In aiming to make financial statements more meaningful, will FASB instead make them indecipherable?
By mid-summer, a total of 123 companies had cranked out some 574 pages of comments,...
reconsideration was issued 3/15/95.
9 Revenues were reduced pursuant to stipulation, upon a commission staff recommendation that the company's rates be decreased.
10 Cost-of-service evidence was presented for both 1992 and 1993.
11 Three-year settlement was reached, with no increase in the first year and limited increases in the second and third years.
12 Application was filed 4/29/94 for a second-year rate increase pursuant to the terms of a settlement adopted 11/9/93 in Case 92-E-1084/5.
13 Because an investigation into possible misuse of corporate funds had delayed the company's rate case to such an extent that supporting data had become stale, the commission terminated the rate proceeding on 6/10/94 and lowered the company's target ROE to 10.6 percent.
14 The company used a two-year test period for calendar years 1995 and 1996, requesting $58.9 million for 1995 and $60.9 million for 1996. It was granted $50.9 million for 1995 and $51.8 million for 1996, with the authorized ROE of 11.6 percent remaining constant.
15 Interim order only. The commission was expected to reconsider the case and issue a revised final order by the end of April.
16 Order on rehearing. Original order was issued 4/20/94.
17 Figure reflects a reduction of 0.75 percent as a penalty for mismanagement of power-supply options and cost-effective energy-efficiency resources.
18 Date of original request. A memorandum of understanding/settlement was filed 1/31/94.
19 Order on reconsideration. Original order was decided 11/9/94.
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.