ML20003E985

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Final Order That Util Shall File Revised Tariff in Accordance W/Order,Sufficient to Generate Revenues Not Greater than Those Prescribed in Order
ML20003E985
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 04/29/1980
From: Cowden G, Morris G, Rollins H
TEXAS, STATE OF
To:
TEXAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
Shared Package
ML19240B984 List:
References
3006, NUDOCS 8104170635
Download: ML20003E985 (13)
v • d • e


Text

.

u

~

DOCKET NO. 3006 APPLICATION OF TEXAS POW R &

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION LIGHT COMPANY FCR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES OF TEXAS FINAL ORDER Procedural Statement

-4

. 1 1

On January 4,1990, Texas Power & Light Conpany (hereinafter referred to as TP&L)

1..

1

$~ "'4 ;'" /-.... -

filed with this Comission its Petition for Aethority to Change Rates in the areas in which "I

it serves and over which this Comission has jurisdiction. TP&L filed companion cases in 3

each municipality which it serves which has original jurisdiction.

Based upon its I

Petition, the requested increase. system-wide was $124,053,000 or 15.35 percent with a

.....,.. m. we n. ~...

.s.s.i..- ~ e T A *. -

proposed effective date of February 8,1980.

.c.- w r*4t.+w w ow w

....gr. ac....... 3

. l...5M. Y.LjZ.py A prehearing con'erence was held on January 22,1980 at which the following parties i

. $ l $ N $ N D h ~t Q M were granted intervenor status and grouped as follows for purposes of the hearing on the z.r c,- - =.==:, M -. ;~. ; -.p-w: : =r.'"I.Tj merits.

.r,gr n,a q

.h'*...;.: w: s.u - : t m?.'".~---

==

7,..?,,, ?*-

[.'dMY@$.~;5i,N 1.

Texas Municipal League (see Cities Exhibit No. I for list of cities)

N T.?8 M " NI 9 Dd~

represented by Don Butler; City of Waco represented by Earl Bracken; T

25b..W88,.-- r

  • City of 'Cleburne represented by Robert T. Miller, Jr.; City of w-a.. :

- : et.d.. ~

  • M Sherman represented by Gregory Humbach; City of Brownwood represented
.::. n.:.e n.--.=.:--; '.

by Bryan Hea1er; 2.%%~.:5$M-fa^~&

5 NdN-N 2.

South estern Electric Service Company represented by Frank Cain; 1--= Mis 3 PM%.+.%t ~ - -

- E~re-

-6..:ra. ;-1.

f"g. j '{ P %

[~"

Shirley; 3.

Comunity Public Service Company (CPS) represented by Michael G.

~""

~v-m_.,.m

. c.... -._.

z.m

.-.:=.-.:._.... -

- :. ;. -i-7.~.'. - -,

P n - -

4.

Coalition for Fair Rates represented by J. Michael Ball; Dorothy

' E ~.I Lyles. Elsie Cain and Matthew Webb individually and as

- m* z l'

representatives of similarly situated low-income, elderly customers of TP&L in the Cities of Brownwood, Mineral Wells and Cleburne

..r

~.....- m 2,

.r _ y-2 ~,.

represented by Geoffrey M. Gay; Comunity Center of the Stafford-cc.;.-- h" W g; 3.i + M ee.5.

4 y

tggg Armstrong Additten of the City of Seagoville represented by Ms. Sheila

.' i[ -u -

O Cor.nor;

.. c..

  • }:.{ ' ~ ~ ' '

Texas industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC) represented by Jor.athan Day 5.

P - Q:.

and Jeffrey Jacobs, and St. Regis Paper Company represented by Ms. Peggy Dobbins;

'~~*

Ny #2 d [ M $$ D W $.

6.

General Services Ad:ninistration (GSA) represented by William H. Smith

". f.

' ?-

N and Ms. Mildred Pitts;

/

ca..

h. r. q.,..;.y

~.., :s.a.. ~.-?...: *. c.. " - -.

- g g':p..,*a@gppg 8.104170[p3Bk

?.

W. -.2.-r h.- A

,wRhrdL~

Docket ho. 3005-Page 2 C,

7.

Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. represented cy Fred Ritts and Dick Terrell Brown; 8.

Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. represented by Earnest Casstevens; 9.

Navarro College and Hill Junior College represented by Lawrence y

Smith.

At the Jacurry 22 prehearing conference, the motion of the General Counsel to suspend the effective date of the preposed rate increase for 120 days was granted pursuant to the

..~~.

','( _

't'_

p.;

provisions cf TEI.RIV.CIY.5 TAT.An. art.1446c (Supp.1973) (the Act).

f.[,(..-%m;.. e.- i :.

H QM.

.a.y A second pre $ earing conference was held on February 12, 1980. In addition to rulings f- -

v(2[

j w-7 ' j on Cbjections to Rer;ests fer Information, the Cornissicn considered and entered rulings 10

. ;:f,,

9 - @.r.......

  • ii 7., - 1.-.

g'.9.:1_.;;-Q on the folle=feg moticns:

.'. r. r-T* *;&.-:-- _py

.. ~

.__ _ _ '... g..-_. :. :.-X *(.4.'

1.

Denied motien of Dorothy Lyles, et al. to require TP&L to amend its g.g _

.w...__...=..

i-T "fc-F'bh *i " ~ / E -ji;4 cost cf serviee study.

M : _.- = - _ e_N .*:1

. &+-P

,x :n.

- M::-

-m ::

~$.

2.

Denied =otten cf Derothy Lyles, et al. te suspend the rule concerning centributions.

- ~ ~

.:-.u

.S:;: =. ' nn_%_. a.1

. :;3

~s

- -~ :

x

.....e.

-~-- --..'.d'I'J ~;/ N"-J-C i:'

  • 3.

Denied cotten of Dorothy Lyles, et al. for sanctions against TP&L.

~ " J'...::.,:-- = ; - ::-. --l.*C. ". *D..'s..

.=.r..G.M.3.'._-A

_' ;m!

^i N.N#'r*':

.I.E N 4

Denied riotten cf Dorothy Ly1cs, et al. to require TP&L to flie s'.7

- - wn :

G.;-w:g.. d: ;4.s/,:T;i ';;r:;rJ:7 additienal te5tiscny.

.._w.

W M..w&r. %s.$.5-55$

.gn=hgg33w m <. 4e-n 5.

Denied.otten of Dorothy Lyles, et al. for an extension of tice to w

=

- 7j,;..;. 0,5

,.f. T-b f11e rate design te*tteony.

l-

-.sI**".:~ r...

