Justia Utilities Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves an order issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Commission) that prevented certain utilities from billing customers for municipal franchise fees and municipal gross receipts taxes based on securitized revenue, as per the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. The City of Oklahoma City challenged this order, arguing that it unlawfully canceled municipal taxes and franchise fees, and exceeded the Commission's jurisdiction.The Public Utilities Division (PUD) of the Commission filed an application to prevent utilities from billing customers for these fees and taxes, arguing that such charges would result in a windfall for municipalities. The Commission granted the PUD's application, concluding that the fees and taxes related to extraordinary fuel costs from the 2021 winter storm should not be collected from customers. The Oklahoma Municipal League (OML) intervened, arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to alter franchise agreements and that the fees were legal obligations of the utilities.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and determined that the OML had standing in the controversy. The Court found that the Commission's determination that the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act changed or altered a utility's legal obligations concerning municipal franchise fees and gross receipts taxes was not sustained by law. The Court held that the Commission did not have the authority to determine the legality of these fees and taxes or to prevent their collection based on securitized revenue.The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the Commission's order, concluding that the Commission's decision was not supported by the law. The case was remanded to the Corporation Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. View "CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SEC), a rural electric cooperative, proposed a rate increase of approximately $1.25 million or 5.06% from its 2017 test year. SEC also sought to reallocate revenue collections among its customer classes and redesign several rates, including adding a $5.00 per month "Minimum Use Charge" for low-usage accounts. Several SEC members filed protests, leading the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (Commission) to review the proposed rates. The Commission found just cause for review and held an evidentiary hearing.The Hearing Examiner recommended denying SEC's proposed rate increase, finding that SEC did not need increased revenue to maintain financial integrity. The Examiner suggested using the Operating Times Interest Earned Ratio (OTIER) to evaluate SEC's revenue needs, concluding that SEC's current OTIER was within an acceptable range. The Examiner also recommended adjustments to SEC's proposed revenue reallocation and rate design to avoid rate shock and ensure gradual movement towards full cost of service contribution for each customer class. The Commission adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendations in full.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's order. The Court held that the Commission has plenary authority to set just and reasonable rates for rural electric cooperatives once its jurisdiction is invoked under Section 62-8-7(H) of the Public Utility Act. The Court found that the Commission's decision to deny SEC's proposed revenue increase was lawful, reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence. The Commission's reallocation of revenue collections and rate design decisions were also upheld as lawful, reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence. The Court concluded that SEC had not shown the Commission's order to be unlawful or unreasonable. View "Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. New Mexico Regulation Commission" on Justia Law

A Nevada limited liability company, Mass Land Acquisition, LLC, challenged the use of eminent domain by Sierra Pacific Power Company, d/b/a NV Energy, to take an easement across its property for a natural gas pipeline. NV Energy sought immediate occupancy of the property, while Mass Land argued that such a taking by a private entity violated the Nevada Constitution and requested a jury determination on whether the taking was for a public use.The First Judicial District Court of Nevada denied Mass Land's motion to dismiss and granted NV Energy's motion for immediate occupancy. The court concluded that NV Energy, as a regulated public utility, was exercising delegated eminent domain powers and acting as the government, not as a private party. The court also found that the taking was for a natural gas pipeline, a statutorily recognized public use, and thus did not require a jury determination on public use before granting occupancy.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied Mass Land's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. The court held that the Nevada Constitution's prohibition on transferring property taken by eminent domain to another private party did not apply to NV Energy's taking for a natural gas pipeline, as it was a public use. The court also determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact requiring a jury determination on whether the taking was actually for a public use. The court concluded that NV Energy's actions were lawful and consistent with the statutory and constitutional provisions governing eminent domain in Nevada. View "MASS LAND ACQUISITION, LLC VS. DISTRICT COURT" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Public Service Commission (the Commission) authorized a rate increase for Entergy Mississippi, LLC (Entergy) based on a joint stipulation with the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff (the Staff). Rankin County, an Entergy customer, intervened, disputing the exclusion of unbilled revenue from Entergy’s operating expenses. The Commission found substantial evidence supporting the rate increase and deemed new issues raised by Rankin County on appeal as waived.Rankin County intervened in the Commission’s proceedings, challenging the exclusion of unbilled revenue from Entergy’s operating income. The Commission held a public hearing, but Rankin County did not present admissible evidence. The Commission approved the rate changes, including an Annual Rate Adjustment and an Interim Rate Adjustment, based on Entergy’s financial data and the Formula Rate Plan. Rankin County appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Mississippi without seeking rehearing from the Commission.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the Commission’s order, finding that the exclusion of unbilled revenue was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court held that Rankin County waived new issues raised on appeal by not presenting them to the Commission. The court also found no merit in Rankin County’s arguments regarding the recalculation of net rate adjustments, the application of the 4 percent cap on revenue increases, and the management of Entergy’s confidential records. The Commission’s order was affirmed as it complied with statutory and regulatory procedures, and the rate adjustments were not arbitrary or capricious. View "Rankin County, Mississippi v. Mississippi Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

From 2018 to 2020, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) sent misleading communications to customers behind on their electric bills, threatening winter disconnection without providing accurate information about customers' rights and the required process under Maine Public Utilities Commission rules. In 2020, the Commission investigated and CMP consented to a finding of rule violations and paid a $500,000 penalty.Brett Deane, Henry Lavender, and Joleen Mitchell, CMP customers who received these misleading communications, filed a multicount complaint against CMP in January 2020. The Business and Consumer Docket dismissed claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory violations, and granted summary judgment for CMP on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the misrepresentation claims, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege pecuniary harm, which is necessary for such claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the statutory cause of action, determining that 35-A M.R.S. § 1501 does not create a private right of action. Finally, the court upheld the summary judgment on the IIED claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate severe emotional distress as required by law, and that CMP's conduct, while extreme and outrageous, did not warrant an inference of severe emotional distress. View "Deane v. Central Maine Power Company" on Justia Law

The City of Gridley operates an electric utility and approved reduced electric rates for residential users in September 2020. Plaintiffs, residential ratepayers, challenged these rates, alleging they resulted in charges exceeding the reasonable cost of providing electric service, thus constituting a tax without voter approval in violation of article XIII C of the California Constitution. They also claimed the rates violated the state and federal takings clauses under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate and class action complaint, alleging the City set rates higher than necessary and transferred excess revenues to its general fund.The Superior Court of Butte County denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the rates resulted in excessive charges and whether plaintiffs had a property interest in continued electric service. The court rejected the City’s argument that article XIII C was inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase a tax when it approved reduced rates. The court also found that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine could apply to plaintiffs' takings claim.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the City was entitled to relief. The court found article XIII C inapplicable because the City did not impose, extend, or increase any tax by reducing its electric rates. The court also found the unconstitutional conditions doctrine inapplicable, as it applies only in the land-use permitting context, not to user fees like the electric rates in question. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to set aside its order denying the City’s motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion. The City’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the stay of proceedings in the trial court was vacated. View "City of Gridley v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

