Case Title: BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation; JERRY AND BARBARA DILTS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited Partnership; FLOYD C. RENO & SONS, Wyoming corporation; LELAND J. TURNER; KAREN TURNER; JENNIFER LOUISE TURNER;WENDY CHRISTINE TURNER; KAREN TURNER, Conservator of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL WILLIAM TURNER, (a minor); PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON, formerly Patricia Louise Isenberger, and GENE LITTON, Wife and Husband V. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, a North Dakota Corporation; ROBERT R. ROUSH and DONA M. ROUSH, Husband and Wife; and INNES RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, V. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, a North Dakota Corporation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 04-134

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
BRIDLE BIT RANCH COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation; JERRY AND BARBARA DILTS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming Limited Partnership; FLOYD C. RENO & SONS, Wyoming corporation; LELAND J. TURNER; KAREN TURNER; JENNIFER LOUISE TURNER;WENDY CHRISTINE TURNER; KAREN TURNER, Conservator of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL WILLIAM TURNER, (a minor); PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER LITTON, formerly Patricia Louise Isenberger, and GENE LITTON, Wife and Husband V. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, a North Dakota Corporation; ROBERT R. ROUSH and DONA M. ROUSH, Husband and Wife; and INNES RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, V. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, a North Dakota Corporation2005 WY 108118 P.3d 996Case Number: No. 04-134, 04-136Decided: 09/07/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 

BRIDLE 
BIT RANCH COMPANY, aWyoming

Corporation; JERRY AND 
BARBARA DILTS

FAMILY 
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Wyoming

Limited Partnership; 
FLOYD C. RENO & SONS, a

Wyoming corporation; LELAND J. 
TURNER;

KAREN 
TURNER; JENNIFER LOUISE TURNER;

WENDY 
CHRISTINE TURNER; KAREN TURNER,

Conservator of the ESTATE 
OF MICHAEL WILLIAM

TURNER, (a minor); 
PATRICIA L. ISENBERGER

LITTON, formerly Patricia 
Louise Isenberger, and

GENE 
LITTON, Wife and Husband,

Petitioners,

 
 
v.

 
 

BASIN 
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,

a 
North Dakota Corporation,

Respondent.

ROBERT 
R. ROUSH and DONA M. ROUSH,

Husband and Wife; and 
INNES RANCH, LLC,

a 
Wyoming Limited Liability Company,

Petitioners,

 
 
v.

 
 

BASIN 
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,

a 
North Dakota Corporation,

Respondent.

 
 

Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofCampbellCounty

The 
Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

 
 

Representing Petitioners 
Bridle Bit Ranch Company, et al.:

Tad T. Daly and Matthew 
R. Sorensen of Daly Law Associates, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Daly.

 
 

Representing RespondentBasin Electric Power 
Cooperative:

Stephen N. Sherard and 
Rex E. Johnson of Sherard, Sherard and Johnson, Wheatland, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Sherard.

 
 

Representing Petitioners 
Robert R. Roush and Dona M. Roush, et al.:

Charles R. Hart and Lynn 
M. Smith of Hart & Smith, Sheridan, Wyoming; and Nancy D. Freudenthal of 
Davis & Cannon, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  
Argument by Ms. Freudenthal.

 
 
Before HILL, C.J., and 
GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Employing its 
powers of eminent domain, the Respondent, Basin Electric Power Cooperative 
(Basin), sought to condemn a right-of-way through a portion of CampbellCounty in order to build a 230-kilovolt 
(kV) power transmission line.  Basin 
asserted that the transmission line was necessary so as to provide additional 
electrical power to areas of CampbellCounty where coal bed methane (CBM) is 
being developed and to otherwise enhance the availability and reliability of 
electrical service to that area.  
Basin is a regional wholesale electric generation and transmission 
cooperative that supplies wholesale electricity to its distribution 
cooperatives.  Powder River Energy 
Corporation (PRECorp) is a Wyoming non-profit corporation and is one of 
Basin's distribution cooperative members.  
PRECorp provides electricity at retail to its customers in Northeastern 
Wyoming, including CampbellCounty.

 
 
[¶2]      Basin was able to 
reach settlements with approximately 82% of the private landowners affected by 
the transmission line, as well as with the United States Forest Service.1  At the time of the hearing on this stage 
of the condemnation action (the "taking"), Basin had not yet reached agreements 
with two groups of landowners, nor with The State of Wyoming, Office of State 
Land and Investments (State Lands), or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).1  Case No. 04-134 is a challenge to the 
district court's order granting Basin immediate possession of the lands owned by 
a group of landowners to whom we will refer collectively as "the Bridle Bit 
Group."  Case No. 04-136 is a 
similar challenge to that same order by another group of landowners to whom we 
will refer as "the Roush Group."

 
 
[¶3]      By order entered 
on July 13, 2004, this Court granted Petitions for Writ of Review under W.R.A.P. 
13, in order to address the concerns of both groups of landowners.  It was necessary for the landowners to 
utilize W.R.A.P. 13 because of a long-standing precedent articulated by this 
Court that the "taking" portion of a condemnation action is not an appealable 
order.  Arp v. State Highway 
Commission, 567 P.2d 736, 739 (Wyo. 1977).

 
 
[¶4]      Both groups of 
landowners contend that Basin is a public utility as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 37-1-101 (LexisNexis 2005), and, thus, Basin was required to obtain a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Public Service 
Commission (PSC) before beginning the process of locating the transmission 
line.  They also contend that 
Basin:  Failed to show that public 
interest and necessity required the project; failed to show that the project is 
planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest 
public good and the least private injury; and failed to negotiate in good 
faith.  It is also contended that 
the district court erred in granting a taking that is, in essence, 
perpetual.

 
 
[¶5]      We will affirm 
the district court's order in all respects.

 
 

 
[¶6]      The Bridle Bit 
Group raises these issues:

 
 
A.  Did the 
district court commit clear error in finding Basin located the transmission line 
in the manner most compatible with greatest public good and least private 
injury?

 
 
B.  Did the 
district court err in finding that a perpetual easement for transmission lines 
is permitted under Wyoming law?

 
 
C.  Did the 
district court err in finding that Basin was not a public utility as defined by 
Wyoming Statute § 37-1-101?

 
 
The Roush Group states 
these issues:

 
 

I.          
Whether the district court erred in finding [that Basin] met all the 
requirements of Wyoming's eminent domain 
statutes.

a.  Did [Basin] 
comply with the statutory requirements for a condemnation 
action?

b.  Is [Basin] 
a "public utility," and therefore, required to obtain a "certificate of public 
convenience and necessity" from the Public Service Commission prior to 
condemnation[?]

 
 
II.          
Whether [Basin] should be granted a limited easement or an easement in 
perpetuity.

 
 
We glean this more 
complete statement of the issues from Basin's brief:

 
 
I.          
Basin has complied with the statutory requirements for its condemnation 
action.

 
 
            
a)  Basin has shown that the public interest and necessity 
require the transmission line project.

 
 
            
b)  Basin has proved that the project is planned or located in 
the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and 
the least private injury[.]

 
 
            
c)  Basin has made reasonable and diligent efforts to acquire 
property by good faith negotiation.

 
 
II.          
Basin is entitled to a permanent easement for its transmission line and 
access rights-of-way.

 
 
III.         
Basin [is not a public utility] and was not required to obtain a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity from [PSC] [before proceeding 
with the] condemnation action.

 
 

 
[¶7]      During the winter 
of 2000, Basin began looking at selecting a route for an additional power 
transmission line in CampbellCounty.  By letter dated December 21, 2000, Basin 
submitted the following inquiry to PSC:

 
 
Basin Electric Power 
Cooperative (Basin Electric) is currently reviewing its resources for 
supplying wholesale power to its member Powder River Energy Corporation 
(PRECORP).  PRECORP has 
experienced a sudden and rather substantial increase in its membership load 
because of the development of coal bed methane in the PowderRiver Basin.

 
 
While Basin Electric is 
considering several options for power supply, the first phase of an overall 
program needs to move forward expeditiously so that Basin Electric can meet its 
power supply obligations.  Our 
studies show that Basin Electric needs approximately 40-50 MW [megawatt] of 
capacity in place in the PRECORP service territory on or before May of 
2002.

