5/14/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n v That if the Court did consider the quality of water as a factor in determining a fair and reasonable rate of return, that the rate of return then should be at a low scale instead of middle or high scale rate of return. Mid=Florida also claims it has been at a disadvantage in trying to identify and properly address the underlying reasons for the Board's error in Resolution No. 77-111 because of the failure of the Board to render an order or resolution properly setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions in this case. The Board contends that Resolution No. 77-111 sets forth sufficient findings and is based on competent evidence. The Board further contends that it has a legal right to withhold a rate.increase because of the poor quality of the water or poor quality of the water distribution system. The Board requests that Resolution No. 77-111 be upheld and in effect, that the rate increase be denied, or if the case is remanded for further hearings before the Board, that it be remanded with appropriate instructions by the Court as to what should be included in the findings of fact. The primary question is whether the Board has specific authority to completely deny a rate increase based solely on the fact that the water quality is poor or the water quality fails to meet minimum State.Health Standards. Mid -Florida admits that the Public Service Commission has the authority to deny rate increases because of an ineffi- cient water distribution system, but argues that this is solely because of specific statutory authority and no such authority exists by the Board. Mid -Florida also points out that the Board does have authority to institute proceedings so that this water franchise can come under the Public Service Commission. This franchise, known as "Rockiidge Water and Sewer Franchise," provides in Section 14 that the Utility Company is entitled to a "fair rate of return on the net valuation of its -2-