Wisconsin Power and Light Co. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

511 N.W.2d 291 (1994)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wisconsin Power and Light Co. v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court
511 N.W.2d 291 (1994)

Facts

Along with several other utilities, the Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the utility) (plaintiff) owned a power plant. To power the plant, the utility contracted with a coal company, with the price of coal increasing gradually over about 15 years. In response to the increasing coal costs, the utility increased the rate it charged its customers. These increases were done pursuant to two different procedures under Wisconsin law. Then, state officials noticed that the utility was apparently paying an unreasonably high price for the coal, which was confirmed by an audit. The utility and the coal company entered negotiations, which resulted in a lowered price of coal and extension of the contract. The coal company, however, did not reimburse the utility for the years of overpriced coal. The utility then applied to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (commission) (defendant) for a rate increase. The commission audited the utility’s finances and learned of the overcharging and lack of reimbursement. Hearings ensued, and the commission concluded that the utility had acted imprudently in administering the coal contract by failing to notice the overcharges sooner. The commission ultimately ordered the utility to pay a penalty of $9 million in the form of credits to customers and payments to the other utilities that owned the power plant (that would in turn pass those payments to their customers). The utility petitioned a trial court for review of that decision, claiming that the commission did not have the authority to assess the penalty. The trial court reversed the commission’s order, reasoning that it was a retroactive ratemaking in violation of Wisconsin statutes. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the commission (along with several intervening parties) appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Steinmetz, J.)

Dissent (Abrahamson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 791,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership