Summary
In Lankford, this court granted a writ prohibiting a circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over a class action ratepayers' suit.
Summary of this case from Brandon v. Arkansas Public Service CommOpinion
No. 82-254
Opinion delivered March 21, 1983
1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS PERTAINING TO UTILITY RATES. — The Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over matters pertaining to utility rates, and, therefore, respondents should have presented to the PSC, rather than the circuit court, their challenge to the constitutionality of the statute allowing a utility to collect a requested rate increase under bond and their request for an interpretation of the applicability of the Arkansas Constitution regarding the amount of interest payable to customers on refunds by utilities. 2. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — RATEPAYERS HAVE ADEQUATE REMEDY IN ACTION BEFORE PSC — NO AUTHORITY IN CIRCUIT COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION. — Respondents had a full, adequate, and complete remedy by intervention in the proceedings before the Public Service Commission which had been filed by the petitioner utility company, wherein it sought a rate increase, at which time the PSC could have ruled on the constitutionality of Ark. Stat. Ann. 73-217 and the other issues which respondents are now raising in a suit for declaratory judgment in the circuit court; therefore, a writ of prohibition will be granted to prohibit the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over the class action suit filed by respondents. 3. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON QUESTIONS OF LAW GERMANE TO ITS LEGISLATIVE ACTS. — The Public Service Commission, in exercising its exclusive jurisdiction over rate setting, can also pass upon questions of law that are germane and incidental to its legislative acts.
On Writ of Prohibition to Sebastian Circuit Court; John Holland, Judge; writ granted.
Bryan Fitzhugh and House, Holmes Jewell, P.A., for petitioner.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., for John G. Holland, Circuit Judge.
Martin, Vater Karr, by: Charles Karr, for respondents.
Petitioner, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OGE), seeks to prohibit the Sebastian County Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over a class action suit for declaratory judgment filed by respondents, customers and ratepayers of petitioner. Respondents requested that that part of Ark. Stat. Ann. 73-217 (Repl. 1979 and Supp. 1981) which allow a utility to collect a requested rate increase under bond be held unconstitutional; that Article 19, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution be held not to limit the amount of interest paid to customers on a refund; and that other ancillary relief be awarded. OGE filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied; this petition for a writ of prohibition followed.
In its petition OGE argues that the respondents' contentions should have been presented before the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) rather than the circuit court because the PSC has exclusive jurisdiction over matters pertaining to utility rates. We agree and grant the writ of prohibition.
The fact of the case are not in dispute. On May 18, 1980, OGE filed a notice with the PSC requesting a 17.8 million dollar rate increase. On October 20, 1980, prior to approval of the requested rate increase, OGE began collecting the increase under bond, a practice authorized by Ark. Stat. Ann. 73-217. By orders of May 18 and July 20, 1981, the PSC approved a rate increase of 11.9 million dollars and ordered OGE to refund, with ten percent interest, the difference between the amount approved and the 17.8 million dollar rate being collected. Respondents did not seek to intervene or request a hearing before the PSC but, later, on August 11, 1981, filed an original complaint in circuit court.
We have considered the question of the trial court's jurisdiction in several utility rate cases which are controlling in this instance. In McGehee v. Mid South Gas Co., 235 Ark. 50, 357 S.W.2d 282 (1962) McGehee, a stockholder in Mid South Gas Company, filed a complaint in chancery court attacking the validity of a merger agreement between Mid South and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company. Mid South moved to dismiss the chancery court case on the ground that the same questions between the same parties were then pending before the PSC. McGehee answered, claiming that the PSC was without jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the stockholders' suit. The chancery court dismissed the complaint and this court affirmed, holding that McGehee's remedy before the PSC was full, adequate, and complete and, therefore, the chancery court correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction.
In Commercial Printing Co. Inc. v. Ark. Power Light Co. Ark. Public Ser. Comm., 250 Ark. 461, 466 S.W.2d 261 (1971) the PSC entered a rate order which permitted a utility company to charge a penalty for late payments. No consumer intervenors appealed the PSC order to circuit court within the allotted time, but later Commercial Printing filed an original action in the circuit court alleging that the PSC's order was void because the penalty was discriminatory and usurious. The trial court dismissed, and we affirmed, following our holding in McGehee, supra.
Then, in General Telephone Co. v. Lowe, 263 Ark. 727, 569 S.W.2d 71 (1978) the PSC allowed General Telephone to raise its rates in Texarkana, Arkansas, contrary to a franchise agreement between General Telephone and the City of Texarkana, Arkansas. A class action suit was filed in the chancery court to prohibit the enforcement of the rate increase, thereby bypassing an intervention before the PSC. The chancellor decided the case on the merits. On appeal this court held that a court of equity does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the PSC in public utility litigation when there is a clear, adequate, and complete remedy by an application to the PSC.
Here, under McGehee, Commercial Printing, and Lowe, respondents had a full, adequate, and complete remedy by intervention in the proceedings before the PSC. At that time the PSC could have ruled on the constitutionality of Ark. Stat. Ann. 73-217 and the other issues which respondents are now raising. The PSC, in exercising its exclusive jurisdiction over rate setting, can also pass upon questions of law that are germane and incidental to its legislative acts. General Telephone Co. v. Lowe, supra.
Writ of prohibition granted.