37 A.3d 114
R.I.2012Background
- Portsmouth Water and Fire District petitions for certiorari to review PUC docket No. 4025.
- Portsmouth challenges PUC’s dismissal of Newport Water’s obligation to repay $1,584,171 to the City.
- Settlement in 3578 allowed Newport Water to repay $2.5 million to the City and limited future borrowing in a specified period.
- In 3818 the PUC ordered repayment of $1,584,171 to the City but allowed it to be paid from savings not in the revenue requirement.
- In 4025 Newport Water sought a rate increase; the PUC addressed the prior repayment issue without detailed findings on savings.
- The Supreme Court vacates docket No. 4025’s order in part and remands for more explicit factual findings on savings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3818 required repayment from savings not in the revenue requirement | Portsmouth argues 3818 barred using revenue- included funds for repayment | Newport Water contends 3818 allowed repayment from savings, not necessarily tied to the revenue requirement | Remand; court vacates due to insufficient findings and requires explicit factual support |
| Whether the PUC’s interpretation of 3818 was lawful and reasonable | Portsmouth contends PUC misread its prior order | Newport Water asserts proper interpretation given the record | Lawful/reasonable standard applied on de novo review; remand for clearer findings |
| Whether Newport Water complied with 3818 as to offsetting repayment by efficiencies | Portsmouth asserts no valid efficiencies-based savings were shown | Newport Water contends efficiencies existed (quarterly billing, radio reads) | Findings insufficient; vacate to require more precise evidence of savings not used for revenue requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 116 R.I. 356 (R.I. 1976) (PUC orders have the force of statutes)
- In re Kent County Water Authority Change Rate Schedules, 996 A.2d 123 (R.I. 2010) (defer to PUC findings of fact; review for reasonableness)
- City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission, 566 A.2d 1305 (R.I. 1989) (de novo review of questions of law)
- In re Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2011) (pure questions of law reviewed de novo)