FINNEGAN, CONRAD & PETERSON L.C.

HOT TOPICS IN REGULATION

[This Page Notes New or Developing Items
That May Be of Interest to Our Clients And Others]

On May 23, 2006, in Case No. EA-2006-0309, the Commission issued its Report and Order granting Aquila a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the operation of its South Harper Generating Station.  Among other things, the Commission found that: (1) there was a need for the capacity and energy produced by the South Harper facility; (2) the site selected for the facility was appropriate because of the existence of a gas pipeline, transmission facilities and it provided geographic diversity from other Aquila generating facilities; and (3) the selected site was consistent with local land use issues.  Of particular importance, the Commission granted the certificate despite Aquila ’s failure to seek or obtain proper zoning from the County.  In fact the Commission found that county zoning was not a prerequisite to granting the certificate.  Ultimately, the Commission concluded that “it is no less capable than Cass County to consider land use concerns.”  On June 1, 2006, the Commission denied all pending requests for rehearing.  Cass County has already applied for a writ of review in the Cass County venue.

Finnegan Conrad & Peterson has represented a group of industrial electrical customers of Aquila.   [6/11/06]

On February 1, 2006, Empire District Electric filed tariffs which would result in an increase of $29.5 million (9.63%) for electric service.  This is based on a recommended return on equity of 11.7%.  In addition, Empire seeks the approval of Energy Cost Recovery (ECR) rider as provided under Senate Bill 179 signed by the Governor on July 14, 2005.

To date, the Commission has granted party status to Finnegan Conrad & Peterson clients Praxair, Inc., Explorer Pipeline Company, Aquila , and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  On May 2, 2006, the Commission issued an order concluding that Empire was precluded from seeking to implement an ECR while it has an effective Interim Energy Clause.  There is a pending motion to strike all Empire Direct Testimony which addresses the issue of fuel and purchased power on the basis that the issue is irrelevant given the effective Interim Energy Clause.

Under the approved procedural schedule, parties are scheduled to file Revenue Requirement Direct Testimony on June 23, 2006 with Rate Design Direct Testimony on June 30.  Likely contentious issues include return on equity and the recovery of fuel and purchased power.  [6/11/06]

On February 1, 2006, KCP&L filed tariffs which would result in an increase of approximately $57 million (11.5%) for electric service.  This is based on a recommended return on equity of 11.5%.

Under the approved procedural schedule, parties are scheduled to file Revenue Requirement Direct Testimony on August 8, 2006 with Rate Design Direct Testimony due on August 22, 2006.  Likely contentious issues include off-systems sales margins and return on equity.  Finnegan Conrad & Peterson is involved in this case for an industrial customer.  [6/11/06]

Following several months of investigation, the Staff filed its Complaint against Missouri Pipeline Company / Missouri Gas Company and other affiliated entities on March 31, 2006.  In its Complaint, Staff alleged overearnings, violations of the affiliate transactions rule, and charges in excess of tariffed rates.  To date, the Commission has granted intervention to AmerenUE, Laclede Gas, Southern Missouri Gas Company and Finnegan Conrad & Peterson's client, the Municipal Gas Commission of Missouri.

To date, the docket has been highlighted by the denial of various motions to dismiss and ongoing discovery problems.  [6/11/06]

On April 7, 2006, Atmos Energy filed a request to increase its natural gas rates by $3.4 million (5.88%).  To date, the Commission has granted interventions to Noranda Aluminum and Hannibal Regional Hospital .  Issues likely to be of issue include the consolidation of 6 divisions to 3 divisions, consolidation to a single unified PGA, and changes to the transportation eligibility criteria.  Finnegan Conrad & Peterson is representing a large natural gas user in the Hannibal, Missouri area.  [6/11/06]

On May 1, 2006, MGE filed a request to increase natural gas rates by $41.6 million (6.8%).  The proceeding is still very early with only a couple of intervention requests filed.  Finnegan Conrad & Peterson is representing Midwest Gas Users' Association in this proceeding.  [6/11/06]

On March 16, 2006, the Office of the Public Counsel filed a Motion with the Commission.  Based upon its allegations of financial and operational mismanagement, OPC requested a management audit including the highest levels of Aquila ’s management.  On May 15, 2006, the parties met to discuss the parameters of such a management audit.  As presented to the Commission, the management audit would focus on: (1) incentive compensation; (2) executive compensation; (3) employee bonus payments; (4) pension and OPEB funding controls and (5) decision-making on the South Harper generating station.  [6/11/06]

