Court Opinion

ID: 9796738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:03:58.66428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:15.671768
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTINEZ,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that "all information secured by the commission on its own initiative and considered by it in rendering its order or decision" as stated in section 40-6-113(6), C.R.S. (2006), is limited to "new factual information" injected by staff "into the proceedings through an advisory memorandum read at the open meeting deliberations of the Commissioners." Maj. op. at 1086, 1088, 1098-94. In my view, the majority makes seven errors in its statutory interpretation. First, the majority affords greater deference to the PUC's historical interpretation than warranted by the ciream-stances. Second, the majority limits "all information" in the statute to factual information disclosed by staff during open meeting deliberations, thus contradicting the General Assembly's intent as expressed through the statute's plain language. Third, the majority relies on an incomplete analysis of section 40-6-115(8), C.R.S. (2006), to justify its interpretation. Fourth, the majority's interpretation conflicts with our previous case law interpreting this statute. Fifth, the majority's interpretation is inconsistent with the PUC's own regulations as to what information should be included in the record on review. Sixth, the majority applies the wrong common law privilege to support its interpretation. Seventh, the majority places the burden on the party opposing the PUC to seek in camera review of memoranda without knowing whether it contains information pertinent to the record.
Before beginning its purported analysis of the statutory language, the majority signals its intent to afford deference to the PUC's historical interpretation of the statute because of the PUC's "considerable authority and expert role." Maj. op. at 1088. The majority then builds its analysis around this deference. Maj. op. at 1092, 1092-1094. *1095However, such deference is not warranted when the issue involved is strictly legal, does not implicate the special expertise of the agency, or when the ageney's interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the statute-all cireumstances that appear in this case. The deference doctrine "should be utilized reluctantly where the issue is strictly a legal one that is within the conventional competence of the courts." Arapahoe County Pub. Airport Auth. v. Centennial Express Airlines, 956 P.2d 587, 592 (Colo.1998). Administrative interpretations are most useful to the court when the subject involves technical questions of fact uniquely within an agency's expertise and experience. Id. In this case, the interpretation of section 40-6-113(6) is a purely legal issue that does not implicate the special technical expertise of the PUC, so considerable deference is not warranted. It is also inconsistent, indeed ironic, to defer to the PUC's interpretation of a statute due to the PUC's expertise when that expertise is based on the experience and advice of staff whose analysis and recommendations the PUC specifically seeks to exclude from the record. Maj. op. at 1088, 1090-91.
The majority also states that deference is appropriate because it is the PUC's "longstanding practice," "long-standing interpretation," "long-standing procedure," and "traditional procedure ... over a long period of time" to exclude advisory memoranda from the record. Maj. op. at 1085-86, 1089, 1098. Thus, the majority concludes, we should accept the PUC's interpretation because "the General Assembly has had ample opportunity to change the statute to require the PUC to include advisory memoranda in the record, and has not chosen to do so." Maj. op. at 1093. However, there is a vast difference between assuming legislative ratification when the General Assembly chooses not to respond to a published, widely distributed court decision, and assuming ratification because the legislature has not responded to an unofficial office practice that has not been codified in any statute, regulation, or even mentioned in a published court opinion. In fact, the PUC certifies its record of proceedings with a cover letter to the reviewing court stating that the enclosed record includes "all other papers on file in, or in connection with, said proceedings." Maj. op. at 1088. Only if you are one of the insiders "that appear before the PUC on a regular basis," maj. op. at 1093, are you likely to know that this really means "all other papers in connection with said proceedings except the advisory memorand2."
According to the majority, we should further presume legislative ratification because the General Assembly gave the PUC the authority to "conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce the proper dispatch of business and the ends of justice." Maj. op. at 1089, 1090-91, 1098. It is quite a stretch to assume that this language authorizes the PUC to disregard the plain language of a statute in favor of an unwritten office practice. Taken to its extreme, this argument would allow the PUC to disregard or override any statute related to its proceedings that it felt necessary to the "proper dispatch of business and the ends of justice." Obviously, the General Assembly only meant to give the PUC authority to conduct its proceedings in a manner consistent with the other applicable statutes.
Most importantly, the majority errs in deferring to the PUC's historical interpretation because it is inconsistent with the statute's plain language. Courts are not bound by an agency interpretation that is contrary to the plain meaning of a statute. People v. Rockwell, 125 P.3d 410, 420 (Colo.2005). If the legislature has addressed the precise question at issue, we construe the statute accordingly and afford no deference to the agency's interpretation. City of Boulder v. Colo. Pub. Utils Comm'n, 996 P.2d 1270, 1277 (Colo.2000). Here, the question before us can be resolved by reading the plain language of the statute, and the PUC's interpretation is not consistent with this plain language. Thus, the majority should afford no deference to the PUC's interpretation. To the contrary, the majority actually begins its analysis of the statute with the PUC's conclusion of what it means, and then works backward, altering the plain language of the statute to accord with the PUC's interpretation. Maj. op. at 1089-90, 1091, 1092-98.
*1096Section 40-6-113(6) states in relevant part that the record shall include "all information secured by the commission on its own initiative and considered by it in rendering its order or decision." Considering the plain language, this would, as the majority stated, include any new factual information injected into the deliberative phase of the proceedings. Maj. op. at 1086, 1088, 1098-94. However, instead of reading the language of the statute as it is written, the majority adds the word "factual" before "information." Maj. op. at 1086, 1088, 1090, 1091-92, 1098-94. The language of the statute simply does not say that. The General Assembly limited "all" information with the phrases "secured by the commission on its own initiative" and "considered by it in rendering its order or decision." If the General Assembly had wanted to further limit "all" information to "factual information," it certainly could have done so. But it did not. The majority's interpretation contradicts the intent of the General Assembly as expressed through the plain language of the statute, and disregards the doctrine that we do not add statutory words that contravene the legislature's obvious intent. People v. Cross, 127 P.3d 71, 73 (Colo.2006).
