BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1. PAC is a regulated public utility that provides water service to approximately 640 customers in the Town of Pittsfield, New Hampshire. PAC is wholly-owned by Pennichuck Corporation, which, in turn, is wholly-owned by the City of Nashua, New Hampshire (City). Pennichuck Corporation also owns PAC’s regulated affiliates: PWW and PEU. The City acquired its ownership of Pennichuck Corporation on January 25, 2012, pursuant to Commission approval granted to the City and Pennichuck Corporation in Joint Petition of City of Nashua, Pennichuck Corporation et al., for Approval to Acquire Stock in Pennichuck Corporation, Docket DW 11-026, Order No. 25,292 (November 23, 2011).
2. The City’s ownership of Pennichuck Corporation resulted in a “limitation on Nashua’s ability to draw dividends or other distributions from Pennichuck Corporation” (Order No. 25,292 at 45). With that limitation in place, there is no ability to sell stock. As such, Pennichuck Corporation ceased being a publicly traded company and, therefore, Pennichuck Corporation and its subsidiaries ceased having access to the equity markets for financing and are required to utilize debt to finance capital investments and all other financing requirements. In recognition of this unique capital structure and reliance on debt financing, the Commission also approved a modified ratemaking structure for the three regulated utilities: PWW, PEU, and PAC. That modification enabled those regulated utilities to earn a reasonable return on asset investments through a ratemaking methodology that would result in just and reasonable customer rates, as required under FPC v. Hope Natural Gas, 320 U.S. 591, 602-603 (1944). The approved rate structure also included a $5,000,000 Rate Stabilization Fund (RSF), which was originally designed to provide assurance to creditors that the three regulated utilities would meet the repayment requirements relative to the City’s acquisition bond. Order No. 25,292 at 30 (“the fund is intended to provide holders of the City Acquisition Bonds with reasonable assurances of the available cash to be used to pay debt service on the City Acquisition Bonds, similar to a debt service reserve fund, and will hence facilitate Nashua’s ability to borrow funds at reasonable interest rates, which will directly benefit customers in the form of a lower cost of capital”). The rate structure approved by the Commission was further refined in each of the respective regulated utilities’ initial post-acquisition g...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. HAWC is a regulated public utility defined by RSA 362:2 and RSA 362:4, providing water service to approximately 3,857 customers in the communities of Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Newton, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem, Sandown, and Strafford. On July 23, 2020, HAWC filed a Notice of Intent to File Rate Schedules. On September 22, 2020, the Commission granted the Company’s Motion to Withdraw Notice of Intent to File Rate Schedules, Without Prejudice filed the day prior. On September 28, 2020, HAWC filed a new Notice of Intent to File Rate Schedules. 1 The other intervenors in this matter – all whom did not join this Settlement Agreement – are Xxxxx Xxxxxx, who filed prefiled testimony, and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and the town of Danville, who both did not file prefiled testimony. See Secretarial Letter dated April 9, 2021, at Tab 32 of the online docket. SETTLEMENT 0002 DW 20-117 On November 24, 2020, the Company filed its rate schedules and supporting documentation, based on a 2019 test year, which included a Motion for Protective Order and Confidential Treatment, proposed revised tariff pages, proposed temporary tariff pages, and a proposed Water Infrastructure and Conservation Adjustment mechanism. HAWC proposed to increase its annual revenues on a permanent basis by a total of $1,523,330, or 65.51 percent, to a total revenue requirement of $3,848,758. The Company also proposed, among other things, an inclining block volumetric rate, a first for the Company. For permanent rates, the Company proposed an increase of its current volumetric rate from $6.11 per hundred cubic feet (ccf) to $7.22 per ccf. The Commission issued an Order Suspending Proposed Tariffs and Scheduling Prehearing Conference, Order No. 26,437, on December 18, 2020, which the Company published on its website that same day. On February 22, 2021, the Company filed an Assented- To Motion to Allow Additional Customer Notice and Extend Deadline to Intervene, which the Commission granted by Secretarial Letter dated March 3, 2021. An affidavit of mailing of said Additional Notice occurring on March 5, 2021, was filed on March 17, 2021. The Company replaced its rate case schedules with a searchable PDF format on March 11, 2021, as requested during the Prehearing Conference on February 10, 2021. A proposed procedural schedule was filed by Commission Staff (now DOE Staff) on March 11, 2021 and approved by the Commission on March 18, 2021. On April 9, the Commissio...