Title: Verizon Virginia LLC v. SCC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 230400
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2023

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
VERIZON VIRGINIA LLC 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 230400 
JUSTICE WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR. 
 
 
 
NOVEMBER 30, 2023 
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION 
 
 
Verizon Virginia LLC (“Verizon”) appeals the State Corporation Commission’s 
(“Commission”) decision dismissing Verizon’s petition for a declaratory judgment for lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction.  Verizon argues that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction 
over its petition pursuant to Code §§ 33.2-1815(B) and 33.2-1821.  For the reasons that follow, 
we disagree with Verizon and affirm the judgment of the Commission. 
I.  Background 
 
Verizon is a telecommunications company that operates utility facilities, some of which 
are located on public rights-of-way in accordance with permits issued by the Virginia 
Department of Transportation (“VDOT”).  These permits provide that VDOT can require 
Verizon to move these facilities at no cost to VDOT. 
 
Pursuant to the Public-Private Transportation Act (“PPTA”) (Code § 33.2-1800 et seq.), 
VDOT entered into an agreement with Capital Beltway Express LLC (“CBE”), the “private 
entity,”1 regarding a project, designated the 495 NEXT Project, to extend portions of the I-495 
express lanes.  CBE and VDOT’s respective rights and obligations related to the project are 
 
 
1 For the purposes of the PPTA, “private entity” is a defined term and references the 
entity, whether a “natural person, corporation, general partnership, limited liability company, 
limited partnership, joint venture, business trust, public benefit corporation, nonprofit entity, or 
other business entity[,]” which has partnered with a “public entity” in a project under the PPTA.  
Code § 33.2-1800. 
 
2 
governed by a “Comprehensive Agreement,” which, in pertinent part, requires that VDOT 
provide CBE “the benefit of any . . . permits or other rights in real property affecting the Project 
which require the holders of such real property rights to relocate at their expense[.]” 
 
In performance of its obligations under the Comprehensive Agreement, CBE employed 
The Lane Construction Corporation (“Lane”) as its design-build contractor.  Although Lane has a 
contractual agreement with CBE related to the 495 NEXT Project, it is not a party to the 
Comprehensive Agreement. 
 
The construction of the 495 NEXT Project required the relocation of four Verizon 
facilities located in public rights-of-way affected by the project.  CBE did not provide notice to 
the Commission that the 495 NEXT Project would require Verizon to move its facilities.  
Although Verizon and the other parties “cooperat[ed] fully . . . to plan and arrange the manner of 
the . . . relocations[,]” the parties could not agree “on who should bear the costs of the utility 
relocations.” 
 
Consistent with Commission rules, Verizon filed a petition for a declaratory judgment 
with the Commission, naming CBE and Lane as respondents, requesting that the Commission 
declare that either CBE or Lane, insofar as Lane contracted with CBE to pay the costs, is 
responsible for the relocation costs pursuant to Code § 33.2-1815(B).  Verizon’s petition only 
sought a declaration of who was responsible for the payment of the relocation costs; it did not 
seek a declaration or other determination regarding the manner in which the relocations were to 
be performed or the amount of costs or damages related to the relocations.  Verizon asserted (and 
continues to assert) that Code §§ 33.2-1815(B) and 33.2-1821 grant the Commission subject 
matter jurisdiction to resolve the “who pays” question. 
 
3 
 
CBE and Lane filed answers denying any liability for the relocation costs and asserting 
that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine which entity ultimately was 
responsible for those costs.  Subsequently, the Commonwealth of Virginia, VDOT, and Stephen 
C. Brich, Commissioner of Highways (hereinafter collectively “VDOT”), sought to intervene in 
the matter.  In addition to seeking intervention, VDOT asserted that Verizon was responsible for 
the costs of the relocations. 
 
In a February 2, 2023 order, the Commission granted VDOT’s motion to intervene.  It 
also ordered that “Verizon . . . file a pleading addressing the subject matter jurisdiction of the 
Commission to hear this matter.”  The Commission did not direct the parties to address whether 
it had discretion to exercise jurisdiction under any provision of Code § 33.2-1815(B), and none 
of the parties did so. 
 
