Hayden Pines Water Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission
723 P.2d 875
Idaho
1986
Check Treatment

*1 Corp., Hayes-Albion v. also Hrab 723 P.2d 875 See (1981). Mich.App. Application N.W.2d In the Matter of the of HAY for DEN PINES WATER COMPANY even if Bank also contends that The Approving an Order Revised Rates finding supports a that a the evidence Charges in the State for Water Service implied-in-fact, that con contract was of Idaho. that a reason require most can tract at given upon discharge, not that the be HAYDEN PINES WATER just The discharge good cause. be COMPANY, Appellant, Tous Bank’s contention undercut noted: saint. the Toussaint As court promise employment terminate “A The Idaho PUBLIC UTILITIES illusory COMMISSION, if the em cause Respondent. permitted to be the sole ployer were No. 16104. propriety arbiter of the judge and final Supreme of Idaho. Court discharge.” Mich. at at district court’s sub N.W.2d 895. July 1986. jury of issue of wheth mission to the discharged for cause er Wiskotoni was Id at of Toussaint. proper in

621-23, 292 N.W.2d at Wiskotoni, 716 F.2d majority is un-

Finally, my view the holding Aleg- pinning its on Mr. realistic in “authority loans of ria’s to make unsecured $15,000.00 upof up to and secured loans $25,000.00.” are never made Secured loans security, and the

to the full value risk money hardly be to be at can said depositors. either stockholders or loans, Moreover, matter of secured as a knowledge, general practice general seldom, ever, ap- if an are made without And, if a praisal first in the file. bank $15,000.00, it loans of will makes unsecured customer, money good to a addition, exam- seldom be at risk. bank will be iners a bank’s own auditors checking guard against a periodically away Manager giving good Assistant money. majority errs in decid- bank's reed, and is issue on such a slim clearly usurping the function of guilty of jury. the demanded *2 Richards,

Morgan (argued), Jr. W. Moffatt, Thomas, Larry Spurgeon D. Chartered, Boise, Blanton, Barrett & appellant. Gen., Jones, Peter Atty. Jason

Jim (argued), Richardson, Atty. Deputy Gen. Boise, respondent.

BISTLINE, Justice. Company, a

Hayden Pines Water d’Alene, Idaho, serving near Coeur an area issued the Ida- orders appeals from two (Commis- ho Public Utilities sion), portion of the rate eliminated a Pines, denied base of portion of the rate on that Pines’ return any depreci- base, Hayden Pines and denied portion of the regard to that with ation its action based base. Hayden Pines’ rate to reduce a decision fees and meter by certain connection ap- has Hayden Pines charges. installation No. 19493 pealed from devel- As will be and Order orders, but allow these set aside oped, we devel- option of further the Commission with in connection record oping the appeal. on this issues raised

BACKGROUND I. Hayden Pines’ controversy concerns of, kinds of of, two

accounting “hook-up” or “con- first kind fees. fact, charged cus- reduction rate base is not a fees—those to new nection” claims, connecting Hayden Pines but is an issue on privilege with tomers for appeal. system. The second is “meter the water charges” obviously, those — replies a four-part with charged for the installation to customers argument: when meters. Both are collected water First, past ... *3 buildings are or constructed. new houses Hayden only has not allowed Pines but Hayden in case bears

