Total Envtl. Solutions, Inc. v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-UR-00607-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2007-UR-00607-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-26-2008
Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Utility rate - Water service rate - Section 77-3-33(1)
Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): DICKINSON, J.
Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J., without separate written opinion.
Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - UTILITY RATE
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-20-2007
Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court
Judge: Jaye A. Bradley, Sr.
Disposition: The Jackson County Chancery Court affirmed a final order of the Mississippi Public Service Commission regarding an increase in rates for water service provided by Total Environmental Solutions, Inc. in Adams, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties.
Case Number: 2006-1806-JB
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.




 RICKY J. COX, BEN HARRY STONE, LEO ERNEST MANUEL



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VALERIE LYNN CARLISLE  
    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
    Topic: Utility rate - Water service rate - Section 77-3-33(1)
    Summary of the Facts: Total Environmental Solutions, Inc. filed a notice of intent to change its water service rates presently on file with the Mississippi Public Service Commission. TESI requested a flat-rate increase of $26.19 per month, which would bring a residential customer’s monthly water rate from $19.80 to $45.99. They also requested a metered rate increase of $18.59 for the first 2,000 gallons, $2.32 for every 1,000 gallons between 2,001 and 5,000, and $2.66 for every 1,000 gallons over 5,000 gallons, which would bring the metered rates to a total of $32.59, $4.07, and $4.66 respectively. The Commission suspended the filing and requested that the Public Utilities Staff conduct a full investigation of the proposed rates and charges set forth in TESI’s Notice of Intent. As a result of the investigation, the Staff and TESI entered into and filed with the Commission a stipulation altering the amount of the proposed rate increase. The Staff and TESI stipulated and testified at a hearing that an increase in the monthly flat rate to $36.00, and an increase in the monthly metered rate to $25.50 for the first 2,000 gallons, $3.18 for every 1,000 gallons consumed between 2,001 and 5,000, and $3.64 for every 1,000 gallons over 5,000 gallons was just and reasonable for both TESI and its customers. Also, TESI agreed to remove all Katrina-related expenses from the present rate case, and those expenses were removed. Following a hearing, the Commission entered an order denying the proposed and stipulated rates, and instituted a monthly flat rate of $27.00, an increase of approximately $7.00. The order also imposed a mandatory flat rate on all of TESI’s customers, to remain in effect for a period of five years, regardless of TESI’s present or future ability to provide metered rates. TESI appealed to chancery court which affirmed. TESI appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: TESI argues that the Commission’s denial of the water rate stipulated by the Staff and TESI is unsupported by substantial evidence. A utility must, at a minimum, receive enough of a return to enable it to render efficient and continuous service. By statute, section 77-3-33(1), a utility is entitled to a fair rate of return for its services. A fair return is one which, under prudent and economical management, is just and reasonable to both the public and the utility. In fixing the rate in this case, the Commission did not evidence its expertise by incorporating in its order cogent reasons for its decision based on a finding of facts pertinent to the particular inquiry before it. In fact, the Commission set forth no basis at all on which the flat rate was fixed and the metered rate was abolished. Thus, the Commission’s order was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court