OVERVIEW
During the calendar year 2006, the Consumers' Utility Counsel ("CUC") appeared and/or participated in a variety of cases involving electric, gas and telecommunications matters before the Georgia Public Service Commission, the Fulton County Superior Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A detailed listing of the major cases in which CUC participated can be found below. These cases include, but are not limited to, the mergers of Georgia Power Company and Savannah Electric as well as BellSouth and AT&T; two fuel cost recovery requests made by Georgia Power Company; Fulton County Superior Court appeals filed by Atlanta Gas Light Company and Atmos Energy Corporation; several Georgia Power generation portfolio cases; and multiple electric and gas territorial dispute cases. In addition, CUC actively participated in the preparation and filing of the Eleventh Circuit appeal by National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates/National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners regarding the States’ rights to require and/or prohibit the use of line items on customers’ bills.
ELECTRIC CASES
Georgia Power Company and Savannah Electric and Power Company 2006 Application to Increase Fuel Cost Recovery Allowance Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §46-2-26: GPSC Docket No. 22403-U; CUC File No. 06025
and
Application for Approval of Certain Matters Necessary to Effect the Merger of Georgia Power Company and Savannah Electric and Power Company: GPSC Docket No. 22202-U; CUC File No. 06003
In March 2006, the Georgia Power Company (“Georgia Power”) and Savannah Electric and Power Company (“SEPCO”) requested that the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) approve a merger of the two companies. At the same time, each company requested a significant increase in the amount it could charge its customers for fuel cost. CUC participated in both the merger and fuel cost proceedings.
Ultimately, the Commission entered an Order approving the merger and increasing fuel rates. However, consistent with the position taken by CUC, the increase to Georgia Power customers was approximately 30% less than Georgia Power had requested. Without the merger, SEPCO legacy customers would have faced a $10 per month fuel increase due to SEPCO’s heavy reliance on natural gas to produce electricity. As advocated by CUC, the fuel cost recovery allowance increase for an average Georgia Power residential customer was approximately $5.03 a month ($2.19 a month lower than originally proposed by the company). This smaller increase to Georgia Power ratepayers was accomplished by utilizing an updated fuel forecast that was $200 million lower than the fuel price forecast originally proposed by the company in its initial filing. SEPCO legacy customers’ saw only a slight increase in rates in the form of a credit to Georgia Power legacy customers to help mitigate any near-term adverse impacts of the merger on Georgia Power legacy customers.
Georgia Power Company Request for an Accounting Order: GPSC Docket No. 22449-U; CUC File No. 06020
In April 2006, Georgia Power informed the Public Service Commission that it intended to file and obtain federal permits and licenses for new nuclear generation, and requested that such amounts be included in a federal deferral account not to exceed $51 million plus carrying costs at a specified rate. The case was resolved by settlement agreement between the Commission Staff, Georgia Power, and others. CUC was unable to sign on to the settlement agreement due to an excessive interest rate used to calculate carrying costs. It was CUC’s position that a lower carrying cost rate should have been utilized to minimize the rate impacts of Georgia Power nuclear exploration to Georgia’s ratepayers.
As advocated by CUC, the Commission’s Final Order required the Commission to complete an examination of whether or not the costs incurred were proper before Georgia Power’s rates are otherwise adjusted. The Final Order also contained a provision advocated for by CUC that nothing in the Commission’s Order shall prejudge the prudence of the charges incurred by the company in seeking the federal permits and licenses. Consistent with the applicable accounting principles, CUC advocated for the above stated language to offset Georgia Power’s testimony which claimed that the mere use of “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Account 183” to book the anticipated regulatory asset expenses automatically entitled the company to a presumption of prudence.
Georgia Power Company Application for Certification of Progress Energy Ventures’ MPC Generating, LLC Washington County Power, LLC; and Walton County Power, LLC Power Purchase Agreements and Upgrade to the Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Generating Facility: GPSC Docket No. 22528-U; CUC File No. 06033
In May 2006, Georgia Power sought permission to enter into three purchase power agreements (PPAs) for energy from sources outside of the Georgia Power and Southern Company network. The Company also sought a premium, provided for by
Despite the objections of CUC and other interested parties, the Commission adopted a settlement agreement entered into between Georgia Power and the Commission Staff which granted Georgia Power a premium of approximately $31 million in additional revenues over the life of the 15-year PPAs. CUC’s opposition to the settlement stemmed from the failure of Georgia Power to provide sufficient evidentiary support for the premium requested. However, consistent with the CUC’s position in the docket, the Final Order requires the company to provide supporting analysis in future cases seeking a premium. Also, by order of the Commission, the premium adopted in this docket does not create a presumption regarding the appropriate premium in future dockets.
