Start Here: The Immediate Picture

• What's the immediate reason you're preparing or considering a rate case today? Options: Planned rate cycle, Major capital program / new plant, Commission-initiated review, Pension / debt covenant pressure, Other
• What is your target filing window (month & year) and how fixed is that timeline? Options: Within 3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, More than 12 months, Undecided
• Who on your team will be the day-to-day point(s) for this engagement?
• Thinking back to your last rate case, what went surprisingly well and what still nags at you?
• Which of these best describes how advanced your internal revenue requirement and cost-of-service models are right now? Options: Fully updated and commission-ready, Mostly current but needs validation, Outdated and needs significant rebuild, We do not maintain formal models

If the Case Could Burn Your Plan, Where Would It Hurt?

• If the commission approved materially less revenue than you request, what would be the single biggest consequence for your utility? Options: Delay or cancel capital projects, Credit rating pressure / covenant breach, Operational cuts / layoffs, Customer service degradation, Executive leadership consequences, Other
• How would such an outcome affect the finance team’s ability to access capital or refinance debt? Options: Severe impact, Moderate impact, Minimal impact, Unsure
• Which stakeholder groups would be most vocal or vulnerable if the case doesn't go as planned? Options: Board/Executive leadership, Investors/creditors, Municipal customers, Large industrial customers, Consumer advocates/intervenors, Political leaders
• When you picture worst-case scenarios, what's the feeling that resurfaces most—fear of optics, financial pain, internal blame, or something else? Options: Optics / political fallout, Financial stress, Internal accountability/blame, Customer backlash, Other
• Have you ever faced an unexpected outcome in a prior case that you now consider preventable? What happened and why do you think it was avoidable?

Who Really Holds the Decision Levers?

• We often find that formal 'owners' are unclear—who must approve the final filing and what are their priorities? Options: CEO/GM, CFO, General Counsel, Board/Commissioners liaison, Regulatory VP/Director, Other
• If one of those decision makers were to push back, what are they most likely to challenge—costs, timing, optics, or contractor fees? Options: Costs/revenue requested, Timing of filing, Customer messaging/optics, Engagement fees, Expert witness choices
• Which external relationships are already in place or required (e.g., outside counsel, financial advisors, expert witnesses)? Please list roles and any named firms.
• How confident are you that your sponsors (board/executives) will stand behind trade-offs such as phased increases, staged capital recovery, or settlement concessions? Options: Very confident, Somewhat confident, Not confident, Unsure
• Who internally will be responsible for discovery coordination, and do they have bandwidth for tight turnarounds? Options: Regulatory team, Legal counsel, Finance/Controller, Project manager, No dedicated owner yet

How Solid Is Your Evidence—And Where Is It Fragile?

• Most teams assume their data is ready—what would surprise a skeptical commissioner or intervenor about your data or model accuracy?
• Which datasets are already reconciled to audited financials and which are not? Options: Revenue & sales, Plant balances / FERC accounts, O&M expense detail, Depreciation schedules, Customer counts / load shapes, None reconciled
• How long would it take your team to produce a complete response to a broad data request (e.g., 30–60 data items)? Options: <2 weeks, 2–4 weeks, 1–2 months, >2 months, Don't know
• Which cost drivers do you expect will draw the most evidentiary scrutiny from staff or intervenors? Options: Capital additions, Labor & benefits, Shared service allocations, Fuel/purchased power, O&M growth assumptions, Other
• Are there legacy allocation methods, accounting judgments, or one-off adjustments you suspect will be challenged? Please describe.

What's Your Appetite for Risk, Settlement, and Trade‑Offs?

• If you had to pick a posture today—aggressive litigant, pragmatic settler, or somewhere in between—where would you land and why? Options: Aggressive litigant, Pragmatic settler, Prefer to avoid hearing if possible, Undecided
• How much downside (percent of requested revenue) is acceptable to preserve other priorities (e.g., avoiding bad precedent or protecting capital projects)? Options: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%, >20%, Not willing to quantify
• Would you be willing to allocate additional budget to retain higher-profile expert witnesses if it materially improves defensibility? Options: Yes, Maybe with ROI justification, No
• Which trade-offs would you accept to reach a timely settlement—rate design concessions, staged recovery, or reduced backtest / true-up features? Options: Rate design changes, Staged recovery, Reduced true-up, Lower revenue request, Prefer full hearing
• How do perceptions of political risk or customer sentiment influence your tolerance for settlement or aggressive positions?

