1/18/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I JAN 18 1984 BOOK 55 PAgE 5 felt that is something that should be germane to what the Commission is thinking about. Commissioner Bird commented that he sees the Commission reaching a point where the Hutchinson Utility experts are going to tell us that they have the most cost effective way of handling the system, and Mr. White and his experts are going to give us some differing opinions. He finds himself caught in the middle and wished to know just what the Commission's legal, moral and ethical responsibility is. Attorney Brandenburg explained that the utility has the burden of showing and proving its rate increase, and then the interveners have the burden of showing the rate increase is not warranted. In this case, they are saying there is a more economical way of doing it, but they have not addressed whether the plant can stay where it is. Commissioner Bird continued to discuss the problem he has with listening and determining a reasonable rate of return, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that a contract has been presented that shows the plant has to be moved. The interveners have showed that if you kept it where it is, it might be a cost savings, but he did not believe they have showed anything to the effect that you don't, in fact, have to move that plant pursuant to that contract. Intervener White did not agree and felt they have shown that there was a failure to disclose material information. Attorney Micale believed the first thing the Board must decide is whether the proposed construction presented by Hutchinson Utilities is in the .public interest, and then if it is, the Board is charged with the responsibility to provide Hutchinson Utilities with the means to pursue its obligations under the franchise. Commissioner Lyons agreed that as long as Hutchinson Utilities remains a franchise operator, we have certain obligations under the franchise and felt the Commission will 53