The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority convened an evidentiary hearing in docket number 25 0 7 12 to examine Hazardville Water Company’s application to amend rate schedules. Interim Chair Tom Wheel presided and introduced commissioners and the parties; company witnesses Robert Sherwood (president and CEO) and Jennifer Wright (CFO and treasurer) were sworn and adopted their prefiled testimony.

PURA staff opened cross-examination with detailed questions about the company’s proposed rate-case expenses and a large set of deferred debits shown on application Schedule C‑3.81. Staff engineer Soleimu Bakari asked the company to produce supporting exhibits for a $186,400 rate-case expense and for deferred sales‑and‑use tax of $173,006.78, among other line items. When historical backup was not readily available, company witnesses said they would submit the supporting documents as late-file exhibits or read‑ins.

Throughout the panel, commissioners and staff repeatedly asked the company to explain why certain costs are being sought for recovery now, whether prior rate‑case decisions previously amortized the same amounts, and whether specific costs should be capitalized rather than recovered as deferred repair expenses. For example, staff queried why replacement‑design costs tied to storage‑tank projects had been included in deferred repair recovery rather than recorded with the capital project; the company acknowledged the distinction and agreed to propose adjustments where appropriate.

Several items prompted follow‑up document requests on the record. PURA assigned late‑file exhibit numbers and read‑ins for the company to provide: breakdowns of rate‑case and deferred tax support; invoices and narratives explaining consulting fees (including amounts paid to an independent consultant identified in the record); reconciliation of insurance reimbursements and deductible treatment for storm restoration costs; and a consolidated schedule tying each storm‑related expenditure to the storm event and dates of restoration.

The chair also flagged procedural matters: he disclosed prior limited employment at the Office of Consumer Counsel and asked whether any party wished to raise a recusal or scheduling concern; none did. He told parties commissioners might ask questions at any time during panels rather than waiting to the end of cross‑examination and mentioned the possibility of converting the next day’s session to a remote hearing if weather conditions warranted.

The panel recessed for lunch after extensive questioning and read‑in assignments; staff and OCC counsel will resume with additional cross‑examinations and redirected questioning when the hearing continues. The record now contains multiple late‑file requests that the company is to supply before the next sitting.