VYVX of Virginia, Inc. v. Cassell , 258 Va. 276 ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • Present:   All the Justices
    VYVX OF VIRGINIA, INC.
    OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
    v.   Record No. 990285              September 17, 1999
    JOHN W. CASSELL, ET AL.
    FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
    I.
    In this appeal of an order entered by the State
    Corporation Commission ("Commission"), we consider the
    validity of a fine that the Commission imposed upon VYVX of
    Virginia, Inc. ("VYVX"), and whether the Commission erred in
    denying VYVX's application for authority to construct and
    acquire fiber optic telecommunications facilities for
    intrastate purposes.
    II.
    Williams Communication, Inc. ("Williams") is a Delaware
    corporation which is licensed to conduct business in Virginia.
    Williams, through its subsidiaries, conducts a
    telecommunications business throughout the United States and
    internationally.   In 1997, Williams began to construct a new
    fiber optic cable system that would extend from Houston,
    Texas, to Manassas, Virginia.   The cable system would be
    capable of transmitting 34,000,000 simultaneous long-distance
    telephone calls and would be installed between existing gas
    pipelines owned by Williams' subsidiary, Transcontinental Gas
    Pipeline Corporation.
    The Federal Communications Commission granted Williams
    authority to operate its interstate and international
    telecommunications systems.    Even though Williams intended to
    provide interstate service on its cable system, Williams also
    desired to utilize the system to provide intrastate service
    within Virginia.   In furtherance of its goal to provide
    intrastate service within Virginia, Williams created a
    subsidiary, VYVX, which was incorporated in Virginia as a
    public service corporation.
    On April 23, 1997, VYVX filed with the Commission an
    application for a certificate of public convenience and
    necessity to provide interLATA telecommunication services
    within Virginia and to have rates established based on
    competitive factors. 1   VYVX stated in its application that it
    1
    The phrases "interLATA service" and "LATA" are defined
    in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et
    seq. "The term 'interLATA service' means telecommunications
    between a point located in a local access and transport area
    and a point located outside such area." 47 U.S.C.
    § 153(21)(Supp. III 1997). "The term 'local access and
    transport area' or 'LATA' means a contiguous geographic area—
    (A) established before February 8, 1996, by a
    Bell operating company such that no exchange area
    includes points within more than 1 metropolitan
    statistical area, consolidated metropolitan
    statistical area, or State, except as expressly
    permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree; or
    2
    "proposes to offer services to the public within Virginia over
    its own facilities and through resale of services provided by
    other carriers."    VYVX requested authority to construct,
    acquire, extend, and operate equipment and facilities to be
    used in the operation of an intrastate telecommunications
    public facility.
    VYVX also stated in its application that it would own the
    facilities to be constructed in Virginia.   VYVX sought
    "authority to offer a full range of intrastate interLATA
    telecommunications services to the public on a statewide basis
    within the Commonwealth of Virginia as a non-dominant
    interexchange carrier."   VYVX further stated in its
    application that:   "[VYVX] will build and operate its fiber
    optic telecommunications facilities in Virginia as a public
    service company.    [VYVX] plans to complete construction of the
    facilities in Virginia by December 31, 1997, and intends to
    begin construction as soon as it has obtained all necessary
    governmental authorizations."   Finally, VYVX stated that
    Williams "and [VYVX] have authorization to construct
    interstate telecommunications facilities and to provide
    interstate services pursuant to rules adopted by the Federal
    (B) established or modified by a Bell operating
    company after February 8, 1996, and approved by the
    [Federal Communications] Commission." 47 U.S.C.
    § 153(25)(Supp. III 1997).
    3
    Communications Commission.   47 C.F.R. § 63.07 (1996).   [VYVX]
    is filing the instant application to ensure that it has the
    ability to offer intrastate interLATA services as well."
    VYVX attached a copy of its amended and restated articles
    of incorporation to its application.   Article II of the
    amended and restated articles of incorporation states:     "The
    purpose for which the Corporation is formed is to construct,
    own and operate telecommunications facilities, including fiber
    optic lines, for the purposes of providing audio, video and
    data telecommunications transmission services and other
    telephone services as a public service corporation, public
    utility and communications common carrier."
