of exigency, but also that the Commission determine how those factors impact utility companies and ratepayers and, consequently, how those factors affect the decision on what is a just and reasonable rate. The Commission is also required to balance Minnesota Power’s right to recoup its cost of service and earn a fair rate of return with the public interest in affordable utilities. It is determining the impact of the factors and balancing the competing interests of the utility and the public that require application of the Commission’s experience and technical knowledge of the utility industry, not merely the identification of the factors themselves as suggested by the dissent. See In re Review of 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utils., 768 N.W.2d at 119 (<HOLDING>). Because the question of exigency in this
holding that the commission applied its technical knowledge and expertise to the facts presented and the commissioners decision  should be afforded deference when the commission conducted investigations reviewed accounting practices and solicited comments from several agencies and organizations involved in the regulatory process in the course of balancing the interests of the public utility and the public to reach its decision holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency holding commission created and given full power to investigate hear and determine disputes between utility and general public primarily for the interest of the consumer holding sec decision reviewable when commission has reviewed staff decision