PSC Rejects Rate Increase Request By Appalachian Power, Wheeling Power
Trending
CHARLESTON – Citing incomplete information, the West Virginia Public Service Commission rejected multi-million-dollar rate increase on customers by Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power.
In an order filed Wednesday, the PSC determined that the tariff filing by Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power – two subsidiaries of Columbus-based American Electric Power – was incomplete and dismissed the case, though they did leave open the door for a re-filing of the tariff and is open to reconsidering the request.
"...The Companies had an unlimited amount of time to prepare a base rate tariff filing," the PSC wrote in its order. "The Commission and other parties have only three hundred days to review that filing, receive and review testimony, hold hearings, receive and review briefs and issue a fully explanatory final order with appropriate findings of facts and conclusions of law.
"Because a base rate case of the magnitude of this case requires opportunity for testimony, hearings and briefing, the amount of time that the Commission has to review the filing and gain an understanding of the financial data underlying the requested revenue requirements is much less than three hundred days," the order continued.
The companies filed revised tariff sheets with the PSC on Aug. 2 that would have increased electric rates and charges by $265.1 million per year, or a 15.4% increase over current rates. The tariffs would have affected more than 460,000 customers in 24 counties in West Virginia. Appalachian Power/Wheeling Power had requested a Sept. 1 effective date for the new tariffs.
The PSC issued an order on Aug. 15 opening up a case and suspending the proposed rate increase until May 19, 2025. PSC staff filed an initial joint staff memorandum on Sept. 5 recommending that the PSC dismiss the base rate filing for failing to follow multiple rules governing tariffs by providing incomplete information. The three-member PSC concurred.
"We do not have the statutory authority to change the proposed tariff effective date requested by the Companies or modify the expiration of the 270-day suspension period required by statute," the PSC order stated. "We do, however, have the authority to dismiss an incomplete rate filing."
Tariff Rule 20.5.2.c.2 requires utilities to provide a schedule of long-term debt at the beginning and end of a test year. The companies failed to provide this information for AEP, the parent company.
The companies also failed to provide the billing units and rates for revenues generated under its surcharges as required by tariff rules, as well as failed to provide information for Statement D-Schedule 1 which provides a comparison of current rates with proposed rates. In its order, the PSC said this information was important to provide analysis of the rate increase request.
"...If properly presented, it will immediately identify disproportionate increases or decreases in individual rate components within each tariff schedule," the PSC wrote in its order. "...We require Statement D-1 so that we have immediate access to that information on the date a case is filed...That information should be readily available in the filing, without the necessity of extracting the data out of various pages..."
In its order, the PSC said it would waive a 30-day pre-filing notice for Appalachian Power/Wheeling Power, but it would leave in place an additional 30-day notice requirement to the PSC and public if the companies re-file the tariff request with the required information.
"When the Companies refile a complete tariff filing that contains a properly completed and formatted Rule 42 Exhibit and other required filing documents, the proposed effective date of their refiled tariff must be a minimum of thirty days after the filing," according to the order.
"To that end, if the Companies rectify their incomplete filing, propose a new tariff effective date that is at least thirty days after a complete filing and is subject to suspension...and petitions the Commission to reconsider and modify the dismissal, we would accept and grant a petition to reconsider and modify the dismissal of this case to allow a procedural schedule to be established, including an effective date after suspension, based on a requested effective tariff date that is at least thirty days after the filing of a fully compliant tariff filing," the order continued.