Opinion ID: 2102268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retroactive atemaking

Text: Having concluded that the Superior Court properly found that the charges in question qualified as licensing fees, we next address whether DOH's imposition of these fees was tantamount to retroactive ratemaking. The petitioner argues that, absent its initiation of a new rate filing with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in fiscal-year 1996 or later, [6] it lacked sufficient funds to pay DOH's annual license fees for fiscalyears 1994 through 1996. Moreover, petitioner contends that PUC would not allow it to make an abbreviated filing for this purpose. Therefore, petitioner asserts, by requiring it to initiate a costly and time-consuming new PUC rate filing to acquire such past-due funds, DOH has been attempting to compel it to engage in retroactive ratemaking. Respectfully, we disagree with these contentions. Legally competent evidence exists in the record to support the Superior Court's conclusion that DOH was not and is not now forcing petitioner to engage in retroactive ratemaking. DOH always billed petitioner for the annual approval fee in advance of each fiscal year for which petitioner was obliged to obtain DOH's approval to operate its public water-supply system. The mere fact that DOH has continued to demand payment from petitioner of these past-due, multi-year arrearages (now totaling $75,000) does not constitute a coercion of petitioner into retroactive ratemaking. In addition, unrebutted testimony demonstrated that, as a public water authority, petitioner had several options in deciding how to pay the $25,-000 annual approval fee. To do so, it could have used, for example, unrestricted funds contained in its general operating and maintenance accounts, in its operating and maintenance reserves, or in any of its other unrestricted accounts. Moreover, it could have opted to eliminate various other non-mandatory expenditures. Additionally, it could have initiated a new rate filing with PUC that included the license-fee charges, or alternatively, it could have prepared and filed an abbreviated PUC rate filing in an attempt to obtain the necessary funds to pay for these or its other costs. Therefore, because petitioner could have and still may avail itself of various options to obtain the funds necessary to pay these lawfully imposed approval fees, we reject its retroactive-ratemaking contention.