Aqua Exc. at 27). The OCA argues that while Section 1329(a) and (b) provide the process of engaging and selecting a UVE and the fees and other affiliation of the UVE with the acquiring and selling utility, there is no language in Section 1329 that prohibits any party or the Commission from reviewing those appraisals to make a determination of their reasonableness. OCA R. Exc. at 17-18. Additionally, in its response to argument that the proposed Aqua’s adjustments by the witness should not be given any weight because she is not a OCA’s registered UVE and has no prior experience regarding fair market value appraisal, the OCA argues that neither of the two UVEs in this proceeding has conducted a fair market valuation appraisal for ratemaking purposes. OCA R. Exc. at 18 (citing Aqua Exc. at 28; OCA R.B. at 7; OCA Exh. AEE-2, 3 and 5). Finally, with regard to claim that the Aqua’s OCA selectively relied on parts of the appraisals in order to produce a lower ratemaking rate base, the OCA retorts that it only adjusted portions of the appraisal that were not supported and outside the realm of reasonable ratemaking metrics. OCA R. Exc. at 19 (citing Aqua Exc. at 28; OCA M.B. at 9-25; OCA R.B. at 7). The OCA concurs with the determination that there not an adequate explanation presented in the ALJ’s “was appraisal to substantiate growth and risk rates that ranged from 95% to 200%, which increased the value of the property under the market Thus, the OCA requests approach.” that the Commission reject Exception No. 4. OCA R. Exc. at 18 (quoting R.D. Aqua’s at 36). e. Disposition After consideration of the record in this proceeding, including the positions of the Parties and the applicable law, we shall deny both the Exception No. 1 and OCA’s Exception No. 4. Preliminarily, however, we shall emphasize our agreement with Aqua’s several aspects of the Recommended Decision. We agree with the finding of the ALJ that consistent with the requirements of Section 1329, both UVEs conducted their
Aqua Exc. at 27). The OCA argues that while Section 1329(a) and (b) provide the process of engaging and selecting a UVE and the fees and other affiliation of the UVE with the acquiring and selling utility, there is no language in Section 1329 that prohibits any party or the Commission from reviewing those appraisals to make a determination of their reasonableness. OCA R. Exc. at 17-18. Additionally, in its response to Aqua’s argument that the proposed adjustments by the OCA’s witness should not be given any weight because she is not a registered UVE and has no prior experience regarding fair market value appraisal, the OCA argues that neither of the two UVEs in this proceeding has conducted a fair market valuation appraisal for ratemaking purposes. OCA R. Exc. at 18 (citing Aqua Exc. at 28; OCA R.B. at 7; OCA Exh. AEE-2, 3 and 5). Finally, with regard to Aqua’s claim that the OCA selectively relied on parts of the appraisals in order to produce a lower ratemaking rate base, the OCA retorts that it only adjusted portions of the appraisal that were not supported and outside the realm of reasonable ratemaking metrics. OCA R. Exc. at 19 (citing Aqua Exc. at 28; OCA M.B. at 9-25; OCA R.B. at 7). The OCA concurs with the ALJ’s determination that there “was not an adequate explanation presented in the appraisal to substantiate growth and risk rates that ranged from 95% to 200%, which increased the value of the property under the market approach.” Thus, the OCA requests that the Commission reject Aqua’s Exception No. 4. OCA R. Exc. at 18 (quoting R.D. at 36). e. Disposition After consideration of the record in this proceeding, including the positions of the Parties and the applicable law, we shall deny both the OCA’s Exception No. 1 and Aqua’s Exception No. 4. Preliminarily, however, we shall emphasize our agreement with several aspects of the Recommended Decision. We agree with the finding of the ALJ that consistent with the requirements of Section 1329, both UVEs conducted their