12/17/2014 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

differentiates these electric customers is where they fall in terms of the City's service area versus FPL's service area. 36. The Plaintiffs and other Non-Resident Customers have had no voice in electing the City officials who made, approved and/or ratified these unreasonable rates and imprudent utility management decisions. Consequently, the Plaintiffs have been and continue to be harmed by the unreasonable, unjust, and inequitable electric rates which they are being charged by the City. The Plaintiffs'Rights To Have An Electoral Voice ReQardinQ the Governance of the City's Electric Utility 37. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that where a municipal government is providing electric utility services, the benefits and burdens of the electric utility operations affect all customers indiscriminately such that all customers should have an electoral voice in how the utility is governed. See Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 705 (1969). However, the Plaintiffs and other Non-Resident Customers of the City, have no vote with respect to the governance of the City's electric utility. 38. In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed Chapter 2008-227, Laws of Florida, for the express purpose of providing all customers of small municipal utilities, including those outside the municipality, a voice in electing the governing board of their municipal utility. 39. Chapter 2008-227 added subsection (7) to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes, to require each "affected municipal electric utility" to conduct a referendum election of all of its retail electric customers to determine if a majority of the customers are in favor of creating a separate electric utility authority to operate the business of the electric utility. "Affected municipal electric utility" is defined as a municipality that operates an electric utility that: a. Serves two cities in the same county; 9 Wq