Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 216B. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 216B.37 (2026)

Assigned Service Area; Electric Utility; Legislative Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is hereby declared to be in the public interest that, in order to encourage the development of coordinated statewide electric service at retail, to eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of electric utility facilities, and to promote economical, efficient, and adequate electric service to the public, the state of Minnesota shall be divided into geographic service areas within which a specified electric utility shall provide electric service to customers on an exclusive basis.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Serv. Territory of People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 470 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Complaint Regarding the Annexation of a Portion of the Serv. Territory of People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 470 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.37 (1988). [3] The City observes that the commission decision imposes a heavy cost on municipalities determined to extend municipal utility services to newly annexed territory.”
City of Shakopee v. Minnesota Valley Elec. Coop., 303 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “This service area was allocated to the cooperative by the Minnesota Public Service Commission under Minn.Stat. §§ 216B.37 and 216B.39 (1980).”
LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Lange, 329 F. Supp. 3d 695 (D. Me. 2017). “Within the respective service areas, each utility has "the exclusive right to provide electric service at retail to each and every present and future customer in its assigned area and no [other] electric utility shall render or extend service at retail.”
Johnson v. Princeton Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 899 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 216B.37 (2016). Together, these statutory provisions demonstrate that the legislature intended to authorize cities to provide electric service to customers in specified geographic areas and to allow cities to delegate to a public utilities commission the…”
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× “The purpose of assigning these areas is: [T]o encourage the development of coordinated statewide electric service at retail, to eliminate or avoid unnecessary-duplication of electric utility facilities, and to promote economical, efficient, and adequate electric service to the…”
In Re Complaint of People's Coop. Power Ass'n, 447 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.37 (1988). In June 1988, the City began proceedings to annex the building site of a planned facility known as Victory Baptist Church (Church).”
In Re Petition by the City of Rochester, 478 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.37 (1990). Underlying these policies is the idea that the public interest does not favor competí *331 tion between or duplication of electric utilities.”
In re the Complaint by Kandiyohi Coop. Elec. Power Ass'n, 455 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.37. We recognize that although Kandiyohi has facilities capable of serving the annexed area, Willmar need only state a desire to acquire those facilities, discuss terms of acquisition, and seek MPUC intervention if necessary, before Willmar may itself provide…”
Matter of Kandiyohi Co-Op. Elec. Power, 455 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 216B.37. We recognize that although Kandiyohi has facilities capable of serving the annexed area, Willmar need only state a desire to acquire those facilities, discuss terms of acquisition, and seek MPUC intervention if necessary, before Willmar may itself provide…”
In re City of White Bear Lake's Request for an Elec. Util. Serv. Area Change Within Its City Limits, 443 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “” Minn.Stat. § 216B.37 (1988). The legislature specified procedures for determining the boundaries of the assigned service areas.”
Rochester v. Peoples Co-op. Power Ass'n, 505 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “See Minn.Stat. § 216B.37 (1990) (providing for assignment of exclusive service areas to electric utilities throughout the state).”
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.37 (1988). Generally, a utility has exclusive right to provide electric service to customers within its assigned service area.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.