Opinion ID: 1149769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lifting the Restriction on Western

Text: Rocky Mountain argues that the PUC abused its discretion in lifting the restriction on Western's pipeline. Rocky Mountain asserts that this creates a duplication of services, which is contrary to sound regulatory principles. We disagree. First, we would point out that Rocky Mountain's argument is based upon the assumption that it has a pre-existing right to provide service. We have already determined that no such right exists. When there is no pre-existing right to serve an area, even if there is presently service to a contiguous area, the new area could be certificated to whomever the P.U.C., exercising its expertise, determined was best able to serve the territory. Western Colorado Power Co. v. PUC, 163 Colo. 61, 428 P.2d 922 (1967). Judicial review of such determinations is limited to the issue of whether the PUC has acted within its authority and whether there is sufficient evidence in the record as a whole to support the PUC's decision. Section 40-6-115(3), C.R.S.1973; Parrish v. PUC, 134 Colo. 192, 301 P.2d 343 (1956). In this case, before the PUC could consider the appropriateness of allowing Western to service Tract C-b, it had to lift the prior restrictions that it had placed on Western's certificate. [2] Under section 40-6-112(1), C.R.S.1973, the PUC may remove prior restrictions under its statutory authority to amend a certificate when it is in the interest of public convenience and necessity to do so. See PUC v. Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc., supra . Here, we find that there was sufficient evidence upon which the PUC could justify the lifting of the restrictions on Western's pipeline. First, Western had already begun arranging for the necessary interim permits to cross the intervening property. Second, it could provide the shortest pipeline extension, which would not have to cross any existing line. Third, Western had already established a good record of providing service in the region. Finally, the consumers favored service by Western. Each of these factors is proper in considering the public convenience and necessity for both certification and the amendment of an existing certificate. See generally Colorado Transportation Company v. PUC, supra . With such evidence favoring the removal of restrictions from Western's certificate of public convenience and necessity, we cannot conclude that the PUC either abused its discretion or exceeded its authority. Judgment affirmed. GROVES, J., does not participate.