Laserfiche WebLink
Carlos Alvarez,Esq. <br /> December 11, 2014 <br /> Page 5 <br /> "substitute"utility service from other utilities pursuant to an orderly process which the court would <br /> supervise. Id. at 424-25. <br /> The Territorial Agreement <br /> Although the City has entered into a bi-lateral territorial agreement with FPL that currently <br /> envisions that the City will provide electric service to a portion of the Town, and the PSC has <br /> approved that territorial agreement pursuant to that agency's regulatory authority under Chapter <br /> 366,Florida Statutes,the courts have recognized that a municipality like the Town can exercise its <br /> statutory rights and pursue the option of furnishing electric service to its residents at the end of a <br /> franchise agreement without running afoul of existing PSC-approved territorial agreements. <br /> Florida Power Corp. v. City of Casselberry, 793 So. 2d 1174, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). <br /> Furthermore,the PSC has recognized that an existing territorial agreement may be modified when <br /> a municipality elects to provide electricity to its residents at the end of a franchise agreement. See <br /> PSC Orders Nos. PSC-05-0453-PAA-E1 (Apr. 8, 2005) and PSC-14-0108-PAA-EU (Feb. 24, <br /> 2014). <br /> Furthermore, the Florida Legislature has confirmed that "nothing" in Chapter 366, <br /> including the PSC's approval of the territorial agreement, should be read to restrict the Town's <br /> broad regulatory power to grant or deny public utility franchises for the use of its rights-of-way <br /> and other public areas. § 366.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) ("Nothing herein shall restrict the police <br /> power of municipalities over their streets, highways,and public places..."). In fact,in interpreting <br /> the jurisdictional limitations in Section 366.11(2), Florida Statutes, the PSC has expressly ruled <br /> �... that it has no authority to impose itself in a dispute over whether a city's franchise agreement with <br /> an electric utility should be allowed to expire. See PSC Order No. 10543 (Jan. 25, 1982)(the PSC <br /> "may not interpose itself in the terms and conditions of the franchise contract."). Moreover, the <br /> territorial agreement itself expressly acknowledges that the service area boundaries contained <br /> therein may be terminated or modified by a court of law. PSC Order No. 10382 (Nov. 3, 198 1) at <br /> Ex. A, Territorial Agreement, § 1.1. <br /> Thus, nothing in the territorial agreement or the PSC approval thereof impedes the Town <br /> from seeking to exercise its express statutory powers to furnish electricity to its inhabitants, and <br /> deny the City permission to furnish electricity within the Town at the expiration of the Franchise <br /> Agreement. <br /> The Town's Right and Responsibility to Protect its Inhabitants <br /> from Unreasonable Rates and Oppressive Utility Practices <br /> The City has used its electric monopoly to force the Town and other non-resident customers <br /> in the Town to pay unreasonable electric rates that have been consistently and substantially higher <br /> than the electric rates paid by Town citizens receiving electric utility service from FPL. For <br /> example, according to the comparative rate statistics compiled by the PSC and the Florida <br /> Municipal Electric Association, the City's residential electric rates for 1000 kWh usage were <br /> approximately: <br /> to 3 <br />