Case Number: 11-0767

  • 09/19/2014
    Filing - Report

    Report pursuant to the Order of Illinois-American Water Company, filed. (Electronic)
  • 03/19/2014
    Filing - Report

    BT Cost Report for Illinois-American Water Company, filed. (Electronic)
  • 09/19/2013
    Filing - Report

    BT Cost Report for Illinois-American Water Company filed. (electronic)
  • 03/19/2013
    Filing - Report

    Cost Report on behalf Illinois-American Water Company, filed. (Electronic)
  • 11/09/2012
    Service - Commission Action

    Notice of Commission Action served electronically to parties advising of the action of the Commission on November 8, 2012.
  • 11/08/2012
    Commission Action - General

    The Commission in conference DENIED the Application for Rehearing of Illinois-American Water Company, filed on October 22, 2012.
  • 10/25/2012
    Service - Commission Action

    Notice of Commission Action served electronically to parties advising of the action of the Commission on October 24, 2012.
  • 10/24/2012
    Commission Action - General

    The Commission in conference DENIED the Verified Application for Rehearing of the People of the State of Illinois, filed on October 18, 2012.
  • 10/22/2012
    Filing - Petition for Rehearing

    Application for Rehearing of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 10/18/2012
    Filing - Petition for Rehearing

    Verified Application for Rehearing of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 09/25/2012
    Transcript - Received

    ORAL ARGUMENT Transcript - September 11, 2012, received.
  • 09/20/2012
    Service - Order

    Copy of Final Order served electronically to parties.
  • 09/19/2012
    Order Entered - Final

    Final Order entered.
  • 09/11/2012
    Oral Argument - Heard and Taken Under Advisement

    Oral Argument Heard by the Commission and Taken under Advisement.
  • 09/07/2012
    Service - Notice

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge of the Attached schedule for Oral Argument. Parties advised electronically.
  • 09/05/2012
    Service - Notice

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge of the instructions set out by the Illinois Commerce Commission (¡§Commission¡¨) with respect to Oral Argument for Docket No. 11-0767, Illinois-American Water Company¡¦s proposed general increase in water and sewer rates. Oral Argument is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 11:00 A.M. in Springfield. Consistent with Section 200.850(b) of the Rules of Practice, Oral Argument will be limited to parties having filed briefs in this Docket. In addition to the requirements contained in Section 200.850(c) of the Rules of Practice, the Commission herein sets the following additional guidelines:
    (1) The scope of Oral Argument is as follows:
    „h IAWC¡¦s authorized rate of return; „h The applicability of Section 9-230 of the PUA to IAWC¡¦s proposed capital structure. (2) Each party presenting Oral Argument will have 15 minutes to present on any or all of the oral argument topics. The allotted time includes Commissioner questions and responses from counsel. Parties may reserve time for rebuttal. Unless parties have filed joint briefs in this Docket, parties are prohibited from pooling or sharing their time allotment.
    (3) Irrespective of the issues listed above, the parties should be prepared to answer any question regarding the record or the pertinent law. (4) Parties intending to present Oral Argument must notify Brian Granahan (bgranahan@icc.illinois.gov) and ALJ Jones (ljones@icc.illinois.gov) with a list of attorneys presenting Oral Argument, and on which topics presentations will be made, by 12:00 P.M. on Friday, September 7, 2012. (5) Parties presenting arguments shall provide Mr. Granahan and ALJ Jones with exhibits, if any, that will be used for Oral Argument by 12:00 P.M. on Friday, September 7, 2012. (6) If an attorney is in need of an accommodation for any visual aid, counsel must inform Mr. Granahan and ALJ Jones by 12:00 P.M. on Friday, September 7, 2012, as to the specifics of the accommodation needed. Notice served electronically to parties.
  • 08/30/2012
    Service - Notice

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge that the Oral Argument is scheduled for September 11, 2012, in Springfield, at 11:00 A.M. Notice served electronically to parties.
  • 08/24/2012
    Service - Commission Action