On December 5, 2005, AmerenUE filed its 2005 Integrated Resource Plan pursuant to Commission Rule 22.  To date, the parties have conducted numerous meetings in an effort to better understand AmerenUE’s filing.  On May 19, 2006, parties filed reports with the Commission describing any deficiencies or rule violations that they perceive with the Resource Plan.  In addition, the docket has been characterized by repeated attempts by certain parties to have greater amounts of the Resource Plan released to the public.  Originally filed as highly confidential in its entirety, the Commission has ordered the release of certain information.  Finnegan Conrad & Peterson is involved in this case on behalf of Noranda Aluminum.  [6/11/06]

During the 2005 legislative session, the General Assembly passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 179.  Of primary concern to the ongoing rulemaking proceeding, SB179 provides the Commission authority to approve a fuel adjustment mechanism for electric utilities.  The Commission Staff has engaged in several roundtable meetings with interested stakeholders to receive feedback regarding the contents of the Commission rule implementing SB179.  That proposed rule has recently been sent to the Department of Economic Development for approval and will then likely be forwarded to the Secretary of State for publication and public comment.  Finnegan Conrad & Peterson is involved in this matter on behalf of several large industrial and commercial customers and the Midwest Gas Users' Association.  [6/11/06]

As a result of its Experimental Regulatory Plan approved by the Commission in Case No. EO-2005-0329, KCPL filed for Commission approval of a new rate schedule entitled “Special Contracts – Customer Specific”.  Under the proposed rate schedule, KCPL is permitted to enter into special contract pricing with certain large industrial customers.  The rate schedule further provides that, for ratemaking purposes, these industrial customers will be treated as if they had paid full generally applicable tariff rates.

On March 16, 2006, the Commission approved KCPL’s proposed “Special Contracts – Customer Specific” rate schedule as well as two special contracts executed pursuant to the terms of that rate schedule.  In its Order, the Commission specifically found that the “Application is structured in such a way that no detriment can result to other ratepayers from the proposed relief.”  Furthermore, the Commission noted that the applicable industrial customers have “unique load and usage characteristics that are appropriately addressed by the terms and conditions of the special contract and proposed rate schedule.” 

Settlement of the Missouri side of the long-pending RP98-52 Kansas ad valorem case at FERC results in a sizeable refund going back to the LDCs that originally purchased the excessive-cost gas from Southern Star's predecessors.  The Kansas side of the case had earlier been resolved but Missouri did not support that settlement and so was delayed while the matter was further litigated.

Ultimately these refunds should flow back to the customers who paid the overcharges.  The problem, however, is that the overcharges occurred roughly 20 years ago (1993-1988) and locating the precise customers, identifying the class shares, and developing a mechanism to accomplish the refund can be challenging.  On the Missouri Gas Energy side, the matter was resolved some years ago when an earlier part of the settlement was flowed through.  Tight Sands data developed by Midwest Gas Users' Association was used and the parties wisely agreed to use that same data (the periods overlapped) for the ad valorem refunds.

Other utilities may have different problems.  If you were a sales customer during the period 1983 through 1988 and were served directly or indirectly through what was then Williams Natural Gas or Northwest Central, you could have a refund coming, even though you now are transporting your own gas.  Contact us for additional information. [3/29/04]

A unanimous Missouri Supreme Court has returned the 2000 UtiliCorp/St. Joseph Light & Power (SJLP) merger back to the Commission.  The Commission's "refusal to consider [the issue of the $92 million acquisition premium in conjunction with the other issues raised by the PSC staff may have substantially impacted the weight of the evidence evalulated to approve the merger," held the Court.

The Court also directed: "The circuit court shall remand the case to the PSC to consider and decide the issue of recoupment of the acquisition premium in conjunction with the other issues raised by PSC staff and the intervenors in making its determination of whether the merger is detrimental to the public. Upon remand the Commission will have the opportunity to reconsider the totality of all of the necessary evidence to evaluate the reasonableness of a decision to approve a merger between UtiliCorp and SJLP."  (slip opinion, p. 4 (emphasis added)).

