Duval Utility Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, s. 55723
| Decision Date | 21 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | 56105,Nos. 55723,s. 55723 |
| Citation | 380 So.2d 1028 |
| Parties | DUVAL UTILITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. PASCO WATER AUTHORITY, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. The FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kenneth M. Myers and R. M. C. Rose, of Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin & Richards, Miami, for Duval Utility Co. and Pasco Water Authority, Inc., petitioners.
Leon F. Olmstead, Staff Counsel and Prentice P. Pruitt, Legal Director, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission; and Jack Shreve, Public Counsel and William S. Bilenky, Associate Public Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Citizens of the State of Florida, respondents.
Gary P. Sams, of Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams, Tallahassee, for General Development Utilities, Inc. and Florida Waterworks Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Gerald A. Figurski, County Atty., and Scott L. Knox, Chief Asst. County Atty., Port Richey, for Pasco County, amicus curiae.
These consolidated cases bring to us two orders of the Public Service Commission which condition the right of two utilities to receive service availability charges (commonly known as "connection charges," or contributions in aid of construction) from their customers. Under the commission's orders, the utilities must agree to hold all such charges from company customers solely for the use and benefit of those customers, not only during the course of future rate proceedings but also upon the sale or other disposition of the utilities' properties. The main purpose of the commission's condition for service availability charges is to assure that customers do not have to pay for the system twice upon its sale or condemnation, once through their contributions and a second time through their rates to support the transferee's investment when a sale or condemnation includes contributions. A more complete factual account of the history of this case is helpful to its determination.
The utilities applied to the commission for approval of service availability charges pursuant to section 367.101, Florida Statutes (1977). Appropriate proceedings were conducted by the commission for a determination of the propriety of the proposed charges, after which the commission entered orders approving the requested amount of charges. In those orders, the commission for the first time articulated what it described as "a new approach to the question of customer contributions." The relevant text of one of the orders explains this new approach and its rationale:
We recognize that the customers (be it the developer who builds the service facility or the owner thereof), by payment to the utility of the service availability charges (CIAC) are "purchasing" water and sewer utility service availability. However, CIAC is a contribution to the utility's capital and is so recognized by both State and Federal law. (See 1976 Tax Reform Act, 90 Stat. 1912). So long as the initial utility that receives the CIAC provides the service, the customer receives the benefit of his contributions in the form of lower rates because CIAC is deducted from the company rate base. However, when the utility is sold, whether by condemnation or negotiation, if the seller makes no allowance or price reduction (and they usually do not) for the service facilities financed through customer CIAC, as a result, the CIAC may become investment in the hands of the buyer, which investment must be supported by the rates paid by the customers. This is grossly discriminatory. Systems owned by governmental agencies may be financed either through bonds or by assessments against prospective users, or a combination of both. Thus, the customers who have financed a system in whole or part through CIAC may have to pay for it again through rates or taxes to support bonds sold to buy the system. The same would apply to a sale to another investment-owned company.
We believe that, in accordance with the weight of authority, the profit on the sale of utility assets must, to a degree, inure to the benefit of the customers, and we propose to provide therefor.
To the extent that the customers have borne the burden of providing capital or facilities used to provide the utility service, they should share with the utility owners in the benefits which may result from the sale of those facilities. Therefore, we will require as a condition precedent to the implementation of the proposed service availability policy and increased charges, an agreement by the utility, which will be incorporated in its service availability policy and all developer agreements. The agreement and tariff provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Highway Safety v. Roberts, 5D05-3001.
...County v. Priest, 786 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 807 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2002). 2. Duval Utility Co. v. Florida Public Serv. Comm'n, 380 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980) (quoting De Groot, 95 So.2d at 916); see also C.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 823 So.2d 182, 183 (Fla. 5t......
-
Florida Waterworks Ass'n v. Florida Public Service Com'n
...... such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Duval Utility Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 380 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980) (quoting from De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla.1957)). Although there may be technical di......
-
Carter v. State
...be inferred.’ ” C.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 823 So.2d 182, 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting Duval Util. Co. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 380 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980)). Substantial evidence must be something more than a “mere iota or scintilla,” must have real probative value, and......
-
General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Charlotte County, 92-02206
...equate rate-making with eminent domain as a basis for determining fair market value. 267 So.2d at 640. Cf. Duval Util. Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 380 So.2d 1028 (Fla.1980). Being bound by the clear precedent of General Waterworks, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consist......
-
Striking a balance to win: balancing the need to win the trial with the need to preserve the record on appeal.
...[section]9.3 (4th ed. 2005). (15) Almeida v. State, 748 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1999). (16) Duval Utility Co. v. Fla. Public Service Comm'n, 380 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1980); State Beverage Dep't v. Ernal, Inc., 115 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1959). (17) ELLIGETT & SCHEB, FLORIDA APPELLATE PRACTICE......