Court Opinion

ID: 9585067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:43.661017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:21.863749
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(dissenting). Our attention has been called to no case where the Public Service Commission has made an order such as the one appealed from. Certainly the case of Northern States P. Co. v. Public Service Comm. 246 Wis. 215, 16 N. W. (2d) 790, relied upon by the commission, is no precedent. There is no similarity in the facts and circumstances in the two situations. Our sympathies, of course, are with the petitioners. The users of utility service should, where possible, have the service most desirable to them. However, an order such as this can only result in a duplication of service or the abandonment of valuable facilities, and this eventually must result in higher costs for the subscribers. A continuance of this procedure could result in the inevitable liquidation of many utilities, with the large companies absorbing the small. Many people may deem that desirable, but it is a policy that should be initiated by the legislature and not by an administrative order or judicial decision.
I agree with my associates that the Lodi Telephone Company has a right to be heard, but I must disagree with that part of the opinion that approves the procedure and order of the commission.
*424aA motion for rehearing was granted on January 6, 1953, and oral argument was heard February 5, 1953.
For the appellant there was a brief by Rieser, Mathys, McNamara & Stafford of Madison, and oral argument by Robert M. Rieser.
For the respondent there was a brief by the Attorney General and William E. Torkelson, chief counsel for the Public Service Commission, and Samuel Bryan, attorney, and oral argument by Mr. Torkelson.
Charles J. Ploetz of Prairie du Sac, for intervenors.