a discretionary decision absent a showing that the Commission abused its discretion. Arco Prods., 125 Wn.2d at 812; see US W. Commc’ns I, 134 Wn.2d at 56 (noting that the Commission exercises discretion in rate-making). PacifiCorp does not demonstrate that the Commission abused its discretion by continuing to use the hypothetical capital structure after considering extensive testimony and various proposals. ¶93 To the extent that PacifiCorp argues that the Commission cannot use a hypothetical capital structure for rate-making purposes, that argument also fails. The use of a hypothetical capital structure is an accepted methodology. See 2005 PacifiCorp, Docket UE-050684, Order 04, ¶¶ 230-33; accord In re Rates & Charges of Citizens Utils. Co., 112 Idaho 1061, 739 P.2d 360, 363 (1987) (<HOLDING>). And, Williams, PacifiCorp’s expert, testified
holding the idaho utilities commissions use of a hypothetical capital structure is within its power to protect ratepayers holding courts have inherent power to compel discovery of the states evidence to protect a defendants due process rights holding that the power to terminate a contract atwill subsumes the power to modify its terms recognizing the right to use water to generate power holding that the utilities commission has the discretion to use a hypothetical capital structure in setting customer rates particularly where the utility is a whollyowned subsidiary of a holding company