My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-022 Approving a Netogiated Settlement between the Atmos Cities Steering committee and Atmos Energy Corp. Regardint he Company's 2018 Rate Review
City-of-Paris
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
2011-2020
>
2018
>
2018-022 Approving a Netogiated Settlement between the Atmos Cities Steering committee and Atmos Energy Corp. Regardint he Company's 2018 Rate Review
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2018 11:06:49 AM
Creation date
9/11/2018 11:10:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PROOF OF REVENUES <br />Atmos generated proof that the rate tariffs attached to the Resolution will generate $24.9 <br />million in additional revenues on a system -wide basis. That proof is attached as Attachment 1 to <br />this Staff Report. ACSC consultants have agreed that Atmos' Proof of Revenues is accurate. <br />BILL IMPACT <br />Given the fact that ACSC demanded that Atmos reflect reduced federal income taxes in its <br />cost -of -service, as reflected in the RRM Tariff adopted earlier this year, Atmos reduced its rates in <br />March. The rate increase associated with the Resolution is largely offset by the lowered federal <br />income tax rates, such that out-of-pocket expense to consumers should be roughly the same under <br />new rates as what was experienced by consumers last winter. A bill impact comparison is attached <br />as Attachment 2. <br />SUMMARY OF ACSC'S OBJECTION TO THE UTILITIES CODE SECTION 104.301 <br />GRIP PROCESS <br />ACSC strongly opposed the GRIP process because it constitutes piecemeal ratemaking by <br />ignoring declining expenses and increasing revenues while rewarding the Company for increasing <br />capital investment on an annual basis. The GRIP process does not allow any review of the <br />reasonableness of capital investment and does not allow cities to participate in the Railroad <br />Commission's review of annual GRIP filings or allow recovery of Cities' rate case expenses. The <br />Railroad Commission undertakes a mere administrative review of GRIP filings (instead of a full <br />hearing) and rate increases go into effect without any material adjustments. In ACSC's view, the <br />GRIP process unfairly raises customers' rates without any regulatory oversight. In contrast, the <br />RRM process has allowed for a more comprehensive rate review and annual evaluation of expenses <br />and revenues, as well as capital investment. <br />EXPLANATION OF "BE IT ORDAINED" PARAGRAPHS <br />1. This section approves all findings in the Resolution. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.