Alabama Judge Rules PSC Not Required to Hear Public Input on Alabama Power Fuel Costs
Key Insights
A Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled that the Alabama Public Service Commission is not required to allow public input on Alabama Power's fuel cost adjustments.
The decision denies an appeal from Energy Alabama, a renewable energy advocacy group, which sought public participation in the utility's Rate Energy Cost Recovery proceedings.
Critics argue this ruling perpetuates a lack of transparency and accountability in setting customer electricity bills, particularly concerning fossil fuel generation costs.
The PSC contended there has been no formal 'proceeding' on Rate ECR since 2008, thereby precluding public intervention under its established rules.
Montgomery, AL – A Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled Monday that the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC) is not legally obligated to allow public input when determining how much Alabama Power can charge customers for fuel costs, a decision that significantly impacts consumer bills and raises concerns about regulatory transparency. The ruling, issued by Judge Brooke Reid, denied an appeal from Energy Alabama, a non-profit advocating for renewable energy, which sought to intervene in the PSC’s proceedings for Alabama Power’s “Rate Energy Cost Recovery,” or Rate ECR.
Rate ECR is a pivotal mechanism allowing Alabama Power to recoup expenditures on fuel sources, including coal, natural gas, or power purchased from other utilities. Due to the inherent volatility of fuel prices, Rate ECR is subject to periodic adjustments set by the PSC, directly influencing every ratepayer’s monthly bill. Energy Alabama had twice petitioned the commission, in May and November of last year, to permit public input in the Rate ECR docket, arguing for greater transparency and accountability in the process.
Judge Reid’s denial stated that Energy Alabama failed to demonstrate a violation of its rights or that the PSC’s decision was based on facts contrary to the “substantial weight of the evidence.” The PSC, which declined to comment on the ruling, argued that Energy Alabama could not intervene because no formal “proceeding” has been held on Alabama Power’s Rate ECR since 2008. “The commission is not prepared to find that the routine status reports and intermittent consent orders issued in [the Rate ECR docket] since the last proceeding in that cause in 2008 are equivalent to the commencement, reactivation or continuation of a proceeding per the commission’s rules,” the PSC’s November denial stated. Alabama Power also declined to comment on the matter.
Despite the PSC’s stance, an AL.com review of available records indicates the commission has adjusted the utility’s Rate ECR at least 16 times since 2000. Energy Alabama, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), contends that the PSC is violating its own rules by not mandating formal proceedings with public input when rate adjustments are necessary. Christina Tidwell, a senior attorney with SELC, emphasized the disparity: “While other southern states have meaningful public engagement in fuel cost proceedings, Alabama Power customers will continue to be shut out of the process.” Daniel Tait, executive director of Energy Alabama, expressed disappointment, stating, “Citizens deserve a seat at the table where regulators are making big decisions about their bills, like fuel cost proceedings.” SELC spokesperson Terah Boyd indicated that the groups have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling to a higher court.