Public Service Commission

Editor:
Daniel Jordan, Esquire

Appeal no bar to further orders. In the Matter of the Determination of Carrying Costs for the Phase-In Tariffs of KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company AG Processing, Inc. v. Missouri Public Service Commission and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, No. 75437 (Mo. App. W.D., May 14, 2013), Mitchell, P.J.

Statutes provide that Public Service Commission may phase in rate increase if commission also addresses carrying costs. Statutes provide motion for rehearing as exclusive method for preserving points on appeal from order.

Held: Affirmed.
Pending appeal of decision, absent stay of decision, commission can implement decision by further orders addressing phase-in. When ruling on compliance with decision, commission need not repeat the analysis it made in decision. Motion for rehearing of decision does not apply to any other ruling.


Contracts were outside Fuel Adjustment Clause (FAC). State ex rel Union Electric Company D/B/A Ameren Missouri vs. Public Service Commission of The State of Missouri and Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers, No. 75404 (Mo. App. W.D., May 14, 2013), Martin, J.

Statute authorizing fuel adjustment clause (“FAC”) does not authorize pass-through of fixed costs attributable to one large customer. When ice storm halted sales to that customer, utility sought new customers to make up for short-fall, and treated contracts with new customers under its FAC.

Held: Affirmed
. Appellant must refund over-collection.


Findings of fact sufficient. State of Missouri ex rel.  KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, AG  Processing, Inc., and Office of The Public Counsel v. Missouri Public Service Commission and Dogwood Energy, LLC, No. 75038 (Mo. App. W.D., May 14, 2013), Ahuja, J.

When facts and law require a rate increase, nothing limits amount granted to amount requested. Missouri agency decision, excluding from utility’s rates the cost of distant transmission set by federal agency, did not constitute nullification of federal decision. Cost allocation and phase-in of increase were reasonable. Commission’s findings of fact are sufficient if they show which evidence the commission believed and they support commission’s conclusions of law. Appellant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that rates are not just and reasonable.

Held:
Affirmed. Enactment of new tariff superseding old tariff moots appeal of old tariff as to issues fact-specific to old tariff and issues on appeal of new tariff. Superseded tariff cannot be corrected.