We are of the opinion, as was Judge Perrott below, that there was substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the finding of the PSC that the contract of sale was in the public's interest and should be approved. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co., 248 Md. 580, 598, 238 A.2d 516 (1968); Howard Sports Daily, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 179 Md. 355, 364, 18 A.2d 210 (1941); Code (1969 Repl. Vol.), Art. 78, § 84(a), entitled "Burden of Proof." The PSC having made a finding as required of it under Article 78, § 75(a), there was nothing further left for it to consider.
The question of "substantial evidence" was fully discussed by Chief Judge Hammond in his opinion for this Court in Insurance Commissioner v. National Bureau, 248 Md. 292, 236 A.2d 282 (1967). Further discussion followed in Brotherhood v. B O R.R., 248 Md. 580, 238 A.2d 516 (1968). The test set forth by Chief Judge Hammond in Insurance Commissioner, supra, has been called "the common denominator that must apply to any valid test of judicial review".
In order to set aside an order of the Insurance Commissioner, it must be shown that the Commissioner's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad Co., 248 Md. 580, 238 A.2d 516 (1968). Essentially, the appellants argued before the administrative agency, on appeal to the Circuit Court and to us that the hearing officer should have accepted the projections, opinions and methods of calculation espoused by Robert Hunter, President of the National Insurance Consumer Organization (NICO) rather than those of the expert produced by State Farm.
This need not and must not be either judicial fact-finding or a substitution of judicial judgment for agency judgment.Accord, Public Service Commission, supra; Brotherhood v. B O.R.R., 248 Md. 580, 238 A.2d 516 (1968). Delmarva urges that the record discloses that its calculations were in complete conformity with the FRA clause filed by Delmarva with the Commission in 1972 and in effect during the period of 1974 which is here in controversy.