BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1 HAWC is a regulated public utility defined by RSA 362:2 and RSA 362:4, providing water service to approximately 4,000 customers in the communities of Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Danville, East 1 For the Commission’s convenience and to avoid repetition, the Step II Settling Parties condensed the procedural history for this matter that was outlined in the previous Settlement Agreement on Permanent Rates at Tab 113 of the Virtual File Room, available at the following link: 20-117_2022-05-09_HAWC_SETTLEMENT-AGRMT.PDF (xx.xxx). Kingston, Fremont, Hampstead, Kingston, Newton, Nottingham, Plaistow, Salem, Sandown, and Strafford. In Docket No. DW 20-117, a Settlement Agreement on Permanent Rates was filed on May 9, 2022. See Tab 113. On May 11, 2022, the Commission conducted a hearing on the merits of the previously filed Settlement Agreement. On June 2, 2022, the Commission approved the Settlement Agreement on Permanent Rates by Order No. 26,635, see Tab 120. As previously stated, this Order was subsequently revised on June 10, 2022, see Tab 124, and July 20, 2022, see Tab 135. Order No. 26,635 approved permanent rates and allowed for the Company to submit two successive step adjustment filings no sooner than June 20, 2022. Both step adjustments were subject to audit and review by the DOE and had implementation dates no sooner than December 16, 2022 for Step I, and June 16, 2023 for Step II. On September 1, 2022, the Company filed for its Step I adjustment to rates in Docket No. DW 20-117. After audit and discovery conducted by the DOE, a proposed “Settlement Agreement – Step I Rates” was submitted to the Commission on January 25, 2023. A hearing on the merits of the Step I Settlement was held on April 12, 2023. The Commission issued an Order Approving Settlement on Step I Adjustment dated April 28, 2023, Order No. 26,809, at Tab 178. Order No. 26,809 further allowed for the Company to combine its request for recovery of rate case expenses accrued in the adjudication of Step I with its request for recovery of rate case expenses incurred in Step II, once finalized. On June 14, 2023, however, the Commission issued Order No. 26,846, Tab 191, suspending Order No. 26,809 while the Commission considered a motion for rehearing filed by Intervenor Xxxxx Xxxxxx, at Tab 181. By Procedural Order dated June 30, 2023, Tab 192, the Commission extended the suspension of Order No. 26,809 indefinitely. The Commission denied Xx. Xxxxxx’x Motion for Rehearing on August 16, 2023, Order No....
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).
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. 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. In response to WAPA, Basin Electric, and Heartland Consumers Power District’s ("Heartland") planned integration into SPP effective October 1, 2015, MDU raised concerns that it would be necessary for it to take Network Integration Transmission Service ("NITS") from both SPP and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. ("MISO") to serve its customers in 1 The "Settling Parties" to this proceeding are SPP, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. ("MDU"), Western Area Power Administration ("WAPA"), and Basin Electric Power Cooperative ("Basin Electric"). The remaining parties, Roughrider Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("Roughrider") and American Electric Power Service Corporation, on behalf of its affiliates, Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company (collectively, “AEP”), do not oppose the Settlement. 2 The parties to this proceeding are SPP, MDU, WAPA, Basin Electric, Roughrider, and AEP. 3 This Explanatory Statement is not intended to, and does not, alter any of the provisions of the Settlement. In the event of an inconsistency between the Explanatory Statement and the Settlement, the Settlement shall control. MISO, increasing the cost for NITS. In response to MDU's concerns, the Commission set the seams issues raised by MDU for hearing and settlement proceedings.4 The proceedings ultimately resulted in MDU, SPP, WAPA, Basin Electric, Heartland, and MISO entering into a Partial Settlement Agreement.5 In relevant part, pursuant to the Partial Settlement Agreement, MDU receives credits under Section 30.9 of SPP's Open Access Transmission Tariff ("SPP Tariff") for the use of its transmission facilities by SPP to provide transmission service to MDU and SPP customers ("Section 30.9 Credits"). The MDU facilities receiving Section 30.9 Credits as agreed to in the Partial Settlement Agreement were included in Appendix 4 of MDU's Original Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (“NITSA”) with SPP.6 The Partial Settlement Agreement also sets forth a process for adding and removing facilities from the list of facilities receiving Section 30.9 Credits in the Original MDU NITSA.7 On October 15, 2019, in Docket No. ER20-108-000, SPP filed the executed First Revised MDU Network Operating Agreement (“NOA”) among SPP as Transmission Provider, MDU as Network Customer, and Basin Electric and WAPA as Host Transmission Owners, and the 4 See Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 149 FERC ¶ 61,113 at P 112 (2014). 5 See Joint Offer of Partial Settleme...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 15, 2019, SPP filed an executed Network Operating Agreement (“NOA”) ("First Revised MDU NOA") among SPP as Transmission Provider, MDU as Network Customer, and Basin Electric and WAPA as Host Transmission Owners, and an unexecuted Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service (“NITSA”) ("First Revised MDU NITSA") between SPP and MDU.3
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. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION that:
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...
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 15, 2011, a stockholder derivative action captioned Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx v.
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.
