BISTLINE, Justice.
The basic issue presented today is whether the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has the authority to grant a public utility a surcharge to recover past losses caused by an invalid PUC order set aside by this Court on appeal.
On December 29, 1976, Utah Power & Light Company (UP & L) applied to the PUC to increase its rates and charges for its customers in the State of Idaho by $12,536,000. UP & L requested that the proposed rates and charges become effective on January 31, 1977. The proposed rates were suspended by the PUC pursuant to I.C. § 61-622.1
On September 29, 1977, pursuant to Order No. 13448, the PUC authorized UP & L to increase its rates and charges by $3,371,-408 annually instead of by the $12,536,000 requested by UP & L. UP & L timely petitioned for rehearing from this order. On November 11, 1977, the PUC issued Order No. 13550 which denied in part and [49]*49granted in part UP & L’s petition for rehearing. UP & L timely appealed to this Court from Order No. 13550 denying in part its petition for rehearing.
In the meantime, a rehearing was held. On March 16, 1978, the PUC determined that it had erred in one aspect of its calculation of UP & L’s revenue requirement and that Order No. 13448 of September 29, 1977, should have granted an increase of $3,647,900 to UP & L. The PUC then issued Order No. 13739 which superseded Order No. 13448 and authorized UP & L to file higher tariffs based upon its correction of the earlier order.
UP & L’s appeal from Order No. 13448 came at issue in December, 1978. This Court issued an opinion in the appeal, Utah Power & Light Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 102 Idaho 282, 629 P.2d 678 (1981) {UP & LI), in May of 1981. In UP & L I, the Court set aside PUC Order No. 13448 because it determined that the PUC erred by failing to make adjustments to the 1976 test year data for certain “known and measurable changes,” which error resulted in the establishment of an artificially low rate base. Id. at 284, 629 P.2d at 680.
On July 27, 1981, UP & L filed a petition for hearing with the PUC requesting it to modify Order No. 13448 set aside by this Court in UP & LI and to recover UP & L’s shortfall of operating revenue resulting from that order. By testimony and exhibits submitted, UP & L quantified the amount of additional revenue which it should have recovered during Order No. 13448’s period of effectiveness from September 29, 1977, to March 21, 1978, as $6,068,000. It requested that it be allowed to recover this deficiency by a surcharge to its Idaho customers imposed over a 12-month period.
Upon receiving UP & L’s petition, the PUC raised the question of its authority to impose a surcharge of the kind requested by UP & L and set oral argument in the matter. After argument, the PUC issued an informal oral ruling from the bench and declined to hold any further hearings on UP & L’s petition.
The PUC summarized the Public Utility Law thus in denying UP & L’s request for a surcharge:
“[W]e construe the Public Utility Law as follows: When any party, be it utility, ratepayer or the State of Idaho, appeals a rafe setting Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to the Supreme Court of Idaho, but does not stay the effectiveness of the Order by posting bond under the terms of the Public Utility Law, then the rates and charges set forth by that Order are final in all respects as service is provided and consumed so long as the Order continues in effect. If the Order is later set aside by the Supreme Court of Idaho, no rates and charges previously collected may be adjusted as a result; similarly, no rates and charges later established by the Commission may be adjusted from what they otherwise would have been to take into account what the appealed Order would have been before it was set aside had it, during the time it was in effect, conformed to or been altered or amended to meet the objections of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Idaho. The statutes governing rehearing, appeal and stay of our orders, and the general prohibitions against setting rates based upon previous periods of unreasonably high or unreasonably low rates, admit no other construction. We are a regulatory Commission, not a court of law, and have no authority to award damages except as given to us by statute.” (Footnote omitted.)
We agree with the PUC’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Law and therefore affirm its decision in this case.
I.
UP & L contends that the stay and bond procedures provided by the Public Utilities [50]*50Laws, I.C. §§ 61-633 through 61-638,2 do not provide the exclusive means for obtaining monetary relief from PUC orders denying public utilities’ requested rate increases. UP & L argues that these procedures are not always available to a petitioning party and so should not be construed as providing the exclusive means for obtaining monetary relief.
