12/17/2014 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Storey v.Mayo,77 P.U.R.3d 411(1966) 217 So.2d 304 -— ,ft� occurring many times in an extensive system-wide operation [9] Petitioners'attack on the notice of the hearing is without could be extremely harmful and expensive to the utility,its merit.A formal notice in adequate detail was published.In stockholders and the great mass of its customers. Tampa addition the City notified all of its affected customers by a Electric Co. v. Withlacoochee River Electric Coop., 122 personally delivered letter well in advance of the heating. So.2d 471 ('F1a.1960). It was a recognition of this basic concept that led us to approve territorial service agreements [10] The arrangement under review was reached after between two regulated utilities.Peoples Gas System,Inc.,v. several years of negotiations between the City and the Mason, 187 So.2d 335(F1a.1966);City Gas Co.,v.Peoples Company. It received the unanimous approval of the City Gas System, Inc., 182 So.2d 429 (F1a.1965). In the last- Council. Following a well-publicized hearing it has been cited cases we recognized the importance of the regulatory approved by a majority of the respondent Commission which function as a substitute for unrestrained competition in the is burdened with the duty of measuring its judgment by the public utility field.We there noted that often a regulated or dictates of the public convenience and welfare in this type of measurably controlled monopoly is in the public interest,and situation.When we measure the obligations of the respondent that in the area of public utility operations competition alone electric company by the responsibilities placed upon it under has long since ceased to be a potent or even a reasonably Fla.Stat.Ch.366(196'),F.S.A.,and especially in view of the efficient regulatory factorextensive regulatory powers of the respondent Commission, we see no reason to disturb the subj ect order. [4] [5] [6] An individual has no organic, economic or political right to service by a *308 particular utility merely because he deems it advantageous to himself. If he lives The petition for certiorari is denied. within the limits of a city which operates its own system,he It is so ordered. can compel service by the city.however,he could not compel service by a privately-owned utility operating just across his city limits line merely because he preferred that service.In THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ADAMS (Ret.), JJ, the instant situation,these petitioners have not been denied concur. equal protection became they occupy the same status as all CALDWELL,C.J.,dissents. users of the municipal power.In the event of excessive nates or inadequate service their appeal under Florida law is to the ERVIN,J.,dissents with Opinion. courts or the municipal council. ERVIN,Justice(dissenting). [7] [9] The obligation of the respondent electric company is to furnish reasonably sufficient service to applicants Once again we have a case where the Florida Public Service therefor'***upon tams as required by the commission* Commission has approved a territorial agreement between **'F1a.Stat.s 366.03(1967),F.S.A.When the Commission two utilities over the objections of a large number of approved the subject agreement, it, in effect,informed the consumers of one of the utilities.See earlier cases:City Gas respondent electric company that it would not have to serve Co.Y.Peoples Gas System, Inc.,Fla., 182 So.2d 429,and the particular area because under the circumstances it would Peoples Gas System,Inc.,v.Mason,Fla.,187 So.2d 335.One not be reasonable to require it to do so.F1a.Stat.s 366.05, is an electric utility municipally operated;theotberisapQivate F.S.A, supra. There was certainly competent, substantial electric power company under the regulation of the Public evidence to support this conclusion and the Commission had Service Commission. Despite the fact that the Legislature the power to act in the premises.The petitioners here are in has never given the Public Service Commission the express the posture of customers demanding service of a particular powr to approve such agreements (and certainly not the regulated utility.The regulatory agency has heard the matter power to approve agreements where one of the utilities is and with evidentiary support has concluded that under the municipally operated, over which the Commission has no circumstances it would be unreasonable to require this utility regaWoryjurisdiction),nevertheless the objecting customers to vender the service.This in substance is the ultimate impact who have been served by the private company,some for many of the arrangement which the Commission has approved. years,now have been'transfen-ed' *309 by the agreement from the status of customers of the private electric power company to the status of new customers of the City. 2014 Thomson Reuters.No claim to originzI U.S. Govemment Works. 4