Colorado Utilities Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission

61 P.2d 849, 99 Colo. 189
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJune 22, 1936
DocketNo. 13,481.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 61 P.2d 849 (Colorado Utilities Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colorado Utilities Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission, 61 P.2d 849, 99 Colo. 189 (Colo. 1936).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Holland

delivered the opinion of the court.

The writ of error herein is prosecuted by Colorado Utilities Corporation, plaintiff in error, to reverse a judgment of the district court affirming a finding of the Public Utilities Commission, defendant in error, to the effect that Moffat Coal Company, also a defendant in error, is not a public utility within the meaning of section 2913 of the Public Utilities Act, chapter 46, Compiled Laws, 1921.

Moffat Coal Company was incorporated as a coal mining company about September 1, 1931, under Colorado laws, with its main plant and mine located at Oak Hills, Colorado, which is about three-quarters of a mile from Oak Creek, a town of about 1,500 inhabitants. The company extended a line over various properties, in which it held easements, for the transmission of electricity to be used in its mining operations at another mine owned by it, four miles north of its principal mine. The original transmission line was constructed in 1927 by its predecessor. Prior to October, 1932, the company generated electrical energy for its coal mining operations and to supply facilities for lighting the buildings used by it and its employees, and had a surplus over and above its needs, but never sold any of this excess except to Colo[191]*191rado Utilities Corporation, for nse on emergency occasions and then with the distinct understanding that in making the sale it was not operating as a public utility. Colorado Utilities Corporation had a franchise from the town of Oak Creek to supply electricity to its citizens which expired July 1, 1931. Owing to a disagreement, the town refused to renew the franchise on its expiration and its inhabitants at an election held September 10, 1932, voted to build a municipal electrical distribution system, and immediately thereafter constructed such system. The town then opened negotiations with Moffat Coal Company for electrical energy, but was advised by that company that it was not a public utility, that it did not intend to become such and that it would not negotiate with the town to supply it with any of its surplus electrical energy unless the town and plaintiff in error failed to come to an agreement leading to a renewal of the franchise. No agreement between plaintiff in error and the town was reached and October 15, 1932, a contract was entered into between Moffat Coal Company and the town, as a municipal corporation, whereby the former agreed to furnish and supply the town with electrical energy out of its surplus. The electricity received by the town under this contract was sold and distributed by it to its residents.

November 21, 1932, plaintiff in error complained to the Public Utilities Commission about the contractual agreement between Moffat Coal Company and the town, and requested the commission to require the company to show cause why it should not apply to the commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a public utility. November 26, 1932, on its own motion, the commission ordered Moffat Coal Company to show cause why an order should not be made requiring it to desist from operating as a public utility, and .a hearing was had December 13, 1932. Moffat Coal Company moved for a dismissal on the ground that it was not a public utility; that it had not dedicated its [192]*192property or any part thereof to a public use; that it was not a public utility delivering electrical energy to the town; that the town, an indispensable party, was not a party to the proceeding’; and that the commission had no power to make it a party. Over the objections of the company, plaintiff in error was permitted to intervene as a party to the proceedings before the commission. Upon full hearing, the commission, February 25, 1933, upheld the contentions of Moffat Coal Company, dismissed the case, and thereafter on March 17,1933, denied intervener’s petition for rehearing; whereupon intervener, now plaintiff in error, April 15,1933, filed its petition for a writ of review in the district court, which court after overruling a demurrer of Moffat Coal Company and the commission, issued the writ May 23, 1933. After return was filed and on September 28, 1933, Moffat Coal Company and the commission moved to dismiss the writ upon the grounds that the commission had acted within its jurisdiction, had regularly pursued its authority, had not abused its discretion, and that the final determination made by it upon the questions of fact was not subject to review; that the commission did not violate any right of plaintiff and that plaintiff had no interest whereby it could rightfully intervene as a party to the action involving the subject matter before the commission; and that the petition for review does not state facts sufficient to justify a review. This motion was denied, the case was tried by the court, and October 20, 1933, it entered its order and judgment in favor of Moffat Coal Company and the commission. This judgment is now before us for review.

Is Moffat Coal Company, under the facts presented, a public utility within the meaning of the Public Utilities Act? To be classed as a public utility it first must be determined that it is such because of the fact that it is an “electrical corporation” and is “operated for the purpose of supplying [electrical energy to] the public for domestic, mechanical or public uses * * * or declared [193]*193by law to be affected with a public interest * * * ” as set out in section 2913, supra.

It is undisputed that Moffat Coal Company — and its predecessors — since the corporate organization, has operated solely as a coal mining company, with no exception save the transaction involved under the contract with the town of Oak Creek hereinafter set out and considered. Its articles of incorporation were amended August 13, 1931, the amendment containing, among other things, the following: Power * * * to construct and establish a plant or plants with all necessary equipment, rights and privileges for the manufacture and production of electricity, and to use, furnish, sell and supply the same. * * This part of the amendment is identical with an amendment of the articles of incorporation of a predecessor, The Oak Hills Coal Company, dated December 8, 1908. It is contended that this grant of power and the action thereunder, of which complaint is here made, brings Moffat Coal Company within the provisions and regulations of the Public Utilities Act. We do not so regard it. Moffat Coal Company made no dedication of its property or any part thereof to a public use; it made no offer, and did not hold itself out, to serve the public as a public utility as such term is used in the statute above mentioned but on the contrary steadfastly refused to engage in such operations as would bring it within the public utility classification. In its contract with the town of Oak Creek, which it is claimed constituted supplying the public with electrical energy, the company, by paragraph 9 thereof, specifically declared that it was not a public utility or service company; that by the contract it was not holding itself out or undertaking to furnish electrical power or energy to the public or individual residents of the town, and it reserved the right of nonperformance of the contract, should the Public Utilities Commission or similar body assert jurisdiction over it. Do the facts that it generated more electrical energy than was required for its own use as a coal mining company; [194]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Western Colorado Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
411 P.2d 785 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1966)
Public Utilities Commission v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co.
351 P.2d 241 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1960)
Public Service Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
350 P.2d 543 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1960)
Billings Ditch Co. v. Industrial Commission
253 P.2d 1058 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1953)
Rural Electric Co. v. State Board of Equalization
120 P.2d 741 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 P.2d 849, 99 Colo. 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colorado-utilities-corp-v-public-utilities-commission-colo-1936.