The Commission entered an order dismissing Verizon’s petition based on its 
determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.  Specifically, the 
Commission concluded that, although Code § 33.2-1815(B) granted it jurisdiction to resolve 
certain, specific matters related to utility relocations caused by PPTA projects, Verizon’s “who 
pays” claim sounded in contract and “there is no directive in [Code § 33.2-1815(B)] permitting 
the Commission to determine who should pay under contract for the utility relocations 
complained of by Verizon.” 
 
Pursuant to Rule 5:21, Verizon filed an appeal of right with this Court challenging the 
Commission’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.  Specifically, 
Verizon contends, as it did below, that Code §§ 33.2-1815(B) and 33.2-1821 grant the 
Commission jurisdiction to resolve which party is responsible for the costs of the utility 
relocations necessitated by the 495 NEXT Project. 
 
4 
II.  Analysis 
A.  Standard of review 
Subject matter jurisdiction “refers to a [tribunal]’s power to adjudicate a class of cases or 
controversies[.]”  Cilwa v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 259, 266 (2019) (quoting In re 
Commonwealth, 278 Va. 1, 11 (2009)).  It “is the authority granted through constitution or 
statute to adjudicate a class of cases or controversies[.]”  Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166, 169 
(1990).  Because subject matter jurisdiction “can only be acquired by virtue of the Constitution 
or of some statute[,]”  Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Grace of God Presbyterian 
Church, 296 Va. 42, 49 (2018) (quoting Humphreys v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 765, 772 
(1947)), determining whether a tribunal possesses it involves constitutional and statutory 
interpretation, which constitute questions of law “subject to de novo review in this Court.”  
Anderson v. Clarke, No. 230172, 302 Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___, 2023 WL 6627441, at 
*3 (Va. Oct. 12, 2023).  As a result, Verizon’s “challenge to the [Commission]’s determination 
that it lacked [subject matter] jurisdiction over” this matter “presents a question of law subject to 
de novo review in this Court.”  Ashland, LLC v. Virginia-Am. Water Co., 301 Va. 362, 368 
(2022). 
B.  Jurisdiction of the Commission and circuit courts 
Created by the Virginia Constitution, the Commission “has been clothed with legislative, 
judicial and executive powers.”  Appalachian Power Co. v. John Stewart Walker, Inc., 214 Va. 
524, 528 (1974) (quoting Clifton Forge-Waynesboro Telephone Co. v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 
38, 47 (1935)).  Subject to certain constitutional and statutory limitations, the Commission is 
charged with “issu[ing] all charters, and amendments or extensions thereof, of domestic 
corporations and all licenses of foreign corporations to do business in this Commonwealth[,]” 
 
5 
“administering the laws made in pursuance of this Constitution for the regulation and control of 
corporations doing business in this Commonwealth[,]” “regulating the rates, charges, and 
services and, except as may be otherwise authorized by this Constitution or by general law, the 
facilities of railroad, telephone, gas, and electric companies.”  Va. Const. art. IX, § 2.  In addition 
to these duties, it “shall have such other powers and duties not inconsistent with this Constitution 
as may be prescribed by law.”  Id. 
 
As a general matter, the Commission has not been granted the authority to resolve 
contract actions.  See Ashland, LLC, 301 Va. at 372 n.5 (collecting cases holding that the 
Commission lacks jurisdiction to resolve contract disputes between a regulated utility and its 
customers).  Contract actions generally are heard in the trial courts of the Commonwealth.  See 
Code § 17.1-513 (providing that circuit courts “shall have original and general jurisdiction of all 
civil cases, except cases upon claims to recover personal property or money not of greater value 
than $100, exclusive of interest, and except such cases as are assigned to some other tribunal; . . . 
and also, of all cases, civil or criminal, in which an appeal may be had to the Court of Appeals”).  
“To state the obvious, circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over contract disputes,” 
Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington, 296 Va. at 56, and exercise that authority “[u]nless 
ousted of jurisdiction by law[.]”  John Stewart Walker, Inc., 214 Va. at 530.  “Thus, a circuit 
court has jurisdiction over a common law contract claim unless a provision of the Constitution or 
an enactment of the General Assembly strips it of that authority.”  Ashland, LLC, 301 Va. at 370. 
 
