Views expressed in this presentation are that of Ryan Silvey and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presented by: Chairman Ryan Silvey, Missouri Public Service Commission

Views expressed in this

presentation are that of Ryan Silvey and do not represent the views of the Missouri Public Service Commission.

PSC regulates public utilities under powers granted in the Public Service Commission Law.

“The guiding star of this act and the dominating purpose of utility regulation are the promotion and conservation of the interests and convenience of the public.” State ex rel Crown Coach

• Co. v. Public Service Com’n (App. 1944) 179 S.W.2d 41

“Its purpose is to require the general public not only to pay rates that will keep public utility plants in proper repair for effective service, but further to insure to the investors a reasonable return upon funds invested.” State ex rel. Washington

University v. Public Service Commission of Missouri (Sup. 1925) 272 S.W. 971.

What infrastructure upgrades are needed for safe and adequate service?

Are utilities entitled to recovery for the costs in rates? If so, how should those costs be recovered?

“We went from getting one meter read per month to 3,000 per month.” Senior engineer at electric cooperative in Ohio.

Smart Meters – Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

 KPSC’s Key Findings:

• Failed to prove meters

needed to insure adequate service.

• Asking customers to pay

for new system AND $52.9 million in unrecovered costs of existing meters.

• Failed to commit to pass
• n savings from smart

meters to their customers.

 KU: install and deploy

531,000 electric meters for $161.9 million

 LG&E: install and deploy

413,000 electric meters and 334,000 natural gas meters for $178.5

When evaluating odds of a net cost benefit, KPSC found likelihood “is too marginal and the risk to ratepayers is too great.”

 Decisions of a Public Service Commission

Based on Facts.

• Kentucky PSC distinguished its prior order

approving Duke Energy Kentucky’s smart meter application based on need for new meters to provide reliable service and benefits being offered to ratepayers.

 Need to see benefits to ratepayers

• Ability to access real-time information on usage?
• Time of Use rate options?

 Missouri American Water Company requested

recovery through rates of costs in 2017 for Lead Service Line Replacement Program and authority to continue tracking program costs

Lea Lead Ser Service Li Lines ( (LS LSL) – service line connecting water distribution main in street to customer’s home. Customers normally responsible for maintaining and replacing portion of line from main to home.

Full LSL Replacement Partial LSL Replacement

 All segments of service

line that contain lead are removed.

 Only a portion of the

service line with lead is replaced while portion

• f line owned by the

customer remains.

 Report and Order Issued on May 2, 2018:  Approved recovery of Missouri-American’s LSLR Program costs

through December 31, 2017.

• $1,668,797 million amortized over 10 years.
• Commission did not approve Missouri-American’s request for both recovery of costs

and a return on the value of the customer-owned service lines.

 Allowing Missouri-American to continue tracking ongoing costs for

the program for consideration of potential recovery in a future general rate case.

 Agreed with Public Counsel and created a working group to evaluate

information from the LSLR Program and to evaluate:

• Prudency of costs
• Feasibility of prioritizing at-risk population
• How utility will proceed when lacks customer consent
• How to handle unusual site restorations
• Maintaining records

 Kansas City Power and Light Company v.

Missouri Public Service Commission, (W.D. 2018) 557 S.W. 3d 460.

 Court reversed MoPSC’s Report and Order

and determined that KCP&L’s electric vehicle charging stations constitute “electric plant” within the meaning of Section 386.020(14) RSMo.

• Ameren Missouri filed tariff sheets for

“Charge Ahead” program on February 22, 2018.

• PSC issued Report and Order on February 6, 2019.
• Approved Pilot Program for the EV Charging Corridor

Program to stimulate development of a public minimum practical network of EV corridor charging infrastructure, including Level 3 DCFC across Ameren’s service area.

• Incentive offered through reverse auction for 8-15 sites
• Must have both Level 2 and DCFC charging capabilities.

 MOPSC directed opening of working docket to involve

stakeholders to address various ownership models for EV charging stations.

 Participants allowed to consider and evaluate additional

models, but Commission directed them to evaluate the following three models:

1.

Similar to the one stipulated by the parties in KCP&L’s last rate case where utility can own and operate the charging stations

2.

A “make ready” tariff proposal with an option to waive line extension charges from a customer seeking line extension for separately metered EV charging that meets specific public policy considerations.

3.

Alternative incentive program where program parameters, implementation, and cost recovery would be evaluated and defined in future rate proceeding.

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 2016 2017 2018 Jan 1st - April 26th 2019 Number of EV's Registered with DOR Number of EV's Registered with DOR in the KC Area

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 2016 2017 2018 Jan 1st - April 26th 2019 Number of EV's Registered with DOR Number of EV's Registered with DOR in the KC Area Number of EV's Registered with DOR in the St Louis Area

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Top 10 Counties with an EV Registration CY2018

Number of EV's Registered with DOR

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

To Top 10 10 Co Counties - Jan an 1s 1st - April 26t 26th 2019 2019

Number of EV's Registered with DOR