The on also other utilities to treat meter installa- hookup a a charges defined fees as reduc- Pines’ base. This Court has tion and rate require- revenue utility’s base as: tion the authorized rate Second, ment. ... the Internal Revenue depreciation of all original cost minus the the prefers Service utilities treat in by utility property justifiably used fees reduction in the aforementioned as a customers. Util providing services to its requirement of current revenue the utili- charge ities customers are allowed Third, ty. the Commission staff itself yield percent a certain rates using proposed continue meter fees as invest age utility’s on the total return utility’s a revenue re- reduction larger utility’s rate ment. quirement in which is this case base, can rates utilities Finally, is no appeal. ... there charge to customers. Citizens Utilities System of Accounts for Uniform Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commis require Utilities does Small Water 110, 115 sion, 579 P.2d fees the treatment meter installation (1978). as contributions aid of construction. Initially, expenses material labor approach Either be used. relating to connections and meter installa- parties agree The Commission tions increases the utili- are booked as utility prospectively can order the to use ty’s parties disagree on rate base. The accounting method the other. one or proper what means of account- constitutes ing fees received connections types Hayden Pines booked both of fees Hayden installations. (reduction require- as income of revenue ways states that there are two to account ment) up No. 15996 Novem- to the Order They for or book these fees. can be treat- date, After that ber 1980. (also ed as rate either reduction of as connection fees reduction booked in aid of construc- termed “contribution base, to book meter rate but continued tion”) (also as income called “reduction or until the installation fees income Com- requirement”). in the The current revenue parties of 1985. The dis- mission’s Order expenses latter method results in the (1) pertained No. 15996 pute whether Order and of meter re- connection installation prior during 1980 to No- to fees collected base, reducing the maining in the rate but 21st, Order No. vember whether requirement. revenue consistent order, “[T]he re- 15996 or an earlier Pines, method,” use of states one Hayden Pines meter instal- quired to book a adversely “will not affect or base. Both reduction of rate lation ratepayers.” resolved disputes of these Commission against Hayden Pines. affirmatively and plant The invest- states Commission essentially They are the issues before us on ment included the rate base when appeal. funds, utility invests not those its own pays ratepayers. ratepayer a is- Where The Commission addressed two connection, Order Nos. 19493 and the cost installation its 1985 sues ultimately in aid of Pines filed what that amount is contribution construction, application with the which reduces the rate base. an amended became charges a utili- for revised rates The states that whether area ty with no for its entire service can book such fees as income order, (of Commission’s first No. 19493 found 1980) der No. 15996 November Company’s proposed that “the failing must be to book its connection fees of 1980 improper due to reduced book- as contributions in aid of construction charges. of meter (which base) reduces the rate rather than including Company has been meter installa- Second, as income. the Commission found in its tion costs rate base since 1980. The the 1980 meter installation fees also Company specifically was ordered not to do should be booked as contributions for the 15996____” so in ... Order No. pertained same reasons as to the 1981-85 meter installation fees. The Commission rehearing granted, resulting in A concluded types that since both of fees order, Order No. 19773. In that the Com- contributions, should have been booked as mission conceded that Order No. 15996 did distinguishing between them was irrele- costs, not refer to meter installation but vant. determined that reduction of rate base *4 proper. The Commission relied on the following language in 1977 Order No. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 13088: original jurisdic This Court has FEES: HOOK UP appeals tion over from orders of the Com Const, per Hookup $150 9; mission. Idaho art I.C. § Installation, to cover per Meter 61-627. The standard of review for

$250 § meter box and 61-629,1 cost these orders is addressed in I.C. § of of inches). (Emphasis provides: added which fA 19773].) Order No. [in ap- 61-629. Matters reviewable on meaning peal Judgment.— The Commission found “the clear of —Extent review — phrase [emphasized] of the is that the Com- No new or additional evidence be pany Court, not add to its rate base the amount of Supreme in the introduced but the its customers contribution received appeal shall heard on the record of the from (Empha- for the installation of a matter.” it. The re- by commission as certified original.) The found that sis appeal view shall not be extended on only prospective its decision would have than to determine whether the Company’s Finally, effect on the rates. regularly pursued commission has its the Commission corrected a mathematical authority, including a determination adjust- error on the amount of the rate appealed whether the order vio- of ment. any right appellant the under lates of the United States or the constitution separately addressed of Idaho. Upon hearing the state the issue of for 1980’s meter in- of Supreme judgment, shall enter Court charges stallation and connection fees. setting affirming or aside or set- either figure amount collect- —the ting part the order of the com- aside year separat- ed in fees from —was In case the order of the com- mission. ed into fees collected for meter installation part, First, is set aside or set aside mission and for connection. commission, upon own motion or found that Pines had violated Or- by required by party law to be determined Although Ida- are the Commission falls within the (IAPA’s) hearing____” agency opportunity after an for Act’s defi- an (Emphasis ho Administrative Procedure added.)), 67-5201(1) (“ expressly ‘agen- "agency,” the IAPA excludes I.C. § nition of an cy’ board, commission, purview depart- of its section the Commission from the state means each review, ("A 67-5215(a) person judicial by I.C. make rules ment or officer authorized law to cases____” (Empha- all remedies who has exhausted administrative or to determine contested agency aggriev- added.)), ratemaking proceedings and who is available within and the sis involving Hayden an decision in a contested case of the IAPA’s ed a final Pines fall within case,” (2) (“ agency the industrial commission or other than a "contested id. at ‘con- definition of judi- including public is entitled to proceeding, utilities commission but tested case’ means a (Emphasis add- ratemaking licensing, under this act.” cial review ed.)). not restricted to duties, rights, privileges legal of a which the

