Title: In re Green Mountain Power Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_GREEN_MOUNTAIN_POWER_CORP.92-353; 162 Vt. 378; 648 A.2d 374

[Opinion Filed April 22, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied July 18, 1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 92-353


 In re Green Mountain Power Corp.             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Public Service Board

                                              February Term, 1993


 Richard H. Cowart, Chair


 Robert V. Simpson, Jr., Montpelier, for appellant Department of Public
    Service

 Christopher L. Dutton, Karen Krug O'Neill, Michael H. Lipson, and Michael A.
    Murphy, Burlington, for appellee and cross-appellant Green Mountain
    Power Corporation

 Harriet Ann King of King and King, Waitsfield, for amicus curiae Vermont
    Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned


      MORSE, J.   The Department of Public Service (DPS) and Green Mountain
 Power Corporation (GMP) appeal the Public Service Board's approval of a 5.6%
 rate increase for GMP.  GMP had sought a 9.96% increase, while DPS asserted
 that only a 2.65% increase was justified.  DPS claims that the Board erred
 by declining to reduce GMP's rate base to account for: (1) interim year
 accumulated depreciation on GMP's test year plant, and (2) certain projected
 operating expenses of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation that would be
 passed on to GMP ratepayers.  On cross-appeal, GMP contends that the Board:
 (1) erred by rejecting GMP's proposed 5.5% salary increase for officers and

 

 other employees exempt from the company's collective bargaining agreement,
 and (2) engaged in unlawful retroactive ratemaking by reducing GMP's rate
 base to credit ratepayers for excess amortization expenses paid under a
 previous rate.  We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
                            I. Standard of Review
      At the outset, we acknowledge this Court's deferential standard of
 review in appeals from the Public Service Board.  Orders issued by the Board
 enjoy a strong presumption of validity.  In re East Georgia Cogeneration
 Ltd. Partnership, 158 Vt. 525, 531, 614 A.2d 799, 803 (1992).  The Board's
 decisions regarding ratemaking "are subject to great deference in this Court
 so long as it can be shown they are directed at proper regulatory
 objectives."  In re Consolidated Rate Appeals of Green Mountain Power Corp.,
 142 Vt. 373, 380,