
    The UTILITY RATEPAYERS FEDERATION, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant. DESERET GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH; Ted Stewart, Chairman; Brent H. Cameron, Commissioner; and James M. Byrne, Commissioner, Defendants.
    Nos. 870083, 870084.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    March 25, 1987.
    Lynn W. Mitton, Sandy, Clark Wad-doups, Michael M. Later, Jan N. Henrie, Kimball, Parr, Crockett & Waddoups, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Deseret Generation and Transmission.
    Ted Stewart, Brent H. Cameron, James M. Byrne, Public Service Commission of Utah, Robert Gordon, Daniel Berman, D. Frank Wilkins, Berman & Anderson, Robert S. Campbell, Watkiss & Campbell, F. Robert Reeder, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Sandy Mooy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Peter J. Richardson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, Idaho, for defendants, Public Service Com’n of Utah, Ted Stewart, Brent Cameron and James M. Byrne.
    Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Don Charles Uthus, John R. Kroeger, Wheatley & Wol-lesen, Annapolis, Md., Harold A. Ranquist, Payne & Ranquist, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff, Utility Ratepayers Federation.
    David Stott, Thomas W. Forsgren, F. Robert Reeder, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, Sandy Mooy, Richard M. Hagstrom, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Campbell, Watkiss & Campbell, Salt Lake City, for defendant, Public Service Com’n.
   ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, for writ of certiorari of The Utility Ratepayers Federation has been considered by this Court and is denied.

The petition for writ of certiorari of Des-eret Generation and Transmission has been considered by this Court and is denied.

In denying the petition of The Utility Ratepayers Federation, the Court notes with some concern the fact that The Utility Ratepayers Federation suggests in its papers before this Court that it seeks somewhat broader relief against Utah Power & Light than does the Utah Division of Public Utilities. However, any legitimate concern that the Division will not adequately represent the views of all ratepayers is premature. As the Division indicates in its papers before this Court, it is entirely within the scope of its authority for the Division to press all legitimate claims of all ratepayers, and we must assume that the Division will present all substantial, legitimate concerns of ratepayers to the Commission.

DURHAM, Justice:

(concurring)

I write separately to make explicit what I view as implicit in the Court’s order, namely, that we will assume proper representation of ratepayer interests by the Division unless and until at least a prima facie factual showing to the contrary can be made.

STEWART, C.J., dissents.  