The addition of the word "factual" is not inconsequential. As I explain later, "factual" information is only a subset of the plain language of the statute-"information" is a broader term that properly encompasses the analysis and recommendations of the advisory staff. In qualifying "information" with "factual," the majority recognizes that in order to align the language of the statute with the PUC's historical interpretation, it is necessary to add language to the statute.
The majority's analysis as to why the statute should be limited to "factual" information is based on an incomplete analysis of section 40-6-115(8). The majority concludes that "a reviewing court is not entitled to examine advisory memoranda as part of the record under section 40-6-113(6)." Maj. op. at 1091-92. The majority supports this conclusion by noting that if the reviewing court has all of the factual information that the PUC considered, it may determine under section 40-6-115(8) whether a PUC decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. However, the majority only analyzes the part of section 40-6-115(3) that supports this limited interpretation of section 40-6-113(6). Section 40-6-115(8) states that judicial review:
shall not extend further than to determine whether the PUC has regularly pursued its authority, ..., and whether the decision of the PUC is just and reasonable, and whether the PUC's conclusions are in accordance with the evidence.
(Emphasis added). The majority disregards the portion of section 40-6-115(8) that states the reviewing court must also determine whether the decision of the PUC is "just and reasonable," not only whether it is supported by evidence in the record. The analysis and recommendations of the advisory staff, in addition to factual information, may be pertinent to the determination of whether the PUC's decision was "just and reasonable."1
The majority's interpretation of the statute also contradicts our previous case law. We have specifically recognized that if the PUC relies on "evidence in its files ... and data gathered through its own investigation" in support of an order, that information should be included in the record. Consol. Freight-ways Corp. of Del. v. Pub. Utils Comm'n, 158 Colo. 239, 253, 406 P.2d 83, 90 (1965). Both "evidence in its files" and "data gathered through its own investigation" may refer to the analysis and recommendations of advisory staff in addition to factual information. Thus, the majority's conclusion that the language of the statute only refers to factual information is inconsistent with our decision in Consolidated Freightways. Maj. op. at 1086, 1088, 1090, 1091-92, 1093-94.
The majority emphasizes the word "fact" in 4 Colo.Code Regs., § 728-1-1501(c)(20086), in support of its conclusion that "information" in section 40-6-118(6) is limited to factual information. Maj. op. at 1098. This reliance is misplaced. First, this administrative notice regulation does not limit the statu*1097tory requirements of section 40-6-118(6), so even if the regulation limited the PUC's administrative notice to facts, it would have no impact on the PUC's requirements to place other information in the record in accordance with section 40-6-113(6). Second, a complete reading of this regulation shows that the PUC has the authority to notice information much broader than facts, and in doing so, that broader information must be included in the record. The regulation states that, in addition to such facts as statutes, rules, and tariffs, the PUC may take administrative notice of "documents in its files" and "matters within the expertise of the Commission." Such information is clearly broader than facts, despite the PUC's short-hand labeling of the entire category of information listed in the regulation as "facts." Thus, when the PUC takes administrative notice of "documents in its files" and "matters within the expertise of the Commission," that information (even if not specifically a fact) should be included in the record under the regulation.
Further, this PUC regulation does not de-seribe a formal process for taking administrative notice of information. It is reasonable to conclude that if the PUC considers some piece of information, such as "documents in its files" or "matters within the expertise of the Commission" as part of a proceeding, they are thereby taking "administrative notice" of it, and that information must then be included in the record under the regulation.2 Therefore, this PUC regulation contradicts the majority's conclusion that only factual information must be included in the record.
The majority further limits "information" by stating that only new factual information injected by staff through an advisory memorandum read at the open meeting deliberations must be included in the record. Maj. op. at 1086, 1088, 1093-94. This was the method by which the "new factual information" in this particular case became evident to others besides the PUC, but that cireum-stance should not improperly limit the majority's interpretation of section 40-6-113(6). Even if "information" in the statute were properly limited to "factual information," further qualifying "information" with a public disclosure requirement sanctions an outrageous result: the PUC could gather facts through its investigative capacity, consider those facts as part of its decision, but then decide to exclude those facts from the record simply by choosing not to have staff disclose them during the open meeting deliberations.
This disclosure requirement reaches far beyond the plain language of the statute. Section 40-6-113(6) states that "all information secured by the commission on its own initiative and considered by it in rendering its order or decision" be included in the record. The majority acknowledges at one point in the opinion that the statute "includes factual information developed by the PUC in the exercise of its investigatory function." Maj. op. at 1090. However, the majority apparently discards this reading of the statute, without explanation, in favor of adding a disclosure requirement that would essentially change the word "considered" in this statute to "publicly disclosed." This is contrary to the General Assembly's intent as expressed through the plain language of the statute. "Consider" means "to fix the mind on, with a view to careful examination; to examine; to inspect." Black's Law Dictionary 306 (6th ed.1990). There is no element of public dis-clogure indicated by the word "consider."
The majority's disclosure requirement is also directly contradictory to our decision in Colorado Emergy that states: "section 40-6-113(6), while recognizing that the PUC may obtain information on its own investigation, requires that the PUC place all information under consideration in the public record and provide an opportunity for the parties to comment thereon." Colo. Energy Advocacy Office v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 704 P.2d 298, 304 (Colo.1985). The majority, while recognizing Colorado Emergy key holding at one point in the opinion, maj. op. at 1090, does not then explain why it ultimately rejects it in favor of an additional disclosure requirement.
Moreover, the disclosure requirement creates the anomalous situation where a fact *1098within the PUC's files considered during the proceeding would become part of the record through the administrative notice regulation, but a fact gathered through the PUC's investigative powers may not.
