Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 216B.36 (2026)

Municipal Regulatory And Taxing Powers

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any public utility furnishing the utility services enumerated in section 216B.02 or occupying streets, highways, or other public property within a municipality may be required to obtain a license, permit, right, or franchise in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of regulatory acts of the municipality, including the placing of distribution lines and facilities underground. Under the license, permit, right, or franchise, the utility may be obligated by any municipality to pay to the municipality fees to raise revenue or defray increased municipal costs accruing as a result of utility operations, or both. The fee may include but is not limited to a sum of money based upon gross operating revenues or gross earnings from its operations in the municipality so long as the public utility shall continue to operate in the municipality, unless upon request of the public utility it is expressly released from the obligation at any time by such municipality. Notwithstanding the definition of "public utility" in section 216B.02, subdivision 4, a municipality may require payment of a fee under this section by a cooperative electric association organized under chapter 308A that furnishes utility services within the municipality. All existing licenses, permits, franchises, and other rights acquired by any public utility or municipality prior to April 11, 1974, including the payment of existing franchise fees, shall not be impaired or affected in any respect by the passage of this chapter, except with respect to matters of rate and service regulation, service area assignments, securities, and indebtedness that are vested in the jurisdiction of the commission by this chapter. However, in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines, or the parties by mutual agreement determine, that an existing license, permit, franchise, or other right has been abrogated or impaired by this chapter, or its execution, the municipality affected shall impose and the public utility shall collect an excise tax on the utility charges which from year to year yields an amount which is reasonably equivalent to that amount of revenue which then would be due as a fee, charges or other thing or service of value to the municipality under the franchise, license, or permit. The authorization shall be over and above taxing limitations including, but not limited to, those of section 477A.016. Franchises granted pursuant to this section shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 80C. For purposes of this section, a public utility shall include a cooperative electric association.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1974–2019 · leading case: N. States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale, 588 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

N. States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale, 588 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 56× “02 or occupying streets, highways, or other public property within a municipality may be required to obtain a license, permit, right or franchise in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of regulatory acts of the municipality, including the placing of…”

City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power, 776 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 104× “01 (2008), respondent was required to obtain a franchise from the city before it constructed its pipeline because respondent is a corporation formed to furnish power for public use.”

City of Cohasset v. Minnesota Power, 798 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 28× “Cohasset argues that it has franchise authority over Minnesota Power’s pipeline pursuant to two Minnesota statutes— *54 Minn. Stat. § 216B.36 (2010) and Minn. Stat.”

City of Willmar Mun. Utils. Comm'n v. Kandiyohi Coop. Elec. Power Ass'n, 452 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “There are several reasons to conclude the legislature intended that the MPUC, rather than the district court, should determine whether an area has already been receiving electric service prior to annexation.”

In Re an Investigation Into the Comm'n's Jurisdiction Over the Hutchinson's Intrastate Nat. Gas Pipeline, 707 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “municipality subject to this subdivision shall spend and invest for energy conservation improvements-”); Minn.Stat. § 216B.36 (2004) (“Notwithstanding the definition of ‘public utility’ in section 216B.”

City of Baxter v. City of Brainerd, 932 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “Baxter cited Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.36, 222.37, subd. 1, 301B.”

Minnesota Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com., Etc., 394 F. Supp. 327 (D. Minnesota 1974). “§ 216B.36) insofar as it impairs the 1970 Franchise Agreement between plaintiff and the City of Minneapolis.”

U S West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Redwood Falls, 558 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.36 (1996). See City of St.”

City of Rochester v. People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 466 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 216B.36; 216B.39. Respondents allege this present dispute is between two utilities, rather than between a municipality and a utility.”

Rochester v. People's Co-op. Power Ass'n, 466 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. §§ 216B.36; 216B.39. Respondents allege this present dispute is between two utilities, rather than between a municipality and a utility.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.