Opinion ID: 1659434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpretation of R.S. 45:123

Text: Generally, La.R.S. 45:123 prohibits one electric public utility from serving a point of connection which is: (1) currently being served by another electric utility or (2) not currently being served by another electric utility but is located within three hundred feet of an electric line of another electric utility, without consent of that utility. However, this prohibition does not preclude a utility from extending service to an applicant for service at an unserved point of connection within three hundred feet of its own line. R.S. 45:123(A)(1)(a). As a result, if there is an unserved point of connection within three hundred feet of two public utilities' electric lines the customer is allowed to choose his provider, what is known as customer choice. CLECO contends that such a customer choice situation exists in this case because: (1) the restaurant is an unserved point of connection under the statute; and (2) the unserved point of connection is located within three hundred feet of CLECO's electric lines based on CLECO's historic line rights. Specifically with regard to the first argument, CLECO argues the point of connection is the actual meter box and when the Baehr Building was demolished, the point of connection was demolished as well; thus, when the restaurant was constructed, a new point of connection was created. Thus, the issues to be resolved in this case are: (1) whether a new point of connection is created where one structure is demolished and replaced soon thereafter with another structure, and (2) if not, whether that point of connection was being served by WST when CLECO attempted to provide service. We first turn our attention to whether a new point of connection is created where one structure is demolished and replaced soon thereafter with another structure. To determine this, we must first decide what constitutes a point of connection. In South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 309 So.2d 287 (La.1975), the Commission held that point of connection as used in R.S. 45:123 referred to a subdivision as a whole, and not to each individual meter connection. This court reversed, finding that point of connection was not an ambiguous or technical term and, in layman's language meant the point of actual connection of electric service by the utility to the customer. Additionally, the court reasoned that the Commission's interpretation that a point of connection constituted an entire subdivision created a great amount of uncertainty, which might lead to territorial disputes between electric utilities. Thus, the court held that point of connection as used in R.S. 45:123 meant actual meter connection. See also Dixie Electric Membership Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 441 So.2d 1212 (La. 1983). CLECO asserts herein that under the rationale of the above cases interpreting point of connection, a new point of connection arose when the Baehr Building was demolished and the restaurant was built in its place. The thrust of CLECO's argument is that since the actual meter box or connection to the Baehr Building was demolished along with the building, to treat the new meter connection as a continuation of the old point of connection would define point of connection in relation to an area rather than an actual meter connection in contravention of South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association. Although in South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association we may have implied point of connection meant the meter box itself, the facts of the instant case, where a single structure on a site is demolished and replaced soon thereafter with another single structure, are very different from the facts of South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association, and, in any case, such an implication was not necessary under the facts of South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association. The inherent problems with interpreting point of connection only to mean meter box itself are clearly illuminated where a single structure on a site is demolished and replaced soon thereafter with another single structure. Interpreting point of connection to mean the meter box itself leads to results in contravention of the purposes of R.S. 45:123 in that territorial disputes would be encouraged as would needless duplication of electric facilitiesconsequences which this court has held should be discouraged under R.S. 45:123. First, as we recognized in South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association, 309 So.2d at 289-90, territorial disputes should be discouraged. If we were to interpret point of connection to mean the actual meter box under the facts of this case, there would be a battle for the customer every time a building was destroyed, despite the fact the point of connection was being served by a particular utility prior to the demolition. Furthermore, other issues may arise: For example, a new unserved point of connection might arise under La.R.S. 45:123 if a building is partially demolished and the demolished section contained the meter location. Additionally, a new unserved point of connection might arise if there is an addition to an existing building and the addition contains a meter location. Our interpretation of La. R.S. 45:123 avoids these problemselectric utilities can be certain they have the exclusive right to serve the points of connection to which they currently provide service. Furthermore, the purpose of R.S. 45:123 is to avoid the needless duplication of electric facilities. Louisiana Power & Light v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 609 So.2d 797, 801 (La.1992); Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 388 So.2d 792, 796 (La.1980); Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 344 So.2d 1046, 1048 (La.1977); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 343 So.2d 1040, 1043 (La.1977). A rule that a new point of connection is created every time a structure is demolished would not serve the purpose of R.S. 45:123; indeed, such a rule would run counter to that purpose. Obviously, when a structure is being served by an electric utility, that utility has extended electric facilities to the site of the structure. If that structure is demolished and, under R.S. 45:123, another electric utility was allowed to serve that structure, the new provider of electricity will be required to extend electric facilities to the site. In such a case, electric facilities would be needlessly duplicated, in contravention of the purpose of La.R.S. 45:123. Other problems arise with this interpretation. For example, a customer being served by one utility located within 300 feet of the lines of two electric utilities, but presently being served by one utility, could create a customer choice situation simply by destroying his existing meter box or moving it to another location on the same structure. Moreover, the same customer could install a second meter box and receive service from two different utilities for the same structure. In our view, because of the absurd consequences discussed above which would result from any other interpretation, a new point of connection is not created under La. R.S. 45:123 when a structure is demolished and replaced shortly thereafter by another single structure. Rather, the point where electricity enters the new structure should be considered the same point of connection as the point where electricity entered the demolished structure for the purposes of R.S. 45:123. Since we hold that a new point of connection was not created when the Baehr Building was destroyed and the restaurant erected, we must determine whether the point of connection was served. WST provided service to this point of connection prior to demolition and during the construction of the new building at the point CLECO sought to extend service thereto. As such, the restaurant is not an unserved point of connection, and CLECO did not have authority to serve it under R.S. 45:123(A)(1). Instead, WST possesses the exclusive right to serve the restaurant. Since we hold that a new, unserved point of connection was not created when the Baehr Building was destroyed and replaced by the restaurant, we need not reach the issue of whether CLECO's historic line rights are effective under R.S. 45:123(A)(1)(a). The statute clearly prohibits CLECO's service of the restaurant notwithstanding any historic line rights in light of the fact that a point of connection served by WST existed at the time CLECO extended service to the restaurant. [3]