CO Code § 40-6-112 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 40 - Utilities|Article 6 - Hearings and Investigations|§ 40-6-112. Alteration or Amendment of Decision - Decisions Final in Collateral Actions

  The commission, at any time upon notice to the public utility affected, and after opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of complaints, may rescind, alter, or amend any decision made by it. Any decision rescinding, altering, or amending a prior decision, when served upon the public utility affected, shall have the same effect as original decisions.    In all collateral actions or proceedings, the decisions of the commission which have become final shall be conclusive.     History. Source: L. 13: P. 496, § 49. C.L. § 2958. CSA: C. 137, § 49. CRS 53: § 115-6-12. C.R.S. 1963: § 115-6-12. L. 69: P. 947, § 44. History. Source: L. 13: P. 496, § 49. C.L. § 2958. CSA: C. 137, § 49. CRS 53: § 115-6-12. C.R.S. 1963: § 115-6-12. L. 69: P. 947, § 44.    ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. AMENDMENT OF DECISION.    III. COLLATERAL ACTION.     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.   Applied in Consol. Freightways Corps. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 158 Colo. 239 , 406 P.2d 83 (1965); Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, 167 Colo. 257 , 447 P.2d 27 (1968).   II. AMENDMENT OF DECISION.   Full hearing required if right of grant in certificate is to be removed. Since rights granted under a certificate of authority are property rights, due process requires a full hearing if anything granted in the certificate is to be taken away. The public utilities commission (PUC) is the proper authority to interpret its own certificate. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, 167 Colo. 257 , 447 P.2d 27 (1968).   Commission may remove prior restrictions under its statutory authority to amend certificate when it is in the interest of public convenience and necessity to do so. Rocky Mt. Natural Gas Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 199 Colo. 352 , 617 P.2d 1175 (1980).   The commission's right to amend does not authorize an amendment which provides for an entirely new service which a certificate to be amended expressly precludes. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Donahue, 138 Colo. 492 , 335 P.2d 285 (1959); Colo. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 141 Colo. 203 , 347 P.2d 505 (1959).   Notice requirement. The PUC acts without authority when it attempts to amend or modify an order duly entered as a part of its action in passing upon an application for a rehearing of such order. Rescission, alteration, or amendment of orders must be upon notice to the public utility affected, and after opportunity to be heard, as provided in this section. Snell v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 108 Colo. 162 , 114 P.2d 563 (1941); Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Colo. Motorway, Inc., 165 Colo. 1 , 437 P.2d 44 (1968).   No alteration of certificate without showing in evidence. Where a certificate of convenience and necessity permitted sight-seeing service by automobiles of a capacity not exceeding seven passengers, an application to amend such certificate to permit such service by multi-passenger buses, the record showing no evidence to indicate that such additional service is needed or that provided by a protestant inadequate, no alteration of petitioner's certificate may be granted. Colo. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 141 Colo. 203 , 347 P.2d 505 (1959).   This section is sufficient authority for the commission to send out its notice to “for hire” carriers to file application with commission to clarify their respective authorities relative to intermediate points. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Weicker Transp. Co., 102 Colo. 211 , 78 P.2d 633 (1938).   Factors that the PUC may consider in determining whether a rate is just and reasonable do not include a reward based on litigation and to “motivate future results”. Office of Consumer Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Co., 877 P.2d 867 (Colo. 1994).   III. COLLATERAL ACTION.   Decisions prior to legislation. The fact that by legislative action in 1961 an elective association was brought under the jurisdiction of the PUC does not permit it to now make collateral attack on the commission's action which occurred some 25 years ago. Se. Colo. Power Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 163 Colo. 92 , 428 P.2d 939 (1967).   Requirement of rule promulgated by commission held conclusive in collateral action. Where the commission's decision promulgating a rule which requires the commission to adhere to the past test year in fixing rates has become final for failure of direct attack, the rule's requirement of the use of the past test year is conclusive in a collateral action involving objections to rates set by the commission. Mtn. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 186 Colo. 260 , 527 P.2d 524 (1974).   Merits of rate proceedings held to be beyond collateral attack in an appeal of an award of attorney fees. Lake Durango Water Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 P.3d 12 (Colo. 2003).