Legal Opinion
Matter of Interstate Power Rates Change Request
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 8, 1998No. C1-96-1558PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]
Syllabus by the Court
1. The MPUC did not exceed its statutory authority when it applied the "used and useful" standard of Minn.Stat. § 216B.16 , subd. 6 (1996), to the time of pollution and thus allowed rate recovery for cleanup costs of former manufactured gas plant sites.
2. The MPUC did not exceed its statutory authority by concluding that there was a sufficient nexus between manufactured gas and natural gas to support cost recovery from the current natural gas…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reserve Mining Co. v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Petition of Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Senior Citizens Coalition of Northeastern Minnesota v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wilhite v. Scott County Housing & Redevelopment AuthorityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
- Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments Limited Partnership, (A14-0027), (A14-0123), MNS Investors, LLP d/b/a Bar-Ett Investment Company, (A14-0027), (A14-0123), American Utility Management, Inc., (A14-0027), (A14-0123).Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015