    Notice of Commission Action served electronically to parties advising of the action of the Commission on August 21, 2012.
  • 08/21/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    Reply Brief on Exceptions of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 08/21/2012
    Commission Action - General

    The Commission in conference GRANTED the Request for Oral Argument, filed by Illinois-American Water Company on August 13, 2012.
  • 08/20/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    Reply Brief on Exceptions of the Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission, filed. (Electronic)
  • 08/20/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    The Cities of Champaign and Urbana, the Villages of Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney, and Philo and the Embarras Area Water District's Reply Brief on Exceptions, filed by Balough Law Offices, LLC. (Electronic)
  • 08/20/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    Illinois Industrial Water Consumers and the Federal Executive Agencies' Reply Brief on Exceptions, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 08/20/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    Reply Brief on Exceptions of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 08/20/2012
    Briefs - Reply to Exceptions

    Reply Brief on Exceptions of the Village of Bolingbrook, filed by Tressler LLP. (Electronic)
  • 08/14/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    Brief on Exceptions of the Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission, filed. (Electronic)
  • 08/14/2012
    Filing - Response

    Verified Response (by letter) of Administrative Law Judge's Post Record Data, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP on behalf of Illinois-American Water Company. (Electronic)
  • 08/13/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    Brief on Exceptions of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED (Electronic)
  • 08/13/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    Illinois Industrial Water Consumers and the Federal Executive Agencies' Brief on Exceptions, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 08/13/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    Brief on Exceptions of the Village of Bolingbrook, filed by Tressler LLP. (Electronic)
  • 08/13/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    The Cities of Champaign and Urbana, the Villages of Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney, and Philo and the Embarras Area Water District's Brief on Exceptions with Proposed Substitute Language, filed by Balough Law Offices, LLC. (Electronic)
  • 08/13/2012
    Briefs - On Exceptions

    Exceptions and Brief on Exceptions on Behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 08/02/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given of the following ruling by the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to 83 Ill. Adm. Code 200.875, whereby the Administrative Law Judge issues this post-record data request for certain calculations and numerical analyses: For each water and sewer rate district whose rates would be affected by this proceeding, Illinois American Water Company (“IAWC”) is directed to provide a set of schedules showing the rates, by rate classification, that would result if the conclusions in the Proposed Order affecting revenue requirement, cost of service and rate design were adopted. IAWC is directed to provide a set of schedules, for each water and sewer district, showing a "typical bill" for the residential rate classification under the conclusions contained in the Proposed Order. For each typical bill schedule, IAWC shall identify the typical residential customer usage assumptions used in the calculations. For each existing rate district, the percentage change in the typical residential bill from that applicable under existing rates shall be provided as well. For each of the other rate classifications, IAWC is directed to provide a set of schedules calculating the percentage change in revenues, for each existing rate district, under the conclusions contained in the Proposed Order. At its discretion, IAWC may provide additional schedules showing typical bills for residential customers using relatively low amounts of utility service and relatively high amounts of utility service for each rate district and rate classification. If IAWC elects to provide such additional schedules, it shall identify the assumed usage level in the schedules provided. Other Parties are permitted to provide a response to this ruling containing the calculations and analyses described above. The filing date for all responses to this ruling, and any replies to responses, are August 14, 2012 and August 21, 2012, respectively. All responses and replies thereto shall be verified and filed with the Commission, and shall not exceed the scope of content described above. Copies thereof shall be served electronically on other Parties and (in Word format) on the Administrative Law Judge by 5:00 P.M. on the date of filing. Notice served electronically to parties.
  • 07/31/2012
    Service - Proposed Order

    Proposed Order served electronically to parties.
  • 07/11/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Revised Reply Brief of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 07/02/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Corrected Reply Brief of the Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/29/2012
    Filing - Appearance

