Court Opinion

ID: 9686717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:02:47.497605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:21.594507
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 32. (concurring). I join the mandate. I do not join the opinion because I am concerned about key aspects of the opinion.
¶ 33. First, the majority opinion rejects WEPCO's argument that the circuit court should have deferred its jurisdiction to the PSC on the abatement issue. The reason the majority opinion gives is that "[o]nly a court has the authority to grant an injunction."1 The majority opinion cites to Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Madison Metropolitan School District, 197 Wis. 2d 731, 747, 541 N.W.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1995).
¶ 34. Madison Teachers, however, does not provide support for the majority opinion's conclusion that the circuit court need not defer to the PSC on abatement. Madison Teachers involved a question of the court deferring to Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC). Madison Teachers states only that WERC cannot provide injunctive relief.2 The basis for the decision in Madison Teachers is a statute granting courts the power to issue equitable (injunc-*290tive) relief in WERC matters.3 The statement in Madison Teachers that "only a court may grant an injunction" is gratuitous, is made without citation, and probably is no more than a truism (because by definition an injunction is a court order).
¶ 35. The majority opinion in the present case picks up this sentence from Madison Teachers relating to WERC and injunctions and apparently equates WERC with the PSC and "injunction" with "abatement." At least some administrative agencies do, however, have the power to issue abatement orders.4 No one disputes the PSC's power to abate.
¶ 36. Second, the majority opinion concludes that the circuit court could have consulted with the PSC in making its determination regarding the method of abatement.5 It offers no authority for this conclusion. The Commission's amicus brief states that the Commission "is certainly willing to advise a trial court whenever questions about public safety and utility systems arise."6 Administrative agencies have only those powers conferred by statute.7 What statute authorizes the PSC, under the circumstances of this case, to answer questions posed by a circuit court, to make findings in response to a court's inquiry, or to issue rulings at the request of a court?
*291¶ 37. I join the mandate to remand the matter to the circuit court. The majority opinion does not prevent the circuit court from deferring to the PSC on the abatement issue.
¶ 38. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this concurrence.

 Majority op., ¶ 29.

 The same is true for the case Madison Teachers relies on, Local 913 v. Manitowoc County, 140 Wis. 2d 476, 485, 410 N.W.2d 641 (Ct. App. 1987).

 Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 197 Wis. 2d 731, 747, 541 N.W.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing Wis. Stat. § 111.70(1)).

 See State v. Dairyland Power Co-op., 52 Wis. 2d 45, 54, 187 N.W.2d 878 (1971).

 Majority op., ¶ 29.

 Public Service Commission Amicus Brief at 9.

 See Mid-Plains Tel., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 56 Wis. 2d 780, 786, 202 N.W.2d 907 (1973).