Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

by
In the case, GenConn Energy, LLC, an electricity supplier, appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, arguing that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) overstepped its authority by reducing GenConn's proposed return on capital for two of its peaking generation facilities. These facilities provide additional electricity to Connecticut consumers during times of increased demand. GenConn claimed that PURA was not allowed to lower GenConn's debt rate or to use the general rate-making principles found in a different statute when making its decision.However, the court rejected these arguments. It held that PURA acted within its statutory authority under § 16-243u when it reviewed GenConn's recovery of costs in line with the general rate-making principles of § 16-19e. The court highlighted the interrelated nature of cost recovery and rate setting, and deduced that PURA must be able to protect the interests of ratepayers if it determines that a company is overrecovering. The court also rejected GenConn's argument that PURA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support PURA's final decision and concluded that the decision did not constitute an arbitrary and capricious one. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of GenConn's appeal.The court's ruling implies that PURA has the authority to review a peaking generation facility's recoverable costs to ensure that the rates are "sufficient, but no more than sufficient," to cover the facility's operating costs. The decision also emphasizes the importance of PURA’s regulatory authority and the necessity of protecting ratepayers from bearing the financial burden of a company's overrecovery. View "GenConn Energy, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

by
In a dispute regarding a Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) decision to approve a rate increase for Washington Gas and Light Company (Washington Gas), the Supreme Court of Maryland held that a reviewing court must apply an arbitrary or capricious standard of review to the Commission’s interpretation of its own prior order. The issue arose from the interpretation of Condition 44, a provision in the merger order which mandated a certain level of savings for customers following the merger. The Public Service Commission interpreted this condition to mean that Washington Gas’s post-merger costs must be $800,000 per year less than they would have been without the merger. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) disagreed, arguing that the condition required Washington Gas’s post-merger costs to be $800,000 per year less than they were the year before the merger. The court found the Commission’s interpretation was not arbitrary or capricious, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. View "Petition of the Off. Of People's Counsel" on Justia Law

by
In this case, Fred Zackery sought access to confidential settlement agreements between the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden ("the Board") and various carpet and chemical manufacturers. Zackery requested these agreements under the Open Records Act. The Board had sued the manufacturers, alleging they contaminated the Board's raw water intake. The Board settled with all the manufacturers and planned to use the settlement funds to build and maintain a new water-treatment facility.Zackery, a citizen of Gadsden and a local radio station manager, intervened in the lawsuit specifically to request disclosure of the settlement agreements. The trial court granted his intervention but ruled that the Board didn't have to disclose the agreements until it had accepted a bid for the construction of the water-treatment facility. This decision was grounded in Alabama's Competitive Bid Law, which is designed to guard against corruption and favoritism in awarding contracts for public projects.The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the immediate disclosure of the settlements could interfere with the competitive bid process, potentially driving bids upwards and leaving fewer funds for the long-term operation and maintenance of the new facility. This situation, the court reasoned, could cause rate hikes for the Board's customers. Therefore, the court concluded that an exception to the Open Records Act justified nondisclosure of the settlement agreements until the competitive-bid process was complete. View "Zackery v. Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden" on Justia Law

by
In this case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) contested an order by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that extended the waiver of the standard depreciation rate for the Maine Water Company - Millinocket Division (MWC). The OPA raised three claims: (1) the Commission erred in applying Chapter 110 of its rules to waive the depreciation rate set in Chapter 68, which according to the OPA already contained a waiver provision; (2) the Commission abused its discretion and set unjust and unreasonable rates by approving an arbitrarily low depreciation expense; and (3) the Commission relied on information that was not included in the evidentiary record.The court disagreed with all three claims raised by the OPA. Regarding the first claim, the court stated that Chapter 68 did not contain a waiver provision and that the Commission rightly applied the general waiver provision contained in Chapter 110. Concerning the second claim, the court found that the Commission did not abuse its discretion when it extended the waiver in anticipation of a gradual return to full depreciation expenses. The court determined that the Commission's decision aligned with the statutory rate-setting goal and prevented rate shock. Lastly, the court determined that the OPA waived its third claim by not raising the issue about the lack of an evidentiary record earlier in the proceedings. As such, the court affirmed the Commission's order. View "Office of the Public Advocte v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

