Court Opinion

ID: 9883418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:42:17.112979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:23.152819
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm:
1. The legislature gave the MPUC the authority to order a telephone company to pay intervention costs if it finds that “the intervenor has materially assisted the commission’s deliberation.” Minn.Stat. § 237.-075, subd. 10 (1984). A determination whether it has been materially assisted is one that only the Commission can make and unlike other agency determinations, it may be based upon subjective rather than objective factors.
2. When reviewing an agency decision, a court attaches “a presumption of correctness” to the decision and gives deference to an agency’s conclusion made in the area of its expertise. Cable Communications Board v. Norwest Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658, 668 (Minn.1984). Here, too, deference is appropriate because the MPUC is making a subjective determination that only it can make.
3. The Commissioners deliberated over a two-day period before making their determination that intervenor compensation should be denied. Each intervenor was considered. The order made by the MPUC was detailed. Given the wide latitude granted by the legislature to the MPUC to determine not only whether, but to what extent, an intervenor should be reimbursed, the long deliberation, and the detailed order, I would affirm the MPUC’s decision.
4.An affirmance would be consistent with the long-held standard that if an agency engages in reasoned decision-making, the court should affirm even though it may have reached a different conclusion had it been the fact finder. Id. at 669.