2024-11-25 1250 Oceanside LLC Response to PD

Home

Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.,60 Haw.625 (1979) 594 P.2d 612 While we have said that the courts have great respect for the findings made by specialized agencies,those findings are subject to judicial review.In order to facilitate that review,HRS s 91-12(1976)provides that: Every decision and order adverse to a party to the proceeding, rendered by an agency in a contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. If any party to the proceeding has filed proposed findings of fact, the agency shall incorporate in its decision a ruling upon each proposed finding so presented. The requirement that the Commission set out findings of fact and conclusions of law is no mere technical or perfunctory matter. In re Application of Kauai Electric Division,supra,60 Haw.at--,590 P.2d at 537.The purpose of the statutory requirement that the agency set forth separately its *642 findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions. See Pin Re Application of Terminal Transportation,Inc.,54 Haw. 134, 504 P.2d 1214(1972); Cooper, Supra,at 465-468;Davis, Supra,at s 16.03. In order that we might be informed of the factual basis upon which the Commission relies,the Commission's findings of Ultimate facts 10 must be supported by findings of Basic facts which in turn are required to be supported by the evidence in the record. FaIn re Application of Kauai Electric Division, supra, 60 Haw. at--, 590 P.2d at 537; Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission,supra,97 Idaho at 840,555 P.2d at 171; Cooper, Supra,at 466;Davis, Supra,at s 16.04. See PMitchell v.BWK Joint Venture,57 Haw.535,560 P.2d 1292(1977);International Minerals and Chemical Corp.v.Mayo,336 So.2d 548 (Fla.1976).In the instant case,the Commission has failed to support its ultimate finding that the residential rate structure is just and reasonable with sufficiently specific findings of fact to enable this court to intelligently review its decision. As the court said in American Can Co.v.Davis,28 Or.App. 207,216, 559 P.2d 898, 905 (1977); (T)he findings ought to set forth sufficient facts so that the reviewing court can prudently discharge its duty and not experience a sense of frustration through inability to get at the facts.The circumstance that the evidence is in the transcript **624 and that the court,by weighing it, can determine for itself'the facts'does not suffice. The agency is the fact finder, and the undigested transcript is not a substitute for a set of findings of fact. . . .Nor should a court be put in a position wherein it is forced to ferret out the facts or seek them through engaging in mathematical calculations of a kind for which special training is required. *643 We cannot fill the voids in the Commission's orders for we are not the fact finding body. See Camelot Utilities,Inc.v. Illinois Commerce Commission,51 Ill.App.3d 5,8 Ill.Dec.74,365 N.E.2d 312(1977);New England Telephone and Telegraph Co.v. Public Utilities Commission,R.I.,376 A.2d 1041 (1977); City of Milford v. Illinois Commerce Commission, supra,45 Ill.App.3d at 737, 4 Ill.Dec. at 194, 359 N.E.2d at 1146; American Can Co. v. Davis, supra, 28 Or.App. at 216, 559 P.2d at 905;Bristol County Water Co.v. Public Utilities Commission, 117 R.I. 89,363 A.2d 444 (1976). To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the presumed validity of the Commission's orders. B. Whether the Commission's conclusion that the residential rate structure is not unreasonably discriminatory is justified by reliable,probative and substantial evidence. Once a utility's revenue requirement has been determined, the final question is the rate structure or the set of rates that will produce the additional revenues that are needed to earn the permitted rate of return. St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service Commission, 312 Minn. 250, 251 N.W.2d 350 (1977); Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. Davis, 28 Or.App. 621, 560 P.2d 301 (1977). WESTLAW ©2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10