Court Opinion

ID: 9721879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:11:39.366804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:01.468127
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the opinion in all respects except that I would allow appellants to offer evidence that neither the Wilmarth Line nor any other third alternating current line is necessary in order to permit the system to function even if there is a proven need for 1,000 megawatts of power. The majority opinion already permits evidence as to need for the 1,000 megawatts to be used as of the time of the hearing. Why not allow evidence at that same time to be offered as to the need for a third line? Time may change need and it may change technology. Why not avoid the possibility of possible additional litigation? Why not see that the agency delves into both questions so it can decide both questions at once?
PETERSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.