Public Utility

Back to Topic Index

Conversion of Service: In determining whether to require a utility to accept customer's demand for conversion of service to individual metering, safety concerns should transcend cost savings which usually result from such conversion. Because customer's plan did not comply with safety standards, utility was justified in rejecting conversion proposal. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 102

Eminent Domain: Only those public utilities with an expressed statutory grant of the power of eminent domain may exercise that power. Decision: 4 N.J.A.R. 220; The Board of Public Utilities may not authorize condemnation by a public utility which has not been granted that power by the Legislature. Decision: 4 N.J.A.R. 220

Interdiction: Interdiction is an appropriate penalty for an individual who conspired to violate the Solid Waste Act. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 271

Monopoly: Even though a solid waste collector lacked a franchise or an exclusive municipal contract, it is a de facto monopoly due to its lack of competition; as such it can be required, consistent with its tariff, to service all within the municipality who request service. Decision: 2 N.J.A.R. 059; Conviction for restraint of trade can be the basis for revoking respondent's certificate under the anti-monopoly provisions of the Solid Waste Act. A technical analysis of the legal elements of monopoly is not required. Participation in a scheme to subvert competitive bidding violates the basic intent of the Solid Waste Act. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 271

Public Use: Company piping manufactured gas to industrial customer in New Jersey is a public utility subject to regulation by the Board of Public Utilities. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 583

Rate of Return: A method of calculating rate of return on equity is improper if it understates the rate of return on equity. Decision: 6 N.J.A.R. 414; Rates must be sufficient to encourage good management and enable a utility to maintain its credit, while also providing a return to the equity holder that is commensurate with investments having corresponding risks. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 303; Board may fashion a remedy when a utility has achieved an unreasonable rate of return so that ratepayers receive recognition for over-earnings. Holding new rates in abeyance does not conflict with the prohibition against retroactive ratemaking. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 303

Test Year: The test year should be as current as possible and reflect actual test year data, but that data may be adjusted for known and measurable changes outside the test year. Decision: 11 N.J.A.R. 303

Undue Preference: Respondent may allocate its sewage treatment capacity to a particular real estate developer. Such action is not undue or unreasonable preference within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 48:3-4. Decision: 12 N.J.A.R. 824