Court Opinion

ID: 9575084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:27.170352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:58.178987
License: Public Domain

*201Justice MARTIN
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because of my disagreement with the majority on its resolution of the first issue discussed. While I agree with the majority that in principle exchange agreements may be beneficial to the public, the record does not support application of this principle in this particular rate case. Endorsing in principle the fact that an exchange agreement may enhance the reliability of power supply to Duke’s customers (as well as possibly providing other benefits), such benefits were not made available to Duke’s retail ratepayers during or within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the test year in the present case. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-133 (1982). Such benefits will inure to these customers only if and when the two Catawba units are completed and thereby become available as backup suppliers of power in the event the McGuire station is unable to supply power to Duke’s retail ratepayers. It is clear from the record that neither unit of the Catawba station had been completed at the time the Commission’s order was entered in 1984 and was not even scheduled to be completed until sometime the following year. The test year ended 30 June 1983. Duke’s retail ratepayers were thus not receiving any benefits from the so-called exchange agreements since no exchange of power was even possible during the test year in this case or soon thereafter. The only “benefit” these ratepayers received from Duke’s implementation of the alleged exchange agreement during the test year was the privilege of having included in the retail rate base costs associated with power sold to the owners of interest in the still uncompleted Catawba plants.
While I might agree that Duke’s retail ratepayers should participate in paying costs resulting from agreements made by Duke which benefit these ratepayers, it is only fair that such an obligation arise only when the ratepayers actually begin to receive these benefits. At least one unit of the Catawba station is yet incomplete as this opinion is being issued and the other may also be unfinished. As with other nuclear power plants, the ultimate completion of the Catawba station may drag on for many years. By the majority’s reasoning, Duke’s retail ratepayers are footing the bill for costs associated with power they will never use and with benefits they certainly were not receiving during the test year and may not receive for many years, if ever.
*202I further disagree with the majority’s view that the retail ratepayers received benefits during the test year because the exchange agreements may have enabled Duke and the other owners of Catawba to finance the construction of the Catawba station at costs lower than might have been incurred had the exchange agreements not been implemented. With this kind of argument Duke will always be able to claim that its retail ratepayers are receiving benefits (and thus must pay the costs of service provided to other, nonjurisdictional power consumers) merely by proposing unjustifiably high rates and then proposing a cost reduction that will “benefit” ratepayers. Any such cost reductions are pure speculation; this sort of argument should not be endorsed by this Court.
For these reasons I dissent from the majority’s opinion.