Boise Water Corp., Application of

• Decision Date: 23 February 1960
• Docket Number: No. 8755,8755
• Citation: 82 Idaho 81,349 P.2d 711
• Parties: Application of BOISE WATER CORPORATION for Authority to Increase Certain Water Rates.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 711

349 P.2d 711

82 Idaho 81

Application of BOISE WATER CORPORATION for Authority to Increase Certain Water Rates.

No. 8755.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 23, 1960.

Raymond D. Givens, Boise, for appellant Consumers Water corporation.

Carey H. Nixon, Boise, for applicant-respondent.

Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., and William P. Roden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Idaho Public Utilities Commission.

McQUADE, Justice.

Boise Water Corporation made application to the Public Utilities Commission for revised rules and regulations, and revised rates. The Consumers Water Corporation protested the Boise Water Corporation's public Utilities Commission. The protestant asserted the increase should apply only to the lawn sprinkling rates. Based upon its findings, the Public Utilities Commission granted a modified increase in the schedule of rates to the applicant. This appeal is taken from two orders of the Commission granting the revised schedule of rates.

Protestant does not raise issues as to the necessity for modification of the rates, the amount of the plant investment, nor as to the efficiency of the operation of Boise Water Corporation. Objection is made solely to the lawn sprinkling rate in that it is too low, and adversely affects the protestant, which is a supplier of low-pressure water for lawn irrigation to a portion of Boise residents, who are described as about one-third of the population or less.

Protestant urges that its suggested schedule of rates will permit Boise Water Corporation to retain its present rate for domestic water while increasing only the lawn sprinkling rate. By making this type of revision in the rates, the protestant argues that it will procure some of the Boise Water Corporation customers, thereby permitting the protestant profitably to stay in business.

Boise Water Corporation has 17,700 water services to 16,175 customers, and 214 miles of distribution mains. Its source of supply is 15 deep wells having a combined capacity of 20,000,000 gallons per day. It also has a storage system of 8.45 million gallons.

Boise Water Corporation's existing rates at the time of the hearing for domestic use were as follows:

For the first 3,000 cubic feet per month per 100 cubic feet 28

For the next 7,000 cubic feet per month per 100 cubic feet 21cents

For the next 10,000 cubic feet per month per 100 cubic feet 14cents

For all over 20,000 cubic feet per month per 100 cubic feet 10cents

Lawn sprinkling rate was 11 cents per 100 cubic feet.

The Utilities Commission modified the requested schedule of revised rates to produce $99,939 instead of the requested amount of $146,428, part of which was to be derived from the lawn sprinkling rate, increased to 12 cents per 100 cubic feet. The modified domestic use rates are not set out herein, because that schedule is not part of the record here on appeal.

The Boise Water Corporation president stated that in accordance with water business experience the rates and charges are just, fair, reasonable, equitable, and not excessive.

On the other hand, the protestant, in seeking to readjust the rate schedule, proposes that one rate be applied to all water supplied, because investment and operational costs are constant as to all of the water supplied, and rates should be in direct ratio thereto. They argue, further, that a very reasonable sprinkling rate results in an unjustifiable discrimination between users.

The Public Utilities Commission, in its order, found:

'The protestant, Consumer's Water Corporation appeared to protest the proposed increase in all rates except for lawn sprinkling. The protestant is not a customer of the applicant, but is in limited competition with the applicant in the furnishing of water for irrigation purposes. The protestant protested the granting of any increase in the water rates filed by the applicant which are presently in effect except for the increase requested for lawn sprinkling. It is the protestants position that under a cost of service approach the general service rates of the applicant now produce adequate earnings but the lawn sprinkling rates do not.

'Protestant arrived at this conclusion by allocating the costs among the various services on the basis of the usage of water for the year 1957. It was the conclusion of the protestant that if the present lawn sprinkling rate was eliminated then use of a larger quantity of water at the higher domestic rate would provide sufficient revenues. The protestant did not make any adjustment for the decreased revenue that would result if the rate for lawn sprinkling were more than doubled.

'The reduced use of water with such treatment as this, would in our opinion have a serious effect on the revenues of the applicant and could only result in higher rates for all types of service. We cannot find a basis for changing the type of rate now in effect for the applicant in the showing made by the protestant.'

The finding of the Commission in this regard is as follows:

'That there is insufficient evidence before the Commission that the Protestant will be adversely affected by the granting of increased rates as hereinafter ordered.'

This Court has stated, in the case of In re Union Pacific R. Co., 65 Idaho 221, 142 P.2d 575, 578:

'The law is that findings and orders of the Public Utilities Commission, if supported by competent evidence, will be binding upon this court, and they will be reversed only when it is shown the Commission has abused its discretion or failed to follow the law. * * * Boise Artesian Water Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 40 Idaho 690, 236 P. 525; Capital Water Company v. Public Utilities Comm., 44 Idaho 1, 262 P. 863; Nez Perce Roller Mills of Lewiston v. Public Utilities Comm., 54 Idaho 696, 34 P.2d 972; State ex rel. Taylor v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 60 Idaho 185, 89 P.2d 1005; Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Public Service Comm., 102 Utah 465, 132 P.2d 128.'

As to the case at hand, we would have to find that the Commission abused its discretion in establishing the schedule of rates which it has; however, there is sufficient evidence and precedent upon which to base the order.

The Commission had before it evidence from the president of the protestant concerning his interpretation of the water rate manual of the American Waterworks Association, and an interpolation of Boise Water Corporation data in relation to that manual. There may be merit in protestant's urging that the Commission use different formulae for establishing of rates; however, there is an insufficiency in this record to make a detailed examination in relation to the attributes of each formula.

It is the province of the Commission to establish a rate structure and reasonable rates based thereupon. It was stated in the case of Petition of Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 76 Idaho 474, 284 P.2d 681, 685:

'It was entirely within the province of the commission to determine whether the...