335 parties, appellant. relief may Court must afford upon any motion of Grindstone, 102 appealed from Idaho or amend the order alter also, e.g., Transpor- Key 807; see P.2d at objections of the court in the to meet tation, Corp., TransMagic Inc. v. Airlines 61-624, prescribed in section Ida- manner added.) P.2d (Emphasis ho Code. (“The ruling this Court has derived From statute appears only when reversed following: to follow the law or has Commission failed limited es- In of this review [as discretion.”). abused its 61-629], has Court tablished I.C. § Insur In the recent case of Idaho State held: Hunnicutt, ance Fund 110 Idaho finding, fact “The Commission is a (1985), this described 715 P.2d 927 Court in quasi-legislative body authorized to compe appropriate test for substantial vestigate determine issues as follows: petition in tent evidence presented by utility’s creased rates. Where its are Local International 1494 of and substan supported City Firefighters v. Association obliged tial evidence this Court is d’Alene, 630, 586 P.2d Coeur 99 Idaho decision.” Boise Water affirm (1978), the test this Court discussed Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities Com determining what sub- constitutes mission, P.2d 97 Idaho judi- purposes stantial evidence 163, 169 (1976); Application agency’s cial an review of administrative of Pacific *5 Co., Telephone Telegraph & 71 Idaho observed: action. We 1024, 476, 480, (1951). 233 P.2d 1026 rule” is said The “substantial evidence Recently, reemphasized Court has this pre- position” “middle which to be a may limited “In review we make. cludes a de novo hearing but which reviewing findings fact we sustain review requires a nonetheless serious a Commission’s determination unless beyond the ascertain- goes mere weight appears that the clear of the evi- Id. at procedural regularity. ment of against dence is its conclusion or that the 633, P.2d at 1349. 586 strong persuasive is evidence mere requires than a Such a review more the Commission abused discretion.” support of evidence “scintilla” Sugar Utah-Idaho v. Intermountain determination, 634, 586 id. at agency’s Co., 368, 376, Gas 100 Idaho 597 P.2d 1350, though “something less P.2d at 1058, (1979). 1066 of the evidence.” Con weight than upon our must be the evi- focus FMC, 607, S.Ct. solo v. 383 U.S. 620 [86 presented dence to the Commission. (1966). 1018, 1026, “Put If L.Ed.2d 16 131] competent and the evidence is substan- wrote, “the substantial simply,” we [com made findings tial in requires a court petent] rule evidence there no clear has been abuse find of to agency’s] determine ‘whether [the discretion, is this Court constrained Davis, 4 ings fact are reasonable.’ Grindstone findings. those at Law Text 29.01-02 Administrative affirm Butte Mutual v. Pub- Co. Idaho Canal 1494, supra, 99 Idaho Local 525-530.” Commission, 102 Idaho 175, lic Utilities 634, P.2d at 1350.... at 586 178, 804, (emphasis 627 P.2d 807 find- deciding agency’s whether Power Co. v. Ida- added); see also Idaho reasonable, reviewing ings fact were Commission, 108 ho Public Utilities side of not “read one courts should 707, (1985). 943, 945, P.2d 709 703 and, they any evidence if find the case action there,” the administrative findings sustain Conversely, of the Com- if the contrary. record to the ignore supported are substantial mission not N.L.R.B.], [Corp. v. Camera Universal or the Commission clearly abused its discretion, then supra, 340 U.S. [474] at 481 [71 S.Ct. 456 461, 456]; quoted Corp. in Local Water at 95 L.Ed. v. Idaho Public Utilities 1494, supra, 99 Idaho at 634, Commission, 586 P.2d at 97 Idaho 555 P.2d Certainly reviewing courts should (1976) (“What is essential are suf- “displace [agency’s] not choice be- permit ficient reviewing fairly conflicting views, tween two even court to determine that the Commission has though justifiably the court would have non-arbitrarily.”). acted As with referenc- made a different choice had the matter incompetent material, es to or irrelevant been before it de novo.” Universal the inadequacy of the record must be such Camera, supra, at 488 U.S. S.Ct. [71 that, depending resolution, agen- on its Nevertheless, 465]____ reviewing at cy might have reached a different result. courts should evaluate whether “the evi- Project Agricultural Salt River Improve- supporting dence that decision re- [under States, ment and Power Dist. v. United substantial, is when viewed view] (D.C.Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1060 n. 8 entirety the record in its fur- (“Under doctrine, the Chenery an ‘[w]hen nishes, including body of evidence administrative decision is based on inade- view.” Uni- opposed [agency’s] quate improper grounds, reviewing Camera, supra, versal U.S. presume [agency] court not quoted 465]; in Local S.Ct. at [71 other, would have made the decision on 99 Idaho at 586 P.2d at grounds.’ omitted.]”). valid [Citations 1350.... guidance, With the above as we now Reviewing courts should automati review the Commission’s orders. cally reject agency finding an of fact that supported by ev “merely agency idence because the also III. THE 1980 AND CONNECTION incidentally incompetent mentions or ir INSTALLATION FEES Airways, relevant material.” Braniff In Order No. CAB, Inc. (D.C.Cir. 379 F.2d regarding following found the the 1980 me- 1967); quoted Sup in Consolidated Gas ter and fees: ply v. Energy Regulatory Federal Com *6 21, 1980, the On November Commis- mission, (D.C.Cir. 606 329 F.2d order, sion issued Order No. 15996. That 1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 1073 S.Ct. [100 below, quoted Company to happens, 62 If this L.Ed.2d 755]. begin booking its connection fees as con- appropriate standard is to remand “[t]he rather than as revenue: tributions only for correction of an error when there is substantial doubt that the admin recommended Staff witness Schunke agency reached the istrative would have treating against connection fees as rev- result it did absent to the ma reference proposed a different sched- enues and Gas, Consolidated terial. [Citations.]” ule of fees. He recommended that 606 F.2d at 329. Id. 110 Idaho at fees be treated as contribu- connection 260-61, 715 (some P.2d at 930-31 citations revenues, tions, rather than because omitted). fees received the amount of connection year vary If year from to too much. addition, where the record is vary significantly from the fees do inadequate permit reviewing court to to year, could dis- year to the variations agency’s determine whether or not an ac operating in- Company’s net tort supported by tion is Company and cause the to show come evidence, fur agency a remand to the Treating sharp changes earnings. development ther of the record fees as contributions will connection required. White v. Alaska Commercial op- Commission, Company’s remove them from Entry Fisheries 678 P.2d prevent erating such Stempel De (Alaska 1984); statement 1322 Resources, agree We with witness partment distortions. Water 82 Wash.2d issue, accordingly see Boise (1973); on this 508 Schunke P.2d 21,1980 Hayden con- date of Company that treat vember the order. order rather nection fees as contributions Pines asserts without that it cannot request revenues. point than rates for 1981-84 to period compensate adjustment case in the current Staff’s resulting and rate lower revenue from the entire amount booked removed accounting fees and 1980 for both meter installation the Commission’s $77,262, amount, fees. present connection This order if the Com- mandates. compo- broken into its cannot be down is not supported by mission’s order sub- is, parts. impossible to nent That it is stantial it did result $77,262 came determine how much of the prejudice to Pines. installation fees and how determine, best we can As Order figure that connec- much of came from ambiguous it No. 15996 is as to whether tion fees. January required the fees collected from witness Miller asserts that Order Staff 21, 1980 to November to be booked 15996 was in time for the No. issued in aid of The contributions construction. Company year-end adjustment to amake Order passage from No. 15996 which the segregating its books meter installa- to quoted, which Commission indicates hook-up properly fees from fees and tion determined that booking hook-up fees as contributions. treat should connection fees as contribu Company practical claims that for tions, specify fails to whether or not those year by the purposes, the 1980 had ended year that date prior fees collected time Order No. 15996 was issued the order should We be so booked. impossible go it was back and that begin Order have reviewed No. 15996 from segregate Compa- charges. two end, including ning page to which argues ny complied with Order us, referred and have been hook-up No. 15996 not to find clear either that unable indication after as revenue that order was issued. prior the fees collected to November find that in clear Company We contributions, or 1980 were to be booked as when it violation after connection fees collected hook-up failed to book its 1980 fees ‘as to be so that date were booked. However, Hay- contributions. since both significant. If ambiguity The factual fees and meter instal- hook-up den Pines’ findings of demon fact were to improperly lation fees were booked for that Order No. did not intend strate year necessary separate it is not ear require the connection fees collected $77,262 find ad- them. We that Staff’s contributions, then the lier to be booked justment proper. for 1980 was have to conclude does (including those fees both connection figure separated cannot be into *7 fees) not now re meter installation should Nor does connection installation fees. Salt Hayden Pines’ duce rate base.3 Cf. Hayden Pines it could have that River, supra, 762 F.2d at 1060-61 n. 8. in its 1980 fees aid booked as contributions in Consequently, applying the substantial 21, of construction after the November test, in- competent evidence the record is order and before December (1) However, permit us to to hold year. Hay its sufficient the end of fiscal finding was rea- on this issue disputes Pines find Commission’s den the Commission’s (2) sonable, insufficiency that the No. them to ing that Order insignificant. This has prior the fees2 to the No- record is Court book collected IV, collectively explained types in we do not find 2. We refer to both fees As will be Part parties they substantial evidence to agree because the cannot findings must al- that these fees separated types. into the two ways of con- be booked contributions in aid struction. is essential are sufficient them as stated: “What contributions. We will discuss permit reviewing argument to in court each turn. that the Commission acted non- determine In Order No. the Commission Water, supra, Boise arbitrarily.” 