Court Opinion

ID: 9674844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:22.547048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.797776
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority in this case. The majority result is *762premised upon a principle with which I agree, but an application which is wrong. I think it is clear from an examination of the applicable statutes that, indeed, the legislatively declared public policy underlying the encouragement of publicly owned electric utilities is to provide power to consumers at reasonable rates and at as low overall cost as possible, and to avoid duplication of facilities. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 70-655, 70-1001 (Reissue 1981). My disagreement arises by reason of my belief that the majority opinion in this case has brought about just the opposite result. By including in the “transmission system” of NPPD the substations involved in this action, the majority opinion has simply increased the overall wholesale rate to all communities rather than imposing upon the consumers in York the cost of the stepdown substations used solely and wholly for the purpose of distributing electricity within the municipality involved. That does not appear to me to be in keeping with the legislative intent or with the language of the statutes involved.
The majority opinion suggests that the testimony of NPPD establishes that the substation serves a function as part of the “transmission system” rather than the “distribution system.” The statute in question, however, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 70-650.01 (Reissue 1981), does not talk about a “transmission system.” It speaks only of a “distribution system” and “transmission lines.” The pertinent portion of § 70-650.01 reads as follows: “[T]he said district shall convey without cost all of its right, title and interest in and to its electric distribution system, as distinguished from its generating plants and transmission lines, to the said city or village within the territorial limits of which such system is located.” (Emphasis supplied.) It appears from a reading of the applicable statute that the Legislature intended to distinguish the transmission lines from the distribution system, and not some enlarged transmis*763sion system as suggested by the majority. The use of the words “transmission lines” by the Legislature appears to be consistent with its obvious intent of separating the cost of wholesale power from the cost of retail power, imposing upon all of the communities within the wholesale district the cost of transmission while limiting to the particular municipality the cost of distribution, including the taking of the electricity from the transmission line. That desire would be fully consistent with the Federal Power Commission’s definition for accounting purposes of the transmission system ánd would bring about a result which the Federal Power Commission’s definition was designed to accomplish and which is used by investor-owned utilities to segregate the wholesale cost from the retail cost.
While there is testimony which may support a claim that under certain circumstances stepdown substations such as the ones involved herein may be considered a part of a “transmission system,” there is no question that they cannot be considered a “transmission line.” This explains why, at the time that NPPD, formerly Consumers, took over the York facilities, these substations were carried on the books of Iowa-Nebraska as distribution substations, and why Consumers continued to inventory them in that manner until sometime between 1965 and 1970 when they were changed from distribution to transmission for accounting purposes by NPPD. The record in this case is. without dispute that the only purpose of these substations is to distribute power to the service area of the City of York. NPPD acknowledges that the sole transmission function of the substations consists of four line switches at Platte Avenue and one line switch at Delaware Avenue, each of which could be placed separate and apart from the substation structure.
Furthermore, the fact relied upon by the majority that NPPD and York entered into a wholesale con*764tract which requires NPPD to deliver wholesale power at a certain location or at a certain voltage merely begs the question. The decision as to. whether a substation is a part of the distribution system or the transmission line is dependent upon what the Legislature and the applicable statutes intended and not what NPPD and the City of York may have agreed to subsequently. The contract may simply be wrong. While I may not agree with the trial court as to the basis of its conclusion, I do agree that these substations are a part of the “distribution system” and not a part of the “transmission line” and therefore, under the provisions of § 70-650.01, should be the property of the City of York. I would have affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Caporale, J., joins in this dissent.