STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MAGNOLIA PARK UTILITY COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 80-2082
) FPSC DOCKET NO. 78-432-W
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ) 790442-S
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, R. L. Caleen, Jr., held a formal hearing in this case on January 21, 1981, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Raymond J. Moudry, Esquire
2001 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
For Respondent: Marta M. Crowley, Esquire
Florida Public Service Commission
101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
ISSUE
Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers in Palm Beach County should be granted; and
Whether Petitioner failed to comply with Florida Public Service Commission Orders Nos. 0924 and 8382 directing Petitioner to
comply with information submission requirements in connection with its application for
rate increase.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner's rate increase request should he granted in accordance with the findings in this recommended order. Such rates are
just, reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory and consistent with Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980)
Commission Orders No. 8924 and 0382 did not, by their terms, direct Petitioner to comply with minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Therefore, Petitioner's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of the Orders.
FINDINGS OF FACT I.
BACKGROUND
In May, 1978, Petitioner, Magnolia Park Utility Company ("UTILITY"), filed with the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission ("COMMISSION'), applications to increase, on an interim basis, its sewer and water rates to its customers in Palm Beach County, Florida.
By Orders No. 8924 and 8382, issued on June 21 and July 7, 1978, respectively, the COMMISSION suspended the proposed rates, approved interim water and sewer rate increases, found that the UTILITY's application did not comply with the COMMISSION's minimum filing requirements, and acknowledged the UTILITY's statement that it would file an application which meets filing requirements by September 1, 1979.
Between November, 1979, and April, 1980, the UTILITY supplied additional information but did not fully comply with the minimum filing requirements. On May 15, 1980, the COMMISSION issued an Order requiring the UTILITY to show cause why the interim rates should not be repealed and monetary penalties imposed for the UTILITY's alleged failure to comply with Orders No. 8924 and 8382. The question of the UTILITY's compliance with those Orders was set to be heard in conjunction with its rate increase application. It wasn't until May 29, 1980, that the UTILITY submitted a completed application and complied with the minimum filing requirements.
On November 5, 1980, the COMMISSION forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of
a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal Section 120.57 hearing. This case was then set to be heard on January 21,1981.
At hearing, the UTILITY called Philip D. Mitchell and Boyd D. Ellis as its witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 and 2 into evidence. The COMMISSION called George Munt and Marshall Willis as its witnesses and offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 No. 1 through 6 into evidence.
On February 16, 1981, the COMMISSION timely submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Testimony of Willis, Ellis, P-2, R-1)
II.
Rate Increase Application
The UTILITY owns and operates water treatment facilities consisting of three wells, two pumps, a lime softening unit, and two storage tanks. Since April, 1979, the City of Riviera Beach has provided treatment to the UTILITY's sewage. The UTILITY's sewage facilities now consist of a master lift station, pumps, and sewage lines.
The approved test period for this rate proceeding is the twelve months prior to June 30, 1979. During the test year, the UTILITY provided water service to 113 residential customers, 49 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer; it provided sewer service to 75 residential customers, 47 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer.
As a result of its analysis of the UTILITY's application, together with its books and facilities, the COMMISSION proposed various adjustments, almost all of which were accepted and agreed to by the UTILITY. At hearing, issues involving the UTILITY's request for pro forma salary adjustments and recovery for income tax liability were eliminated when it withdrew its request. The only factual issue which remains concerning the requested rate increase is the useful life and depreciation rate which should be applied to the UTILITY's plant and equipment.
Useful Life and Depreciation Rate
The COMMISSION contends the standard 40-year useful life with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate is appropriate; the UTILITY contends that such a depreciation rate does not take into account changing technology and obsolescence, and that a 25 to
30-year useful life with a 3.3 to 4 percent depreciation rate is more appropriate.
The UTILITY acknowledged that the determination of useful life of utility equipment required engineering judgment. However, it presented no testimony by a qualified engineer on the subject. Its evidence consisted solely of its accountant's long standing "conceptual objection" to use of a 40-year useful life for utility plants.
