A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Hookup Fees Discriminatory
Boise Water Corporation built a $16 million water treatment plant in response to rules promulgated after passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It then applied to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to increase its rates, including its one‐time new connection fee. Building contractors petitioned the PUC to reconsider its order, arguing that the new fees discriminate between old and new customers. The PUC ruled against the builders. Building contractors petitioned the PUC to reconsider its order, arguing that the new fees discriminate between old and new customers. The PUC ruled against the builders. On appeal, the builders maintained that the hookup fees unlawfully discriminated against customers connecting new service, basing their argument on the fact that the fees allocate the entire incremental cost to the new customers. To the extent that the new fees were based on allocating incremental construction cost required by growth and by the SDWA solely to new customers, the court found that the fees unlawfully discriminated between old and new customers, a violation of Idaho law. The case was returned to the PUC.
Hookup Fees Discriminatory
Boise Water Corporation built a $16 million water treatment plant in response to rules promulgated after passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It then applied to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to increase its rates, including its one‐time new connection fee. Building contractors petitioned the PUC to reconsider its order, arguing that the new fees discriminate between old and new customers. The PUC ruled against the builders. Building contractors petitioned the PUC to reconsider its order, arguing that the new fees discriminate between old and new customers. The PUC ruled against the builders. On appeal, the builders maintained that the hookup fees unlawfully discriminated against customers connecting new service, basing their argument on the fact that the fees allocate the entire incremental cost to the new customers. To the extent that the new fees were based on allocating incremental construction cost required by growth and by the SDWA solely to new customers, the court found that the fees unlawfully discriminated between old and new customers, a violation of Idaho law. The case was returned to the PUC.
Hookup Fees Discriminatory
1997-01-01
1 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
HOOKUP ELEMENT FOR FORMWORK AND FORMWORK WITH THE HOOKUP ELEMENT
| European Patent Office | 2018
Wiley | 1993
LEADING DEVELOPMENTS - Yamana Gold and Northern Orion Seek Hookup with Meridian Gold
Online Contents | 2007
Discriminatory Rate Disallowed
Wiley | 1985
Uniform Rates Not Discriminatory
Wiley | 1987