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
UP & L contends that the granting of a stay by either the district court or the Supreme Court pursuant to I.C. §§ 61-633 and -636 is discretionary with the courts. UP & L argues that under the PUC’s interpretation of the stay and bond provisions an appeal can only be an effective remedy if the reviewing court chooses to exercise its discretion in granting a stay. UP & L argues that to make the effectiveness of an appeal hinge upon the granting of a discretionary stay conflicts with its basic due process rights and with I.C. § 61-627 which grants any aggrieved party a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
In Joy v. Winstead, 70 Idaho 232, 238, 215 P.2d 291, 293 (1950), this Court, in addressing the question of a district court’s jurisdiction to stay PUC orders, first observed “that due process requires that courts stay an order of a commission, i.e., regulatory body, if enforcement thereof may result in confiscation and irreparable loss, until the final adjudication, through appropriate channels, of the correctness of the order.” The Court followed with the declaration that “pendente lite, the Company must be protected against confiscation, if irreparable, and to insure and accomplish [51]*51this Courts may and must, if the Commission does not, stay enforcement of a confiscatory rate, correspondingly protecting the consumer.” 70 Idaho at 238, 215 P.2d 291. Our reading of this passage, with the following correction of the obvious clerical error in capitalization and another in punctuation, is that “to insure and accomplish a company’s protection against confiscation, courts may, and must if the Commission does not, enter appropriate stay orders.”
Four years later this Court in Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones, 75 Idaho 78, 267 P.2d 634 (1954), in commenting on Joy v. Winstead, observed that it had not therein in any way outlined the procedure or what was necessary to be shown in order to justify a stay order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BISTLINE, Justice.
The basic issue presented today is whether the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has the authority to grant a public utility a surcharge to recover past losses caused by an invalid PUC order set aside by this Court on appeal.
On December 29, 1976, Utah Power & Light Company (UP & L) applied to the PUC to increase its rates and charges for its customers in the State of Idaho by $12,536,000. UP & L requested that the proposed rates and charges become effective on January 31, 1977. The proposed rates were suspended by the PUC pursuant to I.C. § 61-622.1
On September 29, 1977, pursuant to Order No. 13448, the PUC authorized UP & L to increase its rates and charges by $3,371,-408 annually instead of by the $12,536,000 requested by UP & L. UP & L timely petitioned for rehearing from this order. On November 11, 1977, the PUC issued Order No. 13550 which denied in part and [49]*49granted in part UP & L’s petition for rehearing. UP & L timely appealed to this Court from Order No. 13550 denying in part its petition for rehearing.
In the meantime, a rehearing was held. On March 16, 1978, the PUC determined that it had erred in one aspect of its calculation of UP & L’s revenue requirement and that Order No. 13448 of September 29, 1977, should have granted an increase of $3,647,900 to UP & L. The PUC then issued Order No. 13739 which superseded Order No. 13448 and authorized UP & L to file higher tariffs based upon its correction of the earlier order.
UP & L’s appeal from Order No. 13448 came at issue in December, 1978. This Court issued an opinion in the appeal, Utah Power & Light Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 102 Idaho 282, 629 P.2d 678 (1981) {UP & LI), in May of 1981. In UP & L I, the Court set aside PUC Order No. 13448 because it determined that the PUC erred by failing to make adjustments to the 1976 test year data for certain “known and measurable changes,” which error resulted in the establishment of an artificially low rate base. Id. at 284, 629 P.2d at 680.
On July 27, 1981, UP & L filed a petition for hearing with the PUC requesting it to modify Order No. 13448 set aside by this Court in UP & LI and to recover UP & L’s shortfall of operating revenue resulting from that order. By testimony and exhibits submitted, UP & L quantified the amount of additional revenue which it should have recovered during Order No. 13448’s period of effectiveness from September 29, 1977, to March 21, 1978, as $6,068,000. It requested that it be allowed to recover this deficiency by a surcharge to its Idaho customers imposed over a 12-month period.
Upon receiving UP & L’s petition, the PUC raised the question of its authority to impose a surcharge of the kind requested by UP & L and set oral argument in the matter. After argument, the PUC issued an informal oral ruling from the bench and declined to hold any further hearings on UP & L’s petition.