    Appearance by Embarras Area Water District, filed by Balough Law Offices, LLC. (Electronic)
  • 06/29/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    The Cities of Champaign and Urbana and the Villages of Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney, and Philo, and the Embarras Area Water District's Reply Brief, filed by Balough Law Offices, P.C. (Electronic)
  • 06/29/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Reply Brief of the Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/29/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Reply Brief of Intervenor, Village of Bolingbrook, filed by Tressler LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/29/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Reply Brief of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/28/2012
    Briefs - Reply/Response

    Reply Brief on behalf of the Illinois Industrial Water Consumers and the Federal Executive Agencies, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 06/19/2012
    Filing - Notice

    Illinois-American Water Company's Suggested Corrections to the May 15-17, 2012 Hearing Transcript, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    Initial Brief of the Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    Initial Brief and Argument of the Intervenor, The Village of Bolingbrook, filed by Tressler LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    Initial Brief of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    Initial Brief of the Illinois Industrial Water Consumers and the Federal Executive Agencies, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    The Cities of Champaign and Urbana and the Villages Of Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney and Philo’s Initial Brief, filed by Balough Law Office, LLC. (Electronic)
  • 06/15/2012
    Briefs - Initial

    Initial Brief of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/08/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge that Illinois-American Water Company (“IAWC”) filed a “Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith” (“Motion to Strike” or “Motion”). Mr. Smith is an expert witness called by the People of the State of Illinois (“Attorney General” or “AG”). A ruling on the Motion was issued on May 25, 2012. With respect to some of the passages of testimony that were the subject of the Motion – including lines 2155 through 2179 of AG Exhibit 2.0 and lines 1051 through 1059 of AG Exhibit 4.0 – IAWC and the AG were given leave to file, and did file, supplemental responses updating their arguments based on evidence adduced at the hearings. In its supplemental response, filed June 5, 2012, IAWC continues to object to lines 2155 through 2179 of Mr. Smith’s direct testimony, AG Exhibit 2.0. In its Motion, IAWC took issue, among other things, with Mr. Smith’s failure to provide a citation for the Georgia Public Service Commission order to which he referred. As noted by the AG, that order was identified at the hearing during IAWC’s cross-examination of Mr. Smith.
    In its Motion, IAWC also argued -- and continues to argue, citing portions of Mr. Smith’s cross-examination testimony -- that the testimony on lines 2155 through 2179 is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible because there was no showing of comparability.
    Disagreements over comparability are relatively common in Commission proceedings, sometimes arising when orders or decisions from other jurisdictions, or other Commission orders, are cited in expert testimony. Other times such orders or decisions are cited in briefs. Usually, such issues do not involve the striking of testimony or argument. At this point in the instant proceeding, the better course is to allow Mr. Smith’s testimony into the record, where it can be assessed by the Commission along with the cross-examination testimony, and any other evidence, or arguments in the briefs, pertaining to it. The objections go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs. Regarding lines 1051 through 1059 of AG Exhibit 4.0, the motion is denied. Generally speaking, it is appropriate to allow the expert witness to compare a determination on the issue in decisions by other public utility commissions, in cases involving affiliates of IAWC, to that proposed by IAWC. Although IAWC’s criticism about Mr. Smith’s failure to provide citations in his rebuttal testimony is not without merit, it is observed that at the hearing, IAWC’s witness also provided testimony, without citations, about what other states have decided on the issue. The objections go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs. Parties advised electronically.
  • 06/05/2012
    Briefs - Supplemental

    Supplemental Brief in Support of Illinois-American Water Company's Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 06/05/2012
    Filing - Opposition

    People of the State of Illinois Supplemental Opposition to IAWC’S Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/05/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Joint Motion of Illinois-American Water Company and the Office of the Attorney General Regarding Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed. (Electronic)
  • 06/01/2012
    Transcript - Received

