McDaniel v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n.2 (Majority, with Dissenting)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 546 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS II & III No. CV-13-803 DUSTIN MCDANIEL, ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONSUMER UTILITIES RATE ADVOCACY DIVISION APPELLANT Opinion Delivered October 8, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [DOCKET NO. 12-056-U] V. ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. APPELLEES REVERSED AND REMANDED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This is the companion case to a separate appeal handed down by this court today in McDaniel v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 2014 Ark. App. 529. That appeal arises from Order No. 7 of the Arkansas Public Service Commission in Docket No. 12-056-U, in which the Commission found that an interim surcharge imposed by Entergy Arkansas, Inc., complied with Act 310 of 1981, and from Order No. 8 approving Entergy s rate schedule for the surcharge. This court reversed and remanded Orders 7 and 8 for additional findings by the Commission. The present appeal is from Order No. 9 in Docket No. 12-056-U. That Order altered the rate schedule approved by the Commission in Order No. 8. The Consumer Utilities Rate Advocacy Division of the Arkansas Attorney General s Office ( the AG ) has appealed from Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 546 Order No. 9 and asserts the same grounds for reversal as in the companion appeal. In light of the identical nature of the issues in both appeals, we adopt the reasoning employed in McDaniel v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 2014 Ark. App. 529, and reverse and remand the Commission s Order No. 9. GLADWIN, C.J., and PITTMAN, WALMSLEY, and WOOD, JJ., agree. BROWN, J., dissents. Dustin McDaniel, Att y Gen., by: Emon O. Mahony, Ass t Att y Gen., for appellant. Tucker Raney, Assistant General Counsel of Entergy Services, Inc.; N. Wesley Hunt, Counsel of Entergy Services, Inc.; Perkins & Trotter, PLLC, by: Scott C. Trotter; and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: N. M. Norton, for appellees. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.