by
In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District reviewed a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to adopt a new net energy metering (NEM) tariff. The PUC was required by the Legislature to create a successor tariff to the existing NEM scheme, which utilities argued overcompensated owners of renewable energy systems for their exported energy, raising electricity costs for customers without such systems.The petitioners, Center for Biological Diversity, Inc., Environmental Working Group, and The Protect our Communities Foundation, contended that the successor tariff did not comply with various requirements of section 2827.1 of the Public Utilities Code. The petitioners argued that the tariff failed to consider the social benefits of customer-generated power, improperly favored the interests of utility customers who did not own renewable systems, failed to promote sustainable growth of renewable energy, and neglected alternatives to promote the growth of renewable systems among customers in disadvantaged communities.The court affirmed the PUC's decision. It held that the PUC had appropriately balanced the various objectives set out by the Legislature in section 2827.1. The court found that the successor tariff was designed to reduce the financial advantage previously given to owners of renewable energy systems under the NEM tariff, which the court said was consistent with the Legislature's aim of balancing costs and benefits to all customers. The court also noted that the PUC had adopted programs to make renewable energy systems more accessible to low-income customers, satisfying the requirement to ensure growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities.Lastly, the court concluded that the PUC's decision to apply the same tariff to both residential and nonresidential customers was justified, as the nonresidential NEM 2.0 tariff, while cost-effective for the electrical system as a whole, did not balance costs and benefits among all customers. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

by
This case involves an appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio. The appellant is the State of Ohio, represented by the Attorney General, and the appellees are FirstEnergy Corporation, Samuel Randazzo, and a consulting company controlled by Randazzo. Randazzo, the former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), allegedly received a $4.3 million bribe from FirstEnergy Corporation. The state of Ohio filed a civil action against Randazzo and his consulting company to recover the proceeds of the bribe. The state sought attachment orders to prevent Randazzo from draining his bank and brokerage accounts. The trial court granted the state’s motion ex parte, without notice to Randazzo and his attorneys. After learning about the court's decision, Randazzo requested a hearing and moved to vacate the orders. The court held a hearing with both sides present and declined to discharge the orders of attachment. Randazzo appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which found the orders of attachment had been improperly granted. The Court of Appeals determined that the state had failed to meet its burden at the ex parte hearing to establish the irreparable injury requirement.Upon appeal by the state, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the orders of the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by basing its decision on the ex parte requirements. The Supreme Court ruled that the court of appeals should have reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate the attachment rather than the irreparable injury requirement for an ex parte order. The Supreme Court concluded that the proper remedy for a party dissatisfied with an ex parte attachment order is to request a hearing on the order at which both parties may be heard. It also concluded that Randazzo failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the use of improper garnishment forms. View "State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

by
In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Brandenburg Telephone Company and Sprint Communications were in disagreement over the interest rate on an award that Sprint Communications conceded it owed to Brandenburg Telephone Company. The $2.2 million award was for unpaid fees that Sprint Communications owed for connecting local telephone calls. The dispute centered on Brandenburg's filed utility tariff which set the interest rate. Sprint argued that the tariff set the rate at 8%, and thus owed $4.3 million in interest, while Brandenburg claimed the tariff imposed a rate of 10.66%, which would result in $7.1 million in interest. The district court ruled in favor of Sprint, and the appeals court affirmed this decision.The court reasoned that the 8% rate set by the Kentucky usury statute was applicable. The court noted that while Brandenburg's tariff offered two alternatives for late payment penalty: (1) the highest interest rate (in decimal value) which may be levied by law for commercial transactions, or (2) a rate of .000292 per day (which works out to an annualized rate of 10.66%); the court interpreted the phrase "levied by law for commercial transactions" to refer to the default rate that Kentucky permits to be collected by law, which is 8%.The court rejected Brandenburg's argument that the 10.66% rate was applicable because the tariff could be viewed as an agreement between the parties and Kentucky law allows for parties to agree on higher interest rates. The court pointed out that tariffs are not freely negotiated contracts, but represent the judgment of regulators about what rates and conditions will prove reasonable and uniform for utility customers. Once regulators approve a tariff, the filed-rate doctrine prevents utilities and their customers from contracting around its terms. In this context, the court determined that the tariff's reference to the maximum rate levied by the General Assembly for general commercial transactions aligned with the filed-rate doctrine, and thus, the 8% default rule of interest applied. View "Brandenburg Telephone Co. v. Sprint Comm'ns Co." on Justia Law