 
 
To meet this need, we 
anticipate installing up to 15 MW of combustion turbine capacity adjacent to 
each of the PRECORP substations located in Arvada, Barber Creek and Hartzog for a total of 
45 MW.  A map of the proposed 
locations is attached.  There will 
be three or four combustion turbines located at each substation, depending on 
the size of the units ultimately selected.  
The estimated cost of these facilities is $36 
million.

 
 

Basin 
Electric1 seeks a ruling from the 
Commission on whether it must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and 
Necessity under Section 37-2-204[2] of the Wyoming Statutes 
Annotated for the installation of these turbines.

 

1Basin Electric is a 
participant in the Laramie River Station that is jointly owned by Basin 
Electric, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Western Minnesota 
Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, the City of Lincoln, 
Nebraska Electric System and the Wyoming Municipal Power Agency.  The Commission issued Certificates of 
Public Convenience and Necessity for this facility on June 24, 1976.  Docket Numbers: 9548 Sub 4, 9611, 9621, 
9622, 9623, 9624. 

 
 
[¶8]      On January 13, 
2001, the Secretary and Chief Counsel for the PSC replied:

 
 
            
This responds to your letter to the Chairman of the Wyoming Public 
Service Commission of December 21, 2000, seeking the opinion of the Commission 
as to whether or not Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin) must obtain a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission for the 
construction of certain electric generation facilities in the Wyoming Service 
territory of Powder River Energy Corporation (Powder River Energy).  Specifically, Basin proposes to install 
up to 15 MW of combustion turbine capacity adjacent to each of the Powder River 
Energy substations located at Arvada, Barber Creek and Hartzog.  You have stated that this will entail 
the placement of three or four combustion turbines at each substation depending 
on the size of the units selected for placement.  You estimate the cost of the facilities 
to be $36 million and state that the construction is needed to assist Powder 
River Energy in dealing with the substantial increase in demand caused by the 
development of coal bed methane in the PowderRiver 
Basin.

 
 
            
Additionally, you have told us that Basin will own and operate the 
facilities, selling the power produced by the units at wholesale to Powder River 
Energy under its all requirements contract with your cooperative.  Powder River Energy is a member of 
Basin, and it will neither own nor operate the facilities.

 
 
Basin is not generally 
regulated by the Commission.  
Because the power sale is being made to Powder River Energy under your 
existing all requirements contract, and because the facilities will furnish 
power to Powder River Energy at wholesale rather than directly to the public, 
the Commission therefore concludes that Basin is not operating as an electric 
"public utility" as defined in W.S. § 37-1-101.  W.S. § 37-2-105, concerning certificates 
of public convenience and necessity, requires certification by the Commission 
for the facility construction activities of a "public utility."  As a result, the Commission will not 
require Basin to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity for 
the described facilities.  We are 
not of the opinion that the membership of Powder River Energy in Basin 
constitutes a sufficient identity of business entities to disturb this 
conclusion.

 
 
[¶9]      By letter dated 
March 8, 2001, Basin made the following additional inquiry of the 
PSC:

 
 
In Ron Harper's December 
letter to the Commission, he reported on Basin Electric's plans for the 
construction of combustion turbine generation in the Powder River Energy 
Corporation (PRECorp) service territory to support the growing coal bed 
methane development.  Your letter of 
January 13 noted that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity was not 
required for the construction of those facilities.

 
 
The purpose of this 
letter is to advise the Commission of Basin Electric's plan to construct a 230 
kV transmission line to support the PRECorp area, primarily from the development 
of coal bed methane load growth.

 
 
Attached are three copies 
of a map showing the corridor for the proposed line.  The 230kV line will originate at the 
Teckla Substation and interconnect with the PP&L 230 kV line near the 
Campbell/Johnson county line.  The 
line will be approximately 70 miles in length and cost approximately 
$14,000,000.  We hope to have this 
line in service by April, 2003.

 
 
Based on your January 13, 
2001 letter regarding the combustion turbines, it appears that a Certificate of 
Public Convenience and Necessity is not needed for this line.  However, we seek the opinion of the 
Commission regarding the need for a Certificate.

 
 
[¶10]   The Commission replied by letter 
dated March 27, 2001:

 
 
            
This responds to your letter to the Chairman of the Wyoming Public 
Service Commission of March 8, 2001, seeking the opinion of the Commission as to 
whether or not Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin) must obtain a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Commission for the 
construction of a 230 kV transmission line to support the Wyoming service 
territory of Powder River Energy Corporation (Powder River Energy), primarily in 
consideration of the growth being experienced by Powder River Energy in coal bed 
methane-related electric loads.  In 
your letter, you specifically state that Basin proposes to build a 230 kV 
electric transmission line from the Teckla substation to the PacifiCorp 230 kV 
line near the Campbell/Johnson County line.  You state that the line will be 
approximately 70 miles long, that it will cost approximately $14,000,000, and 
that Basin's target in-service date is April 2003.

 
 
            
Additionally, you have represented to us that Basin will own and operate 
the facilities and use them mainly to fulfill the increased demands of Powder 
River Energy under its all requirements contract with Basin.  Basin will not make any retail 
electricity sales in Wyoming through the facilities.  We understand that Powder River Energy 
is a member of Basin, and it will neither own nor operate the 
facilities.

 
 
            
Basin is not generally regulated by the Commission.  Because the facilities will be used to 
furnish power to Powder River Energy at wholesale rather than directly to the 
public, the Commission concludes that Basin is not operating as an electric 
"public utility" as defined in W.S. 37-1-101.  W.S. § 37-2-205, concerning certificates 
of public convenience and necessity, requires certification by the Commission 
for the facility construction activities of a "public utility."  As a result, the Commission will not 
require Basin to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity for 
the described 230 kV line.  We are 
not of the opinion that the membership of Powder River Energy in Basin 
constitutes a sufficient identity of business entities to disturb this 
conclusion.

 
 
            
Please note, however, that the Commission will have safety jurisdiction 
over the line when it is complete under W.S. § 37-2-131(b), supplemental 
safety jurisdiction of commission, which states that:

 
 
"(b) The commission shall 
have safety jurisdiction over any new or existing electrical lines used by the 
owner to transmit electricity which is generated by the owner for resale, and 
which are located upon property not exclusively controlled by the owner of the 
line for the purpose of enforcement of the safety requirements of the National 
Electrical Safety Code and those safety standards adopted by the 
commission.  This section shall not 
apply to any incorporated or chartered city or town established under Wyoming law or joint 
powers board created under the Wyoming Joint Powers Act."

 
 
This does not change our 
opinion that no certificate of public convenience and necessity is required for 
the facility because W.S. § 37-2-131(b) applies to "owners" and not to "public 
utilities."

 
 
[¶11]   During 2001, Basin began the 
process of obtaining easements from landowners and public entities.  As a part of this process, Basin had a 
consultant prepare an environmental assessment as required by the U.S. Forest 
Service and a 25-year, renewable easement was obtained from that federal agency 
in 2003.  The record is unclear as 
to what, if any, compensation was paid for that easement, although it appears 
that the only cost associated with that easement is an application fee.  The easement may be renewed.  Basin was able to obtain easements from 
about 82% of the affected landowners, but had not as yet obtained firm 
commitments for easements from StateLands or the BLM.  With respect to State Lands, an 
application for an easement had been submitted, but such an easement is not 
acted upon until the applicant for the easement has obtained access from all 
necessary private landowners.  When 
such easements are approved by State Lands, they are generally for a period of 
35 years, but may be for longer periods of time, including perpetuity.  With respect to the BLM, Basin had been 
offered a 30-year easement that could be renewed and that easement could be for 
as long as 50 years.  The BLM does 
not require the payment of compensation for the easement, nor is there a fee for 
the renewal process.

 
 
[¶12]   
On January 30, 2004, Basin filed a complaint for condemnation seeking to 
take the lands of those private landowners who had not yet settled with 
Basin.  The initial determination as 
to whether a party seeking to condemn land may "take" the land in question is 
tried to the district court without a jury.  W.R.C.P. 71.1.  The district court set this matter for 
hearing on May 4-5, 2004.  On June 
9, 2004, the district court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 
Order Authorizing Taking:

 
 
            
THE COURT makes the following findings and conclusions upon consideration 
of the evidence presented at trial and the submission of 
counsel.

 
 

            
1.  [Basin] is a non-profit, member owned, regional generation 
and transmission cooperative headquartered in Bismarck, North 
Dakota,

            
2.  It generates and transmits exclusively wholesale 
electricity to one hundred and twenty-four non-profit member rural electric 
systems in nine states, including Wyoming.

