Court Opinion

ID: 9536155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:55:45.431483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:28.305561
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring with comments).
I concur with the main opinion. However, I desire to add some comments about two significant aspects thereof by stating them with such succinctness and clarity as I can achieve.
The first is my agreement with the main opinion’s statement that there is nothing in our statutory law which restricts the authority of the Commission to conduct an abbreviated proceeding. It is my purpose to emphasize that there is not only nothing improper in doing so, but that on the contrary, in appropriate circumstances, it can be used in the saving of time, effort and expense to everyone concerned, as contrasted to the necessity of examining into the capital structure and operations of the entire utility whenever a change is requested.1 This has advantages for everyone concerned, including ultimate beneficial effects upon the interests of the public. However, this does presuppose that there is properly before the Commission in that proceeding all of the relevant factors upon which to base its decision.
In supplementation of what has just been said, I do not think that the fact that the amendment to Sec. 54-7-12(1) which provides for what is referred to as a “pass through” increase in rates, by reason of increased fuel costs, should be deemed to prevent an analogous procedure with respect to other items of expense, such as a necessary general wage increase, if all of the other relevant factors are in some proper manner included in the proceeding and considered by the Commission.
My second observation is that it should be clearly understood that there is distinct differentiation to be made between the finding required by Secs. 54-3-1 and 54-7-12(2), U.C.A. 1953, that an increase must be “just and reasonable” which should entail consideration of the interests of all concerned, including those of the utility, and of the public, as contrasted to the finding the Commission made, that the proposed increase will not result in exceeding a reasonable rate of return for the utility on its capital structure. This is especially significant where it is not shown that all of the relevant factors were taken into consideration by the Commission.

. Cf. statement in the main opinion referring to footnote 13.