Public Utility Commission Law is technically classified as administrative law, which is the body of law that regulates the operation and procedures of government agencies. However, we use the term “Public Utility Commission Law” to specifically refer to the body of law relevant to cases at the Public Utility Commission, such as transmission line routing cases. 

Attending an open house meeting is optional. However, it can be a good opportunity to learn more about the utility’s project and to let them know directly about any special concerns you have before their application is finalized and filed with the Public Utility Commission. This can be particularly helpful if your property has special or unusual characteristics that would otherwise be unknown to the utility company. 

All potentially affected landowners will receive a packet of information from the utility company explaining the project and providing information on how to be involved in the case at the Public Utility Commission. There are important dates and deadlines contained in the packet, and you will likely want to speak with an experienced Public Utility Commission Law attorney to advise you on your options. 

You do not have to participate in the proceedings at the Public Utility Commission. However, if you do not, you will not have a voice in the routing decision that will ultimately be made by the Commission. The only way to have a voice and influence the routing of the line is to be involved. 

In most instances, landowners have forty-five days from the date the utility’s application is filed to intervene. Afterward, a landowner would have to have receive special permission from the judge to participate, which is not guaranteed. 

Once an application is filed, the PUC will refer the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings and one or two Administrative Law Judges will be assigned to handle the case. The ALJ(s) will then schedule a pre-hearing conference for all parties to attend. The remainder of the procedural schedule (e.g., all deadlines, trial date, etc.) will typically be determined at the pre-hearing conference. 

A comment is not the same thing as an intervention. Intervening in the case is the only way to have a voice throughout the proceedings. However, intervening also makes you a party to the case and subjects you to numerous procedural requirements and rules going forward. You will likely want to consult a competent PUC Law attorney to help you navigate this complicated process. 

There are numerous routing criteria the judges and PUC will consider during the case, and the utility company’s experts typically compare alternate routes using around fifty different criteria. These criteria typically include but are not limited to:

1. The number of habitable structures impacted by each alternate route
2. The total cost of each alternate route
3. The length of each route
4. How well each route parallels existing ROWs and property lines
5. Numerous environmental factors
6. Numerous aesthetic factors
7. Numerous land use factors
8. Several historical factors. 

A statement of position and direct testimony are not the same thing. There will be a point in the case where all intervenors will need to file one of these two items to remain in the case. A statement of position simply states your position in the case and allows you to continue participating. However, a statement of position cannot be admitted into evidence at the hearing on the merits (i.e., trial). Direct testimony, on the other hand, allows landowners to state their positions and continue participating in the case, but can also be admitted into the evidentiary record for the judges and PUC to consider when making their decisions. However, parties that file direct testimony can also be cross-examined at the hearing on the merits. 

Not all cases require an expert, and that is a determination that an experienced PUC Law attorney can help you make. However, the typical types of experts in a PUC Law case are transmission line routing experts, regulatory experts, environmental experts and/or land use experts. Engaging the right expert can be vital to a landowner’s case, and you will likely want to consult with a competent PUC Law attorney who is familiar with the practitioners in this very specific area of expertise. 

This is essentially the trial of the case. During the Hearing on the Merits, the parties will submit their evidence and cross-examine other parties’ witnesses. Rather than making closing arguments orally at the hearing, the judges allow the parties to make these arguments in a post-hearing brief. Once these briefs are filed, parties have the opportunity to file response briefs. After response briefs are filed, the evidentiary record is closed and the judges will take all of the evidence into consideration before issuing their Proposal for Decision within sixty days of the record close date. The Proposal for Decision will contain the judges’ recommendation to the Public Utility Commission for which route should be selected. The PUC will take the Proposal for Decision into consideration and make a final decision at a PUC Open Meeting. 

PUC Open Meetings are regularly scheduled meetings of the Public Utility Commission that are open to the public and during which the PUC conducts business such as discussing and making final decisions on routing cases.

Under normal circumstances, cases must be resolved within six months of the filing of the utility company’s application. 

This answer to this question is not considered by the judges or PUC during the routing case. The determination of landowner compensation will not occur until after a final routing decision has been made. At that point, landowners will be faced with a condemnation case rather than a PUC Law case. 

As soon as possible. There are many deadlines and procedural hurdles in the typical transmission line routing case and you may miss out on important options if you wait too long to hire an attorney. Also, there are relatively few experienced attorneys that regularly handle transmission line routing cases and, due to the nature of these cases wherein alternative routes are compared against each other, many of the most experienced attorneys can be conflicted out of representing someone because they’ve already been hired by another landowner on a conflicting alternate route.