The PUC summarized the Public Utility Law thus in denying UP & L’s request for a surcharge:
“[W]e construe the Public Utility Law as follows: When any party, be it utility, ratepayer or the State of Idaho, appeals a rafe setting Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to the Supreme Court of Idaho, but does not stay the effectiveness of the Order by posting bond under the terms of the Public Utility Law, then the rates and charges set forth by that Order are final in all respects as service is provided and consumed so long as the Order continues in effect. If the Order is later set aside by the Supreme Court of Idaho, no rates and charges previously collected may be adjusted as a result; similarly, no rates and charges later established by the Commission may be adjusted from what they otherwise would have been to take into account what the appealed Order would have been before it was set aside had it, during the time it was in effect, conformed to or been altered or amended to meet the objections of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Idaho. The statutes governing rehearing, appeal and stay of our orders, and the general prohibitions against setting rates based upon previous periods of unreasonably high or unreasonably low rates, admit no other construction. We are a regulatory Commission, not a court of law, and have no authority to award damages except as given to us by statute.” (Footnote omitted.)
We agree with the PUC’s interpretation of the Public Utilities Law and therefore affirm its decision in this case.
I.
UP & L contends that the stay and bond procedures provided by the Public Utilities [50]*50Laws, I.C. §§ 61-633 through 61-638,2 do not provide the exclusive means for obtaining monetary relief from PUC orders denying public utilities’ requested rate increases. UP & L argues that these procedures are not always available to a petitioning party and so should not be construed as providing the exclusive means for obtaining monetary relief.
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
UP & L contends that the granting of a stay by either the district court or the Supreme Court pursuant to I.C. §§ 61-633 and -636 is discretionary with the courts. UP & L argues that under the PUC’s interpretation of the stay and bond provisions an appeal can only be an effective remedy if the reviewing court chooses to exercise its discretion in granting a stay. UP & L argues that to make the effectiveness of an appeal hinge upon the granting of a discretionary stay conflicts with its basic due process rights and with I.C. § 61-627 which grants any aggrieved party a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court.
In Joy v. Winstead, 70 Idaho 232, 238, 215 P.2d 291, 293 (1950), this Court, in addressing the question of a district court’s jurisdiction to stay PUC orders, first observed “that due process requires that courts stay an order of a commission, i.e., regulatory body, if enforcement thereof may result in confiscation and irreparable loss, until the final adjudication, through appropriate channels, of the correctness of the order.” The Court followed with the declaration that “pendente lite, the Company must be protected against confiscation, if irreparable, and to insure and accomplish [51]*51this Courts may and must, if the Commission does not, stay enforcement of a confiscatory rate, correspondingly protecting the consumer.” 70 Idaho at 238, 215 P.2d 291. Our reading of this passage, with the following correction of the obvious clerical error in capitalization and another in punctuation, is that “to insure and accomplish a company’s protection against confiscation, courts may, and must if the Commission does not, enter appropriate stay orders.”
Four years later this Court in Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Jones, 75 Idaho 78, 267 P.2d 634 (1954), in commenting on Joy v. Winstead, observed that it had not therein in any way outlined the procedure or what was necessary to be shown in order to justify a stay order. 75 Idaho at 82, 267 P.2d at 636. After citing Joy v. Winstead for the proposition that a proceeding to obtain a stay “is not a rate hearing, but an extraordinary, emergency proceeding ... pendente lite for the sole and only purpose of considering temporary relief against probable confiscation,” 75 Idaho at 83, 267 P.2d at 637, the Court concluded that the issuance of a stay laid in the “sound, considered judicial discretion of the trial court after a full hearing on the single issue of probable confiscation.”3 Giving the guidance which was not contained in Joy v. Winstead, the Court quoted from Public Service Commission v. Indianapolis Rys, 225 Ind. 30, 72 N.E.2d 434, 439 (1947), for the rule that:
“ ‘ “All that is necessary is that plaintiff show that it is prima facie entitled to an injunction; that the injury to plaintiff will be certain and irreparable if the application for an interlocutory injunction be denied, and, if the injunction be granted, that the injury to the opposing party, even if the final decree be in its favor, may be adequately indemnified by bond.” ’ ”
75 Idaho at 84, 267 P.2d at 637.
We read the language of the Mountain States case as modifying the language of Joy v. Winstead only to the extent of requiring a prima facie showing to establish probable confiscation pendente lite.
