STATE
OF MISSOURI
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
At a session of the Public Service
Commission held at its office in Jefferson
City on the 16th day of April, 2014.
Noranda Aluminum, Inc., et al., )
)
Complainants, )
)
v. ) File
No. EC-2014-0224
)
Union Electric Company, d/b/a )
Ameren Missouri )
)
Respondent. )
Issue Date: April 16, 2014 Effective Date: April 16, 2014
On
February 12, 2014, Noranda Aluminum, Inc. and 37 other individual customers
filed a complaint against Union Electric Company, d/b/a Ameren Missouri,
alleging that the rate Noranda currently pays to Ameren Missouri for
electricity is now unreasonable. The
complaint alleges that because of low aluminum prices and other business
conditions, Noranda must have a rate reduction for its aluminum smelter to
remain financially viable. The complaint
asks the Commission to reduce the rate Noranda pays to $30.00/MWh and to
increase the rate paid by Ameren Missouri’s other customers to make the
adjustment revenue neutral for Ameren Missouri.
In response to that complaint, the Commission directed Ameren Missouri
to file its answer by March 17. Ameren
Missouri filed its answer on March 17, and on the same date filed a motion
asking the Commission to dismiss this complaint. In a separate order, the Commission has
denied that motion. The Commission must
now establish a procedural schedule to consider the complaint.
The
Complainants, Consumers Council, MIEC, Missouri Retailers, the Cities of
O’Fallon and Ballwin, and Public Counsel propose an expedited procedural
schedule that would include an evidentiary hearing in late May and would
anticipate a decision from the Commission by July 30. The Commission’s Staff concurred in that
expedited schedule but explained that the complainants have the burden of
proving their complaint and emphasized that Staff would not be able to
undertake any audit, cost of service study, class cost of service study or
other extended or exhaustive analysis to support or refute the complaint. Ameren Missouri opposed the procedural
schedule proposed by the Complainants and argued that the complaint should be
dismissed. Ameren Missouri proposed that
if the complaint was not simply dismissed, it should be considered along with
the rate case it promises to file no later than July 15.
At
its agenda meeting on April 8, the Commission discussed the possibility of
combining this complaint and another complaint into a rate case to allow for
full consideration of Ameren Missouri’s rates, with this complaint being
treated as a request for interim relief within that larger case. The Commission invited the parties to respond
to that option by April 10. While Ameren
Missouri was receptive to the general idea, the Complainants rejected the
proposal and reiterated their request that the complaint proceed on an
expedited schedule. The Complainants acknowledge
that they bear the burden of proving their complaint and want to have their
complaint heard quickly enough to avoid adverse impacts on the Noranda
plant. They say they are not asking for
interim relief and argue that treating their complaint in that manner would be
unlawful.
After
considering the arguments of the parties, the Commission concludes that the
Complainants should be allowed to present their complaint in the time of their
choosing. They have the burden of proof
and if they believe they can prove their complaint in a short amount of time,
the Commission will allow them to proceed.
Ameren Missouri is concerned that it be allowed enough time to prepare a
defense to the complaint but the schedule proposed by the Complainants is not
so short as to deny the company a full opportunity to respond. Staff indicates it will not have enough time
to undertake any audit, cost of service study, class cost of service study or
other extended or exhaustive analysis to support or refute the complaint. The Commission directs Staff to perform an
analysis and investigation, the parameters of which will be more fully defined
by the Commission as the case progresses.
The Commission expects Staff to comply with the procedural schedule.
THE COMMISSION
ORDERS THAT:
1. The following procedural schedule is established:
Rebuttal Testimony - May 2, 2014
Surrebuttal/Cross Surrebuttal Testimony - May 23, 2014
List
of Issues, Order of Witnesses, etc. - May 27, 2014
Statements of Position - May 29, 2014
Hearing - June 4 through June 6, 2014, beginning
each day at 8:30 a.m.
Initial Briefs - June 27, 2014
Reply Briefs - July 7, 2014
Anticipated Decision - July 30, 2014, effective August 13, 2014
2. The Commission establishes the following provisions to guide discovery:
(A) All
parties shall provide copies of testimony (including schedules), exhibits, and
pleadings to other counsel by electronic means and in electronic form, essentially
concurrently with the filing of such testimony, exhibits, or pleadings where
the information is available in electronic format. Parties are not required to put information
that does not exist in electronic format into electronic format for purposes of
exchanging it.
(B) The parties shall make an effort to not include highly confidential or
proprietary information in data request questions. If highly confidential or proprietary
information must be included in data request questions, the highly confidential
or proprietary information shall be appropriately designated as such pursuant
to Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-2.135.
