Opinion ID: 1792724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: public interest determinations

Text: MUD contends that its extension is in the public interest. Section 57-1303 provides five factors to be considered when determining whether an extension or enlargement is in the public interest. Under § 57-1303: In determining whether or not an extension or enlargement is in the public interest, the district or the utility shall consider the following: (1) The economic feasibility of the extension or enlargement; (2) The impact the enlargement will have on the existing and future natural gas ratepayers of the metropolitan utilities district or the investor-owned natural gas utility; (3) Whether the extension or enlargement contributes to the orderly development of natural gas utility infrastructure; (4) Whether the extension or enlargement will result in duplicative or redundant natural gas utility infrastructure; and (5) Whether the extension or enlargement is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. In addition, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 14-2117 (Reissue 1997) provides in part: No metropolitan utilities district may extend or enlarge its service area unless it is economically feasible to do so. In determining whether or not to extend or enlarge its service area, the district shall take into account the cost of such extension or enlargement to its existing ratepayers. We note that no one single factor may be dispositive to any particular case. Cases may vary, and whether an extension is in the public interest depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The district court found that the extension was not in the public interest because MUD (1) failed to prove it was economically feasible, (2) failed to consider the impact on ratepayers, and (3) did not take orderly development into consideration. The court found that the extension was not redundant and that there was no evidence of discriminatory purpose or effect.