Legal Opinion
In Re City of Rochester for an Adjustment of Its Service Area Boundaries With People's Cooperative Power Ass'n
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 24, 1996No. C9-96-1002PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILLIS, Judge.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) determined the value of certain electric service areas that respondent City of Rochester sought to acquire from People’s Cooperative Power Association (People’s). People’s claims that the MPUC erred by failing to evaluate all of its projected expenses and revenue losses. The City filed a notice of review, claiming that the areas were not receiving electric service from People’s. We affirm.
FACTS
The Minnesota Public Utilities Act requires that electric utilities operate in assigned service areas. Minn.Stat. § 216B.40 (1996).…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minnesota Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Service Territory of People's Cooperative Power Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- In re the Complaint by Kandiyohi Cooperative Electric Power Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
3Cited by3 opinions
- S.E. Iowa Cooperative Electric Ass'n v. Iowa Utilities BoardSupreme Court of Iowa · 2001
- City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Cooperative Power Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- SE IOWA CO-OP. ELEC. v. Iowa Util. Bd.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2001