Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

117 S.E.2d 764, 253 N.C. 610, 37 P.U.R.3d 387, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 444
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 20, 1961
Docket456
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 117 S.E.2d 764 (Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 117 S.E.2d 764, 253 N.C. 610, 37 P.U.R.3d 387, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 444 (N.C. 1961).

Opinions

Bobbitt, J.

The basic contentions of the respective parties may be stated as follows:

Pee Dee contends: (1) The provisions of Article 8 of the contract of January 5, 1956, are applicable to Knob Hill. (2) In accordance therewith, it is entitled to enjoin the Power Company from serving residences within three hundred feet of the distribution lines constructed by Pee Dee prior to January 9, 1957. (3) It is entitled to serve all residences within three hundred feet of its said lines notwithstanding the annexation of Knob Hill by Rockingham and the refusal of Rockingham to grant it permission (franchise) to operate within its corporate limits and construct and maintain its lines over what are now public streets of Rockingham.

The Power Company contends: (1) The provisions of Article 8 of the contract of January 5, 1956, do not apply to Knob Hill but [615]*615are applicable only to areas in which Pee Dee is authorized to operate, namely, rural areas. (2) Upon annexation by Rockingham, Knob Hill ceased to be a rural area and became an integral part of a municipality which, at all times since 1930, has had a population in excess of twenty-five hundred. (3) Upon annexation, the Power Company became obligated under its franchise to provide service throughout the enlarged corporate limits to all who applied therefor, including Dixon and Treece.

Rockingham contends: (1) Upon annexation, the Power Company is obligated by its franchise to provide service throughout the enlarged corporate limits to all who applied therefor. (2) Pee Dee has no right to operate within its corporate limits or to construct or maintain distribution lines over what are now public streets of Rockingham.

Dixon and Treece contend: They are entitled, as owners of residences in Rockingham, to apply for and receive the same service the Power Company provides the owners of residential property located elsewhere within the corporate limits.

Pee Dee does not seek herein to enjoin the Power Company from constructing and maintaining in Knob Hill such distribution lines as may be necessary to provide street lighting and fire alarm systems. Nor does Pee Dee now challenge the Power Company’s right to serve residences in Knob Hill elsewhere than within three hundred feet of distribution lines constructed by Pee Dee prior to January 9, 1957.

Significant differences between the factual situation here considered and that considered in Power Co. v. Membership Corp., ante, 596, include the following: (1) The record is silent as to whether said contract of January 5, 1956, was submitted to and approved by the Utilities Commission. 1(2) Pee Dee -had no distribution lines or facilities and rendered no service within the corporate limits of Rocking-ham before its boundaries were extended so as to include Knob Hill. (3) The said contract contains no provision similar to paragraph “TWENTY-THIRD” of the contract between Duke and Blue Ridge, quoted in the cited case.

Under the provisions of Article 8 of said contract of January 5, 1956, each party is barred as provided therein unless ordered to provide service in the restricted area “by a lawful order issued by a properly constituted authority.” The Power Company, a public utility corporation, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission To what extent, if any, Pee Dee is subject to the jurisdiction of the Utilities Commission need not be presently determined. This Court has held that an electric membership corporation is not required (by [616]*616G.S. 62-101), “before beginning the construction or operation of its facilities for serving its members by furnishing them electricity for lights and power, to obtain from the Utilities Commissioner of North Carolina a certificate that public convenience and necessity requires or will require the construction and operation” of such facilities. Light Co. v. Electric Membership Corp., 211 N.C. 717, 720, 192 S.E. 105; McGuinn v. High Point, 219 N.C. 56, 77, 13 S.E. 2d 48; Grimesland v. Washington, 234 N.C. 117, 125, 66 S.E. 2d 794. However, it would seem that the Utilities Commission has jurisdiction in respect of the rates and terms under which a power company may sell and supply power to Pee Dee for resale. Utilities Commission v. Municipal Corporations, 243 N.C. 193, 90 S.E. 2d 519.

