Case Title: City of Wetumpka v. Alabama Power Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1170992

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2019-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: November 27, 2019
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020
____________________
1170992
____________________
City of Wetumpka
v.
Alabama Power Company
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court
(CV-17-41)
PARKER, Chief Justice.1
The City of Wetumpka ("the City") sued Alabama Power
Company ("Alabama Power") in the Elmore Circuit Court, because
Alabama Power had refused to relocate overhead electrical
1This case was originally assigned to another Justice on
this Court.  It was reassigned to Chief Justice Parker on
April 18, 2019.
1170992
facilities located within the City's downtown area at Alabama
Power's expense.  The circuit court dismissed the case,
finding that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Alabama Public Service Commission ("the PSC").  We agree; the
City challenges the service regulations of the PSC, and the
PSC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such challenges. 
Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In 2014, the City adopted a Downtown and Riverfront
Revitalization Plan ("the plan"), which covered seven blocks
of downtown Wetumpka ("the project area").  The plan proposed
relocating overhead utilities either underground or to
secondary streets and alleys and estimated the cost of the
relocation to be $350,000.
On April 17, 2017, the City
council adopted Ordinance No. 2017-2 ("the ordinance"), which
provides: "[O]verhead facilities used for the transmission or
distribution of electric power of 15,000 volts or less and for
communications, 
street 
lighting, 
and 
cable 
television 
services
shall be prohibited [in the project area] and ... all utility
companies having such services in said locations shall
relocate them underground or elsewhere."
2
1170992
On May 2, 2017, the PSC amended Alabama Power's Rules and
Regulations for Electric Service, prohibiting Alabama Power
from 
bearing 
utility-relocation costs. 
 
The 
amended 
regulation
("the costs regulation") provides:
"A Local Entity shall compensate the Company as
follows for costs incurred by it when the Local
Entity, through application of a Requirement,
directs the Company to ... convert an existing
distribution or transmission facility from overhead
to underground ... [or] relocate or modify an
existing distribution or transmission facility ....
The 
Company 
shall 
not 
alter 
the 
design,
configuration or location of its transmission or
distribution facilities at Company expense except as
consistent with ... these service regulations."
The next day, Alabama Power received from the City a
notice of required relocation directing it to comply with the
ordinance.  The notice stated:
"A relocation of your company's facilities is
required 
for 
the 
construction 
of 
the 
above
referenced projects.
"...  [T]he facilities in question have been
determined to be located within the public right-of-
way. 
Consequently, 
the 
City 
of 
Wetumpka 
is
prohibited by law from reimbursing your company for
the cost that will be incurred."
Alabama Power replied that it could not "move forward with the
relocation work until the City accepts responsibility for the
3
1170992
associated costs."  Alabama Power estimated the cost of the
relocation work at about $4.2 million.
The City responded by suing Alabama Power and other
utility providers in the Elmore Circuit Court, seeking a
judgment declaring that the ordinance was valid and that the
utility providers were responsible for the costs of 
relocating
their facilities in accordance with the ordinance.  Alabama
Power moved to dismiss the case against it for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the PSC had
exclusive jurisdiction over the case.  The circuit court
granted Alabama Power's motion to dismiss it as a defendant
and certified its order as a final judgment under Rule 54(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P.  The City appeals.
II. Standard of Review
"'A ruling on a motion to dismiss [for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction] is reviewed without a
presumption of correctness. This Court must accept
the 
allegations 
of 
the 
complaint 
as 
true.
Furthermore, in reviewing a ruling on a motion to
dismiss we will not consider whether the pleader
will ultimately prevail but whether the pleader may
possibly prevail.'"
Pontius v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 915 So. 2d 557, 563
(Ala. 2005) (quoting Newman v. Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147, 1148-49
(Ala. 2003) (citations omitted)).
4
1170992
III. Discussion
The City contends that the circuit court erred in
dismissing its action against Alabama Power because, it says,
the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine the validity
of the ordinance and the PSC lacked jurisdiction to interfere
with the City's regulatory authority.  Thus, the sole issue in
this case is whether the PSC has exclusive jurisdiction over
the City's action.
The PSC's exclusive jurisdiction is established by § 37-
1-31, Ala. Code 1975:
"The 
rights, 
powers, 
authority, 
jurisdiction 
and
duties by [Title 37] conferred upon the [PSC] shall
be exclusive and, in respect of rates and service
regulations and equipment, shall be exercised
notwithstanding any rights heretofore acquired by
the public under any franchise, contract or
agreement between any utility and municipality,
county or municipal subdivision of the state, and
shall be exercised, so far as they may be exercised
consistently with the Constitution of the state and
of the United States, notwithstanding any right
heretofore so acquired by any such utility."
Title 37 confers two types of jurisdiction on the PSC. 
First, the PSC has regulatory jurisdiction to set rates for
utility service, to establish service regulations for utility
providers, and to regulate utility equipment.  See Taffet v.
