Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
| Decision Date | 23 December 1977 |
| Parties | MECHANIC FALLS WATER COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. CARIBOU WATER WORKS CORPORATION v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. ELLSWORTH WATER COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. WASHBURN WATER COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. FORT KENT WATER COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Verrill & Dana by Roger A. Putnam (orally), Robert A. Moore, John R. McKernan, Jr., Portland, for plaintiffs.
Thomas R. Gibbon (orally), Horace S. Libby, Frederick S. Samp, Public Utilities Comn., Augusta, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, DELAHANTY and GODFREY, JJ.
Mechanic Falls Water Company (Mechanic Falls), Caribou Water Works Corporation (Caribou), Ellsworth Water Company (Ellsworth), Washburn Water Company (Washburn), and Fort Kent Water Company (Fort Kent) have appealed from decisions rendered by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) in their respective utility rate cases. 1 Each company seeks review under 35 M.R.S.A. § 303 (§ 303) 2 and 35 M.R.S.A § 305 (§ 305). 3 Except for the disallowance by the Commission of Ellsworth's standpipe painting expense, we affirm the Commission's decision in each of the above-mentioned rate cases.
Each of the appellant water companies (the Companies) is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Waterworks Corporation (General), which in turn is wholly owned by I.U. International Corporation (I.U.). Between April and September of 1975, each of the Companies filed both a schedule of proposed rates and a petition against itself alleging unreasonable, unjust, inadequate, and unjustly discriminatory rates, tolls, and charges. In each case, the proceedings connected with the proposed rates and the petition were consolidated into one action pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 42(a), 4 which is incorporated by reference into RULE 4.8 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE5 Before the Public Utilities Commission of Maine (Commission Rule 4.8). Pending a final determination, the Commission suspended the proposed rates of each company as permitted under 35 M.R.S.A. § 69 (§ 69) for an initial three-month period and then for an additional five months.
Because of the common corporate structure, many of the issues that would have to be determined in order to establish just and reasonable rates for one utility involved questions of fact and law shared by the Companies. In order to reduce the cost and delay that would be incurred were there to be a separate proceeding for each utility, the Commission ordered that the cases be consolidated for a common hearing and decision on certain consolidated issues. 6 Consolidated hearings were held in the latter part of 1975 and continued into January of 1976. On January 26, 1976, the Commission issued its Consolidated Decree which contained general findings of fact and conclusions of law applicable to the Companies. In addition, the Commission held separate hearings in each of the rate cases on the non-consolidated questions. The Commission issued separate decrees, as more fully elaborated below, on these issues and incorporated and applied the decision in the Consolidated Decree to the financial requirements of each utility.
The Commission argues that the § 303 appeals of Mechanic Falls, Ellsworth, and Fort Kent should be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal in each case.
In the Mechanic Falls rate case, the Commission issued an initial decree on January 21, 1976, following an eight-month suspension period, in which it disallowed the company's proposed rates as filed and authorized Mechanic Falls to file a new schedule of rates, tolls, and charges designed to generate $65,864 of water revenues annually. The following day, this decree was rescinded and Supplemental Order No. 1 was issued changing the revenue limit to $68,684 annually.
On January 26, 1976, the Commission issued its Consolidated Decree.
On February 5, 1976, Supplemental Order No. 1 was rescinded and replaced by Supplemental Order No. 2. Incorporating the findings of the Consolidated Decree, the Commission authorized Mechanic Falls to file a substituted rate schedule which would produce $72,109 annually.
On February 12, 1976, the Companies filed with the Commission a "Petition for Reconsideration, Rehearing and Reopening of Decision Regarding Consolidated Issues" (Petition for Reconsideration). This petition sought to reopen the record on the ground that the Commission staff had, in violation of the Companies' due process rights, participated in the rendering of the Consolidated Decree.
On February 26, 1976, the Commission issued Supplemental Decree No. 3 approving the revised rates filed on February 9, 1976 and ordering these rates to become effective January 29, 1976.
On March 3, 1976, the Commission issued its order denying the Petition for Reconsideration (Order of Denial). Certain factual findings which had been requested by the Companies were incorporated in the Order of Denial.
On April 1, 1976, the Commission received from Mechanic Falls a notice of appeal from six different Commission decrees: the initial decree of January 21, 1976, Supplemental Order No. 1, the Consolidated Decree, Supplemental Order No. 2, Supplemental Decree No. 3, and the Order of Denial. Also on April 1, 1976, the Commission received a complaint filed by the company pursuant to § 305 alleging, inter alia, constitutionally impermissible confiscation of the company's property.