The only competent and credible evidence on the question was presented by the COMMISSION. Its qualified engineer testified that he conducted an on-site independent study of the UTILITY plant add concluded that, in this instance, a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, was appropriate. In view of the foregoing, it is determined that a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, should be applied against the UTILITY's plant. (Testimony of Mitchell, Munt)
Having thus determined the appropriate depreciation rate for use in this case, the parties have agreed to the following ratemaking factors:
Rate Base
The adjusted test year rate base for the UTILITY's water system is $210,799; the rate base for its sewer system is
$65,151. Both are calculated below:
Rate Base
Test Year Ended 06/30/79
Utility Plant In Service | $ | WATER 308,611 | $ | SEWER 287,939 |
Plant Held For Future Use | - 0 - | (3,750) | ||
Acquisition Adjustment | 13,990 | - 0 - | ||
Accumulated Depreciation Amortization of Acquisition Adjustment | (42,485) (4,600) | (28,541) - 0 - | ||
Contributions In Aid Of Construction (Net of Amort.) | (154,349) | (203,069) | ||
Working Capital Allowance | 6,632 | 12,572 | ||
Income Tax Lag | - 0 - | - 0 - | ||
Rate Base | $ 210,799 | $ | 65,151 | |
(Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3)
Net Operating Income
The UTILITY's adjusted operating income for the test year - a $15,673 loss (water) and a $46,837 loss (sewer) - together with its rate of return, are depicted below:
Operating Statement Test Year Ended 06/30/79
WATER SEWER
Operating Revenues $ 46,441 $ 60,192 Operating Expenses
Operation | 43,759 | 94,572 | |
Maintenance | 9,297 | 6,002 | |
Depreciation | 4,716 | 993 | |
Amortization | 541 | - 0 - | |
Taxes Other Than | Income | 3,801 | 5,462 |
Income Taxes | - 0 - | - 0 - | |
Total Operating Expenses | 62,114 | 107,029 | |
Operating Income | $ (15,673) | $ (46,837) | |
Rate of Return (7.44 pct.) (71.89 pct.) (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3)
Capital Structure and Cost of Capital
The UTILITY's capital structure, and weighted cost of capital, are as follows:
Cost of Capital
Component | Ratio | Cost Rate | Weighted Cost |
Long Term Debt | 99 pct. | 9.84 pct. | 9.74 pct. |
Customer Deposits | 1 pct. | 8.00 pct. | .08 pct. |
100 pct. | 9.82 pct. |
(Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, R-5)
Rate of Return
Based on its cost of capital, the parties have agreed that 9.82 percent constitutes a fair rate of return on the UTILITY's rate base. The UTILITY has a deficit in common stock equity; a return on negative investment is inappropriate. (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, R-5)
Rate Structure
The UTILITY's current water rates are conventionally structured using a minimum monthly charge which includes a
minimum number of gallons and a one-step excess rate over that minimum; its residential and general service sewer rates are structured using a flat rate.
The parties agree that the rates should be revised in accordance with what is known as the base facility charge (BFC) rate design. The purpose of this design is to recover the costs of providing service to each particular customer. Its monthly charge consists of two components: A base charge which covers expenses not related to actual water use, such as depreciation, billing and collecting, property taxes, debt interest, maintenance, etc., and a gallonage charge based on the allocated costs associated with pumping, treating and delivering the water to the customer. Sewer rates are similarly structured and directly related to actual water consumption. The BFC rate design structure equitably distributes the fixed and variable costs of providing service to customers and allows them to exercise greater control over the rates which they pay.
In implementing the BFC rate design, the COMMISSION makes two specific recommendations which are not opposed by the UTILITY, are reasonable, and should be followed: (1) that public fire hydrants not be charged, and (2) that the monthly charge for private fire lines be one-third of the BFC charge for the particular sized connection. (Testimony of Taylor, R-4A)
Required Revenue
In order to be allowed the opportunity to earn a 9.82 percent return on its rate base the UTILITY should file rates which generate annual gross revenue at $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system. This revenue should produce net operating revenue of $20,700 and $6,398, respectively. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-3)
III.
