FERC Filings
Answer of EPSA in Opposition of the Motion to Intervene Out-Of-Time, and Answer to Motion to File Out-Of-Time Brief of the Missouri Public Service Commission
Answer In Opposition to Motion to Intervene Out-Of-Time
The MOPSC has failed to demonstrate good cause for its untimely intervention, given that the arguments to which it now feels compelled to respond were first raised in EPSA’s initial testimony, filed with the Commission on August 8, 2003, as well as in EPSA’s initial brief to the presiding judge on December 1, 2003. In fact, the MOPSC acknowledges that EPSA has addressed the relevance of the Missouri Settlement and the MOPSC’s preferences “throughout the hearing.” The MOPSC has offered no explanation, whatsoever, for its assertion that it “finds it necessary to formally intervene now to respond to Intervenors. . . .” Pursuant to Commission precedent, failure to demonstrate good cause for failing to make a timely motion to intervene at this late stage in a proceeding is sufficient reason to deny the MOPSC’s motion.
In addition, by waiting to intervene until after the conclusion of the hearing and Initial Decision, the MOPSC avoided discovery of evidence including, but not limited to, its involvement in the August 2001 RFP process, the January 2002 meeting and follow-on discussions between MOPSC Staff and AmerenUE, and the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the July 2002 rate case settlement. It also avoided any opportunity for EPSA and other intervenors to respond to its assertions under the procedural schedule and the Commission’s briefing rules. Accordingly, granting the MOPSC’s intervention at this stage will not serve to enlighten the record, but would unfairly prejudice EPSA and other intervenors’ rights to investigate and respond to the MOPSC’s assertions. Accordingly, the MOPSC should not be allowed to intervene as a party at this late date.