Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Control Authority, 143947

Citation34 Conn.Supp. 172,382 A.2d 1003
Decision Date05 December 1977
Docket NumberNo. 143947,143947
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Connecticut
PartiesCONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY et al. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES CONTROL AUTHORITY et al.

Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, for plaintiffs.

Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., and Robert S. Golden, Jr., and William B. Gundling, Asst. Attys. Gen., for named defendant.

Robert M. Sussler, New London, for defendants city of Hartford and town of East Lyme.

Alexander A. Goldfarb, Hartford, for defendant Connecticut Citizen Action Group.

Barry S. Zitser, Hartford, for defendant Office of Consumer Counsel.

COVELLO, Judge.

This is an appeal from a rate determination made by the public utilities control authority. On May 20, 1977, the Connecticut Light and Power Company and the Hartford Electric Light Company each filed proposed amendments to their existing electric and gas rate schedules seeking authority to charge rates estimated to generate combined additional revenues of $90,036,000. On October 25, 1977, the authority issued its decisions authorizing the utilities to file schedules which would produce combined additional revenues of $35,033,000. From those decisions the companies filed the present appeal on November 3, 1977.

On November 7, 1977, the companies filed rate schedules designed to implement the $35,033,000 rate increase. Following correction of those schedules on November 22, 1977, the authority, on November 23, 1977, approved the revised schedules of rates and authorized the plaintiffs to begin charging the new rates as of November 28, 1977.

As an incident to the present appeal, the utility companies now move pursuant to § 4-183(c) of the General Statutes for a stay during the pendency of the appeal of so much of the public utilities control authority's decision as "prevent(s) the Companies from charging rates to obtain the full increase of $90 million of revenues provided for in their rate schedule amendments filed with the authority on May 20, 1977 . . . ." A proper determination of this application mandates a review of recent legislative history concerning utility rate making.

As public service companies, the utilities here are subject to regulation under the provisions of title 16 of the General Statutes. Prior to December 1, 1975, § 16-19 thereof authorized the promulgation of an amended rate by simply filing a new schedule. Thereafter, the new rates could be suspended or modified at the option of the then public utilities commission. With reference to that earlier procedure, the Supreme Court observed: "Our law, unlike the public utility laws in many jurisdictions, does not in general condition the establishment of a changed rate schedule by a utility company upon prior approval by the commission. All a company desiring to put into effect a changed rate schedule needs to do in the first instance is to file it with the commission. There is no obligation upon the company to apply to the commission for an order that the effective date of the schedule shall not be suspended, or upon the commission to make an order directing whether or not it shall be suspended, but, unless in the exercise of the power vested in it, expressly made discretionary, it does so order, the schedule becomes effective at the time fixed in it." New Haven v. New Haven Water Co., 132 Conn. 496, 509-10, 45 A.2d 831, 837.

Under the earlier appellate procedure, the appeal to a court from a public utilities commission order suspending or modifying the company-initiated amendment of rates operated, pursuant to § 16-39, as an automatic stay or supersedeas of the commission order being appealed. That, in turn, would result in the new rate spontaneously going into effect unless a court, pursuant to § 16-39, ordered otherwise....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Griffin Hosp. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1985
    ...not allow the collection of a requested increase that has been denied by the agency. See Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Control Authority, 34 Conn.Sup. 172, 175, 382 A.2d 1003 (1977). This feature of rate regulation by that agency is based upon a statutory provision that ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT