Court Opinion

ID: 9570569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:24:19.142151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:54.513839
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF
MARUMOTO, J.,
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART, IN WHICH LEVINSON, J., JOINS
I concur in the holding in the opinion of the court that the director of regulatory agencies, acting through PUC staff and specially designated deputy attorney general, was a party to the PUC proceedings, and, as such, *678has standing on this appeal. I dissent from the remand of the cause to PUC for further proceedings.
With respect to restitution to customers of any excess charges collected by appellee, the amount thereof being the excess, if any, of the rates allowed in decision and order No. 2862 over the rates finally determined to be lawful, I think that appellee woüld be liable to make such restitution only with respect to the excess charges collected after the entry of the judgment on this appeal. The reason for this is that there was no stay of the operation of decision and order No. 2862, pursuant to HRS § 269-16, during the pendency of this appeal.
In connection with the contingency that appellee may be liable to make a restitution, I would require appellee to make a showing to PUC that it has the financial ability to make the necessary restitution, and would call upon it to effectuate either of the alternatives mentioned in the opinion only upon its failure to make such showing.
The reasons stated in the opinion for the remand to PUC for further proceedings are: (1) decisions and orders No. 2853 and No. 2862 did not meet the requirements of HRS § 91-12; (2) PUC failed to make its findings “reasonably clear,” leaving this court with the dilemma of guessing its precise findings on the material questions of fact involved in the case; (3) this court is unable to determine the validity of the conclusions or lack of conclusions of PUC in the mentioned decisions and orders because of its failure to make “the necessary find-' ings of fact”; and (4) PUC did not recognize appellant as a proper party to the proceedings, thereby denying him sufficient time to prepare and introduce necessary evidence on the “several issues of State-wide import” involved in the case.
With regard to reason (1), I am of the opinion that decisions and orders No. 2853 and No. 2862 contain findings and conclusions which satisfy the requirements of *679HRS § 91-12. Those findings and conclusions are wide-ranging, detailed, and cover all matters relevant to, and that require consideration in, the intrastate rate-making process. They “incorporate” a ruling on every proposed finding presented by appellant, although each proposed finding is not discussed separately.
It is stated in 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise . 438 (1958), with regard to the provision of § 8(b) of the original Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 242, which required the record to show the ruling upon each finding, conclusion, or exception presented:
“The principal problem of interpreting this provision of section 8(b) is whether the agency must make a separate finding with respect to each proposed finding and exception. A single set of ‘findings and conclusions’ may conceivably ‘show the ruling upon each such finding, conclusion, or exception presented’ without doing so with respect to each one separately.
* * * The courts have held that a separate finding need not be made on each exception to the examiner’s report, that a separate finding need not be made on each proposed finding submitted by a party, and that the Act does not require detailed or numbered findings on every subsidiary evidentiary fact.”
The foregoing statement is particularly applicable to HRS § 91-12 because the legislative history of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act shows that the legislature deliberately omitted from § 91-12 the provision in § 12 of the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act requiring the findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. House Standing Committee Report No. 8, 1961 House Journal 653, 660 (1961).
The holding of this court in In re Terminal Trans*680portation, Inc., 54 Haw. 134, 139, 504 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1972), with respect to HRS § 91-12, is not apposite here because the PUC decision and order in that case did not incorporate a ruling on every proposed finding presented by a party to the proceedings. This court stated in that case that it is a settled rule in administrative law that a separate ruling on each proposed finding filed by a party is not indispensable.
With regard to reasons (2) and (3), the position of the majority of the court is not clear from the opinion, whether it is that PUC failed to make “the necessary findings of fact,” or it is that PUC did make the necessary findings of fact but did not make the findings “reasonably clear.” The opinion contains only a bare statement of the reasons, without any discussion regarding the respects in which PUC failed to make the necessary findings of fact or to make the findings reasonably clear.
This case warrants much more than the cavalier treatment accorded it in the opinion.
I think that it is in the interest of administrative and judicial economy, as well as in the interest of the parties, that, if there were any deficiencies in the prior PUC proceedings, such deficiencies be properly corrected in the proceedings on remand.
To that end, I think that the opinion should have provided guidelines to be followed by PUC and the parties in the proceedings on remand, by setting forth the particulars of the failure of PUC to make the necessary findings of fact or to make the findings reasonably clear.
I also think that the opinion should have specified the “several issues of State-wide import” as to which appellant was denied sufficient time to prepare and introduce necessary evidence.
Without such guidelines, PUC and the parties would be in a quandary in determining the scope of additional *681evidence to be adduced at the remand proceedings, for decisions and orders No. 2853 and No. 2862 contain a fairly extensive discussion, and findings and conclusions based thereon, regarding the issues relevant to the determination of just and reasonable rates, which provide a fair return on appellee’s property used or useful for public utility purposes.
With regard to reason (4), the record clearly shows that PUC recognized appellant as a party to the proceedings and accorded appellant sufficient time to adduce the necessary evidence. The record is as follows:
Appellee filed its application for rate increase on June 26, 1970. Following a pre-hearing conference held on November 6, 1970, a pre-hearing order was entered, providing for presentation by appellee of its case commencing January 26, 1971, and for presentation of appellant’s case 45 days after the completion of appellee’s case. Appellee’s presentation and appellant’s cross-examination of appellee’s witnesses were completed on February 26, 1971, at which time the hearings were adjourned to April 12, 1971, being 45 days after the completion of appellee’s case. On April 6, 1971, appellant filed a motion for continuance to the middle of August 1971. PUC granted appellant’s motion to the extent of continuing the hearings to June 14, 1971. The hearings actually resumed on June 15, 1971, and were thereafter adjourned to July 7, 1971. Appellant’s case was then presented on July 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 16, 1971.