Opinion ID: 2632596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidentiary Standards

Text: [¶ 37] We briefly discussed the burden of proof above. Section 37-2-121 requires PacifiCorp prove by substantial evidence that its proposed surcharge is just, reasonable and in the public interest. This statutory standard is not to be confused with the standard of review applied by this Court. As used in the statute, substantial evidence is the legislative expression of the level of proof a utility must meet before the Commission will consider a non-traditional ratemaking method proposed by the utility. [¶ 38] In the case sub judice, in ¶¶ 320 and 321 of its Order, the Commission specifically held that PacifiCorp did not meet its burden of proof justifying the grant of its requested surcharges. The Commission stated: We conclude that PacifiCorp, as a matter of law, has not provided substantial evidence to justify the granting of the requested surcharge in reference to the net excess power costs (¶ 320) and in reference to the Hunter costs (¶ 321). The Commission did not err by holding PacifiCorp to the substantial evidence standard as this finding by the Commission is in accord with § 37-2-121. [¶ 39] PacifiCorp seems to be challenging the Commission's determination on several other issues that went against PacifiCorp that its findings were supported by substantial evidence. This Court need not address the propriety of the use by the Commission of the substantial evidence standard in those instances. A careful review of the record reveals that the Commission's other findings, at best, supported alternative reasons not to grant PacifiCorp's requested surcharges. The primary reason  PacifiCorp's failure to produce substantial evidence supporting the surcharges  is not influenced or altered by the other findings of the Commission. PacifiCorp's failure to meet its burden of persuasion is determinative and this Court need not address other findings by the PSC.