Board of Sup'rs of Fairfax County v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 811095
| Decision Date | 04 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 811095,811095 |
| Citation | 222 Va. 870,284 S.E.2d 615 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY v. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, et al. Record |
Edward E. Rose, III, Asst. County Atty. (David T. Stitt, County Atty., on brief), for appellant.
Guy T. Tripp, III, A. Lynn Ivey, III, Richmond (Lewis S. Minter, Donald G. Owens, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, on briefs), for appellees.
Before CARRICO, C. J., and HARRISON, COCHRAN, POFF, COMPTON, THOMPSON and STEPHENSON, JJ.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the State Corporation Commission had jurisdiction under the facts presented to approve the location of an electric transmission line pursuant to Code § 56-46.1. 1
In 1975, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco) filed with the Commission an application for approval of proposed new electrical transmission facilities between the Pleasant View Substation in Loudoun County and the Idylwood Substation in Fairfax County. The proposed facilities included rebuilding an existing 115 kilovolt (kv) line to 230 kv between the Idylwood and Tysons Substations. Code § 56-46.1 requires Commission approval of electrical transmission lines of 200 kv or more.
After the required notice was given to the public and to the Board of Supervisors and Commonwealth's Attorney of Fairfax County (collectively the County), the Commission, on August 11, 1975, entered an order approving the application. The Commission received no objections to the application, and no appeal was taken from the order.
In November, 1977, the County filed with the Commission a petition requesting it to declare null and void the August, 1975 order on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. Vepco moved to dismiss the petition and, following oral arguments, the Commission, on March 4, 1981, granted the motion. This appeal of right ensued.
Vepco had acquired easements for the proposed power line corridor prior to April 8, 1972. However, Vepco's rights-of-way across three parcels contained voltage and pole height restrictions which made it impossible to build a 230 kv line. In 1976 and 1977, Vepco acquired rights-of-way for the 230 kv transmission line across these three parcels. 2
Code § 56-46.1 requires the Commission to determine that proposed transmission line corridors "will reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic and environmental assets of the area concerned." However, the section applies only to "transmission lines for which rights-of-way acquisitions have not been completed as of April eight, nineteen hundred and seventy-two."
The County contends that the Commission is without jurisdiction because "the rights-of-way had been acquired prior to April 8, 1972." Asserting that the phrase "rights-of-way" as used in the statute describes "the physical corridor or strip of land itself," the County concludes that the rights acquired by Vepco in 1976 and 1977 did not constitute "rights-of-way acquisitions" within the meaning of § 56-46.1. Therefore, it reasoned that "since it is undisputed that the strip of land or corridor over which the proposed 230 kv line is to be constructed has existed prior to April 8, 1972, as a route for transmission lines, the Commission was without jurisdiction to authorize construction."
Vepco responds that the County's interpretation of "rights-of-way" is too narrow and restrictive. The company asserts that the term includes both the physical corridor or route and the legal right of passage over the land of another. It further argues that the two meanings are not mutually exclusive but "are intertwined," and that "both meanings should be utilized in determining the scope of the statute and the jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission under it."
In enacting Code § 56-46.1, the General Assembly recognized that environmental concerns should be considered in constructing high voltage transmission lines. Moreover, in vesting jurisdiction with the Commission to approve such lines, the General Assembly specifically preempted local zoning ordinances. This not only evinces...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Virginia Elec. and Power Co. v. Board of County Sup'rs of Prince William County, 830721
...seq., for an amendment to its certificate of convenience and necessity. Following our decisions three months later in VEPCO v. Citizens, 222 Va. 866, 284 S.E.2d 613 (1981), and Fairfax County v. VEPCO, 222 Va. 870, 284 S.E.2d 615 (1981), the Commission directed Vepco "to show cause why it s......