    As required by an order issued by the Commission, VYVX
    caused notice of its application to be published in newspapers
    having general circulation throughout Virginia and mailed
    notices to certain public officials.   On January 14, 1998, the
    Commission issued an order granting VYVX authority to provide
    intrastate, interexchange services subject to certain
    restrictions contained in the Commission's rules governing the
    certification of interexchange carriers and certain applicable
    statutes.   The Commission's January 14, 1998 order stated that
    the Commission would consider separately VYVX's requested
    certification to construct its proposed facilities.
    4
    The Commission directed VYVX to publish notice of its
    request to construct facilities throughout the localities in
    which it proposed to construct those facilities.     VYVX
    requested an amendment to its application to reflect its
    desire to construct a lateral fiber optic telecommunications
    line.    The Commission granted VYVX's request and ordered that
    the public notice include the areas affected by the
    construction of the additional lateral line.
    In response to the notice, the Commission received
    several comments and complaints.      Certain landowners
    complained to the Commission because VYVX and its agent,
    Coates Field Service, Inc., had threatened the property
    owners.    VYVX and its agents told the property owners that
    VYVX would condemn their properties if the property owners did
    not consent to give VYVX easements necessary for the
    installation of its cable fiber.      For example, Mark E. Decot,
    a property owner whose land was affected by the installation
    of the cable, testified at a hearing before the Commission
    that VYVX threatened to condemn a portion of his land if he
    refused to convey an easement to it.     Diana Orr, who was
    employed with Coates Field Service, told Decot that if he did
    not sign a document that she had mailed to him, then his
    property would be "condemned and . . . taken anyway, so what
    [he] should do is go ahead and sign it and get as much money
    5
    as [he] can get out of it right now."   VYVX filed a
    condemnation proceeding against Decot in the Circuit Court of
    Orange County.   Decot eventually signed a document with VYVX
    which gave VYVX the requested easement.
    John and Janete Cassell also testified that they were
    told by VYVX's agents that VYVX would condemn their property
    if they failed to convey a requested easement.    A stipulation
    of undisputed facts reveals that VYVX had filed four
    condemnation proceedings in various circuit courts to acquire
    easements of right-of-way from property owners.
    David R. Clossin, an employee of Coates Field Service,
    testified that Coates entered into a contract with VYVX to
    assist it with the acquisition of easements in Virginia.
    Clossin testified:   "I work for Coates Field Service, with a
    business card that we represent VYVX of Virginia."
    In September 1997, the Commission, which was of the
    opinion "that the allegations raised by the complaints
    constitute 'substantive objections' to [VYVX's application],"
    ordered VYVX to respond to the landowners' complaints and
    directed that VYVX "clarify what certification(s) it seeks
    from the Commission and explain whether . . . since its
    application seeks authority to construct, acquire, extend, or
    operate equipment or facilities for use in public utility
    service, certification pursuant to [Code] § 56-265.2 . . .
    6
    should be required."   The Commission ordered that VYVX
    "demonstrate why it should not be ordered to cease
    condemnation activities until it receives all necessary
    certificates of public convenience and necessity from the
    Commission."
    VYVX responded to the Commission's order and stated that
    VYVX proposed to install a fiber optic cable system in
    Virginia and asserted that it did not need any certification
    before exercising the right of eminent domain.   Continuing,
    VYVX requested that the Commission issue a certificate of
    public convenience and necessity under Code § 56-265.2 which
    would authorize VYVX to provide intrastate interLATA
    telecommunications services as a non-dominant interexchange
    carrier.
    On October 17, 1997, the Commission staff asked the
    Commission to order VYVX to cease its condemnation activities
    because, as of that date, VYVX had filed four condemnation
    actions to obtain easements for the installation of its fiber
    optic cable, and those proceedings were pending in various
    circuit courts.   On October 21, 1997, VYVX informed the
    Commission that VYVX would not initiate any further
    condemnation proceedings until the Commission had acted upon
    VYVX's application.    Unbeknownst to the Commission and its
    staff, VYVX and its parent corporation, Williams, were
    7
    constructing the proposed cable system that was the subject of
    VYVX's application.
    The Commission, in an order dated November 25, 1997, held
    that "VYVX is not yet 'lawfully authorized to operate'
    anywhere in the Commonwealth and . . . its proposed
    construction is not an ordinary extension or improvement of
    its facilities, and therefore [VYVX] requires certification,"
    pursuant to Code § 56-265.2.   The Commission held that VYVX
    did not have the right to exercise the power of eminent domain
    and directed VYVX to "cease acquisition of property or rights
    therein, by exercise of, or by implying its right to exercise,
    eminent domain authority, until such time as the Commission
    has acted upon its application."
