PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Mims, McClanahan, Powell, Kelsey, and McCullough, JJ., and
Millette, S.J.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
OPINION BY
v. Record No. 171151 CHIEF JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
MARCH 29, 2018
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
In this appeal, we consider whether certain large customers can purchase electricity from
any licensed supplier of energy in the Commonwealth under Code § 56-577(A)(5), without being
subject to the notice requirement set forth in Code § 56-577(A)(3).
I. Facts and Proceedings
Virginia Electric and Power Company (“VEPCO”) is a public service corporation
authorized to sell electricity in the Commonwealth. VEPCO is the exclusive provider of
electricity in a geographic area known as its service territory, subject to limited exceptions that
permit customers to purchase electricity from any licensed supplier of energy in the
Commonwealth. See Code §§ 56-265.4, 56-577(A). Direct Energy Services, LLC (“DES”) is
licensed as a competitive service provider (“CSP”), which allows it to sell electricity to
customers located in another utility’s service territory under certain circumstances.
On August 26, 2016, DES filed a petition for a declaratory judgment (“petition”) with the
State Corporation Commission (“Commission”), seeking an order that it can sell electricity
provided from 100% renewable energy to customers located in VEPCO’s service territory
pursuant to Code § 56-577(A)(5) (“Section (A)(5)”). As relevant here, DES sought clarification
that customers who can purchase electricity from a CSP under Code § 56-577(A)(3) (“Section
(A)(3)”), due to their high demand for electricity (“large customers”), can also purchase
electricity produced with 100% renewable energy under Section (A)(5). Section (A)(3) provides
that if a customer purchases electricity from a CSP, it cannot return to the incumbent utility in its
service territory without providing five years’ advance written notice. Section (A)(5) does not
contain a notice requirement.
The Commission entered an order directing VEPCO to respond to the petition and
providing DES with an opportunity to reply to VEPCO’s response. VEPCO responded and
asserted that Section (A)(3) governs all purchases of electricity by large customers from CSPs,
regardless whether the electricity is produced with renewable energy. Accordingly, VEPCO
asserted that large customers cannot invoke Section (A)(5) to circumvent the notice requirement
in Section (A)(3).
On October 11, 2016, Appalachian Voices, a nonprofit organization that advocates for
renewable energy, filed a motion to participate as a respondent. The Commission granted the
motion and Appalachian Voices filed comments in support of the petition. Appalachian Voices
observed that Section (A)(5), unlike Section (A)(3), does not distinguish between customers
based on the size of their demand for electricity, and therefore argued that large customers can
purchase electricity under Section (A)(5). VEPCO filed an additional response with leave of the
Commission, and reiterated its argument that large customers who purchase electricity from
CSPs do so under Section (A)(3), regardless of the source of the electricity. DES filed a reply
arguing that because Section (A)(3) provides that it is “subject to the provisions of subdivisions 4
and 5,” the conditions and limitations in Section (A)(3) do not apply to purchases under Section
(A)(5).
In a final order dated March 15, 2017, the Commission held that large customers can
purchase electricity provided from 100% renewable energy under Section (A)(5). The
2
Commission explained that Code § 56-577 provides for three types of retail access to electricity,
each subject to its own qualifications and limitations. Section (A)(3) “permits retail access for
certain large customers regardless of the type of electricity being sold.” Code § 56-577(A)(4)
(“Section (A)(4)”) “permits aggregation of non-residential customer load for the purpose of
meeting the Section (A)(3) size limits, subject to Commission approval and, like Section (A)(3),
permits retail access regardless of the type of electricity being sold.” In contrast, Section (A)(5)
contains “no size or minimum stay requirements.” It permits customers “to purchase 100%
renewable energy from a CSP if the incumbent utility does not offer . . . 100% renewable
energy.” The Commission concluded that large customers can purchase electricity under Section
(A)(5), and that they are “not subject to a minimum stay provision if they are purchasing a 100%
renewable energy product from a CSP under” this section.
