Cited by

Serv., (quotation omitted).

Serv., -58 (Minn. 2013).

Serv., n.6 (Minn. 2013) (Minn. Power 2013) (quotation omitted).

Serv., (quotation omitted).

Serv., (Minn. Power 2013) (quotation omitted).

Serv., d 747, 757 (Minn. 2013) (Minn. Power).

(deferring to the commission’s decision as to whether a statutory standard was met); In re Application of Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P’ship, (determining that whether the evidence satisfies the statutory requirements is a factual inquiry), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

in Minn., (Anderson, J., dissenting).

We review de novo whether the commissioner exceeded her authority and “re solve any doubt about the existence of [her] authority against the exercise of such authority.” GH Holdings, LLC v. Minn. Dep’t of Com., - 42 (Minn. App. 2013) (quoting In re Minn. Power , ).

Serv., (Minn. Power)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Serv., n.6 (Minn. 2013) (stating that rate-design decisions—“the allocation of rates among various classes of utility customers”—are considered a legislative function (quotation omitted)).

In Minn., (discussing the standard of review); In re Dairy Dozen-Thief River Falls, LLP, WL 2161781, at *16 (Minn. App. June 1, 2010) (“Denials of contested case hearing requests are also reviewed under Minn. Stat. § 14.69.”).

in Minn. , (Anderson, J., dissenting) (“[F]ederal courts have considerable experience implementing a very similar standard of review, and .

In applying the substantial-evidence test, a reviewing court must “determine whether the agency has adequately explaine d how it derived its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reasonable on the basis of the record.” (quotation omitted); see also Cable Commc’ns Bd.

We review de novo whether an agency “has exceeded its statutory authority.”

In re Application of Minn. Power , , 753 (Minn. 2013).

5 Appellate courts “apply the de novo standard of review to the question of whether the [agency] has exceeded its statutory authority” and “resolve any doubt about the ex istence of an agency’s authority against the exercise of such authority.” (quotation omitted).

See Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (e); In re Application of Minn. Power

When reviewing agency decisions, this court recognizes that “decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that a reviewing court will uphold an agency decision only where “the agency has adequately explained how it derived its conclusion,” and where “that conclusion is reasonable on the basis of the record” (quoting Minn. Power & Light Co. v. Minn. Pub.

“[T]he burden is upon the appellant to establish that the findings of the agency are not supported by the evidence in the record, considered in its entirety.” ().