Opinion ID: 1500938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timing of Review

Text: Pepco argues that certain of OPC's requests for deposit orders improperly sought approval by PSC in advance of the beginning of work under a particular contract. [14] According to Pepco, these requests were an attempt to force the Commission to approve the requests in order to avoid delays in completion of the proceedings. WGL further contends that assessment of expenses of attorneys and consultants in advance of performance of services is per se improper. Although the Commission should always give as thorough a review as possible, we are unable to conclude that assessment of expenses in advance of performance may never be ordered by the Commission. It is up to the Commission, in considering the special circumstances of a particular request, to determine the reasonableness of assessment in advance of performance and to ascertain whether it deems this advance necessary. Correspondingly, determination of when approval of a request must be delayed until after services are performed is primarily a matter for the Commission. We stress, however, that the advanced timing of its review in such cases does not relieve the Commission from its duty of assessing the reasonableness of expenses and explaining the basis for a conclusion of reasonableness. An approval of a large amount of ill-defined expenses to be incurred in the future is clearly improper. [15] Again, we note, provided that the Commission fulfills its duty of providing adequate findings and conclusions, our review of its choice with regard to timing of requests will be limited.