Here, Verizon’s claim, at its essence, is a contract claim.  A determination of which party 
ultimately is responsible to pay for the relocation of Verizon’s facilities turns on the 
interpretation of various agreements entered into by the parties, including, but not limited to, 
 
6 
VDOT’s permit allowing Verizon to locate facilities within VDOT’s rights-of-way, the 
comprehensive agreement between CBE and VDOT, and the agreement between CBE and Lane. 
 
Although Verizon has characterized its claims as a “statutory action,” its petition below 
confirms the contractual nature of its claims.2  Verizon expressly requested that the Commission 
“issue a declaratory judgment that [CBE] or Lane . . .—whichever entity is ultimately 
responsible by agreement or contract to pay for utility relocation costs under the 495 Next 
Project—has the statutory obligation under Code § 33.2-1815(B) to pay or otherwise reimburse 
Verizon for the full amount of their utility relocation costs.”  (Emphasis added.)  Furthermore, in 
advancing its position that the Commission should declare CBE responsible for the relocation 
costs, Verizon alleged that “[a]ccording to the Comprehensive Agreement, as between [CBE] 
and VDOT, [CBE] is contractually responsible for paying all utility relocation costs for the 495 
NEXT Project.”  (Emphasis added.)  In advancing its alternative theory that Lane was 
responsible for the relocation costs, Verizon alleged that “Lane . . . must pay the utility relocation 
costs to the extent it agreed, under a separate contract with [CBE], to pay or otherwise 
reimburse [CBE] for such costs.”  (Emphasis added.)  Simply put, Verizon’s claim is based on 
the interpretation and enforcement of contractual rights and obligations, and thus, sounds in 
contract. 
 
As noted above, the general rule is that trial courts and not the Commission exercise 
jurisdiction over such contractual claims.  That general rule, however, is subject to exceptions 
created by the General Assembly.  See Va. Const. art. IX, § 2 (providing that the Commission 
 
 
2 In pertinent part and as detailed below, the statute on which Verizon ultimately relies 
assigns responsibility for the relocation costs to “the private entity or any other person 
contractually responsible therefor under the interim or comprehensive agreement or under any 
other contract, license, or permit.”  Code § 33.2-1815(B) (emphasis added). 
 
7 
has “such other powers and duties not inconsistent with this Constitution as may be prescribed 
by law”); Ashland, LLC, 301 Va. at 369. 
Verizon contends that the provisions of the PPTA provide just such an exception to the 
general rule and vest jurisdiction over the “who pays” question in the Commission.  For the 
reasons that follow, we disagree. 
C.  The PPTA does not grant jurisdiction to the Commission to determine which party 
pays for the relocation of Verizon’s facilities caused by the 495 NEXT Project 
 
 
First enacted in 1995, the PPTA represents an attempt by the General Assembly to 
address an existing “public need for timely development and/or operation of transportation 
facilities within the Commonwealth that” was not being “wholly satisfied by [then] existing 
methods of procurement in which qualifying transportation facilities are developed and/or 
operated[.]”  Code § 33.2-1801(A)(1).  Accordingly, the PPTA seeks “to encourage investment 
in the Commonwealth by private entities that facilitates the development and/or operation of 
transportation facilities when such investment is in the best interest of the public” and to grant 
“public and private entities . . . the greatest possible flexibility in contracting with each other for 
the provision of the public services that are the subject of this chapter.”  Code § 33.2-1801(C). 
 
In establishing the manner in which PPTA projects are to be originated and carried out, 
the General Assembly elected to assign to the Commission certain matters to decide.  See 
generally Code §§ 33.2-1800, 33.2-1814, 33.2-1815, & 33.2-1821.  Central to Verizon’s 
argument here are the references to the Commission contained in Code §§ 33.2-1815 & 
33.2-1821. 
 
