12/17/2014 (2) - 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 the territorial agreement is to curtail 'duplicating, paralleling and overlapping distributions systems in the affected areas; that this 'overlapping' marred the appearance of the community and substantially increased the cost of service per customer 'because they simply mean that two separate systems are being supplied and maintained to serve an area when one should be sufficient.' The objecting customers give not the slightest indication they are dissatisfied with the cost of service to them. On the contrary, they allege they are content and wish to remain paying customers of the private utility. From my reading of the record I find no substantial support for these conclusions or that any comprehensive hearing was afforded Petitioners to voice their objections. On the basis of this record, I conclude the convenience of the two utilities -primarily the interest of the municipal electric utility -was the paramount objective served by the agreement, rather than the interest of the consumers. I get the impression from the record the private electric company yielded to the demands of the municipality to surrenderthe subject suburban territory in order to 'keep peace' with the City, since there had been wrangling between the two utilities concerning which should provide utility service in the subject area for a number of years. I do not subscribe to the view that long standing consumers of a particular electric company have no substantial interest in the status quo of their existing service, but may be required by the private utility, with the approval of the Commission, to thereafter obtain electric power from the City. Especially is this so where there is no showing the private company will suffer economic loss by continuing to serve such consumers, but is complacently agreeable for public relations or policy considerations to yield these consumers to the City. In 43 AmJur. Public Utilities and Services, s 78,'the text at page 621 reads in part: ' * • * An electric company may not cease to serve the public because the city, in constructing a competing system, has created conditions rendering continued service dangerous and refuses to alter them. (Citing Alabama Power Co. v. City of Guntersville, 236 Ala. 503, 183 So. 396, 119 A.L.R. 429.) Where a public service company does not show that a branch of service which it wishes to discontinue results in a loss,' permission to discontinue will generally be refused. * * *' (Citing 21 A.L.R. 578) In conclusion, it appears tome that customers who have long been served by a private power company have a substantial property right to continue receiving electric current from that company; that whatever competition exists between utility companies should not be looked upon with disfavor but should be eliminated only in extreme circumstances where it is apparent the economic interests of the utilities, or of one of them, are being jeopardized by such competition to the disadvantage of the consuming public; that unless the Legislature specifically grants authority to the Public Service Commission to approve divisions of service territory between utility companies and 'transfer customers' therein, such authority should not be implied by the Commission, and especially should this be so where the Commission has not regulatory jurisdiction supervising the supplying of power by municipal utilities. I believe the majority decision will come as a surprise to electricity consumers who reside within suburban areas outside cities and have long been served by a private utility company that there is a possibility that at some time in the future they maybe 'transferred' as customers from the private electric company and become customers of the adjacent city electric utility. Parallel Citations ' 217 So.2d 304 End of Document 02014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. ,' ex:tai.`iNext © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Govemment Works. 5 53