    Transcript - May 17, 2012, received.
  • 05/31/2012
    Transcript - Received

    Transcript - May 16, 2012, received.
  • 05/30/2012
    Transcript - Received

    Transcript - May 15, 2012 received.
  • 05/25/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice of Administrative Law Judge's Ruling served electronically to parties advising that Illinois-American Water Company (“IAWC”) filed a “Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith” (“Motion to Strike” or “Motion”). IAWC therein raises a number of objections, including failure to show comparability, to specified portions of Mr. Smith’s direct and rebuttal testimony. Mr. Smith is an expert witness called by the People of the State of Illinois, by the Illinois Attorney General (“AG”). The AG filed a response in opposition to the Motion. IAWC filed a reply thereto.
    The AG argues, among other things, “Almost all of the disputed testimony relates to public documents produced in the context of public rate case proceeding in a sister state where IAWC’s affiliates fully participated[,]” and that “[t]he portions of testimony that IAWC moves to strike are highly relevant.” (AG response at 1-2)
    According to the AG, Mr. Smith “offers expert accounting testimony that addresses, inter alia, substantial increases to ratepayers for Business Transformation operating expenses, and various tax and accounting decisions sought by IAWC that Mr. Smith appropriately reviewed for reasonableness and prudence. In considering how to address these complex issues, Mr. Smith reviewed various sources, including the decisions of other commissions in sister states that decided similar questions presented by IAWC’s sister companies.” (Id. at 9-10) The AG also argues, “Mr. Smith can fairly present and rely on information provided about the same project by other AWWA affiliates in making his recommendations.” The AG adds, “This is material that a reasonable and prudent regulatory accountant is entitled to rely on and present to the Commission.” (Id. at 3) The testimony and arguments have been reviewed. One difficulty with the “rely on and present” argument is that the phrase seems to blur, at least to some degree, the distinction between the two terms within it. In forming opinions or inferences, an expert may rely on facts, data or opinions of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, even if those facts, data or opinions are not admissible in evidence. Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186 (1981); People v. Shinohara, 375 Ill. App 3d 85 (2007).
    However, the facts, data or opinions reasonably relied on by an expert are not by virtue thereof substantive evidence. That is, reliance by an expert on facts, data or opinions, even if appropriate, does not somehow make those relied-upon items admissible. Rather, reasonably relied-upon facts, data or opinions constitute substantive evidence only if otherwise admitted into evidence. Thus, the facts, data or opinions relied upon by the expert but not otherwise admitted may be considered in assessing the appropriate weight to be accorded the expert’s opinion but not for their truth. People v. Scott, 148 Ill. 2d 479 (1992); City of Chicago v. Anthony, 136 Ill. 2d 169 (1990). (See also, Cleary and Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence, 9th Edition, §703.1) In this case, there is not very much argument regarding the reliance/admissibility distinction discussed above, which complicates the process of analyzing the arguments and making a ruling. For example, it is not altogether clear from the arguments whether or to what extent IAWC’s objections relate to Mr. Smith’s reliance on the documents in question, or conversely, whether or to what extent the AG’s claims that the testimony is admissible is attributable to the witness’ reliance on them. In addition, there was evidence adduced at the hearings that pertains to some portions of the testimony at issue.
    In any event, from a review of the testimony, it appears that the items relied upon by Mr. Smith are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. As such, his testimony reflecting his reliance on them, regardless of their admissibility, will not be stricken. Any objections to such reliance go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs. As indicated above, however, the facts, data or opinions reasonably relied on by an expert are not by virtue thereof substantive evidence.
