Case Title: Greater Livingston Water Co. v. LOUISIANA PS COM'N

Citation: 294 So. 2d 501

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
294 So. 2d 501 (1974) GREATER LIVINGSTON WATER COMPANY v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. No. 53681. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 29, 1974. Rehearing Denied June 7, 1974. Karl W. Cavanaugh, Mellon & Cavanaugh, Denham Springs, for plaintiff-appellant. Marshall B. Brinkley, Gen. Counsel, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee. SANDERS, Chief Justice. The Greater Livingston Water Company initiated these proceedings before the Louisiana Public Service Commission seeking a rate increase. The Commission denied the increase, finding that: The Water Company appealed this decision to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The district court affirmed the order *502 denying an increase in rates, but remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of "legitimate expenses... and whether they can be met by the present rate structure." The Company now appeals to this Court. In rate cases, orders of the Louisiana Public Service Commission are entitled to great weight. They should not be disturbed, absent a clear showing of abuse of power. Monochem, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n, 253 La. 1047, 221 So. 2d 504 (1969); Morehouse Nat. Gas. Co. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Com'n, 245 La. 983, 162 So. 2d 334 (1964); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Com'n, 241 La. 687, 130 So. 2d 652 (1961). In United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Com'n, supra, this Court stated: The main contention of the Water Company in this Court is that the Louisiana Public Service Commission declined to follow the rate base used in Greater Livingston W. Co. v. Louisiana Pub. S. Com'n, 250 La. 77, 193 So. 2d 791 (1967), a previous rate case of the same utility. The Company asserts that this violates the principle of res judicata. In that decision, this Court affirmed a rate increase granted by the district court, stating: The evidence in that case was insufficient to establish actual original costs and the propriety of the denial of the rate increase was tested against the Commission staff's own estimate. As the district judge here pointed out: The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. As Article 2286 of the Louisiana Civil Code specifically provides, "The authority of the thing adjudged takes place only with respect to what was the object of the judgment...." The object of the earlier proceeding was a rate increase. The assumption of a rate base was only an aid in testing the adequacy of the rate. The use of a rate base in this manner does not freeze it for all subsequent rate proceedings of the same public utility. As noted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, there are serious issues of inefficiency, inadequate service, and the legitimate costs of the original facilities. The record is far from adequate to resolve these. In our opinion, the trial judge correctly denied an immediate rate increase. *503 Because of the unsatisfactory state of the record, he did not abuse his discretion in remanding the case to the Louisiana Public Service for additional investigation and evidence. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, denying the rate increase and remanding the case to the Commission for further investigation and evidence, is affirmed at plaintiff's cost.