Opinion ID: 1211297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Twenty-Two Month Suspension of the Tariff Filings.

Text: GSTC argues that the APUC was not authorized to suspend its tariff revision filings five times. [6] This delay harmed GSTC because the commission ultimately based its determination on financial data two years beyond the test period. Had the APUC been limited in its ability to suspend tariff filings, the rate case would have gone to hearing at a time of unprecedented high interest rates and its rate of return would have been substantially greater. The APUC counters that the delay in the proceedings below was justified by its consideration of the important issue of separated company vs. total company methodology, and by a number of other complexities of GSTC's operations in the underlying case. Furthermore, the APUC argues that GSTC had no vested right to rates based on unprecedented high interest rates that were a short-term aberration. The commission acknowledged in one of its suspension orders that this is an unusual case, and suggested that GSTC apply for additional interim relief if necessary: In further extending the suspension of these rate increase requests, the Commission recognizes that the prolonged nature of this proceeding may impose an additional financial burden on GSTC. The Commission further acknowledges that this proceeding has continued for a longer period of time than under normal circumstances due to the quantity and breadth of the issues addressed, e.g., total versus separated company revenue requirement determination. Therefore, if GSTC finds that additional interim rate relief is needed, it should submit its request together with its fully separated revenue requirement study in accordance with 3 AAC 48.275(a) and 3 AAC 48.430, by November 5, 1982. GSTC considers interim rate relief an empty remedy. It sought interim relief on November 2, 1982, and the APUC rejected it because it was not filed on a separated basis. Thus, GSTC claims, it was caught in a classic Catch 22 situation. This characterization is unfounded, however. Presumably, if GSTC's revenue figures had warranted interim rate relief when considered on a separated company basis, it would have refiled using that methodology. If GSTC was not entitled to further interim rate relief based on its separated company data, then neither would it have been entitled to a rate increase had the commission come to an earlier decision. Thus its Catch 22 situation was not a result of the suspensions, it was the result of the commission's decision to require a separated company methodology. While we do not condone the extensive delays in this case, they were not inherently unfair given the complexity of the separations issue and the availability of interim relief if warranted. We hold that the commission did not err in suspending GSTC's tariff filings, [7] and the fact that interest rates dropped from the time GSTC filed the tariff to the time the APUC made its final decision does not entitle GSTC to an analysis based on the higher rates.