    Several of the objections relate to testimony about a pending California proceeding. Mr. Smith’s testimony addresses the treatment of costs associated with a “business transformation project.” (AG 2.0 at lines 589-595, 859-905; AG 4.0 at lines 207-236) The portions to which IAWC objects consist in part of summaries of or excerpts from testimony – not presented by IAWC or an affiliate -- and a proposed decision in the California proceeding. This testimony from Mr. Smith is not admitted for the substance or truth thereof. The admissibility of those items for such purposes has not been established over IAWC’s hearsay objection. Another set of objections relates to testimony about cash working capital. (AG Ex. 2.0 at lines 1240-1243, 1264-1283; AG 4.0 at lines 454-527 and AG Exhibit 2.3 at pages 39-47) IAWC asserts in part that portions of this disputed testimony and Exhibit 2.3 discuss or include discovery responses in a proceeding in Pennsylvania. It is not clear from the filings whether these responses, attributed to an affiliate of IAWC, were part of the evidentiary record in that proceeding. Parties are given until June 4, 2012 to file supplemental responses on this point if they wish to do so. With regard to the full sentence beginning on line 483 of Exhibit 4.0, and the one beginning on line 491 of Exhibit 4.0 which first appeared on line 1280 of Exhibit 2.0, the parties are given until June 4, 2012 to file supplemental responses to update their arguments based on evidence adduced at the hearings in Docket 11-0767, if they wish to do so. IAWC moves to strike lines 2133 through 2153 in AG Exhibit 2.0, as well as lines 966 through 978 and lines 987 through 991 of AG Exhibit 4.0 which are part of Mr. Smith’s testimony about the “Domestic Production Activities [Tax] Deduction.” The motion is denied with respect to these passages. While not technically involving an admission, it nevertheless seems appropriate under the circumstances to allow the expert witness to compare a position on the issue purportedly taken on the record by a water utility affiliate of IAWC in the cited proceeding to that proposed by IAWC in this proceeding. The objections go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs. IAWC also moves to strike lines 2155 through 2179 in AG Exhibit 2.0, on this issue. There was cross examination on this testimony in the current docket. The parties are given until June 4, 2012 to file supplemental responses to update their arguments based on evidence adduced at the hearings in Docket 11-0767, if they wish to do so.
    IAWC moves to strike lines 622-625, 628-633 and 645-669 in AG Exhibit 4.0. These lines are part of Mr. Smith’s testimony about “Accumulated Deferred Income Tax – Repairs Deduction.” The motion is denied with respect to lines 628-633. It is appropriate to allow the expert witness to compare a determination on the issue in a cited decision by the West Virginia Public Service Commission in a case involving an affiliate of IAWC to that proposed by IAWC. The objections go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs.
    The motion is also denied with respect to lines 622-625 and 645-669. While not technically involving an admission, it nevertheless seems appropriate under the circumstances to allow the expert witness to compare a position on the issue purportedly taken on the record by a water utility affiliate of IAWC in the cited proceeding to that proposed by IAWC in this proceeding. The objections go to the weight, which may be further argued in the briefs. IAWC moves to strike lines 1051-1059 in AG Exhibit 4.0. These passages are part of Mr. Smith’s testimony about “‘Separate Return’ and ‘Consolidated Tax Savings’ Concepts.” Additional evidence on the issue was adduced at the hearings. The parties are given until June 4, 2012 to file supplemental responses to update their arguments based on evidence adduced at the hearings in Docket 11-0767, if they wish to do so.
  • 05/24/2012
    Transcript - Received