.1-4 A - M. -- - *

.,-' f. -.' _ -Q. :.c

- ' _. - - 'j 6.

Denfed reticas cf Cerrunity Center cf the Stafford-Armstrong Addition c,

of the City of Sengoville for an extension of time and for sanctions

.1;.

.M against TPtt.

,.. Ji:J.r; ---ci.-M ?

n+ - J.p'~.*i.W?M.-- %"[- /*..:,d

e t '"g y'.g-sp;]s 7.

Denied cotien cf TIEC for the filing of rebuttal testimeny.

~.:f.- *-'

- d'c -*-

j 8.

Denied cotten of Cca11tien for Fair Rates for an extension of tier to

-., *..=

..=;

file Retuests for Inforest ion.

.J;

..4 a. v.

y ^

M--

~

-~

aj ~. w....

_.4

...a.

On February 25, 1933, Geof frey Gay on behalf of Intervenor Dorothy Lyles, et al.

~

7%IIJ.l**.5[

?.

7 filed a Second Motion for Extension of Tlee to File Rate Design Testimony. The Chairean d h.f.p [ M M determined that to additicesi prehearing conference was necessary to consider such cotica

%b N h Y-d M and denied the rction withcut entry of a written Order. Mr. Phil Ricketts, Secretary of W;"**D M l/.

-3~

the Ccmission, advised Mr. Gay of such denial.

w.$,1 * =--; i:----- - :.~f.~.

% '.i;"::~7W.':;:n -r-Q:

. r,L r

1 4g - < c.,-; i.~.1.. : r.

_..a

.S.YY-Yk',*iGi5'b:l-mu-t-n a -y :.:.=3 u&-a8 s@ csth.NNd 1

?..

4m%

,.w.m wswem e

De:ket No. 3005 Pa;e 3 C,

Braaos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. filed a Protest to tne Application cf Texas Power & Light Co. pany to Change Rates.

The hearing on the merits was convened on March 17,1980 at 9:CJ a.m. and was concluded on April 4, 1980. TP&L, the Comission Staff through the Geaeral Ccunsel's Office and all intervenors set forth above were represented by counsel.

TP&t, the Comission Staff and all intervenor groups presented testimony and participated in cross-j examination. The hearing was bifurcated to, the extent of considering testimony of all witnesses related to revenue requirements and subsequently considering testimony of all

h. _

-7 witnesses.

f witnesses related to rate design matters. TP&L offered rebuttal testicony thrcugh two i

~

.. c.

r.

i.,....-

At the beginning of the hearing, the Comission considered and denied a Motion to 1J 5.u:-Mv.MU W+:N' r+a, se w casrvfvsuvJ Bifurcate the Proceeding filed by GSA on behalf of the Federal Executive Agencies.

..4

. d:-.

.....:. ?.y >'

21

=

. re.-- t'.!- - w e.

Af ter pubile hearing, the Comission, based upon evidence elicited at such hearing, E.T.;ib ~d.uNks-._.N_.. I

$U,.Y applicable law and matters officially noticed, makes the following Conclusien suppe-ted by t

w. 3:-

.a A:::. t -4 M ". 4. -M &-4 2 g

.the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein belce:

r.~,c c.=:=Y. 2: -i=~ W :..~~ {m i

ai: t g. i ~ l @*... ' S. ~

.*:d

+.-*54;T-C sfT-.S TIGE";W Conclusion E

~

T '_' " "' 1". " ( ',. ~

Based upon the evidence in the hearing TP&L has a test year revenue deficiency of

.,,q: 1,. :.c ER f

$83,371,920 arid should be allowed to adjust its rates as provided for in t'his Final Order

' Z'.C+ 'N..

. ~. '. '. 7 ^. m L-*. ' -- - e

~. ;. ' s.v ~,.c - tN r. ; - _ -e. m:--w :

in order to produce the required revenue to recover its cost of service and to elhfnate 5* E ~F.J'.1~ W.~ O such deficiency. The underlying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting this

-d-W.~.9.

. J -- v : -~;-;.Li8

pag ve g rew-vrg-;r. g Conclusion are as follows:

rM......~...,=...- _ M:.&- - g.\\

  • Ms M,~. m..s s...,DE'I Findings of Fact r

.g:Ewg@;g-t

.d t T. d: er-Y r". g t t w.3%cM.u.ch

-~.. u... m u.::..- <. -~

1.

Investor Owned Utility.

TP&L is an investor owned utility operating

  • : :.r

,l,.. ?. -

.H

",[/,*. ~

~~N__

j pursuant to a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity issued by this Comission and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Comissien for

.'.1 matters presented in this Docket.

J~

.:...:si..;.,,. :.1 55$N 2.

Original Cost.

The original cost of electric plant cf TP&L, as of y(($_ N.. _ $d[M' N/

.h. M_ -

September 30, 1979, is $2,007,887,307 as rialmed by TP&t and as shown on Staff Exhibit 6 (Ex. !!, p. 2), which

  • ount the Comission finds

=

[.$.. Q.. ~. ~}.}. ' _ ]

to be reasonable.

The corresponding provision for accumulated J~.*..

depreciation, claimed by the Company to be $421,621,343, is reduced by

~

_j

$108,797 (Staff Exhibit 6, [Ex. !!]) for a net electric plant of

'7 _

-i

$1,586,374,761, which amount the Comission finds to be reasonable.

~~. - --

, *s <A'.

.n.

,:ef:r u..

ed S

v :&4 p - cas y. :*:.=w

.fNN

.0%[

-f.*.l':l'$.jh

'7 Q ~:=

...'.* f.f.. ~ -

4.,

s r.

~: ; -

. -m,

. ** s i

-aJ

  • m y;41~
  • 4".%~Eoi

- f-}

>f
.4.y;.4 :Ag.;r;,:.w42..r.4
  • ^

yy.%e2:m%Uawae ~ s &':-2 o

nn,

w

.m

Docket No. 3005 Page 4 3.

Invested Capital.

The invested capital of TP&L is $1,735,537,059 which is calculated in the following manner:

Net Electric Plant in Service LF0F #2)

$1,586,374,761 Construction Work in Progress LF0F #4) 187,251,585 Nuclear Fuel In trocess LF0F #5) 23,896,607 Plant Held for Future Use LF0F #6) 3,309,707 Working Capital LF0F #7 l

52,103,323 Accueulated Deferred Federal Income Tax LF0F #8J (101,409,798)

Reserve for Insurance and Casualties (F0F #81 L1,315,161) r.1 J ~..