by
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit examined a case involving the City of Lincoln, also known as Lincoln Electric, a public utility providing electricity to the Lincoln, Nebraska area. Lincoln Electric had invested in the Laramie River Station facilities (LRS) in eastern Wyoming as a source of generation and transmission, despite only serving customers in the Lincoln area.When Lincoln Electric joined the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in 2009, it transferred control of all its facilities in the Lincoln area to SPP, but retained control of its LRS interest. In 2021, the SPP proposed that Lincoln Electric recover its LRS costs from Zone 19 customers, where LRS is physically located. Other co-owners of the LRS facilities recover their costs from Zone 19 customers.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected the SPP proposal as unjust and unreasonable because Zone 19 customers neither caused Lincoln Electric's LRS investment nor benefited from it, thus violating the cost-causation principle. Lincoln Electric petitioned for review of the relevant FERC orders and the SPP intervened on Lincoln Electric's behalf.The court upheld FERC's decision, ruling that Lincoln Electric failed to demonstrate that the proposed rates were just and reasonable. The court concluded that cost allocation must reflect the costs actually caused by the customer who must pay them. In this case, Lincoln Electric's investment in the LRS was for the benefit of its own Zone 16 customers, not Zone 19 customers. As such, the court found that allocating Lincoln Electric's LRS costs to Zone 19 would violate the cost-causation principle. The petition for review was denied. View "City of Lincoln v. FERC" on Justia Law

by
In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the Office of the Public Advocate (the appellant) contested a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that approved an amended special rate contract between Bangor Natural Gas Company and Bucksport Generation LLC. The appellant argued that the PUC applied the wrong standard in reviewing the contract, which led to unjust or unreasonable rates and undue or unreasonable preference for Bucksport Generation over other Bangor Gas customers. The appellant also argued that the PUC's order should be vacated because it relied on evidence not included in the record.The court disagreed with the appellant's first argument and found the second argument waived, thereby affirming the PUC's order. The court held that the PUC was within its discretion to apply different standards of review for special rate contracts depending on the type of utility service at issue. Given the competitive nature of the natural gas market in Maine, the court deemed the PUC's standard reasonable.Regarding the rates, the court found that the PUC’s approval of the special rate contract did not result in unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory rates for other Bangor Gas customers. The court noted that incentivizing continued financial contributions from Bucksport Generation to Bangor Gas’s fixed costs was justifiable.Finally, the court ruled that the appellant's argument about the PUC's failure to create an evidentiary record was waived due to the appellant's failure to raise the issue at the PUC level. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's point and advised the PUC to clarify its regulations regarding what materials constitute the evidentiary record in proceedings where an evidentiary hearing is not held. View "Office of the Public Advocate v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

by
The Court of Appeal of the State of California was asked to review a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that adopted a new tariff (pricing structure) for utility customers who generate their own power from renewable sources, such as solar panels. This new tariff significantly reduces the price utilities pay for customer-generated power. The petitioners, a group of environmental organizations, argued that the new tariff fails to comply with various requirements imposed by state law, including that it doesn't take into account the societal benefits of customer-generated power, it favors utility customers who don't own renewable systems, it doesn't promote sustainable growth of renewable energy, and it doesn't promote the growth of renewable systems among customers in disadvantaged communities. The court upheld the PUC's decision.The court found that the PUC's decision to base the price paid for exported power on the marginal cost of energy to the utilities served the goal of equity among customers. The court also determined that the PUC's decision complied with the statutory mandate to ensure that the tariff does not grant unwarranted benefits or impose unwarranted costs on any particular group of ratepayers. Lastly, the court found the PUC's efforts to stimulate the adoption of renewable systems in disadvantaged communities sufficient to meet its statutory obligation. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law