of properties served by the town’s water and sewer systems, the minimum rates “help[] to maintain rate stability and insure}] that everyone who benefits from the system helps to defray the fixed costs of delivering the product that do not vary with the level of individual consumption.” This ruling is supported by the evidence. We similarly uphold the trial court’s finding that the $20.00 per quarter availability charge is just, as this finding is also supported by the evidence. See Andrews v. Town, of New London, 117 N.H. 747, 749 (1977) (“absolute mathematical equality” not required). The plaintiffs assertion that equitable rates must be based upon use is belied by the plain language of the statutes themselves, which permit rates to be based upon “some other equitable basis.” See id. (<HOLDING>). His reliance upon Concord Steam Corp. v. City
holding that residential rate not based upon water usage is reasonable holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate