Court Opinion

ID: 9656446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:48:23.643081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.341788
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
MERRILL, Justice.
Appellee Alabama Power Company argues strenuously that we have overruled the holdings in Alabama Power Co. v. City of Fort Payne, 237 Ala. 459, 187 So. 632, 123 A.L.R. 1337, and Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co., 251 Ala. 190, 36 So.2d 523, that Alabama Power Company does not have the right to intervene in a proceeding before the Director of Finance as was done in those cases and in the instant case. We have not overruled those cases and we remain of the opinion that Alabama Power Company and Gulf Power Company had the right to intervene and be heard in this cause.
In addition to the more or less general reasons stated in our original opinion showing that the approval of the issuance of the bonds “serves some public need and is in the public interest,” we note other examples of testimony. Such testimony fills Vol. Ill of the record, and only a few excerpts are here listed.
1. The Cooperative’s engineer, C. M. Stanley, who holds an Alabama license, and was fully qualified as an electrical engineer, testified that if AEC purchased its deficiencies (power required in excess of that which it generates) from Alabama Power Company rather than to build an additional *129plant and purchase power from SEPA, over a ten year period, the resulting costs to AEC would be increased five million four hundred forty-five thousand dollars,
2. He further testified that AEC’s plan to increase its generating and transmission facilities would bring about practically no duplication of Alabama Power Company’s existing system. He stated that any duplication “is of a minimal nature.”
3. W. P. Albritton, city councilman from Frisco City, testified that they had only one line from Frisco City to Andalusia. If these improvements were made, they could have two lines. When the current from the one line went off, their small industries, which employed about 400 people, were closed until repairs were made, and a two-line feed would remedy this situation. Also, the new small industries there used twice as much electricity now as the entire town formerly used.
4. Businessmen, city and county officials testified that a competitive source of power would be good for their communities and the area.
5. Many witnesses testified that there was a growing need for electrical power in their area, that their relations with their cooperatives were good and their continued growth depended upon an adequate supply of electricity. For example, Troy doubled the capacity of their transmission lines in two years.
6. The need for additional power for rural and farm homes was also shown together with evidence that the standard of living had increased sharply in rural sections since the cooperatives had begun functioning.
This type of evidence was given from witnesses all over South Alabama. Some witnesses may have been overenthusiastic and their figures may not have been exactly accurate, but it is impossible to read the testimony presented to the Finance Director in behalf of the application and not hold that there was substantial evidence, if believed by the Director of Finance, that the issuance of the bonds in question would serve some public need and be in the pub-lie interest.
Application for rehearing overruled.
LAWSON, SIMPSON, COLEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN, J., dissent.