TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Public Service Commission has won an appeal that will allow water and sewer rates in the state to be raised.
The three-judge panel with the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed, in part, the request by the commission, Utilities Inc. of Florida (UIF), Summertree Water Alliance and Seminole County's request on March 13.
Representing the commission were attorneys Kathryn G.W. Cowdery, Keith C. Hetrick and Samantha M. Cibula and Martin S. Friedman of Friedman & Friedman.
The Florida Office of Public Counsel (OPC), representing the citizens of Florida, had challenged the lower court ruling that allowed the commission to increase water and wastewater rates sought by UIF.
UIF intends to consolidate the operations of 27 systems in the state.
Judge Scott Makar, affirmed the commission request, except concerning the portion of the dispute addressing prepaid connections, which the appeals judges reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Attorneys James R. Kelly, Patricia Christensen and Virginia Ponder, on behalf of the OPC, argued the OPC was denied due process "because the commission staff failed to act in a neutral manner when it entered evidence provided by its staff that favored UIF over OPC’s objection."
In their argument, the OPC raised three issues, according to court papers: "Whether the commission violated due process by amending UIF’s requested utility plant additions in the rebuttal stage of the proceeding and admitting exhibits offered by its staff over OPC’s objection; whether the commission’s analysis of the Sandalhaven and Lusi wastewater systems departed from the standards for 'used and useful' analysis set forth in Florida statutes; and whether the commission erred by imposing quality of service penalties on individual systems within UIF’s consolidated system despite establishing uniform rates for the 27 systems under UIF’s control."
Makar along with judges Timothy D. Osterhaus and Harvey L. Jay III found that, "our review of the record fails to show that the involvement of the commission’s staff in the ratemaking process in this proceeding amounted to a due process violation. We are not confronted with a situation where a regulatory body has abdicated its responsibility to, or been 'captured' by, its staff to such an extent that its regulatory role has been compromised."
The judges also remanded the previous court's decision regarding prepaid connections. Makar wrote, in part: "We are unable to determine the extent to which the prepaid connections at issue in this case fall within the statutory limits of the 5-year/5-percent law. Nor are we in a position to evaluate how the 5 percent growth limitation is applied to permissible pre-paid connections to prevent a double-counting of growth."