Keystone Water Co., Inc. v. Bevis, 42853
| Decision Date | 09 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42853,42853 |
| Citation | 278 So.2d 606 |
| Parties | KEYSTONE WATER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John E. Norris, Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for petitioner.
R. M. C. Rose, Tallahasee, for respondents.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Florida Public Service Commission.
Keystone Water Company, Inc., petitioner herein, has applied for an increase in rates and charges for water services to its customers in Clay County. Keystone's water system was built by G. E. Wiggins in 1924. The water company was incorporated by Mr. Wiggins in 1929. Mr. Wiggins is now deceased, but prior to his death, he had given to his five daughters 95% Of the outstanding stock in the corporation. The other 5% Passed to the five daughters equally at Mr. Wiggins' death.
Keystone was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on November 11, 1969, pursuant to the Clay County Commissioners adopting a resolution bringing Keystone under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Mr. Wiggins worked for the corporation for little or no compensation, both prior to and after his gift to the daughters. No compensation is paid to any of the stockholders for their supervisory work, either as officers, directors or employees.
Pursuant to requirements of Statute, an appraisal of the Keystone system was made by an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants. The adjusted value of the Keystone system used and useful in public service as of December 31, 1970, making adjustments for depreciation, additions, and contributions in aid of construction, is $195,134.94. For the fiscal year 1969, the system lost $1,953.16. For the year 1970, it made $1,305.28 profit, for the total compensation of $261.25 to each of the five stockholders.
,On May 6, 1971, Keystone filed its Petition for rate increase, praying for a rate of return of 7.25% On the 'fair value' rate base of $195,134.94. This amount of $195,134.94 is undisputed to be the 'fair value' of the utility as of December 31, 1970, after making all necessary adjustments, in accordance with Section 367.12(2)(a), Florida Statutes, 1969, F.S.A., which Statute was in full force and effect at the time of the making of application for rate increase and at the time of the hearing before the Examiner.
The Examiner's Recommended Order dated October 22, 1971, found that Keystone, which had 502 water customers, had a value of $41,244.00, which he stated was the rate base, and that Keystone should be allowed 10.31% Return on such rate base, which would net the stockholders $4,252.00 per year.
The Hearing Examiner claimed to apply Section 367.12(2)(a), Florida Statutes, 19698 F.S.A., but arrived at the rate base of $41,244.00, which he determined to be the total value of the utility system, based upon the actual cost thereof, less depreciation as shown on the balance sheet of the corporation. These figures were based on actual cost of the materials and labor that went into the system, regardless of whether they were purchased in 1924, or 1970, less the actual depreciation that had accumulated over those years since 1924. The Examiner recommended a rate of 10.31% On such rate base, which would yield $4,252.00 annually.
Exceptions to the Examiner's Recommended Order were promptly taken by Keystone. The cause was argued before the Full Commission on January 24, 1972. By its Order entered August 25, 1972, the Full Commission found that, with regard to value of the system as it affects rates, it was without jurisdiction to set rates based upon any criteria except the actual monetary investment in property used in the waterworks. Thus, the Commission found that the investment was $50,000.00, the amount of the capital stock of the corporation and actual cash equity of the shareholders as shown by the books of the corporation.
The Full Commission allowed a return of 8.5%. Thus, the Full Commission decided that for a 502-customer waterworks, the owners thereof would be entitled to $4,225.00 per year profit, or an average of $8.42 per customer, per year, for customers ranging from small household users to commercial users and schools. This would amount to an average of $.70 per month per customer.
Since there is no compensation made to any of the five stockholders as officers, directors or employees of the corporation, their total annual compensation for their ownership would merely be $850.40 each for a waterworks with a depreciated fair value of $195,134.94, if the Commission's Orders are allowed to stand.
We hereby reverse the decision of the Commission, for reasons which will be set out below.
We differ from the Commission's position in the following respects:
(1) The Statute in force at the time the Application was filed and in force at the time of the hearing in this cause was Section 367.12, Florida Statutes, 1969, F.S.A., which required the Commission to consider the 'fair value' of the utility. The 'fair value' of the utility is undisputed to be $195,134.94;
(2) Even if Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, 1971, F.S.A., was in full force and effect so as to govern this case, the 1971 law requires the Commission to fix rates which are just, reasonable, compensatory, and to consider the value and the quality of the service. This contemplates consideration that the value of the system is $195,134.94;
(3) To ignore the 'fair value' of the utility in setting its rates would be a denial of due process and tantamount to taking of property without just compensation, in violation of Keystone's constitutional rights.
The Commission allowed that the rate base would have been $195,134.94, if the Statute had not been amended in 1971. Under Chapter 367, as it was applicable at the time Keystone became subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the law required the Commission to:
(I)nvestigate and determine the fair value of the utility's property used and useful in the public service. . . . 1
The Commission's Order quotes Section 367.011(4), Florida Statutes, 1971, F.S.A., 2 and concludes that the 1971 law which went into effect September 1, 1971, had retrospective operation and affects all cases upon which the Commission ruled after September 1, 1971, regardless of when the Petition was filed or the case heard.
If the Legislature had intended this to apply to all cases that had been previously filed and heard, it should have so stated.
A Statute is not to be given retrospective application unless it is required by the terms of the Statute or it is unequivocally implied. In re Seven Barrels of Wine. 3
The law is substantive rather than procedural, and the application of Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, 1971, F.S.A., by the Commission, constituted a retrospective application of a Statute dealing with substantive rights.
In establishing rates, the Commission must give consideration to all the standards prescribed by the Statute. Utilities Operating Co. v. King. 4
Even the 1971 Statute requires the rates to be just, reasonable and compensatory, and the Commission is required to consider the value and the quality of the service. The controlling portion of the Statute reads as follows:
5
Even under the changed law, the Legislature intended that the 'value' of the service contemplates a consideration of the fair value of the system that is furnishing the service. Certainly, for example, the commission would not be justified in using a rate base of $10,000.00 if that were the book value of the stock of the corporation.
Failure to establish the rate base upon the 'fair value' of the utility is a denial of Keystone's constitutional rights.
A public utility is entitled to a just compensation, or a fair return on the value of its property used or useful in the public service. Rates fixed by public authorities which are not sufficient to yield a fair or reasonable return to a public utility are unjust, unreasonable, and confiscatory, and their enforcement deprives the public utility company of its property, in violation of the Federal and State Constitution. In this respect, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution safeguard private property against a taking for public use, and neither the nation nor the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...v. Lee , 23 So.2d 575 (Fla.1945); Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., 275 So.2d 521 (Fla.1973); Keystone Water Company v. Bevis, 278 So.2d 606 (Fla.1973); Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park Inc., 361 So.2d 695 (Fla.1978); Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So.2d 40......
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...v. Lee, 23 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1945); Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., 275 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1973); Keystone Water Company v. Bevis, 278 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1973); Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park Inc., 361 So.2d 695 (Fla. 1978); Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So.2d......
-
Bay Farms Corp. v. Great Am. Alliance Ins. Co.
...intended for the 2011 Amendment to apply retroactively, but whether there is clear evidence of such intent. See Keystone Water Co. v. Bevis, 278 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1973) (holding that a statute “is not to be given retrospective application unless it is required by the terms of the Statute ......
-
Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan
...that in the absence of clear legislative expression to the contrary, a law is presumed to operate prospectively. Keystone Water Co. v. Bevis, 278 So.2d 606 (Fla.1973); U.S. v. Donnelly's Estate, 397 U.S. 286, 90 S..ct. 1033, 25 L.Ed.2d 312 (1970); Bruner v. United States, 343 U.S. 112, 72 S......