Court Opinion

ID: 9844132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:58:10.130825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:28.307106
License: Public Domain

OLIVER, District Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion herein concludes that appellants, having failed specifically to bring to the attention of the Commission asserted deficiencies of the findings contained in the-order, cannot-.now have such deficiencies considered-.-by this court. With this. conclusion,'--I." -cannpt agree.- I feel that this court not only has the power, but also the duty to require the Commission to make such findings as will justify its conclusions.
The majority opinion relies upon Section 61-626 I.C. as amended to support its position in this regard. I do not read the prohibitions into such section that the majority does. If an extremely strict interpretation of this section were to be applied, I would conclude that the appellants could not request additional findings or complain of the Commission’s failure to find specifics in an application for rehearing. Said section states:
“After an order has been made by the commission, any * * * or person interested therein shall have the right * * * to apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined therein * *
Could a strict construction not therefore infer that an application for rehearing could not complain of any matter not “determined therein”? Where can one apply for relief, if not to this court by way of appeal?
In addition, Section 61-622 I.C. provides that:
“No public utility shall raise any rate * * * except upon a showing before the commission and a finding by the commission that such increase is justi.fied.”
*169A conclusion of the Commission that an increase is justified cannot substitute for the statutory requirement for findings of fact.
This court has held in non-commission matters, that the purpose of requiring findings of fact is to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision and that a failure to make findings cannot be disregarded unless the record is so clear that the court does not need their aid. Merrill v. Merrill, 83 Idaho 306, 362 P.2d 887. I find nothing in Section 61-626 I.C. that requires the court to change its position in matters involving the Commission.
In interpreting civil rules of procedure which require the making of findings (Rule 52[a]) courts have held the requirement for findings must be met regardless of specific request for same by the parties. Hill v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 104 F.2d 695. On many occasions this court has remanded non-commission matters to the trial courts for specific findings.
Extreme public interest in these commission matters requires findings sufficient to justify the Commission’s conclusions.
In any event, I cannot help but conclude that the petition for rehearing by appellant was sufficient, even under the theory of the majority of this court, to require the commission to make specific findings. Paragraph #3 of the petition for rehearing reads: ■ -,
“3. The Order errs (Finding No. V) in granting to the Idaho Power Company an increase of 7i/á% in revenues from those classes of customers affected in the application, without in any manner showing the amount of additional revenue to be obtained by the Idaho Power Company from an increase in revenues and without in any manner showing or establishing that the present rates are nót fair. In this respect the Order is contrary to the evidence which ¡¡established that the present rates produce a. fair-rate of return based upon all of the applicable factors and considerations required of this honorable Commission and that the present rates are lawful, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.”,
I believe the foregoing was a clear request and invitation to the- Commission to find specifically what a “fair rate of return” is and thus justify its conclusion that a fate increase is justified.
Neither can I agree with the majority in concluding that appellants’ request for findings involve “procedural” as opposed to “substantive” issues. It appears to me that the substance of the entire proceeding is a determination as tó the justification for a rate increase and findings of fact to support such a determination.'