            
3.  These member distribution cooperatives, in turn, sell this 
electricity on a retail basis to their members located in their service 
territory.

            
4.  Powder River Energy Corporation ("PRECorp"), is a member of 
[Basin] and generally serves the Campbell County Area.

            
5.  PRECorp members/customers include industrial (mines, coal 
bed methane, farmers, ranchers and other various types of users).  Over the last several years, there has 
been a surge of coal bed methane ("CBM") development in PRECorp's service 
territory.

            
6.  [Basin] performed studies to attempt to forecast PRECorp's 
future load requirements.  PRECorp's 
current load requirement is approximately 250 megawatts and it has very little 
capacity to obtain or provide additional electricity.

            
7.  [Basin's] forecasts predict that in the next ten years 
there may be more than 150 megawatts of additional demand in PRECorp's service 
area.  The present system is not 
capable of providing for the needs of this predicted load.

            
8.  The present system of distributing electricity to PRECorp 
and its members involves a single corridor of supply lines and does not include 
a loop or grid system.

            
9.  [Basin's] proposed transmission line must be built to meet 
the expected load growth, to improve the power grid stability (reliability) and 
to update equipment.

            
10.  In selecting the proposed route and accesses, [Basin] 
considered many factors, including but not limited to, the 
following:

            
a.  Tie-ins or connections to existing electrical system 
infrastructure.

            
b.  Physical limitations, such as topography, railroad 
crossings, existing improvements and dry lakebeds, etc.

                        
c.  Landowner concerns.

                        
d.  Costs of construction.

            
e.  Reliability and safety matters (by avoiding paralleling 
existing high power transmission lines).

            
f.  Minimizing the number of landowners being 
crossed.

                        
g.  Minimizing impact to government 
property.

                        
h.  Minimization of visual impact.

                        
i.  Environmental concerns.

            
11.  The proposed route was adjusted to accommodate some 
landowner concerns.  Other landowner 
concerns could not be accommodated because changes would impact other 
landowners, change the nature of the grid being created or otherwise result in 
less net benefit.

            
12.  The proposed route largely crosses undeveloped grassland 
and avoids residences and other developments.

            
13.  Federal policy is that the public good is served by 
avoiding federal lands with utility easements to the extent 
possible.

            
14.  [Basin] considered alternate routes.  The other routes would shift private 
impact to others or would diminish the public good by increasing cost, 
increasing impact on public lands or preventing installation of a loop/grid 
system.

            
15.  Some of the [landowners] have electric distribution lines 
on their property, which have been in service in excess of 50 
years.

            
16.  [Basin] obtained time-limited easements from government 
entities.  Those easements will be 
renewed at a nominal or zero cost, and the time of them does not relate to the 
life of the proposed power line.

            
17.  It is not possible to determine if the proposed power line 
will cease to be necessary or useful at some time in the future.  The line's term of service is as long as 
electricity is needed.

            
18.  [Basin] attempted to negotiate a settlement with [the 
landowners] in order to avoid the condemnation process.  Negotiations to settle with [the 
landowners] were conducted up through the very morning of the hearing (and 
several landowners then settled).

            
19.  Over 80% of the private landowners settled with [Basin] 
prior to the commencement of the hearing on May 3, 2004.

            
20.  [Basin] considered and discussed location, access, timing 
and price in its negotiations.

            
21.  The final offer made by [Basin] to [the landowners] was 
generally as follows:

            
a.  $85/rod for the transmission right-of-way. 
($1,795.20/acre)

            
b.  $10/rod for the road accesses to the right-of-way. 
($800.00/acre)

            
c.  Term of both rights-of-way would be limited to 99 
years.

            
22.  The range of values for the fee ownership of the types of 
land being sought by [Basin] is $248.00/acre for tracts of land larger than 700 
acres; and $618.00/acre for tracts of land smaller than 700 
acres.

            
23.  The proposed transmission line and subsequent condemnation 
is necessary for the public good.

            
24.  [Basin] is seeking only the real estate interests 
(easements) necessary to effectuate the construction, operation and maintenance 
of the line.

            
25.  The project is planned and located in the manner that is 
most compatible with the greatest public good and least private 
injury.

            
26.  [Basin] made reasonable and diligent efforts to acquire 
property by good faith negotiation.

            
27.  The condemned easement requires an unlimited length of 
time, and Wyoming law provides for the same.  W.S. § 1-26-515 establishes when, if 
ever, the condemned easement expires.

            
28.  [Basin] provides wholesale power to PRECorp.  [Basin] does not distribute energy in 
the retail market.

            
29.  [Basin] does not fall within the statutory definition of a 
public utility in W.S. § 37-1-101 and is not subject to regulation by the 
Wyoming Public Service Commission.

            
30.  [Basin] acted in good faith when it located the proposed 
line and negotiated with [the landowners].

            
31.  A determination of the greatest public good and least 
private injury involves a balance of those factors.  [The landowners] insist on the least 
private injury to themselves without consideration of potential injury to others 
or diminished public good.

            
32.  The evidence does not show any valid reason for limiting 
the time of the proposed easement.  
[The landowners'] insistence on a term of years in reality is a claim for 
additional compensation after the term expires.

            
33.  This is an action for condemnation of an interest in real 
property pursuant to the Wyoming Eminent Domain Act (W.S. § 1-26-501 et seq.) 
and WRCP 71.1.

            
34.  The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 
Article 5, Section 10, Wyoming Constitution.

            
35.  Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to W.S. § 
1-5-108.

            
36.  Public interest and necessity require this project.  Although [Basin's] complaint did not 
specifically use this terminology, the allegations and evidence clearly 
established that public interest and necessity require this 
project.

            
37.  Mineral development and industrial growth is in the public 
interest.  This line is necessary to 
serve that public interest.

            
38.  [Basin] is entitled to acquire easements across the 
property listed in its complaint by virtue of eminent 
domain.

 
 
            
IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that [Basin] is granted immediate 
possession of the rights of way and easements set forth in its Amended 
Complaint, as against all [landowners] who have not stipulated to 
settlement.

 
 

 

 

 
[¶14]   
We will discuss the issues in a somewhat different order than as 
presented by the parties.  Whether 
Basin is a "public utility," and, therefore, was required to obtain a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity is a threshold question that 
must be addressed first.

 
 
[¶15]   
This issue arises because Basin contends it is not a "public utility" as 
contemplated by the governing statute, and because the PSC agreed with that 
conclusion, thus declining to require Basin to obtain a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity.  Basin is 
a wholesale power provider, and is a non-profit corporation based in Bismarck, North 
Dakota.  It 
is owned and controlled by its members.  
It serves 124 distribution cooperatives throughout a nine-state 
area.  PRECorp is one of the 
members, and is the largest single user of electricity from Basin.  PRECorp and other member owners then 
sell the electricity to their members.  
Thus, Basin contends it does not furnish electricity "to or for the 
public," but only to its member cooperatives who, in turn, furnish that 
electricity "to or for the public."

 
 
[¶16]   
With respect to condemnation of private land, the Wyoming Constitution 
provides, at art. 1, § 32:

 
 
§ 32. Eminent domain.

 
 
Private property shall not be taken for private use 
unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and for 
reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others for 
agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitary purposes, nor in any case 
without due compensation.

 
 
[¶17]   
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-2-205 (LexisNexis 2005) 
provides:

 
 
§ 37-2-205. Certificate 
of convenience and necessity; hearings.

 
 

            
(a)  No public utility shall begin construction of a 
line, plant or system, or of any extension of a line, plant or system without 
having first obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or 
future public convenience and necessity require or will require such 
construction.  This act shall 
not be construed to require any public utility operating outside of a city or 
town to secure a certificate for an extension into an area within which it has 
lawfully commenced operation, or for an extension into territory contiguous to 
its line, plant or system for which no certificate is in force and is not served 
by a public utility of like character or for any extension within or to 
territory already served by it, necessary in the ordinary course of its 
business.  If any public utility, in 
constructing or extending its line, plant or system interferes or is about to 
interfere with the operation of the line, plant or system of any other public 
utility already authorized or constructed, the commission on complaint of the 
public utility claiming to be injuriously affected, may after hearing make such 
order and prescribe the terms and conditions for the location of the lines, 
plants or systems affected, as to it are just and reasonable.  The power companies may, without the 
certificate, increase capacity of existing plants.

