Opinion ID: 1105996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: does the policy for the extension of underground electric distribution facilities submitted by mississippi power & light company (predecessor to entergy mississippi, inc.) approved by the mississippi public service commission on august 14, 1996, prohibit entergy from installing underground distribution lines?

Text: ¶ 9. The trial court entered an order prohibiting any testimony as to whether Entergy could have, or should have, placed the high voltage lines underground. Entergy asserts that it was prohibited under the filed rate plan from placing the high voltage power lines underground unless the customer (City of Natchez) was willing to pay the expense for doing so. By granting Entergy's Fourth Motion in Limine (which is the second of two motions in limine we address today), the trial court excluded all testimony and evidence (1) that Entergy had the duty or authority to place the power line in question underground and (2) that utilities in other states put power lines underground. ¶ 10. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges inter alia that Entergy was negligent in the placement and maintenance of the high voltage power lines. Specifically, Ware asserts that the high voltage line was placed after the installation of the MDOT break-away light posts and was at a dangerously lower height. As already stated, the fatal accident occurred after a crew had taken the light post down, made repairs, and was putting the light post back in place. Ware asserts that Entergy should have, or could have, placed the high voltage line underground rather than overhead. ¶ 11. Entergy asserts that, under Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-35 and the Policy For The Extension of Underground Electric Distribution Facilities filed with the Public Service Commission (PSC), Entergy is not entitled to or authorized to place a power line underground unless the customer agrees to pay for such. Section 77-3-35 states, in part: No such public utility shall directly or indirectly, by any device whatsoever, or in anywise, charge, demand, collect or receive from any person or corporation for any service rendered or to be rendered by such public utility a greater or less compensation than that prescribed in the schedules of such public utility applicable thereto then filed in the manner provided in this section, and no person or corporation shall receive or accept any service from any such public utility for a compensation greater or less than prescribed in such schedules. The Policy For The Extension of Underground Electric Distribution Facilities provides, in pertinent part: Economic, physical and technical considerations normally dictate the use of overhead electric distribution facilities in the Company's Operating Area. There are some circumstances, however, where it is feasible and practical for the Company to install portions of its distribution facilities underground. There are other circumstances where the value to the property owners of having the electric distribution and service facilities installed underground will outweigh the added costs and other possible disadvantages of such installation. (emphasis added) (Filed: July 2, 1986, effective date: August 14, 1986.) Entergy contends that PSC approval of the policy defining its rate has the force and effect of state law. Entergy relies on Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-3(e) (defining rate) and Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869, 875 (Miss.1990) (MP & L argues that these rules have the effect of law and there is authority that certain administrative rules have the force of law.) (citing Standard Oil Co. of CA v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 484, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1169-70, 86 L.Ed. 1611 (1942) (War Department regulations); see also United States v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 638 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1981); Green v. United States, 460 F.2d 412 (5th Cir.1972)). Entergy also relies on a decision of the Mississippi Public Service Commission in Bounds Building Co., Inc., Bob Pigford and Robert Corey, and Mississippi Power Company, Docket No. 94-UA-0777, wherein the PSC held that a repealed ordinance of the City of Meridian requiring Mississippi Power Company to place distribution lines to new subdivisions underground at no cost to the subdivider improperly established the method to charge and the charge itself, both of which are within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the PSC. Conversely, Ware asserts that the filed rate permits Entergy to place the high voltage lines underground, at its own expense, where it is feasible and practical for the Company to do so. ¶ 12. The question is whether the filed-rate doctrine is applicable to this case. Entergy relies on our decision in American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Alexander, 818 So.2d 1073, 1084-85 (Miss.2001), for the proposition that the filed-rate doctrine is applicable to cases in which a court is called upon to determine, either directly or indirectly, what a reasonable rate should be, or `second guess' the rate making agency. In Alexander, we held that the filed-rate doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs' claims against a secured lender and collateral protection insurer in an action to recover for overcharged premiums. ¶ 13. We have addressed the filed-rate doctrine in but one other case since Alexander. We held: Under the filed rate doctrine, any filed rate  that is, a rate approved by the governing regulatory agency  is per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers. Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17, 18 (2d Cir.1994); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Willmut Gas & Oil Co., 231 Miss. 700, 718, 97 So.2d 530, 535 (1957) (petitioner can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms) (quoting Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Northwestern Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 341 U.S. 246, 251, 71 S.Ct. 692, 695, 95 L.Ed. 912 (1951)). American Bankers' Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Wells, 819 So.2d 1196, 1203-04 (¶ 23) (Miss.2001). ¶ 14. We find that the filed-rate doctrine does not apply here because the Policy does not prohibit Entergy from placing the high voltage lines underground at its own expense where it is feasible and practical for the Company to do so. We further find that the rate policy filed with the PSC does not prohibit Entergy from placing the high voltage lines underground at its own expense. Therefore, we are constrained to find that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence and testimony related to the feasibility of Entergy placing its power line underground.