Finnegan Conrad & Peterson's client Ag Processing Inc, a large customer in the SJLP service territory, had appealed the merger.  The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District had earlier rejected the PSC's merger decision on essentially the same grounds, but thereafter the Missouri Supreme Court accepted transfer of the case for further review.

The opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ronnie L. White.  Stu Conrad argued the case and the brief was written by Jeremiah Finnegan and Mr. Conrad.  A full copy of the Supreme Court's slip opinion is available from the Court's website or here.  [10/29/03]

The August 14 blackout in the Eastern Interconnect was not due to deregulation.  Although the precise cause (Ohio, Niagra, Canada) continues to be resolved, most of the commentators have completely missed that transmission continues to be regulated by FERC.  Nor should it be assumed, as some commentators are doing, that regulation of the transmission system denies transmission companies any ability to "make money" on their transmission systems.  FERC often permits high rates of return on equity on these systems up to as high as 13.5%, or even higher.  Given that transmission remains a "cost plus" business, the usual public utility equation strongly favors investment in physical plant including transmission systems.

Two things, however, are critical:  First, transmission companies -- that is electric utilities -- are covetous of transmission as a remaining monopoly that they can control.  Avoiding construction to rectify constraints, building additional reinforcement lines and the like all diminish that monopoly control, and monopoly still means profits.  Regulation is the answer, not the problem, but that must be coupled with a redefinition of the obligation to provide safe and adequate service.

Second, environmental restrictions often frustrate those who few who would expand transmission systems face significant problems in siting and construction.  Certainly no one wants a transmission line in their backyard -- the "NIMBY" argument.  But in recent years this has turned in the a "BANANA" -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything -- and this simply cannot be permitted to prevail if national and regional economic growth is to continue.  Solutions are out there -- there are large areas still remaining where there are low density populations.  Siting decisions should include reasonable allowances for purchase and relocation and urban planners need to include transmission systems in their planning.  But the nation's transmission backbone must be enhanced with both intelligence and sensitivity.

Finding that the Missouri PSC had failed to rule on a critical issue -- the handling of a $92 million acquisition premium paid by UtiliCorp [now Aquila] when it approved the December 2000 merger of the two utilities -- the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the approval of the merger back to the Commission.

An acquisition premium is created when an acquiring company pays more than the book value of the assets for the acquired company.  In this case, UtiliCorp paid roughly $23 per share for SJLP stock, adjusted at closing.  In the aggregate, the purchase price was roughly $270 million.  Aquila's arguments that the appeal was moot because the merger could not be undone were rejected.  The decision was issued April 22, 2003 and is still subject to possible rehearing or transfer applications by the PSC or Aquila.

Stu Conrad of Finnegan Conrad & Peterson represented Ag Processing, Inc., a cooperative company with a large processing facility in St. Joseph.  The case at the Commission was unique in that all parties other than the two applicant utilities, including the Commission Staff, testified that the merger was not in the best interests of the ratepayers or the public and should not be approved.  In approving the merger, the Commission rejected the recommendation of its own Staff that the merger was detrimental and could not be saved by imposing conditions on the approval.  [5/1/03]

In an April 15 decision, the Iowa Utilities Board cut back Iowa Power & Light's (IPL) $82 million rate increase request to roughly $28 million.

The case was been sharply contested.  One group of companies located in the utility's Northern zone, asserted that they were being overcharged and demanded that their rates be equalized immediately.  Even without any increase, this would have amounted to roughly a 24% increase for customers in the Southern zone, the former Iowa Southern Utility Company territory.  Earlier, in 1994, the then IES Utilities (one of IPL's predecessor companies) sought to increase its rates by increasing only the rates in the Southern zone, but this proposal was rejected by the Board that instead reduced IES' rates overall and took the reduction from the Northern zone.

Another group of companies argued that there was no evidence that costs had changed from the merger and that it was unjust to deny the benefits of the merger to the former Iowa Southern customers.

There were numerous other disputes in the case.  Consumer Advocate had earlier filed a complaint that IPL was currently over earning by roughly $9 million.  Many expenses claimed by the utility were out of the test year and even beyond a reasonable known and measurable period.

Stu Conrad of Finnegan Conrad & Peterson represented Maytag and Tyson Foods in the case.  Both companies had facilities located in the Southern zone.  We argued that the proposal to immediately equalize rates should be rejected, and the Board agreed.  We also opposed departing from the well-recognized Average and Excess allocation methodology.  IPL had proposed an unproven "Hours Cost Model" and Consumer Advocate offered an energy-based method.

