When we review a PUC decision, "our mission is to determine 'whether the decision of the commission was fairly and substantially supported by legal evidence specific enough to enable us to ascertain if the facts upon which the commission's decision is premised afford a reasonable basis for the result reached.' " Narragansett Electric Co. v. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission, 35 A.3d 925, 931 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Newport Electric Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission, 624 A.2d 1098, 1101 (R.I. 1993) ); see Providence Water Supply Board v. Public Utilities Commission, 708 A.2d 537, 541 (R.I. 1998) ; see also§ 39–5–1. Moreover, "[o]ur review requires us to determine 'whether the PUC ruled in a lawful and reasonable manner and whether its findings of fact are fairly and substantially supported by legal evidence.' "
As we have previously stated, "if it becomes impossible for us properly to fulfill our assigned function because of the PUC's failure to set forth sufficiently the findings and the evidentiary facts upon which it rests its decisions, we will not speculate thereon nor search the record for supporting evidence or reasons." Portsmouth Water and Fire District v. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission , 150 A.3d 596, 602 (R.I. 2016) (alterations omitted) (quoting Narragansett Electric Company v. Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission , 35 A.3d 925, 931 (R.I. 2012) ). Although remanding the case for such factual findings would ordinarily be appropriate, we conclude that in the circumstances of the case "[s]uch a remedy would be fruitless."