    Transcript - May 10, 2012, received.
  • 05/17/2012
    Filing - Response

    Staff Group Cross Exhibit 2.0 Stipulated Documents and Data Request Responses, filed. (Electronic)
  • 05/15/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge that in its Initiating Order in Docket No. 10-0366, the Commission ordered that an audit be conducted by an independent firm “to compare the cost of each service currently obtained [by Illinois-American Water Company, or “IAWC”] from the Service Company to the cost of such services if the services were obtained through competitive bidding or on the open market.” Steps and procedures to be followed were set forth in the Initiating Order. The Audit was conducted by NorthStar Consulting Group (“NorthStar”). On January 11, 2012, the “Final Report, Management Audit of the Fees Assessed to Illinois-American Water Company by Its Affiliated Service Company” (“Audit Report”) prepared by NorthStar was filed on e-docket in Docket 10-0366. On May 11, 2012, in the IAWC rate proceeding, Docket No. 11-0767, a “Joint Motion of ICC Staff and the People of the State of Illinois [“Movants”] for Entry of Evidence” (“Motion”) was filed. Movants therein request that the Audit Report be entered into the evidentiary record of Docket 11-0767.
    In support of and as authority for their motion, Movants cite the following language from Paragraph 7 on page 5 of the Initiating Order: Process of moving Audit findings/results into evidentiary record in future proceedings, permissible bases for party litigation about what may be admitted into evidentiary record:
    a. Parties to any subsequent proceeding in which the Audit results are presented may contest the validity and correctness of Audit findings and their rate case revenue requirement impacts, but may not object to the Auditor’s report becoming part of the evidentiary record. b. Staff and all parties in any subsequent proceeding in which the Audit results are presented may introduce evidence from their own witnesses in addressing or contesting the Auditor’s evidence. In a response filed May 14, 2012, IAWC expressed numerous objections to the Motion. Movants jointly filed a reply to IAWC’s response on May 14, 2012. In its response, IAWC argues, among other things, that the references in Paragraph 7 to “Audit results” or “Audit findings/results” are intended to mean “Commission results” or “Commission Audit Results” made by the Commission at the conclusion of the proceeding in Docket 10-0366 -- results that “do not yet exist” -- rather than to results contained in the Audit Report. That is, “Docket 10-0366 has not concluded,” and there have been no Audit results or findings within the context of Paragraph 7. (IAWC Response at 3-7). IAWC also asserts in part that because there are no “Commission Audit Results” in Docket 10-0366, “this rate case is not a ‘subsequent’ or ‘future’ proceeding as contemplated by the Initiating Order in Docket No. 10-0366” and that no such audit results have been or could be “presented.” (Id.)
    The filings by IAWC and Movants have been reviewed, as has the Initiating Order. The problem with IAWC’s position is that it is not supported by the plain language in the Commission’s Initiating Order. There the references at issue are to “Audit results” and “Audit findings”-- not to “Commission Audit Results” or to “Commission findings,” “Commission results” or other wording commonly used in referring to findings or determinations made in a Commission order. As such, it is reasonable to assume the references to “Audit results” and “Audit findings” are to those contained in the Audit Report filed in Docket 10-0366, which does include
    “Results.” With regard to whether Docket 11-0767 is a “subsequent” or “future” proceeding as contemplated by the Initiating Order in Docket No. 10-0366, the Commission also observes that Docket 10-0366 was initiated on June 2, 2010, while the rate filing in Docket 11-0767 was made on October 27, 2011. When this information is considered along with the determinations made above, it is reasonable to view Docket 11-0767 as a subsequent proceeding relative to Docket 10-0366 within the context of the Initiating Order. Accordingly, by virtue of Paragraph 7(a) of the Initiating Order in Docket 10-0366, IAWC “may not object to the Auditor’s report becoming part of the evidentiary record” in 11-0767. That being the case, IAWC’s objections to the Motion -- other than the threshold ones addressed above -- may not be relied upon in this ruling to deny the Motion to admit the Audit Report into the evidentiary record in Docket 11-0767. Therefore, the Motion to admit the Audit Report into the evidentiary record in Docket 11-0767 is granted pursuant to the Initiating Order in Docket 10-0366, subject to normal procedural rules in Section 200.670 and other sections in the Rules of Practice.
    If it wishes, IAWC will be permitted to provide a response to the Audit report. The form and timing of it are questions not reached in this ruling. Parties advised electronically.
  • 05/14/2012
    Filing - Errata

    Fourth Errata to the Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Testimony of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 05/14/2012
    Filing - Response

    Response of Illinois-American Water Company to Joint Motion of ICC Staff and the People of the State of Illinois for Entry of Evidence, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 05/14/2012
    Filing - Reply