The Board retained the Average and Excess method, but did decide to make a partial shift of revenue between the zones in an attempt to make a movement toward rate equalization.  LGS customers in the Southern zone would expect to see their rates increase roughly 9% inclusive of the increase in aggregate revenues that was allowed.  The decision is subject to rehearing through 5/5/03.  It is presently uncertain whether any applications for rehearing will be submitted.  [4/16/03]

The Missouri PSC has decided to allow Missouri-American Water Co. to defer through an Accounting Authority Order  expenses that it claims it incurred as a result of the 9/11 tragedy in New York.   Missouri-American suffered no damage to any of its facilities, but claimed that it had "no choice" but to incur expenses for additional security measures at its plants in Missouri.  While no one would suggest that any utility be negligent regarding its plant and equipment regarding vandalism or "terrorist" activity, these expenses are simply part of an the ongoing and recurring expenses with operating a public utility business and may already be recovered in rates.  Our initial and reply briefs indicated that the commission should not grant this relief [some portions of these briefs are redacted because of the utility's claims of confidentiality.  We believe the commission erred in permitting this AAO and on December 19 sought rehearing of the order.  The Office of the Public Counsel has also sought rehearing.  Both those rehearing applications were denied and one of our clients has now obtained a writ of review to subject the decision to judicial scrutiny.

An AAO does not have a direct financial impact on ratepayers.  However, it "sets the stage" for recovery in some future rate case by allowing the utility to carry forward expenses that otherwise would be out-of-period.  It does not purport to resolve issues of prudence or need.  Missouri-American is expected to file for additional revenue in the spring or early summer of 2003 and recovery of these expenses will no doubt be sought at that time.  [3/11/03]

The Kansas Municipal Energy Agency recently prevailed in an appeal at the Kansas Court of Appeals concerning the costs of purchased power and the construction of a purchased power contract.  Represented by Ed Peterson of Finnegan Conrad & Peterson, KMEA members claimed that they were overcharged on power purchased from the BPU.  Read the decision here.  Review FCP's initial and reply Briefs in the Kansas Court of Appeals.  [12/9/02]
Aquila Inc., stressed on financial grounds, has failed to prove entitlement to an accounting authority order that would have permitted it to "book" its bad debts from sales customers in such a way that they could have been recovered through base rates.  Concerted opposition by the Missouri PSC Staff, Missouri Public Counsel and Midwest Gas Users' Association and the Sedalia Industrial Energy Users' Association (both represented by Finnegan Conrad & Peterson) proved effective in defeating this unjustified attempt on the part of the utility.  The Commission rejected the utility's assertions that these expenses were "extraordinary" -- a key determination for an accounting authority order.

An accounting authority order ("AAO") represents an exception to the recognized public utility concept of a test year in which expenses, rate base components and revenues are all "matched" in time so as to create a truly representative financial picture of the utility.  An AAO allows a utility to reach back in time and bring forward expenses that occurred prior to the relevant test year and recover them in future rates.  In certain cases such as ice or windstorm damage or other events that cannot be expected by management, this mechanism may be appropriate.  But it is not appropriate, the Commission ruled, to use an AAO to recover increases in bad debt levels (which were claimed but not substantiated) claimed to result from high gas prices or cold winter weather.  Neither of these events is "extraordinary" from the perspective of the natural gas distribution company.  [11/23/02]    Read more.

Earlier this year MidAmerican Energy, based in Des Moines, filed for a significant gas rate increase.  In addition to the increase, MidAmerican also proposed some changes to make rates more "equal" between its several zones.  The case was assigned docket number RPU-02-2.  The Board has now concluded the case by approving the Settlement as in the public interest. 

Shortly before testimony was to be filed, MidAmerican started settlement negotiations with the Consumer Advocate's office and the intervenors, including parties represented by Finnegan Conrad & Peterson.  Those negotiations were made more difficult by an unexpected bilateral agreement between the utility and the Consumer Advocate that significantly affected the positions of the parties.  Finally, however, an acceptable settlement proposal was reached and filed with the Board, providing essentially for an increase, but also preserving favorable aspects of MidAmerican's transportation tariffs from its East Zone and transferring those arrangements into the West Zone.