Finally, the majority's rationale for exelud-ing the analysis and recommendations of the advisory staff is based in part on an erroneous application of Colorado's common law privilege doctrine.3 The majority explains that the advisory memoranda should not be included in the record because the "thought processes of PUC decision-makers cannot be used as evidence to impeach a PUC decision or order. The use of advisory staff in deliberations is part of this thought process." Maj. op. at 1098. Although I recognize the mental process privilege may apply in some instances to protect the PUC, placing the analysis and recommendations of the advisory staff in the record does not involve probing the mental processes of the PUC or its commissioners. First, although the analysis and recommendations of the advisory staff may in some instances help to explain the PUC's ultimate decision, a requirement to place the advisory staff's analysis and recommendations in the record for judicial review is not equivalent to a requirement that the PUC or its commissioners provide an explanation of their decision after the decision has been made. There is no discovery request involving the manner in which the PUC arrived at its decision, as in City of Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177, 519 P.2d 825 (1974) and Public Utilities Commission v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773 (1967), and the PUC commissioners have not been called as witnesses in a subsequent proceeding to explain or justify their decision, as in Gilpin County Board of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo.1997). Thus, the mental process privilege does not bar the advisory staff's analysis and recommendations from inclusion in the record.4
Instead of the statutory interpretation that the majority constructs in order to defer to the PUC's historical interpretation, I would follow our primary obligation to interpret the statute consistent with its plain language. Construing the language in question according to the rules of grammar and common usage, the record should include all information the PUC acquires while acting independently of outside influence or control and takes into account in making its decision. See generally, § 2-4-101, GC.R.S. (2006); Klinger v. Adams County Sch. Dist. No. 50, 130 P.3d 1027, 1031 (Colo.2006); Merriaom-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 265-66, 644, 1123 (lith ed.2004). Accordingly, I would find that the record for judicial review certified by the PUC should include any new information that is incorporated into advisory memoranda. This would include any new factual information in the memoranda, whether or not such information was disclosed by staff during the open meeting deliberations. In addition to new factual information, I would find that the analysis and recommendations of the PUC's expert advisory staff that are in the advisory memoran-da are required to be included in the record under the plain language of section 40-6-113(6), subject to the deliberative process privilege.5 Analysis and recommendations are created by the PUC acting on its own initiative. Analysis involves the breakdown and examination of data and facts. The anal*1099ysis performed by the expert PUC advisory staff and the recommendations that result from that analysis may be new and unique information. For example, the advisory memoranda may take data presented by one party and meld it with data presented by a second party to reach a conclusion that neither of the parties reached independently. This new information is considered by the PUC when the advisory memoranda are circulated to the commissioners. Thus, the analysis and recommendations contained in the advisory memoranda are "information secured by the commission on its own initiative and considered by it in rendering its order or decision" and should be included in the record under the plain language of the statute.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that section 40-6-118(6) requires that "a transcript of such testimony" and the "proceedings in the case" must be included in the record. "Such testimony" is testimony from the "proceeding." § 40-6-113(1)-(2), C.R.S. (2006). A proceeding includes all acts and events between commencement of a case and the entry of judgment. Black's Law Dictionary 1241 (8th ed.2004). The public deliberative meetings of the PUC, which take place after the formal hearings have closed but before the entry of a decision in a case, are part of the "proceedings in the case." Therefore, testimony from the deliberative portion of the proceeding must be included in the record for judicial review under the language of section 40-6-113(6). This would include the analysis and recommendations of the PUC's expert advisory staff set forth in the advisory memoranda that are disclosed during the deliberative portion of the proceeding.
This interpretation is also supported by reading the language of section 40-6-118(6) in tandem with the court's duties under seetion 40-6-115(3) to determine whether the PUC has regularly pursued its authority, whether the decision of the PUC is just and reasonable, and whether the PUC's conclusions are in accordance with the evidence. We have previously stated that in order to fulfill its duties, a reviewing court should have the same information available to it as the agency did in making its decision. Geer v. Stathopulos, 135 Colo. 146, 154, 309 P.2d 606, 610-11 (1957) (noting that a court reviewing the action of an administrative agency should be placed in the same position as such agency, and therefore the agency's knowledge of a fact that is acted upon should become part of the record). See also Pub. Citizen v. Heckler, 653 F.Supp. 1229, 1236 (D.D.C.1987) ("if a court is to review an agency's action fairly, it should have before it neither more nor less information than did the agency when it made its decision") (qguot-ing Walter O. Boswell Memorial Hosp. v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 788, 792 (D.C.Cir.1984)).6 Thus, the information before the reviewing court should include expert staff analysis and recommendations considered by the agency's decision makers.
As the District of Columbia Cireuit Court of Appeals has aptly stated:
The Government takes the position that internal staff memoranda are never part of the record.... We think a fuller analysis is called for. Private parties and reviewing courts alike have a strong interest in fully knowing the basis and cireumstances of an agency's decision. The process by which the decision has been reached is often mysterious enough without the agency's maintaining unnecessary secrecy.... The proper approach, therefore, would appear to be to consider any document that might have influenced the agency's decision to be "evidence" within the statutory definition, but subject to any privilege that the ageney properly claims as protecting its interest in non-disclosure.
Natl Courier Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1229, 1241 (D.C.Cir.1975). In addition to placing all of the same information before the reviewing court, this approach appropriately places the burden on the PUC to justify excluding information that otherwise should be in the record under the statute's plain language. The majority's interpretation requires the opposing *1100party to blindly take legal action seeking in camera review of memoranda that may or may not contain information pertinent to the record. Placing the burden on the party which has no access to the information in the first place is neither reasonable nor practical.
In sum, I would find that all new information within the advisory memoranda is necessarily part of the record under section 40-6-113(6). In addition to new factual information, whether or not disclosed by staff during the open deliberation meetings, this would include the analysis and recommendations of the PUC advisory staff in the advisory mem-oranda, subject to any valid deliberative process privilege claim by the PUC of those portions of the analysis and recommendations that were not revealed during the public deliberative meetings. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice BENDER joins in this dissent.

