Opinion ID: 2509107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unjust and unreasonable

Text: The unjust and unreasonable language represents one application of the abuse of discretion standard found in HRS § 91-14(g)(6). This language was first discussed in In re Kauai Elec. Div. of Citizens Utils. Co., 60 Haw. 166, 181, 590 P.2d 524, 535 (1978) and In re Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 630, 594 P.2d 612, 617 (1979). In In re Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., this court stated: In order to preserve the function of administrative agencies in discharging their delegated duties and the function of this court in reviewing agency determinations, a presumption of validity is accorded to decisions of administrative bodies acting within their sphere of expertise and one seeking to upset the order bears the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that it is invalid because it is unjust and unreasonable in its consequences. Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602, 64 S.Ct. 281, 288, 88 L.Ed. 333 (1944)[.] (Emphases added.) [8] Thus, our deference to administrative agencies' legal conclusions is limited to those conclusions within the agency's delegated realm of expertise ( i.e., to those conclusions made pursuant to the legislature's authorization). This court has frequently used the unjust and unreasonable language as a proxy for the abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., In re Wai'ola O Moloka'i, Inc., 103 Hawai'i at 420, 83 P.3d at 683. However, the unjust and unreasonable language has particular applicability only in the context of decisions of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) made pursuant to HRS § 269-16(a) (Supp.2003), which provides that [a]ll rates... shall be just and reasonable and shall be filed with the public utilities commission. See In re Kauai Elec. Div. of Citizens Utils. Co., 60 Haw. 166, 181, 590 P.2d 524, 535 (1978) (In regard to the setting of rates, HRS§ 269-16 requires that all rates and charges must be `just and reasonable.'). The language of HRS § 269-16(a) clarifies the bounds of the PUC's discretion, and as such assists a reviewing court in determining whether the PUC abused its discretion in a particular case. The unjust and unreasonable language does not represent a separate standard of review, but rather represents the application of the abuse of discretion standard to the statutory scheme underlying the PUC's rate-making powers. Thus, the unjust and unreasonable language represents one application of the more general abuse of discretion standard of review; this language does not and will not apply to discretionary decisions of administrative agencies outside of the PUC ratemaking context. Instead, the standard of review, as provided by HRS 91-14(g)(6), is abuse of discretion.