Court Opinion

ID: 9851820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:20:14.16149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:16.090140
License: Public Domain

Goodloe, J.
(dissenting) — In the fall of 1982, General Telephone Company of the Northwest (GTNW) sought to increase its revenues by $49,272,000. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission devoted 10 days of hearings delving into the merits of the proposal and 2 days of hearings for the taking of public testimony. This process produced nearly 2,000 pages of testimony and 116 exhibits, most of which were technical in nature. The testimony of *47518 expert witnesses was presented and each party was given the opportunity to present full argument addressing the issues in the proceeding.
After these extensive hearings, the Commission concluded that the proposed increase would produce unjust, unreasonable, and excessive rates and accordingly rejected the increase. However, it authorized GTNW to file tariff revisions designed to produce additional gross annual revenues not to exceed $4,816,665. GTNW, dissatisfied with the Commission's order, sought judicial review. .
A King County Superior Court judge, after holding a hearing on a single day and relying solely on an affidavit by GTNW's general accounting manager, effectively negated the Commission's finding that any increase over $4.8 million would be unjust, unreasonable, and excessive by entering a supersedeas allowing GTNW to charge its customers an additional $8 million annually pending the outcome of the appeal. Because the trial court's order negates the presumption that the Commission's findings are correct and fails to return the situation to the status quo ante, I dissent.
I
The findings and conclusions of the Commission are prima facie correct. The burden of proof is upon the one attacking those findings to demonstrate that they are unlawful, unsupported by the evidence, arbitrary, or capricious. Cole v. State Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 79 Wn.2d 302, 485 P.2d 71 (1971); Black Ball Freight Serv., Inc. v. State Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 74 Wn.2d 871, 447 P.2d 597 (1968); Northern Pac. Transp. Co. v. State Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 69 Wn.2d 472, 418 P.2d 735 (1966). This is especially true where, as here, the issues involved are so complex and where so much effort and time were devoted to the Commission's conclusions. Cf. Cole v. State Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, supra.
The majority's holding condones the trial court's disregard of the presumption that the Commission's findings *476that GTNW's proposed rates were unjust, unreasonable, and excessive are correct; instead, the majority affirms the trial court's order which finds that GTNW would suffer great and irreparable harm. I disagree because there is no evidence that shows that GTNW would suffer great and irreparable harm. The only thing the trial court had before it was GTNW's general accounting manager's statement that "GTNW will suffer great and irreparable harm if the court does not stay the contested portions . . . because GTNW cannot retroactively bill its customers for revenues lost during the pendency of this appeal." Clerk's Papers, at 73. I feel that this statement is an insufficient basis for a trial court to grant a supersedeas order under RCW 80.04-.180. This self-serving statement is inadequate to rebut the presumption that the Commission's findings are correct. GTNW is simply stating that it will suffer great and irreparable harm because it would have collected extra rates if the Commission had granted its request in the first place. In my view, a utility, having the burden of proof, should have to establish that the Commission erred in its determination and thus there would be a reasonable probability that the utility would succeed on appeal. See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n, 176 Colo. 457, 491 P.2d 582 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. Stephens v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 545 S.W.2d 927 (Ky. 1976). This, and not a conclusory statement made by one of its employees, is necessary for a utility to show that it would suffer great or irreparable harm. The majority concedes as much by stating that the trial court should consider " [t]he certainty that the damage will occur". Majority opinion, at 472. The only way to consider the certainty that the damage will occur is to determine the likelihood that the petitioner will be ultimately successful. Damage will only occur if petitioner is successful; if petitioner fails, no damage will occur.
The majority asserts that this court should not impose a requirement that one who seeks a supersedeas show that he will likely win an appeal because no such requirement is in *477the statute. See RCW 80.04.180. It states the rule that the expression of one statutory requirement mandates exclusion of all omitted requirements. Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wn.2d 25, 548 P.2d 541 (1976). Yet it goes on to violate the very rule it espouses. It holds that showing irreparable harm alone is insufficient; yet the statute specifically states that irreparable harm by itself is a sufficient basis for a trial court to grant a supersedeas order. ("[I]f a supersedeas is granted the order granting the same shall contain a specific finding . . . that great or irreparable damage would otherwise result to the petitioner". (Italics mine.) RCW 80.04-.180.) The majority cannot have it both ways. It cannot state that this court must not impose the requirement that a petitioner show likelihood of success because the statute does not contain such a requirement and then hold that irreparable and great harm must both be shown when the statute contains no such requirement.
II
The majority asserts that the supersedeas does nothing more than restore the parties' position to the status quo ante. If this were so, I would agree that the order was permissible. The order, however, fails to achieve the claimed result.
The status quo ante is "the last actual, peaceable, non-contested condition which preceded the pending controversy", State ex rel. Pay Less Drug Stores v. Sutton, 2 Wn.2d 523, 529, 98 P.2d 680 (1940) (quoting 1 J. High, Injunctions § 5a, at 10 (4th ed. 1905)). The last peaceable, noncontested condition in the present case was the time prior to GTNW filing tariffs to increase its revenues by $49 million. It was not, as the majority asserts, the period after the tariffs were filed. The tariffs were what started this controversy. The Commission, 19 days after the last tariff was filed, contested them by issuing an order suspending them. Thus, the only order the trial court should have imposed was one which returned the rates to the levels charged before the new tariffs were filed. This would have *478maintained the status quo which is the purpose of a super-sedeas. In re Koome, 82 Wn.2d 816, 514 P.2d 520 (1973).
Contrary to the majority's assertion, this court did not define status quo in State ex rel. Pac. Inland Tariff Bur. v. Clifford, 46 Wn.2d 807, 285 P.2d 569 (1955). In Clifford, the public service commission granted the railroad's request to reduce some of their rates. A trial court entered a supersedeas staying the commission's order. The trial court later dissolved its supersedeas thus upholding the commission's order allowing the railroads to reduce their rates. This court never stated that this returned the situation to the status quo ante. The definition of status quo ante — last peaceful, noncontested situation — was never mentioned by the court.
Conclusion
A change in the status quo of utility rates on the basis of a conclusory affidavit is unjustifiable. In my view, it is elemental that a trial court should have before it a substantial basis for granting any stay which would place upon the public the burden of higher public utility rates, when such higher rates have been rejected by an agency with the technical expertise needed to set rates. The majority, in contrast, condones such action and, in fact, encourages it by its decision. From this time, whenever a public utility is not granted its full rate increase request it has an incentive to contest the denial. It has absolutely nothing to lose. It can collect the full rate requested until the appeal is final. While the public utility loses nothing, the consumers' losses are substantial. They must pay a rate which the Commission, after extensive hearings, has found to be unjust; unreasonable, and excessive.
Brachtenbach and Dore, JJ., concur with Goodloe, J.
Reconsideration denied November 19, 1985.