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. [3] The Claimant (‘Xxxxx Holme Insurance’) is an insurance company incorporated in Bermuda which contracted the 1st and 2nd Defendants (‘Xxxxx Capital’ and ‘Xxxxx Capital Barbados’) to provide trading and investment management services. Xxxxx Capital is a Bermuda company registered in Barbados, whilst Xxxxx Capital Barbados is a local IBC, both carrying on business which they broadly describe as private asset management services. The services provided by the Defendants are more particularly described in terms of identifying securities available on the global market and engaging in purchase, sale or other disposition of such securities with funds provided for this purpose by Xxxxx. The 3rd Defendant (Xx. Xxxxx) is the director and owner of the first and second Defendants. [4] Key players involved in the contractual undertakings include Xxxxx IAS, which is described as the manager/agent of the Claimant; Bank of New York Mellon (custodian of the Claimant’s fixed income fund); and first DGM Bank and Trust Inc, followed by Front Street Private Bank Barbados, banks both domiciled in Barbados, which served as custodian of the Claimant’s equity fund. With respect to Front Street Private Bank however, the Claimant alleges that whilst it was of the belief that this bank was the custodian of its equity fund, the 3rd Defendant as part of the Defendants’ fraud, caused this account to be held under his name to the exclusion of the Claimant and its shareholders. [5] By amended claim filed in November 2015, the Claimant sought (primarily) payment of US$2.1 million being monies fraudulently misappropriated by the Defendants from the Claimant, during the course of their contractual relationship for provision of investment management and securities trading services. The 3rd Defendant is sued further to a prayer to xxxxxx the corporate veil in relation to his ownership and control of the 1st and 2nd Defendant companies. The services provided to the Claimant by the Defendant companies were provided in relation to two separately managed accounts – namely, a fixed income account, and an equity account. These separate accounts were governed by two separate agreements, titled likewise. The Fixed Income Agreement was said to have been executed in March, 2007 whilst the Equity Agreement was said to be executed in October, 2006. The terms of these two agreements made provision for the remuneration of the Defendants, comprising essentially commissions and fees, calculated with referen...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 11 1. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiffs Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx 12 (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) submitted a PAGA notice to the LWDA in accordance with the 13 requirements of Labor Code section 2699.3(a). The PAGA notice alleges that Defendant violated 14 California Labor Code section 2802 for failure to reimburse its employees a reasonable portion of 15 their work-related home office expenses, including reasonable percentage of their cell phone and 16 home internet expenses incurred on behalf of Defendant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 17 LWDA declined to investigate the alleged violations, permitting the Plaintiffs to assert a claim 18 under PAGA.
19 2. The Parties engaged in prolonged informal settlement discussions, 20 informally exchanged information, and ultimately reached a settlement.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On April 13, 2023, the Division issued a Notice of Probable Violations to NIPSCO alleging 257 violations that occurred in the calendar year 2022. These violations consisted of failing to follow its own procedures to timely or accurately locate its facilities in response to an 811 notice. On January 8, 2024, the Division entered into the Consent Agreement that resolves the 257 violations occurring in the calendar year 2022. For the violations, NIPSCO has agreed to pay $707,850. The total penalty would have been $1,287,000 according to the “Advisory Penalty Matrix” transmitted by the Commission to Indiana natural gas operators on May 6, 2021, but the Division decided to reduce the penalty due to NIPSCO’s mitigative actions. The mitigative actions that NIPSCO took include training more than 25% of the excavators who caused at fault damages in 2022 and lowering the operator at fault rate from 0.54 to 0.48 per thousand locates. None of the penalty will be recoverable in the utility’s rates. NIPSCO also waives the right to a public hearing pursuant to Ind. Code §§ 8-1-22.5-7(b) and 8-1-22.5-10. Upon review of the information provided by the Commission’s General Counsel Division, the Commission finds the Consent Agreement reasonably resolves the alleged violations. Accordingly, the Commission approves the January 8, 2024 Consent Agreement entered into between NIPSCO and the Division.
1. The January 8, 2024 Consent Agreement entered into between NIPSCO and the Division, a copy of which is attached to this Order, is approved.
2. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, NIPSCO shall pay a civil penalty of $707,850 to the Treasury of the State of Indiana through the Secretary of the Commission.