Alleged Violation of Commission Orders No. 8924 and 8382
The COMMISSION contends that the UTILITY violated Orders No. 8924 and 0382 by its failure to comply with minimum filing requirements until May 29, 1980. For such violation, the COMMISSION seeks to impose a penalty of $200.
The orders in question do not explicitly direct or order the UTILITY to file an application which complies with the minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Consequently, the UTILITY's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such
requirements does not constitute a violation of or refusal to comply with the orders in question. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-1)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1) , Florida Statutes (1979)
Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), provides in relevant part:
"The Commission shall, either upon request
or upon its own motion, fix rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly discriminatory. In all such proceedings, the Commission shall consider the value and quality
of service, and the cost of providing the service, which shall include, but not be limited to, debt interest, the utility's requirements for working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax and operating expenses incurred in the operation of all property used and useful in the public service, and a fair return on the utility's investment in property used and useful in the public service ...
Furthermore, Section 367.161, supra, authorizes the COMMISSION to assess a penalty of up to $5,000 against any utility which "knowingly refuses to comply with, or willfully violates ... any
... order of the commission ... ." Id.
It is concluded that the UTILITY's rates should be fixed in accordance with the above findings of fact, and that such rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, not unfairly discriminatory, and consistent with Section 367.081(2), supra.
Section 367.161, supra, is a penal statute which must be strictly construed in its applications. See, e.g. Bach v. Board of Dentistry, 378.So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Bowling
v. Dept. of Insurance, So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA, Case No.
PP-379, Opinion filed February 13, 1981) the First District Court of Appeal held:
... the violation of a penal statute is
not to be found on loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but the violation must in all its implications be shown by evidence
Id.
Since the COMMISSION's Orders No. 8924 and 8382, which the UTILITY is accused of violating, did not expressly require the meeting of minimum filing requirements within a time certain, the UTILITY's delay in meeting these requirements cannot constitute violations of the orders. It is concluded, therefore, that the UTILITY is not guilty of the alleged violation of Section 367.161, supra.
To the extent the COMMISSION's proposed findings of fact are incorporated herein, they are accepted; otherwise, such findings are rejected as unsupported by a preponderance of evidence or irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
RECOMMENDED:
That Magnolia Park Utility Company be authorized to file revised rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate annual gross revenues of $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system, or an annual increase of $37,306 and $54,600, respectively, based on the average number of customers served during the test year.
DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1981.
ENDNOTE
1/ Petitioner's and Respondent's Exhibits will be referred to as "P- " acid "R- ," respectively.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Raymond J. Moudry, Esquire
2001 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Marta M. Suarez-Murias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission
101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DOCKET NOS. 780432-W (CR)
In re: Application of Mangonia 790442-S Park Utility Company for a Rate DOAH CASE NO. 80-2082 Increase. ORDER NO. 9915
/ ISSUED: 3-31-81
The following Commissioners participated in the deposition of this matter:
Joseph P. Cresse, Chairman Gerald L. Gunter
John R. Marks, III Susan W. Leisner
O R D E R
BY THE COMMISSION:
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before R. L. Caleen, Jr., Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 21, 1981, in West Palm Beach, Florida, on the application of Mangonia Park Utility Company, for a rate increase to its customers in Palm Beach County.
Parties were represented by counsel:
APPEARANCES
FOR PETITIONER: Raymond J. Moudry, Esquire
2001 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida
FOR RESPONDENT: Marta M. Crowley, Esquire
Florida Public Service Commission
101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Hearing Officer's recommendation is as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I
Background
In May, 1978, Petitioner, Mangonia Park Utility Company ("UTILITY"), filed with the Respondent, Florida Public Service Commission ("COMMISSION"), applications to increase, on an interim basis, its sewer and water rates to its customers in Palm Beach County, Florida.
By Order Nos. 8924 and 8382, issued on June 21 and July 7, 1978, respectively, the COMMISSION suspended the proposed rates, approved interim water and sewer rate increases, found that the UTILITY's application did not comply with the COMMISSION's minimum filing requirements, and acknowledged the UTILITY's statement that it would file an application which meets filing requirements by September 1, 1979.
