Opinion ID: 1720801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We have on many occasions considered the extent of delegated powers. Reference to only a few will suffice.

Text: In City of Ames v. State Tax Commission, 246 Iowa 1016, 71 N.W.2d 15, we said: It will be noted that the rule making power of the commission may not be `inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.' The function of the commission is an administrative one, and it may enact reasonable rules and regulations necessary in carrying out the legislative enactments. But it may not make law, or by rule change the legal meaning of the common law or the statutes. In Kistner v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review, 225 Iowa 404, 415, 280 N.W. 587, 593, we said: `The Board does not have the right to legislate, and it is conceded    that it has no authority under the statute to adopt rules which are in the nature of laws.   ' (Loc. cit. 1022, 71 N.W. 2d loc. cit. 19) In Holland v. State of Iowa, 253 Iowa 1006, 1010, 115 N.W.2d 161, 163, we said:    administrative rules cannot go further than the law permits. An administrative body may not use the device of promulgating rules to change or add to the law; they are not to be taken as law in themselves, but must be reasonable and used for the purpose of carrying out the legislative enactments. An administrative body may not make law or change the legal meaning of the common law or the statutes. In Elk Run Telephone Co. v. General Telephone Co., Iowa, 160 N.W.2d 311, 315, 316, we said: It is generally recognized that some legislative power may be delegated to administrative bodies. The practice of doing so has increased as the range and complexity of governmental functions continue to expand. It has been said that government could not be efficiently carried out if something were not left to the judgment and discretion of administration officers to accomplish in detail what is authorized or required by law in general terms. Butler v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 411, 53 S.E.2d 152. The testnot always easy to applyis whether such delegation is a reasonable one permitting the administrative body only to `fill in the details' to accomplish a general purpose or policy announced by the legislature itself or whether it abdicates to the administrative body the right to legislate. In the case at bar to accept appellee's theory that the power to prescribe notice of appeal to the district court was delegated and exercised there would be much more than filling in details. It would be legislation completely changing the well recognized rules and meaning of words. In Nishnabotna Valley Rural Electric Cooperative v. Iowa Power and Light Company, Iowa, 161 N.W.2d 348, 352, we said: In Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. Nicholas, supra, 258 Iowa [115] at pages 121-122, 137 N.W.2d [900] at page 905, we said: `However, it must be remembered that the plain provisions of the statute cannot be altered by an administrative rule or regulation, no matter how long it has existed or been exercised by administrative authority. Clarion Ready Mixed Concrete Co. v. Iowa State Tax Commission, 252 Iowa 500, 507, 107 N.W.2d 553, 558, and citations. To permit a commission or board to change the law by giving to the statute or Act an interpretation or construction of which its words are not susceptible would be a departure from the meaning expressed by the words of the statute. Hindman v. Reaser, 246 Iowa 1375, 72 N.W.2d 559.   ' VI. Rule 15.6(1) of the Commission does not govern nor prescribe the rules for appeal from the Commission to the district court. We do not believe the Commission ever attempted to prescribe the rules for appeal from its own orders or ever intended its rules to be so construed. The case is reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to sustain the Special Appearances of Interstate Power Company and Iowa State Commerce Commission. Reversed and remanded.