    On February 9 and 11, 1998, contractors who were
    installing the optic fiber cable system severed telephone
    cable owned by Bell-Atlantic Corporation.    Bell-Atlantic
    reported these incidents to the Commission which learned, for
    the first time, that construction had already begun on the
    facilities that were the subject of the certification
    proceeding.   The Commission staff filed "a motion for a rule
    to show cause and a temporary injunction."
    VYVX responded to the motion and acknowledged that
    construction of the cable facilities had begun, but asserted
    that Williams, and not VYVX, was constructing the facilities.
    8
    Continuing, VYVX claimed that Williams was constructing the
    facilities pursuant to its federal authority and that the
    facilities would be used for interstate service.   VYVX stated
    in its response that it would use the system to provide
    intrastate interLATA telecommunications.
    The Commission conducted a hearing on the motion for a
    rule to show cause and also considered VYVX's request for
    construction certification pursuant to Code § 56-265.2.   The
    Commission held VYVX had violated the Commission's orders of
    November 25, 1997 and January 14, 1998 because VYVX had
    assisted its parent corporation, Williams, with the
    construction of facilities that were the subject of the
    application.
    The Commission entered an order dated October 8, 1998
    holding, among other things, that VYVX had essentially
    completed construction of the facilities for which such
    authority was sought and that such construction was
    implemented "knowingly and by design of [VYVX] and, as
    admitted in the testimony of its own witnesses . . . such
    construction had begun as early as September 1997" and that
    the requested construction "is now an accomplished fact."
    The Commission implicitly found that VYVX had made
    certain misrepresentations and misstatements in its
    application, but the Commission explicitly concluded that
    9
    those misrepresentations and misstatements did not relate to
    VYVX's ability to provide interexchange services.    Rather, the
    misrepresentations and misstatements "apply to that part of
    the application in which VYVX requests a certificate to
    construct facilities."   The Commission denied VYVX's
    certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct
    telecommunications facilities and imposed a fine in the sum of
    $197,000 pursuant to Code § 12.1-33.    The Commission suspended
    $175,000 of the fine, conditioned upon VYVX's compliance with
    orders or rules of the Commission or any statute of the
    Commonwealth for a period of five years and the payment of
    court costs.   VYVX appeals.
    III.
    VYVX contends that the Commission's order constitutes an
    unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.    VYVX argues
    that Williams has authority to construct facilities for
    interstate telecommunications services and that the fiber
    optic cable system that was constructed will be used for
    interstate commerce.   Continuing, VYVX says that the
    "Commission ordered a fine as a penalty for construction of
    facilities under federal authority to be used in interstate
    commerce.   This it cannot do."    We disagree with VYVX.
    The Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution
    grants Congress the power "[t]o regulate commerce . . . among
    10
    the several states."   U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.   Even
    though the Commerce Clause speaks in terms of powers bestowed
    upon Congress, the Supreme Court has held that the Commerce
    Clause limits the power of the States "to erect barriers
    against interstate trade."   Lewis v. BT Investment Managers,
    Inc., 
    447 U.S. 27
    , 35 (1980).
    Discussing the scope of the Commerce Clause, the Supreme
    Court has stated:
    "This limitation upon state power, of course, is by
    no means absolute. In the absence of conflicting
    federal legislation, the States retain authority
    under their general police powers to regulate
    matters of 'legitimate local concern,' even though
    interstate commerce may be affected. See e.g.,
    Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, 
    434 U.S. 429
    , 440 (1978); Great A&P Tea Co. v. Cottrell, 
    424 U.S. 366
    , 371 (1976). Where such legitimate local
    interests are implicated, defining the appropriate
    scope for state regulation is often a matter of
    'delicate adjustment.' Ibid., quoting H.P. Hood &
    Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. [525,] 553 [1949]
    (Black, J., dissenting). Yet even in regulating to
    protect local interests, the States generally must
    act in a manner consistent with the 'ultimate . . .
    principle that one state in its dealings with
    another may not place itself in a position of
    economic isolation.' Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig,
    Inc., 
    294 U.S. 511
    , 527 (1935). However important
    the state interest at hand, 'it may not be
    accomplished by discriminating against articles of
    commerce coming from outside the State unless there
    is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat
    them differently.' Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437
    U.S. [617] 626-27 [1978]."
