Press "Enter" to skip to content

PSC questions jurisdiction over electric car charging stations

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – It looks like Ameren’s plan to install electric car charging stations will be put on hold until they can decide whether they have jurisdiction over the pilot program.

The Public Service Commission on Wednesday agreed to suspend the requested tariff that would have authorized a pilot program in the Show Me State.

Under that proposal, Ameren Missouri would install and operate electric vehicle charging stations along I-70 inside their service area, and charge consumers to use it in a fashion similar to pay at the pump gas stations.

Faced with a decision of either approving the tariff or suspending it, the commissioners chose the latter, citing a number of concerns, including whether the PSC has jurisdiction.

“First of all, I am not persuaded by all of the filings that we in fact have statutory authority over electric vehicle charging stations,” Chairman Daniel Hall said. “Concerning public policy, I think that it is unclear whether or not this should be a regulated industry, or whether it should be an open, unregulated competitive market.”

“I’m not sure whether or not we should be setting the price in this market or not,” Hall said. “So, I think we should suspend the tariff, hold a hearing, and look at these issues very carefully.”

The main issue centers around whether the PSC can dictate the prices charged at the electric charging stations.

“I’m compelled to support the company on this, but I’m fine with having a hearing,” Commissioner Bill Kenney said. “I’m persuaded that we do have the jurisdiction to do this.”

“I’m looking at it as, not just in the aspect of electric vehicle charging stations, but as a bigger picture,” Commissioner Scott Rupp said. “I think there is a lot of grey area there, so I would like to have a hearing to explore all these things, and say ‘OK, can you really have a competitive free market when you have one supplier that is supplying the product, and will that work, or would it just be better to keep it under the regulatory monopolistic structure?’”

The commissioners all agreed that with as many questions as they had, the best thing to do would be to hold the hearing, and get the answers needed to make an informed decision.

With an unanimous vote, all of the commissioners voted to suspend the tariff and hold a hearing.

When that hearing will be scheduled is unknown at this time.

“We were disappointed in the decision to defer, because we would’ve like to have gotten started sooner rather than later,” Mark Nealon of Ameren Missouri said. “But the question the commission is asking themselves about whether or not they truly have the jurisdiction to regulate electric vehicle charging stations is an important question, and we certainly support the commission’s intent to make a responsible decision and to get it right, so we’re happy to support whatever hearing or proceedings take place from this point.”

Nealon says it does push back any efforts to begin the project, but said the decision was not by any means a criticism of their plans moving forward.

“There has really been nothing lost yet but an accelerated deployment schedule,” Nealon said. “We’re still holding out hope to that we’ll have the opportunity to make this deployment, and fully enable the long-distance capabilities being built into next year’s models.”

In addition to the decision on Ameren Missouri’s tariff, the commission also unanimously passed every other item on the agenda, including four filings on special contemporary resource planning issues.

The first was a triennial IRP filing from Ameren Missouri, the third and final time the commission would spend on the topic. The commission accepted the fifth version, saying the language of the order finally fit their previous discussions.

The next three items were the same orders for Kansas City Power & Light, KC P&L Greater Missouri Operations, and Empire District Electric Company. The commission accepted the orders, stating that all three should also be instructed to conduct their triennial filing in the same way that Ameren had.

The PSC also approved an order to set a procedural schedule in Missouri Office of Public Counsel’s (OPC) case against Moore Bend Water Utility, LLC. The cause for the suit centers on concerns about the water quality and testing. The customers of that subdivision in Taney County have been under a boil order since early 2013. An evidentiary hearing has been scheduled for January 4, 2017.

The last item on the agenda was the case discussion on a small company rate increase for Raccoon Creek Utility Operating Company.

Under the proposed plan, customers would see a rate increase from 151 percent to 200 percent.

“I would support approving the stipulation. I think it is uncontested that the systems were in very poor condition when purchased by the company,” Hall said.

“There’s no evidence on the record indicating that the capital expenditures necessary in order to provide safe and adequate service were not incurred, no dispute that the amount equals 1.5 million dollars, and my understanding is that there is no dispute that is the main reason for the significant increase in rates,” he continued.

While all of the commissioners supported the rate increase, they all agreed that they were not happy about doing so.

“We have a lot of folks in Missouri who struggle to make ends meet, and this isn’t going to make it any easier on them,” Commissioner Stephen Stoll said.

“I feel bad having to voting for this, but I understand why,” Kenney said. “I know we all feel the same way. Going forward, I don’t know what else we can do.”

“This a pretty significant rate increase, and it’s not one that I’m signing off on in glee. It’s not necessarily based upon a business model I support,” Hall stated. “I’m not overjoyed by this result, but it’s the most just and reasonable option out there.”

“One of the reasons I’m supportive of this stipulation is that I’m very supportive of a new rate coming before us in the next 12-18 months,” Commissioner Maida Coleman added. “I look forward to it.”