10.07.2015 Views

2012 PSC Annual Report - Missouri Public Service Commission

2012 PSC Annual Report - Missouri Public Service Commission

2012 PSC Annual Report - Missouri Public Service Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

REGULATORY ACTIVITY25,00020,00022,<strong>Missouri</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> orload 2-22Figures uoted as of 9-2-22 2 2215,00010,000,938,995,53,8,3355,000COMPLAINTS,INQUIRIES ANDPUBLICCOMMENTSGENERALUTILITY CASESCOMMISSIONCASES OPENEDCOMMISSIONCASE FILINGSRate Case ExpenseCase No. A-2-33Testimony presented in recent rate cases and escalatingrate case expense requests led the <strong>Public</strong> <strong>Service</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>(<strong>Commission</strong>) to open a case to consider whether changesshould be made to current rules and practices wherebyregulated utilities generally recover all costs incurredwhen presenting a rate case before the <strong>Commission</strong>. The<strong>Commission</strong> directed staff to investigate whether it isappropriate for shareholders to bear responsibility for aportion of rate case expense, or whether it is appropriateto establish a dollar or revenue percentage cap on rate caseexpense that can be passed on to ratepayers. The file is arepository for anyone wanting to submit informal comments.Tariff Liability LanguageCase No. AO-22-3On December 7, 2011, the <strong>Commission</strong> opened a casedirecting the staff to investigate tariff provisions addressingliability for damages by surveying provisions currently ineffect, examining other states’ policies on such provisions and <strong>PSC</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong>029DATAREQUESTS ANDRESPONSES929,2TARIFFACTIVITYCOMPANIES’ANNUAL REPORTSUBMISSIONSfiling a report. Staff filed its first report, outlining provisionscurrently in effect, on March 30, <strong>2012</strong>. Staff reported thatmost current tariff liability language was reasonable forelectric, natural gas, water and sewer utilities, and anyconcerns were not ripe for discussion in this proceeding.Staff also noted that the liability language it reviewed fortelecommunications companies was egregious. Staff filedits second report, which summarized the policies of otherstates, on August 1, <strong>2012</strong>. Staff received information from 31states and found most states have similar liability languageand policies as <strong>Missouri</strong>. Based on the information gatheredfor both reports, staff recommended the <strong>Commission</strong>review tariff liability language on a case-by-case basis. The<strong>Commission</strong> issued another order asking for a third report toexamine jurisdictions that have reduced regulated utilities’immunity from liability for personal and property damage.Investigation into the Establishmentof Low-Income Customer ClassCase Nos. E-23-5,G-23- and -23-On August 8, <strong>2012</strong>, the <strong>Commission</strong> opened aninvestigation into the establishment of a low-incomecustomer class or other means to help make utility serviceaffordable. In its order, the <strong>Commission</strong> commented thatover the last several utility rate cases, witnesses at local public559

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!