Only one individual party-intervenor opposed the settlement.  [11/23/02]

Continuing its history of name changes, recent ownership transfer of Williams Gas Pipelines Central to AIG now bring forward a new name for the pipeline.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline will still be the predominant natural gas pipeline serving the Kansas City metropolitan area in both Missouri and Kansas.

This will take a bit of "getting used to."  For many years the pipeline has been known by the Williams name and its ownership and management based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the moniker "WNG" has a long history in this area..

The pipeline began as Cities Service Gas Pipeline, then changed in the late 70s to Northwest Central.  Following that, and its acquisition by the Williams Companies (who had previously operated petroleum pipelines), the name changed to Williams Natural Gas Co.

Recent financial pressures motivated Williams to seek cash for this asset and, according to the press release, the deal to AIG was worth $555 million.  Williams presently retains interests in at least two other interstate pipelines, but this most recent transfer brings Williams' interest in this pipeline to an end.  [10/1/02]

Williams Gas Pipeline Central has failed in its attempt to force its customers into a daily balancing regime.  Williams filed its proposed change with the FERC on March 1, 2002 and asked that the FERC suspend it for five months, or until September 1.  Docketed as RP02-179, a technical conference was scheduled and, in advance of that conference, Midwest Gas Users' Association, represented by Stu Conrad of Finnegan Conrad & Peterson, pulled together the old "Williams Customer Group" and sought to organize them to oppose the filing.  This effort met with support from the customer and shipper community.  At the technical conference in Washington on May 7, FERC Staff was sharply critical of the proposal also, characterizing it as an unwelcome rate increase.  Midwest's activity was supported by several industrial members who had become concerned about the implications that the proposed change would have on the cost of their operations.

Two rounds of comments followed which took the proceeding into early July.  Williams continued to respond with "supplemental" comments that were resisted by Midwest, but by the August FERC recess, no order had issued.  On August 16 Williams moved to place the new rates into effect.  Although a procedural technicality, Midwest again rallied the troops by filing an opposition and answer to the Williams motion.  Williams proceeded with "training sessions" to get the customers ready for the change.

Finally, and at almost the last minute, on August 30, FERC issued an order rejecting the tariffs completely and denying Williams' August 16 Motion.  At the time of this update, Williams' website had still not reflected the FERC action. [9/2/02]

Pursuing an appropriate resolution of the Kansas Ad Valorem controversy, Midwest Gas Users' Association has sought United States Supreme Court review of a decision from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed FERC's approval of the Williams Ad Valorem settlement.  The underlyng dispute concerns the Kansas Corporation Commisson's  misdistribution of $40 million of refunds that resulted from overcharges to natural gas customers in this area over 18 years ago.

Last summer, the KCC ruled that the refunds of all Kansas customers were to be confiscated and redirected to about 40,000 "low income" customers in the state.  In actuality, however, the funds will simply be transferred to the pockets of the gas distribution utilities.  Midwest sought refunds for former sales customers who are now transportation customers, representing roughly 30 percent of the total of the refunds.  However, the thrust of the challenge would restore these refunds to all classes of customers instead of the current objects of the KCC's diversion.  Despite having previously ruled that these customers had a property interest in their share of these refunds, the KCC backed ot of that deal.  The Petition was filed by Stu Conrad and Ed Peterson for Midwest.  [5/10/02]. 

On May 9, 2002, the Missouri PSC issued an order dismissing Empire District's interim rate filing, ER-2002-425.  The basis of the Commission's order was that Empire had not met the Commission's requirements for emergency or interim relief.  Missouri has historically maintained a standard that required that a utility be financially imperiled or its ability to provide service threatened before interim relief will be ordered.  Preservation of this standard assures ratepayer protection by providing time for full review of claims for additional revenue before increases are permitted.

The interim rate case requested relief of $3.6 million, which is identical to the amount that Empire contended that Staff had erred in omitting in Empire's prior rate case.  There is some dispute regarding this amount and the "error."  Empire is currently recovering this amount through an interim energy charge or "IEC," but the excess of its IEC recoveries over actual fuel costs will be refunded to the customers subject to some exceptions and a "true up" case.  The IEC continues to be recovered without regard to the disposition of the interim filing.

