Opinion ID: 1500938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assessment of Regular and Basic Operating Expenses

Text: In Formal Case No. 718 the Commission held that the term expenses in D.C.Code 1981, § 43-612 does not include the basic operating expenses or salaries of OPC which are already covered by appropriations even when these costs are incurred in connection with a pending proceeding. The utility may be assessed, however, for extraordinary incremental expenses associated with a pending proceeding in which it is involved. In Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission, supra, we have affirmed this aspect of the Commission's interpretation of expenses. Pepco asserts that various deposit orders approved by the Commission included expenses that were basic operating expenses and hence not assessable against it. Specifically, Pepco criticizes expenses for services of one consultant who was responsible for the administration of financial and budget records for several proceedings and another consultant who provided technical analysis with respect to several proceedings. [16] In addition, Pepco argues that certain expenses for delivery, postage, duplication, and typing were improperly assessed. [17] As we stated in Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission, supra, those expenses which may be assessed against the utilities may include supplies, equipment, and services. The assessment statute includes no express limits on the kinds of items that are reimbursable. What is required for expenses to be assessed are (1) that these expenses are not already covered by appropriations, and (2) that these expenses are episodic, rather than ongoing. The expenses must be associated with a particular proceeding or investigation. [18] On the record before us we are unable to ascertain whether the expenses involved were in fact episodic. Instead, the possibility exists that these expenses were related to normal day-to-day expenditures or to administrative duties which otherwise would be performed in an on-going fashion by a member of OPC staff. The record does not reflect that the Commission in fact reviewed these requests to ascertain their reasonableness or to ensure that the expenses were in accord with the Commission's own requirements in regard to basic versus episodic expenses, as explained in Order No. 7211. Accordingly, we remand to the Commission for a meaningful review of these deposit orders and a statement of reasons supporting the propriety of these expenses.