Legal Opinion

Office of Public Counsel v. Public Service Commission

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 2013No. Nos. WD 75980, WD 76082, WD 76076, WD 76080PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARK D. PFEIFFER, Judge.

In this appeal, Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers (“MIEC”),1 Consumers *361Council of Missouri (“CCM”),2 AARP,3 and the Office of Public Counsel (“OPC”),4 collectively “Consumers,” challenge the Public Service Commission’s (“PSC”) Report and Order issued December 12, 2012 (“2012 Report and Order”), that approved a rate increase for Union Electric Company, d/b/a Ameren Missouri (“Ameren Missouri”). Specifically, Consumers appeal the decision of the PSC allowing Ameren Missouri to use a Fuel and Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (“FAC”) to automatically recover from…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel ErectionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. ThornburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. State Ex Rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  4. State Ex Rel. Praxair, Inc. v. Missouri Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
  5. State, Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Aging v. Brookside Nursing Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2001

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In the Matter of the Application of Spire Missouri, Inc., to Change Its Infrastructure System Replacement Surcharge In Its Spire Missouri East Service Territory In the Matter of the Application of Spire Missouri, Inc., to Change Its Infrastructure System Replacement Surcharge In Its Spire Missouri West Service Territory v. Missouri Public Service Commission Missouri Office of Public CounselMissouri Court of Appeals · 2020
  2. Kan. City Power & Light Co. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API