Opinion ID: 2551426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Commission's Decision To Accelerate Amortization Of Deferred DSM Expenditures From 24 To 12 Years Was Supported By Substantial Evidence.

Text: Appellants finally argue that the Commission's decision to accelerate the amortization period from twenty-four to twelve-years is unsupported by substantial evidence. The thrust of appellants' assertion is that no evidence was presented indicating, specifically, the reasonableness of a twelve-year amortization period. We find the appellants' argument unpersuasive. Under the facts of this case, there appears ample evidence by which the Commission could determine that a twelve-year amortization period was just and reasonable. Appellants argue that evidence was presented indicating the reasonableness of twenty-four, seven, and five year amortization periods but that no evidence was presented discussing the reasonableness of a twelve-year period. This Court has recognized previously that the Commission, as finder of fact, need not weigh and balance the evidence presented to it but is free to accept certain evidence and disregard other evidence. See Application of Utah Power & Light Co., 107 Idaho 446, 451, 690 P.2d 901, 906 (1984). Additionally, the Commission is free to rely on its own expertise as justification for its decision. See Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 97 Idaho 832, 842, 555 P.2d 163, 173 (1976); Intermountain Gas Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 97 Idaho 113, 126, 540 P.2d 775, 788 (1975). It appears clear that when faced with competent testimony on the reasonableness of five, seven, and twenty-four year amortization periods, the Commission could, relying upon the testimony presented in addition to its own expertise, reasonably determine that a twelve-year amortization period was adequate and reasonable. We find no error in the Commission's determination.