    Illinois-American Water Company’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 05/14/2012
    Filing - Reply

    Joint Reply of ICC Staff and the People of the State of Illinois to IAWC’s Response to the Joint Motion for Entry of Evidence, filed. (Electronic)
  • 05/11/2012
    Filing - Motion

    People of the State of Illinois Opposition to IAWC’S Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed. (Electronic)
  • 05/11/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given by the Administrative Law Judge that the “Motion for Entry of a Protective Order” filed on behalf of Illinois-American Water Company is granted except as provided below: Paragraph 18: Terms regarding a party’s “right to pursue all legal and equitable remedies” are not adopted as part of the protective order. Whether such terms are otherwise appropriate as between the parties is a question that is not reached in this ruling. Paragraph 19: Designations of Confidential Information shall be made in good faith. Blanket designations made without consideration of the nature of the specific information being designated shall not be utilized. Whether other terms are appropriate as between the parties is a question that is not reached in this ruling. The provisions in the Commission’s Rules of Practice, such as those governing the submission of public redacted versions, and the identification on the proprietary copy of the specific information that has been claimed to be confidential, remain fully applicable. Further rulings will be issued as are deemed appropriate. Notice served electronically to parties.
  • 05/11/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Joint Motion of ICC Staff and the People of the State of Illinois for Entry of Evidence, filed. (Electronic)
  • 05/11/2012
    Filing - Errata

    Third Errata to the Direct, Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Testimony of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 05/10/2012
    Hearing Report - Heard and Continued

    Heard by Administrative Law Judge Jones and continued to May 15, 2012, in Springfield, at 10:00 A.M.
  • 05/10/2012
    Hearing Report - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Petition for Leave to Intervene filed on behalf of the Village of Bolingbrook was granted.
  • 05/10/2012
    Transcript - Pending

    Transcript pending.
  • 05/07/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Illinois-American Water Company's Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Ralph C. Smith, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 04/30/2012
    Filing - Response

    Bond-Madison Water Company's Response to Rebuttal Testimony of Paul R. Herbert, filed by Silver Lake Group, Ltd. (mailed by USPS - April 27, 2012)
  • 04/12/2012
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Petition for Leave to Intervene of the University of Illinois, as a member of Illinois Industrial Water Consumers, filed. (Electronic)
  • 03/22/2012
    Service - Order

    Copy of Resuspension Order served electronically to parties.
  • 03/21/2012
    Order Entered - Resuspension

    Resuspension Order entered.
  • 03/16/2012
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Petition for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Village of Bolingbrook, filed by Tressler LLP. (Electronic)
  • 03/09/2012
    Filing - Appearance

    Additional Appearance on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, filed. (Electronic)
  • 03/09/2012
    Filing - Errata

    Second Errata to Direct Testimony of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 02/29/2012
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Petition for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Bond-Madison Water Company, filed by Silver Lake Group, Ltd. (Hand Delivered)
  • 02/29/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Motion for Leave for Appearance of Bond-Madison Water Company, filed by siler Lake Group, Ltd. (Hand Delivered)
  • 02/28/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Federal Executive Agencies Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, filed. (Electronic)
  • 02/27/2012
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Federal Executive Agencies Petition for Leave to Intervene, filed by USAF Utility Law Field Support Center. (Electronic)
  • 02/24/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice hereby given of the ruling by the Administrative Law Judge that the specific scheduling change identified and requested in the “People of the State of Illinois’s Reply to IAWC’s Response to the People’s Motion to Compel Discovery,” which applies only to the Attorney General’s expert accounting witness, is approved. Parties advised electronically.
  • 02/23/2012
    Filing - Reply

    Staff Reply to Illinois-American Water Company's Response in Opposition to Staff's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed. (Electronic)
  • 02/23/2012
    Filing - Reply

