MARK SCHUMANN

Indian River Shores officials are convinced their island enclave would be better served by Florida Power & Light, rather than by Vero Electric. Underscoring this claim, Shores Mayor Brian Barefoot wrote a guest commentary published recently in the Press Journal in which he asserted that his community is facing a “rate crisis.”

Because some Shores residents are served by FPL, and because FPL’s rates are currently lower than Vero Electric’s, it could be said that Shores residents, and their leaders, are facing a crisis, not of rates, but of comparison. (FPL is seeking approval for a $1.337 billion rate hike. That news has yet to be reported by the island weekly, or by the Press Journal.)

In hopes of switching from Vero Electric to FPL, the Shores last year filed a lawsuit seeking to force Vero Beach to stop serving its 3400 customers within the town. Lawyers for the Shores argue that when the franchise agreement between the town and Vero Beach expires in November of this year, Vero Beach will no longer have the legal authority to provide electric service north of the city limits on the barrier island.

To a layperson, the Shores’ argument may seem compelling, except that the PSC, in response to a separate petition filed by the Indian River County Commission, has already ruled that franchise agreements between municipalities do not establish electric service territories. (Vero Electric served customers within the Shores for at least 15 years before the two municipalities entered a franchise agreement in 1987.)

Siting legislation passed in 1974, the PSC contends that it, and not individual municipalities or counties, has the sole and superior authority to establish service territories for the state’s public and investor-owned utilities. The Indian River County Commission is appealing that ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case were heard last December. A ruling in expected this spring.

Rather than take their case to the PSC, as the County Commission did, Shores officials first turned to the courts. However, with three of four counts in its amended lawsuit against Vero Beach having been summarily dismissed, Shores lawyers have now turned to the PSC. They are asking the PSC to modify its 1972 territorial orders, and thus force Vero Electric to stop serving within the Shores.

Lawyers representing Vero Beach this week filed a motion with the PSC seeking dismissal of the Shore’s petition. Central to his argument on Vero Beach’s behalf, special utility counsel Schef Wright contends that since the Shores is not a party to the 1972 territorial agreement between Vero Beach and FPL, the town lacks legal standing to ask for a change in the PSC’s orders.

For their part, Shores leaders argue that because FPL’s rates are currently lower than Vero Electric’s, they should be free to choose a different electric provider. Wright disagrees, siting a Florida Supreme Court ruling in which the justices held that, “An individual has no organic, economic or political right to service by a particular utility merely because he deems it advantageous to himself.”

Further, Wright points out, Vero Beach has made investments in infrastructure and has entered into long-term power supply contracts, at least partially in order to serve its Shores customers. If Vero Electric were forced, without adequate compensation, to stop serving within the Shores, the remaining customers would, Wright says, be faced with higher rates.

The positions of Vero Beach Council members Harry Howle and Pilar Turner are unclear. For their part, Mayor Jay Kramer, Vice Mayor Randy Old and Councilman Richard Winger have all publicly insisted a sale of Vero Beach’s Indian River Shores customers to FPL must be priced and structured so that remaining customers will not be stuck paying higher rates.

Wright made the same point in the motion he filed with the PSC. “…Vero Beach’s representatives respectfully explained (to FPL representatives) that it was and is Vero Beach’s position that any such transaction would have to keep all of Vero Beach’s remaining customers (i.e., those inside the city limits and those in the unincorporated areas of Indian River County where Vero Beach serves) whole, as compared to the base case scenario in which Vero Beach would continue to serve customers inside the Town pursuant to the Commission’s Territorial Orders.”

Summarizing Vero Beach’s case, Wright wrote, “There is no doubt that the Town’s sole purpose in filing its Petition is to obtain lower electric rates by either choosing its electric supplier or by evicting Vero Beach from its position as the supplier of retail electric service in its Commission-approved service areas within Indian River Shores pursuant to the Territorial Orders.”

Attorneys for the Shores requested from the PSC an extension to April 7 to respond to Vero Beach’s motion to dismiss the town’s petition.