. This is true even though the PUC's findings of fact are not subject to review except under limited circumstances. § 40-6-115(2), C.R.S. (2006).

. As the majority stated, it does not matter whether such information was of great or little importance to the Commissioners. 1094. Maj. op. at

. The majority's interpretation is also based on deference to the PUC's historical interpretation, which, as I have already discussed, is inconsistent with the statute's plain language.

. As I explain later, I do believe that a different privilege, the common law deliberative process privilege, may apply if affirmatively asserted by the PUC.

. The common law deliberative process privilege is based on the belief that public disclosure of certain communications would deter the open exchange of opinions and recommendations between government officials. City of Colo. Springs v. White, 967 P.2d 1042, 1050-51 (Colo.1998). This privilege has been limited by necessary implication by Colorado's Open Meetings Law. §§ 24-6-401 to -402, C.R.S. (2006). Applying this privilege to the instant case, I would find that the PUC may be allowed to claim the deliberative process privilege to protect certain portions of the analysis and recommendations in the advisory memoranda under the circumstances and the procedures this court set forth in White. However, the privilege would not apply to any factual information, or to the analysis and recommendations within the advisory memoranda that were revealed during the public deliberative meetings.

. In simply deferring to the PUC's historical interpretation of the statute, the majority too easily dismisses the federal courts' policy reasons for including staff advisory memoranda in the record.