VEPCO moved for reconsideration of the final order. VEPCO acknowledged that
Section (A)(5) contains no size or minimum stay requirements. However, VEPCO argued that
because “the more specific statute will control” where “two statutes govern the same thing,”
interpreting “the lack of specific requirements for large customers in Section (A)(5) as negating
the specific requirements for large customers in Section (A)(3) would allow the general rule to
supplant the specific one.” VEPCO further observed that the language “subject to the provisions
of subdivisions 4 and 5” modifies the phrase “only individual retail customers . . . whose
demand . . . exceeded five megawatts . . . shall be permitted to purchase electric energy from any
supplier.” VEPCO contended this language “makes clear that customers other than large
customers are eligible to procure service from Competitive Providers under Sections (A)(4) and
(A)(5).” Finally, VEPCO noted that the Commission appeared to have interchanged the notice
3
requirement in Section (A)(3) and the “minimum stay period” under 20 VAC § 5-312-80(Q)
(“Rule 80(Q)”), and asked the Commission to clarify that its ruling did not impact Rule 80(Q).
The Commission suspended its final order to consider the motion for reconsideration and
then reaffirmed its holding by order dated April 26, 2017. The Commission noted that under
Covel v. Town of Vienna, 280 Va. 151, 162, 694 S.E.2d 609, 616 (2010), “when one statute
speaks to a subject generally and another deals with an element of that subject specifically, the
statutes will be harmonized, if possible, and if they conflict, the more specific statute prevails.”
The Commission explained that Sections (A)(3) and (A)(5) are not in conflict:
Section (A)(3) only applies to large users of electricity, and it
allows these users to purchase electric energy from a CSP
regardless of how that electric energy is generated. Section (A)(5)
applies to all retail customers “regardless of customer class,” and it
allows these customers to purchase from a CSP if the electric
energy is provided 100% from renewable energy. Unlike Section
(A)(3), Section (A)(5) does not require five years’ advance notice
in order for a retail customer to purchase from its incumbent
electric utility after such customer has chosen to purchase 100%
renewable energy from a CSP. This does not represent a conflict;
this simply reflects different requirements imposed by the General
Assembly for different competitive purchase options explicitly
permitted by statute.
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that it is unnecessary to employ rules of statutory
construction because the statute is unambiguous. The Commission reinstated its final order and
clarified that its holding “does not alter the minimum stay provisions in Rule 80(Q).”
VEPCO appealed to this Court as a matter of right, pursuant to Code § 12.1-39, on the
following assignments of error:
1. The Commission erred in its Final Order when it found that
customers that are permitted to purchase energy from a
competitive service provider (“CSP”) under Va. Code Section 56-
577(A)(3), including 100% renewable energy, may also choose to
purchase energy from a CSP under Va. Code Section 56-
577(A)(5).
4
2. The Commission erred in its Order on Reconsideration when it
found that customers that are permitted to purchase energy from a
competitive service provider (“CSP”) under Va. Code Section 56-
577(A)(3), including 100% renewable energy, may also choose to
purchase energy from a CSP under Va. Code Section 56-
577(A)(5).
3. The Commission erred in its Final Order when it found that any
commercial or industrial customer, regardless of the size of the
customer, may purchase energy from a CSP under Va. Code
Section 56-577(A)(5) without being subject to any of the
conditions imposed on certain customers taking service from a
CSP under Va. Code Section 56-577(A)(3).
4. The Commission erred in its Order on Reconsideration when it
found that any commercial or industrial customer, regardless of the
size of the customer, may purchase energy from a CSP under Va.
Code Section 56-577(A)(5) without being subject to any of the
conditions imposed on certain customers taking service from a
CSP under Va. Code Section 56-577(A)(3).
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
When an appeal is from the Commission, the standard of review “will depend on the
nature of the decision under review.” Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm’n, 284 Va.
