State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Roanoke Voyages Corridor Commission

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Roanoke Voyages Corridor Commission

332 S.E.2d 753, 76 N.C. App. 324, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3863

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 6, 1985

DocketNo. 8410UC1317

StatusPublished

This text of 332 S.E.2d 753 (State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Roanoke Voyages Corridor Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Roanoke Voyages Corridor Commission, 332 S.E.2d 753, 76 N.C. App. 324, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3863 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The Corridor Commission presents several related assignments of errors which embrace one central issue; whether the Utilities Commission erred in dismissing the Corridor Commission’s complaint and in not ordering the relief sought by it. For the following reasons, we believe the Utilities Commission was correct in dismissing the complaint.

The Utilities Commission is a creature of the Legislature. It may exercise only such authority as is vested in it by statute. And such authority must be exercised by it in accord with the standards prescribed by law. Utilities Comm. v. Edmisten, Attorney General, 294 N.C. 598, 242 S.E. 2d 862 (1978). “The clear purpose of chapter 62 of the General Statutes is to confer upon the Utilities Commission the power and the duty to compel a public utility company to render adequate service and to fix therefor reasonable rates pursuant to the procedure prescribed in G.S. 62-133.” Utilities Comm. v. Morgan, Attorney General, 277 N.C. 255, 177 S.E. 2d 405 (1970), reaffirmed, 278 N.C. 235, 179 S.E. 2d 419 (1971).

[327]*327The Corridor Commission does not argue or allege inadequate service or unreasonable rates. Rather, in this complaint proceeding filed pursuant to G.S. 62-73, its purpose in proceeding before the Utilities Commission was to obtain an order which would have required VEPCO to comply with the Corridor Commission’s regulations requiring underground utility facilities and to absorb the costs of placing the facilities underground. Since the complaint did not seek enforcement of the Utility Commission’s rules or regulations, but sought enforcement of the Corridor Commission’s regulations, we hold that the Utilities Commission was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Therefore, the complaint was properly dismissed. The Order of the Utilities Commission dismissing the complaint is

Affirmed.

Judges Wells and Cozort concur.

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

JOHNSON, Judge.

The Corridor Commission presents several related assignments of errors which embrace one central issue; whether the Utilities Commission erred in dismissing the Corridor Commission’s complaint and in not ordering the relief sought by it. For the following reasons, we believe the Utilities Commission was correct in dismissing the complaint.

The Utilities Commission is a creature of the Legislature. It may exercise only such authority as is vested in it by statute. And such authority must be exercised by it in accord with the standards prescribed by law. Utilities Comm. v. Edmisten, Attorney General, 294 N.C. 598, 242 S.E. 2d 862 (1978). “The clear purpose of chapter 62 of the General Statutes is to confer upon the Utilities Commission the power and the duty to compel a public utility company to render adequate service and to fix therefor reasonable rates pursuant to the procedure prescribed in G.S. 62-133.” Utilities Comm. v. Morgan, Attorney General, 277 N.C. 255, 177 S.E. 2d 405 (1970), reaffirmed, 278 N.C. 235, 179 S.E. 2d 419 (1971).

[327]*327The Corridor Commission does not argue or allege inadequate service or unreasonable rates. Rather, in this complaint proceeding filed pursuant to G.S. 62-73, its purpose in proceeding before the Utilities Commission was to obtain an order which would have required VEPCO to comply with the Corridor Commission’s regulations requiring underground utility facilities and to absorb the costs of placing the facilities underground. Since the complaint did not seek enforcement of the Utility Commission’s rules or regulations, but sought enforcement of the Corridor Commission’s regulations, we hold that the Utilities Commission was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Therefore, the complaint was properly dismissed. The Order of the Utilities Commission dismissing the complaint is

Affirmed.

Judges Wells and Cozort concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 S.E.2d 753, 76 N.C. App. 324, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-utilities-commission-v-roanoke-voyages-corridor-commission-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack