SWVA, Inc. v. Huntington Sanitary Board and City Council of the City of Huntington, 17-0120

Background

SWVA, an industrial customer of Huntington Sanitary Board (a large publicly‑owned utility), sued the Sanitary Board and Huntington City Council seeking mandamus and injunctive relief challenging the process used to approve a sewer-rate ordinance in December 2016.
The Sanitary Board proposed rate increases to fund construction projects; after meetings and public notice publications in mid‑December, the Board forwarded an ordinance to City Council and Council approved the ordinance on December 27, 2016.
SWVA filed its petition the same day, alleging the Sanitary Board and City Council failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for projects “not in the ordinary course of business” (W. Va. Code § 24‑2‑11(l)).
The circuit court denied the petition and injunctive relief, concluding SWVA had an adequate administrative remedy before the Public Service Commission (PSC) under W. Va. Code §§ 24‑2‑1(b)(6) and (7), and also found the projects were in the ordinary course of business.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding SWVA must exhaust its administrative remedies with the PSC because the PSC has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to notice and related practices under § 24‑2‑1(b)(2) and § 24‑7‑2(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus/injunction was available without exhausting PSC remedies	SWVA: challenge was only to inadequate statutory notice under § 24‑2‑11(l), not to rates, so PSC remedies do not apply	Sanitary Board/City: PSC has jurisdiction over rates and related practices; administrative remedy exists	Held: PSC has jurisdiction over notice/practice challenges under § 24‑2‑1(b)(2) and § 24‑7; SWVA must exhaust administrative remedies, so mandamus denied
Whether PSC jurisdiction provisions (§ 24‑2‑1(b)(6)/(7)) cover SWVA's claim	SWVA: those subsections address rates in inter‑utility contexts and thus don’t cover notice defects	Defendants: PSC jurisdiction is broader; other PSC provisions grant jurisdiction over practices/acts/services	Held: Even accepting SWVA’s framing, PSC jurisdiction exists via § 24‑2‑1(b)(2) together with § 24‑7; administrative remedy adequate
Whether the notice given complied with § 24‑2‑11(l) or was required because projects were not in the ordinary course of business	SWVA: notices were insufficient and projects were not ordinary course so stricter notice required	Defendants: projects were ordinary course; published notices satisfied applicable requirements	Held: Circuit court should not have decided the merits (ordinary‑course question) because PSC has primary jurisdiction over notice compliance; case must proceed administratively
Mootness of injunctive relief after ordinance approval	SWVA: still seeks relief to void action taken without required notice	Defendants: much of requested injunctive relief became moot after Council vote	Held: Circuit court correctly found most injunctive relief moot and that a non‑moot remedy exists administratively before the PSC

Key Cases Cited

Harrison Cty. Comm’n v. Harrison Cty. Assessor, 222 W. Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (standard for mandamus and de novo review)
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
State ex rel. Burdette v. Zakaib, 224 W. Va. 325, 685 S.E.2d 903 (burden of proof for mandamus elements)
State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F.W., 144 W. Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (statutory interpretation: apply clear, unambiguous statutes)
Daurelle v. Traders Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Parkersburg, 143 W. Va. 674, 104 S.E.2d 320 (requirement to exhaust administrative remedies)
Bank of Wheeling v. Morris Plan Bank & Trust Co., 155 W. Va. 245, 183 S.E.2d 692 (equitable injunction unavailable where adequate administrative remedy exists)