Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland PSC sets schedule for Maryland American Water rate case; discovery turnarounds, hearings and brief deadlines fixed
Summary
The Maryland Public Service Commission on Aug. 28, 2025, at a prehearing conference in Case 9808 accepted company publication certificates into evidence and adopted a procedural schedule that sets supplemental, direct and rebuttal testimony deadlines, January evidentiary hearings and a single round of briefs.
Chair Trevor Hoover of the Maryland Public Service Commission opened the prehearing conference for Case 9808, the rate increase request by Maryland American Water Company, and took appearances from counsel for the parties.
The commission admitted the company’s certificates of publication as Company Exhibit 1 and the parties agreed on a procedural schedule that sets a timetable for supplemental, direct and rebuttal testimony, evidentiary hearings and briefing in the contested rate case.
The commission’s adopted schedule, as read into the record, sets the following deadlines: the company’s supplemental testimony due Nov. 14, 2025; direct testimony by other parties due Nov. 24, 2025; rebuttal testimony due Jan. 9, 2026. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14–16, 2026, with a single round of post-hearing briefs due Jan. 30, 2026. The parties also agreed to waive the usual page limits for briefs up to 70 pages because the case will have only one round of briefing.
The schedule and accompanying discovery protocol were described on the record by David Bebelmans, counsel for Maryland American Water Company. Bebelmans asked the commission to mark and enter as Company Exhibit 1 “the company certificates of publication for this prehearing conference, consisting of 10 pages filed on 08/28/2025 under mail log 321920.” Chair Hoover said, “No objection. I’m seeing no objections. So granted,” and the exhibit was entered into evidence.
Parties agreed to timeframes for discovery tied to the filing dates. The company agreed to a three-business-day turnaround for discovery on supplemental testimony and a four-business-day turnaround for discovery on rebuttal testimony; discovery served in the afternoon will be deemed served on the next business day. The parties also agreed to provide discovery responses on a rolling basis when possible. Discovery on surrebuttal testimony was recorded as due within three business days of service.
Brock Miller, appearing for the Office of People’s Counsel, and Jennifer Purvis, appearing for PSC staff, both stated on the record that their clients agreed to the schedule as presented. Miller said the Office of People’s Counsel agreed to the schedule, and Purvis stated staff’s concurrence while noting the outstanding discovery details that the parties had resolved.
The parties noted that public comment hearings will be held in the case but had not finalized dates. Counsel said they would coordinate with the commission’s executive secretary to set dates for at least two public comment hearings. Chair Hoover indicated that proposed timing discussed by counsel “does not work for us,” leaving the precise scheduling of public comment hearings unresolved at the close of the conference.
The conference also confirmed that the hearing will include live rejoinder and that staff and the Office of People’s Counsel will have the opportunity to respond after live rejoinder at the evidentiary hearing.
No formal evidentiary rulings beyond admitting the company’s publication certificates were made at the conference, and there were no votes recorded. The parties ended the prehearing conference with a plan to proceed under the agreed schedule and to finalize public comment hearing dates with the executive secretary.
