12/17/2014 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Storey v.Mayo,77 P.U.R.3d 411(1968) 217 So.2d 304 -- —---- I note conclusions in the majority opinion that the purpose of An electric company may not cease to serve the �.. the tentorial agreement is to curtail`duplicating,paralleling public because the city,in constructing a competing system, and overlapping distributions systems in the affected areas; has created conditions rendering continued service dangerous that this overlapping' marred the appearance of the and refuses to alter them. (Citing Alabama Power Co. v. community and substantially increased the cost of service Cin'of Guntersville,236 Ala.503,183 So.396, 119 A.L.R. per customer `because they simply mean that two separate 429•)Where a public service company does not show that a systems are being supplied and maintained to serve an area branch of service which it wishes to discontinue results in a when one should be sufficient.'The objecting customers give loss,permission to discontinue will generally be refused. not the slightest indication they are dissatisfied with the cost *'(Citing 21 A.L.R.578.) of service to them. On the contrary, they allege they are content and wish to remain paying customers of the private In conclusion,it appears to me that customers who have long utility.From my reading of the record I find no substantial been served by a private power company have a substantial support for these conclusions or that any comprehensive property right to continue receiving electric current from that hearing was afforded Petitioners to voice their objections. company; that whatever competition exists between utility On the basis of this record, I conclude the convenience companies should not be looked upon with disfavor but of the two utilities-primarily the interest of the municipal should be eliminated only in extreme circumstances where electric utility-was the paramount objective served by the it is apparent the economic interests of the utilities, or of agreement,rather than the interest of the consumers. I get one of them, are being jeopardized by such competition the impression from the record the private electric company to the disadvantage of the consuming public; that unless yielded to the demands of the municipality to surrender the the Legislature specifically grants authority to the Public subject suburban territory in order to `keep peace' with the Service Commission to approve divisions of service territory City,since there had been wrangling between the two utilities between utility companies and `transfer customers'therein, concerning which should provide utility service in the subject such auth0rity should not be implied by the Commission,and area for a number of years.I do not subscribe to the view especially should this be so where the Commission has not that long standing consumers of a particular electric company regulatoryJunsdiction supervising the supplying of power by have no substantial interest in the status quo of their existing municipal utilities. service,but may be required by the private utility,with the I believe the majority decision will come as a surprise approval of the Commission, to thereafter obtain electric to electricity consumers who reside within suburban areas power from the City. Especially is this so where there is no showing the private company will suffer economic loss outside cities and have long been served by a private utility company that there is a possibility that at some time in the by continuing to serve such consumers,but is complacently ktur,e they maybe`transferred'as customers from the private agreeable forpublic relations or policy considerations to yield electric company and become customers of the adjacent city these consumers to the City. electric utility. In 43 AmJur.Public Utilities and Services,s 78,the text at Parallci Citations page 621 reads in part: 217 So.2d 304 End of Document 0 2014 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U.S.Government Works. t �s`'�„�rNeact 02014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 53