Recognizing that it was possible if not likely that PPTA projects would involve the need 
to cross or relocate utility lines, the General Assembly adopted Code § 33.2-1815 to address such 
 
8 
instances.  Of particular note, Code § 33.2-1815(B) provides that, if the private entity and an 
affected utility are 
unable to agree upon a plan for the crossing or relocation, the 
Commission may determine the manner in which the crossing or 
relocation is to be accomplished and any damages due arising out 
of the crossing or relocation.  The Commission may employ expert 
engineers who shall examine the location and plans for such 
crossing or relocation, hear any objections and consider 
modifications, and make a recommendation to the Commission.  In 
such a case, the cost of the experts is to be borne by the private 
entity.  Any amount to be paid for such crossing, construction, 
moving, or relocation of facilities shall be paid for by the private 
entity or any other person contractually responsible therefor under 
the interim or comprehensive agreement or under any other 
contract, license, or permit.  The Commission shall make a 
determination within 90 days of notification by the private entity 
that the qualifying transportation facility will cross utilities subject 
to the Commission’s jurisdiction. 
 
In turn, Code § 33.2-1821 provides that “[t]he Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to 
adjudicate all matters specifically committed to its jurisdiction by” the PPTA. 
 
To determine whether Verizon is correct that these provisions vested the Commission 
with jurisdiction to decide the question of who is responsible to pay the costs of the utility 
relocations caused by the 495 NEXT Project, we must engage in statutory interpretation.  When 
doing so, our charge is a limited one. 
 
Our task “is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, as expressed by the language 
used in the statute.”  Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va. 420, 425 (2012) 
(quoting Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414, 418 (2011)) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  “Under basic rules of statutory construction, we determine the General Assembly’s 
intent from the words contained in the statute[,]” Williams v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 268, 271 
(2003), limiting our inquiry to “what the statute says and not . . . what we think it should have 
said.”  Amerson, 281 Va. at 421 (quoting Virginian-Pilot Media Cos., LLC v. Dow Jones & Co., 
 
9 
280 Va. 464, 468-69 (2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Accordingly, we may not 
“add[] language to or delet[e] language from a statute[,]” Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. 
Comm’n, 284 Va. 695, 706 (2012), because doing so represents an impermissible attempt “to 
rewrite the statute under the subtle guise of judicial interpretation.”  Commonwealth v. Hall, 297 
Va. 143, 148 (2019) (quoting Tvardek v. Powhatan Vill. Homeowners Ass’n, 291 Va. 269, 278, 
(2016)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
Furthermore, our interpretation does not turn on “the public policy implications 
associated with” the words chosen by the General Assembly because “[t]he legislature is the 
author of public policy[,]” and thus, “[w]e may not extend the meaning of a statute simply 
because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that if the 
legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used.”  Prease v. 
Clarke, 302 Va. ___, ___, 888 S.E.2d 758, 762-63 (2023) (internal citations and quotation marks 
omitted).  Finally, when the legislative enactment addresses an area with a well-established legal 
foundation, we may “consider [those] background principles . . . , even if those principles are not 
mentioned in the . . . statute” expressly.  Commonwealth v. McBride, No. 220715, 302 Va. ___, 
___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___, 2023 WL 6885058, at *2 (Va. Oct. 19, 2023). 
Applying these principles to the five sentences that compose Code § 33.2-1815(B), we 
conclude that it does not vest the Commission with authority to determine who must pay the 
costs associated with Verizon’s relocation of the utility facilities at issue. 
 
From the plain text of Code § 33.2-1815(B), three of the five sentences expressly and 
specifically grant the Commission jurisdiction or otherwise direct how the Commission exercises 
that authority.  The first sentence provides that, when the private entity and the utility cannot 
agree regarding the relocation of the utility facilities affected by a PPTA project, it is “the 
 
10 
Commission [that] determine[s] the manner in which the crossing or relocation is to be 
accomplished and any damages due arising out of the crossing or relocation.”  (Emphasis added.)  
Similarly, the second sentence, which addresses the manner in which the Commission can 
exercise the jurisdiction granted by the first sentence, expressly and specifically references the 
Commission, providing that “[t]he Commission may employ expert engineers who shall examine 
the location and plans for such crossing or relocation, hear any objections and consider 
modifications, and make a recommendation to the Commission.”  (Emphasis added.)  The fifth 
sentence also expressly and specifically references the Commission, providing that “[t]he 
Commission shall make a determination within 90 days of notification by the private entity that 
the qualifying transportation facility will cross utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.”  
(Emphasis added.)  By including the express and specific references to the Commission in these 
three sentences, the General Assembly evinced its intention to vest the Commission with the 
jurisdiction to resolve the specific disputes referenced in the sentences and directed the manner 
in which the Commission could exercise that grant of authority. 
 
