2007-05-24 TIBBETSON_2_ - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to me a little earlier that maybe our process would be that each of you do your own preparation, and submit what you prepare to the other party as well as to the Commission, and then according to our Administrative Procedures Act, there is like a 15-day time in which you have an opportunity to make Exceptions to what the other party has come forward with. And then maybe those Findings plus those Exceptions can all be brought back to the Commission, and then we could take action thereafter at an appropriate meeting. I see you nodding your head, Mr. Matsukawa. Does it seem okay by you? MATSUKAWA: Yes, that would be an acceptable process. It will be timely to expedite the process, I think. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Krueger, do you have any comments on that proposal? KRUEGER: I agree with the proposal. It’s fine. Just one point of clarification: Is it the intention of the Chairman to have discussion or vote of the Commission prior to the submission of the proposed Findings, or would that occur after the proposed Findings are submitted? GRAHAM: Your question is regarding to a vote on approving or not approving this application, yes? KRUEGER: Yes. GRAHAM: That would come thereafter. KRUEGER: Okay. GRAHAM: That’s the intention, is that be thereafter. And so that process feels okay to you to go ahead with that in that way? KRUEGER: Yeah. I think that Mr. Matsukawa made a comment about the record being closed, and I think that that needs to be done in order for the process to move forward in a manner that you are suggesting. But I don’t have objection to what you are proposing. GRAHAM: Okay. KRUEGER: I’m sorry. One of the comments is, well, I guess -. Will the parties have an opportunity to perhaps make a final argument to the Commission, or to respond to questions of the Commissioners prior to the adoption of the Findings at whatever meeting that will be? GRAHAM: That will certainly be my intention that we have that. KRUEGER: Okay. Thank you. EXHIBIT A 8