Consumer advocates have won a battle over excessive profits by utilities with transmission lines that deliver electricity across the Midwest.
In a ruling that calls for refunds to utility customers, a federal administrative law judge has found that transmission line owners in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and other states have been getting an "unjust and unreasonable" rate of return on equity of more than 12 percent.
If federal regulators uphold the Dec. 22 initial decision, the base rate of return on transmission investments would be slashed 2 percentage points to 10.32 percent, saving ratepayers in 15 states about $200 million a year, state officials said.
"It is an important victory — it is a huge step in the right direction," said Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman, whose department represents ratepayers in utility matters. "What it demonstrates is that the 12.38 percent rate was too high. … It was a rate that was exploiting consumers."
The rate is important because many utilities don't own transmission lines, and instead pay other utilities to deliver electricity, passing on the cost to ratepayers. Transmission rates are set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which also sets the transmission line owners' base rate of return.
Large industrial customers challenged the Midwest transmission rates as excessive — a battle joined by the Minnesota Department of Commerce and consumer advocates from six other states. The regulatory battle focused on whether transmission companies' regulated profits are out of touch with economic conditions and low interest rates.
"There is no question that a 12 percent rate of return is insanely high," said Tyson Slocum, energy program director for Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C., consumer group that has intervened in other grid-pricing matters, but not the rate-of-return battle.
In Michigan, the ruling promises $40 million in annual savings on transmission-related costs, said John Liskey, counsel for Michigan Citizens Against Rate Excess. Iowa ratepayers could see $20 million in annual savings, said Jennifer Easler, an attorney in that state's Office of Consumer Advocate who presented the states' case before the administrative judge. Minnesota officials didn't have an estimate of ratepayer savings.