?

[7,545,860)-

  • Custocer Deposits and Advances -

qF0F ff)'

L7,128,105)

.-h I.-

  1. 8 4.::.2:i.:

i Other Cost Free Capital LF0F

~t

.s,

~...

4 Construction Work in Progress (CWIP).

The amount of $187,251,585

.- ~ -

7 allowed for CWIP consists of approximately 41.5 percent of the cost of

~......j all projects set forth in Schedule C-4 (as adjusted) of TP&L's rate

.h, N5'[4Mb filing package. The Comission finds that such amount should be 3

allowed in the invested capital of TP&L to assure that the financial

..q

.~~- ~.:......

c-2'

g..g - r ;-h- %.m integrity of TP&L will be maintained due to the capital intensive j.iy.j $ ppp%

-i.

nature of the electric industry and to assure its ability to attract

'SF O.# W _i.M Q -5. Q the necessary capital to maintain its program of construction of new 9.;$' W Y.# 7.-,..s.aM generating facilities to reet its custceers' demands and to convert to a:.n.u

... m.-n..

4*t-hs s. h ~._A//J.+ -

fuels which are more abundant than natural gas and fuel oil.

4~

d

' art a-^^*8A"-LN"-inde

& FEER $N'.".

1 W S N.m

~

The amount of $23,836,607 of nuclear fuel ss,.<.n..

5.

Nuclear Fuel In Process.

-- - r _

it' -" '... ?

in process as claimed by TP&L is allowed for the reasons that nuclear 3.

..__.rc M..

3 fuel must be obtained well in advance of use, and the use of such fuel

~ ' ~

-......,./..n.

will

.g.pf..g%3;*:.255:'l]2

, inure to the benefit of ratepayers in a significant way.

- ~ -

h ['--2_y-MQq (5chedule C, Rate Filing Package) w==-..

,. '=2W?-:4.w.-=..-

6.

Plant Held for Future Use.

The amount of $3,309,707 of plant held 4

g3,, -g}r-'

"g for future use is allowed for the reasons that such property will be W W :s.T;-'-J.. W.if-4 utilized for the benefit of future ratepayers and that such property

'# "'*~~'...f*"'

is of such a nature that it is reasonable for it to be acquired well in

.y s....

advance of its use. The cost of Titus County Water Rights ($180,610)

.~.

"*W is being excluded because there is no probative evidence that such rights will, in fact, be used. (Staff Exhibit 6, (Ex. II, p. 3])

r., ~ e. -... -, --

idh}$-$%%,. -....

1

,.a M *..~

e _,

3-

' '. _ ^~

!(g(59f 7.

Working Capital.

The amount of $52,103,323 is a11cwed for reasons 7-J',,7 f 77.]

... ]

that it is the reasonable amount necessary for TP&L to meet its

.'. }:#~ 7- (,*.',*y i

ordinary and usual business needs. (Staff Exhibit 6, [Ex. !!,

c.::;.;p f:.? ] :

p. 2, 3 ]) This amount is derived by using the amount requested by

_ $. ' ' ""[-

TP&L (Schedule G, Rate Filing Package) exclusive of working cash

..1-

. f- - -

allewance. The working cash allowance, as shown en Staff Exhibit 6 N-%N-0 gU '

3 (Ex. !!, p. 3 of 3), has been recomputed by reascn of adjustments in

-l i.W.;Syh>.WL'i p.;;pa other cperation and maintenance expenses. (F0Ff22) ww

- - - ~ ~

c nw

.1n-GEN?+5'54?%$.b, 4.z.mn.&xem er-=.

,, y$** '.".. f.'

  • f., ' *

..~..&. - ;2',';-..=.:.;. :- T.'. l',

.e.-.....

4

[~..

,T*- ^.\\

.:.'d s._.~ * ', '. ',

g..

t

- [=.

.'u:. KH.-~% ~~.e,::

'.T;'(~~.'.,'

W E

v *. YMWA"-%W,e d'

2% *:::Je N

d

};,% __

AhMA kt'-* ' -'*EN'.

a.,

Oceset No. 3306 Page 5 8.

Itees Excluded From Rate Base.

Itees escluded from TP&L's invested capital are:

Accumulated Deferred Federal Income Tames

($101,409.798), Reserve for Ir.surance and casualties ($1.315,161),

Custceer Oeposits and Advances (57,545,860), and Other Cost Free Capital (17,128,105). Each of these items are either provided by g

custerers or for which there are no related capital cetts to TP&L except for Other Cost Free Capital. The exclusion of Other cost Free

-H Capital is for the reasons set forth in Staff Exhibit 6, p. 18.

7

~

.5 9.

Stock On-ership.

TP&L is a wholly owned subsidiary of Texas s

'j Utilities Coegany. Other subsidiaries of Texas Utilities Company are Texas Electric Service Cor pany, Dallas Power & Light Ccepany. Texas

..f 3... 2.-.

y a.Z.a-i.b._

Utilities Fuel Company, Texas Utilities Generating Ce. pany, Texas d*-$. h h - h 3 % ] ~,,,

Utilities Services Inc., Basic Resources, Ir.c. and Chaco Eeergy

'.. 'ri Cc pany. Teaas Utilities Company flies a consolidated tax return.

~

-m--

-..-.. a:.

r-'

i

4. _.. -.

,-._s:s.a

..P, -;.T~ ~ t

.e:9- ' ' _,. 3 10.

Net Current Cost.

