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 7. *626 The comparable earnings studies present useful information in assisting the commission to arrive at an equity return cost.A comparison of companies within a relatively wide range of risk with appropriate **615 adjustments is proper and such comparison between utilities provide an important method to arrive at a fair return on common equity. 8.It is often recognized that the rate-making function involves the making of pragmatic adjustments and that there is no single correct rate of return but a"zone of reasonableness"within which the rate may be set. 9. In reviewing the Commission's order setting a rate of return, it is the result reached and not the method employed which is controlling and if the"total effect"cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable,judicial inquiry is at an end. 10. In requesting a rate increase,the burden of proof is on the utility company to go forward with the evidence and justify its requested increase before the commission. 11. A utility company requesting rate increases to enable it to earn a rate of return previously authorized by the Commission, must show that it is still entitled to the same rate of return, as a rate of return which is fair at one time may become unfair at a later time. 12.The statutory requirement that an administrative agency set forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision-making by the agency and to enable judicial review of agency decisions. 13. An administrative agency's findings of ultimate facts must be supported by findings of basic facts which in turn must be supported by the evidence in the record. 14.The presumption of validity accorded to a Commission's order can be overcome by a showing that no evidence was presented to sustain the order. 15.It is not any discrimination that is forbidden by the law,but only those which are unreasonable. 16. The use of the declining block structure by other utilities, the qualifications of the utility's expert witness and the cost of service study used in this case do not provide a rational basis for the discrimination in the last three blocks of the utility's residential rate schedule. 17.If differences in 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. 18. *627 In the absence of any justification for the discrimination within the residential rate structure,the utility's declining block structure which promotes the use of electricity is contrary to state and national public policy. 19. A public utility's rate structure should encourage the conservation of energy, optimization of the efficient use of facilities and resources,and equitable rates to its customers. Attorneys and Law Firms *649 Barry M. Utsumi,Deputy Atty. Gen.,Honolulu,for appellant Public Utilities Division,Dept. of Regulatory Agencies, State of Hawaii. Dennis Niles,Hilo(Legal Aid Society of Hawaii,Hilo,of counsel)for Lima Kokua,appellant-intervenor. David L.Fairbanks,Honolulu(Goodsill,Anderson&Quinn,Honolulu,of counsel)for appellee.