[the Siewerts] and/or an order compelling [NSP] to reconstruct the distribution lines to reduce or eliminate stray current. Ostensibly, the prayer for relief calls on the court to compel NSP to “reconstruct the distribution lines to reduce or eliminate stray voltage,” which would necessarily amount to “installation, removal, or repair of equipment or facilities.” Id. The unmistakable implication of this claim is that either NSP was previously required by the tariff to provide this service or should provide it in the future. Even if it were within the court’s competency to engineer an appropriate electrical solution to the problem, the legislature has specifically delegated to the MPUC the responsibility to make these practical and policy determinations. See Hoffman, 743 N.W.2d at 756 (<HOLDING>). Thus the Siewerts’ claims for injunctive
holding that although the defendant in that case was convicted after the effective date of the new statute  1137118 he nevertheless was required to register as a sex offender because  113716 was in effect at the time he was charged holding that mpuc the agency charged by statute with approving rates was in best position to determine if nsp was required to maintain or repair components at issue holding that agencys construction of statute it was charged with enforcing was entitled to deference because it was reasonable in line with the statutes meaning and related to its expertise holding that a longstanding agency interpretation was no longer entitled to chevron deference given that the agency had changed its position on the issue holding that where defendant was charged with drug conspiracy it was unnecessary for the government to prove defendants presence at the sales and hence the alibi defense was not supported by the law and no instruction was required