The current cost of plant of TP&L is

~~~ h.[f.:N- [~[

$3,718.571,353 as claiced by TP&L. (Schedule E. Rate Filing Package)

J--+--

m

. -- 7._ w.

Such a. ount is adjusted for age and condition by $1,152,855.967 for a Yy.--Ed a-t-f5ds.75hiaW net current cost of $2,565,715,391. (staff Exhibit 3, ( Ex. II, p. 31)

. a.n.

2 n c @5. % -@ Jai F.rN* "= -

.z.!.r:q... -...

- This determination is obtained by use of the methodology outlined in

... -.z.-.f m StaffWitnessSaathoffTestimony(StaffExhibit3)onpages710.

. ~..

.. :.1:.;w:.: /. a.

n..-

. wwmu

~...;. a.3. sw"T. : -. 22 N1NNkG::-'M 11.

Adjusted Value.cf Invested Capital.

The adjusted valse of invested

.Y.?.w?'p[g....';..u:.2 N

capital of TPAL is $2,090,548,037, determined in t!e fo11eving

-.::. --.- ~ :. - e. - '"-~. :-'

aanner:

48.~t'$-$N.' :.* }S

.d5h6T h '.O N M Net Plant - Original cost

$1,586,374.761 3-22.?.

(F0Ff 2)

-e_+m y. m G W

reentage Mix 63.75%

e n ;<;c-f. w-s - n 2A

$ 1,011.313,910

--. ;=i !.*C :'= :'.:==

=-A

.Z,K.k._ py--~ ~

-c..Z Net Plant - Current Cost

$2,565,715,391

....~..h..-~:.-

^

F0F i 10)

.~

s

_c

= y;....

c u.;

Pereentage Mix 36.75%

e.

..4 930,071,829 i

-Jcer :.[ '.EE-Mi-l.'-5 CWIP (F0F f4) 187,251,5SS

'Ia-M f M.s' " < -.;_.c..~J/ F 4

-F9'. M Nuclear Fuel in Process F0F f5) 23.895,607 M-f8?EeM%'

Plant Held fcr Future Use F0F d6) 3,309.707 wu'*e4&-

~

Workin Capital F0F #7) 52,103,323 Accu u ated Deferred Federal R.

7:' -

i Ince e Taxes (F0F #8)

(101,409.798)

' ';--1 is ',2'-

-~.I Reserve fer Insurance and Casualties (F0F #8)

(1,315,161)

~~

9 Custocer Deposits and Advances (F0F #8)

(7.545.S60)

- -~ 3 Other Cost Free Capital (F0F #8)

(7.173.105)

N

..,I

  • L '

~

$ 2,090,548.037

~

e g

rtn a '

-wc.; s ;,-+-c

? Y

.,... - _..__.c....

-. -.. ;. - :s y;_

'}.

  • -*[,

.h., d..' * {

'i- - V :.~. i.=' -@~'[.'

'a *:W'l

~T.l.

%- ~~ ; :' = &i 4,r.,Y.M 2 ;ih<._.*jd-22dl

. 6./6. :.W7 % T--~~t.7 ? 4

$2WSfYY

=

m e~ mw.m _. _...

v

Docket No. 3336 Page 6 The percentage mixes applied to original and current cost of plant are as shown in Staff Exhibit 5 at pages 3-5.

These percentages, which the Corvaission finds to be reasonable, appropriately reflect consideration of inflation, quality of service being pr0vided, the growth rate of the service area, and the need of TP&L to attract new capitalpursuanttoSec.41(a)oftheAct.

12.

Capitalization.

The capitallration of TP&L at the end of the test year, adjusted to reflect all known and ceasurable changes, is as follows:

. f.

. f. -

..,..c.

s.

Long term capital debt of $903,451,881 representing 44.04

-y'. Jht<jfNM805' :L'M

... m e.-. m m iin m u percent of total capital with an ededd?d cost of 7.79 percert;

.-....-.~.+~.....y:

r... _

. i - '.'-- -.c,,,. ;*;c...-,,

j...

b.

Preferred stock of $237,759,654 representing 11.59 percent of

..--i. ;, J.~ C 2

'3.i^r.: *c.d total capital with an ec edded cost of 7.51 percent;

.-i.i: & :e.l.C.h- % ~2.=1 dp~ G.:; i??~ ~?it.36.:i". ';:

3

.r:;--

u u yg:~s,.

.~;c.. 3 c.

Comon equity of $792,074,899 representing 38.61 percent of

.e--a. :

- e

..v--n 4

. ; t.#r- / d --f *T.+~' '-* sid?. :'

total capital, upon which a reasonable rate of return is 15.5

. _ t,e_-st.3M..i C.xse.t.Sht'.8

.* +

~

percent.

\\.:

kN)..w =-S-E-H:aW*

- w...

m.....

v =-1

-..i

..f__@ V...r:. It.WiM :. :: ;3 d.

Supplemental available capital in' the form of unamortized m..

s.

. F,; :fE,'j;--M.".v#Y.~ff'3 investr.ent ' tax credits of $118,041,518, representing 5.76

.-T'. 1.~~-.. - x-:4-

- -... a a';+U-.:e,"m. J.'M ;.e: ?.:m.-

ch.

4 9 percent of total capital funds available, upon which a

- e,...... : :--.n

.pr f
.7.'-;f :i'. y'r$*; ".23 reasonable rate of return of 10.91 percent is allowed.

...4-<:

+

~%;

n-cua:<

T.'.N.hDNN$d1N#U yM' M h ~7 JM.

13.

Cost of Capital.

The adjusted capitalization and weighted cost of a

v <ww A

capital to TP&L is:

n e:.

--.. c. c.. '- ] '- '

J..

Component Weighted

--* ' - f.

. - - *E:;.

Percent Percentage Average

. i,"...'.

Source Ar.ount of Total Cost Cost

~

Long Term Debt

$ 903,461,881 44.04%

7.79%

3.43%

Preferred Stock 237,759,654 11.59%

7.511

.87%

^

_. n;i&. &..J.:;.* %...-..-^".:.=....-

Comon Equity 792,074,899 38.61%

15.50%

5.95%

-,1w/ ' DL'.!'.*.Ws+W a%W p'T.$pfff'@h pM kEp,

Suppler. ental Available MM- - M Capital-Unamortized Investment

~ " ; ~.c

."-1*;'

Tax Credits 118,041,518 5.76%

10.91%

.63%

Total

$ 2,051.331,952 TOD W i.

'E.'!iTE

.~

14.

Debt.

The annual interest requirement on long term debt capital is

~~[.~..,.. g ~..

.m

$70,351,318 representing a e st of 7.79 percent on 44.04 percent of z.--- V.. n c.- ~..i

.. :. :: ;..e n

- u...-- M.

,,y. A,. "

TP&L's capital structure resulting in a weighted average cost of 3.43 t.

r2ff. c7

.- n.

T C

WyQfi 21 H?';V+Q-2 ie,--

ws-

M.'E percent *

- n =" M.3,;. c.' :J _.-19.Wh.

a

.y*~...'..=*r f

,.1..,..

v..

  • + - - -
,.e.-:.*]

".=

n

,.:.p,',.';.. C4." ::.i.:,.,.'...-

I;l.NdENE.5-M:h2.9.@d

.i r-T.

.-m:.:...;;Jm

-Y..~Y 5 5 5-WAb5 Y.Y..:.$,S, W.,

p 'g*.

  • )

,e... 4q.:p

Docket No. 3006 Page 7 C-15.

Preferred Stock.

The annual dividend requirement on preferred stock is $17,852,990 representing a cost of 7.51 percent on 11.59 percent of TP&L's capital structure resulting in a weighted average cost of.87 percent.

16.

Return on Equity Capital.

The annual return on equity capital of 15.5 percent on 38.61 percent of TP&L's capital structure is fair and a

