The division shall have full power and authority to investigate any contract, arrangement,
purchase, or sale, and if the division, after notice and hearing, shall find the contract,
arrangement, purchase, or sale to be unjust or unreasonable, the division may make
such reasonable order relating thereto as the public good requires. In any such investigation,
the burden shall be on the public utility or affiliate to prove the reasonableness
of any contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale with, from, or to an affiliate. If
the public utility shall fail to satisfy the division of the reasonableness of any
contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale, the division may disapprove the same, or
disallow payments thereunder or the part of any payment as the division shall find
to be unjust or unreasonable, or both disapprove and disallow as aforesaid. No payment
disallowed by the division shall be capitalized or included as an operating cost of
the public utility in the fixing of rates or as an asset in fixing a rate base. If,
in any investigation, the public utility or affiliate shall unreasonably refuse to
comply with any request of the division for information with respect to relevant accounts
and records, whether of the public utility or any affiliate, any portion of which
may be applicable to any transaction under investigation, so that parts thereof as
the division may deem material may be made part of the record, the refusal shall justify
the division in disapproving the transaction under investigation and disallowing payments
in pursuance thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Burke, 381 A.2d 1358 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Thereafter, the PUC requested legal memoranda from the parties on the issue of whether the PUC had the authority under §39-3-30 2 to investigate the reasonableness of the R-10 contract rate.”
Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Harsch, 367 A.2d 195 (R.I. 1976).
· cites it 4× “If the DPU is not satisfied as to the reasonableness of the contract provisions, § 39-3-30 specifically states that the cost of the contract may be included within the utility's rate base.”
Town of New Shoreham v. Rhode Island Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 464 A.2d 730 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the *733 division has full authority to investigate any contract or agreement with an affiliate and to make any reasonable order relating thereto in the public interest; failure to satisfy the division of the reasonableness of any such contract or agreement empowers…”
Block Island Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 505 A.2d 652 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2d at 733 ; see § 39-3-30 (commission empowered with authority to investigate transactions between a public utility and its affiliate).”
E. Edison Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Utils., 446 N.E.2d 684 (Mass. 1983).
“§ 40-3-102 (1973); R.I. Gen. Laws § 39-3-30 (1977). The State commissions had authority to consider factors other than the companies’ fuel costs in setting rates under those statutes.”
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 459 A.2d 1381 (R.I. 1983).
“General Laws 1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 39-3-30 provides for the disal-lowance of payments made to an affiliate for services rendered or property purchased under existing contracts unless such public utility shall establish the reasonableness of such payment or compensation.”
Blackstone Valley Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 486 A.2d 617 (R.I. 1985).
“1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 39-3-30 to investigate contracts, arrangements, purchases, or sales between *619 affiliated companies and disallow such transactions if found to be unreasonable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.