Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PSC denies Lake Caroline homeowners' procedural motion challenging Canton Municipal Utilities' rate order
Summary
The commission denied a procedural motion by the Lake Caroline Homeowners Association seeking to intervene and set aside a prior CMU rate order, after counsel for CMU argued notice was mailed and published within suspension timelines; commissioners voted to dismiss the motion.
On the December docket the Public Service Commission denied a procedural motion filed by the Lake Caroline Homeowners Association that sought to intervene and to set aside a previously approved rate increase for Canton Municipal Utilities (CMU).
Lake Caroline counsel (Mister Herring and Jim Cruz) told the commission the association's members did not receive required notice and that the certificate of notice was filed five months after the proceedings closed, arguing the commission lacked jurisdiction when it entered its earlier order. Counsel said residents also face operational and service-quality concerns, including sewer overflows and discolored water, but framed the current filing as a jurisdictional and notice-based procedural challenge.
CMU counsel (Abram Orlanski and Keith Turner) countered that actual notice was mailed to customers in August 2024 and published in September 2024 during a suspension period and that the association had constructive notice and the statutory deadlines for intervention had passed. CMU counsel said only 17 mailings in the same ZIP code were returned and the Lake Carolina association appeared multiple times on the mailing list, indicating actual notice.
After oral argument, commissioners asked legal staff for a recommendation; staff advised the commission that relief sought to cancel a certificate or revisit the merits of service quality claims is not available through a procedural motion in a closed rate-change docket and that separate dockets would be the correct vehicle for evidentiary review of service adequacy. The commission voted to deny the motion (motion to dismiss was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote). Commissioner Stamps also addressed CMU counsel with recommendations for governance and management training for municipal utility boards.