Southern Co., 967 F.2d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1992).  Second,
5
1170992
the PSC has adjudicatory jurisdiction over certain disputes
involving utilities, including claims "made against any
utility ... by any body politic or municipal organization" to
determine whether "any ... service regulation ... is in any
respect unfair, unreasonable, unjust or inadequate."  § 37-1-
83.  Under § 37-1-31, this adjudicatory jurisdiction is
exclusive.  And most significantly here, this jurisdiction
applies to challenges to a "service regulation."  § 37-1-83. 
"Service regulation" is defined as "every rule, regulation,
practice, act, or requirement in any way relating to the
service or facilities of a utility."  § 37-4-1(9).  Therefore,
the PSC has exclusive jurisdiction over a municipality's
challenge to rules, regulations, or practices relating to the
service or facilities of a utility.
Although the City brought its action as a declaratory-
judgment action seeking to enforce the ordinance, the action,
as to Alabama Power, was in effect a challenge to the costs
regulation.  If an action against a utility provider
necessitates a determination of the validity of a service
regulation, the action is in effect a challenge to the
regulation.  See QCC, Inc. v. Hall, 757 So. 2d 1115 (Ala.
6
1170992
2000).  In QCC, the plaintiff sued to challenge a utility
provider's practice of "slamming," or changing a customer's
long-distance carrier without the customer's permission.  We
held that, because the plaintiff attacked a practice relating
to the utility's service, which practice was a "service
regulation" under § 37-4-1(9), her claim was in effect a
challenge to service regulations and thus was within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the PSC.
Here, in order for the City to have been successful in
its claim that Alabama Power was responsible for the costs of
relocating its overhead electrical facilities, the circuit
court would necessarily have had to determine that the costs
regulation was invalid.  Therefore, the City's claim was in
effect a challenge to a service regulation.  Accordingly, the
subject matter of the City's action was within the exclusive
adjudicatory jurisdiction of the PSC.
The City contends that its action was within the circuit
court's jurisdiction because, it contends, the City filed its
action under the Alabama Declaratory Judgment Act, § 6-6-220
et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the Act").  In particular, the City
relies on § 6-6-223: "Any person ... whose rights, status, or
7
1170992
other legal relations are affected by a statute ... [or]
municipal ordinance  ... may have determined any question of
construction or validity arising under the ... statute ...
[or] ordinance ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status,
or other legal relations thereunder."  
The City contends that this statute provides the circuit
court jurisdiction over its action because the City sought a
judgment declaring the validity of the ordinance and because
the action raised questions of construction under Article XII,
§ 220, Ala. Const. 1901, and §§ 11-43-62 and 37-1-35(1), Ala.
Code 1975.  However, the City's reliance on the Act is
misplaced.  
To begin with, the Act simply does not address which of
two alternative tribunals has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a controversy.  The Act merely provides a remedy. 
See § 6-6-221, Ala. Code 1975 ("This article is declared to be
remedial ....").  For example, in Bluemly v. Little, 632 So.
2d 1334 (Ala. 1994), this Court held that the Act did not
grant the circuit court jurisdiction to declare an adoption
void, because the probate court has primary jurisdiction over
adoption proceedings.  Similarly, in Love v. Rennie, 254 Ala.
8
1170992
382, 48 So. 2d 458 (1950), this Court held that the Act did
not give the circuit court jurisdiction to construe a will,
because the probate court has jurisdiction over the probate of
a will.  Cf. Talton Telecomm. Corp. v. Coleman, 665 So. 2d 914
(Ala. 1995) (plurality opinion) (relying on the PSC's
exclusive jurisdiction as basis for rejecting the argument
that the Act relieved a party of the requirement of exhausting
administrative remedies).  
Likewise, here the Act does not address the subject-
matter jurisdiction of the circuit court vis-à-vis the PSC. 
Therefore, the Act cannot be relied on to circumvent the
exclusive jurisdiction of the PSC.  To hold otherwise would be
"'to construe the declaratory judgment act as conferring upon
the [circuit] court jurisdiction of subject matter which it
had not possessed theretofore.'"  Bluemly, 632 So. 2d at 1336
(quoting Love v. Rennie, 254 Ala. at 389, 48 So. 2d at 465).
Further, the case the City relies on, Brogden v.
Employees' Retirement System, 336 So. 2d 1376 (Ala. Civ. App.
1976), did not hold that the Act grants circuit courts
jurisdiction over all cases seeking a declaratory judgment. 
In Brogden, the plaintiff filed a declaratory-judgment action
9
1170992
in the Covington Circuit Court against a public corporation
whose principal office was in Montgomery County.  The
corporation challenged the Covington Circuit Court's subject-
matter 
jurisdiction, 
claiming 
that 
only 
the 
Montgomery Circuit
Court had jurisdiction under the Act.  The Court of Civil
Appeals disagreed, holding that the Covington Circuit Court
had jurisdiction because no statute restricted jurisdiction
over the declaratory-judgment action to a particular county. 
