7. Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision
The Opposing Defendants primarily presented arguments rejected elsewhere in today's decision, and we need not repeat the analysis.
Two issues require further discussion. The Opposing Defendants challenge our determination that Verizon's proposed condemnation will have public benefits. The Opposing Defendants argue that the proposed easement will only accrue private benefits to Verizon, in violation of the California and U.S. Constitutions.
Since 1872, investor-owned utilities in California have been authorized to condemn private property for the purpose of providing utility service to the public.17 Pursuant to § 625, the Commission must make the required findings prior to certain condemnations, which we have done above, including our finding of public benefits. Property obtained by a public utility through eminent domain is subject to public use requirements as set forth in the Public Utilities Code and the Commission's decisions and regulations. Thus, Verizon will be dedicating the facilities it constructs to public use and will be required to make the services provided by those facilities available to the public on non-discriminatory terms. As discussed above, installation of these facilities along Summit Road will provide additional service to members of the public residing along the road. Furthermore, Verizon remains subject to the Commission's ongoing regulation and supervision. (See, e.g., § 701.) Therefore, we conclude that Verizon's proposed condemnation meets the "public use" requirement of Article 1, § 19 of the California Constitution, and complies with the U.S. Constitution.
The Opposing Defendants next argue that the absence of final construction plans undermines the evidentiary record. Verizon presented design plans showing the route the installation would take, explained the facilities to be installed and the method of installation, and provided a full team of experts to defend the plans. Verizon's presentation provided the Commission with sufficient factual information to make the evaluations necessary pursuant to § 625.
We have also modified the Implementation Requirements to clarify that Verizon is under a Commission order to ensure that Verizon repairs any damage to the roadway caused by its facilities or construction. Therefore, we conclude that the Opposing Defendants' appeal presented no basis for substantive alteration of the Presiding Officer's Decision and we make no such alterations.
17 See Code of Civil Procedure, § 1238 repealed 1975, Historical and Statutory Notes West Code 2007. See also SDG&E v. Lux Land Co., (1961) 194 Cal.App2nd 472, 478. Current statutory authorization is § 616 of the Public Utilities Code.
