CaseOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIVISION OF CONSUMER COUNSEL v. STATE CORPORATION COMISSION, ET AL.
(Record Number 131873)
FromThe State Corporation Commission
CounselMark R. Herring, Cynthia E. Hudson, Rhodes B. Ritenour, C. Meade Browder, Jr., and William T. Reisinger (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant.
William H. Chambliss, K. Beth Clowers, and Alisson O. Pouille (Office of General Counsel, State Corporation Commission) and Lisa S. Booth and Charlotte P. McAfee (Dominion Resources Services, Inc.) and Joseph K. Reid, III, and Elaine S. Ryan (McGuireWoods, LLP) for appellees.
Assignments of Error
- The Commission erred in its Final Order and its Order on Reconsideration and Opinion when a majority of the Commission determined that the enhanced rate of return authorized by Va. Code § 56-585.1(A)(6) shall not be limited to the costs necessary to construct the Brunswick County Power Station, but shall also be applied to the costs necessary to construct new transmission infrastructure that is associated with the Brunswick generating plant, resulting in unlawful excess profits for the utility.
- The Commission erred in its Final Order and in its Order on Reconsideration and Opinion when a majority of the Commission determined that, pursuant to Va. Code § 56-585.1(A)(6), the phrase "the facility that is the subject of the rate adjustment clause" refers not only to the Brunswick generating plant itself, but also to transmission infrastructure associated with the generating plant, resulting in unlawful excess profits for the utility.