Utah Code

Utah Code § 54-7-1 (2026)

Settlement -- Limitation of issues

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Informal resolution, by agreement of the parties, of matters before the commission is encouraged as a means to:

resolve disputes while minimizing the time and expense that is expended by:

public utilities;

the state; and

consumers;

enhance administrative efficiency; or

enhance the regulatory process by allowing the commission to concentrate on those issues that adverse parties cannot otherwise resolve.

The commission may approve any agreement after considering the interests of the public and other affected persons to use a settlement proposal to resolve a disputed matter.

The commission shall reserve to the parties the right to maintain appropriate confidentiality in the negotiation process even when the commission uses a settlement proposal to resolve a disputed matter.

At any time before or during an adjudicative proceeding before the commission, the parties, between themselves or with the commission or a commissioner, may engage in settlement conferences and negotiations.

In accordance with this Subsection (3), the commission may adopt any settlement proposal entered into by two or more of the parties to an adjudicative proceeding.

The commission shall notify all parties to an adjudicative proceeding of the terms of any settlement proposal related to the adjudicative proceeding.

The commission may adopt a settlement proposal if:

the commission finds that the settlement proposal is just and reasonable in result; and

the evidence, contained in the record, supports a finding that the settlement proposal is just and reasonable in result.

When considering whether to adopt a settlement proposal, the commission shall consider the significant and material facts related to the case.

The commission may adopt a settlement proposal related to an adjudicative proceeding at any stage of the adjudicative procedure.

The commission shall conduct a hearing before adopting a settlement proposal if requested by:

any party initiating the adjudicative proceeding;

any party against whom the adjudicative proceeding is initiated; or

an intervening party to the adjudicative proceeding.

The commission shall accept or reject a settlement proposal within a reasonable time.

In cases or procedures involving rate increases as defined in Section 54-7-12, the commission may limit the factors and issues to be considered in its determination of just and reasonable rates.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1959–1988 · leading case: Williams v. Pub. Serv. Com'n of Utah, 754 P.2d 41 (Utah 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams v. Pub. Serv. Com'n of Utah, 754 P.2d 41 (Utah 1988). · cites it 9× “Utah Code Ann. § 54-7-1 begins by proclaiming, “All' hearings, investigations and proceedings [of the PSC] shall be governed by this chapter.”

Utah Dep't of Bus. Reg. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986). · cites it 2× “, 1953, § 54-7-1 (Repl.Vol. 6A, 1974, Supp.1985).”

Lake Shore Motor Coach Lines, Inc. v. Welling, 339 P.2d 1011 (Utah 1959). · cites it 2× “Section 54-7-1 states that in the conduct of hearings, "* * * the technical rules of evidence need not be applied"; and that, "no informality in any hearing, investigation or proceeding, or the manner of taking testimony, shall invalidate any order * * [of] the commission.”

White River Shale Oil Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 700 P.2d 1088 (Utah 1985). “Fry Co., supra note 7, at 500. 13 . U.C.A., 1953, § 54-7-10 (Supp.”

Am. Salt Co. v. W.S. Hatch Co., 748 P.2d 1060 (Utah 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 54-4-4 (3) (1986); but see Utah Code Ann. § 54-7-1 (1986) (amended 1987).”

Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 535 P.2d 1143 (Utah 1975). · cites it 2× “We do not think we should substitute our judgment for that of the Commission in matters such as this where the evidence before the Commission justifies the order made and where it does not appear to be either arbitrary or capricious.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.