c. Exceptions Aqua’s In its Exception No. 4, Aqua disagrees with the adoption of the ALJ’s growth and risk adjustments to market approach as proposed by the OCA. Gannett’s Aqua believes any form of adjustment to the fair market value is contrary to the clear and unambiguous statutory language of Section 1329 and should be rejected. Aqua Exc. at 27 (citing 66 Pa. C.S. § 1329(a)(2) and (a)(3); R.D. at 34-39). Aqua posits that although the recommended ratemaking rate base of $29.5 million is the same as that proposed ALJ’s by the Company, the calculated average appraisal value containing the ALJ’s OCA’s adjustment is contrary to the statute. Aqua asserts that the General Assembly clearly stated that only the UVEs are legally qualified and competent enough to address fair market valuation in a Section 1329 proceeding. Aqua Exc. at 28 (citing Table 2 of R.D. at 39; Aqua M.B. at 15-16; 66 Pa. C.S. § 1329(c)). Aqua also disputes the determination that was not an adequate ALJ’s “there explanation presented in the [Gannett] appraisal to substantiate the growth and risk rates ranging from ninety-five percent to 200 percent, which increased the value of the property under the market Aqua Exc. at 29 (citing R.D. at 36). According to approach.” Aqua, full and complete explanation of the adjustments is presented in the Gannett “[a] Fair Market Value Aqua Exc. at 29 (citing Aqua Exh. 1; Exh. U at 33-36). Appraisal.” Thus, Aqua requests that the Commission reject the recommendation on this issue. ALJ’s Aqua Exc. at 29. d. Replies to Exceptions OCA’s In its Reply to Aqua Exception No. 4, the OCA discounts argument Aqua’s that there is no legislative authorization to adjust a fair market value appraisal conducted by the UVEs and that the Commission should not give any weight to the ALJ’s recommendation adopting the proposed adjustments. OCA R. Exc. at 17 (citing OCA’s
c. Aqua’s Exceptions In its Exception No. 4, Aqua disagrees with the ALJ’s adoption of the growth and risk adjustments to Gannett’s market approach as proposed by the OCA. Aqua believes any form of adjustment to the fair market value is contrary to the clear and unambiguous statutory language of Section 1329 and should be rejected. Aqua Exc. at 27 (citing 66 Pa. C.S. § 1329(a)(2) and (a)(3); R.D. at 34-39). Aqua posits that although the ALJ’s recommended ratemaking rate base of $29.5 million is the same as that proposed by the Company, the ALJ’s calculated average appraisal value containing the OCA’s adjustment is contrary to the statute. Aqua asserts that the General Assembly clearly stated that only the UVEs are legally qualified and competent enough to address fair market valuation in a Section 1329 proceeding. Aqua Exc. at 28 (citing Table 2 of R.D. at 39; Aqua M.B. at 15-16; 66 Pa. C.S. § 1329(c)). Aqua also disputes the ALJ’s determination that “there was not an adequate explanation presented in the [Gannett] appraisal to substantiate the growth and risk rates ranging from ninety-five percent to 200 percent, which increased the value of the property under the market approach.” Aqua Exc. at 29 (citing R.D. at 36). According to Aqua, “[a] full and complete explanation of the adjustments is presented in the Gannett Fair Market Value Appraisal.” Aqua Exc. at 29 (citing Aqua Exh. 1; Exh. U at 33-36). Thus, Aqua requests that the Commission reject the ALJ’s recommendation on this issue. Aqua Exc. at 29. d. OCA’s Replies to Exceptions In its Reply to Aqua Exception No. 4, the OCA discounts Aqua’s argument that there is no legislative authorization to adjust a fair market value appraisal conducted by the UVEs and that the Commission should not give any weight to the ALJ’s recommendation adopting the OCA’s proposed adjustments. OCA R. Exc. at 17 (citing