Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

:1 1\ !i 'I '! ;1 ,\ ;1 1\ ';1 :1 ! :1 i ii 'I :, 'I :1 ! :1 it 1 ! December 25,20081 Volume 2\ No.'24 "i ify the Z:BA member as a juror were she sitting upon a trial of the same matter in a legal action, she was not required to recuse herself. Duty to Exercise Zoning Power-Citing a lack of governing regulations, public service commission refuses to prohibit electric substation ' " I) Residents ask court to order. commission to establish regulations for siting of substations Citation: Georgia Public Service Com'n v. Turnage, 2008 WL 4762017 (Ga. 2008) GEORGIA. (11/03/08)':"-Jeff Turnage and two others (collectively, "Turnage") owned residential property in the vicinity of a proposed elec- trical substation. Turnage filed a petition with the Georgia Public Service Commission (the "PSC"), asking the PSC to direct the Georgia Power Company ("Georgia Power") to stop all construction of the electrical substation. The PSC had the exclusive authority (preempting municipal ordinances) to regulate the business of Georgia Power. The PSC dismissed Turnage's petition. The PSC determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the petition beqmse any exercise of author- ity by the PSC over the siting of Georgia Power's substation would not "bear a rational relationship-to the accomplishment of the purposes for which the [PSC] was created to serve." The PSC further noted that even if it did have jurisdiction to prohibit Georgia Power from locating a sub- station at its chosen site, "the [PSC] had no regulations governing the siting of substations~" Turnage appealed to the trial court. He asked the court to require the PSC to: accept jurisdiction; establish rules for the siting of substations; and schedule a substantive hearing to review the siting of the particular substation at issue. The. trial court ordered the PSC to take jurisdiction of the matter. In doing .so, the court "refus[ed] to countenance the counterintuitive propo- sition'that there [wa]s no agency with the authority to make zoning-like decisions or provide any governmental review with regarc;l. to the siting of su.bstations or other complex construction projects." The PSC ;lOd Georgia Power (which had intervened in the case) appealed. DECISION: Reversed.. '-The Supreme Court of Georgia first concluded that the PSC's exclusive authority to regulate the business of Georgia Power included the author- ity to regulate the placement of substations. However, the court also con- @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 9 I. I i I 65