    11
    
    Lewis, 447 U.S. at 36
    .     Accord Maine v. Taylor, 
    477 U.S. 131
    ,
    137-38 (1986); Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 
    450 U.S. 662
    , 669-70 (1981).
    Applying these principles, we hold that the Commission's
    order which imposed a fine upon VYVX does not contravene the
    limitations imposed upon the States by the Commerce Clause.
    VYVX filed an application to operate intrastate facilities. 2
    The Commission imposed a fine upon VYVX because VYVX
    participated in the construction of the facilities even though
    the Commission had entered orders informing VYVX that
    certification was necessary before such construction could
    commence.   The Commission's order is directed solely to
    violations of VYVX, which is incorporated in Virginia, and
    which applied for and was granted a certificate to provide
    intrastate interexchange service within Virginia.    The fine
    2
    VYVX states that it "is immaterial who built the
    facilities because [VYVX] and Williams have federal authority
    to construct facilities for interstate telecommunications
    service, and the Commission cannot regulate such service
    . . . ." VYVX's contention is without merit. VYVX repeatedly
    stated before the Commission that it would construct, operate,
    and own the facilities that would provide intrastate service
    within Virginia. We will not permit VYVX to ignore its
    representations before the Commission and assert a contrary
    position in this Court. Additionally, the record reveals that
    VYVX participated in the construction of the cable network.
    Decot testified that VYVX personnel participated in the
    construction activities that occurred on his property.
    Additionally, Clossin, VYVX's agent, directed construction and
    was responsible for resolving disagreements with local
    property owners.
    12
    that the Commission imposed does not affect Williams, a
    separate corporate entity.   Williams was not before the
    Commission, and the Commission did not impose a fine upon
    Williams.   The Commission's order simply does not restrict
    Williams' use of its interstate facilities. 3
    IV.
    A.
    VYVX argues that the Commission's November 25, 1997 order
    is unenforceable.   This order, among other things, directed
    that VYVX cease acquisition of real property or rights therein
    by the exercise of eminent domain authority until the
    3
    We also note that the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
    from which Williams derives the power to construct its
    interstate telecommunications cable, recognizes the authority
    of the States to manage public rights-of-way. The Act
    specifically states:
    "(b) State regulatory authority
    "Nothing in this section shall affect the
    ability of a State to impose, on a competitively
    neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of
    this section, requirements necessary to preserve and
    advance universal service, protect the public safety
    and welfare, ensure the continued quality of
    telecommunications services, and safeguard the
    rights of consumers.
    "(c) State and local government authority
    "Nothing in this section affects the authority
    of a State or local government to manage the public
    rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable
    compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
    competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis,
    for use of public rights-of-way on a
    nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation
    required is publicly disclosed by such government."
    47 U.S.C. § 253 (1999).
    13
    Commission acted upon VYVX's application for certificates of
    public convenience and necessity.   VYVX contends that the
    Commission did not hold a hearing before the entry of that
    order and, thus, the order is void.   Continuing, VYVX
    challenges the legality of the Commission's subsequent order,
    dated October 8, 1998, which imposed a fine upon VYVX because,
    among other reasons, VYVX failed to comply with the November
    25, 1997 order.   VYVX also asserts that the November 25, 1997
    order violated Article IX, § 3, of the Constitution of
    Virginia and Code § 12.1-28.
    At the outset, we will not consider VYVX's constitutional
    argument because it was not raised before the Commission.
    Rule 5:25.
    Code § 12.1-28 states in relevant part:
    "Before the Commission shall enter any finding,
    order, or judgment against any person, it shall
    afford such person reasonable notice of the time and
    place at which he shall be afforded an opportunity
    to introduce evidence and be heard."
    Our review of the record reveals that the Commission
    complied with this statute because the Commission accorded
    VYVX numerous opportunities to be heard.   As we have already
    stated, the Commission entered an order directing VYVX to
    respond to complaints that property owners had filed.    The
    Commission requested that VYVX declare the legal basis upon
    which it relied to acquire property by use of eminent domain.
    14
    VYVX's response did not necessitate the taking of evidence,
    but, rather, required that VYVX set forth the legal basis for
    its assertion that it could acquire easements using the power
    of eminent domain.
