Opinion ID: 900205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: excess authority

Text: [¶ 27] The second issue concerns whether the PUC exceeded its authority by interpreting and enforcing the electric service agreement between Hub City and NEC. [¶ 28] There are two types of electric utilities involved in this case. NEC is a rural electric cooperative. NWPS is a public utility. Chapter 49-34A provides that the PUC has different authority over each type of utility. A public utility is defined as: any person operating, maintaining or controlling in this state equipment or facilities for the purpose of providing gas or electric service to or for the public in whole or in part,.... However, the term does not apply to an electric or gas utility owned by a municipality, political subdivision, or agency of the state of South Dakota or any other state or a rural electric cooperative as defined in § 47-21-1 for the purposes of §§ 49-34A-2 to 49-34A-4, inclusive, §§ 49-34A-6 to 49-34A-41, inclusive, and § 49-34A-62[.] SDCL 49-34A-1(12)(emphasis added). Therefore, while the PUC has authority over the NEC for determining whether its service is adequate or to make territorial assignments, it has no authority over NEC with regard to rates (SDCL 49-34A-6 to 49-34A-26, inclusive). NEC's agreement with its customer is one regarding the service provided and the rate. There is no allegation that the service is inadequate and the PUC has no authority to make any determination as to rates. The PUC based its ruling on the termination clause included in that agreement. This would appear to be a contract dispute between NEC and Hub City's successor in interest and clearly beyond the PUC's authority. [¶ 29] While the expertise of the administrative agency is recognized, the agency must lend credence to the guidelines established in the statutes. Matter of Certain Territorial Electric Boundaries (Mitchell Area), 281 N.W.2d at 69. See also Matter of Certain Territorial Elec. Boundaries (Aberdeen), 281 N.W.2d 72, 76 (S.D.1979); Williams Electric Co-op. v. Montana-Dakota Util. Co., 79 N.W.2d 508, 517 (N.D.1956). The PUC's authority is outlined in Chapter 49-34A: The commission shall regulate to the extent provided in this chapter every public utility as defined herein. The commission may promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter concerning: (1) Procedures and requirements for applications for rate and tariff changes; (2) Requirements for gas and electric utilities to maintain and make available to the public and the commission records and information; (3) Requirements and procedures regarding customer billings and meter readings; (4) Requirements regarding availability of meter tests; (5) Requirements regarding billing adjustments for meter errors; (6) Procedures and requirements for handling customer disputes and complaints; (7) Procedures and requirements regarding temporary service, changes in location of service and service interruptions; (8) Standards and procedures to ensure nondiscriminatory credit policies: (9) Procedures, requirements and record-keeping guidelines regarding deposit policies; (10) Procedure, requirements and record-keeping guidelines regarding customer refunds; (11) Policies for refusal of gas or electric service; (12) Policies for disconnection and transfer of gas and electric service; (13) Customer payment plans for delinquent bills; and (14) Requirements regarding advertising. SDCL 49-34A-4. Even though this statute only applies to the PUC's relationship with public utilities, not rural cooperatives, it does not include contract interpretation as an authority or power of the PUC. [¶ 30] The PUC is not a court, and cannot exercise purely judicial functions. Application of Dakota Transportation, Inc., 67 S.D. 221, 291 N.W. 589, 594 (1940). As the North Dakota Court has stated, As a general rule administrative agencies, boards, and commissions cannot consider, or adjudicate, contractual rights and obligations between parties. Hence they cannot pass on the validity of, or enforce, nor can administrative agencies, boards, or commissions change or annul contracts, except where they have been granted power by organic or valid statutory enactment to do so. Williams Elec. Coop., 79 N.W.2d at 517. The PUC has exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting and enforcing the contract between a rural cooperative, NEC, and its customer. See In the Matter of the Application of City of White, 294 N.W.2d 433 (S.D. 1980) (holding that the PUC has no authority to determine the amount of compensation due an electric utility for service contracts). The circuit court is affirmed on this issue as well. [¶ 31] MILLER, C.J., and SABERS, AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur. [¶ 32] TIMM, Circuit Judge, for GILBERTSON, J., disqualified.