Our original Order in this matter pertained to a similar complaint involving the identical parties. The Administrative Law Judge, having been fully advised in the premises, now enters the following Report, containing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Order based thereon. Complainant alleges, and for purposes of deciding Respondent's motion to dismiss, we find that Respondent's subcontractor severely damaged Complainant's cottonwood tree on his property in the course of trimming foliage away from Respondent's power line.
Complainant seeks compensation for the damaged tree.
In its answer, Respondent asserts that it was necessary to trim the tree as a safety measure and that, in any event, the Commission has no jurisdiction to afford the other relief sought. Our findings above do so. We begin our analysis with the premise that the Commission is a creature of the Utah Legislature and can exercise only the authority specifically delegated by the Commission's enabling statutes or fairly inferable from the explicit grant. When complaint has been made to the Commission concerning any rate, fare, toll, rental, or charge for any product or commodity furnished or service performed by any public utility, and the Commission has found, after investigation, that the public utility has charged an amount for such product, commodity, or service in excess of the schedules, rates, and tariffs on file with the Commission, or has charged an unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory amount against the complainant, the Commission may order that the public utility make due reparation to the complainant thereof, with interest from the date of collection. In legal terms that constitutes a tort, and adjudicating such a dispute is clearly outside the scope of our authority.