ML20010A747

Order to Show Cause Why Commission Should Not Find & Conclude Util Has Violated Existing SR-1 Tariff & Federal Power Act for Refusing to Provide Svc to Fort Pierce,Fl

ML20010A747
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/12/1978
From:	Plumb K FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
To:
Shared Package
ML20010A740	List: ML20010A739 ML20010A742 ML20010A743 ML20010A744 ML20010A745 ML20010A746 ML20010A747 ML20010A748 ML20010A749
References
EL78-4, NUDOCS 8108120171
Download: ML20010A747 (4)

Text

-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION O

Before Commissioners: Charles B. Curtis, Chairman; Don S. Smith, Georgiana Sheldon, Matthew Holden, Jr., and George R. Hall, w

Florida Cities )

v. ) Docket No. EL78-4 Florida Power & Light )

Company )

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

-. (Issued June 12, 1978)

_ _ - - On November 7, 1977, the City of Homestead, th'e Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, the City of Starke and the Utilities Com-mission of New Smyrna Beach (hereinafter collectively referred to as Florida Cities) , all situated within the State of Florida, filed a petition to intervene, inter alia. In their petition, Florida Cities alleged, inter alia, that Florida Power & Light

. Company (hereinafter referred to as FP&L) has violated its existing SR-1 tariff. Florida Cities averred that FP&L con-tinually refused to sell wholesale power service to the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (hereinafter referred to as FPUA or Fort Pierce) under the SR-1 tariff, despite repeated requasts for such power and notwithstanding the clear commands of FP&L's existing SR-1 tariff.

On December 1, 1977, FP&L answered Florida Cities' petition.

FP&L's answer denied that it has excluded municipalities which

, can qualify from whoh' sale power purchases under the tariff.

In addition, FP&L asst _ ted that the language of the Federal Power Act and the history of the legislative proceeding sur-rounding it indicate that the Act imposes no public utility ser-vice obligation similar to that at common law on companies under its jurisdiction. Rather, FP&L states that the Act recognizes e that a contract between a utility and its whalesale customers provides the basis for service to the customer.

On December 16, 1977, Florida Cities responded to FP L's

~

answer of December 1, 1977, asserting, inter alia, that the purpose of a filed tariff is to give notice of the services that a public utility is willing to provide. Thus, Florida Cities argue that FP&L is legally obligated to provide service in accordance with its filed tariff.

DC-A-2 8108120171 810807~

PDR ADDCK 05000389 ~

M PDR

1 Docket No. EL78-4 .

On January 24, 1978, the Commission issued an order in this docket instituting investigation.and designating officers

- which directed the Commission Staff to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the alleged acts or omissions raised by Flor-ida Cities constituted a violation of the filed tariff, the Federal Power Act, or any order, rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. The Commission Staff deposed representatives of y l

FP&L and FPUA in Miami, Florida, during the week of February 2',,

' 1978 and Staff filed its investigation report with the Commis-

! sion on April 7, 1978. 1/ The Commission order instituting in-vestigation delineated certain issues for review and the Staff's findings and conclusions regarding those issues are as follows:

(1) That after August 9, 1977, the FP&L engaged in a refusal to provide service to FPUA pursuant to the filed i SR-1 tariff;

.(2) That the refusal to serve FPUA violates the filed SR-1 tariff and Section 205 of the Federal Power Act;  ;

(3) That were it not for FP&L's commencement of service to FPUA under the filed SR-1 tariff (Docket No. ER78-282),

the Staff would have recommended that the Commission order FP&L to immediately commence service to FPUA under the filed SR-1 tariff and that the Commission seek other civil

, remedies such as injunctive relief, inter alia.

L .

Our review indicates that the investigative Staff's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, we

~

j' are inclined to adopt and affirm the Staff's conclusions in all

, respects. Before undertaking this measure, however, we deem it-l appropriate to permit FP&L and Florida Citi~es an opportunity to 1 respond to those findings and conclusio.ns in writing.

l l The Commission finds:

I '

In light of the foregoing, Florida Power & Light Company is  !'.m j

directed, and Florida Cities are permitted to show cause in vri-ting why the Commission should'not. find and determine:

(1) That after August 9, 1977, FP&L engaged in a refu-sal to provide service to FPUA pursuant to the SR-1 tariff;

' 1/

~

The Investigative Report was made available to the public on May 24, 1978.

l

_--_______-_-__.______._-__.,,a

. Docket No. EL78-4. -

(2) That the refusal to serve FPUA violates the filed SR-1 tariff and Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.

The Commission orders:  ;

1 (A) .Within 30 days from the issue of this order, FP&L l shall respond to the Staff Investigation Report through an an- _

swer as provided in Section 1. 9 (c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 1.9(c) showing cause, if any-

• here be, why the Commission should not find and conclude that FP&L has violated its existing SR-1 tariff and the Federal power Act for having refused to provide service to Fort Pierce. ,

l (B) Within 30 days from the issue of this order, Florida Cities may respond to the Staff Investigation Report through an answer as provided in Section 1. 9 (c) . of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 1.9(c).

(C) The Secretary is hereby ordered to cause prompt pub-lication of this order in the Federal Register.

By the Commission.

( S E A ?, )

Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary.

e W

e e

_---__=____

_/

Attachment 6 Florida Cities v. Florida Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. EL78-1, " Staff Investigation Report", April 7, 1978 9