UP & L additionally argues that the remedy provided by the stay and bond procedures should not be thought exclusive because the remedy is not available in cases in which there has been no showing of “irreparable damage to the petitioning party.” Irreparable damage is that injury which cannot be adequately compensated for monetarily. See Black’s Law Dictionary 707 (rev. 5th ed. 1979). In response to the contention that the issuance of a stay was not necessary to protect the utility pending appeal from a confiscatory rate order and so was discretionary with the court, the Court, in Joy v. Winstead, held that:
“[T]o await appeal before a stay order could be issued by this Court would be inadequate, is apparent for these reasons: First, the losses sustained during the time from May 14, 1948, when increased rates were asked and until appeal to this Court, not yet taken and now unavailable until the rehearing before the Commission is concluded, because the rehearing must be completed (Sec. 61-627,1.C.) before an appeal will lie and we have jurisdiction to grant a stay, could not be recouped by an increased rate to [52]*52cover them, so such loss would be permanent.”
70 Idaho at 240-41, 215 P.2d at 295 (emphasis added).
Thus, a finding that irreparable damage resulting from probable confiscation must be made as the primary requisite for the issuance of a stay.
UP & L urges a construction of the Public Utilities Law that would make the statutory standard of “great and irreparable damage” meaningless and superfluous. If a utility were to be held entitled to a surcharge or other monetary relief whenever a PUC order is set aside upon appeal, the failure to stay or enjoin enforcement of a PUC order could never subject the utility to the “great and irreparable damage” envisioned by the legislature in enacting I.C. §§ 61-633 and -636 (set out supra in n. 2).
B. PUBLIC UTILITIES LAW READ AS A WHOLE
UP & L contends that because there is no express language in the Public Utilities Law specifically declaring that the stay and bond procedures are the manner by which relief may be obtained from allegedly invalid PUC orders, such should not be considered as exclusive to other means — in this case the allowance of a surcharge. Although there is no express language, it is readily seen that the Public Utilities Law itself neither provides nor suggests any alternatives. It has been firmly established that the PUC has no authority not given it by statute.
“The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has no authority other than that given to it by the legislature. It exercises a limited jurisdiction and nothing is presumed in favor of its jurisdiction. United States v. Utah■ Power & Light Co., 98 Idaho 665, 570 P.2d 1353 (1977); Lemhi Tel. Co. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Idaho 692, 571 P.2d 753 (1977); Arrow Transp. Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Comm’n, 85 Idaho 307, 379 P.2d 422 (1963). As a general rule, administrative authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the statutes reposing power in them and they cannot confer it upon themselves, although they may determine whether they have it. If the provisions of the statutes are not met and compliance is not had with the statutes, no jurisdiction exists.”
Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979).
I.C. § 61-502 provides that:
“Whenever the commission ... shall find that the rates ... are unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory or preferential, ... or that such rates ... are insufficient, the commission shall determine the just, reasonable or sufficient rates ... to be thereafter observed ____” (Emphasis added.)
This section provides only prospective relief. It does not give the PUC authority to prescribe surcharges or reductions to otherwise reasonable rates in order to make up past revenue shortfalls due to confiscatory rates.
Although there is no statutory provision directly on point, an examination of I.C. §§ 61-502, -622,4 -6235 provides the back[53]*53ground against which the PUC’s authority must be examined. A common thread weaves through these provisions: rates set by order are final unless stayed and are determinative of all rights of the parties as long as they remain in effect without regard to whether they are later altered or amended on rehearing or altered or amended after being set aside on appeal. These provisions provide that rates are only to have prospective effect. A holding by this Court that the PUC has authority to grant utilities surcharges to make up past deficits would conflict with the spirit, if not with the express terms, of these provisions.
The potential havoc that would be wreaked in this intricate statutory scheme is evidenced by the result which would be reached were this Court to permit surcharges. For the purpose of this argument, the time period here at issue when Order No. 13448 was in effect, from September 29, 1977, to March 16, 1978, will be divided into two categories: that period before the PUC granted in part and denied in part UP & L’s motion for rehearing by Order No. 13550, and that period after Order No. 13550. Under the interpretation of the Public Utilities Law urged by UP & L, there would result as to the first time period differing rules of law for orders set aside on appeal and those set aside by the PUC on its own motion or on motion of a party. UP & L argues that the rates collected during both periods should be the basis of a surcharge because the order of September 29, 1977, was set aside on appeal. However, I.C. § 61-626 6 specifically provides that (1) a motion for rehearing does not operate to stay enforcement of the preceding order; and (2) an order following rehearing cannot be retroactively applied. Under I.C. § 61-626, there is no basis for a surcharge upon modification of rates by the PUC upon its own order following rehearing. If we were to follow UP & L’s interpretation of the law, no surcharge would be permissible on the PUC’s own amendment of rates but a surcharge would be permissible when the original order was set aside on appeal. Absent more persuasive reasoning than is here presented, we will not read into the Public Utilities Law a double standard for obtaining relief, one which would give broader relief to a utility on appeal to this Court than would be permitted on rehearing by the PUC itself.