695, 703, 733 S.E.2d 250, 254 (2012). If we are called upon to review the Commission’s
interpretation of a statute, we review the decision de novo. Id. “When construing a statute, our
primary objective ‘is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent,’ as expressed by
the language used in the statute.” Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va.
420, 425, 722 S.E.2d 626, 629 (2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414, 418,
706 S.E.2d 879, 882 (2011)). “When the language of a statute is unambiguous, we are bound by
the plain meaning of that language.” Id. (quoting Kozmina v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 347, 349,
706 S.E.2d 860, 862 (2011)).
5
“We have ‘frequently said that the practical construction given to a statute by public
officials charged with its enforcement is entitled to great weight by the courts and in doubtful
cases will be regarded as decisive.’” Appalachian Voices v. State Corp. Comm’n, 277 Va. 509,
516, 675 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 193
Va. 37, 45, 68 S.E.2d 122, 127 (1951)). “[T]he Commission’s decision ‘is entitled to the respect
due judgments of a tribunal informed by experience,’ and we will not disturb the Commission’s
analysis when it is ‘based upon the application of correct principles of law.’” Id. (quoting
Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Norwest Corp., 254 Va. 388, 390-91, 493 S.E.2d 114, 115 (1997)).
B. Code § 56-577
Code § 56-577 is part of the Virginia Electric Utility Regulation Act, Code § 56-576 et
seq. (“Regulation Act”). The Regulation Act replaced the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring
Act (“Restructuring Act”), which was “designed to deregulate parts of the electric utility industry
and introduce competition among providers of electric generation.” Appalachian Power, 284
Va. at 699, 733 S.E.2d at 252. The Restructuring Act “established a transition period, during
which the base rates of electric utilities were held constant or ‘capped.’” Id. The Regulation Act
“ended the deregulation program effective December 2008” and “reaffirmed the Commission’s
authority to regulate electric utility rates.” Old Dominion Comm. for Fair Util. Rates v. State
Corp. Comm’n, 294 Va. 168, 172-73, 803 S.E.2d 758, 760 (2017).
The language at issue in Sections (A)(3) and (A)(5) concerns the retail choice available to
electricity customers after the expiration of capped rates. Section (A)(3) provides in pertinent
part:
After the expiration or termination of capped rates, and subject to
the provisions of subdivisions 4 and 5, only individual retail
customers of electric energy within the Commonwealth, regardless
of customer class, whose demand during the most recent calendar
6
year exceeded five megawatts but did not exceed one percent of
the customer’s incumbent electric utility’s peak load . . . shall be
permitted to purchase electric energy from any supplier of electric
energy licensed to sell retail electric energy within the
Commonwealth . . . subject to the following conditions:
....
c. If such customer does purchase electric energy from
licensed suppliers after the expiration or termination of
capped rates, it shall not thereafter be entitled to purchase
electric energy from the incumbent electric utility without
giving five years’ advance written notice of such intention
to such utility.
Section (A)(5) provides in pertinent part:
After the expiration or termination of capped rates, individual retail
customers of electric energy within the Commonwealth, regardless
of customer class, shall be permitted:
a. To purchase electric energy provided 100 percent from
renewable energy from any supplier of electric energy
licensed to sell retail electric energy within the
Commonwealth, . . . if the incumbent electric utility
serving the exclusive service territory does not offer an
approved tariff for electric energy provided 100 percent
from renewable energy;
b. To continue purchasing renewable energy pursuant to the
terms of a power purchase agreement in effect on the date
there is filed with the Commission a tariff for the
incumbent electric utility that serves the exclusive service
territory in which the customer is located to offer electric
energy provided 100 percent from renewable energy, for
the duration of such agreement.