What Would 'A Win' Actually Feel Like?

• Beyond 'approved revenue', what three outcomes would make this case a clear success for you? Options: Preserve capital plan, Protect credit ratings, Favorable rate design for key customers, Minimal customer bill shock, Defensible precedent for future cases, Other
• How will you measure success internally—financial metrics, stakeholder sentiment, timeline adherence, or something else? Options: Achieved revenue %, Credit rating outcomes, Board satisfaction, Customer complaints / public perception, Settlement without hearing, Other
• Which audiences must feel satisfied after the order (board, investors, regulators, customers), and what would satisfaction look like for each?
• If you could pick one non-financial legacy from this case (e.g., a precedent on cost allocation or meter policy), what would it be?
• How important is speed-to-order versus maximizing total revenue—do you prefer a faster, smaller win or a slower, fuller recovery? Options: Faster, smaller win, Slower, fuller recovery, Depends on trade-offs, Undecided

Practical Roadmap: Who Does What, When?

• Given your timeline, which of these engagement modules do you expect to include in scope? Options: Revenue requirement, Cost-of-service allocation, Rate design, Testimony drafting, Discovery responses, Settlement support, Post-order compliance
• Which internal teams will own inputs for each module (e.g., finance for revenue, operations for plant), and where do you anticipate handoffs will break down?
• What is the single earliest milestone that must be met to preserve your filing date (e.g., audited financials, board approval, model build)?
• How many dedicated consulting / expert hours do you anticipate approving for core modeling and testimony (ballpark)? Options: <100 hours, 100–300 hours, 300–600 hours, >600 hours, Undecided
• Who will serve as the contract/fee approver and what procurement or legal review timelines should we factor in?

Hidden Roadblocks We See—Are Any Yours?

• Many utilities discover last-minute problems—legacy allocation issues, missing supporting workpapers, or IT reporting gaps. Which of these, if any, feel familiar? Options: Legacy allocation concerns, Missing reconciliations/workpapers, ERP or billing system limitations, Incomplete fixed-asset records, Contractual ambiguities, None of the above
• If we asked your finance or operations leads to list three process changes they'd need to avoid surprises, what would they say?
• How comfortable are you sharing sensitive materials (audited schedules, executive summaries) under a strict NDA to accelerate our assessment? Options: Very comfortable, Somewhat comfortable, Require legal sign-off, Not comfortable
• What has typically blocked fixing these hidden issues in the past—budget limits, competing priorities, or lack of clear ownership? Options: Budget constraints, Competing priorities, No clear owner, Technical limitations, Other
• If we prioritized one remediation to reduce evidentiary risk quickly, which would you choose? Options: Model reconciliation to audited books, Fixed-asset rollforward cleanup, Load/customer data validation, Staff training for discovery, Other

Signals of Commitment & The Small Steps That Unlock Momentum

• If today we proposed a scoped plan that addressed your top three risks, what internal approvals would you need to proceed? Options: Board approval, CFO sign-off, Procurement/contracting, Legal review, Executive sponsor approval
• What is the earliest practical date your team could begin a formal discovery kickoff with consultants? Options: Within 1 week, Within 2–4 weeks, 1–2 months, Longer than 2 months
• Which of these would signal to you that a consultant is the right partner: proven local commission experience, defensible testimony, senior-expert availability, or fixed-fee certainty? Options: Local commission experience, Defensible testimony record, Senior-expert availability, Fixed-fee or predictable pricing, Strong client references
• What would stop you from moving forward even if a plan met your top needs—budget, timing, politics, or something else? Options: Budget not approved, Expert witness unavailable, Board pushback, Unresolved political risk, Other
• What single small commitment (e.g., NDA, intake call, preliminary data share) would you be willing to make in the next 7 days to see a tailored filing plan? Options: Sign NDA and share sample schedules, Schedule 60-minute kickoff call, Approve scoping budget, Identify internal owners, Not ready