reasonable and is sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of TP&L so as to maintain its credit and to attract

, ~. [.,

additional capital and is comparable to returns of similar companies

  • ~

' ~

having comparable risks and results in a weighted average cost of 5.98 percent.

> :. 'w r,?. Q f J

.s..-

3. #

J.~, 4 4,,it x.,.. E 17.

Unamortized Investment Tax Credit.

TP&L is allowed the opportunity to earn the composite cost of capital of 10.91 percent on the

h..... L.v ;3b[. ; -

.j unamortized investment tax credit in the amount of $118,041,518 with a 2*

d.

.h.

weighted average cost of.63 percent. No reduction in rate base has W YKg*pa.d=.I'WM been made by this amount or for any portion of said unamortized

O<pfW~--'T?iEMM1 investment t'ax credit.

~e. =_~ w:.... z -+.

r -n :-~6:-. _.E-i.:; 7.+7 2-h':

.Q wmm w-s-** rem

,k,p~-Q$${g-Q 18.

Bond Rating.

The return on corrnon equity permitted herein should vrr:e--

result in a pre-tax times interest coverage which will support a bond

, ' ! 1., -

]

rating for TP&L which will allow it to continue in its ability to

.m..

^

' N *..' - l-I attract capital at the Iow st ultimate cost to the ratepayer. ' The a

...---..._..,,...,v--

.as

- $rR~M'*Ti.fO.*2E 'y amount of allowance for funds under construction as a percentage of N h

~.[

f earnings for comon equity is 18.2 percent, which the Comission finds p,pEngq?C-"-y.?;>:.f to be reasonable under the circumstances of this Docket.

rk... - u M

2. M,,, - c m= S i..s: K 21 M S. e

<e Sjgq4WM%p'.9.Ji@y 19.

Return on Adjusted Value of Invested Capital.

A reasonable return

} ' C- - ;, - -.]'M '

rate will not yield more than a fair return on the adjusted value of on the adjusted value of invested capital is 9.06 percent. Such a

(

l-*/ ',~

invested capital, as required by Sec. 45(a) of the Act.

J.^._'

l l

20.

Cost of Service.

The adjusted cost of service and revenue sh[M.@@,.

.... }

].- s i requirement of TP&L for the test period is $896,390,039 and is l

f/c, composed of the following elements:

~~

~

I Fuel (F0F #21)

$ 336,590,957 Operation and Haintenance Espense (F0F.#22) 147.248,012 Depreciation

[F0F #23) 67,818,482 Federal Income Taxes (F0F #24) 106,265,893 Taxes other than Federal Income Taxes LF0F f25) 48,748,131 Interest on Customer Deposits (F0F #26) 371,550 Return en Invested Capital (F0F #27) 189,346,964 nth.. ?k h$:.

Y.

2i.. i'i &:~m.m;~%.r.v:.m

.a.

.%:M

( _

-e..

c.

, ~,._.

g. g

...M*'

,,, 4 f.".. ".1 Ch'.% -.. f:."..".T;-!/.1 ?A:1 L;.*f: _

.'~O^....-..M.

M.1,"d*,, *h'yi".NhMN,M.T...AN,. r.E.LM 9 h W-nm.

. h--

.Y'4

  • M k h,

Docket No. 30C6 C-~

Page 8 21.

Fuel.

An adjustment to TP&L's proposed fuel expense of $331.758,697 in the a'ount of $4,e12,260 is found to be reasonable for the reasons set fcrth in Staff Witness 8: eenthat.'s Testimony. (StaffEx.6,p.

4,5) 22.

Operation and Maintenance Espense.

TP&L claimed operation and maintenance expenses in the amount of $152,074,538 (excluding fuel).

A reducticn of $4,826.526 in the cialmed amount is reasonable, as set

,y.-

M '~,, N _.,;_.g$. " ~~0..]

h,:.

forth beled, and results in an allowable total amount for operation and maintenance expense of $147,248,012.

The adjustments required are shown on Staff Exhibit 6 (Ex. 1, page 2 of 6) except that: (a) the provision for insiJrance reserve a11oned shall be $523,000 rather than $264,000 asshown,and(b)the t

n.:

~ r.

n.,..

8. -..,...-41 M.u. m 'r.' e v.4 provision for uncollectibles allowed skall be $3,002,010 rather than

$2.926,142 as shenn.

~~

3. *s-.. _-- - ;. K*;-if

,g

.N E>-3 @. [ 'j-23.

Depreciation.

TF&L's current composite depreciation rate is 3.50

' ihS-4[195.'Piffri@9.y percent and is corposed of the followtr.3 elements:

Rff2FMNM-5.-js,9,7. 'h..j "^..:

2?.9=+.=-. mi-R.'~2:.X.' ~-~',

4 1.;.. i" n :.c.e.:.=:~i.-:, %...- s Gas /011 Preduction Plant 3.92%

ww.

..u.a

~. 9 W 5i Lignite Production Plant 3.38%

.:;;-WAiy45.gf.':Ci[4.jg7 Other - Production Plant 3.32%

- --i -

Transmission Plant 2.43%

--y

.~ -r 3.61%

Distributton Plant

(

General Plant 7.42%

.. _.;_.n;.;;; 7%;.....h - c. r;d'h.;

".g.i,.

.- --4 The Cc.peny has proposed a composite depreciation rate of 3.53 percent l

; ;.y; u- :

..: - -- ne :e..w---= -

r--.u---.4 made up of the following elements:

.,':2'$ ;;*%w?.,,,1.*s'WA~-Q Gas /011 Production Plant 4.20%

~-ggysg:-g;;,:g;r;g::;,r--- -

9;,w %jij Lignite ProdJction Plant 3.48%

r_

Other - Production Plant

,3.32%

",$y pary w-.d ' '".D._L.

u--

Trans,Ission Plant 2.52%

.c 4'

Distribution Plant 3.61%

%We.*:s.r- ' c'-i'.71

~.. WO W Gar.eral Plant 6.69%

~.. c~

1 Yg.2

. _,. u.

Staff Witness Saathoff concurred in TP&L's proposed rates except for the rate en Distribution Plant, his recorrendation being 3.60 percent

s. e ;.:;F.=c.- y_q :dI _.,

cj for Olstribution Plant.

The Corr:1ssion finds an appropriate and eN[*,D.5.hME78 reasocable co@osite depreciation rate to be 3.52 percent using the h

Nb bb allocaticas proposed by TP&L except for the rate for Distribution

."..2.. i. P.'

.%...O Plant being changed to 3.60 percent.

(Staff Witness Saathoff i

Test'frony p. 3 7; TP&L Witness Cole Testimony p. 5-10) c;r,- ,,,;~f ;-.; _...-,

-f._..

y..-

24.

Federal Income Taxes.

The Company claimed federal income tax of

~ '. _,.,

..2.

$120.333,810 is adjusted by an amount of $14,073,917 which is found to Y.,.

'. -.. ' l ;',

2....

gg-gg gg.yg be proper and which reflects tax effects in the cost of service of aa..~.M es.