            
(b)  No public utility shall henceforth exercise any right 
or privilege or obtain a franchise or permit to exercise such right or privilege 
from a municipality or county, without having first obtained from the commission 
a certificate that public convenience and necessity require the exercise of such 
right and privilege; provided, that when the commission shall find, after 
hearing, that a public utility has heretofore begun actual construction work and 
is prosecuting such work in good faith, uninterruptedly and with reasonable 
diligence in proportion to the magnitude of the undertaking, under any franchise 
or permit heretofore granted but not heretofore actually exercised, such public 
utility may proceed to the completion of such work, and may, after such 
completion exercise such right or privilege;  and provided, further, that this section 
shall not be construed to validate any right or privilege now invalid or 
hereafter becoming invalid under any law of this state, nor impair any vested 
right in any franchise or permit heretofore granted.

            
(c)  Before any certificate may issue, under this section, a 
certified copy of its articles of incorporation or charter, if the applicant be 
a corporation, shall be filed in the office of the commission.  The commission shall have power, after 
hearing involving the financial ability and good faith of the applicant and the 
necessity of additional service in the community, to issue said certificate, as 
prayed for, or to refuse to issue the same, or to issue to it for the 
construction of a portion only of the contemplated line, plant, or system, or of 
a portion only, of the contemplated line, plant, system or extension thereof, or 
for the partial exercise only of said right or privilege, and may attach to the 
exercise of the rights granted by said certificate such terms and conditions as 
in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may 
require.

            
(d)  Upon its own motion, or on complaint of any person the 
commission shall have power to investigate and determine whether the competitive 
rates, charges and service existing between any public utilities are fair, just 
and reasonable, after hearing thereon to determine, fix and order such rates, 
charges, regulations and remedies as will establish reasonable and just rates, 
between said competing public utilities, and between said public utilities and 
their customers and patrons.

            
(e)  Where a certificate for the construction and operation 
of a high voltage electric transmission line of 230 KV or greater is required, 
the public service commission shall publish notice of application in a newspaper 
of general circulation in each county where the line will be constructed.  The public service commission shall give 
actual notice of hearing on the application by registered mail at the 
applicant's expense to each landowner who may be affected.  The notice of hearing shall be given at 
least thirty (30) days before the hearing is held and shall contain a summary of 
the pertinent facts about the application.

            
(f)  In the case of a certificate for the construction of a 
high voltage electric transmission line of 230 KV or greater, the issuance of 
the certificate shall be conditioned so that no construction of the line is 
authorized until all right-of-way for the line has been 
acquired.

            
(g)  Any electric utility which provided service to any part of 
the annexed area prior to annexation and which does not receive a franchise from 
the annexing municipality to serve the annexed area shall receive just 
compensation from the public or private utility franchised to serve the annexed 
area.  If the affected utilities 
cannot agree on just compensation within thirty (30) days after the franchise 
has been issued and become final after any challenge thereto, the affected 
utilities shall submit the matter to arbitration before the public service 
commission pursuant to W.S. 37-2-113.  
Upon conclusion of the arbitration proceedings and payment of the 
compensation determined to be just, ownership of the facilities shall be 
transferred to the acquiring utility.  
[Emphases added.]

 
 
[¶18]   "Public utility" is defined by Wyo. 
Stat. Ann § 37-1-101(a)(vi) (LexisNexis 2005):

 
 

(vi)  "Public 
utility" means and includes every person that owns, operates, leases, controls 
or has power to operate, lease or control:

            
(A)  Any plant, property or facility for the transportation or 
conveyance to or for the public of passengers or property for hire, except 
taxicabs operating solely in cities and towns;

            
(B)  Repealed by Laws 1995, ch. 181, § 3.

            
(C)  Any plant, property or facility for the generation, 
transmission, distribution, sale or furnishing to or for the public of 
electricity for light, heat or power, including any conduits, ducts or other 
devices, materials, apparatus or property for containing, holding or carrying 
conductors used or to be used for the transmission of electricity for light, 
heat or power;

            
(D)  Any plant, property or facility for the manufacture, 
distribution, sale or furnishing to or for the public of natural or manufactured 
gas for lights, heat or power;

            
(E)  Any plant, property or facility for the supply, storage, 
distribution or furnishing to or for the public of water for manufacturing, 
municipal, agriculture or domestic uses, except and excluding any such plant, 
property or facility owned by a municipality;

            
(F)  Any plant, property or facility for the production, 
transmission, conveyance, delivery or furnishing to or for the public of steam 
or any other substance for heat or power;

            
(G)  Any plant, property or equipment for the transportation or 
conveyance to or for the public of oil or gas by pipeline, or any plant, 
property, or equipment, used for the purpose of transporting, selling or 
furnishing natural gas to any consumer or consumers within the state of Wyoming 
for industrial, commercial or residential use, except any such plant, property 
or equipment used for any of the following purposes is exempted from this and 
all other provisions of this chapter to the extent of such 
use:

(I) For the 
transportation or sale of natural gas within or between oil and gas fields or 
potential oil and gas fields for residential, commercial, industrial or other 
use reasonably necessary in the exploration, development or operation of the 
field;

(II)  For 
drilling, producing, repressuring, or other oil or gas field 
operations;

                        
(III)  For operation of natural gas processing 
plants;

            
(IV)  For the sale of natural gas by the producer to a consumer 
for use in industrial or commercial plants or establishments of any kind or 
nature.

            
(H)  None of the provisions of this chapter shall apply 
to:

            
(I)  Interstate commerce except when a regulatory field has not 
been preempted by the United 
States government;

(II)  To public 
utilities owned and operated by a municipality of the state of Wyoming, except 
as to that portion of a municipality owned and operated public utility, if any, 
as may extend services outside the corporate limits of a municipality and except 
that if any municipal utility owns an undivided interest in a facility for the 
production of electricity which is also partly owned by an agency subject to the 
jurisdiction of the public service commission, the sale of electricity in excess 
of the participating municipalities' need is subject to this 
act;

(III)  To 
farmers' mutual telephone associations having no capital stock and furnishing 
service to members of associations only and without tolls, except as provided in 
W.S. 37-2-205;

(IV)  To mutual 
water companies or associations having no capital stock and furnishing water 
service to members of companies or associations only, and without charges other 
than assessments of members to reimburse companies or associations for expenses 
incurred in their establishment or operation;

(V)  To any 
person who is not otherwise affiliated with a utility, that owns, leases, 
controls or has power to lease or control any plant, property or facility which, 
in a transaction approved or authorized by the commission, is leased to one (1) 
or more public utilities, and is to be operated by the lessee or lessees for the 
generation, transmission, distribution, sale or furnishing to or for the public 
of electricity for light, heat, power or other utility 
purposes;

(VI)  To the 
generation, transmission or distribution of electricity, or to the manufacture 
or distribution of gas, or to the furnishing or distribution of water, nor to 
the production, delivery or furnishing of steam or any other substance, by a 
producer or other person, for the sole use of a producer or other person, or for 
the use of tenants of a producer or other person and not for sale to 
others.  Such exemptions shall not 
apply to metered or other direct sales of a utility commodity by a producer or 
other person to his tenants.

                        
(J)  The term "public utility" shall mean and include two (2) 
or more public utilities rendering joint service;

                        
(K)  Any person furnishing coal, water or other raw materials 
to an electric power company shall not by this fact alone be designated as a 
public utility;

                        
(M)  The provisions of W.S. 37-6-101 through 37-6-106, relating 
to the issuance and sale of securities shall not apply to:

(I)  Any gas 
pipeline corporation making direct sales to Wyoming consumers in interstate commerce and 
not for resale;

(II)  Any 
cooperative electrical generation and transmission association operating in 
interstate commerce whose rates are not regulated by the Wyoming public service 
commission.  [Emphases 
added.]

 
 
[¶19]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-815 
(LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 

§ 1-26-815. Right of 
eminent domain granted; ways of necessity for authorized businesses; purposes; 
extent.

 
 

            
(a)  Any person, association, company or corporation 
authorized to do business in this state may appropriate by condemnation a way of 
necessity over, across or on so much of the lands or real property of others as 
necessary for the location, construction, maintenance and use of reservoirs, 
drains, flumes, ditches including return flow and wastewater ditches, 
underground water pipelines, pumping stations and other necessary appurtenances, 
canals, electric power transmission lines and distribution systems, 
railroad trackage, sidings, spur tracks, tramways, roads or mine truck haul 
roads required in the course of their business for agricultural, mining, 
exploration drilling and production of oil and gas, milling, electric power 
transmission and distribution, domestic, municipal or sanitary purposes, or for 
the transportation of coal from any coal mine or railroad line or for the 
transportation of oil and gas from any well.

