Title: In re Central VT Public Service Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Central Vermont Public Service Corp.  (97-148); 167 Vt. 626; 
711 A.2d 1158

[Filed 20-Mar-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-148

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1997

In re Tariff Filing of Central  }     APPEALED FROM:
Vermont Public Service Corp.    }
                                }
                                }     Public Service Board
                                }
                                }
                                }     DOCKET NO. 5835

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Appellants Philip Goodman and John H. Macomber appeal from a decision
  of the Public Service Board approving the redesign of rates that Central
  Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) charges its customers. 
  Appellants contend that: (1) the decision was not supported by the
  evidence; (2) evidence was improperly admitted; and (3) the decision
  violated the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the United States
  Constitution.  We affirm.

                                     I.

       In May 1995, CVPS filed a proposal with the Board to redesign its
  rates under 30 V.S.A. §§ 218 and 225.  Appellants later received limited
  permission to intervene.  After a number of hearings, CVPS and the
  Department of Public Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
  (MOU) that proposed a comprehensive settlement of issues raised in the
  proceedings.  Among other provisions, the MOU embodied a modification of
  existing rates by providing that short-term residential rentals subject to
  the Vermont Rooms and Meals Tax under 32 V.S.A. § 9202(3) would not be
  eligible for service under the residential rate, but rather would be
  subject to the general service rate.  Following additional evidentiary
  hearings, the Board issued its decision approving those portions of the MOU
  relating to the Company's rate redesign.  This appeal followed.

                                     II.

       We apply a deferential standard of review in appeals from the Public
  Service Board.  See In re Green Mountain Power Corp., 162 Vt. 378, 380,