMBER 14 and we

[30:02] will call this the hearing

[30:03] meeting to order.

[30:10] >> notice published AUGUST 28

[30:16] 26 this time and place was set

[30:17] for prehearing conference and

[30:22] docket number 202 626? Te the

[30:23] purpose of the agreement is set

[30:26] out to the notice.

[30:30] >> good afternoon.

[30:35] I am entertain dominic charles

[30:36] rehwinkel here on behalf of

[30:44] city gas and made an appearance

[30:51] along with andrea deas.

[31:00] >> great, thank you.>> good

[31:00] afternoon?

[31:00] I am beth keating

[31:03] I'm here for florida city.

[31:09] >> good afternoon

[31:10] commissioner, matthew vodrasek

[31:11] with the air force department

[31:11] here on behalf of federal

[31:14] executive agencies.

[31:14] >> maj. Thompson and alisha

[31:15] had sent.

[31:19] >>. Helton is here along with

[31:25] your general counsel adrian

[31:25] harper.

[31:26] >> thank you staff. Other any

[31:27] pulmonary matters we need to

[31:30] address before we get into the

[31:31] prehearing border.

[31:36] >> do you have any matters?

[31:40] See none, let's go to the

[31:44] prehearing order now. I will

[31:44] identify the sections and i

[31:45] want the parties to let me know

[31:46] if there is any corrections or

[31:50] changes that need to be made.

[31:51] I MAY go through it relatively

[31:51] quickly.

[31:55] Let me know if there is a

[31:55] change or correction that has

[32:00] to get made.

[32:00] Sections 1, two, three anything

[32:06] in those resections and

[32:06] changes?

[32:12] See none, let's go to section 4

[32:12] procedures and handling

[32:13] confidential information.

[32:26] >> when confidential

[32:26] information is used in the

[32:27] hearing parties must have

[32:28] copies for the commissioner,

[32:28] necessary staff and court

[32:29] reporter in red envelope

[32:29] clearly marked with the nature

[32:30] of contents. I staff count that

[32:31] results in approximately 16

[32:31] copies. Any party wishing to

[32:32] examine the confidential

[32:32] material not subject to an

[32:33] order of confidentiality shall

[32:40] be provided in the same fashion

[32:41] as commissioners, subject

[32:42] education of any agreement with

[32:42] the owner of the material.

[32:47] >> yes?

[32:51] Did you have something?

[32:52] >> at the end of the

[32:55] confidentiality paragraph,

[32:55] there is a paragraph that

[32:58] starts out, the conclusion of

[33:00] the portion of the hearing, the

[33:04] second sentence says

[33:05] confidential exhibit has been

[33:07] admitted into evidence.

[33:07] Copy provided to the court

[33:09] recorder shall be retained in

[33:11] the office of commission

[33:14] clerk's file.

[33:19] The reason I bring this up is,

[33:19] on a couple of recent large

[33:22] hearings we had a little bit of

[33:26] controversy about what the

[33:33] official confidential is for

[33:33] purposes of the file. At one

[33:36] point we assumed in the old

[33:40] days of court reporter was a

[33:45] suppository. We were told that

[33:46] we had to provide a copy to the

[33:46] clerk. I want to confirm the

[33:58] court reporter copy will be

[33:58] available.

[33:59] >> it's my understanding that

[34:00] language is added to the

[34:00] prehearing order to address

[34:01] issues that he is referring to

[34:04] . It's my understanding that

[34:08] the confidential document that

[34:09] will be provided to the court

[34:13] reporter will be the official

[34:22] copy maintained by the clerk.

[34:22] >> I appreciate that. I just

[34:23] wanted to confirm. Thank you

[34:23] everyone.

[34:24] >> great. Thank you.

[34:26] We are all on the same page.

[34:31] Awesome, let's move to section

[34:44] 5, the prefiled testimony of

[34:45] exhibits and witnesses.

[34:45] >> staff knows there's a typo

[34:46] in the draft prehearing order

[34:47] or witness summaries of five

[34:47] minutes. Given the number of

[34:48] witnesses that suggest witness

[34:49] ceremony testimony be no longer

[34:49] than three minutes.

[34:50] Both direct and rebuttal

[34:55] testimony should be three

[34:56] minutes for direct entry

[34:56] minutes for rebuttal.

[34:57] >> thank you, are we okay with

[34:58] that?

