The dispositive question in the case at hand is whether article 1108 contains sufficient implied authority for a city to enact and enforce an energy conservation code in connection with the city's extension of service outside its boundaries. A city ordinance required the payment of an inspection fee, an inspection, and the installation of a drum trap under all bathtubs as a condition to receipt of water service. Stating that any such regulation must be, above all, reasonable, the court upheld all three requirements. The court upheld the drum trap requirement because the court found the reasons for the requirement reasonable. Thus, the court's reasoning enforces the idea that article 1108 encompasses the conservation of resources.
Similar considerations apply to the use of electricity.
Accordingly, article 1108 provides the implied authority for a city to enact and enforce provisions designed to protect its electrical distribution system both inside and outside of its boundaries in the areas to which the city provides electric service. As indicated in the Port Arthur case, regulations under article 1108 must be reasonable. Article 1108 does not, however, contemplate a comprehensive energy conservation building code. This opinion is not intended to address any particular home rule city's energy conservation regulations.