2024-11-25 1250 Oceanside LLC Response to PD

Home

Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.,60 Haw.625 (1979) 594 P.2d 612 936(Miss.1976);IIINew England Telephone&Telegraph Co.v.State, 113 N.H.92,302 A.2d 814(1973).It is often recognized that the ratemaking function involves the making of"pragmatic"adjustments and that there is no single correct rate of return but that there is a"zone of reasonableness" within which the commission may exercise its judgment. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 345 F.Supp. 80 (D.Colo.1972); Commonwealth v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., supra, 211 Va. at 769, 180 S.E.2d at 683-684; *637 Potomac Electric Power Co.v. Public Service Commission, 380 A.2d 126 (D.C.App.1977);Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co.v. Public Utilities Commission, 186 Colo. 260, 527 P.2d 524(1974). Thus,when a commission order is challenged,the only question on appeal is whether the decision meets the statutory requirement of'**621 HRS s 269-16(1976)which is the basis for the commission's authority.As the United States Supreme Court concluded in the 1111 Hope case, Supra,320 U.S. at 602,64 S.Ct. at 288: Under the statutory standard of"just and reasonable"it is the result reached and not the method employed which is controlling. . . . It is not theory but the impact of the rate order which counts. If the total effect of the rate order cannot be said to be unjust(or)unreasonable,judicial inquiry . . .is at an end. Although HELCO presented evidence which supported a rate of return of at least 8.95%The Division presented no evidence to indicate a lower figure. Since the fair rate of return should cover the cost of capital, See Honolulu Gas Co.v.Public Utilities Commission, supra, 33 Haw. at 518-19,we cannot say that the Commission's determination of 8.95%As a fair rate of return was clearly erroneous. B. Whether the burden of proof was impermissibly shifted in the proceeding before the commission. The general rule is that in requesting rate increases,the burden of proof is on the utility to go forward with the evidence and justify its requested rate increases. IllIn re Application of Kauai Electric Division, supra, 60 Haw. at--, 590 P.2d at 538; In re Application of Hawaiian Electric Co., 56 Haw. 260, 270, 535 P.2d 1102, 1109 (1975). HELCO based its application for rate increases on the 8.95%Rate of return previously authorized in 1974 and characterized its application as a"make-whole"3 proceeding in that it was seeking *638 only limited relief to enable it to earn what it had been authorized to earn.4 On appeal,the Division argues that use of a previously authorized rate of return impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by creating a rebuttable presumption that the rate of return is reasonable and placed the burden on the Division to show substantive changes in condition to warrant a lower rate of return than previously authorized. Since a rate of return which is fair at one time may become unfair at a later time, there must be a finding by the Commission, supported by the record, that economic conditions have not changed to warrant a lower rate of return. Our review of the record indicates that the Commission's finding that HELCO was still entitled to an 8.95%Rate of return is supported by substantial evidence and that the burden of proof was not shifted. The Commission put the burden on HELCO to establish that it was still entitled to a return of 8.95%On its rate base;the same rate of return authorized in 1974.HELCO showed that its cost of capital had increased from 8.95%In 1973 to 9.32%At the end of 1974 because of increases in its embedded cost of debt and preferred stock. However,because it was requesting to be"made whole"it was using the same pro forma capital structure of 56%Long term debt, 12%Preferred stock and 32%Common stock that was used in the docket in which the 8.95% Rate of return was authorized although the actual capitalization was 54% **622 long term debt, 6.8%Preferred stock and 39.2%Common stock.HELCO also emphasized that in order for it to sell first mortgage bonds and to continue to attract funds, it had to earn at least an 8.95%Rate of return. vuESTL AVii CD 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8