Opinion ID: 1175259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bingham and Bonneville Lateral

Text: Appellant also assigns as error the action of the commission in finding that the extension of service to the municipalities in Bingham and Bonneville Counties is not feasible at this time, and the action of the commission in nevertheless including those municipalities in the exclusive certificate granted respondent. Appellant is the only applicant which proposes to extend service to these cities. The only substantial evidence in the record as to the financial feasibility of that extension is that offered by appellant; and such is to the effect that gas sales through that extension would provide a reasonable return upon the investment. The Pocatello company did not propose such extension, chiefly because it was interested only in Pocatello and other smaller nearby municipalities lying along the pipeline route. Such adjacent municipalities would provide the distributor with the cheapest and most profitable market. Respondent's expert witness, Mr. Carpenter, claiming to have made only a preliminary study of the feasibility of such extension, testified that he did not consider it economically feasible at this time. Whatever his study may have been, it apparently concerned an extension from Pocatello to Ashton, a distance of approximately 105 miles. The value of his opinion becomes self-apparent from a subsequent answer to a question by his counsel. Q. Would it be possible to make a shorter lateral than to project one all the way up to Ashton? A. It would be possible to make the extension  I am not prepared to answer the feasibility part of it; however, it seems to me that a line halfway would be no more feasible than a line extending all the way to Ashton, and I believe there would be an obligation to extend it all the way. The distance between Pocatello and Idaho Falls is approximately fifty miles. A fifty mile extension would serve Blackfoot, Firth, Shelley and Idaho Falls. The combined population of these communities is more than twice the combined population of the municipalities lying beyond Idaho Falls, in the additional 55 miles necessary to reach Ashton. To say that an extension to Idaho Falls is no more feasible than a line all the way to Ashton, is an error apparent to laymen, and a misstatement which weakens the testimony of an engineer. It hardly need be said that if at all feasible such an important area of the state should not be denied its share of presently available gas. There being an applicant before the commission proposing to render such service, and its plan appearing feasible, it should have been given the commission's approval. Should its operation prove a burden upon other communities, the commission would have authority to require a self-supporting operation of that line, as a unit, or its discontinuance. In any event, the commission did not regularly pursue its authority when it granted an exclusive certification to respondent covering those communities which respondent says it will not serve. Respondent urges that the commission's order directs respondent to make and submit detailed studies of the area north of Pocatello. This cannot justify the inclusion of that area in the present certification. The fact that studies are to be made by a company hostile to that service, cannot be a source of satisfaction to those communities. Nor is such a study a reliable source of information upon which to base future action by the commission. In the meantime, the exclusive certification of that area to respondent would discourage studies by independent concerns and by the communities themselves. Also, in view of the unrealistic load factors involved in respondent's plan and the firm commitments exceeding the available gas supply, it is but reasonable to conclude that respondent in all likelihood would never find it feasible to serve that area. The order entered by the commission discloses that all the cities or communities included in appellant's plan are also included in respondent's plan with the exception of the cities of Idaho Falls, Shelley and Blackfoot, while respondent proposes to serve the communities of Emmett, Fruitland, Glenns Ferry, Inkom, Lava Hot Springs, Filer, Georgetown, Kimberly, New Plymouth, and Parma, which are not included in appellant's plan. Several of these communities are on or within close proximity to the pipeline of Pacific Northwest Pipeline Company, and it appears that they, or at least several of them, should have gas available for their use should they so desire. The commission should require the successful applicant to render service to these communities wherever economically feasible, or allow such communities to provide their own service. We recognize that the Public Utilities Commission is a fact finding and administrative body, exercising great discretionary powers, and that this court's review of its orders is limited. Const. Art. 5, § 9; § 61-629, I.C.; State ex rel. Taylor v. Union Pac. R. Co., 60 Idaho 185, 89 P.2d 1005; In re Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 76 Idaho 474, 284 P.2d 681. However, embraced within that review and within the determination of the question as to whether it has regularly pursued its authority, the findings of the commission must be based upon substantial evidence; its findings not thus supported, or which are contrary to the evidence, cannot be accepted by the court as a basis for upholding the conclusions of the commission. Const. Art. 2, § 1; Idaho Power & Light Co. v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083; Nez Perce Roller Mills of Lewiston v. Public Utilities Comm., 54 Idaho 696, 34 P.2d 972; Mountain View Rural Tel. Co. v. Interstate Tel. Co., 55 Idaho 514, 46 P.2d 723; State ex rel. Taylor v. Union Pac. R. Co., 60 Idaho 185, 89 P.2d 1005; Application of Nichols, 68 Idaho 490, 199 P.2d 255; Application of Lewiston Grain Growers, 69 Idaho 374, 207 P.2d 1028; Application of Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 71 Idaho 476, 233 P.2d 1024. `An order based upon a finding made without evidence, (The Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258, 263, 44 S.Ct. 317, 68 L.Ed. 667), or upon a finding made upon evidence which clearly does not support it (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pac. R. Co., 222 U.S. 541, 547, 32 S.Ct. 108, 56 L.Ed. 308), is an arbitrary act against which courts afford relief.' Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Department of Public Works, 268 U.S. 39, 45 S.Ct. 412, 69 L.Ed. [836] 837. Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 47 Idaho 482, at page 484, 276 P. 970, at page 971. Respondent's plan being shown to be unsound, and the commission having before it an applicant whose plan is demonstrated to be sound, backed by ample financial support and technical and managerial skill, and proposing to distribute available gas to the widest possible areas, without overinvestment, and with facilities capable of expansion as gas and markets become available, the commission, in the regular pursuit of its authority, should have approved appellant's application and issued to it the requested certificate. The primary consideration here is not the interest of any of the applicants, but is the rights and interest of the people of the state of Idaho. The question as to which applicant should receive the certificate should be determined in the interest of the general public. Application of Trans-Northwest Gas, Inc., 72 Idaho 215, 221, 238 P.2d 1141. The order granting certificate to respondent, and the order denying a rehearing, are set aside, and the cause is remanded to the commission for further proceedings in the premises, and in conformity with this opinion. Costs to appellant. PORTER and SMITH, JJ., concur.