(C) Each
party serving a data request on another party shall provide an electronic copy
of the text of the “description” of that data request to counsel for all other
parties contemporaneously with service of the data request. Regarding Staff-issued data requests, if the
description contains highly confidential or proprietary information, or is
voluminous, a hyperlink to the EFIS record of that data request shall be
considered a sufficient copy. If a party
desires a copy of the response to a data request that has been served on
another party, the party desiring a copy of the response shall request a copy
of the response from the party answering the data request. Thus, if a party desires a copy of a response
by another party to a Staff-issued data request, the party desiring the copy
should ask the party to whom the request was issued, not the Staff, for a copy
of the data request response, unless there are appropriate reasons to direct
the discovery to the party originally requesting the material. Data requests, objections to data requests,
and notifications respecting the need for additional time to respond to data
requests shall be sent by e-mail to counsel for all parties. Counsel may designate other personnel to be
added to the service list for data requests, but shall assume responsibility
for compliance with any restrictions on confidentiality. All data request responses shall be served on
counsel for the requesting party and on the requesting party’s employee or
representative who submitted the data request.
Data request responses shall be served electronically, if feasible and
not voluminous as defined by Commission rule.
(D) The
response time for all data requests shall be ten calendar days, with five
calendar days to object or notify the requesting party that more than ten
calendar days will be needed to provide the requested information.
(E) Workpapers
that were prepared in the course of developing a witness’ testimony shall not
be filed with the Commission, but, without request, shall be submitted to each
party within one calendar day after the particular testimony is filed. Workpapers containing highly confidential or
proprietary information shall be appropriately marked. Workpapers, or complete sets of workpapers do
not need to be submitted to those parties indicating that they are not
interested in receiving workpapers or a complete set of workpapers. If there are no workpapers associated with
testimony, the party’s attorney shall so notify the other parties within the
time allowed for providing those workpapers.
(F) Where
workpapers or data request responses include models, spreadsheets, or similar
information originally in a commonly available format where inputs or
parameters may be changed to observe changes in inputs or outputs, the party
providing the workpapers or responses shall provide such information in
original format with formulas intact, if available.
(G) If
a data request has been responded to, a copy of such response shall be provided
to another requesting party in the case, unless the responding party objects to
providing the response to such requesting party. All parties in the case shall submit their
responses to Staff-issued data requests in the Commission’s Electronic Filing
Information System (EFIS). If submission
of responses to a Staff-issued data request in EFIS is infeasible, the parties
shall submit responses to Staff in electronic form, on compact disc, or by
other means agreed to by Staff counsel. If a data request has not yet been
responded to, a copy of such response shall be provided to a requesting party
in the case within the response time set for such underlying data request,
unless the responding party objects to providing the response to such party.
3. The parties shall comply with the following procedural requirements:
(A) Testimony shall be prefiled as defined in
Commission Rule 4 CSR 240‑2.130.
All parties must comply with this rule, including the requirement that
testimony be filed on line‑numbered pages.
(B) The parties shall agree upon and Staff
shall file a list of the issues to be heard, the witnesses to appear on each
day of the hearing, the order in which they will be called, and the order of
cross‑examination for each witness.
The list of issues should be detailed enough to inform the Commission of
each issue that must be resolved. The
Commission will view any issue not contained in this list of issues as uncontested
and not requiring resolution by the Commission.
(C) Each
party shall file a simple and concise statement summarizing its position on
each disputed issue.
(D) All
pleadings, briefs, and amendments shall be filed in accordance with Commission
Rule 4 CSR 240‑2.080. Briefs shall
follow the same list of issues as filed in the case and must set forth and cite
the proper portions of the record concerning the remaining unresolved issues
that are to be decided by the Commission.
(E) All
parties shall bring an adequate number of copies of exhibits that they intend
to offer into evidence at the hearing.
If an exhibit has not been prefiled, the party offering it must bring,
in addition to the copy for the court reporter, a copy for each Commissioner,
the Presiding Judge, and all counsel.
4. The
hearing shall be held at the Commission’s office at the Governor Office
Building, Room 310, 200 Madison Street, Jefferson City, Missouri. This building meets accessibility standards
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need additional accommodations to
participate in this hearing, please call the Public Service Commission’s
Hotline at 1-800-392-4211 (voice) or Relay
5. This order shall become effective upon issuance.
BY
THE COMMISSION
Morris
L. Woodruff
Secretary
R. Kenney, Chm., Stoll, W. Kenney,
Hall, and Rupp, CC., concur.
Woodruff, Chief Regulatory
Law Judge