Opinion ID: 2507678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Shippers' Other Arguments Are Unpersuasive.

Text: The Shippers make several other arguments which we deal with briefly below. The Shippers argue that AS 42.06.400(b) requires the Commission to hold a hearing and complete its investigation prior to vacating an order suspending rates. Subsection .400(b) states that: An order suspending a tariff filing may be vacated if, after investigation, the commission finds that it is in all respects proper. Otherwise the commission shall hold a hearing on the suspended filing and issue its order, before the end of the suspension hearing, granting, denying or modifying the suspended tariff in whole or in part. The Shippers argue that because there was no investigation, there could be no finding that the rates were proper. They argue that this Court should reverse and remand this decision on this point alone. However, there is nothing in the statute suggesting that the Commission cannot, pursuant to its investigation, find a rate to be in all respects proper because it is made under a settlement approved by the Commission. As with the arguments discussed in Section A above, to find otherwise would mean that the Commission could never accept a settlement without first adjudicating rates. The Shippers also argue that [t]he Commission wrongfully concluded that Williamsand Tesoro were not parties in Docket P-86-2. However, the Commission did not base its finding on the party status of the Shippers. Rather it relied upon the untimeliness of their requests. The Shippers emphasize the fact that all rates for 1986-1996 were protested by one or more interested parties. However, they do not point to a single instance in which they protested a rate between 1986-1996. They cannot rely on the fact that other parties, such as the Commission staff, Petro Star, or the Alaska Public Interest Research Group, protested the rates. [44] They did not invest the significant costs involved in undertaking rate litigation. While they might hope that the efforts of others will be successful, they cannot initiate an investigation years after the other efforts fail on the basis that they did not have to timely protest because others did. The Shippers also suggest in passing that the Commission erred by accepting the filed rates without determining whether they were correctly calculated under TSM. The Commission scheduled a prehearing conference in Docket P-82-2 for March 6, 2003, to determine whether any party still believed it necessary to verify TSM calculations and inputs. In the days immediately prior to the hearing, the Shippers filed their protests and petitions to intervene. These filings did not protest that the rates were not calculated in compliance with TSM. The Shippers were on notice that the rates were going to be approved if no party requested a formal verification of the TSM calculations and inputs, but they did not request this verification. On May 6, 2003, the Commission gave notice that it was going to deny the Shippers' protests and petitions to intervene, and on June 23, 2003, the Commission issued Order 68 stating its decisions and more fully explaining them. This order also stated that it approved the unchallenged intrastate TAPS rates [for 1986-1996] as permanent rates. The rates were then formally established in a subsequent order. [45] Because the Shippers did not express an interest in verifying TSM calculations and inputs in their filings and they had notice that the rates would be established as final if no one requested verification of the TSM calculations and inputs, the Commission was within the bounds of its discretion when it decided not to conduct a further investigation of whether the 1986-1996 rates complied with TSM and approved them as permanent rates in Order 68. Finally, the Shippers argue that the Commission failed to resolve crucial regulatory issues that could lead to inconsistent results. However, these arguments miss the basic point: the Commission accepted the rates pursuant to a Settlement. The rates therefore do not need to be consistent with the rates that were determined as a result of adjudication following a timely protest.