Discussion

Applicants have included these declarations in their application filing, but will not be moving them into evidence as testimony. Accordingly, it is not necessary to strike them in order to keep them out of the formal evidentiary record. On the other hand, since the declarations will not be part of the formal evidentiary record, they may not be cited as authoritative support to prove claims about the proposed merger made by Applicants.

In response to the argument of ORA and TURN that the authors of the declarations are not being made available as witnesses at the evidentiary hearings, Applicants argue that there is no requirement that the Commission hold hearings in every case. Yet, the fact is that the Commission has determined to hold hearings in this case. Applicants may not circumvent the hearing requirement by trying to submit de facto testimony without an expert witness to sponsor it.

Accordingly, it is ruled that the declarations attached to the application and supplemental application do not constitute evidence. Such declarations shall merely be treated the same as any other statements set forth in the application filing and supplement thereto, none of which constitute testimony and none of which will not be given evidentiary weight as proof of the matters asserted therein. Accordingly, the ORA and TURN motion to strike the declarations attached to the application and supplement thereto is denied, with the understanding that the declarations are not evidence, and may not be used as authoritative support, nor to circumvent the evidentiary hearing requirement, as explained above.