The state Public Service Commission has rejected a $265 million rate increase request by Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, mostly because the application had big gaps of missing financial information.
The filing could be resubmitted in a more complete form as soon as the companies are prepared. Another possibility would be to modify the proposal so that its effects wouldn’t take place until later, still giving the affected parties an adequate amount of time to consider the matter.
The order by the three-member commission was issued Wednesday afternoon, dismissing the rate case at least for now.
The requested amount would have been a 15.4% increase affecting about 460,921 customers in Boone, Brooke, Cabell, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Marshall, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas, Ohio, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Summers, Wayne, Wetzel and Wyoming counties.
The companies had said the rate increase would improve reliability, pay for upgrades at their generation plants and promote economic development. Appalachian Power said it hasn’t had a base rate increase since 2018 and since then it’s invested more than $1 billion in its system.
The companies had filed their application Aug. 2. Staff for the PSC flagged it as not in compliance with rules surrounding tariffs. For example, doing so would have required providing a listing of all long-term debt at the beginning and end of the test year including information about bonds.
“To the disadvantage of all parties, and the Commission, the information was not available to be reviewed on August 2, 2024, the initial filing date,” wrote members of the PSC, acknowledging that the companies had described the omissions as inadvertent.
“The parties and the Commission have been deprived of the time to review a complete filing.”
Commissioners said the clock was ticking on the time required to gain a full understanding of the financial repercussions of a big and complicated case.
“In this case, the Companies had an unlimited amount of time to prepare a base rate tariff filing. The Commission and other parties have only three hundred days to review that filing, receive and review testimony, hold hearings, receive and review briefs and issue a fully explanatory final order with appropriate findings of facts and conclusions of law,” the commissioners wrote in the order.
“Because a base rate case of the magnitude of this case requires opportunity for testimony, hearings and briefing, the amount of time that the Commission has to review the filing and gain an understanding of the financial data underlying the requested revenue requirements is much less than three hundred days.”
Energy Efficient West Virginia described the rejection of the rate hike, at least for now, as good news.
“The proposal would have affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of West Virginians, costing them more and making it harder to reduce costs. We appreciate the Commission and its Staff taking a stand and requiring AEP to provide all required information, so proposals like this can be properly evaluated,” said Emmett Pepper, legal and policy director for Energy Efficient West Virginia.
“We also hope that AEP reconsiders some of its proposals before it files another case like this. Increasing rates on families, small businesses, churches, and schools by 15-25% can really harm our communities. Also, their proposal to make it harder for people to reduce their bills through solar is kind of like adding insult to injury. We will be watching the filings closely to see if they try to propose it again.”
The West Virginia Energy Users Group, which is made up of some of the state’s largest industrial power customers, said applying the brakes was a good move by the commission.
“The Commission is obviously serious about holding AEP, or any utility, accountable to the rules pertaining to rate increase requests, and as a large consumer representative, I appreciate that given the parade of rate increases that have occurred on the AEP system over the last few years. That said, the Order does provide AEP with a pragmatic solution to correct its filing and re-start the statutory clock for hearing the case, if AEP is willing to avail itself of that,” said Derrick Price Williamson, executive director of the energy users group.