Sekan Elec. Co-op. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Corp. Commission, 51292
Decision Date | 21 March 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 51292,51292 |
Citation | 4 Kan.App.2d 477,609 P.2d 188 |
Parties | The SEKAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., Applicant, v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, Richard C. Loux, Chairman, William S. Gray, Commissioner, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
On judicial review of an order of the Kansas Corporation Commission in a utility rate case it is held :
1. The order did not exclude part of the utility's equity capital from its rate base.
2. A utility's rate of return need not be large enough to repay long term debt.
3. The Commission was justified in rejecting the utility's proposed declining block rate schedule and in ordering a schedule with a fixed customer or minimum charge, augmented by a flat per kilowatt hour energy charge.
James M. Caplinger of James M. Caplinger, Chartered, Topeka, for applicant.
Curtis M. Irby, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Kansas Corp. Commission, Wichita, for respondent.
Before FOTH, C. J., and ABBOTT and PARKS, JJ.
The Sekan Electric Cooperative Association, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation engaged in the distribution of electricity to some 3900 member-customers in southeast Kansas. In November, 1978, it filed an application with the Kansas Corporation Commission for a rate increase to produce an additional $248,379 in operating revenues. The Commission fixed a rate of return which would produce only an additional $18,751. Sekan has sought judicial review, contending that the Commission's order (1) excluded a portion of its equity capital from its rate base; (2) improperly prevents it from recovering its capital costs; and (3) arbitrarily rejected its proposed rate structure.
In examining these contentions we must bear in mind the limitations on our scope of review, recently recapitulated in Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan.App.2d 376, 380-81, 595 P.2d 735, 738-739, rev. denied 226 Kan. VIII (September 11, 1979):
The Commission's order fixed a rate of return, after operating expenses, of 3.43% on a total rate base, as adjusted, of $3,170,310. This assumed that, in line with Sekan's past practice, none of the net proceeds would be used to repay capital previously contributed by member-customers through paying rates in excess of the cost of service. (Systematic repayment of some of these "capital credits" of members each year is called "capital credit rotation."). The Commission also gave Sekan the option to demonstrate within sixty days that it intended to commence a capital credit rotation plan, in which case the rate of return would be increased to 4.81%. Sekan chose not to avail itself of this option, and the 3.43% rate went into effect.
The Commission's findings on the rate issue were based on the testimony of economist Jack T. Blakley, and a rejection of testimony offered by Sekan. Its reasoning is demonstrated by the following excerpt from its order:
It may be seen that the Commission did not "exclude" part of Sekan's equity capital. It simply adopted a rate to be applied to the entire rate base which allowed no "return" on equity, in the usual sense of corporate profits, at all. This result is justified by the fundamental difference between cooperatives and profit-making utilities. Cooperatives, unlike investor-owned utilities, do not secure equity by stock offerings in the marketplace, but by "overcharging" their customers and placing the surplus in their capital account. Hence a return large enough to pay dividends is not required to attract equity capital or to make a cooperative financially sound; it is enough that its rates safely cover its interest obligations to the federal lending agencies which furnish its long term debt capital (the "TIER" referred to by Blakley and in the order). The rate approved by the Commission meets this objective.
Sekan's argument about excluding part of its rate base is aimed primarily at the Commission's economist Blakley, who referred in his testimony to a "hypothetical equity ratio" of about 35%. It is conceded that Sekan's actual equity is about 55%, with the remaining 45% of its capital being long term debt. In computing an overall rate of return it is common to compute one rate on equity and a different rate on debt, and then allow a weighted average. That was done by Mr. Blakley in his alternative computation, but employing a hypothetical ratio rather than Sekan's actual ratio.
The authority of a commission to adopt a hypothetical equity ratio for rate of return purposes has been almost universally upheld in the courts. See E. Nichols, Ruling Principles of Utility Regulation, 267-273 (1955). The rationale was explained in E. Nichols and F. Welch, Ruling Principles of Utility Regulation, Rate of Return Supplement A, 157 (1964):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moundridge Tel. Co. v. Kan. Corp.
... ... 3d 523 (Table) MOUNDRIDGE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. KANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION, ... the company's pass-through income, but no state income taxes. Staff stated that additional ... App.2d 332, 339, 42 P.3d 110 (2002); see Sekan Electric Coop. Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation ... ...
-
Kansas Gas and Elec. Co. v. State Corp. Com'n
... ... STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Kansas, ... Respondent/Appellee ... KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., Applicant/Appellant, ... STATE CORPORATION ... Power Co-op., Inc ... Brian J. Moline, ... The difference is discussed in Sekan Electric Coop. Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation ... ...
-
Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. State Corp. Commission
... ... MIDWEST GAS USERS ASSOCIATION and Armco, Inc., Applicants, ... STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ... Vulcan takes umbrage with the decision in Sekan Electric Coop. Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation ... ...
-
Bishop v. Evangelical Lutheran Soc.
... ... state when fees will be subject to periodic increases ... See Sekan Elec. Coop. Ass'n v. State Corp. Comm'n, 4 Kan ... Organizations § 2.1 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 6th ed.2000) (discussing how difference in ... ...