    VYVX did not deny before the Commission, and does not
    deny here, that VYVX represented to property owners that it
    had the power of eminent domain.     VYVX admits that it
    initiated condemnation proceedings.    In VYVX's response to the
    Commission's order, VYVX submitted a written explanation of
    its purported source of authority to exercise the power of
    eminent domain.
    VYVX did not request an opportunity to present testimony
    before the Commission, and such testimony would have been
    unnecessary because the Commission's decision was not
    predicated upon factual matters, but, rather, on principles of
    law.   And, the Commission afforded VYVX a reasonable
    opportunity to be heard on the legal questions that were the
    subject of the Commission's order.
    Furthermore, the Commission did not impose the fine upon
    VYVX until the Commission issued its October 1998 order.
    Before the entry of that order, VYVX presented evidence,
    written depositions, legal memoranda, and oral argument to the
    Commission.
    B.
    15
    We also hold that there is no merit in VYVX's contention
    that the Commission violated Rule 5:6 of the Commission's
    Rules of Practice and Procedure.      That Rule states in relevant
    part:
    "Upon petition of any aggrieved party, or upon its
    own motion if necessary for full relief, the
    Commission will convert any unresolved valid
    complaint to a formal proceeding by the issuance of
    a rule to show cause, or by an appropriate order
    setting a formal hearing, upon at least ten (10)
    days notice to the parties, or as shall be required
    by statute."
    This Rule is not implicated here because VYVX did not file a
    petition requesting that the Commission convert the complaints
    to a formal proceeding.
    C.
    Code § 12.1-33 states in relevant part:
    "Any person failing or refusing to obey any order or
    any temporary or permanent injunction of the
    Commission may be fined by the Commission such sum,
    not exceeding $1,000, as the Commission may deem
    proper; and each day's continuance of such failure
    or refusal shall be a separate offense."
    VYVX contends that the November 25, 1997 order commanded only
    that it refrain from exercising and asserting its power of
    eminent domain, and that VYVX did so.     We disagree.
    The Commission's November 25, 1997 order stated, among
    other things, that VYVX must obtain certification from the
    Commission before it constructs its facility and operates as a
    utility in this Commonwealth.    The Commission, in its October
    16
    1998 order, concluded that VYVX violated the November 1997
    order because it participated in the construction of the
    facilities even though it had not acquired the necessary
    certification.    The Commission's finding is amply supported by
    the facts contained in Section II of this opinion.   And, we
    have stated that a finding of the Commission "will not be
    disturbed by us 'unless it is contrary to the evidence or
    without evidence to support it.'"    Thaxton v. Commonwealth,
    
    211 Va. 38
    , 43, 
    175 S.E.2d 264
    , 268 (1970); Security Bank &
    Trust Co. v. Schoolfield Bank & Trust Co., 
    208 Va. 458
    , 461,
    
    158 S.E.2d 743
    , 745 (1968).   Thus, we hold that the Commission
    did not err in concluding that VYVX had violated the November
    25, 1997 order.
    V.
    A.
    VYVX asserts that the Commission did not have
    jurisdiction to determine whether a public service company has
    the power of eminent domain to acquire easements for
    telecommunication facilities.   We disagree with VYVX.
    We have stated that the "Commission has no inherent power
    simply because it was created by the Virginia Constitution;
    and therefore its jurisdiction must be found either in
    constitutional grants or in statutes which do not contravene
    that document."    City of Norfolk v. Virginia Electric & Power
    17
    Co., 
    197 Va. 505
    , 514, 
    90 S.E.2d 140
    , 146 (1955); Appalachian
    Power Co. v. John Stewart Walker, Inc., 
    214 Va. 524
    , 528, 
    201 S.E.2d 758
    , 762 (1974); see also Commonwealth v. Old Dominion
    Power Co., 
    184 Va. 6
    , 11-12, 
    34 S.E.2d 364
    , 366, cert. denied,
    
    326 U.S. 760
    (1945); City of Richmond v. Chesapeake & Potomac
    Telephone Co., 
    127 Va. 612
    , 619, 
    105 S.E. 127
    , 129 (1920).