Between November, 1979, and April, 1980, the UTILITY supplied additional information but did not fully comply with the minimum filing requirements. On May 15, 1980, the COMMISSION issued an Order requiring the UTILITY to show cause why the interim rates should not be repealed and monetary penalties imposed for the UTILITY's alleged failure to comply with Order Nos. 8924 and 8382. The question of the UTILITY's compliance with those Orders was set to be heard in conjunction with its rate increase application. It was not until May 29, 1980 that the UTILITY submitted a completed application and complied with the minimum filing requirements.
On November 5, 1980, the COMMISSION forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal Section 120.57 hearing. This case was then set to be heard on January 21, 1981.
At hearing, the UTILITY called Philip D. Mitchell and Boyd
D. Ellis as its witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibits No. 1 through 6 into evidence.
On February 16, 1981, the COMMISSION timely submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Testimony of Willis, Ellis, P-2, R-1).
II
Rate Increase Application
The UTILITY owns and operates water treatment facilities consisting of three wells, two pumps, a lime softening unit, and two storage tanks. Since April, 1979, the City of Riviera Beach
has provided treatment to the UTILITY's sewage. The UTILITY's sewage facilities now consist of a master lift station, pumps, and sewage lines.
The approved test period for this rate proceeding is the twelve months prior to June 30, 1979. During the test year, the UTILITY provided water service to 113 residential customers, 49 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer; it provided sewer service to 75 residential customers, 47 general service customers, and one multiple dwelling customer.
As a result of its analysis of the UTILITY's application, together with its books and facilities, the COMMISSION proposed various adjustments, almost all of which were accepted and agreed to by the UTILITY. At hearing, issues involving the UTILITY's request for pro forma salary adjustments and recovery for income tax liability were eliminated when it withdrew its request. The only factual issue which remains concerning the requested rate increase is the useful life and depreciation rate which should be applied to the UTILITY's plant and equipment.
Useful Life and Depreciation Rate
The COMMISSION contends the standard 40-year useful life with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate is appropriate; the UTILITY contends that such a depreciation rate does not take into account changing technology and obsolescence, and that a 25 to 30-year useful life with a 3.3 to 4 percent depreciation rate is more appropriate.
The UTILITY acknowledged that the determination of useful life of utility equipment required engineering judgment.
However, it presented no testimony by a qualified engineer on the subject. Its evidence consisted solely of its accountant's long- standing "conceptual objection" to use of a 40-year useful life for utility plants.
The only competent and credible evidence on the question was presented by the COMMISSION. Its qualified engineer testified that he conducted an on-site independent study of the UTILITY plant and concluded that, in this instance, a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, was appropriate. In view of the foregoing, it is determined that a 40-year useful life, with a 2.5 percent depreciation rate, should be applied against the UTILITY's plant. (Testimony of Mitchell, Munt).
Having thus determined the appropriate depreciation rate for use in this case, the parties have agreed to the following rate- making factors:
Rate Base
The adjusted test year rate base for the UTILITY's water system is $210,799; the rate base for its sewer system is
$65,151. Both are calculated below:
RATE BASE
TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79
WATER | SEWER | ||
Utility Plant in Service | $ 386,611 | $ 287,939 | |
Plant Held For Future Use | -0- | (3,750) | |
Acquisition Adjustment | 18,990 | -0- | |
Accumulated Depreciation | (42,485) | (28,541) | |
Amortization of Acquisition | |||
Adjustment | (4,600) | -0- | |
Contribution in Aid of | |||
Construction (Net of Amort.) | (154,349) | (203,069) | |
Working Capital Allowance | 6,632 | 12,572 | |
Income Tax Lag | -0- | -0- | |
Rate Base | 210,799 | 65,151 | |
(Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, | R-3) | ||
Net Operating Income | |||
The UTILITY's adjusted operating income for the test year - a $15,673 loss (water) and a $46,837 loss (sewer) - together with its rate of return, are depicted below:
OPERATING STATEMENT TEST YEAR ENDED 06/30/79
WATER | SEWER |
Operating Revenues $ 46,441 | $ 60,192 |
Operating Expenses | |
Operation 43,759 | 94,572 |
Maintenance 9,297 | 6,002 |
Depreciation (sic) 4,716 | 993 |
Amortization 541 | -0- |