Petition of Biomass Gas & Electric, LLC to Establish a Docket Regarding its Forsyth County Renewable Energy Plant and Capacity and Energy Payments to Cogenerators Under PURPA: GPSC Docket No. 19279-U and 4822-U; CUC File No. 04064
In July 2004, Biomass Gas & Electric, LLC filed a petition to establish a standard contract for renewable resources using biomass to sell power to Georgia Power pursuant to Federal law. In June of 2006, the Commission adopted a standard renewable contract which included many provisions advocated for by CUC that encouraged renewable resources without increasing the costs paid by residential and small business ratepayers. While not all of the ratepayer-safe guards for which CUC argued were included in the standard contract, the Order struck a cogent balance between encouraging renewable resources and protecting rate payers.
Transfer of Electric Retail Service of ERCO Worldwide from Colquitt EMC to Georgia Power Company: Docket No. 23549; CUC File No. 06071
Around May of 2006, discussion of the transfer of ERCO Worldwide, Inc.’s retail electric service from Colquitt EMC to Georgia Power Company was raised as a discussion item on the Public Service Commission’s Energy Committee Agenda. ERCO (a large load industrial customer located in
The issue before the Commission was the lawfulness of ERCO’s request to transfer to Georgia Power absent statutory authority granting retail choice.
On October 3, 2006, the Commission found that Colquitt EMC’s proposed post January 1, 2007 rates were discriminatory in nature and ordered that ERCO be transferred to Georgia Power. The Commission further found that “opt-out provisions in electric service agreements similar to the provision in the [ERCO] Agreement, or any other provision that purports to give a customer a choice of electric supplier after the initial choice of supplier are contrary to public policy as well as the Territorial Act.” (See Docket No. 23549, Final Order issued October 17, 2006, at 12).
NATURAL GAS CASES
Atmos Energy Corporation vs.
In January 2006 Atmos Energy filed an appeal to the
In November 2006, Atmos Energy filed with the Georgia Court of Appeals, a Notice of Appeal of the Superior Court Order. As of the date of this report, the Court of Appeals had not yet set a procedural order in this matter. CUC will participate in the Georgia Court of Appeals proceeding and defend the Commission and Superior Court Orders.
Atlanta Gas Light Company Company vs.
In May 2006 CUC joined Atlanta Gas Light Company (“AGLC”) in its appeals of the Commission’s decision to grant the City of
In the Matter of City of
and
Complaint of Atlanta Gas Light Company against the City Of Monroe for Unreasonably Interfering with Company’s Gas Distribution System: Docket No. 22787-U; CUC File No. 06035
On April 18, 2006, Atlanta Gas Light Company filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission against the City of
On May 30, 2006, the city of
Pivotal to the issues before the Commission (Commission jurisdiction, certification and unreasonable interference) was the question of whether or not the city’s system was at any time, funded by revenue bonds, all or in part. Testimony and exhibits established the use of revenue bonds at several points in the construction and expansion of
Complaint of Atlanta Gas Light Company against City of Cartersville for Unreasonably Interfering with the Company’s Gas Distribution System in Bartow County, Georgia: Docket No. 23887; CUC File No. 06074
On September 22, 2006, AGLC filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission against the city of
The city has argued that even if the annexation had not occurred, the city would have been permitted to serve due to the proximity of the developments. Moreover, the city claimed that as early as January 2005, the city and an AGLC representative discussed by telephone, the city’s intention to serve at least one of the two subdivisions in question.
Hearing dates have been extended to March of 2007 at the request of AGLC and Cartersville in order to provide additional time to discuss settlement.
Georgia Public Service Commission Rulemaking to Consider Rule 515-7-1-.15, “Multiple Natural Gas Distribution Systems Within a Single Certificated Area:” Docket No. 21205-U: CUC File No. 05064
On July 24, 2006 and in response to the numerous natural gas territorial cases that have come before the Commission on point, the Public Service Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider the adoption of proposed rules revising its existing rules governing multiple natural gas distribution systems within a single certificated area. CUC provided comments in this docket and asserted that pursuant to
On September 19, 2006, the Commission issued a Final Order adopting the proposed rule regarding multiple natural gas provider certificates in a single area with modifications, based on input received by CUC and others during the comment period.