C. ORDERS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL
UP & L argues that I.C. §§ 61-624 and 61-629 give the PUC the authority to grant monetary relief to a utility when a PUC order is set aside by this Court on appeal. At the time relevant to this appeal I.C. § 61-629 provided in part:
“Upon the hearing the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or setting aside the order of the commission. In case the order of the commission is set aside the commission, upon its own motion or upon motion of any of the parties, may alter or amend the order appealed from to meet the objections of the court in the manner prescribed in section 61-624.” (Emphasis added.)7
[54]*54This provision permits the PUC to “alter or amend the order appealed from” but does not permit the PUC to alter or amend any other order, or to make any new order not within the purview of the Court’s directions on remand. UP & L’s petition, in addition to requesting that Order No. 13448, which had since been superseded by intervening PUC orders, be amended, also, in effect, requested the PUC to amend whatever rate order was then in effect in order to grant UP & L a surcharge. The relief requested by UP & L would not be the altering or amending of Order No. 13448 to meet the objections of the Court as set forth in UP & L I, supra, but would amount to the imposition of a surcharge which simply is not related to an amendment of Order No. 13448.
UP & L argues that I.C. § 61-629 would lose its meaning and effect if it were concluded that no additional monetary awards could be collected as a result of an altered or amended order. It argues that the only way the amendment of the PUC’s order to increase a rate base and rate of return to meet the Supreme Court’s objections thereto can have any real meaning or practical effect is by allowing the collection of the additional revenue which would have flowed to it had there been a proper Order No. 13448 in the first instance.
First, it must be noted that this Court in UP & L I, supra, did not order the PUC to alter or amend its order of September 29, 1977, nor did it order the PUC to grant UP & L a surcharge or other monetary relief. In fact, to do so was not within the range of our statutory prerogatives.8 I.C. § 61-629 provided that “the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or setting aside the order of the commission.” The Court’s direction to the PUC in UP & L I was that provided by statute: “The order of the Commission is set aside.” 102 Idaho at 285, 629 P.2d at 681 (1981).
Second, it is not for this Court to imply a term in the statute allowing the PUC to grant a surcharge when the legislature has not so provided, and this is especially so where the legislature has provided a means for obtaining monetary relief, i.e., compliance with the statutory stay and bond procedures. UP & L will not be heard to complain to this Court that it has no adequate remedy when a procedure has been specifically provided to obtain relief with which the utility has made no endeavor to comply.9
[55]*55Additionally, I.C. § 61-62410 limits the manner in which the PUC “may alter or amend the order appealed from” pursuant to I.C. § 61-629. This provision permits the PUC to amend or alter an order in a prospective manner only. “Any order ... shall ... have the same effect as is herein provided for original orders or decisions,” i.e., prospective effect only. I.C. § 61-624. See I.C. § 61-502. Therefore, an order by the PUC allowing UP & L to expand its rate base and its rate of return can be only of a prospective nature. The intent of the statute would be circumvented by a holding that would allow utilities to obtain a surcharge to make up past rate deficiencies on the premise that customers were only being surcharged prospectively.
D. REQUIREMENT OF STAY, BOND AND INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTING
If this Court were to accept UP & L’s arguments and permit the PUC to award surcharges on rehearing, the protections afforded non-petitioning parties by I.C. §§ 61-634, -637 and -638 would be rendered incomplete and almost meaningless.
I.C. § 61-634 provides that a court order staying or suspending a PUC decision shall not become effective until a suspending bond has been executed in compliance with I.C. § 61-637 which provides that:
“In case the order or decision of the commission is stayed or suspended, the order of the court shall not become effective until a suspending bond shall first have been executed ... sufficient in amount and security to insure the prompt payment, by the party petitioning for the review, of all damages caused by the delay in the enforcement of the order or decision of the commission ... in ease said order or decision is sustained. The court ... shall also by order direct the public utility affected to pay into court ... all sums of money which it may collect from any corporation or person in excess of the sum such corporation or person would have been compelled to pay if the order or decision of the commission had not been stayed or suspended.”
