Court Opinion

ID: 9389174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 19:11:13.66583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.701817
License: Public Domain

FILED
No. 21-1001 – City of Wheeling v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia and The
City of Benwood.                                                               April 24, 2023
                                                                                        released at 3:00 p.m.
                                                                                    EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
Armstead, Justice, joined by Justice Hutchison, dissenting:                         SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                         OF WEST VIRGINIA

              The City of Benwood filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission

(“PSC”) challenging the City of Wheeling’s proposed sewer service rate increase. West

Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) authorizes the PSC to toll the 120-day period for resolution

of such disputes “until the necessary information showing the basis of rates, fees, and

charges or other information as the commission considers necessary is filed.” Id. It is

undisputed that (1) Wheeling controlled when the PSC received the necessary information

that it needed to resolve this matter; and (2) the PSC entered its order within 120 days of

receiving the necessary information from Wheeling. Based on these undisputed facts, I

believe that the PSC complied with the 120-day resolution deadline contained in West

Virginia § 24-2-1(b)(6). Therefore, I would have affirmed the PSC’s order.

              This case presents a straightforward issue of statutory interpretation requiring

the Court to examine when the 120-day deadline contained in West Virginia Code § 24-2-

1(b)(6) begins to run. This Court has held that in deciding the meaning of a statutory

provision, “[w]e look first to the statute’s language. If the text, given its plain meaning,

answers the interpretive question, the language must prevail and further inquiry is

foreclosed.” Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t of W. Va., 195 W. Va. 573, 587,

466 S.E.2d 424, 438 (1995). Further, this Court has held that “[a] statute is open to

construction only where the language used requires interpretation because of ambiguity

which renders it susceptible of two or more constructions or of such doubtful or obscure

                                              1
meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning.” Sizemore

v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 202 W. Va. 591, 596, 505 S.E.2d 654, 659 (1998) (internal

quotations and citation omitted).

              Turning to the statute at issue, West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) provides:

              (b) The jurisdiction of the commission over political
              subdivisions of this state providing separate or combined water
              and/or sewer services and having at least 4,500 customers and
              annual combined gross revenues of $3 million or more that are
              political subdivisions of the state is limited to: . . . .

              (6) Investigation and resolution of disputes between a political
              subdivision of the state providing wholesale water and/or
              wastewater treatment or other services, whether by contract or
              through a tariff, and its customer or customers, including, but
              not limited to, rates, fees, and charges, service areas and
              contested utility combinations: Provided, That any request for
              an investigation related to a dispute that is based on the act or
              omission of the political subdivision shall be filed within 30
              days of the act or omission of the political subdivision and the
              commission shall resolve the dispute within 120 days of filing.
              The 120-day period for resolution of the dispute may be tolled
              by the commission until the necessary information showing the
              basis of the rates, fees, and charges or other information
              required by the commission is filed: Provided, however, That
              the disputed rates, fees, and charges fixed by the political
              subdivision providing separate or combined water and/or
              sewer services shall remain in full force and effect until set
              aside, altered or, amended by the commission in an order to be
              followed in the future.

(Emphasis added).

              Wheeling contends, and the majority opinion concluded, that this statute is

unambiguous and provides that the 120-day dispute resolution period begins on the date a

request for investigation is filed with the PSC. Wheeling focuses on the following statutory

                                             2
language in support of its argument: “[T]he commission shall resolve the dispute within

120 days of filing.” Id. Further, Wheeling argues that while the PSC has the authority to

pause the 120-day period once it has begun, the PSC does not have the authority to

postpone the commencement of the 120-day period.

              By contrast, the PSC asserts that the 120-day period did not begin to run until

it received all of the necessary information from Wheeling. The PSC relies on the

following statutory language in support of its interpretation: “The 120-day period for

resolution of the dispute may be tolled by the commission until the necessary information

showing the basis of the rates, fees, and charges or other information required by the

commission is filed[.]” Id. (Emphasis added). According to the PSC, its interpretation of

the statute “ensures that [it] will have sufficient time to consider all of the necessary

information provided to it.” Further, the PSC asserts that its interpretation of the statute

“meets the Legislature’s goal for the PSC [which requires it] to timely evaluate disputes

and to safeguard the interests of the public and the utilities provided to it.”