Notably absent from the fourth sentence of Code § 33.2-1815(B), which addresses who is 
responsible for the costs of any relocations, is any reference, let alone an express and specific 
reference, to the Commission.3  The sentence reads:  “Any amount to be paid for such crossing, 
construction, moving, or relocation of facilities shall be paid for by the private entity or any other 
person contractually responsible therefor under the interim or comprehensive agreement or under 
any other contract, license, or permit.”  The lack of a reference to the Commission, especially 
 
 
3 The third sentence of Code § 33.2-1815(B) does not grant any authority to the 
Commission.  Rather, it expressly and specifically assigns to the “private entity” responsibility 
for paying for any experts hired by the Commission to assist it in determining the manner of a 
utility relocation and any associated damages. 
 
11 
given the multiple express and specific references elsewhere in Code § 33.2-1815(B), at a 
minimum, suggests that the General Assembly did not intend for the fourth sentence to grant the 
Commission jurisdiction that it otherwise did not possess.  Cf. Halifax Corp. v. First Union Nat. 
Bank, 262 Va. 91, 100 (2001) (recognizing that “when the General Assembly includes specific 
language in one section of a statute, but omits that language from another section of the statute, 
we must presume that the exclusion of the language was intentional”). 
 
Our conclusion that the fourth sentence does not vest jurisdiction in the Commission to 
decide the “who pays” question finds further support in both the PPTA itself and the well-
recognized and longstanding principle that trial courts and not the Commission have jurisdiction 
over contract claims.  Code § 33.2-1821, part of the PPTA, provides that “[t]he Commission 
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate all matters specifically committed to its jurisdiction 
by” the PPTA.  (Emphasis added.)  As noted above, nothing in the text of Code § 33.2-1815(B) 
commits, let alone specifically commits, the “who pays” question to the Commission for 
determination. 
Furthermore, because of the historical understanding of the jurisdiction of trial courts vis-
à-vis the Commission, we have eschewed implying an expansion of the Commission’s 
jurisdiction to address contract cases simply because the dispute bears some relation to a matter 
over which the Commission does exercise jurisdiction.  As we observed in John Stewart Walker, 
Inc., the fact “[t]hat the Commission has been granted explicit jurisdiction to exercise one of its 
limited powers over a particular subject matter does not mean that it has been granted implicit 
jurisdiction to exercise the same power over another subject matter[.]”  214 Va. at 533. 
Finally, given how well established it is that trial courts and not the Commission have 
jurisdiction to resolve contractual disputes, we interpret Code § 33.2-1815(B) in light of that 
 
12 
“background principle[],”  McBride, No. 220715, 302 Va. at ___, S.E.2d at ___, 2023 WL 
6885058, at *2, and conclude that, if it had intended to alter the general rule, the General 
Assembly would have done so expressly rather than relying on silent implication. 
 
Accordingly, the Commission correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter 
jurisdiction over Verizon’s petition.4 
III.  Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission did not err in concluding that it lacked subject 
matter jurisdiction over Verizon’s petition seeking a declaration of who was responsible for the 
payment of the relocation costs associated with the utility relocations caused by the 495 NEXT 
Project.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Commission. 
Affirmed. 
 
 
4 In an alternative holding set out in a footnote, the Commission asserted that the General 
Assembly’s use of the word “may” in portions of Code § 33.2-1815(B) meant that its jurisdiction 
in the matter, if it had any, was discretionary, and it chose not to exercise any such discretionary 
jurisdiction.  Verizon assigned error to this alternative holding.  Because addressing the 
alternative holding is unnecessary to our resolution of the appeal, we decline to reach the 
question, and thus, offer no opinion on whether or not the Commission is correct that any 
jurisdiction granted by Code § 33.2-1815(B) is discretionary.  See Commonwealth v. White, 293 
Va. 411, 419 (2017) (recognizing that “the doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide 
cases on the best and narrowest grounds available”) (internal citation and alteration omitted).