"The incremental cost standard is intended to leave ratepayers economically indifferent to the source of a utility's energy by ensuring that the cost to the utility of purchasing power from a [qualifying facility] does not exceed the cost the utility would incur in the absence of the [qualifying facility] purchase."
How later courts described this case
- "The incremental cost standard is intended to leave ratepayers economically indifferent to the source of a utility's energy by ensuring that the cost to the utility of purchasing power from a [qualifying facility] does not exceed the cost the utility would incur in the absence of the [qualifying facility] purchase."
- parties may agree to an exclusive remedy for breach, which if reasonable will be enforced and will exclude other remedies
- discussing appeals from Corporation Commission, Okla. Const. Art. 9 § 20, and substantial evidence standard
- "It is up to the States, not [FERC], to determine the specifIc parameters of individual QF power arrangements, including the date at which a legally enforceable obligation is incurred under State law."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TAYLOR, J.,
with whom WATT, C.J. and WINCHESTER, V.C.J., join, concur in part and dissent in part:
¶ 1 I dissent to the imposition of a twenty year contract term. I understand that the Corporation Commission has discretion on this issue. However, this contract is forced upon PSO due to the requirements of the 1978 federal law. It is not an arms-length contract. In view of all the law, evidence and circumstances of this case, I would hold that setting this contract term at twenty years is an abuse of discretion. A proper exercise of discretion would result in a contract being set at a much shorter term, subject to later review of the Commission.