Court Opinion

ID: 9658506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:02:41.93961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:55.986907
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
BURKE, Judge.
The Public Service Commission has petitioned for a rehearing in this case upon the ground that the findings of this court, as stated in the opinion heretofore filed, require an affirmance of the Commission’s order denying the requested rate increase. In its petition the Commission states: “Since the company is in sound health financially, one of two conclusions must inevitably follow: either the company’s supposedly unreasonable rate of return on its electric properties is being offset by excessive returns on some other portion of the business or the rate of return on its electric properties in North Dakota is, in fact, reasonable.”
In so far as the first of these alternatives is concerned, it is sufficient to say that the company’s electric consumers are not entitled to a bargain rate at the expense of its gas consumers and that the profits of the company’s non-utility business are of no concern to the Commission except in so far as they may relate to sales of supplies to the utility business at unreasonable prices or the charging of the expenses of conducting such business to the utility business.
 In so far as the second alternative is concerned this court held that the Commission’s finding of a rate of return for the electric utility for the year 1956 was not sustained by the evidence. The Commission had found that the rate of return was 5.7%, that this rate of return was reasonable and that the evidence did not establish that this rate of return would not be maintained in the immediate future. This court found that the rate of return of the electric utility was 4.6% and that the evidence did not establish that this rate would not be maintained in the immediate future. The court did not find that 4.6% was a reasonable rate of return because this court has no power to fix rates, or to say, in the first instance, what is or is not a reasonable rate of return. The making of such a finding is a legislative function delegated under proper limitations to the Public Service Commission. This court upon appeal has only the power to decide whether the Commission’s action was within the scope of the limitations prescribed by the legislature or whether the rate established is so unreasonable that it violates the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property without due process of law. This court therefore had no alternative except to return the case to the Commission. The petition is-therefore denied.
SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, JJ., concur.