            
(b)  The right of condemnation may be exercised for the purpose 
of:

(i)  Acquiring, 
enlarging or relocating ways of necessity;  
and

(ii)  Acquiring 
easements or rights-of-way over adjacent lands sufficient to enable the owner of 
the way of necessity to construct, repair, maintain and use the structures, 
roads or facilities for which the way of necessity is 
acquired.

            
(c)  A way of necessity acquired hereunder shall not exceed one 
hundred (100) feet in width on each side of the outer sides or marginal lines of 
the reservoir, drain, ditch, underground water pipeline, canal, flume, power 
transmission line or distribution system, railroad trackage, siding or tramway 
unless a greater width is necessary for excavation, embankment or deposit of 
waste from excavation.  In no case 
may the area appropriated exceed that actually necessary for the purpose of use 
for which a way of necessity is authorized.

 
 
[¶20]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-816 
(LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 

§ 1-26-816. 
Condemnation and certificate of public necessity and convenience.

 
 
            
No person shall institute a condemnation proceeding relating to any 
facility for which a certificate of public necessity and convenience is required 
until the certificate has been issued.

 
 
[¶21]   Our analysis of this issue is 
guided by our traditional rules of statutory construction:

 
 
Our standard of review 
with respect to the construction of statutes is well known.  In interpreting statutes, our primary 
consideration is to determine the legislature's intent.  All statutes must be construed in 
pari materia and, in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, all 
statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose must be 
considered and construed in harmony.  
Statutory construction is a question of law, so our standard of review is 
de novo.  We endeavor to interpret 
statutes in accordance with the legislature's intent.  We begin by making an inquiry respecting 
the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their 
arrangement and connection.  We 
construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and 
sentence, and we construe all parts of the statute in pari materia.   When a statute is sufficiently 
clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the 
words and do not resort to the rules of statutory construction.  Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional 
Guides v. Clark, 2001 WY 
78, ¶ 12, 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2001);  
Murphy v. State Canvassing Board, 12 P.3d 677, 679 (Wyo.2000).  
Moreover, we must not give a statute a meaning that will nullify its 
operation if it is susceptible of another interpretation.  Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, 413 (Wyo.1990) (citing McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1283 (Wyo.1980)).

 
 
            
Moreover, we will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to 
matters that do not fall within its express provisions.  Gray v. Stratton Real Estate, 2001 WY 
125, ¶5, 36 P.3d 1127, ¶5 (Wyo.2001);  
Bowen v. State, Wyoming Real Estate Commission, 900 P.2d 1140, 1143 (Wyo.1995).

 
 

In Re 
Loberg, 
2004 WY 
48, ¶5, 88 P.3d 1045, 1048 (Wyo. 2004); Board of County Commissioners of 
Teton County v. Crow, 2003 WY 
40, ¶¶40-41, 65 P.3d 720, 733-34 (Wyo.2003).

 
 
[¶22]   In addition, when a particular 
interpretation has been placed on a statute by the courts, it is presumed that 
the legislature has acquiesced in that interpretation where it has left the 
statute materially unchanged at its subsequent meetings.  82 C.J.S. Statutes § 310, at 397 
(1999); and see Terex Corp. v. Hough, 2002 WY 
112, ¶13, 50 P.3d 317, 322 (dissenting opinion) (Wyo. 2002). 

 
 
[¶23]   As a private corporation, Basin may 
condemn private property to obtain a right-of-way (way of necessity) across the 
lands of other private persons and entities.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-815.  The landowners argue here that Basin 
cannot be pursuing a private interest and, at the same time, argue that its 
business is vested with a public interest.  
However, the statute does not appear to preclude such a 
circumstance.  The Wyoming 
Constitution does not prohibit such a "taking," and the landowners involved in 
this litigation do not make such an argument.  Such a condemnation may not proceed if a 
certificate of public necessity is required.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-816.  A certificate of public convenience and 
necessity is required only if Basin is a "public utility."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-2-205.  The thorny part of this issue can be 
summed up as this (although there is a bit more to it, this summation captures 
the essence of the question):  In 
order to be classified as a "public utility," it must be concluded that Basin 
operates a facility for the transmission, "to or for the public, of 
electricity."  Basin's argument is 
based upon its identification of itself as an electricity "wholesaler," that 
does not directly sell or transmit electricity "to or for the public."  Rather, Basin sells electricity 
wholesale and it is only PRECorp that makes sales or transmits the electricity 
"to or for the public."

 
 
[¶24]   In the case, Phillips Petroleum 
Company v. Public Service Commission, 545 P.2d 1167, 1171-72 (Wyo. 1976) we held as 
follows:

 
 
            
This leaves for our disposal the question of whether Phillips' sale to 
Panhandle, and the delivery of a portion thereof to K-N, constitutes 
transportation "to or for the public."  
The PSC relies upon the position that this phrase is applicable if the 
gas is ultimately sold to Wyoming consumers, which is a part of the 
regulatory scheme of some statutes.  
It does not, however, require much imagination to suggest that if 
jurisdiction may be based upon this broad theory, it is possible to follow any 
producer's line to the Christmas tree.  
This court is confined to the statute and must stay within its 
bounds.  We would engage in a 
judicial process of legislative amendment if we were to insert the word 
"ultimate" or "ultimately" into this statute, and this is without our province, 
Lo Sasso v. Braun, Wyo., 386 P.2d 630, 631; so we are confined to determining the proper 
definition of "to or for the public."  
We find one contention of the appellee-McCulloch of particular interest 
and applicability herein when it suggests that the FPC's "regulatory authority 
attaches to sales made at the tailgate."  
This position is not consistent with a finding that Panhandle is a 
consumer, which would create jurisdiction in the PSC.  This court has not had occasion to 
directly define or decide what the term "to or for the public" means in 
connection with the jurisdiction of the PSC.  However, in the case of State Board 
of Equalization v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 54 Wyo. 521, 94 P.2d 147, which was a tax case, the question was presented whether 
Stanolind was operating as a public utility for tax purposes.  Under the then statute, which included 
the words "to and for the public," this court held that although the company 
bought natural gas which it conveyed by a pipeline in which it had some 
ownership and thereafter delivered the gas to a refinery in Casper to which it 
was sold, and the refinery used and consumed the gas in its operation, this was 
not "for the public," 94 P.2d  at 156, and it could not be considered a public 
utility.  That case further 
indicated that another factor for consideration is whether the company has 
offered to furnish the public with services or has ever filed or posted any 
rates or held itself out to serve consumers, generally absent 
here.

 
 
            
The words "to the public" used in the statute regulating public utilities 
have been defined as "sales to sufficient of the public to clothe the operation 
with a public interest," Iowa State Commerce Commission v. Northern Natural 
Gas Company, Iowa, 164 N.W.2d 111, 115; Griffith v. New Mexico Public Service 
Commission, 86 N.M. 113, 520 P.2d 269, 272.  See 
City of St. Louis v. Mississippi River Fuel Corporation, 8 Cir., 97 F.2d 726, 728-729, for a discussion of the term "public use."  Inasmuch as the record here reveals not 
sales to the public but only to Panhandle, Phillips cannot be classified as a 
public utility under our statutes.  The statutes of the various states 
defining and regulating what is a public utility are phrased in many different 
and varying ways.  It is difficult 
to find direct authority for interpretation of our statute.  The writer can agree that the theory of 
the PSC could be sustained under some of these decisions, but the theory here 
asserted, being that if the gas transported is ultimately used by the public 
this would grant them jurisdiction, is a change in the rationale of the 
statutory scheme, in the writer's view.  
Under a statute which defined a utility as one operating a system "of 
supplying the public for domestic, mechanical or public uses," the Colorado 
Supreme Court held this did not create jurisdiction, and that it did not come 
under the jurisdiction of the Commission, although it sold gas directly to 
eleven different consumers on contract, several of whom bought part of this gas 
for resale, Public Utilities Commission v. Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company, 142 Colo. 361, 351 P.2d 241.

