None of the provisions of this part 1 shall apply to any existing building, structure, or plant or other equipment owned or used by any public utility. After the adoption of a plan, all extensions, betterments, or additions to buildings, structures, or plant or other equipment of any public utility shall only be made in conformity with such plan, unless, after public hearing first had, the public utilities commission orders that such extensions, betterments, or additions to buildings, structures, or plant or other equipment are reasonable and that such extensions, betterments, or additions may be made even though they conflict with the adopted plan.
Source: L. 39: p. 309, § 27. CSA: C. 45A, § 27. CRS 53: § 106-2-27. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-26.
ANNOTATION
Administrative agency proceeding by Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was quasi-judicial where it rendered its decision by applying the reasonableness standard set forth in this section, the parties adversely affected by the decision were identifiable, no new rule of general application resulted, and notice and a public hearing were required. Douglas County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992).
The requirement that the PUC find a proposed improvement to be "reasonable" before ordering an upgrade to equipment contrary to a county land use plan, read in the context of the statutory scheme covering county planning along with the rules that the PUC has adopted, provides an adequate standard. Douglas County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992).
In determining whether any improvement or upgrade in accordance with this section is reasonable statutory considerations for county or regional planning commissions are also factors for the PUC to consider. Douglas County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992).
It is within the discretion of the PUC to determine what factors are germane to assessing the reasonableness of an utility upgrade, because the PUC has the knowledge and expertise to determine when, and under what circumstances, an upgrade is reasonable and it is constitutionally authorized to make such determinations. Douglas County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 866 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1994).
PUC had jurisdiction and committed no error in determining that changes to rail station constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions to buildings, structures, or plant or other equipment". Am. Heritage Rys., v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2025 CO 27, 569 P.3d 61.