[35:05] >> yes, the public counsel was

[35:05] brought down by the taxpayers

[35:06] of the state of florida.

[35:13] The company has filed a

[35:18] testimony of 17 witnesses of

[35:23] direct and rebuttal.

[35:24] I feel like that counseling

[35:25] customers are getting penalized

[35:28] we have to cut down our time

[35:29] because of the mass of

[35:32] witnesses the company brings.

[35:33] I am not challenging the

[35:35] company's decision to do that.

[35:37] I would prefer we have no less

[35:37] time.

[35:41] >> okay.

[35:44] Any other further thoughts on

[35:45] that?

[35:53] Are you okay with three

[35:54] minutes?

[35:54] >> yes. This will probably

[35:55] come back again in the next

[35:57] section.

[36:01] We are fine with three minutes.

[36:04] We are going to propose that

[36:06] certain witnesses, civic staff

[36:06] and the commissioner are

[36:10] minimal could be taken up at

[36:15] the same time for direct and

[36:15] rebuttal for purposes of

[36:18] efficiency. In that situation

[36:19] it would be appropriate for the

[36:20] witness to have five minutes to

[36:24] summarize both direct and

[36:25] rebuttal.

[36:27] We are fine with opc having

[36:33] five minutes were there

[36:33] witnesses.

[36:34] In fact I don't want to divide

[36:41] and be any different.

[36:41] Let's go five minutes across

[36:42] the board is what I am leaning

[36:43] on saying.

[36:49] I hope we can run an efficient

[36:50] hearing. I believe we can and

[36:51] we will. That is fine. Let's go

[36:51] ahead and go to five minutes

[36:52] across the board and try to

[36:57] work together to combine when

[36:57] we can.

[37:01] >> absolutely.

[37:07] >> I think that is somewhat

[37:08] settled. Let's move to the

[37:13] order of witnesses.

[37:14] >> there are no stipulations

[37:15] on witness testimony at this

[37:15] time. Parties MAY stipulate

[37:20] before the hearing. If there

[37:21] are stability witnesses that

[37:21] the parties would like to

[37:22] suggest that will confirm with

[37:22] each commissioner that

[37:27] identified witness can be

[37:28] excused. Commissioners don't

[37:29] have questions of this

[37:29] witnesses the witnesses MAY be

[37:30] excused from the hearing and

[37:30] testimonies would be entered

[37:36] into the hearing.

[37:38] >> thoughts or comments?

[37:43] >> yes, commissioner.

[37:44] It came to florida city gas is

[37:44] attention late last week that

[37:48] we have two of her expert

[37:49] witnesses who are scheduled for

[37:49] hearing in another state the

[37:56] same week this hearing is

[37:56] scheduled.

[37:56] We have taken a look at

[37:57] potentially moving them in the

[38:01] witness order. That led to

[38:02] some further discussions about

[38:05] the order of witnesses that we

[38:05] have put together. We have

[38:08] conferred with both public

[38:13] counsel and with faa. I

[38:14] understand we MAY have some

[38:16] alterations of their own.

[38:17] We provided this list to

[38:25] commission staff on friday and

[38:25] there are two main witnesses

[38:26] that have the conflict. We have

[38:30] become up to third and fourth.

[38:30] There are other witnesses that

[38:31] it given the scope of their

[38:32] direct rebuttal we are willing

[38:34] to offer to have their direct

[38:36] and rebuttal taken up at the

[38:41] same time for purposes of

[38:41] efficiency.

[38:47] >> all right, opc?

[38:52] >> the outline of witnesses

[38:57] that the company says is

[39:05] acceptable, will continue to

[39:06] work. The only change we would

[39:20] ask is if MR. Walters and

[39:24] leapfrog, our order would be

[39:25] walter, colin.

[39:25] >> any concern with that?

[39:37] >> number john boehner.

[39:37] [Bell.

[39:53] >> any issues with that?

[39:53] .

[40:00] Let's move on to the basic nts

[40:01] to party 70 changes to the

[40:05] basic positions?

[40:06] >> florida city gas has one

[40:08] numeric change in a basic

[40:09] position on page 9. We can

[40:14] provide that to staff after

[40:14] this.

[40:17] >> any other changes?

[40:20] Can we have that to stop by

[40:20] tomorrow?

[40:21] >> we can have it by end of

[40:26] day today.

[40:26] >> let's go ahead and move to

[40:31] section 8, issues and position.

