Opinion ID: 1574558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the complaint should have triggered an adequacy of service proceeding.

Text: ¶ 40. Neither Green's complaint, nor his aborted amendment, alleged any inadequacy of service on the part of Cleary. Mississippi Code Section 77-3-21 (Rev.2001) is the exclusive method by which the Commission may cancel a CCN. Delta Elec. Power Ass'n, 149 So.2d at 511. The Commission may call for hearings on adequacy of service on its own motion. See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-21 (Rev.2001). Alternatively, the Commission is obliged to hold such hearings if at least ten percent of a public utility's subscribers file a complaint alleging inadequate service. See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-11(5) (Rev.2001). ¶ 41. Green argues that his complaint should have been taken as an allegation of inadequate service. Green attempts to buttress his argument by stating that (1) he was joined by 122 others in Green I, and (2) he obtained 160 signatures on his petition asking the Rankin County Board of Supervisors to intervene with the Commission. See Green I, 910 So.2d at 1024. It is true that either of these numbers (122 or 160) represents a sufficient number of complainants. However, none of Green's arguments can make up for the fact that he did not allege any inadequacy of service in his complaint to the Commission. Further, none of the other petitioners actually joined in Green's complaint to the Commission. We find that the Commission did not err by failing to institute adequacy of service proceedings against Cleary.