i TP&L as set forth herein.

' "' K ei; j p 6.~.: p'3ly;,:. v.# 1

'-s':
-.e
iW.;

l !..

~

~~

.1 e-a. z.;.
  • f, '"y. --. -- - *
  • _.99 _..

g.,~...:}l--':1~

' W. * *.'- ' :. 2 ;.. :. :_...;

Tep _._-ry;;.g-~.;._._-.;;:.:

  • w.'*. 4

..Q~?Q.C Gh~&.~.w.'

.'r.

  1. 1.VS,k*h?*Ys,Cthh *?"~!A.- 5..PA38.6.'W%

-.e. h

h. *~ -

.ger pp

%no.#.thc2 w-m.w.

m.

Docket No. 3006 Page 9 25.

Taxes other than Federal Income Taxes.

The Comission finds that an adjustment in the amount of $302,379 should be made to TP&L's requested amount of $49,050,560 for taxes other than federal income taxes for a net amount of $48,748,181. The adjustment is proper and results in adjustments, using methodology as shown on Staff Exhibit 6 (Ex.1, p. 4), except for ad valores tases which are calculated by using TP&L's requested amount.

.. ~ M

. L[ s k '}'.n I.b/5 j 26.

Interest on Customer Deposits.

Interest on customer deposits in the

..l.' -...;.;..;..5 ef-ij amount of $371,550 as claimed by TP&L is found to be proper.

27.

Return on Invested Capital.'

A reasonable return on invested capital of $189,346,964 15 allowed TP&L in its cost of service which the

Eh.[~h l i.IE.g.

Ccmtssion finds to be fair and reasonable.

N h.._I{

"kgh 28.

Weather Normalization.

The Comission finds the proposed weather QT W~-7--; -f*""':'W normalization as proposed by TP&L is unsupportable. Sufficient doubt

-d Nit $3, M was cast upon the proposal by various witnesses t?.at the Comission Mi::Di, r&>- m: >.cw deter nines such adjustment to be unreasonable, and the TP&L proposed b W5-3 p.-

.r.y.

. p p.. m =.:.: x. m adjustment for weather is denied.

h.Jr.u.a:bM= ;;bM

.p:::5

29.
  • Revenue Deficiency.

The revenue deficiency of TP&L for the test

  • ? -

year period is $83,371,920.

The Commission finds TP&L's cost of service (revenue requirement) of $896,390,039 will permit TP&L to

'. 5..~.i.: c.'."._ 'i'*:. Q - -:'. d recover all of its operating expenses together with a reasonable

-Mi'-h3N. x.-N. ['-[d. h+M.r;d. -

return en its invested capital as required by Sec. 39 of the Act.

s

- ;,T'; -.s > r...:c..r.e;. w.y.2 W.

TP&L's recovery of revenues from the fuel adjustment clause and NOD.a.2j!~M dw

. -- J'-

sources other than base rates is $335,458,950, the base rate revenue

\\ ' *

.v.

.c 4..$ w."p4 p..s= Qs.~.

.. y,.:.

ff.v..m g

requireeent is $560,931,089, the adjusted test period base rate

. r.- ;-. - 2.

revenues are $477,559,169, resulting in the revenue deficiency set W *a,9M.$,7~'.5.WO?.M

$h*5;NM:*f". D forth above.

-e.n!.*:: 9 %%.C -

J.!

T.. - JC-T' 7

.:C"-..n.:; e *. 1 -.

30.

Cost of Service Allocation.

The Comission finds the cost allocation methodology recomended by Seniors' Witness Coyle (Senior 7;

v....: ~.
e.. z J

~

Ex. 9, p. 25-43) to be reasonable and that the Cortpany shall rerun its c:.fd' M ao"g y prsiga3 @

-M [f,,;s.M Ci.0 :p'..e cost of service study using such methodology except as set forth

.'.@M;E* %yQb,,,,er :p i

4 herein. All meters and services shall be allocated as customer costs

',j;'#,,M(.[ ~f,,_ ~..., i rather than demand costs. Revenues from interchange shall be spread

~

yjg.

. ry - 1 ; '..

I a.ong customers on the same basis that cost responsibility of those facilities was allocated in accordance with the testimony of Staff l

',,..s',--,-

. y f:.,;.

WitnessGoble.(StaffEx.13,p.10,11).

further, TP&L is ordered, subsequent to the eflective date of the

. 3 1.. '.~ ~J.h l

$ $ M* [$ $i $ d T k $ 0 8,y[

Final Order, to make available to the Comission Staff all data and D

5 ffhh$DM/;.%

information requested or inquired into by the Staf f relative to its

';-Qj '-N'.' '

l cost of service and shall provide the Comission with Staff requested

. - $*M1L. :'..~f ' ~ * '.

O cost of service studles.

U$ k k5$$.5%.'[@':%.q l

-sc.@ns l

v....a u::;.3 _ -. - ~ --

.VMs. h pWi7MM '.

Y3%-- Q 2.QN.

.$.% $

  • Q

Docket No. 3006 Page 10

~

C 31.

Revenue Requirerient by Customer Class.

Rates of return and relative rates of return by class shall be determined by using the methodology outlined in Finding of Fact No. 30.

It is the intent of the Correissica that the relative rate of return of each class of customers shall be moved one-third of the way toward unity (system rate of

~

return) provided, however, that no class shall receive a percentage increase in total revenues greater than one and one-half times the

, ~.,.,i overall systes percentage increase nor less than one-half times the

~.

Z..

overall systes percentage increase except as provided for herein. It

.~

is further provided, in the case of REA, WSP, MS and MW, because by corparisen the relative rate of return of these four classes of custe: ers are fcund to be substantf ally lower than other classes, that the limitation of one and one. half times the overall system percentage

..b. ~..u...,..d.y.m u. % m increase shall not apply and a limitation of two tires the overall o

c,.e:. 3.

.p

.r

-- ", =..

system percentage increase shall apply.

5.s-F',*.'JO' ~0~: Cf%g Any revenue excesses or deficiencies resulting from the W - f: &.~.1 a ' w--..: m limitations provided for herein shall be distributed proportionately

.] Q" T R. x W f".,f h. d.

.9-

.J n >:.-

- :, qp~.~ -- :

among the remainfr.g classes of customers based upon revenues

_. m.r.;.m w.w-+.%=: 3

.c-w

-x autherized herefn.

v -=~ --2+i +&d+.====;

- ~ a'O'iGhh

.uM&45%.~.&,M.'M5A glip"./,4 32.

Fuel V.Just ent Clause.

