3/19/1986 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 19 1966 BOOK 63 Fr,r 977 Mr. Wheeling estimated that the cost of the rate case this is around $4,000 as they tried to keep expenses down by filing the previous case and working in-house. Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss phasing because of the size of the increase, and Director Pinto commented that he attended a seminar on rate making and learned the rest of the country has recognized what they call "rate shock." This is where the utility comes in with a very justified request, but from the social aspect, there is tremendous shock because of the percentage increase. Many regulatory authorities have taken it on themselves to fix what the increase will be in a reasonable amount over a period, ending up with the total amount that was requested, but all those cases involved companies receiving a substantial rate of return. Attorney Vitunac inquired if any court in Florida or rating agency has used "rate shock" in their deliberations, and Director Pinto believed the Public Utility Commission has recognized it. In this case, however, we have zero rate of return, and he did not believe any court would cause a company to collect less than its operating costs. Chairman Scurlock noted that if the Board had approved a higher percentage earlier, there would not be so much shock now, and Commissioner Bowman commented that one way to reduce the shock is for the people to reduce their consumption. Mr. Davenport wished to know over what period of time this new rate is going to last to bring this net loss down to zero - or is it forever? Director Pinto again explained that the rates are structured on the 1982 test year, and Commissioner Wodtke clarified Mr. Pinto is saying that GDU could come in tomorrow with a rate increase request based upon a test year of 1985, for instance, and we are dealing with something based on 1982. Four years have passed, their operating results could be tremendously increased, and we could be looking at the same thing again. 32