I.C. § 61-638 requires an individual accounting of all moneys paid by utility customers pursuant to a court order staying a PUC order lowering utility rates pending the outcome of an appeal to this Court:
“In case the court stays or suspends any order or decision lowering any rate, ... the commission, upon the execution and approval of said suspending bond, shall forthwith require the public utility affected ... to keep such accounts verified by oath, as may in the judgment of the commission suffice to show the amounts being charged or received by such public utility, pending the review, in excess of the charges allowed by the order or decision of the commission, together with the names and addresses of the corporations or persons to whom overcharges will be refundable in case the charges made by the public utility, pending the review, be not sustained by the court____ Upon the final decision by the court, all moneys which the public utility may have collected, pending the appeal in excess of those authorized by such final decision ..., shall be promptly paid to the corporations or persons entitled thereto____”
(Emphasis added.)
These provisions reflect the legislative intent to insure that there is established a fund out of which persons or corporations injured by the stay of a PUC order may be recompensed. It is clear that the legislature envisioned protecting individual ratepayers by providing that the higher rates collected following a stay of a PUC order be put aside and that if the petitioning party does not prevail upon appeal those [56]*56rates will be refunded to the individual ratepayers from whom collected. These provisions do not treat utility ratepayers as a fungible mass allowing utility ratepayers of the year 1983 to be substituted for those of the year 1978. As manifested by this statute, the legislature did not envision allowing the ratepayers of any particular year to be benefited or burdened by the over or under collection of rates pending appeal. Under UP & L’s argument, a utility could sidestep the statutory requirements of initially obtaining a stay of a PUC order lowering the utility’s requested rates; of then posting a bond to set aside the difference in the rates under the stay of the PUC order and those under the PUC order before stayed; of going through the labor and cost of making an individual accounting of the customers who might later be entitled to refunds; and last of making refunds to the individual customers overcharged by a stay of a PUC order if that order is later upheld by this Court on review. Under UP & L’s argument, a utility could circumvent this intricate statutory scheme by merely filing an appeal with this Court and then collecting a surcharge on rehearing by the PUC. If the legislature intended to give utilities the option, as UP & L contends, of either proceeding by way of the stay and bond procedures or by way of a surcharge surely it would have so stated. If it be that our assessment of the statutory scheme is incorrect, the legislature is available to take appropriate action.
II.
UP & L contends that the PUC erred in refusing to hold hearings on the merits of UP & L’s petition subsequent to and in response to this Court’s decision in UP & L I, the PUC’s refusal being based upon its determination that it had no jurisdiction to order a surcharge: “It would be purposeless for us to embark upon proceedings to determine how Order No. 13448 should be altered or amended to meet the objections of the Supreme Court of Idaho stated in \JJP & L /].”
UP & L cites this Court to Intermountain Gas Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 97 Idaho 113, 540 P.2d 775 (1975), for the proposition that the PUC is required to proceed upon a full hearing when a PUC order has been set aside by this Court on appeal. We there stated:
“[A]ny order by the Commission compelling Intermountain to discontinue its business of the retail sale of gas appliances without a full hearing preceded by notice cannot be upheld.”
Id. at 130, 540 P.2d at 795.
UP & L misconstrues our statement in that case. We merely stated that the PUC could not affirmatively order Intermountain Gas Company to discontinue an allegedly independent business without the full benefit of a hearing. We did not say that the PUC was required to hold hearings in every instance whatsoever.
I.C. § 61-629 governs appeals from orders of the PUC and proceedings undertaken after appeal. It provided, in pertinent part:
“Upon the hearing the Supreme Court shall enter judgment, either affirming or setting aside the order of the commission. In ease the order of the commission is set aside the commission, upon its own motion or upon motion of any of the parties, may alter or amend the order appealed from to meet the objections of the court in the manner prescribed in section 61-624, Idaho Code.” (Emphasis added.)
Under this statute, it is the PUC which initially determines whether to amend or alter a PUC order if an order is set aside by this Court. In a case such as the present one where the PUC correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief of a surcharge, the PUC was equally correct in declining to embark on a fruitless course of proceedings.
Accordingly, we affirm.
DONALDSON, C.J., and OLIVER, J. (pro tern) concur.