Court Opinion

ID: 9691247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:18:50.60171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:14.045661
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting in part).
While I agree with most of the majority opinion, I dissent concerning the continuance of an unfair interim rate for users who are already over-assessed. While I agree in general that the 1982 statute allows across-the-board interim increases, it is also clear to me that the statutes contemplate a variance to that approach in special circumstances.1 This case poses such a special circumstance because if existing rates are already adequate or more than adequate for a group of users, any increase for that group, even on an interim basis, is unreasonable and unfair. See Minn.Stat. § 216B.03 (1984). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ought not to increase interim rates across the board if such a method exacerbates an already imbalanced rate structure.
Concerning the refund policy, I believe that a user who has been charged an unfair rate during an interim period should receive most or all of the refund. This proposition raises two additional issues: First, does the statute indicate that the rates are prospective only? To this question, there are three possible answers:
1. The statute should be interpreted to allow the new rates to be set retroactively as of the date of the application since MPUC based its decision on information filed at that time. Perhaps all rates should be effective as of that date.
2. If the new rates indicate that some users were unfairly charged during the interim period, it is a due process requirement that they be given the bulk of the *910refund, i.e., that their refund be gauged to the unfair or excessive rates they were charged.
3. Finally, MPUC could adjust the interim rates at the time of the application on the basis of the exigency clauses in Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.16, 237.075.
The second issue is whether the permanent rates that are established after hearing should, in effect, be rolled back to the date of the application. I would answer that perhaps a user who has been overcharged during an interim period should have his rates temporarily reduced to make up for the overpayments.

. Minn.Stat. § 216B.16, subd. 3 (1984) provides:
Interim rates. Notwithstanding any order of suspension of a proposed increase in rates, the commission shall order an interim rate schedule into effect not later than 60 days after the initial filing date. * * * Unless the commission finds that exigent circumstances exist, the interim rate schedule shall be calculated using the proposed test year cost of capital, rate base, and expenses, except that it shall include: (1) a rate of return on common equity for the utility equal to that authorized by the commission in the utility’s most recent rate proceeding; (2) rate base or expense items the same in nature and kind as those allowed by a currently effective order of the commission in the utility’s most recent rate proceeding; and (3) no change in the existing rate design. In the case of a utility which has not been subject to a prior commission determination, the commission shall base the interim rate schedule on its most recent determination concerning a similar utility.
(Emphasis added). Minn.Stat. § 237.075, subd. 3. governing telephone companies, includes virtually identical language.