• Pre-Workshop Data Alignment
• Case Strategy Core Workshop (Diagnosis → Roadmap)
• Modeling & Sensitivity Review (Proof)
• Testimony & Evidentiary Strategy Alignment (Validation)
• Decision & Roadmap Mutualization

• Agree on a testimony drafting and mock hearing schedule to meet filing milestones.
• Legal/regulatory lead to draft risk narratives for the top three evidentiary exposures.
• Assign owners to each mitigation option and schedule follow-up deep-dives as needed.
• Model Inputs Recap
• Prove the expected outcome ranges for each roadmap with model outputs.
• Quantify the materiality of key evidentiary exposures under sensitivity cases.
• Agree which scenario(s) should advance to testimony drafting based on tolerances.
• Modeling team to deliver a scenario workbook with toggles and a one-page executive summary.
• Regulatory lead to annotate model lines that require documentary support or exhibits.
• Finance to confirm any additional reconciliations for high-sensitivity items within 5 business days.
• Narrative & Testimony Themes
• Produce a clear testimony narrative aligned to the chosen roadmap.
• Confirm witness assignments and evidence owners with committed review timelines.
• Identify top cross-examination vulnerabilities and agree initial mitigation tactics.
• Introductions & Objectives
• Draft team to produce testimony outlines for each witness within agreed timelines.
• Evidence owners to begin collecting and labeling exhibits tied to model lines and assertions.
• Schedule first mock hearing slot and assemble cross-exam panel from consulting team.
• Executive Recap of Options & Recommended Roadmap
• Obtain executive/stakeholder sign-off on the recommended roadmap.
• Lock staffing (including expert witness commitments), milestones, and deliverables for the filing phase.
• Agree clear acceptance criteria and governance to manage tradeoffs during the filing.
• Publish the signed roadmap document including milestones, owners, and acceptance criteria.
• Trigger contract/engagement updates for any expert witness commitments or additional resourcing.
• Schedule the first drafting kickoff and mock hearing planning session on the agreed timeline.
• Produce a single agreed current-state sentence for use in the workshop.
• Produce an explicit consequence statement quantifying key impacts.
• Complete a data inventory with owners and deadlines for all required inputs.
• Ensure all participants understand pre-work and attend the Core Workshop prepared.
• Utility to deliver reconciled financials, capital plan, and most recent cost-of-service model by X date.
• Regulatory team to draft single-sentence current-state and one-paragraph consequence to circulate for confirmation.
• Assign SME contacts for billing, finance, and capital projects and confirm availability for Core Workshop.
• Re-state Current State & Consequence
• Produce 2–3 candidate strategy roadmaps linking inputs to expected outcomes.
• Identify and prioritize evidentiary risks for each roadmap with initial mitigation options.
• Agree decision criteria and governance for selecting a final strategy.
• Ensure every roadmap ties back to the documented consequence and the agreed future state.
• Modeling team to build the 2–3 candidate revenue outcomes and circulate within 48 hours.
• Single-Sentence Current State
• Witness Matrix & Role Assignments
• Scenario Outcomes Walkthrough
• Define Future State (outcome-focused)
• Confirmed Evidentiary Risks & Mitigations
• Milestones, Staffing & Deliverables
• Exhibit & Documentary Requirements
• Sensitivity & Stress Tests
• Financials & Capital Plan Walkthrough
• Explicit Consequence Statement
• Required Data Inventory
• Precedent Adjustment Simulations
• Jurisdictional Precedent Mapping
• Acceptance Criteria & Governance
• Cross-Examination Risk & Mock Q's
• Sign-Off & Immediate Next Steps
• Scenario Roadmap Development
• Implications & Recommended Advancement
• Drafting Timeline & Review Gates
• Data Gaps & Access Plan
• Pre-work & Logistics
• Evidentiary Risk Identification

• Build Excel cost-of-service model
• Prepare revenue requirement exhibits and workpapers
• Draft direct testimony and supporting exhibits
• Draft rebuttal testimony and exhibits
• Produce rate design and proposed tariffs
• Calculate customer bill impacts and class allocations
• Prepare discovery responses and supporting workpapers
• Run mock cross-examination and hearing drills
• Deliver expert witness testimony at evidentiary hearing
• Develop alternative allocation and rate design scenarios
• Negotiate settlement terms and draft settlement language
• Prepare compliance filings and tariff implementation schedules
• Update cost-of-service model with approved order adjustments

