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

Heading: Rocky Mountain's Pre-Existing Right

Text: Rocky Mountain asserts that its unrestricted certificate for a transmission line granted it the exclusive right to supply service to customers in the region of the pipeline. Generally, a certificate to service a region creates a right to service customers in that region unless it could be shown that the company is not ready and able to provide the services requested. Public Service Co. v. PUC, 174 Colo. 231, 483 P.2d 1337 (1971). This rule, however, does not apply where the original certificate does not encompass the proposed new service. See PUC v. Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc., 167 Colo. 257, 447 P.2d 27 (1968). In our view, Rocky Mountain's certificate did not create a pre-existing right to service Tract C-b. The record indicates that Rocky Mountain understood at the time of its application for the original certificate that the certificate would be granted solely for the purpose of constructing a transmission line across the region and not for a service line within the region. An officer and member of the board of directors for Rocky Mountain testified before the PUC hearing examiner that transmission was the sole purpose and use of the pipeline. At no time prior to the present application to service Tract C-b did Rocky Mountain serve any customer in the region from its pipeline. Therefore, it had no basis whatsoever to serve Tract C-b as a matter of right but had to compete with any other potential supplier on an equal footing. Rocky Mountain also argues that it had a right to provide the new service under the authority of section 40-5-101(1), C.R.S.1973, [1] which allows a utility to expand its service into an area contiguous to its pipeline without a certificate if it is necessary in the ordinary course of its business. Since the pipeline was not used for the purpose of serving customers in the area but solely for transmission, it cannot be said that service to Tract C-b was necessary as required by the statute. Accordingly, we also reject this argument.