97 Idaho found that Order No. issued in 840, 555 P.2d at 171. required Hayden had to book meter Pines However, prepared to neither are we installation fees as contributions aid of (i.e., unreasonable hold that the order is construction: unsupported by evi Company has been on notice since [T]he dence). record to Order No. We believe the it its instal- that was book meter (and evidence), perhaps might other charges plant-in- lation as an offset date that order. disclose the effective 13088, (the service. No. Order Commis- Accordingly, aside the decision of we set pioneer setting Hay- sion’s order for on this issue without hold Pines, 1977) stated, April, den issued in invalid, ing is either valid or part: agency for fur remand the decision to the HOOK-UP FEES: pursuant to I.C. 61- ther determinations Hookup Per $150 question of the effective date of 624 on the Installation, to cover Per Meter $250 part No. 15996. pertinent of Order box, cost meter White, Stampel, 1322; supra, 678 P.2d at (%"). (emphasis added). meter 508 P.2d at If the evidence interpretation demonstrates that the agree We with Staff’s did un that, passage underscored ambiguously Hayden Pines to book the above direct Company to credit January was ordered connection fees collected from plant-in-service account through 1980 as contribu its November fees that it tions, amount of meter installation then the result on this issue was plant-in-service Crediting the If cannot deter collects. correct. by the amount account reduces rate base mine the effective date of Order No. did not The Commission The find of the credit. then the result was not correct. phrase, “to cover cost modifying directed add the that Order No. 15996 box, meter” of installation of Pines to book these fees as contributions meaning of The clear gratuitously. unsupported substantial com Company not add to phrase is that the petent and thus invalid.4 re- of contribution rate base the amount customers for the instal- ceived IV. METER INSTALLATION FEES original in (Emphasis a meter. lation of FROM 1981-1984 COLLECTED 19773.) found that reading of Order The Commission’s improperly booked meter installation paren fails to account income No. 13088 from 1981 to 1984 as fees collected provision to limits this thetical which in aid of con- rather than as contributions Meters also come (1) only 3/4-inch meters. argued that it struction. intended with Had this order larger sizes. instructed not to book them never had been meter fees require that all language booking these fees as income and contributions, surely then it be booked proper alternative to as income is then, IV, assuming opposite, the 1980 explained finds the in Part we set aside 4. As will be *8 separated into meter and finding cannot that Order No. the Commission’s fees, required to be booked fees were Hayden all those required meter installa- Pines to book Hay- be on burden would contribution. The as in aid of construction. tion fees as contributions Thus, types distinguish the two between den Pines to that its if the Commission determines Department See Utah in 1980. specify of fees collected not its effective Order No. 15996 did date, Utili- Regulation, Division Public as Business fees as well then the meter installation of of ties v. Public Service Commission, 614 P.2d year that were the connection fees collected 1980). (Utah properly If the Commission booked as income. determine, to we not have included the reference % revenues. as best can would meters. Hayden prejudiced by -inch Pines would be the reducing Commission its rate base apart the from reference to %-inch Even collected, the of the fees it amount since meters, quoted says language only that the recoup accompanying cannot in the loss of the is cover the “cost installa- to $250 during charged future from tion;” rates rates the its it not a face does mandate Finally, particular accounting. period.6 Hayden method of 1981-84 Pines quoted in the Commission Order No. points out and there is no that the language Hayden issue from IRS, “cost” System the of Accounts Uniform for Pines’ own tariff sheets. Pines’ Utilities, and Small Water language President Ford testified that this permitted in past itself the have all utilities to meant refer to the amount or was fees to treat these as income. In of rate the and not to the method of fees we foregoing, the hold that the Commis accounting. quoting When from the tariff finding sion’s that meter installation fees sheets, the itself described Commission (and may as income reduc never booked request a for the them as rates: “With requirement) sup tion of revenue is not sought rates application, Applicant original competent ported by substantial evidence quoting as follows ... [then in the extant record. added.) (Emphasis Pines’ tariff sheets].” holdings our that accordance with the context, lit- appears When viewed in there related to this issue question language tle this not that does lack the of substantial itself constitute an order to book meter part of the Commission's or as in aid of installation fees contributions aside. The Commission is der set not construction. We hold the Commission’s reconsidering precluded from this issue and unsupported by finding contrary to the hearing proceeding pur in a new evidence in ex- evidence (“In record. tant suant I.C. 61-624 61-629 §§ of the commission is set case order and now ar found commission, upon its aside ... own gues that utilities never book such upon any par motion or motion fees, pay utility's “plant,” as ties, may appealed alter or amend the order so, To revenue. do the Commission rea objections in from meet the court sons, would result the cost of 61-624, prescribed the manner section base, “plant” remaining in the rate result Code.”).7 unjustifiably higher rates the rate payers. Hayden responds and there by booking seems no fees V. CONCLUSION income, reduced revenue part pertaining to That of the order fees

