2024-11-25 1250 Oceanside LLC Response to PD

Home

Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.,60 Haw.625 (1979) 594 P.2d 612 The lower use customers have low load factors and the higher use customers have higher load factors. For this reason in a block rate which is charged per kilowatt hour, a higher load factor would have a lower price and the lower load factor would have a higher price. However, Mr. Stretch's testimony was not based on any evidence in the record and there is no evidence which would justify such a conclusion. The Commission states in Order No. 4205 at p. 6 that: Whether the load factor for each residential block was or can be quantified with a great degree of specificity is not relevant or material to the question of adoption of HELCO's rate structure. No utility in the United States that we know of has been able to specifically quantify the load **626 factor for each residential block. The Commission's ruling reflects this reality and that quantification of load factor for each block is not material to the adoption of the rate structure in this case. If the load factor is given as the justification for different rates within the residential rate schedule, then the load factor for each block would have to be quantified. See Re Madison Gas and Electric Co., 5 P.U.R.4th 28(1974).Mr. Stretch emphasized that the load factor for HELCO as a whole improved from 56.6%in 1970,to 60.5%in 1973 and to 61.5%in 1974. This fact, however, sheds no light on the reasonableness of the three kilowatt hour blocks at issue. In the absence of any justification for the last three kilowatt hour blocks, HELCO's residential rate structure will stand as a declining block structure which only promotes the *647 use of electricity. 13 Unquestionably,a rate schedule that serves only to promote greater consumption of electricity would be contrary to our state and national public policy. See In re Application of Hawaiian Electric Co.,56 Haw.260,535 P.2d 1102(1975);Energy Conservation and Production Act,Pub.L. 94-385(1976).In the past,promoting the consumption of electricity by encouraging the sale of water heaters and basing rates on a sliding scale was systematically upheld against charges of undue or unreasonable discrimination. See Rossi v. Garton, 88 N.J.Super. 233, 211 A.2d 806(1965);1111Bilton Machine Tool Co.v.United Illuminating Co., 110 Conn.417, 148 A.337(1930).Increasingly, however,regulatory commissions have found that promotional rates should be discarded or modified when they have outlived their usefulness in view of public policy objectives in the areas of conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment. Re The 141Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 3 P.U.R.4th 259 (1973);Re Idaho Power Co., 86 P.U.R.3d 458 (1970) In addition to conservation of energy and optimization of the efficient use of facilities and resources, a public utility's rate structure should encourage equitable rates to all its consumers including the poor and the elderly.Reactions to demands that the increasing energy burden borne by the poor and the elderly be alleviated range from sympathy to scorn for"social rate making." Our laws,however,recognize that the poor and the elderly are deserving of special protection. See,e. g.,HRS s 346-52 (aged and needy eligible for public assistance); s 346-71 (general assistance available to needy persons); s 359-51 Et seq. (housing for elderly persons); ss 431-522 to 431-529(extended health insurance for elderly). There has always been a great measure of public policy that enters into the designing of rates. It is incumbent upon the Commission to make public policy decisions and to *648 change proposed rates that do not comport therewith.14 Other Commissions have recognized the inappropriateness of the declining block structure and have begun to gradually modify rate differentials favoring large volume users although,for the most part,they have not eliminated the declining block feature in one fell swoop. See General Motors Corp.v.Public Utilities Commission,47 Ohio St.2d 58,351 N.E.2d 183 (1976);IIICleveland Electric Illuminating Co.v.Public Utilities Commission,42 Ohio St.2d 403,330 N.E.2d 1(1975)(ordered reduction in proposals for minimum bills and initial energy block); Re Arkansas Western Gas Co., 16 P.U.R.4th 103 (1976); Re Cut Bank Gas Co., 1 E5TLA'r ©2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12