The Comission finds the continuing volatility of fuel prices requires that a cost of fuel adjustment be a11oned in crder to protect the financial integrity of TPLL. The fuel adjust ent classe as filed in the tariff shall provide for a fuel

~~ ~..-/2[ $ ~T ?:S:3 adjustment for the actual fuel censumed in generating each kilowatt c

.Y ~~ ~ [.5.".>.dM. 2. 7F'I, hour of electricity sold and for the fuel coeponent of each kilowatt n.

- - ~~- hWr-s-i "e.' s hour of purchased power t,ought and resold. The Corrsission finds that

' *%h';='*m*e *?n;.* jF '-

3

'L..*Q=,,=W.:.:S..-E.. bD-..a

-distribution and the fuel adjusteent clause shall recognize the Ifne loss r

o.:

e. - ru differentials between transmission, primary

?.."A. b.."W.. ;~.a..cc.l. ' =ff.y*"

7.w

..g

..r secondary distribution groups of customers.

The line loss

_._T.; i,-l.- "..* ;. cr u.

aW s.

pg--; 2,[',Q'.2c,.' - '.~s.

cultipliers to be used for each group are:

a.r-2

,- "..: : ? ;.~n-

.-.:. x :-

1 Transmission 0.958 Prisary 0.980 Secondary 1.017 8"tiihn.ML.Lwfari;-q h

If7NdM3 The test year fuel adjustment revenues of each class currently

.~._m..-

d.

reflect the use of the systes average line loss factor for all v..

.J.

classes. Because the application of the specifically approved line

..-' fr.c "' ?.._ y _e.

loss differentials cited above would have resulted in different fuel clause revenues by class in the adjusted test year, it is necessary to

',.,J_,.. ;... -

7,

adjust the fuel clause revenues by class to reflect the application of

.~{.~

' ', l,

j-k,MiJ.k:>$lis.-M.7 these specific line loss factors 11 the fuel adjustment clause. The

.p g,

  • y".h Clause shall include neither revenue related taxes nor gains or losses 7 m-}~ eeg. g ". '-. W.

d on the sale of fuel and must otherwise cornply with the Comission's r.:.. -

a Substantive Rules.

h..

,j

-:.g U ?

e

'"%E U~~E5.? f-.. J.. T W.

.L M~L.3.~:

~-s: -4 "Cf-i-Ir7. --?!.r.2<. cC- ' ~i"s--

e Ai;Q-W..-5l43 - [.4

~

U m. nf8

-M-,#...t..'.

m-

~a,4 g n: :.: m..

.., c9

. 7s.4AN *EM.."T-MYM#f f*1

_'I*

i

.o

=

Docket No. 3306 Page 11 33.

P'JRPA Standards.

The Comission finds that though some evidence was presented relative to the standards tet forth in Sections 111(d) and 114 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA),

such evidence was insufficient upon which to make a determination relative to such matters cs anticipated by PURPA. Ths Comission does find, however, that the experimentt.1 Time-of-Day proposal as submitted by the Company is a:ceptable and is hereby approved.

4 34 Reclassification of Customer Classes.

The Staff and CPS proposed the consolidaticn of REA and WP-500, and Navarro College and Hill Junior College requested that junior colleges be ' returned" to the public school rate class. The Comission finds that neither of these proposals are justified on the record and neither are approved. (On p

.-. ~.

..,.... a. p ; n,.w..

.us ~m,,..,..

REA - WP-500: See Tex-La Brief at pages 63-66 and Rayburn Country Brief at pages 4-11; On junior colleges: See Staff Brief at pages 58-

..3 59)

.. -.,....v.,..; ;g

~~-

..c $ :.4,[te );.~.5

.y 7f.'.-j?" J.p'J/d 35.

Rate Structure.

In general, the rate structures proposed by TP&L I.).~ 2 are based on sound rate making principles and are compatible with the

~

~ '

y g #b $ -F. Y h $ 3 rate design philosophy adopted by the Comission in earlier cases", and

.cV6cg._, - NM such rate-structures are sufficient, equitable, consistent in application to each class of customers, are not unreasonably preferential, prejudicial or discriminatory, and will produce the a y.

'. N - -

'..J-n. _[,

proportionate part of the required revenues to eliminate TP&L's

. 1 revenue deficit. As a result, the final rates filed in compliance

-. (.Y ~.'

4 with this Order shall be structured as originally proposed with the

W.~" -

M following exceptioer.

'YhW$b$'*W~',f, h bEi

$..i.N.,

(a) The residential rate shall contain a minimum charge of $5.00

.J

.. :.-a!Ac;'-Or.",' f7 for the first 30 kilowatt hours and a level charge per kilowatt hour

n...

' :,q...,

.c - 23 thereafter.

%. '.4,;;* 3 -. q

'..+w -., ;...

(b) The charge per kilowatt hour as shown in Rider RSH shall be

s. 5
4 *-- ;-

r.-

,c

..I 2c per kwh s calculated by Staff Witness Goble rather than 1.350 per f95Y/E.5I-o d N. M.,,- hr.t:j N kwh as proposed by TP&L.

.q p

. 3'.4 4 4.7- ~;;;a t s ?"-? T y 44

{c) The proposed summer-winter differential is unreasonable and is' eliminated from all residential rates except that all riders as j

,y.

.I proposed by TP&L relative to RS service are specifically approved with the change in Rider RSH set forth in 35(b) above.

J., f.

.l-d (d)

The proposed increase in the demand ratchet, where i.0.U,va -) F'.,,.'.A._ $.%j[:

+.: 51 MEMY@%6..-Pj-$hpW'.y applicable, from the present level of 70 percent to 75 percent is 4 m.

I

>9 denied as being unreascnable and unsupportable.

y

k. - T.

_ 7 T.:- ".. =. M -.

i s

--. [

. - 7 2-en a w e m.a-W';@?V5'-si';*2 ~r; u.;

'Ittd$$,.W2..~M.. _M_M.

~

s c

  1. %'*764h

. -.. d.ih %d'74

  • b"EC 8*

d'_

l i

l Docket No. 3006 Page 12 Conclusions of Law 1.

Jurisdictien.

The Comission has jurisdiction over this rate change application pursuant to Sections 17(d), 17(e) and 43 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act TEX. REY.CIV. STAT. ANN. art.

1446c (Supp.

