Court Opinion

ID: 9765277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:57:48.24032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:07.633059
License: Public Domain

MOREMEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I am not in full-accord with the majority opinion and believe the portion thereof that, refers the case back to the Public Service Commission to hear further proof *898as to whether there will he a duplication of facilities if East Kentucky constructs the 597 miles of line is erroneous.
. Under Chapter 278 of Kentucky Revised Statutes, the Public Service Commission is given broad powers over utilities both in the matter of service to be rendered and rates which might properly be charged.. In this case, the Public Service Commission was presented with the question of whether a showing of facts was made that demonstrated a demand and need for the service which East Kentucky seeks to render. The Commission found that this need for service was a real one and the opinion fails to point out where it might have erred in its conclusion.
It is true that the opinion sets forth standards, some of which are new to the law o'f this state, but it is not demonstrated in the opinion that the Commission failed to follow these rules.
This court’s function is to act as a court of review and when we set aside a finding of fact by the Commission, we should point out wherein the Commission erred. Here, the majority opinion does not say where the Commission was wrong; it merely says, in effect, “Think about these things we have written and try again.”
It is pointed out in the majority opinion that the proposed eight year expansion plan of Kentucky Utilities, which was filed with the Commission and which was based on anticipated load, is a clear admission of the inadequacy of existing facilities. It is also true that for many years the appellant utility has been in a position to apply for permission to serve these undeveloped areas. I believe that its failure to serve these needy’ rural communities over the years, in itself, was sufficient reason for the Commission to authorize East Kentucky to serve them. But, of course, that is not properly within our province and is reserved to the Commission. In this case we believe they have already made that finding.
To my mind if East Kentucky is denied the right to construct the 597 miles of line, then it will have no adequate outlet for the power it will generate at its new plant. If this premise is correct, then there is no reason for the construction of a new plant. I recognize that under the present market it is not difficult to sell electric energy — but a plant, such as the one that will be constructed here, should ■ not be made for the purpose of competing in the general market. Its purpose should be to serve rural communities, and, after the great investment in a power plant —which has been approved by the Commission and by this court — it should not be dependent upon future development of the lines of appellant company before it may serve the purpose for which the great investment of money was made.
I think the need for service in undeveloped rural communities outweighs consideration of several of the standards set forth in the original opinion. I therefore respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge SIMS joins in this dissent.