Court Opinion

ID: 9570473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:31.471685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:53.885400
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority states “[T]he parties negotiated two payment options, the binding option dependent on this Court’s determination of the Commission’s authority. ” This Court has made its determination of the Commission’s authority. I see no necessity to “interpret” the contract. Its language is clear and the only question is whether this Court’s decision has triggered one or the other of the options. Even assuming that “interpretation” of a court is necessary, I deem it a waste of resources to require intervention of a district court with a resultant appeal to this Court. Neither do I see any “modification” of the contract as an issue. The contract is agreed upon by its parties, and again, the only question appears to be which option has been triggered.
The majority makes reference to the Court’s previous decisions in this matter wherein the Commission in ruling upon modification of a contract was directed to utilize a fair, just and reasonable standard not inconsistent with federal law. Clearly, the Commission has the authority and expertise to determine if a utility contract is “fair, just and reasonable,” but I perceive no authority in the Commission to interpret federal law or determine if federal law has preempted the field, or the extent of that preemption.