In the Ellsworth rate case, the Commission issued an initial decree on February 27, 1976 setting Ellsworth's revenue limit. Using figures from the Consolidated Decree, the Commission disallowed the proposed rates as filed and authorized Ellsworth to file a new schedule of rates designed to generate $182,623 of water revenues annually.
Pursuant to this decree, Ellsworth filed a revised schedule of rates on March 8, 1976. In its Supplemental Decree No. 1, issued March 11, 1976, the Commission approved these rates.
On April 1, 1976, the Commission received Ellsworth's notice of appeal from the Consolidated Decree, the February 27, 1976 initial decree, the Order of Denial, and Supplemental Decree No. 1. On April 2, 1976, Ellsworth filed a § 305 complaint alleging that the various actions of the Commission had resulted in deprivation of its constitutional rights.
In the Fort Kent rate case, the Commission issued a decree dated April 26, 1976 in which it disapproved Fort Kent's proposed rates and ordered that the old rates were just and reasonable and should remain in effect. The Commission subsequently granted Fort Kent's motion of May 14, 1976 to reconsider the April 26 decree. After further hearing, the Commission on April 6, 1977 found the company's allegations in the motion to be without merit and reaffirmed the reasonableness of the April 26, 1976 decree.
On May 6, 1977, Fort Kent filed a notice of appeal under § 303 from the Consolidated Decree, the Order of Denial, the April 26, 1976 Commission decree, and the April 6, 1977 Order on Reconsideration. On the same day, it filed its § 305 complaint.
The Commission alleges that all three utilities failed to file timely appeals. As to Mechanic Falls, the Commission alleges that its notice of appeal of April 1 was timely only as to the March 3 Order of Denial. However, it urges us not even to review this order because the denial of a petition for reconsideration is not a "final decision" which can be appealed.
Under 35 M.R.S.A. § 303, an appeal from a final decision of the Commission may be taken to the Law Court on questions of law in the same manner as an appeal from a civil judgment of the Superior Court. Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court are prescribed by M.R.Civ.P. 73 which provides in pertinent part:
The time within which an appeal may be taken shall be 30 days from the entry of the judgment appealed from . . . . The running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion made pursuant to any of the rules hereinafter enumerated, and the full time for appeal fixed in this subdivision commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a timely motion under such rules: granting or denying a motion for judgment under Rule 50(b); or making findings of fact or conclusions of law as requested under Rule 52(a); or granting or denying a motion under Rule 52(b) to amend or make additional findings of fact, whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required if the motion is granted; or granting or denying a motion under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; or denying a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. (emphasis added).
A necessary first step in analyzing whether Mechanic Falls' appeal was timely is to determine when the "entry of judgment" occurred for a timely appeal can be made only within thirty days from a final decision unless one of the tolling provisions of Rule 73 is applicable.
A final decision is one which "fully decides and disposes of the whole cause leaving no further questions for the future consideration and judgment of the Court . . . ." Hazzard v. Westview Golf Club, Inc., Me., 217 A.2d 217, 222 (1966). The final decision requirement is equally applicable to administrative decrees, Sawin v. Town of Winslow, Me., 253 A.2d 694, 698 (1969), and is a statutory prerequisite under § 303.
It is clear that the January 26 Consolidated Decree was not a final judgment. It decided some general questions of law and fact that were common to all of the Companies, but it did not resolve any of the rate cases in the sense of approving of a particular schedule. That it may have indicated what the Commission would do in the future with respect to Mechanic Falls' pending rates is not sufficient to transform the Consolidated Decree into a final judgment. Public Utilities Commission v. Saco River Telegraph &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
...to allow a company to recover depreciation accruals on plants in which it has made no investment." (Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (Me.1977) 381 A.2d 1080, 1104; accord State ex rel Martigney Creek Sewer Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.1976) 537 S.W.2d 388, 399......
-
Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., Application of, 6111
...utilities, HRS § 269-16 (1976), and a reviewing court is not empowered to examine the case De novo. See Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 381 A.2d 1080 (Me.1977); Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, Iowa, 190 N.W.2d 583 (1971). In order to preserve ......
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n
...Commission's expert judgment in choosing among various ratemaking techniques or methodologies. See, e.g., Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n, Me., 381 A.2d 1080 (1978); Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 153 Me. 228, 136 A.2d 726 (1957). Because of this limited and......
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
...more recently, in Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, Me., 382 A.2d 302 (1978), and Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, Me., 381 A.2d 1080 (1977). The 1957 Central Maine Power Co. case was decided in the context of federal tax law existing before the......