    However, Code § 56-35 states:
    "The Commission shall have the power, and be charged
    with the duty, of supervising, regulating and
    controlling all public service companies doing
    business in this Commonwealth, in all matters
    relating to the performance of their public duties
    and their charges therefor, and of correcting abuses
    therein by such companies."
    Code § 56-35 confers upon the Commission the duty and the
    authority to supervise, regulate, and control public service
    companies, including VYVX, in all matters relating to the
    performance of their duties and requires that the Commission
    correct any abuses by public service companies, such as VYVX.
    Here, the Commission had jurisdiction to consider whether VYVX
    had abused its status as a public service company by
    threatening to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire
    easements from property owners even though VYVX had not yet
    received its requested certification from the Commission. 4
    4
    We reject VYVX's contention that Code § 56-35 limits the
    Commission's authority to the supervision or regulation of
    "the 'public duties' of utilities for which they impose
    18
    B.
    As we have already stated, the Commission held that VYVX
    did not have the power to exercise the right of eminent domain
    to acquire easements for its fiber optic lines because it had
    not been granted a certificate of public convenience and
    necessity.   VYVX contends that public service corporations
    have the right to acquire easements for facilities to be used
    in serving the public and, therefore, it has the right to
    exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire such
    easements.   We disagree with VYVX.
    Code § 56-49(2) states in relevant part:
    "A public service corporation which has not been
    allotted territory for public utility service by the
    State Corporation Commission shall acquire lands or
    interests therein by eminent domain as provided in
    this subdivision for electric lines, facilities,
    works or purposes only after it has obtained any
    certificate of public convenience and necessity
    required for such lines, facilities, works or
    purposes under Chapter 10.1 (§ 56-265.1, et seq.) of
    Title 56."
    In deciding the meaning of this statute, we consider the plain
    language contained therein.   Haislip v. Southern Heritage Ins.
    Co., 
    254 Va. 265
    , 268, 
    492 S.E.2d 135
    , 137 (1997); Abbott v.
    Willey, 
    253 Va. 88
    , 91, 
    479 S.E.2d 528
    , 530 (1997); Barr v.
    Town & Country Properties, Inc., 
    240 Va. 292
    , 295, 
    396 S.E.2d 672
    , 674 (1990).
    'charges' to the public."   VYVX's interpretation of the
    19
    The plain language of Code § 56-49(2) does not permit a
    public service corporation which has not been allotted
    territory for public utility service by the Commission to
    exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire land or
    interests therein for electric lines, facilities, works, or
    purposes until the public service corporation has obtained a
    certificate of public convenience and necessity from the
    Commission.   Here, VYVX actually filed condemnation
    proceedings against landowners to acquire easements even
    though it had not obtained a certificate of public convenience
    and necessity.
    VYVX contends, however, that Code § 56-49(2) does not
    apply to it because VYVX "does not propose to acquire property
    for 'electric' facilities."   Apparently, VYVX believes that
    the word "electric" which is contained in the phrase "electric
    lines, facilities, works, or other purposes" modifies the
    words "facilities, works, or other purposes."   VYVX simply
    misreads the statute.   A plain reading of the statute
    indicates that the word "electric" only modifies the word
    "lines" because of the punctuation contained in that sentence.
    Even though the General Assembly amended Code § 56-49(2) by
    eliminating the word "electric" effective July 1, 1999, such
    amendment does not affect our analysis.   The deletion of the
    statute is simply contrary to its plain language.
    20
    word "electric" from the statute simply expands the types of
    lines that fall within the scope of the statutory regulatory
    scheme.
    C.
    VYVX, relying upon Peck Iron & Metal Co. v. Colonial
    Pipeline Co., 
    206 Va. 711
    , 
    146 S.E.2d 169
    , cert. denied, 
    385 U.S. 823
    (1966), and Kricorian v. Chesapeake & Potomac
    Telephone Co., 
    217 Va. 284
    , 
    227 S.E.2d 725
    (1976), argues that
    it acquired the right to exercise eminent domain by virtue of
    its incorporation as a public service company.   We find no
    merit in VYVX's contention.
    In Peck Iron & Metal Co., we held that a public service
    corporation was not required under Code § 56-265.1(b) of the
    Utility Facilities Act to obtain a certificate of public
    convenience and necessity before exercising the power of
    eminent domain because the public service company was not a
    public utility as defined by Code § 56-265.1(b).   Peck Iron &
    Metal 
    Co., 206 Va. at 717-18
    , 146 S.E.2d at 173.   This statute
    states in relevant part:
    "'Public utility' means any company which owns
    or operates facilities within the Commonwealth of
    Virginia . . . for the furnishing of telephone
    service."
