Entergy Louisiana v. Lpsc
| Decision Date | 01 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-CA-0284.,2008-CA-0284. |
| Citation | 990 So.2d 716 |
| Parties | ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Taggart, Morton, Ogden, Staub, Rougelot & O'Brien, Stephen Thomas Perrien, New Orleans, Kathryn J. Lichtenberg, J. Wayne Anderson, New Orleans, Margot Gallup Augustin, Michael J. Plaisance, Kathryn Ann Washington, Margaret Jenkins Savoye, New Orleans; Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Egan, Phillip Jay Antis, Jr., Ewell Elton Eagan, Jr., New Orleans, for appellant.
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, Michael R. Fontham, Noel Joseph Darce, Paul Lewis Zimmering, Dana Marie Shelton, New Orleans, Eve Kahao Gonzalez, for appellee.
This case comes before us on direct appeal from a ruling of the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("the LPSC"), pursuant to La. Const. art. IV, Section 21(E)1. The trial court affirmed LPSC Order U-20925-A (RRF 2004), dated May 16, 2006 ("the May 2006 refund order"), directing Entergy Louisiana, Inc., now known as Entergy Louisiana, LLC ("Entergy Louisiana"), to return interruptible load costs which Entergy Louisiana charged to its retail customers, which were subsequently refunded to Entergy Louisiana pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("the FERC") Opinion Nos. 468 and 468-A ("the FERC Opinions"). We affirm, finding that the LPSC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in ordering Entergy Louisiana to refund those sums paid by its retail customers for a charge subsequently found to be unallowable by the FERC.
The FERC is an independent regulatory agency within the United States Department of Energy which regulates the transmission and sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce. See 16 U.S.C.A. Section 824 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7101 et seq.
The LPSC is an independent state regulatory agency created pursuant to La. Const. art. IV, Section 21.2 The LPSC has the power to regulate common carriers and public utilities in Louisiana and "shall exercise all necessary power and authority over any street railway, gas, electric light, heat, power, waterworks, or other local public utility for the purpose of fixing and regulating the rates charged or to be charged by and service furnished by such public utilities." See LSA-R.S. 45:1163(A).
Entergy Corporation is a registered public utility holding company that owns all of the common stock of six public utility companies ("the Operating Companies") that generate and sell electricity in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas. The Operating Companies plan, construct, and operate their collective electric generating and transmission facilities as a single, integrated interstate system. The costs and benefits of the coordinated operation of this system are distributed among the Operating Companies pursuant to a rate schedule known as the Entergy System Agreement.
The Entergy System Agreement is approved by the FERC. The System Agreement allows the Operating Companies to enter into arrangements among the companies to exchange resources. The System Agreement consists of various FERCapproved service schedules, including MSS-1,3 which provides the mechanism for equalizing system reserves among the Operating Companies.
Pursuant to MSS-1 of the System Agreement, each of the Operating Companies is responsible for a share of the total Entergy system capability. Each company's share is equal to the ratio of that company's contribution to the system's peak load. Some of the companies provide more than their calculated share of the system's capability, while others provide less than their calculated share. The companies providing less than their calculated share make deficiency payments to the companies providing more than their share.
Entergy Louisiana is an Entergy Operating Company, engaged in the manufacture, production, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity throughout Louisiana. Thus, the retail sale of electricity by Entergy Louisiana is subject to the jurisdiction of the LPSC.
On March 15, 1995, the LPSC filed a complaint with the FERC requesting that calculations made by Entergy Operating Companies for interruptible load4 be removed from the Entergy System Agreement MSS-1 rate schedule. LPSC argued that including the interruptible load calculation in the schedule was unjust and unreasonable since Entergy Corporation did not consider interruptible load when deciding whether to add capacity to the system. After protracted litigation in the FERC and federal court, the FERC issued Opinion No. 468 on March 8, 2004 which held, in pertinent part:
We [FERC] will ... direct the Operating Companies to remove interruptible load when calculating peak load responsibility ratios. We will also direct the Operating Companies to remove interruptible load from Schedule MSS-5 (Distribution of Revenue from Sales Made for the Joint Account of All Companies) and from joint account purchases. Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, et al v. Entergy Corp, et al, Opinion No. 468, 106 FERC P 61228 (March 8, 2004).
FERC ordered that the change enunciated in its March 8, 2004 Opinion would be "effective from the first day of the first month following the date of this order (i.e. April 1, 2004)." Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, et al v. Entergy Corporation, et al, Opinion No. 468, 106 FERC P 61228 (March 8, 2004).
