CITY OF CORALVILLE, IOWA vs. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 16 / 06–1420
Filed May 30, 2008
CITY OF CORALVILLE, IOWA,
Appellant,
vs.
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY,
Appellee,
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE,
Intervenor-Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Denver
D. Dillard, Judge.
City of Coralville appeals from summary judgment entered in a
declaratory judgment action. AFFIRMED.
Ivan T. Webber, Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Sheila K. Tipton, Richard W. Lozier, and Nathanael J. Blake of
Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellee.
John R. Perkins and Ben A. Stead, Office of Consumer Advocate,
for intervenor-appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
The City of Coralville appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of MidAmerican Energy Company in a declaratory
judgment action. We affirm.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background.
The City of Coralville notified MidAmerican in January 2000 that
the roadway at 1st Avenue in Coralville was to be widened, necessitating
relocation of MidAmerican’s overhead power lines. MidAmerican elected
to place its electric lines underground. A dispute arose as to whether the
City or MidAmerican would bear the costs of the undergrounding.
In
City of Coralville v. MidAmerican Energy Co., Johnson Co. No.
LACV61728 (Coralville I), the district court concluded the City had the
authority, incident to its police power, to order the utility to move wires
underground “at the utility’s expense.” MidAmerican did not appeal the
ruling.
In 2005, Coralville undertook a street construction project in the
vicinity of Quarry Road and 7th Street. A Coralville ordinance authorized
the City to notify a utility to relocate at its expense power lines located in
the City’s right-of-way.
Relying on this ordinance, Coralville directed
MidAmerican to relocate its power lines underground in the area of the
project. MidAmerican requested reimbursement for the cost of the work,
but the City refused. MidAmerican went forward with the relocation of
its lines after informing the City that the utility company reserved the
right
to
recover
all
of
its
otherwise
unreimbursed
overhead-to-
underground conversion costs from its customers in the City of Coralville
in accordance with its state tariffs on file with the Iowa Utilities Board
(IUB).
3
The City commenced this action seeking a declaration that the
tariff was inapplicable and enjoining MidAmerican from assessing the
tariff against Coralville citizens.1
The City claimed MidAmerican was
precluded from litigating the issue of whether it could charge the City or
its citizens for the undergrounding because of the court’s holding in
Coralville I. It also requested the district court to declare the City’s right
to regulate its right-of-way would be violated if MidAmerican were
permitted
under
the
prevailing
tariff
to
charge
the
costs
of
undergrounding to its customers.
MidAmerican denied the City’s issue preclusion claim, and
contended (1) the valid tariff allows it to charge its customers in the City
for the cost of undergrounding, and (2) the IUB had exclusive jurisdiction
to decide matters affecting the rates charged for electricity. The Office of
Consumer Advocate (OCA) intervened in support of MidAmerican’s
position.
MidAmerican and the City filed motions for summary
judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
MidAmerican.
II.
Scope of Review.
We review a district court’s summary judgment ruling for
correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
1In
a separate, contemporaneous administrative proceeding, MidAmerican
requested the IUB to determine the utility company could, under the prevailing tariff,
include the cost of relocating power lines in the price charged to its customers for
electricity. That administrative proceeding and the related judicial review action are the
subject of our opinion filed today in City of Coralville v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 07–
0558.
4
III.
Discussion.2
A.
Issue Preclusion. The City raised identical issue preclusion
arguments before the district court in this case and in the administrative
proceeding before the IUB. We address those arguments in our opinion
filed today in City of Coralville v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 07–0558. For
the reasons stated in that opinion, MidAmerican was not precluded by
Coralville I from recovering from its Coralville customers the costs of Citymandated relocation of power lines.
B.
Control of the Right of Way. The City also contends the
district court erred in rejecting its claim that the City’s right to control its
right-of-way trumps MidAmerican’s tariff-based right to charge its
customers for the costs of relocating power lines. Our opinion filed today
in City of Coralville v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 07–0558, is dispositive of
this claim as well. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the tariff is a
valid exercise of the board’s power to regulate utility rates and does not
violate the City’s right to control its right-of-way.
IV.
Conclusion.
For the reasons stated in our opinion filed today in City of
Coralville v. Iowa Utilities Board, No. 07–0558, the district court correctly
concluded MidAmerican is not precluded by Coralville I from including
the cost of relocating power lines in the price charged to its customers for
electricity under a valid tariff, and Coralville’s right to control its right-ofway is not violated by the enforcement of the tariff.
2In
Accordingly, we
addition to the arguments we discuss below, the City on appeal contends the
enforcement of the tariff permitting MidAmerican to “pass through” to its customers the
cost of relocating power lines would violate article I, section 6, and article III, section 30
of the Iowa Constitution. Although the City’s constitutional challenge to the tariff was
raised and decided before the IUB and district court in City of Coralville v. Iowa Utilities
Board, No. 07–0558, it was not raised or decided in this declaratory judgment action.
We therefore do not address the City’s constitutional claims in this opinion.
5
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in MidAmerican’s
favor.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.
This is not a published opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