Build Excel cost-of-service model

• Do you need a new cost-of-service model built from scratch or an update to an existing model? Options: New build, Update existing model, Both (build + migrate)
• Which customer classes and rate schedules must be included in the model?
• What level of detail is required for functional separation and allocator schedules? Options: High (detailed plant and functional accounts), Medium (summary accounts), Low (top-line allocations only)
• What data sources will be available to populate the model (e.g., GL, payroll, plant ledger, interval meter data)? Options: General ledger export, Plant ledger, Payroll data, Interval meter data, Other
• Who will own the model internally and who are the external reviewers (roles/names)?
• What are your acceptance criteria for the model (e.g., explainability, audit trail, version control, reconciliation to audited statements)? Options: Reconciles to GL, Full audit trail, Formula transparency, Commission-ready exhibits, Other

Prepare revenue requirement exhibits and workpapers

• Which test year and rate base methodology should the exhibits reflect? Options: Historic test year, Future test year (forecast), Hybrid
• Which major adjustment categories must be addressed (e.g., O&M, depreciation, taxes, capital additions, AFUDC)? Options: O&M, Depreciation, Taxes, Capital additions, Other
• What level of supporting documentation is required for each adjustment (e.g., detailed schedules, source documents, workpapers)? Options: Full source documents, Summarized schedules only, Executive summary with support on request
• Are there jurisdictional or commission-specific exhibit formats we must follow? Options: Yes — provide format, No — standard format acceptable, Not sure
• Who will review and approve exhibits internally (roles and expected review cycles)?
• What are the delivery and acceptance milestones for revenue requirement deliverables?

Draft direct testimony and supporting exhibits

• How many witnesses (subject-matter experts) will provide direct testimony? Options: 1, 2-3, 4-6, 7+
• Which topics must each direct witness cover (e.g., revenue requirement, rate design, cost allocation, depreciation)?
• Do you have preferred authors or in-house SMEs who will co-draft testimony? Options: Yes — will co-draft, No — external drafting only, Prefer collaborative review
• What length/level of technical detail is expected in testimony (concise summary vs. detailed technical analysis)? Options: Executive-level summary, Moderately technical, Highly technical and detailed
• What exhibit formats are required (e.g., inline tables, Excel workpapers, PDF exhibits)? Options: Inline tables, Separate Excel workpapers, PDF exhibits, All of the above
• How many review cycles and turnaround time should we budget for testimony drafting? Options: 1 review (standard), 2 reviews (recommended), 3+ reviews (iterative)

Draft rebuttal testimony and exhibits

• Do you anticipate filing rebuttal testimony based on intervenor or staff positions? Options: Yes — likely, No — unlikely, Unsure
• What is the expected rapid-turnaround window for rebuttal drafting after receiving opposing testimony (days)? Options: 3-5 days, 5-10 days, 10+ days
• Which subject areas are most likely to require rebuttal (e.g., revenue requirement adjustments, allocation, rate design)?
• Will rebuttal authors be the same witnesses as direct or different personnel? Options: Same witnesses, Different witnesses, Mixture
• What supporting data and workpapers must be ready to support rebuttal positions? Options: Full supporting workpapers, Summary responses with backup on request, Limited support
• What quality control or legal review is required before rebuttal filing? Options: Legal review required, Regulatory team review only, No formal review required

Produce rate design and proposed tariffs

• Are you requesting class-specific rate changes or a system-wide increase allocation? Options: Class-specific, System-wide allocation, Mixture
• Which rate design objectives should guide the work (e.g., cost-based, revenue stability, bill impact mitigation, modernization)? Options: Cost-based, Revenue stability, Bill impact mitigation, Modernization (e.g., TOU)
• Which tariff components must be updated (e.g., energy charges, demand charges, fixed charges, riders)? Options: Energy charges, Demand charges, Fixed/customer charges, Riders/adjustment clauses
• Do you require tariff language drafted to commission filing standards and local format? Options: Yes — must meet commission format, No — draft in standard template, Not sure
• Should alternative rate designs (e.g., TOU, inclining block, demand charges) be developed and compared? Options: Yes — include alternatives, No — single proposal
• What acceptance criteria will you use to approve proposed tariffs (e.g., legal sign-off, finance sign-off, customer impact thresholds)?

