Court Opinion

ID: 9538470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:36:52.535356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:54.524633
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN
dissenting:
The majority opinion reverses findings by the Public Utilities Commission and the district court. Both the P.U.C. and the district court upheld as not unjust or discriminatory a requirement that only city ratepayers, rather than both city-dwellers and rural ratepayers, bear the burden of a city’s utility franchise charge. The effect is to require that those living outside the city which exacts the franchise fee, as well as residents of the city, bear the economic burden of the city’s charge.
In essence, if not in form, the city is raising, through its utility franchise charge, funds it would otherwise have to raise by taxation. These funds presumably are used to provide city services to city residents. They do not benefit rural ratepayers. Obviously, if these services to city dwellers had to be paid for through taxes, rural residents could not be required to pay such city taxes.
Surely this Court is in no better position than the P.U.C. or the district court to characterize as “just” or “unjust” the P.U.C. determination that city-dwellers ought to pay the extra expense imposed by their city fathers on the cost of providing utility service. The P.U.C. heard and considered the evidence and the matter is one peculiarly within its expertise. That specialized ratemaking body is in a better position than we are to decide what is more just in these circumstances where “justice” to the city dweller is “injustice” to the rural resident.
I would uphold the P.U.C. and affirm the district court.