Crowd vents at PSC hearing

Mike McCoy photo Steve Kidwell, vice president of regulatory affairs for AmerenUE, answers questions during a brief question and answer session prior to the PSC hearing Tuesday night on a proposed rate increase for electricity provided by the company.

A near capacity crowd turned out to voice their opposition to a proposed 18 percent rate increase in the cost of electrical service to AmerenUE customers. Public Service Commission (PSC) officials and a representative of AmerenUE heard from many people about the hardship the rate increase would impose on the elderly and unemployed. The atmosphere was tense at times during the open forum that began at 5:30 p.m. prior to the official start of the hearing.

Morris Woodruff, regulatory law judge for the PSC, presided at the hearing. The hearing was connected by a live video feed with the hearing in Hayti. As residents filed into the Armory they were asked to sign up to address the staff. Their comments were transcribed by a PSC official after they were sworn in. The hearing consisted of alternating viewpoints from residents that attended the hearings in Dexter and Hayti.

Mike McCoy photo The large crowd that gathered for the public hearing held by the Missouri Public Service Commission Monday night at the National Guard Armory listened intently as information was provided by an AmerenUE official and PSC staff. Some estimated the crowd at approximately 500 and most were opposed to the proposed increase in electricity rates by AmerenUE.

Lena Mantle, PSC energy department manager, helped field questions during the open forum that preceded the hearing. Several residents voiced their concern about an 18 percent electricity rate increase and the impact it would have on elderly people on fixed incomes. Questions were also posed about whether the rate increase was going to pay for a new nuclear power plant in the state and why such a large increase was needed by Ameren at a time when people are suffering from the poor economy.

Steve Kidwell, vice president of regulatory affairs for AmerenUE, attempted to answer those questions but was met with several interruptions.

Kidwell said none of the requested rate increase was going to pay for a nuclear power plant. He said the proposed nuclear power plant in Calloway County was a separate issue. The construction of the nuclear plant was a big issue in the 2009 legislative session. Ameren sought approval from the PSC to have customers begin paying for construction of the plant while it was under construction. The proposal was unsuccessful.

Kidwell noted that the current nuclear plant in Calloway County began service in 1982 and debt from that plant had still not been "paid for" as it was licensed for 40 years.

As for the timing of the requested rate increase, Kidwell said that Ameren had to "invest money up front" for improvements to the system and property investments before the money for these improvements can be recovered from users.

He said Ameren has made $500 million in investments to the system. He also said the company spent $80 million in restoring and repairing the electrical grid during the 2009 ice storm. This money came from Ameren without being passed on to the customer, Kidwell said.

One crowd member pointed out that the ice storm was a one-time event and should be paid for over a short time. He questioned whether the rates would be reduced after the ice storm costs were recovered by Ameren. Many in the crowd expressed their doubts about such a rate decrease.

Mantle responded that in fact Ameren had reduced rates by $103 million over a three-year period in a prior case. She said PSC auditors had reviewed Ameren's financial statements and instituted the rate reduction.

Another member of the crowd complained that Ameren was trying to bar public opinion through a filing with the PSC.

"Ameren uses their resources to issue propaganda for the rate increase," he stated. "Now you want to block those who want to put out information opposed to the rate increase."

Ameren filed a "request for clarification respecting application of the Commission's statutes and standard of conduct rules." AmerenUE suggested that it would serve the public interest for the PSC to provide guidance whether particular activities are permissible; such as whether parties may engage in a public relations or an advertising campaign designed to address matters in the rate case.

The Fair Electricity Rate Action Fund (FERAF) announced Dec. 10 that it would be conducting a public relations effort to educate Missouri families about Ameren's 18 percent rate hike before the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC). The filing by Ameren for a "clarification" came after this announcement. FERAF includes the AARP, the Consumer Council of Missouri, the Missouri Association for Social Welfare (MSAW), the Missouri Retailers Association, the Missouri Rice Research and Merchandising Council and Noranda Aluminum.

Kidwell stated, "We have never argued our case in public."

He contended that the proper place to make arguments either for or against the rate increase was with the PSC. He said it was up to the PSC to determine the outcome of the rate increase proposal.

"Some groups want to argue the merits of the increase in public instead of with the PSC," Kidwell told the crowd. The PSC has not responded to the "clarification" request from Ameren.

The public forum ended at 6 p.m. with many hands raised for further questions.

Woodruff apologized to the standing room crowd for closing the forum, but said PSC staff members had not expected such a large turnout. He said those with questions could approach PCS staff members on an individual basis after the hearing. He then notified the crowd that those signing up would be called one at a time to make an official statement on their position on the rate increase request.

The crowd began to dwindle at that time, expressing discontent with the format. When the meeting in Hayti was linked to the one in Dexter and individuals began testimony, more people left..

Many, including Sue Edwards and Helen Zuck, used the time to express the hardships such a rate increase would have on senior citizens. Zuck stated, "It's not fair at all."

Edwards said many senior citizens live on a fixed income, some on as little as $300 per month from Social Security. She said these seniors were hit with higher prices for many items and could not pay them. She posed the question, "How many of them will die?"

Several said people could die as a result of being unable to pay the higher electric bills. Some were very emotional.

Don Laughlin used his time to question the rate increase in terms of recovery from the ice storm. He asked why Ameren would not consider a sur-charge on customer bills, specifying how much was being collected for that purpose, instead of requesting a general rate increase. He said Ameren was using standard bookkeeping practices of depreciation and that recovering money invested on real property was "spread over a period of years."

Laughlin also maintained that 76 percent of the electricity generated by Ameren is from coal powered plants. He said coal prices are trending upward and could be up by as much as 24 percent.

"Will they be back again asking for an increase?" Laughlin asked. "Coal is a big issue."

Another resident wanted to know why there was nothing in the Ameren news releases about "environmental projects and power grids." He cited a recent rate increase in Kentucky in which the utility company had committed to several environmental projects as part of the rate increase.

Many more took their turn citing a bad economy and the number of customers on fixed income as things for the PSC to consider before ruling on the rate increase.