NORTH FLORIDA WATER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM H. BEVIS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
North Florida Water Company sought certiorari review of a Florida Public Service Commission order denying a requested water rate increase. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission's denial, holding that a utility's operational inefficiencies may justify denying a rate increase despite the utility's financial losses, and that statutory provisions authorizing consideration of system efficiency prevail over the general entitlement to a reasonable rate of return.
The Court held that the Public Service Commission properly denied the rate increase. Sections 367.081(2) and 367.111(2) of the Florida Statutes authorize the Commission to consider system efficiency in evaluating rate increase applications, and Section 366.041's guarantee of a reasonable rate of return does not compel the Commission to grant increases where existing service is inefficient. The public should not bear the cost of correcting system defects caused by an acquiring company's failure to maintain adequate service.
[1] A public utility commission may consider the efficiency of a utility system when determining the propriety of a rate increase.
[2] Customers should not be required to pay increased rates to correct defects in a utility system that were known at the time of acquisition.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree with the respondent-Commission that the public should not be compelled to pay increased rates because of an inefficient system. Sections 367.081(2) and 367.111(2), Florida Statutes, authorize the Commission to consider the efficiency of the system in determining the propriety of a rate increase.”
Establishes the core holding that system efficiency is a relevant statutory factor in rate increase decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorth Florida Water Company, a subsidiary of Florida Cities Water Company, operated a water system in Jackson County, Florida at a financial loss for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
By petition for writ of certiorari, we are asked to review Order No. 5853 of the Florida Public Service Commission denying a rate increase to North Florida Water Company.1
Petitioner, North Florida Water Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Florida Cities Water Company, filed an application for a water rate increase in Jackson County, Florida. The company has been operating at a financial loss for several years. The respondent-Commission, through its examiner, held a public hearing in Marian-na, Florida, on October 16, 1972. Contrary to the examiner’s recommendation that petitioner be granted the requested utility rate increase, the Commission denied the increase on the ground that petitioner’s water system was inefficient. More specifically, the Commission found that the system contained leaks, that 34.4% of the water pumped was unaccounted for, and that a significant number of meters were stalled and not recording. The Commission also found that Florida Cities Water Company had acquired North Florida Water Company with full knowledge of these and other system defects and that North Florida Water Company’s customers should not be required to bear the cost of correcting these defects.
We agree with the respondent-Commission that the public should not be compelled to pay increased rates because of an inefficient system. Sections 367.081(2) and 367.111(2), Florida Statutes, authorize the Commission to consider the efficiency of the system in determining the propriety of a rate increase. While Section 366.041, Florida Statutes, provides that no public utility shall be denied a reasonable rate of return, it in no manner compels the Commission to grant a rate increase where the applicant’s existing service is shown to be inefficient. See United Telephone Company of Florida v. Mayo, 215 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1968).
Our holding in Askew v. Bevis, 283 So. 2d 337 (Fla.1973), decided subsequent to the United Telephone Company case, is not controlling. In Askew v. Bevis, supra, we upheld a Commission order granting the utility a rate increase under bond pending improvement of the applicant utility’s service defects. Those circumstances are not present in the case at bar. To hold that Askew v. Bevis, supra, inflexibly mandates a “fair return” increase no matter how extensive the applicant utility’s service defects, would be improper and contrary to statutory guidelines.
The fixing of public utility rates necessarily involves a balancing of the public’s interest in withholding rate relief because of inadequate service and the utility’s interest in obtaining rate increases to finance its necessary service improvement program. The Commission in the instant case found the former interest to be predominant. From our examination of the record, we find the Commission order to be supported by competent substantial evidence.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., Art V, § 3(b) (3).
. For a full discussion of Commission Order No. 5618, the order reviewed in Askew v. Bevis, see Re Florida Telephone Company, 98 PUR.3d 70 (1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Water & Utils., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Envirmonental Quality Control Bd., 46 Fla. Supp. 59 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)…otherwise justified, without depriving a utility of its constitutional protections of “property” and “due process of law.” United Telephone Co. of Florida v. Mayo, supra; Askew v. Bevis, 283 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1973); North Florida Water Co. v. Bevis, 302 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1974). Petitioner contends, however, that failure to allow consideration of any other factor at the initial step in rate proceedings is a denial of due process of law. •Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. It ignores the fact that the ele…
Authorities Cited
- United Tel. Co. OF Fla. v. Mayo, 215 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1968)
- Reubin O'D Askew v. Bevis, 283 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1973)