Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
Citations: 67 Ark. App. 320; 999 S.W.2d 691; 1999 Ark. App. LEXIS 609Docket: CA 97-1440
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; September 29, 1999; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
AOGC appeals Order No. 19 from the Arkansas Public Service Commission, contesting its finding that AOGC's proposed curtailment policy did not comply with a previously adopted Joint Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. 96-420-U. This appeal follows a prior appeal related to the same docket, which originated from AOGC's request for a rate increase due to a claimed deficiency of $7,253,853. In that context, a Joint Stipulation proposed a reduced revenue deficiency of $3,495,988, primarily impacting the residential class, which the Attorney General opposed due to the resultant 22% rate increase. The Commission adopted this stipulation in Order No. 15 with a three-year phase-in plan. However, while the Attorney General's appeal of Order No. 15 was pending, the Commission issued Order No. 19, determining AOGC's curtailment policy was non-compliant and requiring a revision that ensured equal curtailment priorities among specified customer categories. AOGC's revised policy was later approved in Order No. 20, but the rehearing of Order No. 19 was denied. Subsequently, the appellate court's decision in Bryant v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n reversed Order No. 15, finding the Commission's factual basis for the Joint Stipulation inadequate. Consequently, the Joint Stipulation is assumed to no longer hold as a binding order. As AOGC's appeal concerns the interpretation of an order that has been effectively remanded, any ruling would be purely advisory, rendering the appeal moot. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal, with all judges concurring.