At a session of the Public
Service Commission held at its office in Jefferson City on the 20th day
of March, 2013.
AG Processing,
Inc., )
)
Complainant,
)
)
v. ) File
No. HC-2012-0259
)
KCP&L Greater
Missouri Operations Company, )
)
Respondent. )
Issue Date: March 20, 2013 Effective
Date: March 20, 2013
On March 4, 2013, AG Processing, Inc.
(“AGP”) filed what it captioned as an “Application for Rehearing,” a “Motion
for Stay of Commission Order,” and a “Motion for Approval of Reconciliation” (collectively,
“March 4th Filings”). AGP
claims, in its application for rehearing,
that the Commission’s February 27, 2013 “Order Regarding Remand” (“Order”) is
unlawful. No other party sought
reconsideration of the Commission’s Order, or responded to AGP’s motions.
AGP’s initial complaint is that it had
insufficient time between the issuance date of the Order and its effective date
in order for it to file a complete and thorough “Application for
Rehearing.” The Commission must begin by
noting that its Order is an interlocutory, procedural order. It is not a final order and does not dispose
of this file, HC-2012-0259; nor does it dispose of the consolidated file,
HC-2010-0235.[1]
Because it addresses an
interlocutory order, AGP’s “Application for Rehearing” is incorrectly
captioned.[2]
Consequently, the Commission will
treat AGP’s application appropriately as an application for reconsideration.[3] Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-2.160(2) provides:
Motions for
reconsideration of procedural and interlocutory orders may be filed within ten
(10) days of the date the order is issued, unless otherwise ordered by the
commission. Motions for reconsideration
shall set forth specifically the ground(s) on which the applicant considers the
order to be unlawful, unjust, or unreasonable.
At any time before a final order is issued, the commission may, on its
own motion, reconsider, correct, or otherwise amend any order or notice issued
in the case.
AGP was mistaken about the deadline for seeking
reconsideration. The deadline for filing
a motion for reconsideration of the Commission’s Order was March 9, 2013. Because the deadline fell on a Saturday, by
operation of Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-2.050(1), the deadline was automatically
extended until Monday, March 11, 2013. Moreover, AGP could have filed a request for
an extension of time and sought even more time to complete its motion.[4]
The deadline for reconsideration of a procedural or
interlocutory order has no bearing on the effective date of the order. Such orders could be made effective
immediately upon issuance and that would have no impact on the deadline to seek
reconsideration.
Although AGP had more time to seek reconsideration and
it may believe its requests were somehow truncated, AGP’s March
4th Filings are extensive, comprising twenty pages in total. With regard to the merit of those filings, the Commission finds no
sufficient basis articulated to reconsider its Order or grant the additional
relief requested. If AGP feels it needs
to amend or add to its requests, it is welcome to file a motion seeking leave
for such.
THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:
1.
AG Processing, Inc.’s motion for
reconsideration, motion for stay of the Commission’s February 27, 2013 “Order
Regarding Remand” and motion for approval of a reconciliation are denied.
2.
This
order shall become effective immediately upon issuance.
Shelley Brueggemann
Acting Secretary
R. Kenney, Chm., Jarrett, Stoll, and
W. Kenney, CC., concur.
Stearley,
Deputy Chief Regulatory Law Judge
[1] These two files were consolidated in the Order. Interlocutory orders are not final orders
under Section 386.510, RSMo 2000, and not subject to judicial review. Interlocutory orders are tentative,
provisional, contingent and subject to recall, revision or reconsideration
until such time as the agency arrives at a terminal, complete resolution of the
case before it. State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Public
Service Comm'n of State of Mo., 26 S.W.3d 396, 398-401 (Mo. App. 2000).
[2] Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-2.160(1).
[3] Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-2.160(2).
[4] Regardless
of AGP’s mistaken belief on the filing deadline, it should be noted that the
time elapsing between the Mandate of the Court of Appeals and the Commission’s
Order was 98 days. The time elapsing
between when the parties filed their new briefs and the Commission’s Order was
51 days. During that 51-day interval the
parties were allowed to file responsive pleadings six times. The Commission discussed these two matters at
four Agenda sessions – three of which were prior to it issuing its Order. The parties were familiar with the issues
after the Court of Appeals remanded HC-2010-0235. The parties were aware of the direction the
Commission was following when it issued its Order. More importantly, the parties has already
fully briefed and reargued the issues. A
motion for reconsideration could be easily crafted before the effective date of
the order given the parties had previously reduced all of their arguments to
writing. AGP amply demonstrated this
with its March 4th Filings.