Court Opinion

ID: 9532836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:25:19.617926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:51.192054
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority of the court in this case. The Public Service Commission is an administrative agency and it has only such power as has been delegated to it by the legislature. It cannot increase its power and authority by rule or by its own construction of the statutes. To justify its order in the present case it has selected sentences from various statutes, patched them together and claims the result covers the subject. It cannot point to a clear directive from the legislature authorizing its action. The legislature has clearly defined the duty of utilities to extend services within villages and cities and the authority of the commission to require such extensions. It could, if requested and if it deemed advisable, clearly express the procedure to be followed and the authority of the commission in the matter of extension of service in towns. If the commission deems it advisable and necessary in the public interest to do what it wishes to do in this case, I think it should apply to the legislature for a clear directive rather than to the courts.
Specifically, I cannot agree that amended sec. 1797m-74 (now sec. 196.50), Stats., “localized” a franchise or caused franchise benefits to be given on a town basis and. consequently an implied correlative duty arose to provide service anywhere in a town. Such reasoning is not sustained by the Lodi Case. The language in Milwaukee v. Public Service Comm. (1942), 241 Wis. 249, 5 N. W. (2d) 800, referring to South Shore Utility Co. v. Railroad Comm. (1932), 207 Wis. 95, 240 N. W. 784, which the majority now wishes to withdraw, correctly stated the law.
*564I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and direct a dismissal of the petition.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Fairchild and Mr. Justice Hallows join in this dissent.