Taxes Other Than Income 3,801 | 5,462 |
Income Taxes -0- | -0- |
Total Operating Expenses 62,114 | 107,029 |
Operating Income $(15,673) | $(46,837) |
Rate of Return (7.44 perct) (Testimony of Willis, Mitchell, R-3) Capital Structure and Cost of Capital | (71.89 perct) |
The UTILITY's capital structure, and weighted cost of capital, are as follows:
COST OF CAPITAL
COMPONENT RATIO COST RATE WEIGHTED COST
Long-Term Debt Customer Deposits | 99 perct 9.84 perct 1 perct 8.00 perct | 9.74 perct .08 perct |
100 perct | 9.82 perct |
(Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, R-5)
Rate of Return
Based on its cost of capital, the parties have agreed that
percent constitutes a fair rate of return on the UTILITY's rate base. The UTILITY has a deficit in common stock equity; a return on negative investment is inappropriate. (Testimony of Mitchell, Clinger, (sic), R-5)
Rate Structure
The UTILITY's current water rates are conventionally structured using a minimum monthly charge which includes a minimum number of gallons and a one-step excess rate over that minimum; its residential and general service sewer rates are structured using a flat rate.
The parties agree that the rates should be revised in accordance with what is known as the base facility charge (BFC) rate design. The purpose of this design is to recover the costs of providing service to each particular customer. Its monthly charges consists of two components: A base charge which covers expenses not related to actual water use, such as depreciation, billing and collecting, property taxes, debt interest, maintenance, etc., and a gallonage charge based on the allocated costs associated with pumping, treating and delivering the water to the customer. Sewer rates are similarly structured and directly related to actual water consumption. The BFC rate design structure equitably distributes the fixed and variable costs of providing service to customers and allows them to exercise greater control over the rates which they pay.
In implementing the BFC rate design, the COMMISSION makes two specific recommendations which are not opposed by the UTILITY, are reasonable, and should be followed: (1) that public fire hydrants not be charged, and (2) that the monthly charge for private fire lines be one-third of the BFC charge for the particular sized connection. (Testimony of Taylor, R-4A)
Required Revenue
In order to be allowed the opportunity to earn a 9.82 percent return on its rate base, the UTILITY should file rates which generate annual gross revenue at $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system. This revenue should produce net operating revenue of $20,700 and $6,398, respectively. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-3)
III
Alleged Violation of Commission
Order Nos. 8924 and 8382
The COMMISSION contends that the UTILITY violated Order Nos.
8924 and 8382 by its failure to comply with minimum filing requirements until May 29, 1980. For such violations, the COMMISSION seeks to impose a penalty of $200.
The orders in question do not explicitly direct or order the UTILITY to file an application which complies with the minimum filing requirements by a date certain. Consequently, the UTILITY's lengthy and unexcused delay in complying with such requirements does not constitute a violation of or refusal to comply with the orders in question. (Testimony of Mitchell, Willis, R-1)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979).
Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), provides in relevant part:
"The Commission shall, either upon request or upon its own motion, fix rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly discriminatory. In all such proceedings, the Commission shall consider the value and quality
of service, and the cost of providing the service, which shall include, but not be limited to, debt interest, the utility's requirements for working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax and operating expenses incurred in the operation of
all property used and useful in the public service, and a fair return on the utility's investment in property used and useful in the public service . . ."
Furthermore, Section 367.161, supra., authorized the COMMISSION to assess a penalty of up to $5,000 against any utility which "knowingly refuses to comply with, or willfully violates . . . any . . . order of the commission . . ." Id.
It is concluded that the UTILITY's rates should be fixed in accordance with the above findings of fact, and that such rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, not unfairly discriminatory, and consistent with Section 367.081(2), supra.
Section 367.161, supra., is a penal statute which must be strictly construed in its applications. See, e.g., Bach v. Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Bowling
v. Dept. of Insurance, So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA, Case No.