Empire has typically submitted an interim case along with each of its permanent rate filings in the last four or five cases.  In each circumstance, the Commission has rejected the interim filing.  This decision continues that sequence.  [5/9/02]

The Missouri PSC has ordered an oral argument on two motions for clarification that were filed following the Commission's Order in GR-98-450.  This case is another in the series of "ACA" cases that are opened as a result of the PGA process in Missouri.  In its original Order, the PSC rejected its Staff's claims that a disallowance was in order because of contracting problems between KPL (MGE's predecessor) and Kansas Pipeline L.P. a number of years ago.  The matter has already been up and back to the Court of Appeals.  Kansas Pipeline sought reconsideration, not because it had lost (it didn't) but rather because no determination had been made by the Commission regarding the ambiguity of an earlier settlement agreement between the parties.  The PSC Staff also sought reconsideration (they cannot seek rehearing) asserting that the Commission had failed to decide this issue.  The oral argument is set for May 6, 2002.  [5/6/02] 

Williams Gas Pipeline Central's "daily balancing" proposal has been suspended by FERC at the request of Midwest Gas Users' Association and other parties.  A technical conference has been ordered to be held on May 7, 2002 at the FERC in Washington.  If approved, the proposal will have an uncertain but undoubtedly costly effect on natural gas transporters in the Midwest.  Midwest is seeking support from additional transporters to assist with this effort.   For further information, please contact our office. 

At an earlier  meeting held in Kansas City on December 6, 2001, Williams Central, the dominant interstate natural gas pipeline in this area, announced plans to submit a "daily scheduling" procedure for FERC approval. There are serious concerns about the proposal and the cost implications that it could create for natural gas transporters.  [4/25/02]

Interstate Power, a combined utility of the Alliant group, is seeking additional revenue in Iowa.  A permanent increase of $82 million coupled with an interim increase proposal of $22.3 million.  Interstate is a combination utility that represents the former Iowa service areas of Interstate Power, Iowa Electric and Iowa Southern.  The ultimate impact of the case on customers may vary depending on the customer's location within Interstate service territory.  The Iowa Utility Board has not yet issued a docketing order or established a schedule.  For additional information about this case, please contact our office.  [4/25/02]

The Iowa Utility Board has just issued a basic procedural schedule and now directed consumer comment hearings in several locations in Iowa.  The Board also rejected one intervenor's motion to dismiss the filing because IPL did not file a cost of service study with its filing.  The Board has allowed IPL to defer that filing until July.  The upshot of this may be that the case will be bifurcated with the rate entitlement for IPL decided first, then distribution of the increase left to the customers to struggle over.  There will certainly be more activity in this case in the future.  [5/6/02]

MidAmerican Energy has filed a natural gas rate case for its Iowa service territories.  The case seeks an annual permanent increase of roughly $26 million and is combined with an interim proposal of $22 million.  Significant increases and changes to transportation terms and conditions are also being proposed.  Interventions were due on April 23, 2002.  For more information about this case, contact our office.  [4/25/02]

As a spin-off of the recently settled Missouri Public Service Company rate case, the Missouri Public Service Commission created a class cost of service study case.  All parties to the rate case were made parties to the new case.  A prehearing and scheduling conference was held at the Commission in Jefferson City on April 19, 2002.  Contact our office for more information.  [4/25/02]

MoPub filed for a $49.3 million increase in its electric rates on June 8, 2001.  The Commission suspended the proposed increases for the full period and assigned ER-2001-672 as the docket number.  The usual procedural schedule was established.  Finnegan, Conrad and Peterson was engaged by a group of companies in and near Sedalia, Missouri to represent their interests.

Following initial discovery and testimony from MoPub, the Commission Staff filed a recommendation that MoPub's present electric rates be reduced by roughly $39 million.  MoPub had included an exceptionally high estimated value for the natural gas component of its fuel cost and had included numerous other items that the Staff argued were overstated.  Encouraged by the industrial intervenors, Staff sought Commission authority to file an earnings reduction complaint.

The hearing was scheduled to begin on January 25, 2002 and continue for the next two weeks.  At the initial day of the hearing, however, discussions of settlement bore fruit and in late February the Commission approved a settlement reducing MoPub's electric rates $4.25 million annually.  Final rates are pending before the Commission.[2/27/02]

On December 10, 2001, Missouri-American Water Company recently filed for an accounting authority order from the Commission.  Expedited treatment was also requested.  The utility asserts that it has incurred and will incur additional costs to introduce new security precuations following the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Public Counsel opposes the request for expedited treatment, as do the intervenors City of Joplin and St. Joseph Industrial Intervenors.   The amount, nature and location of the expenditures has not been specified in the utility's application, which seeks issuance of an order by January 4..