 
 
            
Under the preceding authorities it is our view that this sale of gas was 
not "to and for the public use."  
Although uttered in a different context, the writer views a statement in 
the case of Weaver v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming, 40 Wyo. 462, 
278 P. 542, 550, as a worthwhile caveat when broad assertions are 
made to determine the status of a private carrier to be that of a public 
utility.  The court 
said:

 
 
"* * * that a private 
carrier may not, in view of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution, be converted into a common carrier against his will, * * 
*"

 
 
            
It is difficult to see the need or necessity for control or how the 
public will be secured any protection insofar as Wyoming consumers are concerned 
because this gas is sold to Panhandle, who acts merely as a wholesaler to K-N, 
and when that company distributes to Wyoming consumers its prices and operations 
are certainly under the control and regulation of the PSC.

 
 
[¶25]   The Phillips case is 
instructive in these circumstances.  
However, in its discussion that court acknowledged that the case had not 
been well briefed by the parties, although the Court did undertake its own 
considerable research effort.  In 
the instant case, the parties have provided little more than superficial 
analysis, and very little in the way of the recitation of pertinent authority. 
The facts of the Phillips case are certainly more attenuated than those 
of the instant case, but the Court did observe that similar statutes in other 
states were more limiting than that of Wyoming's, e.g.,  "directly or indirectly to or for the 
public," rather than just "to or for the public."  We do note, however, to borrow a phrase 
from the Phillips case, that it is quite a bit easier in these 
circumstances "to follow [the] producer's line to the Christmas tree," than it 
was in the Phillips case.

 
 
[¶26]   There is another Wyoming case that is 
instructive wherein we construed the phrase "to or for the public," although it 
dealt with a sales tax statute.  In 
that case, we held that an electricity provider similarly situated to PRECorp, 
did provide electricity "to or for the public." Rural Electric Company v. 
State Board of Equalization, 57 Wyo. 451, 
120 P.2d 741 (1942); rehearing denied 57 Wyo. 451, 122 P.2d 189 (1942).  
Certainly, the Rural Electric case, contemplated a broader meaning 
for the phrase "to or for the public," than does the more modern case of 
Phillips.

 
 
[¶27]   
There is a significant body of case law that is pertinent to this 
discussion, although we will not attempt to exhaustively catalogue it here.  We will note that the results of many of 
the pertinent cases vary considerably depending upon the exact wording of the 
applicable statutes, as well as the availability of any statutory purpose/intent 
clauses and/or legislative history.  
Many of the cases are quite old.  
Some of those cases may no longer accurately discuss the status of the 
existing law within the jurisdiction because of subsequent changes to 
statutes.  Also, it can probably 
safely be said that in most jurisdictions the construction of a power 
transmission line of this magnitude could not be undertaken without some 
oversight from a regulatory body such as Wyoming's PSC.

 
 
[¶28]   Before we begin our summary of some 
of the pertinent case law, it is worthwhile here to provide a general summary of 
the purposes of an administrative body such as the PSC:

 
 
            
Public service or public utilities commissions are created for the 
accomplishment of public purposes.  
The function and purpose of a utility commission is in general to 
supervise, regulate, and control public utilities within its authority.  They are also intended to safeguard the 
interests of the utilities and of the public, though their primary purpose is to 
serve the interests of the public.

 
 
73B C.J.S., Public 
Utilities § 149 at 400-1 (2004). 

 
 
[¶29]   In the case, Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 713 A.2d 1110, 114-15 
(Pa. 1998), it 
was held that where gas was supplied to a single end user (corporate entity), 
there was no public involvement and the sale was not "to or for the 
public."  That court went on to 
comment that it was for the legislature, and not the courts, to determine what 
business activity comes within the purview of the regulatory body.  In the case, Appeal of Zimmerman, 
689 A.2d 678, 683 (N.H. 1997), the court held that an entity that provided 
telecommunications services for all building tenants was not a public utility 
because those services were not offered to "all comers without 
discrimination."  In the case, 
Osage Water Company v. Miller County Water Authority, Inc., 950 S.W.2d 569, 574-75 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997) (collecting cases), the court opined that "in 
determining whether a corporation is or not a public utility, the important 
thing is, not what its charter says it may do, but what it actually does.'"  Continuing, that court found a water 
company to be a public utility because it sold "water to the public for 
compensation, and its actions suggest that it has undertaken the responsibility 
to provide water service to all members of the public within its 
capabilities."  In the case, 
Waltman v. Public Utility Commission, 596 A.2d 1221, 1223-24 (Pa.Cmwlth. 
1991), the court applied this test to whether utility services were being 
offered "for the public:"

 
 
[W]hether or not such 
person holds himself out, expressly or impliedly, as engaged in the business of 
supplying his product or service to the public, as a class, or to any limited 
portion of it, as contradistinguished from holding himself out as serving or 
ready to serve only particular individuals.  [Emphasis in 
original.]

 
 
[¶30]   In the case Arkansas Charcoal 
Company  v. Public Service 
Commission, 299 Ark. 359, 773 S.W.2d 427, 429-31 (Ark. 1989), the court held 
that the phrase "to or for the public" did not include the sale of natural gas, 
via a pipeline that had been condemned for that purpose, to a single end 
user.  Applying a broad definition, 
the court in State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Mackie, 338 S.E.2d 888, 893-94 (N.C.App. 1986) concluded that an individual providing water and 
sewer service to a very limited number of customers was a "public utility" 
providing service "to or for the public."

 
 
[¶31]   We conclude that the district court 
did not err as a matter of law in deciding that Basin was not required to seek 
and obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity before undertaking 
the disputed project.  To a limited 
extent, the district court's conclusion is a mixed question of law and 
fact.  To the extent that it is, the 
facts clearly support a conclusion that Basin does not supply electricity "to or 
for the public" as contemplated by the governing statute.  Our decision in Phillips supports 
that conclusion, and we are not inclined to reconsider its wisdom under the 
circumstances of this case, although the circumstances here are different from 
those circumstances presented by Phillips.  As we have set out above, there is 
authority that is in accord with Phillips.  We also note that our decision in 
Phillips is now a long-standing one, and any alteration of it, or 
clarification of that statute, is properly a question for the 
legislature.

 
 

 
[¶32]   The condemnation process is 
governed by statute.  Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 1-26-503 (LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 
§ 1-26-503. Public use 
required; other acquisitions.

 
 

            
(a)  Nothing in this act requires that the power of eminent 
domain be exercised to acquire property.  
Whether property necessary for public use is to be acquired by purchase, 
other means or by eminent domain is a decision left to the discretion of the 
person authorized to acquire the property.

            
(b)  Subject to any other statute relating to the acquisition 
of property, any person or public entity authorized to acquire property for a 
particular use by eminent domain may also acquire the property for the use by 
grant, purchase, lease, gift, devise, contract or other 
means.

 
 
[¶33]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-504 
(LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 
§ 1-26-504. Requirements 
to exercise eminent domain.

 
 

            
(a)  Except as otherwise provided by law, the power of eminent 
domain may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed use only if all of 
the following are established:

                        
(i)  The public interest and necessity require the 
project or the use of eminent domain is authorized by the Wyoming 
Constitution;

                        
(ii)  The project is planned or located in the manner that will 
be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private 
injury; and

                        
(iii)  The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the 
project.

            
(b)  Findings of the public service commission, the interstate 
commerce commission and other federal and state agencies with appropriate 
jurisdiction are prima facie valid relative to determinations under subsection 
(a) of this section if the findings were made in accordance with law with notice 
to condemnees who are parties to the condemnation action and are final with no 
appeals from the determinations pending.  
[Emphasis added.]

 
 
[¶34]   Wyo. Stat. Ann § 1-26-509 
(LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 
§ 1-26-509. Negotiations; 
scope of efforts to purchase.

 
 

            
(a)  A condemnor shall make reasonable and diligent efforts to 
acquire property by good faith negotiation.

            
(b)  In attempting to acquire the property by purchase under 
W.S. 1-26-510, the condemnor, acting within the scope of its powers and to the 
extent not otherwise forbidden by law, may negotiate and contract with respect 
to:

(i)  Any 
element of valuation or damages recognized by law as relevant to the amount of 
just compensation payable for the property;

(ii)  The 
extent or nature of the property interest to be 
acquired;

                        
(iii)  The quantity, location or boundary of the 
property;

            
(iv)  The acquisition, removal, relocation or disposition of 
improvements upon the property and of personal property not sought to be 
taken;

                        
(v)  The date of proposed entry and physical 
dispossession;

            
(vi)  The time and method of payment of agreed compensation or 
other amounts authorized by law; and

(vii)  Any 
other terms or conditions deemed appropriate by either of the parties.  [Emphasis added.]

