Case ID: so2d_274/html/0525-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DEKLE, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST FLORIDA UTILITIES, INC., Petitioner, v. Jess YARBOROUGH et al., Respondents.
    No. 43031.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 28, 1973.
    Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.
    B. Kenneth Gatlin and Jack M. Skelding, Jr., of Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Truett & Swedmark, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
    R. M. C. Rose and Raymond E. Vesterby, Tallahassee, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner has asked that we review an order of the Public Service Commission dated October 13, 1972. The Petitioner had previously requested authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month within its Merrit Island sewer system.

In its order, the Commission found that the utility’s service was satisfactory and that it was in need of increased revenue. It therefore granted the Petitioner authority to increase its rates to $7.08 per customer per month as of October 13, 1972, with further authority to increase its rates to $10.92 per customer per month on billings on and after April 1, 1973. Petitioner asserts that it was error for the Commission to delay a portion of the requested rate increase in light of the Commission’s contemporaneous finding that “the proposed rates do not produce sufficient revenue to meet this utility’s expenses. . . .”

The imminency of the April 1, 1973 rate increase considered in relation to the broad discretion exercisable by the Commission in rate determinations, inclines us to the view that no useful purpose would be served by our certiorari intervention in the cause at this time.

Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to further application for a rate increase.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents with Opinion.

DEKLE, Justice

(dissenting) :

It is patent error for a Commission contemporaneously to find that the utility’s proposed rate increase is necessary and past due; that the proposed increased rate does not even produce sufficient revenue to meet the utility’s expenses; and then to defer the application and collection of such increased fee until April 1, 1973. Meanwhile, the utility admittedly continues to lose money contrary to applicable principles and statute. This is clearly error and the cause should be remanded for immediate application of the increase.

The fact that April 1, now the designated (deferred) date of increase, is “imminent” is no justification for delaying application of the newly approved rate even for that brief time. It simply extends the period, which has been running already, during which the utility has been losing money. I would make the rate immediately effective. Utilities Operating Co. v. King, 143 So.2d 854 (Fla.1962).

I must therefore respectfully dissent. 
      
      . Fla.Stat. § 367.081(2) — Guaranteeing fair return on investment.