              As demonstrated by the parties’ conflicting interpretations of West Virginia

Code § 24-2-1(b)(6), this statute is reasonably susceptible to differing constructions and

“reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its intended meaning.” Sizemore,

202 W.Va. at 596, 505 S.E.2d at 659. Because West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) is

reasonably susceptible to differing constructions, I find that it is ambiguous.

              When faced with an ambiguous statute, this Court has observed that “[a]

statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be applied.” Syl. Pt. 1, Farley v.

                                               3
Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992). “The primary object in construing a

statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syl. Pt. 1, Smith v.

State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). Also, “[w]hen

a statute’s language is ambiguous, a court often must venture into extratextual territory in

order to distill an appropriate construction. Absent explicatory legislative history for an

ambiguous statute . . . this Court is obligated to consider the . . . overarching design of the

statute.” State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac–Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770, 777,

461 S.E.2d 516, 523 (1995).

              The disputed language in West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) implicates two

concerns: (1) that the PSC resolve such disputes expeditiously, and (2) that it have all of

the necessary information it needs prior to doing so. I find that the PSC’s interpretation of

the statute, that the 120-day clock does not begin to run until it receives all of the necessary

information, is consistent with these two concerns. Indeed, the statute expressly states that

the “120-day period,” not simply a portion of such time period, may be tolled. Such

language indicates that the PSC’s review period should only begin when the information

needed for a complete review is received. The PSC’s interpretation ensures that it will

have the benefit of the full 120-day period to conduct a thorough review of such disputes

with all of the necessary information. Conversely, under Wheeling’s construction of the

statute, a party could hold back necessary information while the 120-day clock is running,

thus depriving the PSC of the full review period provided for in the statute. Allowing a

party to engage in this theoretical type of gamesmanship has the potential to prolong these

                                               4
disputes and to deprive the PSC of sufficient time to conduct its review. This Court has

provided that “[t]he judicial system of this State is not designed to promote ‘footloose’

tactics by litigants that lead to ‘gotcha’ justice. Our system is designed to dispense justice

based upon truth-seeking fair and impartial proceedings.” W. Va. Dept. of Transp., Div. of

Highways v. Robertson, 217 W. Va. 497, 507, 618 S.E.2d 506, 516 (2005). 1

              Additionally, because West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6) is ambiguous,

substantial deference should be given to the PSC’s interpretation of the statute. This is

because “the rulings, interpretations and opinions” of the PSC “constitute a body of

experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for

guidance.” Appalachian Power Co., 195 W. Va. at 583, 466 S.E.2d at 434 (1995) (citations

omitted). Therefore, “this Court gives substantial deference to the PSC’s construction of a

statute.” Sierra Club v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va., 241 W. Va. 600, 613, 827 S.E.2d

224, 237 (2019). See also Security Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc.,

Syl. Pt. 4, 166 W. Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981) (“Interpretations of statutes by bodies

charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous.”).

              Based on the foregoing, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s

holding that the 120-day dispute resolution period in West Virginia Code § 24-2-1(b)(6)

begins on the date a request for investigation is filed with the PSC. Instead, I would have

       1
         The majority opinion aptly notes that Wheeling did not object to the dispute
resolution deadline set by the PSC on October 26, 2021. Instead, Wheeling waited to raise
its argument that the 120-day deadline had passed until after the PSC entered its November
12, 2021. Wheeling has not offered any compelling reason explaining why it did not
immediately object to the PSC’s October 26, 2021, order.
                                            5
affirmed the PSC’s order and determined that the 120-day deadline does not begin to run

until the PSC has received all of the necessary information it needs to resolve a dispute.

                                             6