Relevant statutory provisions relating to the authority of the Utilities Commission are cited in Power Co. v. Membership Corp., supra. Suffice to say, nothing in the record indicates that the Utilities Commission has made any order relevant to the service to be provided by Pee Dee or by the Power Company in the Knob Hill area. Unless and until such order is made, decision must be based on the factual situation as of now.

It is clear, and apparently conceded, that the Power Company, under its said franchise, has the legal right and duty to serve Knob Hill except to the extent it is barred from so doing by the provisions of Article 8 of said contract of January 5, 1956.

It is presumed that both Pee Dee and the Power Company, when they executed said contract of January 5, 1956, were advertent to statutory provisions relating to the extension of the boundaries of a municipality, G.S. 160-445 et seq., and relating to powers conferred upon the governing body of a municipality in respect of territory outside, but within a mile of, its corporate limits, G.S. 160-226, G.S. 160-203. However, Article 8 of the contract of January 5, 1956, contains no provision purporting to render it inapplicable as to territory subsequently included within the corporate limits of a municipality.

The applicability of the provisions of Article 8 of said contract of January 5, 1956, depends upon the right of Pee Dee after January 9, 1957, to render service in the defined area. We are of opinion, and so hold, that the Power Company is not barred from serving a customer Pee Dee may not lawfully serve.

The "Rural Electrification Act of 1936,” USCA, Title 7, § 901 et seq., the Act creating the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority, G.S., Ch. 117, Art. 1, and the Act providing for the formation of nonprofit membership corporations, G.S., Ch. 117, Art. 2, es[617]*617tablished a Federal-State policy to provide the benefits of electric service in rural areas not served or inadequately served with electricity. Utilities Commission v. Municipal Corporations, supra, p. 202.

Congress defined “rural area” as “any area of the United States not included within the boundaries of any city, village, or borough having a population in excess of fifteen hundred inhabitants, and such term shall be deemed to include both the farm and nonfarm population thereof.” USCA, Title 7, § 913. The North Carolina legislation does not define “rural area.”

To form an electric membership corporation, interested persons must first obtain the approval of the North Carolina Rural Electrification Authority. G.S. 117-9. If such approval is obtained, “(a)ny number of natural persons not less than three may . . . form a corporation not organized for pecuniary profit (but) for the purpose of promoting and encouraging the fullest possible use of electric energy in the rural section of the State by making electric energy available to inhabitants of the State at the lowest cost consistent with sound economy and prudent management of the business of such corporations.” (Our italics.) G.S. 117-10.

G.S.

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

Related

Dennis v. Duke Power Co.
442 S.E.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
City of Greeley v. Poudre Valley Rural Electric Ass'n
744 P.2d 739 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1987)
Tri-County Electric Ass'n v. City of Gillette
584 P.2d 995 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1978)
Domestic Electric Service, Inc. v. City of Rocky Mount
203 S.E.2d 838 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Divide County School District No. 1
193 N.W.2d 723 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1971)
Opinion No. 71-115 (1971) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1971
Unity Light & Power Co. v. City of Burley
445 P.2d 720 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1968)
Missouri Public Service Co. v. Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc.
407 S.W.2d 883 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1966)
Central Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
139 S.E.2d 541 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Pitt & Greene Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
136 S.E.2d 124 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Caddo Electric Cooperative v. State Ex Rel. Whelan
1964 OK 73 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Montana Power Co. v. Vigilante Electric Cooperative, Inc.
387 P.2d 718 (Montana Supreme Court, 1963)
Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. v. Duke Power Co.
128 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Duke Power Co. v. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp.
117 S.E.2d 812 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Pee Dee Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
117 S.E.2d 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 S.E.2d 764, 253 N.C. 610, 37 P.U.R.3d 387, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pee-dee-electric-membership-corp-v-carolina-power-light-co-nc-1961.