PP-379, Opinion filed February 13, 1981) the First District Court of Appeal held:
" . . . the violation of a penal statute is not to be found on loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but the violation must be
in all its implications be shown by evidence . . ." Id.
Since the COMMISSION's Order Nos. 8924 and 8382, which the UTILITY is accused of violating, did not expressly require the meeting of minimum filing requirements within a time certain, the UTILITY's delay in meeting these requirements cannot (sic) constitute violations of the orders. It is concluded, therefore, that the UTILITY is not guilty of the alleged violation of Section 367.161, supra.
To the extent the COMMISSION's proposed findings of fact are incorporated herein, they are accepted; otherwise, such findings are rejected as unsupported by a preponderance of evidence or irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
RECOMMENDED:
That Mangonia Park Utility Company be authorized to file revised rates structured on the base facility charge concept, designed to generate annual gross revenues of $83,747 for the water system and $114,792 for the sewer system, or an annual increase of $37,306 and $54,600, respectively, based on the average number of customers served during the test year.
The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was filed on February 27, 1981. No exceptions have been filed by the utility.
We have reviewed the Hearing Officer's recommendation with respect to the rate case application and hereby affirm his findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the rate case.
We have also examined the Hearing Officer's conclusions with respect to the show cause proceeding in this docket and agree with his recommendation. The Hearing Officer concluded that the utility was never actually ordered to comply with the minimum filing requirements. We agree. The orders granting interim relief (Order Nos. 8382 and 8924) did not contain specific ordering paragraphs directing that minimum filing requirements be
filed. The Hearing Officer's conclusion is correct as a matter of law and we affirm it.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Mangonia Park Utility Company, Post Office Box 8006, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407, be authorized to increase its rates in order to generate annual water revenues of $83,747 and gross annual sewer revenues of $114,792, on the basis of the base facility charge concept, and the average number of customers served during the test year, as follows:
WATER SYSTEM
Meter Size Base Facility Charge Gallonage Charge
Res. | 5/8" | $ 5.01 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 5/8" | $ 5.01 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 1" | $ 12.53 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 1-1/2" | $ 25.05 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 2" | $ 40.08 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 3" | $ 80.16 | 61 | cents/M |
G.S. | 6" | $250.50 | 61 | cents/M |
M.D.S. | 6" | $250.50 | 61 | cents/M |
Firelines | 8" | $133.62 | 61 | cents/M* |
*Based upon gallons used.
SEWER SYSTEM
Meter Size Base Facility Charge Gallonage Charge
Res. | 5/8" | $ 7.14 | $1.10/M* |
G.S. | 5/8" | $ 7.14 | $1.10/M |
G.S. | 1" | $ 17.85 | $1.10/M |
G.S. | 1-1/2" | $ 35.70 | $1.10/M |
G.S. | 2" | $ 57.12 | $1.10/M |
G.S. | 3" | $114.24 | $1.10/M |
G.S. | 6" | $357.00 | $1.10/M |
M.D.S. | 6" | $357.00 | $1.10/M |
*10,000 gallon maximum per month. It is further
ORDERED that the rats approved as a result of this order shall be effective for mete readings on or after 30 days from the date of this order. It is further
ORDERED that the rate schedules will not become effective until tariff pages are filed and approved. It is further
ORDERED that the Utility shall notify each customer of the increase authorized herein, and explain the reason for said increase; the letter of explanation to be submitted to the Commission for prior approval. It is further
ORDERED that the Utility's bond should be returned. It is further
ORDERED that Show Cause Order No. 9375 be dismissed.
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission, this 31st day of March, 1981.
Steve Tribble Commission Clerk
(SEAL) MSM
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 15, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 27, 1981 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 31, 1981 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 27, 1981 | Recommended Order | Petitioner may increase rates. Failure to comply with directives for long time is not actionable, because they did not require compliance within deadline. |
SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, INC. (CITRUS COUNTY) vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 80-002082 (1980)
SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, INC. (LAKE COUNTY) vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 80-002082 (1980)
ISLAND SERVICES, INC. vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 80-002082 (1980)
SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES, INC. vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 80-002082 (1980)
LEHIGH UTILITIES, INC. vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 80-002082 (1980)
