evidence of the facts found and shall remain 1993 PennVest Order facie became “prima conclusive upon all parties affected thereby, unless set aside, annulled or modified on in accordance with Section 316 of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 316. Columbia judicial review” submitted that the volumetric rate base/rate of return rate for this plant was never appealed, and thus remains conclusive. CWC R.B. at 8-9. Columbia also argued that the I&E and OCA position is contrary to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and established ratemaking principles, and would conflict with the United States Tax Code. Id. at 14-20. b. Recommendation ALJ’s The ALJ agreed with the position, stating that the Company’s Commission’s cannot be ignored. The ALJ concluded that inclusion of 1993 PennVest Order Columbia’s its remaining used and useful undepreciated PennVest plant in rate base is appropriate. R.D. at 22. c. Exceptions In its first Exception, I&E argues that the ALJ erred by not adopting I&E’s recommendation that the rate base claim exclude the depreciated value of plant Company’s funded entirely from a PennVest loan. I&E argues that this plant was completely funded by ratepayers through an accelerated and adjusted charge that allowed the Company to timely repay the underlying principal and interest pursuant to the PennVest loan repayment schedule. I&E recommends that the Commission reduce the rate base claim by Company’s $3,048,292 to remove the depreciated value of the PennVest-financed plant from rate base. I&E notes that this adjustment would require a corresponding Columbia’s reduction to the claimed depreciation expense related to the plant. I&E Exc. Company’s at 5-6. I&E further notes that the ALJ stated that the unique regulatory ‘but for’ history of PennVest plant, he would have been inclined to accept Columbia’s I&E’s
1993 PennVest Order became “prima facie evidence of the facts found and shall remain conclusive upon all parties affected thereby, unless set aside, annulled or modified on judicial review” in accordance with Section 316 of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 316. Columbia submitted that the volumetric rate base/rate of return rate for this plant was never appealed, and thus remains conclusive. CWC R.B. at 8-9. Columbia also argued that the I&E and OCA position is contrary to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and ratemaking principles, and would conflict with the United States Tax Code. Id. at 14-20. b. ALJ’s Recommendation The ALJ agreed with the Company’s position, stating that the Commission’s 1993 PennVest Order cannot be ignored. The ALJ concluded that Columbia’s inclusion of its remaining used and useful undepreciated PennVest plant in rate base is appropriate. R.D. at 22. c. Exceptions In its first Exception, I&E argues that the ALJ erred by not adopting I&E’s recommendation that the Company’s rate base claim exclude the depreciated value of plant funded entirely from a PennVest loan. I&E argues that this plant was completely funded by ratepayers through an accelerated and adjusted charge that allowed the Company to timely repay the underlying principal and interest pursuant to the PennVest loan repayment schedule. I&E recommends that the Commission reduce the Company’s rate base claim by $3,048,292 to remove the depreciated value of the PennVest-financed plant from Columbia’s rate base. I&E notes that this adjustment would require a corresponding reduction to the Company’s claimed depreciation expense related to the plant. I&E Exc. at 5-6. I&E further notes that the ALJ stated that ‘but for’ the unique regulatory history of Columbia’s PennVest plant, he would have been inclined to accept I&E’s established
1266459.docx