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 *639 While some of the language in the commission's order is unfortunate 5 we take it to mean only that HELCO met its burden of proving that use of the previously authorized 8.95%Rate of return was justified. II.RESIDENTIAL RAPE STRUCTURE 6 In the proceeding below, the Commission found that HELCO's declining block residential rate structure was "just and reasonable"and authorized the rate schedule set out below: Charge Cost per month Customer Charge(regardless of the kwh of electricity used) $3.50 Energy Charge(to be added to the Customer Charge) first 100 kwh 9.1¢per kwh next 200 kwh 6.30 per kwh next 300 kwh 4.5¢per kwh all over 600 kwh 5.00 per kwh On appeal, LK argues A) that Decision and Order No. 4123 and Order No. 4205 do not provide a sufficient statement of supporting facts and B) that there was no probative, reliable, *640 substantial evidence on the record to support the discrimination in the residential rates approved by the Commission. We agree. A. Whether Decision and Order No. 4123 and Order No.4205 provide a sufficient statement of supporting facts. In Decision and Order No.4123 the Commission states that"(t)he new rate schedules. . .are just and reasonable"and supports its finding by nothing more than the recitation of certain general principles of rate design without facts to corroborate this finding or references to the record where such facts may be found.7 The Decision and Order does, however, set out facts supporting the Commission's decision not to adopt LK's proposal presented by Dr.Frederick Wells.8 In Order No. 4205 denying LK's petition for reconsideration,the Commission again provides a detailed statement to support its denial of LK's proposed rate structure.9 To support *641 **623 its decision to adopt, virtually unchanged, HELCO's proposed residential rate structure,the Commission sets forth the qualifications of the HELCO expert witness,suggests that the use of the declining block structure by other Hawaii utilities justifies its continued use,and states that the cost of service study was the basis for determining the residential as well as other customer schedules.The qualifications of the expert witness and the use of the declining block structure by other local utilities are not facts which support its conclusion that the rate structure was not unreasonably discriminatory.The cost of service study illustrates the relationship between the several customer classifications by comparing their respective rates of return.The study,while it aided in the determination whether there was undue discrimination between classifications,cannot determine whether there is undue discrimination within a customer category. �r' E� rt_A',,N ro 0.24. Thomson Neuters No claim to ononal U S Government Works 9