Calculate customer bill impacts and class allocations

• What sample size and customer data granularity are available for bill impact analysis (e.g., entire billing dataset, representative sample, interval data)? Options: Full billing dataset, Representative sample, Interval meter dataset, Other
• Should bill impacts be shown for typical customers and for high/low usage percentiles? Options: Yes — typical and percentiles, Typical only, Custom segments only
• Do you require regional or demographic segmentation for bill impacts (e.g., residential by territory, low-income programs)? Options: Yes — segment by region/demographic, No — overall class only
• Which metrics should the allocation analysis focus on (e.g., revenue recovery by class, cost-causation, fairness indices)? Options: Revenue recovery, Cost-causation, Fairness/equity metrics, Customer affordability
• What formats are needed for presenting bill impacts (e.g., tables, charts, downloadable spreadsheets)? Options: Tables, Charts/visuals, Downloadable Excel, All of the above
• What acceptance thresholds for bill changes would trigger redesign or additional mitigation (e.g., >10% increase for any cohort)?

Prepare discovery responses and supporting workpapers

• Who will serve as the primary contact for discovery responses and approvals?
• What typical volume and complexity of discovery do you expect (e.g., low volume, extensive data requests, multiple interrogatories/subpoenas)? Options: Low, Moderate, High/Extensive
• What standard turnaround SLA do you require for responses (e.g., 7 days, 14 days, 30 days)? Options: 3-7 days, 8-14 days, 15-30 days, 30+ days
• Are there confidentiality or privilege considerations that affect production and redaction? Options: Yes — requires redaction protocol, No
• In what format should supporting workpapers be delivered (e.g., native Excel with formulas, PDF with index)? Options: Native Excel, PDF with index, CSV exports, Mixed formats
• Do you require a discovery log and version control for produced documents? Options: Yes — log and version control, No

Run mock cross-examination and hearing drills

• Which witnesses will participate in mock hearings and what is their availability?
• What types of drills do you want (e.g., technical cross-examination, prosecutorial questioning, full hearing simulation)? Options: Technical cross-exam, Aggressive adversary style, Full hearing simulation, Media/public relations practice
• How long should each mock session be and how many iterations are desired? Options: 1-2 hours, Half-day, Full day, Multiple days
• Do you want written scoring and red-team feedback after drills? Options: Yes — written scoring, Verbal feedback only, No feedback needed
• Will drills be remote, in-person, or hybrid and who provides materials (exhibits, testimony)? Options: Remote, In-person, Hybrid
• What acceptance criteria determine if a witness is ready for the evidentiary hearing? Options: Confident under cross, Minimal factual errors, Consistent messaging, All of the above

Deliver expert witness testimony at evidentiary hearing

• Which experts will testify and what are their primary topics/credentials?
• Are travel, lodging, and hearing-day logistics required to be coordinated by the consultant? Options: Yes — coordinate logistics, No — client will handle
• Do you require written hearing scripts, speaking notes, or exhibit binders for each witness? Options: Scripts and notes, Exhibit binders, Both, None
• What is the expected level of direct courtroom representation (e.g., testify only, testify + respond to cross, full hearing advocacy)? Options: Testify only, Testify + respond to cross, Full advocacy support
• Are deposition preparations or pre-filed exchanges part of testimony deliverables? Options: Yes — include deposition prep, No

Develop alternative allocation and rate design scenarios

• How many alternative scenarios should we develop and compare? Options: 1 (base), 2-3 alternatives, 4+ alternatives
• Which evaluation criteria should be used to compare scenarios (e.g., revenue recovery, bill impacts, customer equity, regulatory risk)? Options: Revenue recovery, Bill impacts, Customer equity, Regulatory risk, Other
• Do you want probabilistic or sensitivity analyses for key assumptions (e.g., sales forecast, load growth)? Options: Yes — include sensitivity, No — deterministic only
• Should alternatives include phased implementations or transition mechanisms (e.g., gradual fixed charge increases)? Options: Yes — phased/transition options, No — immediate implementation
• What deliverable format is preferred for scenario comparison (e.g., summary matrix, dashboard, full workpapers)? Options: Summary matrix, Dashboard/visual, Full workpapers, All of the above

Negotiate settlement terms and draft settlement language

• Do you intend to pursue settlement discussions with intervenors and staff? Options: Yes — actively pursue, No — litigation strategy, Undecided
• Which parties will likely participate in settlement negotiations (e.g., commission staff, consumer advocates, industry intervenors)?

• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Master Services Agreement (MSA) / Engagement Agreement
• Fee Schedule & Payment Terms
• Staffing & Expert Witness Commitments
• Milestones & Project Plan
• Change Order & Scope Management
• Data Access, Security & Privacy Agreement (DPA)
• Confidentiality & Privilege Addendum
• Expense Reimbursement & Travel Policy
• Insurance & Indemnity Confirmation
• Regulatory Filings & Representation Authorization
• Termination, Transition & Data Handover
• Acceptance & Executive Signoff Checklist

• Order Impact Validation Workshop
• Compliance Filing & Documentation Review
• Rate Implementation & Billing Systems Coordination
• Post-Order Issues, Enhancements & Next-Case Readiness Channel Kickoff
• Stakeholder Communications & Regulatory Reporting

• Agree on a next-case readiness checklist and initial timeline to avoid rework in the next filing cycle.
• One-sentence current state & go-live target
• Have a verified implementation mapping from tariff to billing tables with assigned engineers and deadlines.
• Agree on and schedule parallel runs with defined acceptance criteria to validate customer bills.
• Ensure customer care materials are ready and coordinated with the go-live date.
• Load new rate tables into the staging environment and schedule parallel billing runs.
• Publish customer notice drafts and FAQ to be finalized by communications owner.
• Document rollback criteria and emergency contacts for the implementation window.
• Current state & consequence in one sentence
• Stand up a shared channel with clear ownership and access for ongoing post-order work.
• Create a prioritized backlog with SLAs so critical issues are resolved before billing or reporting cycles are impacted.
• Pre-work review and objective statement
• Create the shared collaboration channel, invite stakeholders, and upload the validated model and filing artifacts.
• Populate the backlog with identified items, set priorities, and assign initial owners.
• Schedule recurring issue triage meetings and quarterly readiness reviews.
• Mandated reporting and notification requirements
• Agree on a legally reviewed set of external messages and delivery schedule.
• Assign owners for each mandated report and customer notification with due dates.
• Establish monitoring and escalation procedures for stakeholder responses post-notice.
• Finalize and route customer notices and municipal briefings for legal and executive approval.
• Assign regulatory report owners and schedule the data pulls and draft timelines.
• Set up dashboard tracking for inquiries and media mentions during the implementation window.
• Have a single, validated statement of 'what changes' in the revenue requirement and rate tables.
• Quantify the financial consequence (dollars and bill impacts) of each order directive.
• Obtain model-level sign-off and an actionable owner list for residual items.
• Identify any unresolved legal or evidentiary questions that require follow-up with counsel.
• Apply validated order changes to the master cost-of-service model and post updated version to shared repo.
• Prepare redline tariff and transitional language for compliance filing.
• Document sign-offs and circulate a one-page change summary to executive sponsors.
• Compliance checklist review
• Produce a complete, internally approved compliance filing package ready for e-file on the target date.
• Ensure all exhibits and schedules reconcile exactly to the validated model outputs.
• Assign the e-filing owner and establish a rollback/correction plan if the commission requests changes.
• Finalize and lock the filing package; upload to the shared compliance folder with file naming and version number.
• Obtain required executive and legal signatures and certify the affidavits.
• Schedule and confirm the e-file owner and backup for the filing date.
• Explicit consequence framing
• Message alignment and approval path
• Channel platform, participants, and access rules
• Tariff-to-billing mapping
• Supporting schedules and exhibits alignment
• Test plan: parallel runs and validation cases
• Triage process and SLAs
• Customer notice timing and segmentation
• Legal and affidavit review
• Line-by-line model mapping
• Regulatory reporting logistics
• Proof — run & review updated model scenarios
• Customer care and external communications alignment
• Formatting, redlines, and version control
• Backlog creation and prioritization
• Filing logistics and timeline
• Validation & sign-off
• Cadence, owners, and next-case readiness checklist
• Contingency and rollback procedures
• Monitoring and response plan
• Next steps and owners