East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass'n v. Mississippi Power Co., 43782

• Decision Date: 21 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 43782,43782
• Citation: 182 So.2d 925,254 Miss. 832
• Parties: EAST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION v. MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY and Public Service Commission of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 925

182 So.2d 925

254 Miss. 832

EAST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION v. MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY and Public Service Commission of

Mississippi.

No. 43782.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 21, 1966.

Floyd, Cameron, Deen & Prichard, Meridian, for appellant.

Eaton, Cottrell, Galloway & Lang, Gulfport, for appellees.

JONES, Justice:

Appellant and cross-appellee, East Mississippi Electric Power Association, will be hereinafter called Association, and appellee and cross-appellant, Mississippi Power Company, will be called Company.

The Association filed an application with the Public Service Commission under Mississippi Laws 1956, Chapter 372 (Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 7716-05 (1956)), seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity for certain areas in Clarke and Lauderdale Counties. The Company protested.

When the petition was filed the Company had an application pending. At the time Association's application was heard, certain of the areas requested by it had been granted to the Company on said pending application. The Commission proceeded to hear evidence as to those areas not granted to Company, of which there were three in Lauderdale County and five in Clarke County. All lands in the two counties mentioned, except the areas here involved, had previously been certificated.

The three areas in Lauderdale County were small tracts.

The five tracts in Clarke County ran from 160 acres to one of four sections, and one of nearly eight sections. The Company expressly denied any present interest in obtaining a certificate for such large acreage or for a smaller one, but contested the Association's right to all the areas. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the application alleging that it was not prepared in accordance with the rules of the Commission.

The Company contended that since the application was one to serve a rural area, in addition to describing selected areas which in applicant's judgment could and should be developed as a unit, it should also comply with Rules 6F(5), (5a), (5b) and 6F(4).

Association answered that it was not proposing any rural line extension as provided by Rule 6F; that it was seeking an area which could best be developed as a unit in conjunction with its grandfather area, and that therein it was not necessary to furnish the information required by Rules 6F(5), (5a) and (5b). On appeal the Commission and the Chancery Court agreed with this contention of Association, and we also agree.

The Company also argued that a certificate could not be issued unless and until there were requests for service in the area. However, the act itself provides for the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity in case the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require elelctrical operations. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 7716-05 (1956). Mississippi Code Annotated section 7716-13 (1956) authorized the Commission to prescribe, issue, amend, and rescind rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the act, and in pursuance thereof, the Commission adopted its Rules and Regulations. Rule 6F(4) provides for a certificate to serve a rural area and says such area shall be one which in applicant's judgment should be developed as a unit. Subsection (6a) of Rule 6F makes the holder of such a certificate responsible for as complete development of the area as is economically feasible. Subsection (6b) of Rule 6F gives the holder of the certificate the right to develop in such area.

Evidence was introduced consisting of maps and detail plats of each area requested, together with oral testimony as to each area and the general situation.

...