High Plains Power, a cooperatively owned utility in central Wyoming, proposed a tariff revision to the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) in August 2022. The revision aimed to change the compensation rate for customer-generators—members who generate electricity through small net metering systems—from a retail rate credit to an avoided cost rate, which is lower. Powder River Basin Resource Council and Wyoming Outdoor Council opposed this change, arguing it would unfairly reduce compensation for customer-generators.The PSC held a hearing in May 2023, where both parties presented evidence and testimony. The PSC approved the tariff revision on a two-to-one vote, with Chairman Throne dissenting. The appellants then petitioned the district court for review, which certified the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the PSC misinterpreted the relevant statute and failed to perform its ratemaking function. The court held that the PSC erred in presuming that the avoided cost rate was a just and reasonable rate for monthly compensation under Wyoming Statute § 37-16-103(a)(iii). The court emphasized that the statute does not specify the value of monthly credits or compensation, leaving it to the PSC to determine through its ratemaking process. The court concluded that the PSC did not evaluate the evidence or consider whether the proposed change served the public interest. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the PSC's decision. View "Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Wyoming Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Moraine Wind, L.L.C. and other out-of-state wind farms applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for certification as eligible Ohio renewable-energy-resource-generating facilities. Carbon Solutions Group, L.L.C. (CSG), whose clients include Ohio-based renewable-energy suppliers, opposed the applications. PUCO approved the applications in September 2023. CSG filed an application for rehearing, which PUCO purported to grant for the limited purpose of further consideration, effectively extending the statutory deadline for a decision.CSG appealed PUCO's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that PUCO's failure to grant or deny the rehearing application within 30 days resulted in a denial by operation of law, as per R.C. 4903.10. PUCO moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction because the rehearing application was still pending.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that PUCO's order granting rehearing for further consideration did not constitute a substantive grant of rehearing. The court emphasized that R.C. 4903.10 requires PUCO to grant or deny an application for rehearing within 30 days, and failure to do so results in a denial by operation of law. The court found that PUCO's practice of extending the deadline was not supported by statute and undermined the legislative intent for timely judicial review. Consequently, the court denied PUCO's motion to dismiss, affirming that CSG's application for rehearing was denied by operation of law, and the appeal was timely filed. View "In re Application of Moraine Wind, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves property owners Brenda and Ray von Wandruszka and Robert R. Davis, who sued the City of Moscow after the city adopted a resolution in 2021 revising its utility billing process. The new policy required property owners to sign contracts making them responsible for tenants' unpaid water bills, under threat of water service termination. The plaintiffs signed the contracts under protest and claimed they were unenforceable adhesion contracts signed under duress.The District Court of the Second Judicial District of Idaho reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled that the city was not authorized to recover tenants' unpaid utility charges from property owners, citing City of Grangeville v. Haskin. However, it also ruled that the city could require owner-occupied properties to enter agreements to pay for water consumed. Both parties appealed the split decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and clarified that City of Grangeville does not prohibit municipalities from collecting tenants' unpaid utilities from property owners if there is a contractual basis. The court found that the utility billing agreements were not secured under duress, as the city's actions were not coercive. However, the court determined that the lien provisions in the agreements were too vague and indefinite to be enforceable, rendering the contracts invalid.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding tenant-occupied properties but reversed the summary judgment in favor of the city concerning owner-occupied properties. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The plaintiffs were awarded costs as the prevailing party, but no attorney fees were granted to either side. View "Von Wandruszka v. City of Moscow" on Justia Law

The Industrial Energy Consumer Group (IECG) appealed an order from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding the recovery of costs related to power supply obligations and state energy programs. The PUC decided that these costs should be recovered volumetrically from all ratepayer classes, except for one category, which should be recovered using a fixed customer charge. IECG argued that the order was preempted by the Federal Power Act and that the allocation and design violated cost-causation principles and state statutes.The Office of the Public Advocate contended that IECG’s appeal was untimely and should be dismissed. The PUC argued that the appeal was an improper collateral attack on a prior rate order. Both the Public Advocate and the PUC maintained that if the merits were considered, the order should be affirmed as rational and supported.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the appeal was timely and not barred by collateral estoppel. The court did not address the preemption argument, finding it unpreserved for appellate review. The court rejected IECG’s arguments on the merits, noting the deferential standard of review for the PUC’s expert judgment in ratemaking. The court found that the PUC’s decision to treat NEB costs separately from traditional T&D service costs was rational and supported by the record. The court also determined that the PUC’s allocation and rate design did not violate state statutes.The court affirmed the PUC’s order, holding that the PUC’s approach to NEB cost recovery was within its broad discretion and sufficiently justified. The court noted that the PUC might refine its approach in the future based on further data collection and party input. View "Industrial Energy Consumer Group v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law