Court Opinion

ID: 9679556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:56:00.719156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:15.085219
License: Public Domain

McGUIRE, District Judge,
separate concurring dissent.
After concluding that case law supports the PSC’s determination that rates may be rolled in based upon benefits and fairness, without the necessity of a finding of integration, the majority obviates the PSC’s finding of sufficiency of benefits, although the majority admits benefits do exist. This the Court does by the machination of changing the PSC’s finding into a conclusion of law to enable the Court to fully review the sufficiency of benefits issue. As the majority points out, the method of review, including the weight of the evidence, is well established as set out in Sections 28-32-21 and 28-32-19 of the North Dakota Century Code. In its review the Court is to apply the “preponderance of evidence” test. Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D.1979); American State Bank of Williston v. State Banking Board of North Dakota, 289 N.W.2d 222 (N.D.1980). The scope of review is extremely narrow and it is not the reviewing Court’s place to make new independent findings, nor is the Court supposed to substitute its judgment on the facts found by an agency, such as the PSC, when the agency obviously has special expertise in the area of concern. The scope and nature of this Court’s review is adequately and succinctly set forth in the case of Geo. E. Haggart v. North Dakota Work. Comp. Bur., 171 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1969), wherein this Court stated:
“The primary limitation upon power of the Court to review is in regard to matters calling for the exercise of expert judgment which are committed to the discretion of the administrative agency. Thus, judicial review is extremely limited in regard to findings of fact and to expert judgments of an administrative agency acting within its statutory authority.”
I would leave the PSC’s findings of fact and conclusions as they are, supported by the evidence and by the law respectively. I would affirm the PSC’s determination and find it in full compliance with the pertinent law.
I therefore enter my dissent and concur with Justice Pederson’s dissent as this Court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the commission. For the reasons as stated above and for the reasons as stated in Justice Pederson’s dissent the PSC’s determination should be affirmed.