requirement concomitantly the rates January 1 to collected from November Further, charged ratepayers.5 Hay 1980 is set aside and remanded den Pines no dis asserts there seems pursuant development of the to I.C. record pute it been book had part pertain- That order 61-624. rather in these fees contributions than fees come, ing to meter installation collected from justifiably requested could have compensate with the rates to for the loss of 1981-84 is set aside Commission argument, recognize derived 5.At oral counsel for the 6. We some this, disputed contending retaining the cost of meter installa- benefit from period properly averaged period of 1981-84. have to be over tions base over However, time. does disclose record not averaging whether to what extent such asked we determine appeal done. Nor does it disclose what would consti- It whether this was frivolous. should be "proper” averaging. tute apparent by do so find it. now that we *9 having option reconsidering controversy that is- be no either this pursuant appeal sue to I.C. 61-624 and 61-629. pro- the first instance or further §§ ceedings present juncture. at the appellant. Costs majority opinion at 337, This Court’s states DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and page 723 P.2d at HUNTLEY, JJ„ concur. Pines asserts without point that it cannot request higher at this SHEPARD, J., concurs in the result. period rates for the of 1981-84 to com- pensate for the lower revenue and rate HUNTLEY, Justice, concurring specially. resulting accounting from the which analysis majority I concur present the order man- have its demonstrating why this case must dates. referred back for and be set aside order if analy- Such would not be true the above However, I in- would proceedings. presented proves sis which I have to be possible to another parties’ attention vite the correct. issue of the effect resolving the basis page 339,723 At page opinion, No. 15996of majority states: particularly I invite the attention of the responds and there seems page parties of the commission to 6 of by booking no the fees as order, figure sets forth a which income, reduced its revenue $74,608 for total water revenues and a requirement concomitantly the rates a rate figure of base. Further, charged ratepayers. attorneys argu- Both admitted at oral Hayden Pines asserts and there seems no they did not know what was ment dispute that had it been to book in each of those numbers. More included these fees as contributions rather than they did not know whether the particularly, income, request- justifiably could have figure up included hook or connec- revenue compensate ed rates to appears or not. It to me from a tion fees Thus, as best we can loss of revenues. figure of the entire record that that view determine, Hayden preju- Pines would be approximates annual revenues exclusive of reducing diced fees, fact, if and if that is the and it is such by the amount of the its rate base figure the further fact that the rate base collected, recoup the ac- since it cannot supplied by capital include items did not companying loss in future rates from customers, then, event, it in that during period. charged the 1981-84 rates presents perfectly clear that the 1980 order Again, that assertion even appeal should and this problems no genesis if the necessarily be true would not us: be before figure and the rate base of the revenue words, to me to In other it would seem suspect. figure is as I totally that the commission inconsistent any- done entering the order would have from the thing than exclude the fees other supplied figure and the customer

revenue done the rate base—to have assets from have made the order inter- otherwise would nally inconsistent. suspicion if the

Accordingly, my it is simply parties and the would commission case of the 1980 reexamine the evidence numbers, supports those two settled because there case could be