In Re: Alanta Gas Light Company's 2005-2010 Earnings Review; Docket No. 18638-U: CUC File No. 04037
On July 26, 2006, the Public Service Commission approved a contract with the University of Georgia's College of Family and Consumer Sciences and also approved AGLC's Customer Education Program. On November 13, 2006, the Commission approved several amendments recommended by Staff in order to allow the Customer Education Program to move forward for the 2006/2007 winter heating season. In furtherance of this program, a Natural Gas Customer Education Team was created to provide advice and counsel on the creation and implementation of the curriculum, training, tracking metrics and tactical outreach necessary to deploy statewide consumer education within AGLC’s certificated territories. The Team is comprised of representatives from AGLC,
TELECOMMUNICATION CASES
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners vs. Federal Communications Commission et. al., United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit Case No. 05-11682: FCC No. 98-00170; CUC File No. 05028
In 1999 the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) promulgated “Truth-in-Billing” Rules to ensure consumers were provided basic information needed to make informed decisions and to protect consumers from unscrupulous competitors. State consumer advocates, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (“NARUC”) and National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (“NASUCA”), (of which CUC is a member) petitioned the FCC for certain state mandated consumer protections. The FCC preempted the States and the States appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
As advocated by the state consumer advocates,, the Court of Appeals found that the FCC had exceeded its authority in preempting the States, and found that the specific consumer protections were within the purview of the States’ respective jurisdictions.
On October 3, 2006, as advocated by the state consumer advocates, the 11th Circuit denied appeals for reconsideration filed by the FCC and wireless industry.
AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation, Inc., Together with its Certified Georgia Subsidiaries: Docket No. 22682; CUC Case File No. 06027
On March 31, 2006, AT&T and BellSouth filed a Notice of Merger with the Public Service Commission. At the outset, the companies took the position that the Commission need not rule on the merger and that the filing made was only informative in nature. At the objections of multiple intervernors, the Commission set the matter for Comment and Oral Argument. Thereafter, the companies alternatively asserted that expedited resolution through the issuance of a Letter Order from the Commission would suffice under prior Commission precedence.
In their Notice, AT&T and BellSouth asserted inter alia that the proposed merger was in the public interest. Given the potential powerhouse created by the proposed merger, CUC advised the Commission that careful consideration of the proposed benefits of the AT&T BellSouth merger should be carefully weighed against the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers’ concerns that such a merger could have anti-competitive impacts. CUC advised that movement towards BellSouth’s becoming one of many subsidiaries of a much larger corporate machine that spans a more global, competitive environment must necessarily entail careful consideration of both the positive and negative impacts on competition in the State of
On August 18, 2006, the Commission approved the AT&T and BellSouth merger subject to several conditions. The Commission, in a 3-2 vote, turned down motions to require the merged companies to offer stand alone DSL service.
Encartele, Inc. Application for a Certificate of Authority to provide Institutional Telecommunication Services (ITS) in
On December 19, 2005, Encartele, Inc. (“Encartele”) filed an application with the Public Service Commission to provide institutional telecommunication services (“ITS”). On January 3, 2006, Pay Tel Communications (“Pay Tel”), a certified ITS provider, filed a complaint alleging that Encartele had been providing ITS without certification. The dockets were consolidated and a hearing was held on July 21, 2006.
All parties submitted briefs to the hearing officer on September 19, 2006. Based upon the evidence presented, CUC argued that Encartele did not exercise due diligence prior to beginning ITS in
On November 20, 2006, a stipulation was entered into by Encartele, Pay Tel, Commission Staff and CUC. The Commission adopted the stipulation at its December 19, 2006 Administrative Session. Encartele was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $10,000. The penalty will be administered as a reduction in the surcharge for ITS calls. CUC requested that the Commission audit Encartele’s surcharge reductions until the $10,000 fine amount has been fully exhausted through consumer credits. Encartele will be granted a Certificate of Authority upon a showing that the $10,000 has been credited to ITS surcharges. Pay Tel’s Complaint was dismissed.
Comments to the Federal Communications Commission Urging It to Improve Existing Safeguards to Protect Customer Proprietary Network Information: CUC Case File No. 06049
On April 28, 2006 CUC signed on to Comments filed at the FCC by the National Association of Attorneys General (of which the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs is a member) regarding the privacy of Customer Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”). The Comments urged the FCC to protect the privacy rights of consumers by improving existing safeguards to protect CPNI. More specifically, the Comments urged the FCC to require carriers to obtain affirmative “opt in” rather than “opt out” approval from customers before the carrier shared or otherwise used the customer’s CPNI for marketing purposes. Generally, the wireline and wireless carriers’ took the position that the FCC’s then current rules were adequate to safeguard consumer privacy. As of the date of this report, CUC could find no record of the FCC’s having ruled on the issues involved in this docket.