Public Service Commission
Editor:
Dale Hardy Roberts, Esquire
Nancy Dippell, Esquire
The commission found that the application to construct, operate, own, and maintain a 345-kilovolt electric transmission line in Osage, Maries, and Pulaski Counties was in the public interest with certain conditions. In the matter of the Application of Union Electric Company for Permission and Authority to Construct, Operate, Own, and Maintain a 345 Kilovolt Transmission Line in Maries, Osage, and Pulaski Counties, Missouri, Case No. EO-2002-351, August 21, 2003, PSC Judge Dippell.
Is the construction of an electric transmission line outside the certificated service area of the electric company and across farms in rural Osage, Pulaski, and Maries Counties in the public interest?
Holding: Yes. Where Union Electric Company, d/b/a AmerenUE, proposed to construct a 345-kilovolt electric transmission line, a portion of which would lie outside its certificated service area and which would cross farms in rural Osage, Pulaski, and Maries counties, the commission found that with certain conditions attached, the proposed transmission line was in the public interest. The commission determined that it must balance all the relevant factors, both the benefits and detriments, and determine whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the individual detriments.
The commission determined that the proposed addition to the AmerenUE transmission system was necessary to provide safe and reliable electric service and that the Callaway Franks Line was the best electrical solution to the overloading problems. The commission also found that the line caused some detriments to the public interest, the greatest of which was the removal of a home. After weighing the benefits and detriments of the proposed transmission line the commission found that with certain construction and maintenance conditions attached, the benefits to the general public of increased safety and reliability of the transmission system outweighed the detriments to the individual land owners.
The commission found that although the filing of a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court operates as an automatic stay of actions involving the assets of the company filing for bankruptcy protection, there is an exception for proceedings by a governmental unit enforcing its regulatory power when such enforcement is aimed at effectuating public policy. In the Matter of the Joint Application of Now Acquisition Corporation and NOW Communications, Inc., for Authority to Transfer Certain Assets of NOW Communications, Inc., to Now Acquisition Corporation. Case No. XM-2004-0065, October 2, 2003, PSC Judge Jones.
Does the filing of a petition under the United States Bankruptcy Code, at 11 U.S.C. Section362(a), operate as an automatic stay against the commission's approval of a transfer of assets?
Holding: No. NOW Acquisition Corporation and NOW Communications, Inc., filed a joint application for approval of a transfer of assets. The companies stated that NOW Communications had filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court and that it was necessary to transfer the assets and customers of NOW Communications in order to avoid service interruptions. The commission found that because its action was aimed at effectuating public policy, rather than its pecuniary interest, the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code does not stay the Commission's approval of a transfer of assets.
The Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin,
3-Dec
|