    Code § 56-265.2 of the Utility Facilities Act states in
    relevant part:
    21
    "A. It shall be unlawful for any public utility to
    construct, enlarge or acquire, by lease or
    otherwise, any facilities for use in public utility
    service, except ordinary extensions or improvements
    in the usual course of business, without first
    having obtained a certificate from the Commission
    that the public convenience and necessity require
    the exercise of such right or privilege. Any
    certificate required by this section shall be issued
    by the Commission only after opportunity for a
    hearing and after due notice to interested parties."
    VYVX, unlike the public service corporation in Peck Iron &
    Metal Co., is a public utility and, therefore, is subject to
    the provisions of Code § 56-265.2 which prohibits a public
    utility from performing certain acts without a certificate of
    public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission.
    In Kricorian, we held that a public utility was not
    required to comply with the provisions of the Utility
    Facilities Act by obtaining approval from the Commission
    before initiating condemnation proceedings.   The utility in
    Kricorian, however, unlike VYVX, exercised the power of
    eminent domain to acquire property for "ordinary extensions or
    improvements in the usual course of business" which is
    expressly permitted by Code § 56-265.2.   
    Kricorian, 217 Va. at 289
    , 227 S.E.2d at 729.   VYVX's request for the construction
    and extension of facilities does not fall within this
    statutory exception.
    VI.
    22
    VYVX argues that the Commission erred by denying VYVX's
    request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
    Continuing, VYVX states that the only reason the Commission
    gave for denying the requested certificate was that a
    certificate would not be meaningful since the initial phase of
    construction had been completed.    VYVX also says that this
    reason is an erroneous application of Code § 56-265.2, and
    that the Commission's order discriminates against VYVX in
    favor of other telecommunications companies which construct
    such facilities in Virginia.
    We have held that "[t]he Commission is given broad
    discretionary authority in determining whether a certificate
    of public convenience and necessity will be approved."
    Stafford Serv. Corp. v. State Corp. Commission, 
    220 Va. 559
    ,
    562, 
    260 S.E.2d 226
    , 228 (1979); Bralley-Willett Tank Lines,
    Inc. v. Holtzman Oil Corp., 
    216 Va. 888
    , 890-91, 
    223 S.E.2d 892
    , 895 (1976).   This Court has also stated that "[w]e cannot
    sit as a board of revision to substitute our judgment for that
    of the Commission on matters within its province."    Bralley-
    Willett Tank Lines, 
    Inc., 216 Va. at 891
    , 223 S.E.2d at 895;
    Atlantic Greyhound Lines of Va., Inc. v. Silver Fox Lines, 
    204 Va. 360
    , 363, 
    131 S.E.2d 284
    , 286 (1963).
    The Commission, upon consideration of the facts and
    circumstances before it, concluded that the issuance of a
    23
    certificate of public convenience and necessity would not be
    meaningful because VYVX had participated in the construction
    of facilities that were the subject of the application in
    violation of the Commission's orders.    Additionally, the
    Commission made a specific finding "that the public interest
    and convenience do not require the exercise by VYVX of the
    rights and privileges under [Code § 56-265.2]" which include
    the power to exercise the right of condemnation to construct,
    enlarge, or acquire, by lease or otherwise, any facilities for
    use in VYVX's public utility service.    We cannot conclude,
    based upon the record before us, that the Commission abused
    its broad discretion in determining that the issuance of a
    certificate would not be in the public interest, particularly
    in consideration of VYVX's widespread practice of acquiring
    easements with the threat of the power of eminent domain when
    it did not possess such power.
    We find no merit in VYVX's contention that the
    Commission's order discriminates against it in favor of other
    telecommunication companies.   VYVX ignores the fact that it
    was denied a certificate of public convenience and necessity
    because of its own acts, and not because of favoritism
    directed towards other telecommunications companies that
    construct facilities in Virginia.     And, the record simply does
    not support VYVX's claims of discrimination.
    24
    VII.
    We have examined VYVX's remaining arguments and hold that
    such arguments are without merit.   Accordingly, we will affirm
    the Commission's order.
    Affirmed.
    25