336 So. 2d at 1379-80.  Notably, the Court of Civil Appeals
did not hold that the Act granted all circuit courts
jurisdiction 
over 
all 
declaratory-judgment actions. 
 
And 
here,
unlike in Brogden, there is a statutory restriction on the
circuit court's jurisdiction -- the grant in § 37-1-31 of
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes regarding service
regulations to the PSC.  Accordingly, Brogden does not support
the City's argument that the Act gave the circuit court
jurisdiction here.
For these reasons, we conclude that the Act did not
override the PSC's exclusive jurisdiction over the City's
challenge to the costs regulation.
10
1170992
The City also contends that the PSC lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction as a result of the City's constitutional and
statutory authority to regulate use of its streets and rights-
of-way by utility providers.  See Art. XII, § 220, Ala. Const.
1901 ("No person, firm, association, or corporation shall be
authorized or permitted to use the streets, avenues, alleys,
or public places of any city ... for the construction or
operation of any public utility ..., without first obtaining
the consent of the proper authorities of such city ...."); §
11-43-62, Ala. Code 1975 ("The [city] council shall regulate
the use of the streets for the erection of telegraph,
telephone, electric, and all other systems of wires and
conduits and may require the same to be placed underground if
deemed necessary for the public convenience and safety and
generally to control and regulate the use of the streets for
any and all purposes."); § 37-1-35(1) ("Nothing in [Title 37
regarding public utilities and public transportation] is
intended or shall be construed ... [t]o limit or restrict the
police jurisdiction or power of municipalities over their
streets and other highways and public places or the power to
11
1170992
maintain or the power to require maintenance of the same
....").  
The City relies on several cases that confirm that
municipalities have certain regulatory authority that may not
be infringed by the PSC.  See Birmingham Elec. Co. v. Allen,
217 Ala. 607, 610, 117 So. 199, 202 (1928) (holding that the
PSC "has no control" over municipalities' "exercise of
legislative discretion"); Covington Elec. Coop. v. Alabama
Power Co., 277 Ala. 162, 166, 168 So. 2d 5, 9 (1964) (holding
that requiring a utility provider that has obtained from a
municipality a franchise to construct electric lines to then
also obtain permission from the PSC infringes on the
municipality's regulatory authority); BellSouth Telecomms.,
Inc.  v.  City of Mobile, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1277 (S.D.
Ala. 2001) (holding that municipality could require utility
provider to obtain a permit without intruding on the PSC's
exclusive jurisdiction).  The City points out that the PSC
itself has recognized municipalities' complete authority over
their streets and rights-of-way.  See Wilson v. Alabama Power
Co., PSC order, No. 30528, Sept. 28, 2007 (municipalities
12
1170992
"retain complete jurisdiction over their streets, highways,
and other public places").
The City also cites decisions from other states for the
proposition that a utility commission's regulatory authority
over rates, service regulations, and equipment is subordinate
to a municipality's authority to regulate utility providers'
use of local streets and rights-of-way.  See Northern States
Power Co. v. City of Oakdale, 588 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. Ct. App.
1999); U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Longmont, 948 P.2d
509 (Colo. 1997); City of Edmonds v. General Tel. Co. of the
Northwest, Inc., 21 Wash. App. 218, 584 P.2d 458 (1978).  In
each of those cases, the court concluded that a utility
commission could 
not 
interfere 
with 
a 
municipality's authority
to require relocation of utilities at the utility provider's
expense.
The City's argument and supporting cases are ultimately
inapposite, however, because they concern the merits of the
City's challenge to the costs regulation.  In other words, the
City's argument attacks the PSC's exercise of regulatory
jurisdiction as improperly interfering with the City's
regulatory authority.  The City's argument does not attack the
13
1170992
PSC's adjudicatory jurisdiction to determine, in the first
instance, whether the PSC's regulation has in fact so
interfered.2  And because this is solely a case about
adjudicatory jurisdiction, the City's argument regarding the
merits of the claim to be adjudicated will have to wait for
another day in the appropriate tribunal.
IV. Conclusion
The City's action challenging the validity of the PSC's
regulation prohibiting Alabama Power from bearing the cost of
relocating its overhead electrical facilities in the City is
within the exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction of the PSC. 
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the
City's action against Alabama Power based on a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
Bolin, Shaw, Wise, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. 
Sellers, J., concurs in the result. 
Stewart and Mitchell, JJ., recuse themselves.
2Similarly, the Alabama Attorney General's advisory
opinion to the City regarding utility-relocation costs, Op.
Ala. Atty. Gen. No. 2017-025, which has been relied on by both
parties at different points, addresses the issue of 
regulatory
jurisdiction, not adjudicatory jurisdiction.
14