Storey v.Mayo,77 P.U.R.3d 411(1968)
<br /> 217 So.2d 304
<br /> overlapping distribution systems in the affected areas.This agreement. Petitioners, who were among the protestants, -.►d
<br /> duplication of lines,poles,transformers and other equipment seek review pursuant to Fla.Stat.s 350.641 (1967),F.S.A.;
<br /> not only marred the appearance of the community but it also Fla.Stat.s 366.10(1967),F.S.A.
<br /> increased the hazards of servicing the area.Such overlapping
<br /> distribution systems substantially increase the cost of service The petitioners contend that the notice of the hearing was
<br /> per customer because they simply mean that two separate insufficient; that the proposed agreement is contrary to the
<br /> systems are being supplied and maintained to serve an area public interest and is in restraint of trade;and that it denies
<br /> when one should be sufficient. Obviously, neither system to them both equal protection and due process of law.They
<br /> receives maximum benefit from its capital invested in the claim that the impact of the agreement is to force them to
<br /> area.The ultimate effect of this is that the rates charged in take service from an unregulated instead of a regulated utility.
<br /> the affected area are necessarily higher,or,alternatively,the They insist that the rates and service of the latter are superior
<br /> customers in some other part of the system must help bear to the former,and that the agreement eliminates competition.
<br /> the added cost.It is the latter which most often happens in an [1) The established state policy in Florida is to supervise
<br /> extensive system-wide operation,such as that conducted by privately-owned electric utilities through regulation by
<br /> the Company here. a state agency. By the same policy municipally-owned
<br /> electric utilities are expressly exempted from state agency
<br /> In order to end the unsatisfactory effects of this type of supervision. Fla.Stat. s 366.11 (1967), F.S.A. It was for
<br /> expensive,competitive activity,the City and the Company, this reason that in the instant matter, the City pointedly
<br /> on August 7,1967,executed the territorial service agreement saved itself against submission to Commission jurisdiction,
<br /> which is the subject of this litigation.In effect it established Under Florida law, municipally-owned electric utilities
<br /> areas of service around the City in the suburban territory. enjoy the privileges of legally protected monopolies within
<br /> It provided that twelve (12) commercial and sixty-six municipal limits.The monopoly is totally effective because
<br /> (66) residential customers would be transferred from the the government of the City,which owns the utility,has the
<br /> City to the Company. Thirty-five (35) commercial and power to preclude even the slightest threat of competition
<br /> three hundred sixty-three(363)residential electric customers within the city limits.On the other hand,the rates and services
<br /> were transferred to the City by the Company. There of the privately-owned electric companies are regulated by
<br /> wererovisions for reciprocal transfers of facilities and a the
<br /> p p respondent Commission.Fla.Stat.Ch.366(1967),F.S.A.
<br /> reservation by the City of authority to continue to serve Service areas are not specifically controlled by requirement
<br /> certain municipally-owned property located in the Company of certificates ofpublic necessity and convenience.However,
<br /> service area On November 1, 1967, the City Council of in some measure the Commission does control the areas
<br /> Homestead adopted a resolution providing that electric utility served by the companies by virtue of its prescribed powers,
<br /> rates to be charged residential customers in the proposed including the specific power '* * * to require repairs,
<br /> service area would'be established as those now existing in improvements, additions and extensions to the plant and
<br /> the proposed service area'and served by the Company.This equipment of any public utility reasonably necessary to
<br /> resolution is a part of the record which also reveals that promote the convenience and welfare of the public and
<br /> over a period of forty-three(43)years electric rates charged secure adequate service or facilities for those reasonably
<br /> customers of the city have never been raised. entitled thereto***.'Fla.Stat.a 366.05(1967),F.S.A.The
<br /> regulatory powers of the Commission,as announced in the
<br /> The Company applied to the Florida Public Service cited section,ane exclusive and,therefore,necessarily broad
<br /> Commission for approval of the agreement. A hearing, and comprehensive.Fla.Stat.s 366.03(1967),F.S.A.;Florida
<br /> pursuant to notice,was held at the Homestead City Hall on Power&Light Co.v.City of Miami,72 So.2d 270(Fle.1954).
<br /> November 8, 1967. Witnesses for the City and Company
<br /> were presented.None of the customers being transferred from 121 131 The powers of the Commission over these
<br /> City to Company appeared. Seven, including petitioners, privately-owned utilities is ominpotent within the confines
<br /> appeared in opposition to the transfers by the Company of the statute and the limits of organic law. Because of
<br /> to the City. Petitioners now here claim to represent a this,the power to mandate an efficient and effective utility
<br /> class numbering more than one *307 hundred in this in the public interest necessitates a correlative power to
<br /> category.At the hearing,the City expressly stated that it was
<br /> not conceding Commission jurisdiction over the municipal protect the utility against unnecessary,expensive competitive
<br /> practices. While in particular locales such practices might
<br /> operation. By it 2-1 vote the Commission approved the appy to benefit a few, the ultimate impact of repetition
<br /> -.r'
<br /> «;vNext©2014 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
<br /> 5l
<br />
|