Case Name: (Brown County Case 89-CV-716) Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Power & Light Company, Intervenors-Respondents, v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants; (Eau Claire County Case 89-CV-309) Northern States Power Company, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Intervenors-Respondents, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Charles H. Thomspon, Chairman of the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Mary Lou Munts, Commissioner, Cheryl L. Pofahl, Commissioner, Respondents, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1993-06-17
Citations: 176 Wis. 2d 955
Docket Number: No. 92-1359
Parties: (Brown County Case 89-CV-716) Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Power & Light Company, Intervenors-Respondents, v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants. (Eau Claire County Case 89-CV-309) Northern States Power Company, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Intervenors-Respondents, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Charles H. Thomspon, Chairman of the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Mary Lou Munts, Commissioner, Cheryl L. Pofahl, Commissioner, Respondents, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 176
Pages: 955–960

Head Matter:
(Brown County Case 89-CV-716) Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Power & Light Company, Intervenors-Respondents, v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants. (Eau Claire County Case 89-CV-309) Northern States Power Company, A Wisconsin Corporation, Petitioner-Respondent, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Intervenors-Respondents, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. System and Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Charles H. Thomspon, Chairman of the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Mary Lou Munts, Commissioner, Cheryl L. Pofahl, Commissioner, Respondents, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, Respondent-Co-Appellant.
Supreme Court
No. 92-1359.
Filed June 17, 1993.
(Also reported in 501 N.W.2d 36.)

Opinion:
LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(concurring in order denying motion for reconsideration). All of the cases that this court decides are significant to the parties and to the development of the law in this state and therefore, of necessity, have state and national significance. That this case involves powerful utility corporations and the Pub- lie Service Commission of Wisconsin is not a valid reason to change our procedures.
I find no citation to our internal operating procedures in the dissent for its assertion that "now an alternative procedure is possible when this court divides evenly on a case before us on by-pass or certification." Dissenting op. at 959.
The reason there is no citation is obvious: there is no such alleged procedure; and for the dissent to assert that one is "possible" is inaccurate until this court adopts such a change in our internal operating procedures.
Further, the procedure suggested by the dissent, that is, to "remand the case to the court of appeals," dissenting op. at 957, is poorly thought out. Obviously, the publication of the votes of the members of this court would alert all parties and the court of appeals panel as to the thoughts of this court's members. This could, and may very well, lead to all sorts of problems.
Changes in our internal operating procedures, if warranted by more than just the outcome of a particular case, should be carefully thought out and researched.
I concur in the order of this court denying the motion for reconsideration.