Section (A)(3) allows certain large customers whose demand exceeds five megawatts to purchase
electricity from a CSP, regardless whether the electricity is produced with renewable or non-
renewable energy. If a large customer purchases electricity from a CSP, it cannot return to the
incumbent utility without providing five years’ advance written notice. Section (A)(5) applies to
“individual retail customers of electric energy within the Commonwealth, regardless of customer
7
class.” Customers can purchase electricity from a CSP under Section (A)(5) if they purchase
electricity provided 100% from renewable energy, and (i) the incumbent utility does not offer an
approved tariff for such electricity or (ii) the purchase is pursuant to a power purchase agreement
in effect on the date a tariff for such energy is filed with the Commission.
VEPCO asserts that the phrase “subject to the provisions of subdivisions 4 and 5” in
Section (A)(3) demonstrates that “customers other than large customers have options to purchase
electricity from CSPs” under Sections (A)(4) and (A)(5). We have noted that “‘subject to’
means ‘subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by.’” Donnelly v.
Donatelli & Klein, Inc., 258 Va. 171, 181, 519 S.E.2d 133, 138 (1999) (quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary 1425 (6th ed. 1990)). In this context, the phrase “subject to” does not mean
customers who can purchase from a CSP under Section (A)(3) are excluded from Section (A)(5).
The plain language of Sections (A)(3) and (A)(5) is clear and unambiguous. Section
(A)(5) provides that “individual retail customers” can purchase electricity produced with 100%
renewable energy from CSPs. Unlike Section (A)(3), Section (A)(5) does not contain a
limitation based on the size of a customer’s demand for electricity. Further, Section (A)(3) does
not state that it governs all purchases of electricity by large customers from CSPs, and the phrase
“subject to” clarifies that (A)(3) is not the only avenue under which a customer can purchase
electricity from a CSP. Accordingly, we hold that customers who satisfy the size requirements
of Section (A)(3) can purchase electricity from a CSP under Section (A)(5), provided that they
satisfy the separate conditions of Section (A)(5).
VEPCO maintains that this interpretation creates a conflict because it allows large
customers who purchase electricity from a CSP to circumvent the notice requirement in Section
(A)(3). Consequently, VEPCO contends that this Court should employ the “cardinal rule of
8
statutory interpretation” that “[w]hen one statute addresses a subject in a general manner and
another addresses a part of the same subject in a more specific manner, the two statutes should be
harmonized, if possible, and when they conflict, the more specific statute prevails.” Lynchburg
Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 276 Va. 465, 481, 666 S.E.2d 361, 369 (2008) (quoting Alliance to
Save the Mattaponi v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 270 Va. 423, 439-40, 621 S.E.2d
78, 87 (2005)).
We reject VEPCO’s argument that this interpretation creates a conflict. Rather, we agree
with the Commission that Sections (A)(3) and (A)(5) are not in conflict. As the Commission
observed, the fact that Section (A)(5) lacks a notice requirement does not create a conflict; it
“simply reflects different requirements imposed by the General Assembly for different
competitive purchase options explicitly permitted by statute.” Moreover, where, as here, the
“statutory terms are plain and unambiguous, we apply them according to their plain meaning
without resorting to rules of statutory construction.” Smith v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 449, 454,
718 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2011).
VEPCO also argues that large customers must comply with the notice requirement in
Section (A)(3), even if they purchase electricity from a CSP under Section (A)(5). That
argument, however, is not supported by a plain reading of the statute. Section (A)(3) states that
large customers can purchase electricity from any licensed supplier of energy “subject to the
following conditions.” The notice requirement, contained in subsection (c), is one of four
enumerated conditions. The phrase “subject to” and the fact that the notice requirement is a
subsection of Section (A)(3) demonstrate that the notice requirement applies only to purchases
made under Section (A)(3). There is no notice requirement for purchases under Section (A)(5),
9
and no language that incorporates the notice provision from (A)(3) into (A)(5). Accordingly, the
notice requirement in Section (A)(3) does not apply to purchases made under Section (A)(5).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, we will affirm the order of the Commission.
Affirmed.
10