[40:33] I will go through issues by

[40:33] section. We will proceed

[40:35] through the issues in the order

[40:40] they appear here in the

[40:40] prehearing order any parties

[40:41] have any changes to any

[40:46] positions please speak up at

[40:46] the appropriate time. Staff,

[40:47] any additional comments before

[40:55] we get into issues?

[40:56] >> yes, as noted, a party that

[40:56] takes no issue on a party by

[40:57] the time of the prehearing

[40:57] conference or at a later time

[40:58] presented by the office to

[41:01] conduct cross-examination on a

[41:05] ship, staff originally set for

[41:06] SEPTEMBER 15 as a potential

[41:08] follow-up date.

[41:14] As I understand, opc and seg

[41:14] have discussed extending that

[41:15] to SEPTEMBER 16. There is no

[41:17] objection to that.

[41:22] >> thank you commissioner.

[41:28] The discovery cutoff is

[41:28] wednesday.

[41:37] We took significant number of

[41:37] depositions and the court

[41:38] reporter is working in an

[41:39] expedited case and around the

[41:41] other hearings she has to

[41:45] handle lately.

[41:46] We have a few depositions

[41:48] coming in this week. We think

[41:52] we are allowed to provide our

[41:56] positions no later than the

[41:57] close of business on wednesday,

[41:58] that will give us an optimal

[42:00] amount of time to review

[42:06] deposition transcripts and

[42:07] decide if you need to modify

[42:08] our position. We have several

[42:12] positions that send a position

[42:15] in place of discovery.

[42:18] Will have a great answer on

[42:19] those, and will get a final

[42:24] answer to the commission.

[42:27] If that is acceptable?

[42:28] I have one other thing to state

[42:30] about the issues.

[42:37] I thought I could send it out

[42:37] but the system is holding my

[42:38] message in the mailbox. I have

[42:45] revised order with edits that I

[42:46] will provide all the parties

[42:51] and staff.

[42:51] I will not take your time by

[42:52] commenting on any issues in

[42:54] here because I will provide the

[42:57] revisions I had to staff and

[43:00] parties today with the caveat

[43:02] that if we have an amendment in

[43:05] deposition pending will get

[43:09] those to staff by wednesday if

[43:14] that is okay with you.

[43:15] >> let me think there's any

[43:16] objections. Other objections to

[43:16] be to SEPTEMBER 16 on

[43:17] wednesday?

[43:29] >> that's just to modify that

[43:29] position?

[43:30] >> yes, it is just the ones

[43:32] that talk about pending

[43:35] completion of discovery I will

[43:40] get everything else that we

[43:42] need. We just because few that

[43:50] are selected. Just a handful.

[43:51] >> the company is fine with

[43:55] that.

[43:56] Let's no objection.

[43:56] >> any concerns with that

[43:56] stuff?

[44:01] >> no.

[44:02] >> I will allow that to be

[44:07] reflected.

[44:11] Let's go ahead and go through

[44:12] issues. I will go through the

[44:16] entire blocks and call them

[44:16] out.

[44:17] Speak up if there's any

[44:18] concerns. Starting the test

[44:23] period and test issues 1-5

[44:25] fencing objections let's move

[44:26] to the quality of service which

[44:30] is issue six. Say no

[44:33] objection, let's move to the

[44:35] right base which is issue 7-21.

[44:39] >> will have a modification to

[44:42] issue nine. Anticipate will be

[44:44] able to provide that to staff

[44:47] by close of business today.

[44:56] >> anything else in section

[44:57] 721.

[44:57] It's been a zero cost of

[45:00] capital which is issue six

[45:00] 2230.

[45:05] Seeing that, is meant to

[45:11] operating income if she is

[45:11] 3150.

[45:11] >> florida city gas has a

[45:12] slight modification to the

[45:14] position on the issue 33 and

[45:14] will have that to stop by close

[45:16] of business.

[45:21] >> any other issues or

[45:21] concerns?

[45:25] Let's move to revenue

[45:35] requirements just issues 51-52.

[45:36] None let's move to the cost of

[45:37] service and great design just

[45:44] issues 53-69.

[45:46] On smooches the camera she is

[45:52] which is 70-71.

[45:59] Other issues?

[46:01] Those that were mentioned are

[46:07] noted let's slip to lester

[46:07] staff.

