15
NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Page 2: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

First implemented in PA to allow for rate increase outside of a general rate proceeding.

For non-revenue producing investments to replace aging infrastructure.

Eleven states now have DSIC.

Page 3: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate
Page 4: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Iowa has available an electric energy automatic adjustment clause. 199 I.A.C. Section 20.9.

It does not cover capital infrastructure investment.

Page 5: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

In 2011 the Iowa Utilities Board promulgated a rule creating a capital infrastructure investment adjustment clause for rate-regulated natural gas facilities.

The recovery sunsets in four years.

Page 6: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

To be eligible for recovery through the capital infrastructure investment automatic adjustment mechanism, the costs shall either:

a. Meet the following criteria: (1) The costs are beyond the direct control of

management; (2) The costs are subject to sudden, important

change in level; (3) The costs are an important factor in

determining the total cost of capital infrastructure investment to serve customers; and

(4) The costs are readily, precisely, and continuously segregated in the accounts of the utility; or

Page 7: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

b. Be costs for a capital infrastructure investment which:

(1) Does not serve to increase revenues by directly connecting the infrastructure replacement to new customers;

(2) Is in service but was not included in the gas utility’s rate base in its most recent general rate case; and

(3) Replaces or modifies existing infrastructure required by state or local government action or is required to meet state or federal natural gas pipeline safety regulations.

Page 8: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

There is no water utility adjustment clause.

In Iowa there is only one regulated water utility–Iowa American Water.

The IUB could create an adjustment clause in a rate proceeding.

Page 9: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

In 2011, Iowa American Water (IAW) filed a rate proceeding. IAW files every two years.

IAW requested two adjustment clauses - 1. The qualified infrastructure plant replacement surcharge (the “QIP” Surcharge), designed to allow the Company to earn a return of and return on its investments in qualified infrastructure replacement on a timely basis;

Page 10: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

2. The revenue adjustment clause (“RAC”), designed to adjust the Company’s revenues on an automatic basis, in the event that they fall below or rise above the levels approved in this case. This issue was dropped before trial.

Page 11: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Aging infrastructure that needs accelerated replacement.

Replacement will come at a substantial cost. Will only apply to qualified non-revenue

investment. Allows IAW to earn a return on a timely basis. The surcharge will be calculated every six

months and added to base rates at next rate case.

Capped at 5% of revenue and subject to true-up.

Page 12: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Enhanced service. Reduction of water loss. Smaller rate increases.

Page 13: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

Insufficient proof that the surcharge is needed.

Would allow continuous rate increases every 6 months between rate cases up to 5%.

Eliminates matching of all revenues and costs, and lacks detailed review of charges.

The time between rate cases is a substitute for competition and provides the incentive for cost control.

Reduced risk requires a reduced rate of return.

Page 14: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate

IAW proposed QIP does not meet the traditional factors recognized by the IUB.

Regulatory lag and infrastructure replacement are not justifications.

Management practices for maintenance and replacement are not adequate.

No benefit to public in reduced rate of return or increased time periods between rate cases.

Insufficient factual support.

Page 15: NASUCA Baltimore Meeting November 11-14, 2012 Mark Schuling, Iowa Consumer Advocate