City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power
798 N.W.2d 50
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Cohasset seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to require Minnesota Power to obtain a city franchise to operate its natural gas pipeline within Cohasset.
- MPUC granted a routing permit for construction of the pipeline to Boswell Energy Center, which runs about 1.3 miles through Cohasset and crosses three roads.
- Cohasset enacted a franchise ordinance requiring pipelines within the city to obtain a franchise and pay a fee; Minnesota Power’s pipeline falls within the ordinance’s scope.
- District Court dismissed Cohasset’s claims, finding Cohasset lacked franchise authority over Minnesota Power because Minnesota Power is not a natural gas utility.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; majority held Minnesota Power is subject to Cohasset’s franchise authority; preemption by pipeline routing statute not applying to the franchise ordinance.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, approving Cohasset’s franchise authority over Minnesota Power under applicable statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cohasset has franchise authority under §301B.01. | Cohasset unquestionably has power over public utilities within its borders. | Minnesota Power objects that §301B.01 does not apply to pipelines. | Yes; Minnesota Power is subject to Cohasset's franchise. |
| Whether Cohasset has franchise authority under §216B.36. | Public utilities occupying city property may be franchised; Minnesota Power furnishes electric service. | Minnesota Power does not furnish natural gas to the public; thus not subject to §216B.36. | Yes; Minnesota Power is subject under §216B.36. |
| Whether §216G.02, subd. 4 preempts Cohasset's franchise ordinance. | No; preemption limited to zoning/building/land use ordinances, franchise not within. | ||
| Whether MPUC routing permit preempts local franchise authority. | Preemption does not extend to Cohasset’s franchise ordinance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Blaine v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, Anoka Cnty., 265 Minn. 9, 121 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1963) (franchise and utility regulation within municipality)
- City of Morris v. Sax Inv'rs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008) (statutory preemption language governs municipal regulation)
- Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008) (land-use vs. permit framing and preemption scope)
- City of Minnetonka v. Mark Z. Jones Assocs., Inc., 306 Minn. 217, 236 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. 1975) (construction/land-use regulatory interpretation)