Opinion ID: 1305149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the order to divest the retail appliance business

Text: The order of June 26, 1974, which was upheld by the Commission in the order of August 14, 1974, denying Intermountain's petition for a rehearing, contained the following language concerning Intermountain's retail gas appliance business: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Intermountain Gas Company discontinue the sale of natural gas appliances within a period of one year from the date of this Order. Order 11507, June 26, 1974, p. 14. Sec. Tr., Vol. II, p. 394. This order did not follow a hearing in which Intermountain had fair notice that the continuation of its retail gas appliance sales business was at issue, and accordingly it must be set aside. When Intermountain filed a proposed tariff for a rate increase it was necessarily put upon notice that the Commission would consider the questions traditionally raised in rate-making, such as the allowance for working capital and the allowable rate of return. Furthermore, Intermountain could reasonably be expected to anticipate that the Commission might compel Intermountain to segregate its utility and non-utility businesses, separating its capital investment in the retail sales business from the rate base and requiring the losses in the retail sales business to be borne by its shareholders and not spread among its utility customers. However, by filing for a rate increase, Intermountain was not put upon notice that, nor could it have reasonably anticipated that the question of whether it could continue to conduct its retail gas appliance business was before the Commission. As the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit said in the case of American Public Gas Association v. Federal Power Commission, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 176, 498 F.2d 718 (1974), in which the question of whether certain gas producers had been denied due process by the FPC's actions was presented, The procedure chosen by the Commission must of course give the parties fair notice of exactly what the Commission proposes to do, together with an opportunity to comment, to object, and to make written submissions; and the final order of the Commission must be based upon substantial evidence. 498 F.2d at 722. Intermountain was never given notice that its right to continue the retail sales business was before the Commission until its witnesses were cross-examined some four months after it had requested its rate increase. Due process requires that a party to contested proceedings before the commission must be afforded a full opportunity to meet the issues... . Washington Water Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, supra, 84 Idaho at 346, 372 P.2d at 411. Intermountain did not have an opportunity to meet the issue of whether the continuation of its retail sales business was in the public interest and thus the order denied it due process. We do not, by this decision, intimate any opinion regarding the validity of an order such as this one; we merely hold that entering this order following this proceeding was a violation of due process.