Entergy Services, Inc.5 filed a request for rehearing and clarification to the FERC following issuance of FERC Opinion No. 468, together with a motion to defer its obligation to submit the compliance filing required by the opinion until the FERC had ruled on Entergy's application for rehearing. In its motion, Entergy Services, Inc. stated, on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies, that it was "not seeking a stay of the April 1, 2004 effective date of Opinion No. 468 [Entergy's emphasis]." Entergy Louisiana also claimed that, "deferral of the compliance filing will not harm anyone because Entergy is not challenging the April 1, 2004 effective date for the changes imposed in Opinion No. 468."6
On April 18, 2005, the FERC issued FERC Opinion No. 468-A, denying rehearing relative to FERC Opinion No. 468. The FERC stated that "Entergy must adjust the system peaks and its rates beginning April 1, 2004, as required by Opinion No. 468." See, Lousiana Public Service Comm'n, et al. v. Entergy Corporation, et al., Opinion No. 468-A, 111 FERC P 61080 (April 18, 2005).7
During the pendency of the FERC proceedings, and separate from the issue of whether or not a charge for interruptible load should be included in capacity costs, Entergy Louisiana submitted a detailed revenue filing with the LPSC in January 2004 seeking a retail base rate increase. This filing was based upon 2002 test year data.8 In May, 2005, the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana, together with intervening parties, agreed to terms regarding Entergy Louisiana's January, 2004 request for retail base rate increase and the retail base rate was changed. As part of that settlement, the LPSC and Entergy Louisiana agreed that the FERC Opinions effective April 1, 2004,9 would be implemented by the LPSC as delineated in the LPSC's May 2005 retail base rate order as follows:
7. [Entergy Louisiana] shall immediately reflect the prospective rate effects of Order 468 and Order 468-A of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in docket No. EL00-66-000, ER00-2854-000 and EL95-33-002 (Consolidated) in accordance with [Entergy Louisiana's] Formula Rate Plan Rider Section 3.A.4. [Entergy Louisiana's] preliminary estimate is that [Entergy Louisiana's] retail customers should receive a $4.1 million decrease and that decrease will be implemented as of the effective date of this Order [May 25, 2005]. [Entergy Louisiana] is further ordered to provide the Commission, no later than July 15, 2005, with a revised estimate of the rate decrease associated with FERC Nos. 468 and 468-A. If the Commission determines that a further prospective change in [Entergy Louisiana's] rates is warranted by the revised estimate, such further change shall be implemented as directed by the Commission and shall be effective as of the effective date of this Order [May 25, 2005].
8. No later than July 31, 2005, [Entergy Louisiana] shall provide its calculation of the effect of FERC Orders 468 and 468-A on System Agreement charges from April 1, 2004-May 31, 2005.
10. The settlement that we approve is without prejudice to the Commission's position or Entergy's position on whether refunds are appropriate as a result of FERC Orders 468 and 468-A in Docket Nos. EL00-66-0000, ER00-2854-00 and EL95-33-002 (Consolidated), and without prejudice to either party's position on how any prospective rate changes from April 1, 2004 shall be calculated and implemented.
11. [Entergy Louisiana] shall submit responses to the LPSC Staff's discovery requests issued in U-20925 (RRF 2004)10 on May 6, 2006 as soon as possible, but not later than July 31, 2005 unless the Company is unable to do so for good cause shown.
LPSC Order No. U-20925 RRF 2004 Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Ex Parte (May 25, 2005).
The LSPC's May 2005 retail base rate order further addressed the issue of a refund for the period from April 1, 2004 through May 24, 2005 to be paid to Entergy Louisiana ratepayers:
There remains a dispute between [Entergy Louisiana] and the Commission Staff as to whether any amounts are due [Entergy Louisiana] ratepayers by virtue of Entergy's continued use of interruptible load in determining System Agreement charges from April 1, 2004 (the date of FERC Order 468) and the effective date of this Order. We will address the issue of refunds in a subsequent order after Entergy has responded to the Staff's discovery on this issue, which responses are due no later than July 31, 2005.11
The fact that "[n]o party to this proceeding objects to the terms of this settlement as amended in this Order"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faulk v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
...to the decisions of the Commission. See Entergy Louisiana, LLC v. Louisiana Pub. Sen'. Comm 'n, 200S-CA-0284, p. 10 (La. 7/1/08); 990 So.2d 716, 723 ("This court has held that an order of the [Commission] should not be overturned unless it is arbitrary and capricious, a clear abuse of autho......
-
Gordon v. Council of City of New Orleans
...a clear abuse of authority, or not reasonably based upon the factual evidence presented. Entergy Louisiana, LLC v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n, 08-0284 (La.7/1/08), 990 So.2d 716, 723 (citing Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n, 00-0336 (La.8/31/00), 766 So.2d 521......
-
Davis v. State Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants of La.
... 131 So.3d 391 John W. DAVIS, CPA v. STATE BOARD OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS OF LOUISIANA. No. 2013–CA–0514. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. Dec. 18, 2013 ... See id., 08–1268 at p. 4–5, 6 So.3d at 176 (citing Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 08–0284, p. 11 (La.7/1/08), 990 So.2d 716, ... ...
-
Entergy La., LLC v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Concordia Elec. Coop. Inc.
...utilities has been labeled by this court as 'plenary.' " Entergy Louisiana, LLC v. Louisiana Public Service Comm'n , 08-284 (La. 7/1/08), 990 So.2d 716, 723 (quoting Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm'n , 578 So.2d 71, 100 (La.1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1004, 112......