reasonable based on an examination of the record as a whole. See Minn. Power & Light Co., 342 N.W.2d at 330 (discussing substantial evidence standard). As the Commission found, when the size and timing of the increase is considered against the backdrop of “the current adverse economic conditions,” the requested increase “raises serious concerns about rate shock” for Minnesota Power’s ratepayers. When the record is viewed as a whole and in accord with the presumption of correctness that we afford to agen cy determinations within the agency’s area of expertise, we hold that the Commission’s determination of exigent circumstances is not erroneous. See Minn. Power & Light Co., 342 N.W.2d at 330 (noting the “judgmental nature” of Commission findings); Reserve Mining Co., 256 N.W.2d at 824 (<HOLDING>). III. Finally, we turn to Minnesota Power’s
holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness holding that although the presumption of correctness applies to the ultimate classification decision  the presumption carries no force as to questions of law holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant