Court Opinion

ID: 9587961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:28:25.670813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:56.547325
License: Public Domain

DONALDSON, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in most of the opinion except that part which states that construction work in progress (C.W.I.P.) should be included in the rate base. The alternative method which the Commission chose of providing an allowance for funds used during construction is just and reasonable. Which method to use was for the Commission to decide since it is within their realm of expertise. This Court should not substitute its opinion for that of the Commission’s.
Again, as I stated in my special concurrence in Utah Power & Light Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 102 Ida*828ho 282, 629 P.2d 678 (1981), the Commission should either have allowed the items of construction work in progress and plant held for future use or regulatory lag (an attrition allowance).
By this means, the Commission could hopefully avoid the necessity of having rate hearings every few months. This would be a savings of time and effort for everyone concerned.