Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 03 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 56297,56297
• Citation: 322 So.2d 133
• Parties: LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 133

322 So.2d 133

12 P.U.R.4th 115

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 56297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1975.

Andrew P. Carter, Eugene G. Taggart, Monroe & Lemann, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marshall B. Brinkley, Gen. Counsel, La. Public Service Commission, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., Duval, Arceneaux, Lewis & Funderburk, Houma, for intervenor-appellee, South La. Elec. Cooperative Assoc. TATE, Justice.

The plaintiff utility ('Louisiana Power') sought judicial review of an order of the Louisiana Public Service Commission in the district court of the commission's domicile. A competitor utility cooperative ('the Association') intervened. Louisiana Power appeals directly to us from a district court judgment affirming the commission's order. La.Const. of 1974, Art. 4, Section 21(E).

The factual context involves efforts of the two competing utilities to provide services to two adjacent properties along Hollywood Road in Terrebone Parish. Before the events here complained of, each of the utilities had overhead three-phase electric transmissions lines on opposite shoulders of Hollywood Road in the area of the two properties, which had been constructed several years earlier. Louisiana Power furnished electric service to lots east and west of the two properties concerned, while the Association furnished service to one (Pope-Toyota) of the latter properties. (The other was vacant, awaiting construction of a Holiday Inn.)

Before the Commission, the Association sought and obtained an order that Louisiana Power remove an electric transmission line recently ¹ constructed across the rear of the Holiday Inn property. (Line A.) Louisiana Power unsuccessfuly sought ² to prevent the Association from serving the adjacent Pope-Toyota property through a front-lot underground transmission line, which in 1972 had been constructed by the Association to replace a former overhead transmission line. (Line B.)

The district court affirmed the commission's orders, which (1) ordered the removal of Line A and (2) denied Louisiana Power the relief sought by it with regard to Line B.

The ultimate issues with regard to Lines A and B involve an interpretation of La.R.S. 45:123, as amended by Act. 34 of 1970.

This rather complex and somewhat ambiguous statutory provision, set forth in full in the appendix to this opinion, was designed to regulate to some extent needless duplication of electric service utility facilities and, thus, the consequent greater cost of electricity to customers. Recently, we had occasion to resolve one of its ambiguities. South Louisiana Coop. Association v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 309 So.2d 287 (La.1975).

As clarified by that decision, we agree with the Commission's interpretation of that statute, relevant to the present dispute, as providing:

After the 1970 effective date of the statute, no utility shall extend electric service facilities or furnish electric service to any point of actual meter location ('point of connection') which is within three hundred feet of the electric transmission line of another utility, without the consent of the latter. However, any utility may extend service to unserved points within three hundred feet of its own electric lines in existence on April 1, 1970, or within three hundred feet of electric lines of other utilities not in existence on such date. Further, any line constructed for the principal purpose of pre-empting territory, rather than of furnishing service, is not entitled to recognition as a utility service line ³, at least for the purposes of the act.

Reverting to the present facts: The two properties involved were within three hundred feet of lines of both competing utilities which were in existence on April 1, 1970. Therefore, either of the present two competing utilities, at the customer's choice, was entitled to furnish electricity to such properties.

With regard to the ultimate issues concerning Lines A and B, we find no reason to reverse the Commission's factual and legal...