FERC Filings
REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION re: AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY AND UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a AMERENUE
INTRODUCTION
Ameren Energy Generating Company
and
Union Electric Company
d/b/a AmerenUE
Docket No. EC03-53-000
Pursuant to Rules 212 and 713 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.713, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) hereby submits this request for rehearing of the Commission’s May 5, 2003, Order Setting Disposition of Facilities Application For Hearing (AmerenUE Order). In that Order, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the possible anti-competitive effects of the proposed transfer, stating that the “proposed transaction may undermine competition and thus may not be consistent with the public interest.” The Commission also noted extensive deficiencies in Applicants’ filing, and had concerns “regarding the adequacy of the evidence offered.” Accordingly, the Commission set the application for a full evidentiary, trial-type hearing.
For the reasons explained below, EPSA respectfully requests that the Commission reconsider its decision not to reject the Application outright, or at least to issue a deficiency letter, but instead to set the case for hearing. While EPSA is very appreciative of the Commission’s willingness to thoroughly evaluate the competitive impacts of the proposed transaction, and while EPSA intends to participate fully in the instant proceeding, EPSA suggests that the Commission first should have addressed the fundamental flaws in Ameren’s application by requiring the filing of a complete application. Such an application would fully evaluate the effects of the proposed transfer on competition and ratepayers and facially meet the Commission’s threshold requirements for showing the justness and reasonableness of the affiliate transactions. Such an approach would be consistent with Commission’s actions in the merger context, where the Commission only begins its evaluation of an application once it determines that a completed application had been filed. Once complete, the application then can be fully assessed by the Commission and the parties and, quite possibly, at least certain of the issues can be resolved as a matter of Commission policy without the need for a full-blown, and resource-intensive evidentiary hearing. Put simply, a costly hearing should be held only if necessary to resolve outstanding factual disputes. But where as in this case, the applicants have not even met their initial burden of production, they should be required to do so before a hearing is convened.
In sum, as EPSA made clear in its original filing, it is time for the Commission to act and protect captive ratepayers and wholesale competition from affiliate abuse. The Commission should do that by holding the hearing in abeyance, pending the filing of a completed application.