Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 22 June 1961 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 363 P.2d 326, 40 P.U.R.3d 184 DYKE WATER COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION of the State of California et al., Respondents. S. F. 20479. |
Richard P. Roe, Arcadia, H. O. Van Petten and Frederick L. Simmons, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
William M. Bennett, Chief Counsel, Roderick B. Cassidy, Asst. Chief Counsel, and J. Thomason Phelps, Principal Counsel, San Francisco, for respondents.
Petitioner, a public utility corporation in the water business in Orange County, seeks to obtain an annulment of an order of respondent Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 1756 of the Public Utilities Code. 1
(1) August 6, 1957, petitioner filed an application for authorization to increase its rates charged for water service. The application was amended on October 8, 1957. By such application petitioner sought authority to increase its rates for general flat rate service from a basic amount of $3 per service connection per month to $4.50 and to increase its general metered service rates from $2.50 per meter per month for the first 1,000 cubic feet or less to $3,75, with corresponding increases in the unit quantity rates.
(2) November 1, 1957, a public hearing on the amended application was held at Santa Ana, California.
(3) December 17, 1957, upon the record of the proceedings held November 1, 1957, the commission rendered its Decision No. 56003 (56 P.U.C. 105), making an interim order authorizing petitioner to increase its monthly residential flat rate from $3 to $3.75, with corresponding increases in the rates and charges in petitioner's general metered service schedule, pending final determination of the application.
(4) From December 26, 1957, through May 8, 1959, public hearings on the application for authorization to increase rates and an investigation on the commission's own motion into the rates, rules, regulations, contracts, operations, and practices pertaining to and involving water main extensions of petitioner were held at various times.
(5) May 5, 1959, petitioner filed a petition for a proposed report pursuant to Rule 69 of the commission's Rules of Procedure.
(6) May 8, 1959, petitioner moved for a supplemental hearing to determine whether the commission would consider material outside the record in the making of its decision.
(7) May 12, 1959, the commission denied petitioner's motion made May 8, 1959, but granted petitioner's application for a proposed report pursuant to Rule 69.
(8) May 28, 1959, the proposed report of Examiner Stewart C. Warner was filed.
(9) No action was taken by the commission with respect to the proposed report for almost ten months, until an opinion and order, Decision No. 59828, dated March 22, 1960, with an effective date of April 11, 1960, was filed by the commission. 2
(10) March 31, 1960, petitioner filed a petition for a rehearing before the commission, which petition was denied May 9, 1960.
These questions are presented for our determination:
First. Was the order to install meters beyond the jurisdiction of the commission?
No. Section 761 of the Public Utilities Code reads:
Section 770 of said code reads: 'The commission may after hearing:
'(a) Ascertain and fix just and reasonable standards, classifications, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by all electrical, gas, water, and heat corporations.
'(b) Ascertain and fix adequate and serviceable standards for the measurement of quantity, quality, pressure, initial voltage, or other condition pertaining to the supply of the product, commodity, or service furnished or rendered by any such public utility.
'(c) Prescribe reasonable regulations for the examination and testing of such product, commodity, or service and for the measurement thereof.
'(d) Establish reasonable rules, specifications, and standards to secure the accuracy of all meters and appliances for measurements.
'(e) Provide for the examination and testing of any and all appliances used for the measurement of any product commodity, or service of any such public utility.'
In Title Guarantee, etc., Co. v. Railroad Commission, 168 Cal. 295, 302, 142 P. 878, it was held that a city vested with regulatory powers over water companies in existence prior to the passage of the Public Utilities Act had the power to require them to install meters at their own expense, the requirement that meters be used being an incident of the rate-fixing process.
It is clear from the above-quoted sections of the Public Utilities Code that the Legislature intended to, and did, confer upon the commission power to require a public utility to install meters at its own expense. Such a power is necessary and desirable in order to prevent a waste of the product being distributed and discrimination between consumers.
Second. Was the commission's order directing the installation of meters unreasonable?
No. In the present case the commission ordered as follows: '4. b. Dyke Water Company shall immediately institute a metering program and shall install, so as to permanently convert from flat rate to metered service, not less than 400 meters per month, in addition to metering all new service connections, until all residential and other general service connections shall have been metered; and
Several years before, in a prior decision, No. 53858, reported at 55 P.U.C. 235, issued on October 1, 1956, in which petitioner was granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing water service in an extensive area in Orange County, the commission had ordered petitioner to install meters in the following language:
There was good reason for this order. As early as July 7, 1954, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District:
'Whereas, it has been called to the attention of the members of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District that a wasteful usage of water is occurring in many of the residential sections located within the Orange County Water District; and
'Whereas, analysis of this situation indicates that most of this wasteful usage of water prevails in areas where water is being served to the individual users on a 'flat rate' basis; and
'Whereas, one of the powers of the Orange County Water District as defined in Paragraph 6 of Section 2 of the OCWD Act as amended reads as follows: 'For the common benefit of said district, to store water in underground water basins or reservoirs within or outside of said district, to appropriate and acquire water and water rights within or outside of said district, to import water into said district, and to conserve water within or outside of said district';
'Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Secretary Manager be and he is hereby authorized and requested to bring this matter to the attention of the Public Utilities Commission, and request said Commission to do all within its power to require compliance of all utilities subject to its jurisdiction serving domestic water within the boundaries of the Orange County Water District with the following conditions:
(1) That totalizing water meters be installed on all service connections; and
(2) That applicable rates be established on a volume basis.'
The commission's order to install meters was not challenged by petitioner. On the contrary, petitioner forwarded the following letter to the commission on February 11, 1957: 'Referring to Decision No. 53858 and pursuant to ordering paragraph 1(e), we have had conferences with various meter companies in an effort to determine the cost and expense for metering.
'Proposals have been submitted to one meter company and if accepted we will be able to commence some of the installations within six months.
'Will keep you advised as to our progress.'
Other portions of Decision No. 53858, however, and certain related decisions, were challenged by petitioner in petitions for writs of review addressed to this court on March 18, 1957, in S.F. 19657-19660. Nowhere in these petitions 3 was any question raised with respect to the lawfulness or reasonableness of the commission's order to install meters.
On the contrary, petitioner continued to represent to the commission that meters were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Los Angeles v. Public Utilities Com.
...is not constitutionally mandated. (Cf. 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1970 Supp.) p. 332; Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 105, 14 Cal.Rptr. 310, 363 P.2d 326, cert. den. 368 U.S. 939, 82 S.Ct. 380, 7 L.Ed.2d 338.)40 In its opinion on denial of rehearing in th......
-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
...& Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm. (1950) 34 Cal.2d 822, 825 fn., 826, 832, 215 P.2d 441; Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Comm. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 105, 129, 14 Cal.Rptr. 310, 363 P.2d 326.) Further, the primary purpose of the Public Utilities Act is to insure the public adequate service ......
-
Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian
...the commission's implied authority to grant interim increases has long been recognized. (See Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilites Com. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 105, 110, 14 Cal.Rptr. 310, 363 P.2d 326; Saunby v. Railroad Commission (1923) 191 Cal. 226, 230, 215 P. 904.)17 Proposition 103 provides that......
-
Davis v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
...the California Public Utilities Commission and, therefore, have “the force ... of a statute.” (Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 105, 123, 14 Cal.Rptr. 310, 363 P.2d 326 ; accord, Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1018, 7......
-
The Filed Rate Doctrine
...In other states, however, the tariff will have the force and effect of a statute. See, e.g., Dyke Water Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 56 Cal.2d 105, 123 Implementing the filed rate doctrine, courts have limited the liability of a public utility for simple negligence whose tariffs contain li......