Opinion ID: 1771223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: lost revenues

Text: Of the $9,994,135.00 the Commission allowed the utility to amortize, as storm related expenses, $1,200,713.00 was revenue the utility did not collect when it was unable to provide power to its customers. It is the position of the Company that lost revenue is no less a component of storm damage than is the damage to its physical facilities. Therefore, the utility feels that it should be compensated for service that it never provided. Although no authority is cited by the utility for this proposition, the Commission is in agreement. It should be noted that none of the cases cited herein, which allowed utilities to recover storm related expenses, ever once mentioned, or even alluded to, allowing the utilities to recover for revenue lost during the period when they failed to supply service to customers. A review of the applicable code sections clearly relates that a rate means every charge ... charged or collected by any public utility for any service ... offered by it to the public. ... See Mississippi Code Annotated, § 77-3-3(e) (Supp. 1986). Additionally both Mississippi Code Annotated, § 77-3-39(5), and Mississippi Code Annotated, § 77-3-41 (Supp. 1985), which deal with the Commission's powers to fix rates by order contain the same language to the effect that after a hearing the Commission shall determine and fix by order such rate or rates as will yield a fair return to the public utility for furnishing service to the public. Granting the Company a rate increase for power not delivered in service would require customers who incurred additional expenses because of outage to pay fees in addition to those previously incurred. The Commission does not have the authority to grant a rate increase for power never delivered. It is not necessary to discuss the remaining assignments of error because we reverse and remand for the failure to hold a hearing. Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for a hearing to determine the issues discussed herein in a manner consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.