Citizens Utilities Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission

I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion, and hence dissent. Although the amount of money involved and in dispute here is not large, the principle is significant. The core of the issue is the Commission’s treatment of interest expense of the company, and tax savings which would result therefrom.

In my view, the majority correctly points out the facts, but fails to engage in any substantial analysis, but rather relies upon a Pennsylvania case which I believe is distinguishable from the instant action. Although the majority cosmetically utilizes the substantial evidence…