    The People of the State of Illinois’s Reply to IAWC’s Response to the People’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed. (Electronic)
  • 02/22/2012
    Filing - Response

    Illinois-American Water Company's Response in Opposition to the Attorney General’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 02/21/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given of the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the due dates for the filing by Parties of any responses to the “People of the State of Illinois’ Motion to Compel Discovery … and Request to Reschedule Staff and Intervenor Direct Testimony,” and any replies to such responses, are February 22, 2012 and February 23, 2012, respectively. Copies of such filings shall be served electronically on other Parties and (in Word format) on the Administrative Law Judge by 5:00 P.M. on the date of filing. Parties advised electronically.
  • 02/21/2012
    Filing - Response

    Illinois-American Water Company's Response in Opposition to Staff's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 02/17/2012
    Service - Administrative Law Judge Ruling

    Notice given of the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling that the due dates for the filing by Parties of any responses to the “Staff Motion to Compel Discovery,” and any replies to such responses, are February 21, 2012 and February 23, 2012, respectively. Copies of such filings shall be served on other Parties and (in Word format) on the Administrative Law Judge by 5:00 P.M. on the date of filing. Parties advised electronically.
  • 02/17/2012
    Filing - Motion

    The People of the State of Illinois’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Illinois-American Water Company and Request to Reschedule Staff and Intervenor Direct Testimony, filed. (Electronic)
  • 02/16/2012
    Filing - Motion

    Staff Motion to Compel Discovery, filed. (Electronic)
  • 02/16/2012
    Filing - Errata

    Errata to Direct Testimony of Illinois-American Water Company, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP. (Electronic)
  • 02/08/2012
    Filing - Notice

    Notice of Change of Address and Firm Affiliation, filed by Whitt Sturtevant LLP on behalf of Illinois-American Water Company. (Electronic)
  • 01/26/2012
    Transcript - Received

    Transcript - January 11, 2012, received.
  • 01/11/2012
    Hearing Report - Heard and Continued

    Heard by Administrative Law Judge Jones and continued to May 10, 2012, in Springfield, at 2:00 P.M.
  • 01/11/2012
    Transcript - Pending

    Transcript pending.
  • 01/10/2012
    Filing - Appearance

    Joint Appearance of the Cities of Champaign and Urbana, and the Villages of Savoy, St. Joseph, Sidney, and Philo, filed by Balough Law Offices, LLC. (Electronic)
  • 12/30/2011
    Service - Setting/Prehearing Conference

    Set for Prehearing Conference by the Administrative Law Judge on January 11, 2012, in Springfield at 10:00 A.M. Notice mailed to parties. (Notice also mailed to Clerks of Municipalities served by Illinois-American Water Company)
  • 12/29/2011
    Filing - Report

    Report of Deficiencies, filed by Illinois-American Water Company. (Electronic)
  • 12/20/2011
    Filing - Appearance

    Entry of Appearance of Illinois-American Water Company, filed. (Electronic)
  • 12/20/2011
    Filing - Motion

    Motion for Entry of a Protective Order, filed by Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP on behalf of Illinois-American Water Company. (Electronic)
  • 12/16/2011
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Verified Petition to Intervene of Air Products & Chemicals Company, as a member of the Illinois Industrial Water Consumers, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 12/12/2011
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    Petition for Leave to Intervene on behalf of United States Steel Corporation-Granite City Works, as a member of the Illinois Industrial Water Consumers, filed by Lueders Robertson & Konzen. (Electronic)
  • 12/12/2011
    Filing - Petition to Intervene

    People of the State of Illinois' Verified Petition to Intervene, filed. (Electronic)
  • 12/09/2011
    Filing - Appearance

    Appearance of Counsel filed by Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP on behalf of Illinois-American Water Company. (electronic)


  • 12/08/2011
    Service - Order

    Copy of Suspension Order electronically served to parties.
  • 12/07/2011
    Order Entered - Suspension

    Suspension Order entered.