 
 
[¶35]   
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-510 (LexisNexis 2005) 
provides:

 
 
§ 1-26-510. Preliminary 
efforts to purchase.

 
 
            
(a)  Except as provided in W.S. 1-26-511, an action to condemn 
property may not be maintained over timely objection by the condemnee unless the 
condemnor made a good faith effort to acquire the property by purchase before 
commencing the action.

 
 
            
(b)  Negotiations conducted in substantial compliance with 
W.S. 1-26-509(b)(i) through (vi) are prima facie evidence of "good faith" under 
subsection (a) of this section.  
[Emphasis added.]

 
 
[¶36]   
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-515 (LexisNexis 2005) 
provides:

 
 

§ 1-26-515. Abandonment, 
nonuse or new use.

            
Upon abandonment, nonuse for a period of ten (10) years, or transfer or 
attempted transfer to a use where the transferee could not have condemned for 
the new use, or where the new use is not identical to the original use and new 
damages to the landowner whose property was condemned for the original use will 
occur, any easement authorized under this act terminates.

 
 
[¶37]   The Bridle Bit Group contends that 
Basin did not locate the transmission line in a manner most compatible with the 
greatest public good and the least private injury.  Wyo. Stat Ann. § 1-26-504(a)(ii).  This is based on Basin's admitted 
decision to avoid public lands in favor of private lands as one factor used in 
selecting the route ultimately chosen.  
Other routes were available to Basin that used somewhat more public land, 
but Basin chose a route that included only a small amount of public land.  The Bridle Bit Group asserts that this 
decision by Basin was arbitrary and capricious, as well as an act made in bad 
faith and constituted an abuse of its discretion with respect to the location of 
the transmission line.

 
 
[¶38]   The Roush Group contends that Basin 
failed to demonstrate that public interest and necessity require the project at 
issue and that Basin's proposed route does not comply with the requirement that 
the project be located so as to do the greatest public good and the least 
private harm.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 
1-26-504(a)(i)and(ii).  Those 
landowners contend that the project is designed solely for the benefit of 
PRECorp so that it can provide electricity for CBM development, but that there 
is no evidence that the public interest and necessity require the project.  They also iterate the Bridle Bit Group's 
contentions concerning the greatest public good and the least private harm.  Further, the Roush Group asserts that 
Basin failed to negotiate in good faith as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
1-26-509.  This argument is premised 
on a theory that Basin selected the route it wanted and, thus, for all intents 
and purposes the route was not negotiable once the process of acquiring the 
necessary land got underway.  They 
also contend that Basin refused to negotiate the term of the easements and 
insisted on easements that were perpetual in duration.

 
 
[¶39]   Basin contends that the route was 
chosen after considerable thought and study, and that it listened to the 
concerns of landowners.  Basin 
considered the following factors in selecting the route now at issue:  (a)  Tie-in or connections to the existing 
electrical system infrastructure; (b) physical limitations, such as topography, 
railroad crossings, existing improvements, and dry lakebeds; (c) landowner 
concerns; (d) costs of construction; (e) reliability and safety matters (e.g., 
avoiding paralleling existing high power transmission lines); (f) minimizing the 
number of landowners being crossed; (g) minimizing impact to government 
property; (h) minimization of visual impact; (i) environmental concerns; (j) 
avoidance of archeological sites; and (k) avoidance of cultivated property.  Basin ascertained that, given that the 
transmission line was necessary, the proposed route (and the bottom line is that 
it had to pick a route) was the most compatible with the greatest public good 
and the least private injury.  Basin 
asserts that no evidence to the contrary was brought to bear by the 
landowners.  Furthermore, Basin 
contends that its evidence establishes that public interest and necessity do 
require the transmission line project.  
Without it, Basin asserts, it cannot meet its projected demands from its 
users (including mineral developers, farmers and ranchers).  Basin also maintains that it enjoys 
considerable discretion in selecting an appropriate route.  Basin contends that the landowners have 
marshaled no evidence that Basin abused the discretion accorded it by the 
eminent domain statutes.  Basin 
acknowledges that it endeavored to avoid public lands, but ultimately was unable 
to do so.  Thus, that matter became 
a non-issue because Basin was required to complete an Environmental Assessment 
in order to obtain access to both Forest Service and BLM lands.  Finally, Basin claims that it negotiated 
in good faith with all landowners.

 
 
[¶40]   The standard of review applicable 
to these arguments has been articulated with clarity.  In the case, Conner v. Board of 
County Commissioners, Natrona County, 2002 WY 
148, ¶8, 54 P.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Wyo. 2002) we set out that 
standard:

 
 
Eminent domain 
proceedings are authorized by constitutional and statutory provisions and 
governed by W.R.C.P. 71.1.   
The district court determines all issues arising on the complaint for 
condemnation including notice, the plaintiff's right to make the appropriation, 
plaintiff's inability to agree with the owner, the necessity for the 
appropriation, and the regularity of the proceedings.  W.R.C.P. 71.1(e)(2)(A).   Only the issue of compensation may 
be tried before a jury.  W.R.C.P. 
71.1(j).

 
 

      When we review 
the district court's determination of issues required by Rule 71.1(e)(2), "we 
uphold the judgment if there is evidence to support it, and in doing so we look 
only to the evidence submitted by the prevailing party and give to it every 
favorable inference which may be drawn therefrom, without considering any 
contrary evidence."  Town of 
Wheatland v. 
Bellis Farms, Inc., 806 P.2d 281, 284 (Wyo.1991).  
Where the district court's ultimate conclusions decide questions of law, 
we afford no deference to its decision.  
See Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves, 603 P.2d 406, 410 (Wyo.1979); see also Homesite Co. v. Board of 
CountyComm'rs of Laramie, 
69 Wyo. 236, 
240 P.2d 885, 889 (1952).

Wyoming Resources 
Corporation v. T-Chair Land Company, 2002 WY 
104, ¶¶7-8, 49 P.3d 999, ¶¶7-8 (Wyo.2002).

 
 
[¶41]   The Conner case also 
iterated:

 
 
When a condemnor seeks to 
establish the requirement of necessity in an eminent domain proceeding, it need 
only show a reasonable necessity for the project.  As explained by one court, the term 
"necessity," when used in the context of an eminent domain proceeding, means 
"reasonably convenient or useful to the public."  City of Dayton v. Keys, 21 Ohio Misc. 105, 252 N.E.2d 655, 659 
(1969).  A showing that the project 
will increase public safety is sufficient.  
See Greasy Creek Mineral Company v. Ely Jellico Coal Company, 132 
Ky. 692, 116 S.W. 1189 (1909).

 
 

Board of CountyCommissioners of JohnsonCounty v. Atter, 734 P.2d 549, 553 (Wyo.1987).  
And further:

To comply with W.S. 
1-26-504(a)(ii), the [board] needs to present evidence that it has planned or 
located the project in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good 
and the least private injury.  The 
district court then reviews the evidence and decides whether the [board] has met 
its burden.  Once W.S. 
1-26-504(a)(ii) has been complied with and the landowners still wish to contest 
the action, the burden shifts to them to show that the condemnor acted in bad 
faith or abused its discretion as to that particular 
determination.

      

Town of Wheatland v. 
Bellis Farms, Inc., 806 P.2d 281, 283 (Wyo.1991) (footnotes omitted).  Before filing an eminent domain 
complaint, a condemnor must make reasonable, diligent, and good faith efforts to 
negotiate with the condemnee.   
Wyo. 
Stat.  Ann. § 1-26-509 (LexisNexis 
2001).  Efforts made in compliance 
with the statutes constitute prima facie evidence of the condemnor's good 
faith.   Wyo. Stat.  Ann. § 1-26-510 (LexisNexis 
2001).