[46:07] >> staff has prepared a

[46:08] comprehensive exhibit list and

[46:11] those exhibits that wish to

[46:12] include in the record. A draft

[46:16] list prior to the hearing to

[46:19] see if there any objections to

[46:19] be entered into the record.

[46:23] >> any changes that list?

[46:25] Thank not, let's move to the

[46:30] proposed stipulations.

[46:31] >> staff is not aware of any

[46:32] public body situations for

[46:33] parties at this time.

[46:33] >> parties?

[46:34] Good?

[46:38] Let's move to sections 11-12

[46:42] pending motions and pending

[46:44] confidentiality motions.

[46:44] >> there are no pending

[46:47] motions except for

[46:48] confidentiality request at this

[46:49] time.

[46:52] Much to seven pending

[46:55] confidentiality motions.

[46:57] Stop all work to address those.

[47:06] >> thank you.

[47:06] Sing order concerns there let's

[47:07] move to section 13 posting

[47:07] procedures. Staff?

[47:08] What certain issues are

[47:08] stipulated to the parties

[47:10] agreed to wait weeks parties

[47:11] agreed to make a bench decision

[47:13] but are ever if there are any

[47:16] positions after the hearing

[47:19] researcher OCTOBER 21, 2026.

[47:22] They shall be no more than 50

[47:22] pages and staff suggest

[47:24] amending that term preorders.

[47:31] >> 100 pages go ahead.

[47:34] >> we appreciate 100 pages.

[47:36] Michener, I would ask that the

[47:42] word limit or positions of the

[47:44] amended to 75 words.

[47:47] 75 words is customary up I am

[47:51] not mistaken.

[47:53] I would also vastly be willing

[47:59] to add sentence after the word,

[48:03] it says each party MAY provide

[48:08] a position that 225 words on up

[48:12] to two dishes of its choosing.

[48:12] The reason I suggest that since

[48:17] there are often times case that

[48:18] has been complicated like this

[48:20] one. There MAY be selected

[48:25] issues that take a little bit

[48:32] to synthesize a position as of

[48:33] the this is been done on

[48:36] occasion in the past.

[48:41] We can pick any two that we

[48:41] want.

[48:47] We can have a little bit longer

[48:47] discussion.

[48:48] I would ask your indulgence for

[48:54] us to be able to achieve the.

[48:54] >> I will take that under

[48:55] advisement and talk to my staff

[48:57] about that and it will be

[48:58] reflected on the decision I

[49:00] make in the final order.

[49:05] Is there anything else?

[49:10] Okay, thank you.

[49:10] >> that sentence will be in

[49:17] the document.

[49:22] >> okay, excellent.

[49:22] Step is that okay to proceed

[49:24] that way?

[49:26] >> that is fine.

[49:29] Let's move to rulings in

[49:33] section 14.

[49:33] >> staff recommends you make a

[49:35] ruling that opening statements

[49:35] should not exceed five minutes

[49:40] per party.

[49:41] >> are all partisan agreements

[49:41] of five minutes?

[49:43] I think we are good.

[49:52] >> the public counsel would

[49:55] ask, this is not the case of a

[49:59] bigger electric case or even

[49:59] the case we had last time we

[50:01] had more parties.

[50:05] The public counsel and company

[50:11] are the ones that would carry

[50:12] most of the time on opening

[50:14] statements. I don't think, I

[50:21] briefly discussed it with fda,

[50:21] I don't think they have a lot

[50:23] of arguments.

[50:27] This case presents a very

[50:33] interesting issues that are

[50:36] novel.

[50:38] We would ask that we be given,

[50:43] I would suggest 10 minutes.

[50:43] That is the request of the

[50:44] public.

[50:51] >> karen 10 minutes let me go

[50:52] to the other parties, did he

[50:52] recall that let's hear from

[50:52] you.

[50:53] >> no objection, will be brief

[50:54] with our matters, but it others

[50:54] want to take longer that is

[50:54] fine.

[50:59] >> of course we will abide by

[51:00] whatever you decide.

[51:05] >> thank you, the feeling we

[51:08] will net the same amount of

[51:08] time.

[51:16] Go ahead and call it 10

[51:16] minutes.

[51:17] Congratulations getting your 10

[51:17] minutes of opening statements.

[51:18] Are there any other matters

[51:20] that need to be addressed in

[51:21] the prehearing conference?

[51:22] >> commissioner, I apologize.

[51:24] I do have one other request for

[51:33] you to consider.

