Empire rate case looms

May 11, 2008 09:00 pm

— By Debby Woodin
dwoodin@joplinglobe.com
Oral arguments will be heard Tuesday by the Missouri Supreme Court in an Empire District Electric Co. rate case debating whether the Missouri Public Service Commission followed an earlier court order in granting a rate hike.
The electric company on Friday would not say how much, if anything, it would cost to repay consumers if the state’s high court rules against utility regulators who allowed the disputed rate increase to go into effect.
Amy Bass, spokeswoman for Empire, said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Empire’s president and chief executive officer, Bill Gipson, said in the company’s most recent earnings report that the company “and the (Public Service) Commission believe it has acted in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion and order,” Bass said.
At issue is an increase Empire District was granted Jan. 1, 2007, that raised bills about $10 a month for average use.
The utility had filed a case Feb. 1, 2006, seeking a 9.63 percent rate increase, citing increased fuel costs, and the PSC began a review of the utility’s fuel contracts and other financial operations, which can take about six months.
In December 2006, the PSC ruled that Empire was entitled to a revised rate increase and instructed the utility to file new tariffs. Empire did so on Dec. 29 and requested that the case be expedited to allow new rates to take effect Jan. 1, 2007.
The Office of Public Counsel, which represents consumers in PSC cases, objected to the new tariffs, contending they did not conform to the PSC’s order, and objected to allowing new rates to go effect over the holiday without an opportunity for the public counsel to review the case.
When the PSC did not act in favor of the public counsel’s objections, the public counsel took the case to the Supreme Court. That court, in May 2007, issued a writ that required the PSC to set aside its order and give the public counsel time to review and challenge the revised rate case.
The public counsel contends in the latest challenge that the PSC did not vacate the rate increase and allow time for a new review, which it argues was required by the earlier writ.
The PSC argues that it did comply with the court order and vacated the rate increase, but that the new rates went to into effect automatically under state law because the six-month review period had ended.
The commission also contends that it doesn’t have the authority to order the utility to make refunds.
Several other utilities have intervened in the case, contending that the PSC violated the court’s writ. They argue that the PSC’s action in effect retroactively reinstated the December 2006 order that should have been voided.