A recent N.C. Supreme Court ruling limits the power of utilities to make large-scale changes to their distribution systems on private land without explicit approval.

Steve Singleton owned a number of parcels in Haywood County served by the Haywood Electric Membership Corporation. In February 1998, he called HEMC to report that an electrical wire had fallen on one of his properties during an ice storm. His properties had not lost electricity during the storm and he was concerned that a child or animal might be injured or killed by the cable. The wire, actually, did not run on Singleton’s land; it ran over it. The cooper cable was strung between poles on two hilltops and had hung about 300 feet above the ground.

HEMC repairs involved entering Singleton’s property, replacing a pole atop one of the ridges, and placing two new poles on Singleton’s land. A larger, more visible aluminum wire was strung 30 feet above the ground. The company also cleared a 30- to 40-foot-wide swath for about 550 feet through Singleton’s property. Several large trees were cut down, and an apple orchard was pruned. HEMC also cleared a riverbank of vegetation that had acted as a buffer from a highway and neighboring campground.

Singleton sued HEMC for continuing trespass. Superior Court Judge Loto G. Caviness found that no issue existed about the facts in the case and ruled that Singleton was entitled to damages as a matter of law. HEMC appealed first to the N.C. Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.

Before the high court, HEMC argued primarily that it, and not Singleton, was entitled to prevail as a matter of law, as the terms of Singleton’s membership in HEMC allowed access for repairing, removing, maintaining, or exchanging equipment gave it the authority to do what it did.

“Because Singleton consented to HEMC’s entry upon the land, the crucial question for determination is whether HEMC had authorization or consent to repair and replace the lines in the manner that it did,” Orr wrote for the court.

A majority of the Supreme Court found that the company did not have the authority. HEMC did not have an easement on the land in question. Nor could the membership agreement be fairly read to give permission for the large-scale work that HEMC performed.

“Interpreting the rules and regulations in the way that HEMC desires would result in far-reaching powers for HEMC over the lands of consumers it services,” the court said. “For example, if HEMC had unlimited access for ‘repairing, removing, maintaining or exchanging’ its equipment over and above that which provides electricity to the member, then the power company could arguably place a transformer or substation on any member’s property without the landowner’s consent or compensation for the taking. This is simply not the case under North Carolina real property law.”

The case is Singleton v. Haywood Elec. Membership Corp., (403A02).

Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.