Fort Pierce Utilities Authority v. Beard, 80712

• Decision Date: 18 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 80712,80712
• Parties: Util. L. Rep. P 26,375, 18 Fla. L. Weekly S605 FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. Thomas M. BEARD, et al., etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 1356

626 So.2d 1356

Util. L. Rep. P 26,375, 18 Fla. L. Weekly S605

FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. Thomas M. BEARD, et al., etc., Appellee.

No. 80712.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 18, 1993.

Frederick M. Bryant and William J. Peebles of Moore, Williams, Bryant, Peebles & Gautier, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert D. Vandiver, General Counsel, and Richard C. Bellak and Marsha E. Rule, Associate General Counsels, Tallahassee, for appellee.

SHAW, Justice.

This case is before us on direct appeal from a final order of the Florida Public Service Commission (Commission). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.

Florida Power & Light (FPL), a private corporation, supplies electricity to the City of Fort Pierce and its outlying area. These areas are also serviced by Fort Pierce Utility Authority (FPUA), a municipal corporation and a branch of the City of Fort Pierce government. Competition resulted in duplication of distribution facilities, confusion in ownership of current facilities, and numerous safety hazards.

In the late 1970s, FPL and FPUA attempted unsuccessfully to enter formal territorial agreements. In 1989, FPL filed with the Commission a Petition to Resolve Territory Dispute against FPUA. Approximately two years later, FPL and FPUA settled their dispute and entered a mutually satisfactory agreement. The agreement, in part, provided: 1) FPUA and FPL with specific service territories; 2) for the transfer of approximately 900 customers from FPUA to FPL; and 3) for the transfer of approximately 3,200 customers from FPL to FPUA, 2,100 of whom were residents of North Hutchinson Island. The utilities filed petitions to dismiss the earlier Petition to Resolve Territorial Dispute and to approve the newly proposed Joint Petition for Approval of a Territorial Agreement. The Commission issued a preliminary approval of the agreement and circulated a Notice of Proposed Agency Action.

North Hutchinson Island residents, displeased with the proposed transfer of customers petitioned the Commission for a public hearing at which they voiced concern relative to FPUA's: 1) higher rates; 2) inferior conservation programs; and 3) lack of presence on the island. In September of 1992, the Commission withdrew its preliminary approval and issued an Order Denying Approval of the Territorial Agreement. FPUA directly appealed to this Court. We approve the Commission's order.

In exercising its jurisdiction to approve utility territorial agreements, the Commission must ensure that the total effect of any decision reached will not result in public detriment. Utilities Comm'n of New Smyrna Beach v. Florida Public Serv. Comm'n, 469 So.2d 731 (Fla.1985). The decision is not limited to whether transferred customers will substantially benefit. Id. FPUA argues that the Commission improperly focused on its current ability to provide reliable service, whereas, the proper focus should have been on existing and future customers transferred under the agreement and any corresponding decreases in reliability that they may have suffered. FPUA further argues it is not required to develop and implement conservation programs, ¹ but if the Commission is to use this requirement, then it must find that the overall benefits outweigh any conservation losses.

Approval will be granted to the Commission's findings and conclusions if they are in accord with the "essential requirements of law" and are based on "competent substantial evidence." General...