Opinion ID: 1250892
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Commission's Findings Were Supported by Satisfactory and Substantial Evidence

Text: 22. Having concluded that competition is a proper factor for the Commission to consider, we next determine whether the Commission made adequate findings regarding competition, and whether there was satisfactory and substantial evidence supporting these findings. See Mountain States 1982, 99 N.M. at 6, 653 P.2d at 506. We conclude there was satisfactory and substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision concerning the issue of directory-advertising revenue imputation and, specifically, concerning the issue of competition. 23. When deciding whether the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence, this Court said: Although the Commission cannot arbitrarily reject the testimony of any particular witness, neither is it required to accept testimony. It must weigh the conflicting evidence of witnesses, using its discretion to ultimately reach a decision within its mandate. When it weighs the evidence, accepting certain testimony while rejecting other, the Commission's decision nevertheless may be supported by substantial evidence. [E]vidence of two conflicting opinions in the record does not mean that the decision arrived at is unsupported by substantial evidence. New Mexico Indus. Energy Consumers v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n (In re Public Serv. Co.), 111 N.M. 622, 635-36, 808 P.2d 592, 605-06 (1991) (citation omitted) (quoting Attorney Gen. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 101 N.M. 549, 553, 685 P.2d 957, 961 (1984)). 24. In this case, U S WEST, through the testimony of its expert witness, Ann M. Koehler-Christensen, introduced evidence that USWD faces competition in New Mexico. Koehler-Christensen testified that Yellow Pages advertisers, such as USWD, compete with each other and with other advertising businesses, such as newspapers, television, and direct mail. Koehler-Christensen's testimony included a list of Yellow Pages competitors throughout New Mexico. The AG's expert witness, Michael D. Dirmeier, did not testify regarding competition. 25. The Staff's expert witness, James P. Marquart, advised the Commission that, in light of increasing competition in telecommunications, USWD could in the future be at a competitive disadvantage in relation to competitors that do not have to make contributions to U S WEST's revenue requirement. Likewise, Koehler-Christensen urged the Commission to consider competition when fixing the imputation, because ignoring competition and imputing all of USWD's profits would act as a disincentive for USWD to increase its investment and expand its business in New Mexico. 26. The Commission weighed the conflicting evidence and rejected the AG's recommendation of a directory-revenue imputation of $19,284,000 on the basis that adoption of that recommendation might deprive USWD of any incentive to be profitable. USWD, as a rational investor trying to get maximum returns on its investments, could shift investment away from New Mexico if the Commission suppressed its ability to earn a profit. In addition, USWD would have no reason to improve its efficiency and competitive position if it could not benefit from its efforts by keeping the resulting profits. The Commission's findings were adequate and were supported by satisfactory and substantial evidence. Under the rule in New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers, 111 N.M. at 635-36, 808 P.2d at 605-06, the Commission properly exercised its discretion in rejecting the AG's recommendation and in accepting U S WEST's and the Staff's evidence on this issue.