Hamm v. South Carolina Public Service Com'n, 22535

• Decision Date: 12 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 22535,22535
• Parties: Steven W. HAMM, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Appellant, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Motor Truck Rate Bureau, Inc., Respondents. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 600

344 S.E.2d 600

289 S.C. 22

Steven W. HAMM, Consumer Advocate for the State of South

Carolina, Appellant, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Motor Truck

Rate Bureau, Inc., Respondents.

No. 22535.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Feb. 12, 1986.

Decided April 28, 1986.

Steven W. Hamm, Raymon E. Lark, Jr., and Nancy J. Vaughn, South Carolina Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Columbia, for appellant.

Arthur G. Fusco, Sarena D. Burch, South Carolina Public Service Com'n., for respondent South Carolina Public Service Com'n.

Charles E. Hill, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for respondent, Motor Truck Rate Bureau, Inc.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant Steven W. Hamm, Consumer Advocate of South Carolina, appeals from an order of the lower court affirming the South Carolina Public Service Commission's (Commission) order granting Motor Truck Rate Bureau, Inc., (MTRB) an eight (8%) percent rate increase.

The sole issue before this Court is whether there is reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record to support the approval of MTRB's request for an eight percent rate increase. We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record and affirm the lower court's order.

On June 7, 1984, MTRB submitted an application to the Commission for an eight percent increase in rates for carriers of bulk petroleum, except liquified petroleum gas. On August 6, 1984, MTRB filed a separate application with the Commission for emergency authority to increase rates by five (5%) percent to offset a recent increase in the Federal highway use tax and diesel differential. MTRB estimated the cost of the federal tax increase on motor carriers would be approximately ninety one thousand nine hundred sixty eight ($91,968.00) dollars. MTRB had also relied on this increase in federal taxes as part of its justification for the eight percent rate relief sought. The Consumer Advocate intervened in both applications; but after agreement among all interested parties, the Advocate agreed not to participate in a hearing on the five percent emergency rate relief, so long as MTRB did not receive double recovery for the Federal highway use tax and diesel differential.

On October 16, 1984, the morning of the hearing on the application for the eight percent increase, the Commission issued an order granting MTRB's five percent emergency rate request. After the hearing on the eight percent rate increase, the Commission issued an order on November 9, 1984, granting MTRB the full eight percent. The Consumer Advocate petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission's order, alleging that MTRB would receive a double recovery for the use tax and diesel differential should the eight percent increase continue in effect, and that the operating ratios contained in the order were erroneous. The Commission granted the petition and corrected the operating ratio figures, but it did not disturb its earlier order granting the eight percent rate increase. The Advocate then appealed this action to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission's orders.

The scope of this Court's review of orders of the Public Service Commission is limited. Patton v. South Carolina Public Service Commission, 280 S.C. 288, 312 S.E.2d 257 (1984); Greyhound Lines, Inc., v. South Carolina Public Service Commission, 274 S.C. 168, 262 S.E.2d 22 (1980); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981); and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Public Service Commission of South Carolina, 270 S.C. 590, 244 S.E.2d 278 (1978). The law governing this appeal may be best summarized as follows:

Pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. Section 1-23-380 (1982), a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The findings of the Commission are presumptively correct and have the force and effect of law. (Citation omitted). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the party challenging an order of the Commission to show that it is unsupported by substantial evidence and the decision is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole record. (Citation omitted). The Public Service Commission is recognized as the "expert" designated by the legislature to make policy determinations regarding utility rates; thus, the role of a court reviewing such decisions is very limited.

Patton, supra, 312 S.E.2d at 259.

The decision of the Commission must be sustained if there is substantial evidence to support it. This Court has defined substantial evidence in the context of administrative agency decisions as:

[N]ot a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action.

* * *

[S]uch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.... This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.

Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., supra, 276 S.E.2d at 306-307.

The Consumer Advocate contends that the circuit court erred in finding that the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record supported the Commission's award to MTRB of the full eight percent rate increase because: 1) The Commission granted a double recovery for the Federal use tax and diesel differential; and 2) the resulting operating ratio is not supported by the evidence nor the application for rate relief. We disagree.

I.

It is evident from the record that the interrelationship between the two separate rate applications and the effect of the federal tax expenses were thoroughly discussed and taken into consideration by the Commission. The transcript of the hearing reveals that the Consumer Advocate...