To the extent the contested case proceedings referred to in chapter 91 are required in any rate proceeding to ensure fairness and to provide due process to parties that may be affected by rates approved by the commission, the evidentiary hearings shall be conducted expeditiously and shall be conducted as a part of the ratemaking proceeding.
Notwithstanding subsection (c), if the commission has not issued its final decision on a public utility's rate application within the nine-month period stated in this section, the commission, within one month after the expiration of the nine-month period, shall render an interim decision allowing the increase in rates, fares and charges, if any, to which the commission, based on the evidentiary record before it, believes the public utility is probably entitled. The commission may postpone its interim rate decision for thirty days if the commission considers the evidentiary hearings incomplete. In the event interim rates are made effective, the commission shall require by order the public utility to return, in the form of an adjustment to rates, fares, or charges to be billed in the future, any amounts with interest, at a rate equal to the rate of return on the public utility's rate base found to be reasonable by the commission, received under the interim rates that are in excess of the rates, fares, or charges finally determined to be just and reasonable by the commission. Interest on any excess shall commence as of the date that any rate, fare, or charge goes into effect that results in the excess and shall continue to accrue on the balance of the excess until returned.
The nine-month period in this subsection shall begin only after a completed application has been filed with the commission and a paper or an electronic copy served on the consumer advocate. The commission shall establish standards concerning the data required to be set forth in the application in order for it to be deemed a completed application. The consumer advocate may, within twenty-one days after receipt, object to the sufficiency of any application, and the commission shall hear and determine any objection within twenty-one days after it is filed. If the commission finds that the objections are without merit, the application shall be deemed to have been completed upon original filing. If the commission finds the application to be incomplete, it shall require the applicant to submit an amended application consistent with its findings, and the nine-month period shall not commence until the amended application is filed.
If all parties to the proceeding accept the proposed decision and order, the parties shall not be entitled to a contested case hearing, and section 269-15.5 shall not apply. If the commission permits a person to intervene, the six-month period shall not apply and the commission shall make every effort to complete its deliberations and issue its decision within the nine-month period from the date the public utility's completed application was filed, pursuant to subsections (b), (c), and (d).
If a party does not accept the proposed decision and order, either in whole or in part, that party shall give notice of its objection or nonacceptance within the timeframe prescribed by the commission in the proposed decision and order, setting forth the basis for its objection or nonacceptance; provided that the proposed decision and order shall have no force or effect pending the commission's final decision. If notice is filed, the above six-month period shall not apply and the commission shall make every effort to complete its deliberations and issue its decision within the nine-month period from the date the public utility's completed application was filed as set forth in subsection (d). Any party that does not accept the proposed decision and order under this paragraph shall be entitled to a contested case hearing; provided that the parties to the proceeding may waive the contested case hearing.
Public utilities subject to this subsection shall follow the standard chart of accounts to be approved by the commission for financial reporting purposes. The public utilities shall file a certified copy of the annual financial statements in addition to an updated chart of accounts used to maintain their financial records with the commission and consumer advocate within ninety days from the end of each calendar or fiscal year, as applicable, unless this timeframe is extended by the commission. The owner, officer, general partner, or authorized agent of the utility shall certify that the reports were prepared in accordance with the standard chart of accounts.
HRS § 269-16
Attorney General Opinions
Allowances paid by gas and electric utilities under their promotional programs constituted rebates. Att. Gen. Op. 65-18.
PUC may permit Honolulu Rapid Transit to charge reduced rates for senior citizens during non-peak hours. Att. Gen. Op. 69-30.
Operation of a fuel oil adjustment clause is not a "rate increase". "Rate" is synonymous with "rate schedule". Att. Gen. Op. 76-1.
May not regulate rates and charges in interstate commerce.24 Haw. 136. Appeal to supreme court directly does not lie from order requiring carrier to relocate tracks. 25 H. 332. Hawaiian Telephone, only Interstate Commerce Commission may fix rates. 26 H. 508. Regulation of interisland service.32 Haw. 127. Rates for gas.33 Haw. 487. Interlocutory order not appealable. 33 H. 697. Constitutional.33 Haw. 890, aff'd96 F.2d 412, aff'd305 U.S. 306. Applicant before PUC aggrieved, when.44 Haw. 634, 637,361 P.2d 390. Section was inoperative with respect to air carrier rates during the 2-year transition period when C.A.B. jurisdiction over air carriers was continued by §15 of Admission Act.44 Haw. 634,361 P.2d 390. Director of regulatory agencies as protector of consumer's interest is party to proceeding before PUC. 54 H. 663, 513 P.2d 1376. To comply with § 91-12, commission must rule on all proposed findings and its findings must be reasonably clear.54 Haw. 663,513 P.2d 1376. Persons aggrieved who were involved as participants in hearings may appeal to supreme court when PUC staff fails to do so.56 Haw. 260,535 P.2d 1102. Utility's promotional expenditures should not have been allowed for ratemaking purposes.56 Haw. 260,535 P.2d 1102. Tariff rate based partially upon value of equipment not owned by taxpayer does not properly reflect taxpayer's gross income. 57 H. 477, 559 P.2d 283. Commission must make findings of fact as required by § 91-12 when issuing interim rate increases. 60 H. 166, 590 P.2d 524. Granting of interim rate increases conditioned on a refund provision is a valid exercise of commission's powers.60 Haw. 166,590 P.2d 524. Rehearings by administrative bodies are at their discretion.60 Haw. 166,590 P.2d 524. Charges made by a public utility are governed by tariff filed with PUC. 60 H. 582, 593 P.2d 375. Under "just and reasonable" standard, it is the result reached and not the method employed which is controlling. 60 H. 625, 594 P.2d 612; 67 H. 370, 689 P.2d 741; 67 H. 425, 690 P.2d 274. No abuse of discretion in utilizing original cost method of valuating rate base, or in concluding that telephone company's plant-in-service was used or useful for public utility purposes. 65 H. 293, 651 P.2d 475. Commission did not arbitrarily limit rate award.67 Haw. 370,689 P.2d 741. Rebuttable presumption that a contribution was made by lot owners, or lessees, for construction of a utility system arises only if certain factors reveal intent by developer to obtain double recovery for its capital construction costs; commission erred in applying rebuttable presumption.83 Haw. 132,925 P.2d 302. Under subsection (f) (1997), direct appeal to supreme court from PUC order lies only when PUC order pertains to regulation of utility rates or ratemaking procedures; supreme court thus lacked jurisdiction to hear direct appeal for PUC order pertaining to placement of transmission line. 85 H. 322, 944 P.2d 1265. Under the filed-rate doctrine, telephone customers' claims failed as a matter of law where customers could not demonstrate that telephone company's allegedly inadequate disclosures constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice because (1) company's tariffs on file with the public utilities commission disclosed that fees should be assessed against customers receiving touch calling services; (2) knowledge of these disclosures contained in the tariff was imputed to the customers, and, thus, (3) customers could prove neither the injury nor the likelihood of damage that is required under § 480-2 or chapter 481A. 109 H. 69, 123 P.3d 194.