18 C.F.R. § 35.18

Asset retirement obligations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A public utility that files a rate schedule, tariff or service agreement under § 35.12 or § 35.13 and has recorded an asset retirement obligation on its books must provide a schedule, as part of the supporting work papers, identifying all cost components related to the asset retirement obligations that are included in the book balances of all accounts reflected in the cost of service computation supporting the proposed rates. However, all cost components related to asset retirement obligations that would impact the calculation of rate base, such as electric plant and related accumulated depreciation and accumulated deferred income taxes, may not be reflected in rates and must be removed from the rate base calculation through a single adjustment.

(b) A public utility seeking to recover nonrate base costs related to asset retirement costs in rates must provide, with its filing under § 35.12 or § 35.13, a detailed study supporting the amounts proposed to be collected in rates.

(c) A public utility that has recorded asset retirement obligations on its books, but is not seeking recovery of the asset retirement costs in rates, must remove all asset-retirement-obligations-related cost components from the cost of service supporting its proposed rates.

[Order 631, 68 FR 19619, Apr. 21, 2003, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57533, Oct. 3, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–1988 · leading case: Towns of Concord & Wellesley, Massachusetts v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Boston Edison Co., Intervenor, 844 F.2d 891 (1st Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Towns of Concord & Wellesley, Massachusetts v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Boston Edison Co., Intervenor, 844 F.2d 891 (1st Cir. 1988). “Commission Regulations and the June 26, 1986 Filing The Towns argue that the June 26, 1986 filing did not satisfy the “case in chief” and “burden of proof” requirements of the Commission’s own regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 35.18 (e)(2) and (3). 13 We decline to decide this point,…”

Elec. Dist. No. 1 v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 774 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “The Commission directed APS to make, within forty-five days, what is generally called a “compliance filing,” see 18 C.F.R. § 35.18 (1985)— i.e., to file “a revised cost of service, revised rate schedules and revised tariff sheets which reflect the findings in this decision.”

Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 832 F.2d 1201 (10th Cir. 1987). “” See 18 CFR § 35.18 (1987). . We disagree with FERC’s assertion that the court "imposed no such hard and fast rule.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.