Opinion ID: 1697455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Commission argues that it had jurisdiction over MUD's application under the plain language of §§ 66-1848 and 66-1849, both enacted in 2003. MUD, however, argues that a previously enacted statute, § 57-1306, applies and deprives the Commission of jurisdiction. Section 66-1849 provides: (1) The commission shall certify all competitive natural gas providers and aggregators providing natural gas services.... (2) The commission may resolve disputes involving the provision of natural gas services by a competitive natural gas provider or aggregator. Section 66-1848 defines a CNGP as follows: For purposes of this section and section 66-1849: .... (2)(a) Competitive natural gas provider means a person who takes title to natural gas and sells it for consumption by a retail end user. Competitive natural gas provider includes an affiliate of a natural gas public utility. (b) Competitive natural gas provider does not include the following: (i) A jurisdictional utility; (ii) A city-owned or operated natural gas utility or metropolitan utilities district in areas in which it provides natural gas service through pipes it owns; or (iii) A natural gas public utility that is not subject to the act as provided in section 66-1803 in areas in which it is providing natural gas service in accordance with section 66-1803. In addition, § 66-1804(2) provides: The State Natural Gas Regulation Act and all grants of power, authority, and jurisdiction in the act made to the commission shall be liberally construed, and all incidental powers necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the act are expressly granted to and conferred upon the commission. MUD, however, argues that § 57-1306 controls. It provides in pertinent part: If the investor-owned natural gas utility or the metropolitan utilities district disagrees with a determination by an investor-owned natural gas utility or a metropolitan utilities district that a proposed extension or enlargement is in the public interest, the matter may be submitted to the Public Service Commission for hearing.... The commission shall have no jurisdiction over a metropolitan utilities district or natural gas utility beyond the determination of disputes brought before it under sections 57-1301 to 57-1307. (Emphasis supplied.) Statutes relating to the same subject matter will be construed so as to maintain a sensible and consistent scheme, so that effect is given to every provision. See Soto v. State, 269 Neb. 337, 693 N.W.2d 491 (2005). To the extent that a conflict exists between two statutes on the same subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute. Id. MUD is correct that § 57-1306 states that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over a metropolitan utilities district except for disputes brought under §§ 57-1301 to 57-1307. But the statutes specifically pertaining to CNGP's were passed later and provide the Commission with jurisdiction over all CNGP's. In particular, § 66-1848 defines a CNGP as a person who sells gas for consumption by a retail end user. It then excludes metropolitan utilities districts only in areas in which it provides natural gas service through pipes it ownswhich is not the case here. This more specific provision of § 66-1848 trumps the general provisions of § 57-1306, particularly when considering the stated legislative desire that the Commission's powers shall be liberally construed. See § 66-1804(2). In its application, MUD stated it intended to sell natural gas to distribution facilities not owned by MUD. Thus, MUD falls under the certification provisions and the Commission's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Commission had jurisdiction over MUD's application for certification and the district court erred when it affirmed because of a lack of jurisdiction.