[51:33] And that would be the date per

[51:34] provision for exhibits is

[51:37] identified as SEPTEMBER 22,

[51:38] given some of the extensions in

[51:43] the amount of discovery, and

[51:44] the stock we ask that be

[51:47] extended to the 24th.

[51:56] >> staff, let me ask you on

[51:56] the calendar.

[52:02] >> we typically aim for week

[52:02] for provisioning of exhibits.

[52:03] Maybe not to the 24th gives two

[52:03] business days before the

[52:07] hearing begins.

[52:07] It would be the close of

[52:08] business on the 24th. That

[52:13] gives one business day.

[52:14] >> that my understandings are

[52:20] typically cross-examination

[52:20] exhibits.

[52:20] I would not anticipate this

[52:24] would be all documents, at

[52:28] least for me.

[52:29] >> I'm not sure he could say

[52:32] the same for everyone.

[52:42] >> public counsel I don't

[52:46] think, in the past many people

[52:58] have lengthy exhibits.

[52:59] that would take a lot of the

[53:04] typical volume of exhibits.

[53:04] I have been putting my exhibits

[53:07] together for the hearing for a

[53:10] couple weeks now.

[53:10] I can represent year we will

[53:14] not have the volume you have

[53:24] seen in the past.

[53:25] You have 50 or so, maybe a bit

[53:26] more than that. It will not be,

[53:35] I can tell you, I would support

[53:45] the company's quest.

[53:45] This case has generated a lot

[53:46] of discovery. The company has

[53:56] been extremely, the word is

[53:57] they have worked with us to

[54:02] make sure the discoveries

[54:02] answered.

[54:07] I have not been rigid about the

[54:08] limits. We have done a lot of

[54:11] depositions in this case.

[54:16] It is very well litigated.

[54:19] The discovery has been

[54:19] thorough.

[54:22] Which I think helps narrow down

[54:23] a number of exhibits. I can

[54:25] represent to you commissioner,

[54:27] the volume will not be anything

[54:32] like what you might have seen.

[54:38] We will be judicious about it.

[54:39] I hope the group but the

[54:40] commission staff in the lurch.

[54:43] >> staff is able to

[54:46] accommodate that, however we

[54:47] request instead of close of

[54:54] business on thursday we make it

[54:55] 10 on thursday so we can

[55:00] incorporate everything.

[55:00] >> does that sound like a

[55:03] compromise?

[55:03] >> yes it does.

[55:03] > we are

[55:09] going to say 24th, 10 am.

[55:09] >> commissioner, if I can say

[55:11] one other thing just following

[55:13] that, the word I was looking

[55:19] for that was escaping me was

[55:19] cooperative.

[55:20] His hearing conference for a

[55:21] case that is been this

[55:24] contentious in terms of the way

[55:27] testimony has proceeded,

[55:29] discovery has proceeded has

[55:33] been done the right way.

[55:34] I think a complement should go

[55:37] to the company or the way they

[55:40] have handled things.

[55:43] I have been very zealous in

[55:46] their efficacy. Staff also

[55:51] reached out and we had a timely

[55:52] issue identification. For the

[55:55] first time I think of her

[55:55] results issues without having

[55:58] to take it to you, the

[56:00] prehearing officer for

[56:00] resolution.

[56:02] That says a lot about the way

[56:07] your staff was engaged in the

[56:11] way the party is cooperated.

[56:12] I wanted to let you know that I

[56:18] felt like this is been done

[56:18] right.

[56:22] I appreciate you giving us the

[56:23] time.

[56:23] >> sure. I appreciate everyone

[56:25] acting professional and working

[56:31] in a collaborative manner. Our

[56:32] staff works extremely hard five

[56:33] appreciate them. I am so

[56:34] thankful that they had to get

[56:37] to me yet at least.

[56:41] Thank you and I look forward to

[56:47] a smooth hearing.

[56:48] Staff, I have lots right hand.

[56:48] Am I on other matters?

[56:52] >> yes, there are no other

[56:54] action steps perspective. The

[56:56] parties have reached a

[56:56] conclusion.

[57:00] >> any other business?

[57:01] I will go ahead and call this

[57:05] prehearing adjourned. I look

[57:06] forward to seeing everybody

[57:07] here soon. Thank you for your

[57:11] professional matter.

[57:17] >> thank you, commissioner.

Prehearing: 20260026-GU

Agenda

Transcript