1978) (the Act). The rates set herein will be applicable only to those customers in the unincorporated areas, in those cities which have ceded jurisdiction to the Comission, and in the cities from which appeals have been taken and which have been consolidated within this Oceket.

2.

Burden of Prcof.

TP&L has the burden of proof to establish its revenue deficiency under its present rates and to establish the amount

,p~

of such deficiency that will be collected under its proposed rates 3

pursuant to Sec. 40(b) of the Act.

L j

[y 3.

Additional Revenues.

TP&L proved that it is entitled to additional annual revenues of S83,371,920.

... w...

., 4. <.--.. x - g.

" f 4.

Affected Areas.

The present ratas for service in the areas served A

1 by TP&L over which this Comission has jurisdiction are insufficient

].

to provide TP&L with the revenues approved in this Order and should be adjusted to conform to the rates established herel.n for each class of s:.-( +.

f,; l-custo.ers.

_.t..

n 5.

Recovery.

The rates prescribed herein will allow TP&L to recover

~

gggygd its c;erating expenses together with a reasonable return on its invested capital, pursuant to provisions of Sec. 39 of the Act.

%e r,7;pa%.9 c.M_

f t, x. m s-t 3.

e ; s.z

-:-,[g 6.

Return.

The rates prescribed herein will yield no more than a fair

-...g..~

" ' 'i return upon the adjusted value of the invested capital used and useful

  1. ~'

-1 j,-

j by iP&L in rendering service to the pubile, as provided by Sec. 40(a) i

-- ".1

'd ol the Act.

-.D..

7rMh*5 M #A"sp/WNW 7.

Financial Integrity.

The rate of return granted herein is t

t kk'hh sufficient to assure confidence'in the financial soundness of TP&L and is adequate, under efficient and economical management, to maintain and support its credit and enable it to raise the money necessary for the proper discharge of its public duties; is comparable to those returns of other similar companies having comparable risk; and is

.v c.:. y.-

j sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of TP&L so

l E,.

gg ' g.g as to mairtain its credit and to attract capital. (Federal Power

2..

Comissien v. Hooe Natural Gas Company, 320 U.S. 591, 88 L. Ed. 333;

. e m.y.y ]v;.bw* bC.e-M s.>d%;.4*

v. s - - -
g. ;. :.

and Bluefield "ater Works and Improvement Co. v. Public Comission of

e. 7,,

j West viro 191a. 262 U.S. 679, 67 L. Ed. 1176)

-. g.. 'd '... 7,,;

us-.

-, ?.-

. m;:-..; :.. s s. :=..,..- ;

w.M.~.M _-==, x. :.n,A;I

=5

.J' 1

k ' VM.' @NfsN

-2 2

- :,.k W

W MLM4175?fafA'Tf *.D M

._.....;c.,

F Docket No. 3006 Page 13 8.

Rates.

The Comission has the authority and duty to set proper rates in c11 instaaces whethe* Such action requires increasing, decreasing or changing the rate pattern with respect to any or all rates contained in the proposed tariff regardless of whether the rates in the proposed tariff are different from old rates or not, and no prior notice by the Comission to the applicant is required for such action.

9.

Rate Design.

The rate design as set out in the Findings of Fact is reasonable and nondiscriminatory and shall be adopted in this Order.

NOW THEREFCRE, it is hereby ORDERED that TP&L shall file a revised tariff in s

accordance with this opinion, the Finding *, of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein

- (,.f. '.

t}

sufficient to generate revenues not greater than those' prescribed in this Order. The

.;-: g-5.___

c, !,

Commission Staff shall have twenty (20) days from the date of such filing of the revised y

] '")

(2. "

tariff to review it for approval or rejection. The tariff shall be deemed to be approved

~

~

and shall become effective upon the expiration of twenty (20) days after filing or sooner upon notification by the Comission Secretary. In the event of rejection. TP&L shall be nottifed and a copy sent to the intervening parties herein by the Comission Secretary, and TP&L shall have fif teen (15) additional days to file an amended tariff and the s'ame

[{[j M

procedure shall be repeated herein. The revised and approved rates shall be charged by 9't.7 5. Q -' - 7 {

TP&L for ' electricity consumed after the tariff approval date and may not be charged for

~ ~. -

-i.-:P'i'.

~i electricity. consumed prior to such date. This Order is deemed to be final on the date of

- ]... r..hh -i.

~.'

]

rendition. A; proval of the tariff, for all purposes, shall be deemed to be final on the 7^

,, ~; - :

date of its effectiveness either by operation of this Order or by notification by the y.e Comission Secretary, whichever occurs first.

7WNMT/JiS~472.T2.'MM All motions, requests, applications and requests for Ftr..

' Fact and Conclusions

.M of Law not expressly granted herein are denied for want of merit.

EbhhN.ji[._:. 5

k RENDERED AND SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, on this the."L'l-f tsday of 1
...... U$f8C '- m m -m : -~ ;-.3,2

'[ ";~

3 -i...:

-i

.C [.

..5 *

-)

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

..~;. v..: -

'UWL".2?%%?.%'*W&

/

d

7. M 5 E T.u:* Ts'49,5.E,Q

$1GNED:

a v g ' George M.~ Cowden, w-===

cw m ae *=*a 1

SIGNED:

a sa arrett Mo is SIGNED:

[ Atc4 H.fl.Rolfins

/ C,.~

. y.g' s ; 4 5.p :0

  • i:[-F,.l '.~ W:. ?. 4.x..OT~1y Q.3

-C.

J.'.y', R-'

4 ATTEST:

.. --- e -

1 u.

~&h 3 ;..;;

_ h : T ~f y*. e ' ';

,,/

!z-

...._:_;; i, ILIPF.RbETi5 YGl. T.; p d - L.-- [. i p,.l y -iQ COMMISSION SECRETARY Nc AND DIRECTC4 0F HEARINGS

,.;u

. : w nin. - 1 Yh@MDb g-.-

--a ws.aam w

n. w.1_ w._ w +. _

_y

.-._,.,e-

. - _. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20003E985&oldid=4677984"