State ex rel. KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. Missouri Public Service Commission, 408 S.W.3d 153

The Missouri Public Service Commission regulates public utilities and issued a May 4, 2011 Report and Order requiring KCP & L-GMO to file compliant tariffs.
KCP & L-GMO proposed tariffs to implement a broad rate increase, with specific increases in the MPS and L&P rate districts and an effective date around June 2011.
AG Processing, Inc. and the Office of the Public Counsel intervened; Dogwood Energy, LLC was allowed to intervene as a respondent.
Crossroads Energy Center, a 300 MW plant in Mississippi, was included in KCP & L-GMO’s generation fleet to meet Missouri customer needs, creating downstream transmission cost issues.
Following initial filings and hearings, the PSC issued clarifications/modifications on May 27, 2011, and extended some tariff effective dates; subsequent proceedings led to superseding tariffs in January 2013.
Petitions for review were filed and consolidated; the circuit court upheld the PSC’s order, and this court consolidated the appeals to review the PSC’s May 4, 2011 order and May 27, 2011 clarification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PSC properly disallowed Crossroads transmission costs	KCP & L-GMO contends the PSC erred in disallowing transmission costs from rate recovery.	PSC found the transmission costs imprudent and unreasonable to pass to ratepayers given Crossroads' location and lack of parallel Missouri transmission costs.	Disallowance lawful and reasonable; supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the phase-in of the L&P-rate increase was lawful	AGP argues the phase-in exceeded the amount requested and violated section 393.155.1.	PSC properly phased in the increase under the phase-in statute to mitigate rate shock and did not exceed statutory authorization.	Phase-in lawful and reasonable; AGP’s invited-error argument rejected.
Whether the appeal is moot and should be dismissed	KCP & L-GMO and AGP contend issues remain live despite superseding tariffs.	PSC's 2013 Order supersedes the 2011 order; many issues moot and not properly reviewable now.	Most issues moot; Court declines to decide moot issues except where appropriately justifiable; affirmed on mootness grounds.
Whether the court should address the Crossroads valuation and ADIT issues given superseding tariffs	KCP & L-GMO contends valuation of Crossroads and ADIT computations are central to the appeal.	Those issues are fact-specific and superseded by later orders; not suitable for decision here.	denied as moot; issues superseded and not necessary to decide.

State ex rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 344 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. banc 2011) (two-pronged review: lawfulness and reasonableness of PSC order)
Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (U.S. 1986) (filed rate doctrine; preemption principles)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1988) (Supremacy Clause; preemption of state prudence reviews)
State ex rel. City of West Plains v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 310 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. banc 1958) (PSC authority to determine includable operating expenses)
State ex rel. Midwest Gas Users’ Ass’n v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 976 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (review of prudence and reasonableness standards)
State ex rel. Util. Consumers’ Council of Mo., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 585 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. banc 1979) (allocation of costs and rate design considerations)
May Dept. Stores Co. v. Union Elec. Light & Power Co., 107 S.W.2d 41 (Mo. 1937) (utility may propose rates; PSC decides just and reasonable charges)
State ex rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2003) (reasonableness and evidentiary support in PSC findings)
Fraas (State ex rel. Missouri Public Service Co. v. Fraas), 627 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) (mootness in PSC proceedings; Fraas limitations on precedential reach)