An early prehearing conference was held at the Commission on December 18.  At that conference, Mr. Conrad, Counsel for the St. Joseph Industrial Intervenors, noted that an order from the Commission was not needed to permit the utility to establish an accrual account.  In a response filed on December 21, the utility agreed and withdrew its expedited application.  However, the base application for the AAO remains to be addressed by the Commission.

A second prehearing was held on February 22 at which MAWC's continued refusal to provide access to its data was challenged by both Public Counsel and Commission Staff.  [2/27/02]

As a continuing part of the cold weather saga, Missouri Gas Energy filed, then on 12/11/01 withdrew a proposed tariff to modify its cold weather rule policies more in keeping with those that had been ordered by the MoPSC but that the utility had blocked by judicial stay order.  (See below:  Utilities Challenge Emergency Cold Weather Rule).  More detail [12/23/01]

UtiliCorp, filing for its St. Joseph and Missouri Public Service divisions, is seeking MoPSC approval to transfer control of its transmission assets to the Midwest Independent System Operator organization or "MISO."  More detail.

Last month, the Missouri PSC issued an "Emergency Cold Weather Rule" intended to limit the payments that Missouri customers were required to pay to remain hooked up to gas utilities in the state and to reconnect to them when service had been terminated.  Two utilities obtained a judicial stay of the order.  Read details here.   [12/9/01]

Settlement of MGE's most recent rate case brought a sizeable refund as well as a minimal increase in transportation rates, largely do to the efforts of Midwest Gas Users' Association's intervention activity.  Read more. [10/15/01]

[10/15/01]  Part of Williams Gas Pipeline's transportation rate is a "FERC ACA" or actual cost adjustment charge. Williams recently filed to reduce this charge.  Read more.

The Missouri PSC organized a Task Force to address hot issues from the spiking natural gas prices of this past winter.  Stu Conrad and Jeremiah Finnegan both were invited to participate on the Task Force.  A report was recently releasesed reflecting the deliberations and recommendations of the Task Force.  Read more.
[6/30/01]  The Missouri Governor's Energy Task Force recently released a recommendation to "divert" future natural gas refunds to help the poor.  These types of social policy issues are typically don't work and sometimes harm the very persons intended to be helped.  Read details.
[8/1/01]  In late July, 2001 the Missouri PSC approved a settlement of MGE's most recent rate case, GR-2001-292.  The Commission's decision approved a settlement cutting MGE's requested increase from roughly $40 million to $9.9 million.  The increase to transportation rates was less than 1/2 the system average increase and achieves the same result as a reduction of roughly $300,000.  Details here.

[10/5/01]  MidAmerican Energy's "Alternative Regulatory Plan" or "ARP" expired at the end of last year.  Iowa's Consumer Advocate filed a overearning complaint for $77 million; MidAmerican responded with a request for an increase of $50 million.  A subsequent settlement has been contested.  Resolution of the dispute is pending before the Iowa regulators.  Read details.

The Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City has upheld a trial court issuance of a stay request by Midwest Gas Users' Association.  The stay will allow the transportation customer increase that was unlawfully imposed by the Missouri Public Service Commission to be accumulated in court and ultimately refunded to the customers that paid it in.  Read the details.

MoPSC has approved the SJLP/UtiliCorp merger, but challenges to the decision continue.  Read details here.

Along with its application to merge with the SJLP company, UtiliCorp also sought authority to merge with the Empire District electric utility in Joplin Missouri.  However, before a MoPSC decision was issued, UtiliCorp canceled the merger.  Details here.

MidAmerican made a filing with the Iowa Utility Board to allow an interruptible customer to "buy through" an interruption to the wholesale market.  Read details here.

Roughly 18 years ago, several pipelines drawing natural gas from Kansas included certain Kansas taxes in the costs passed through to consumers.  In Iowa, these funds have been refuded with reasonable accuracy to those who paid the overcharges.  Read details.

 

1209 Penntower Office Center
3100 Broadway
Kansas City, Missouri  64111
(816) 753-1122
Fax (816) 756-0373

428 East Capitol
Suite 300
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 635-2700
Fax (573) 635-6998

This page last updated 06/11/06