3. This Order shall be effective on and after the date of its approval.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 15, 2011, a stockholder derivative action captioned Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx v.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On September 30, 2010, Central Illinois Light Company d/b/a AmerenCILCO, Central Illinois Public Service Company d/b/a AmerenCIPS, and Illinois Power Company d/b/a AmerenIP, filed a Petition seeking approval of its Electric Energy Efficiency and Demand- Response and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan ("Petition"), pursuant to Section 8-103(f) and 8-104(f) of the Public Utilities Act ("Act"), 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. On October 21, 2010, the Ameren Illinois Utilities made a filing indicating that it had completed its reorganization, and that the Petitioners were now known as The Ameren Illinois Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois ("Ameren"). The People of the State of Illinois ("AG"), Citizens Utility Board ("CUB"), the Illinois Power Agency ("IPA"), Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC"), Illinois Green Economy Network, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity ("DCEO" or "Department"), and the Environmental Law and Policy Center ("ELPC") each intervened in this proceeding. Staff of the Illinois Commerce Commission ("Staff") also participated in this proceeding. Hearings were held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Illinois Commerce Commission ("Commission") at its office in Springfield, Illinois on October 25 and November 28, 2010. Post-hearing briefs were filed by Ameren, Staff, the IPA, the AG, CUB, DCEO, and jointly by NRDC and ELPC. Briefs on Exceptions were filed by Ameren, Staff, the IPA, the AG, CUB, DCEO, and jointly by NRDC and ELPC. Ameren has previously filed two separate energy efficiency dockets, Docket No. 08-0104 which involved a voluntary natural gas efficiency plan, and Docket No. 07-0539, which Ameren filed pursuant to Section 8-103 of the Act and addressed Ameren's first electric energy efficiency plan ("Plan 1"). An Order was issued on February 6, 2008 and an Order On Rehearing on March 26, 2008, in Docket No. 07-0539, approving an electric energy efficiency plan for Ameren pursuant to Section 8-103 of the Act. The spending approved in Plan 1 for electric energy efficiency and demand-response programs was $13.8 Million, $29 Million, and $44.8 Million for successive plan years 1, 2, and 3 ("PY1, PY2 and PY3"), respectively; starting June 1, 2008. The residential programs approved in Ameren's Plan 1 electric energy efficiency and demand response programs were Residential DR - Direct Load Control, EE Home Energy Performance, Residential HVAC Diagnostics & Tune-Up, Residential Appliance Recycling, R...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1.1 Xxxxxxxx Files Its Class Action Named Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Enterprise, Inc. dba Xxxxxxxx Termite Control (“Xxxxxxxx”) filed its class action complaint against State Fund in Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Enterprise, Inc. dba Xxxxxxxx Termite Control v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 19STCV05738, on February 21, 2019 (the “Xxxxxxxx class action”). Xxxxxxxx alleged (1) breach of contract, (2) unfair competition in violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and (3) concealment on behalf of itself and other State Fund insureds whose premium was calculated using a tier modifier greater than 1.00. The case was assigned to the Xxxxxxxxx Xxx X. Hogue in Department 7 of the Spring Street Courthouse.
1.1.2 Xxxxxx Files a Related Class Action
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 PG&E hired Cleveland Wrecking Company (“Cleveland”) to demolish the Xxxx Power Plant (“Xxxx”) located in Bakersfield, California. PG&E owned the facility, which has been shut-down since 1985. On June 19, 2012, a contract worker was fatally injured while dismantling an unused fuel oil tank at Xxxx.
1.2 The Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the California Department of Industrial Relations (known as Cal/OSHA) investigated the incident, cited the independent contractor for violations of Cal/OSHA standards and did not cite PG&E.
1.3 SED opened a safety incident investigation to (1) identify potential causal factors;
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. Oceana is the owner and operator of Oceana Grill in the French Quarter of New Orleans. Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Oceana Grill employed 200 staff members and could accommodate up to 500 guests at a time. After the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 16, 2020, the mayor of New Orleans prohibited non-emergency public and private social gatherings and limited restaurant operations to take-out and delivery services via an emergency proclamation. As time passed, the mayor issued other proclamations facilitating the return of in-person dining at different occupancy levels. Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued guidelines and procedures for restaurants and bars to xxxxx the spread of the contagious virus on their properties. Oceana closed the Oceana Grill dining rooms on March 16, 2020, in compliance with the mayor’s proclamation, and reopened on May 16, 2020, in keeping with updated mayoral guidelines. The guidelines envisioned a phased reopening plan based on the prevalence of COVID-19 in the city. The May re- opening of Oceana Grill was undertaken with a 75% diminishment of the property’s normal capacity. Capacity increased on June 13, 2020 and on October 3, 2020, but the property still operated at 40%-45% under capacity due to the spread of COVID-19 in the city. To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 particles within its property, Oceana modified seating arrangements, decreased the number of tables and floor area available for patrons, and implemented measures to sanitize surfaces. On March 16, 2020, Xxxxxx filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration from the district court that a policy issued to it by Lloyd’s covered certain losses related to the pandemic. The policy in question is an all- risks commercial insurance policy with a $91,000 premium. The policy covers losses due to “direct physical loss of or damage to” the insured property. Lost business income and extra expenses are covered for losses sustained due to necessary suspensions of the property’s operations during the “period of restoration.” The “period of restoration” is defined as commencing seventy-two hours after the physical loss or damage occurs and continuing until the date when the property is “repaired, rebuilt, or replaced with reasonable speed and similar quality” or when business is “resumed at a new permanent location.” Xxxxxx’s initial petition sought a declaration that the policy contained coverage “for any future civ...
