12/17/2014 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Carlos Alvarez, Esq. December 11, 2014 • Page 5 "substitute" utility service from other utilities pursuant to an orderly process which the court would supervise. Id. at 424-25. • • The Territorial Agreement Although the City has entered into a bi-lateral territorial agreement with FPL that currently envisions that the City will provide electric service to a portion of the Town, and the PSC has approved that territorial agreement pursuant to that agency's regulatory authority under Chapter 366, Florida Statutes, the courts have recognized that a municipality like the Town can exercise its statutory rights and pursue the option of furnishing electric service to its residents at the end of a franchise agreement without running afoul of existing PSC -approved territorial agreements. Florida Power Corp. v. City of Casselberry, 793 So. 2d 1174, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Furthermore, the PSC has recognized that an existing territorial agreement may be modified when a municipality elects to provide electricity to its residents at the end of a franchise agreement. See PSC Orders Nos. PSC -05 -0453 -PAA -EI (Apr. 8, 2005) and PSC -14 -0108 -PAA -EU (Feb. 24, 2014). Furthermore, the Florida Legislature has confirmed that "nothing" in Chapter 366, including the PSC's approval of the territorial agreement, should be read to restrict the Town's broad regulatory power to grant or deny public utility franchises for the use of its rights-of-way and other public areas. § 366.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) ("Nothing herein shall restrict the police power of municipalities over their streets, highways, and public places..."). In fact, in interpreting the jurisdictional limitations in Section 366.11(2), Florida Statutes, the PSC has expressly ruled that it has no authority to impose itself in a dispute over whether a city's franchise agreement with an electric utility should be allowed to expire. See PSC Order No. 10543 (Jan. 25, 1982) (the PSC "may not interpose itself in the terms and conditions of the franchise contract."). Moreover, the territorial agreement itself expressly acknowledges that the service area boundaries contained therein may be terminated or modified by a court of law. PSC Order No. 10382 (Nov. 3, 1981) at Ex. A, Territorial Agreement, § 1.1. Thus, nothing in the territorial agreement or the PSC approval thereof impedes the Town from seeking to exercise its express statutory powers to furnish electricity to its inhabitants, and deny the City permission to furnish electricity within the Town at the expiration of the Franchise Agreement. The Town's Right and Responsibility to Protect its Inhabitants from Unreasonable Rates and Oppressive Utility Practices The City has used its electric monopoly to force the Town and other non-resident customers in the Town to pay unreasonable electric rates that have been consistently and substantially higher than the electric rates paid by Town citizens receiving electric utility service from FPL. For example, according to the comparative rate statistics compiled by the PSC and the Florida Municipal Electric Association, the City's residential electric rates for 1000 kWh usage were approximately: to3