Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund

51 N.W.2d 808, 236 Minn. 135, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 635
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 29, 1952
Docket35,759
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 51 N.W.2d 808 (Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund, 51 N.W.2d 808, 236 Minn. 135, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 635 (Mich. 1952).

Opinions

1 Reported in 51 N.W.2d 808, 52 N.W.2d 717.

Pursuant to a writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the district court granting to Northern States Power Company (hereinafter referred to as respondent) a perpetual easement and right of way over certain lands in Renville county for the erection of a 230,000-volt electric transmission line.

The order, which is one for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain and report the amount of damages sustained by the owners of the lands taken, was issued pursuant to M.S.A.117.07, which authorizes such order only:

(1) If the proposed taking of lands is authorized by law; and

(2) If the proposed taking shall appear to be necessary.

The taking of property necessary to the production and distribution of electric light and power to the public is a taking for a *Page 137 public use which is authorized by law.2 Decisions which involve a proposed taking of state-owned lands which have already been dedicated to another specific public purpose — such as a state park — and are actually in use for that purpose are to be distinguished and are not in point.3

It follows that the only basic issue here is whether the evidence sustains the trial court's finding that the proposed taking is necessary.

1-2. The foundation idea upon which the right of eminent domain rests is public necessity. In re St. P. N. P. Ry. Co.37 Minn. 164, 33 N.W. 701. Although lands may not be taken by eminent domain unless such taking appears to benecessary, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that there need be no showing of absolute or indispensable necessity, but only that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary orconvenient for the furtherance of the end in view.4 By §§ 222.36 and 300.04, this rule of reasonable necessity or convenience5 is made expressly applicable to a public service corporation,6 which in the exercise of a right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its corporate public purpose is required by statute (§ 117.07) to establish that its proposed taking of land is necessary.7

We turn to the facts to ascertain whether the evidence sustains a finding that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of the purpose of supplying the public *Page 138 with electric light and power. The taking is for the acquisition of a 125-foot-wide right of way extending from respondent's Black Dog generator plant near Minneapolis to Granite Falls, Minnesota. This right of way is to be used for the erection of a 230,000-volt bulk power transmission line supported by steel towers spaced about a quarter of a mile apart. Respondent furnishes electricity to an area extending east and west from western Wisconsin to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and north and south from St. Cloud to the Iowa border. The area west of Minneapolis is now served by three feeder lines which relators assert can be increased in voltage capacity to meet all reasonable needs for light and power. The first of these three feeder lines runs from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via St. Cloud and Paynesville and carries a voltage load of 69,000 volts, which is to be increased to 115,000 volts. The second feeder is a 23,000-volt line, of single-pole construction, running from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via Young America and Renville. The evidence indicates that it would not be feasible to convert this second line to 115,000 volts because the right of way is too narrow for the erection of the H type of poles which would then be required. In other words, it would be necessary to obtain a new right of way by condemnation. A third 69,000-volt feeder line, of single-pole construction, runs from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via Franklin. This latter line, which follows railroad rights of way, passes through small communities and could therefore not be widened to accommodate the H type poles. Again, a new right of way would be essential.

The evidence amply sustains a finding that even if it were possible to convert all three feeder lines to 115,000 volts that would not be adequate to supply the needs of the area. In 1949, respondent began a comprehensive study of the entire system to determine its electric production and distribution requirements. This study was made by its own engineers and was subsequently reviewed and verified by engineers from a nonaffiliated company. Service requirements under a variety of conditions were also studied and verified by means of a calculator board, which reproduced in miniature a *Page 139 replica of respondent's electric system. The result of this comprehensive survey is part of the evidence and stands practically unchallenged by any other expert testimony.8 It appears that from 1926 to 1946 respondent experienced an annual expansion rate of 7 percent per annum compounded. From 1946 to 1951, the expansion rate has been 12 percent per annum. The future estimated rate of growth is 10 percent per annum.

On the basis of this study, it appears that reasonable service demands of the southwestern division in 1952 will be close to 60,000 kilowatts, whereas the installed generating capacity is only 24,000 kilowatts. As a result, approximately 35,000 kilowatts will have to come from Minneapolis. The load will increase year by year. In the light of respondent's constantly expanding public service needs, the Black Dog station was built. A site near Minneapolis was selected because of the availability there of natural gas, cheap barge-line coal, and a good water supply.

By reason of the limited capacity of the existing feeder lines, coupled with the impracticability of increasing their carrying load, the building of the 230,000-volt power line at a cost of approximately $5,000,000 was undertaken. As already noted, the feeder line running via St. Cloud and Paynesville is to be increased to 115,000 volts. A new line is also to be built from Granite Falls to Mankato. By thus increasing the voltage between Granite Falls and St. Cloud, and by building the new connection with Mankato, the proposed 230,000-volt line will not only transmit power to Granite Falls for distribution in that immediate area, but will also provide a power reserve for the St. Cloud and the Mankato divisions, with the result that benefits will accrue to the entire service area west of Minneapolis. Undoubtedly the total carrying capacity of the 230,000-volt line goes somewhat beyond the needs of the immediate future; but, insofar as a new or additional line is needed at all, sound engineering demands that it be constructed with a *Page 140 sufficient capacity to allow a reasonable safety factor for unforeseen expansion in service.

Relators contend, however, that respondent has a power reserve of 17.4 percent, which indicates that there is no need for expansion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lundell v. COOPERATIVE POWER ASS'N
707 N.W.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2006)
UNIV. OF MN v. Chicago and NW Transp.
552 N.W.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1996)
City of New Ulm v. Schultz
356 N.W.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1984)
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative
303 N.W.2d 58 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
City of New Prague, County of Scoot v. Hendricks
286 N.W.2d 696 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1979)
County of Blue Earth v. Stauffenberg
264 N.W.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1978)
Metropolitan Sewer Board v. Thiss
200 N.W.2d 396 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1972)
Vittetoe v. Iowa Southern Utilities Company
123 N.W.2d 878 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1963)
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
115 N.W.2d 643 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
Volden v. Selke
87 N.W.2d 696 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
Chicago Great Western Railway Co. v. Jesse
82 N.W.2d 227 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957)
In Re Condemnation by Dairyland Power Cooperative
82 N.W.2d 56 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957)
Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund
51 N.W.2d 808 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 N.W.2d 808, 236 Minn. 135, 1952 Minn. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-states-power-co-v-oslund-minn-1952.