often results in alternatives that may not have been realized during the litigation process. Determining a revenue company’s requirement is a calculation involving many complex and interrelated adjustments that affect expenses, depreciation, rate base, taxes and the cost of capital. Reaching an company’s agreement between various parties on each component of a rate increase can be difficult and impractical in many cases. For these reasons, we support the use of a settlement in this “black box” proceeding and, accordingly, deny this Exception. Docket No. R-2013-2355886 (Opinion and Order Pa. et al. v. Peoples TWP, Pub. Util. Comm’n, entered December 19, 2013, p. 28). Once the settling parties have submitted their joint settlement petition for approval, the principal issue for Commission consideration is whether the agreement serves the public interest. 60 Pa. PUC 1, 21 Pa. Pub. Util. v. Philadelphia Electric Company, Comm’n (1985); 74 Pa. PUC 767, 771 (1991). Pa. Pub. Util. v. CS Water and Sewer Associates, Comm’n 2. Burden of Proof When the Commission on its own motion initiates an investigation into a proposed or existing rate of a public utility, the burden of proof as to the justness and reasonableness of the proposed or existing rate is upon the public utility. The Public Utility Code, Section 315(a), provides as follows: (a) Reasonableness of rates. In any proceeding upon the motion – of the commission, involving any rate of any proposed or existing public utility, or in any proceedings upon complaint involving any proposed increase in rates, the burden of proof to show that the rate involved is just and reasonable shall be upon the public utility. 66 Pa. C.S. § 315(a) (emphasis added). In construing Section 315(a), the Commonwealth Court has stated:
often results in alternatives that may not have been realized during the litigation process. Determining a company’s revenue requirement is a calculation involving many complex and interrelated adjustments that affect expenses, depreciation, rate base, taxes and the company’s cost of capital. Reaching an agreement between various parties on each component of a rate increase can be difficult and impractical in many cases. For these reasons, we support the use of a “black box” settlement in this proceeding and, accordingly, deny this Exception. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, et al. v. Peoples TWP, Docket No. R-2013-2355886 (Opinion and Order entered December 19, 2013, p. 28). Once the settling parties have submitted their joint settlement petition for approval, the principal issue for Commission consideration is whether the agreement serves the public interest. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 60 Pa. PUC 1, 21 (1985); Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. CS Water and Sewer Associates, 74 Pa. PUC 767, 771 (1991). 2. Burden of Proof When the Commission on its own motion initiates an investigation into a proposed or existing rate of a public utility, the burden of proof as to the justness and reasonableness of the proposed or existing rate is upon the public utility. The Public Utility Code, Section 315(a), provides as follows: (a) Reasonableness of rates. – In any proceeding upon the motion of the commission, involving any proposed or existing rate of any public utility, or in any proceedings upon complaint involving any proposed increase in rates, the burden of proof to show that the rate involved is just and reasonable shall be upon the public utility. 66 Pa. C.S. § 315(a) (emphasis added). In construing Section 315(a), the Commonwealth Court has stated:
1276452.docx