Commission discusses Great Plains-Westar merger, denies rehearing motions in Spire rate case
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – While the Missouri Public Service Commission issued decisions on four tariffs and new orders, a number of ears listened intently to the case discussion that followed.
The item in question concerned the merging of Great Plains Energy Incorporated and Westar, with the commission discussing whether the GPE-Westar merger is detrimental to public interest.
Chairman Daniel Hall stated that he was “in agreement with the applicants”, saying that it will lead to a better, stronger company.
Commissioners Bill Kenney, Scott Rupp, and Ryan Silvey echoed the sentiment as well, with Kenney saying that the combined use of both companies would make it stronger to “serve ratepayers in our state.”
“It’s good for both companies and the ratepayers, and I’m encouraged by both of the stances that the companies have on renewable energy,” Rupp commented.
As for conditions that had been suggested by other parties, the PSC did not see it in the same light.
In regard to conditions sought by Renew Missouri, Chairman Hall said he was “not persuaded that they were necessary for two reasons” citing the past records from both companies and their commitment to renewable energy, as well as noting that there are other proceedings in which those conditions are appropriate for those type of issues to be addressed, like a rate case.
Being a case discussion, no votes or actions were taken, other than to direct the judge in the matter.
The commission also discussed several matters in the Gascony Water Company Rate Case. Orders in both case discussions could appear in the coming weeks.
The commission on Wednesday approved a proposed procedural schedule in the matter of Ameren Missouri’s tariff authorizing the Renewable Choice Program.
- Proposed Procedural Schedule Supplemental Direct Testimony – April 27, 2018
- Rebuttal Testimony – May 18, 2018
- Surrebuttal/Cross-Surrebuttal Testimony – June 8, 2018
- List of Issues, Order of Witnesses, Order Of Cross-Examination – June 13, 2018
- Last Day to Issue Discovery Requests, Subpoenas, or Take Depositions -June 15, 2018
- Statements of Position – June 20, 2018
- Evidentiary Hearing – June 26-27, 2018
- Initial Post-Hearing Briefs – July 13, 2018
- Reply Briefs – July 25, 2018
The commission also signed off on two orders concerning Spire Missouri’s rate case.
The first dealt with the commission’s approval of a reconciliation regarding the dollar value and rate or charge impact of the contested issues decided by the commission. It was approved 4-0.
The second concerned two applications for rehearing of the case, one filed by Spire and the other filed jointly by the Midwest Energy Consumers Group, Missouri Industrial Electric Consumers, the Consumers Council of Missouri, the City of St. Joseph, and the Office of the Public Counsel.
Both applications were denied, with Chairman Hall saying that he believed there was insufficient reason to have a rehearing, and that the joint application was untimely filed as well.
Commissioner Rupp quipped that if everyone doesn’t like it, they must have had a good order.
The final order that the PSC took action on was in the matter of Confluence Rivers Utility Operating Company and an order requesting to join parties. OPC’s motion moved that the commission enjoin the parties who wish to sell their water and sewer assets to Confluence and suspend the proceedings until those sellers are parties, citing Section 393.190.1 RSMo, which prohibits anyone from selling public utility assets used to serve the public without a prior Commission order.
The commission denied that order, with their order stating that “the plain language of the statute upon which OPC relies states that “ . . . Any person seeking any order under this subsection . . . .” Thus, the General Assembly contemplated that the seller of public utility assets is not the only party who can request relief under this subsection. This conclusion is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which is “ . . . to ensure the continuation of adequate service to the public served by the utility.” Furthermore, the relevant Commission rules do not require the assets’ sellers to be parties in the case. Confluence Rivers’ application for relief under Section 393.190 RSMo is not insufficient due to the sellers not being parties.”
Benjamin Peters was a reporter for The Missouri Times and Missouri Times Magazine and also produced the #MoLeg Podcast. He joined The Missouri Times in 2016 after working as a sports editor and TV news producer in mid-Missouri. Benjamin is a graduate of Missouri State University in Springfield.