 
 
54 P.3d  at 
1282-83.

 
 
[¶42]   In Wyoming Resources Corporation 
v. T-Chair Land Company, 2002 WY 
104, ¶¶13-14, 49 P.3d 999, 1003-04 (Wyo. 2002) we held:

 
 
The taking of private 
property for a private way of necessity is recognized as valid in Wyoming 
because "[t]here is a public interest in giving access by individuals to the 
road and highway network of the state as a part and an extension thereof for 
economic reasons and the development of land as a resource for the common good, 
whether residential or otherwise."  
Hulse v. First American Title Co. of Crook County, 2001 WY 
95, ¶30, 33 P.3d 122, ¶30 (Wyo.2001).  
"[T]he right to condemn a way of necessity under constitutional and 
statutory provisions is an expression of public policy against landlocking 
property and rendering it useless."  
Id.; see Coronado Oil Co., 603 P.2d  at 410.

 
 
The legislature has 
enacted the eminent domain and private road establishment acts so that access 
will be available to permit mineral estate owners to realize the full benefit of 
their property ownership and landlocked property will not be rendered 
useless.

 
 

 
[¶43]   It is evident from the 
above-described standard of review that this Court has ascribed a broad meaning 
to the phrase "public interest and necessity," and that is consistent with the 
overall tenor of Wyoming's eminent domain statutes.  See 2A Nichols on Eminent 
Domain, § 7.02[3] at 7-29  7-35 (3rd ed. 2004); and 29A C.J.S. 
Eminent Domain § 29 (1992).  
Nichols identifies three core criteria for this analysis: 
"(1)  That the taking affect a 
community as distinguished from a single individual; (2)   That the use to which the taken 
property is applied is authorized by law; (3)  That the title taken not be invested in 
a person or corporation as private property to be used and controlled as private 
property unless the public receives some public benefit as a result of the 
private possession."  2A 
Nichols, § 7.02[3] at 7-35.

 
 
[¶44]   The evidence presented by Basin 
plainly demonstrated the need for additional electric power to PRECorp's service 
territory and that additional power would inure to the benefit of the public in 
that locality, both in terms of the additional power itself and the reliability 
of service in the area.  The 
landowners presented no evidence to contradict Basin's comprehensive studies 
that established the ever-increasing demand for more electric power.  The district court's findings that Basin 
demonstrated that the project was necessary and in the public interest is 
unassailable and we affirm it here.

 
 
Did Basin Demonstrate That the Project Was Most 
Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and Least Private 
Harm

 
 
[¶45]   The landowners' argument in this 
regard focuses almost entirely on Basin's decision to avoid public lands.  However, the record is replete with 
evidence that Basin considered many alternative routes and finally settled on 
the one at issue here for a variety reasons, one of which was the avoidance of 
public lands.  We must begin our 
analysis with a recognition that:

 
 
Even when judicial review 
of the question of necessity is based upon alleged arbitrariness or 
excessiveness of the taking, it has been held that by virtue of the delegation 
of the power of eminent domain by the state to the condemnor there is 
necessarily left largely to the latter's discretion the location and area of the 
land to be taken.  And one seeking 
to show that the taking has been arbitrary or excessive shoulders a heavy burden 
of proof in the attempt to persuade the court to overrule the condemnor's 
judgment.

 
 
1A Nichols on Eminent 
Domain, § 4.11[2] at 4-191  4-194 (3rd ed. 1998); 8A Nichols on 
Eminent Domain, § 26.03, at 26-25  26-47 (3rd ed. 1998); also 
see Annotation, Eminent Domain:  
Review of Electric Power Company's Location of Transmission Line for 
Which Condemnation is Sought, 19 A.L.R.4th 1026, 1030-31 (1983 
and Supp. 2004) ("[T]he courts have been quite reluctant to overturn a site 
determination by a power company unless the evidence clearly established an 
unreasonable disregard of individual or public 
interests.").

 
 
[¶46]   Again, the record amply 
demonstrates that Basin did examine several alternate routes, but ultimately had 
to make a decision as to which one best fulfilled all of the various criteria 
that went into making a decision to move forward with the project and begin the 
process of acquiring the necessary rights-of-way and access easements.  Several years have been devoted to that 
effort.  An examination of the map 
of the proposed route, as well as an examination of a map showing the 
alternative routes, demonstrates that the route chosen is, on its face, a direct 
and reasonable route.  The 
variations between it and the alternative routes (and the variation included 
such things as overall mileage and federal lands crossed) are minimal, and 
Basin's evidence included testimony that the differences were inconsequential in 
the decision-making process.

 
 
[¶47]   We conclude that the district 
court's determination that the transmission line was located in such a manner so 
as to be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private 
harm is correct.

 
 

 
[¶48]   The landowners contend that Basin 
did not negotiate in good faith as required by the statute.  There is little, if any, dispute that 
Basin negotiated in good faith with respect to the amount of money to be paid 
for the easements and accesses.  Of 
course, what payments will be made to the landowners involved in these appeals 
is not yet determined.  Basin is on 
the record as having agreed that it will pay all landowners who settled early-on 
the same per-acre damages as will ultimately be paid to the landowners involved 
in these appeals, should it be greater than that negotiated prior to these 
proceedings.  Basin negotiated with 
all landowners over a period in excess of a year (in some instances longer), and 
those negotiations continued up until the day of trial.  Indeed, several additional landowners 
settled just before trial.

 
 
[¶49]   The sticking points in the final 
negotiation process were the location of the transmission line, as well as the 
term for the easements and accesses, i.e., that they were to be perpetual or for 
as long as they were needed for the transmission line.  The record establishes that just prior 
to trial, Basin agreed to settle for easements with a duration of 99 years, 
rather than perpetuity.

 
 
[¶50]   We have held above that Basin had 
great discretion with respect to the location of the transmission line.  In addition, we note that Basin 
attempted to accommodate owner concerns about location, especially early on in 
the negotiation process.  As Basin 
settled with more and more landowners, it became ever more difficult to 
accommodate the concerns of the remaining landowners without then making 
alterations to other settled portions of the route.  The record contains seven voluminous 
exhibits that detail the contacts Basin had with each of the landowners involved 
in these appeals.  We note that 
those exhibits amply demonstrate Basin's good faith efforts to negotiate with 
all landowners, to the extent that was practicable.  We have carefully examined those 
exhibits, as well as the transcripts as a whole, and are fully satisfied that 
Basin did negotiate with all landowners in good faith.  See generally, Michael A. 
DiSabatino, Annotation, Sufficiency of Condemnor's Negotiations Required as 
Preliminary to Taking in Eminent Domain, 21 A.L.R.4th 765 (1983 
and Supp. 2004); and 6 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 24-14 (3rd ed. 2002).  The district court was correct in 
concluding that Basin negotiated in good faith, as required by the governing 
statutes.

 
 
[¶51]   We will further discuss the issue 
of the perpetual term for the easements in the final section of this 
opinion.

 
 

 
[¶52]   We embark on this discussion with a 
reference to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-515, which provides for the termination of 
condemned easements, such as those at issue here, because of nonuse, upon 
certain transfers or attempted transfers of the easement by the condemnor, and 
where a new use is not identical to the original use.  The landowners contend that since the 
Forest Service will give only a 25-year easement, the State a 35-year easement, 
and the BLM a 30-year easement, their property should not be saddled with 
perpetual easements.  Although the 
circumstances with the State are somewhat different, with both the Forest 
Service and the BLM renewal of the easement is a matter of formality and does 
not require the payment of additional compensation.  It is the goal of the landowners (who 
apparently might settle for a 50-year term) to require that compensation be 
renegotiated after, e.g., 50 years, so that future generations will derive 
benefit from the land as well.

 
 
[¶53]   The district court did not 
characterize the easements as perpetual.  
Rather it found that the easements would be required for "an unlimited 
length of time."  Evidence adduced 
at trial showed that existing electrical transmission infrastructure had been in 
place for over 50 years and would continue to be needed for the indefinite 
future.  As a general rule, 
easements may be perpetual, or for an indefinite duration, or for so long as 
they are needed for their intended purpose or so long as the necessity 
continues.  4 Powell on Real 
Property § 34.19, at 34-179  34-184 (2001); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and 
Licenses § 94 (2004).

 
 
[¶54]   The landowners have not cited 
pertinent authority that convinces us that the district court erred in 
determining that the easements were for an indefinite period of time, although 
they are, of course, limited by a use consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
1-26-515.

 
 

 
 
[¶55]   We conclude that Basin is not a 
public utility as contemplated by the governing statute, and that the district 
court did not err in ordering the takings at issue in these appeals.  The order of the district court is 
affirmed in all respects.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1On July 21, 2004, the 
United 
States entered an appearance in this case, but 
has not otherwise participated in this matter.

 
 

2This reference should be to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 37-2-205.