Case Background
On May 13, 2024,
Mr. Juan Merchan (Mr. Merchan) filed Informal Complaint No. 1444515E, challenging
Tampa Electric Company’s (TECO) relocation of guy wires in front of his
property. The guy wires complained of were formerly in front of an adjacent
property. TECO reconfigured (but did not move) the pole, and relocated the guy
wires to accommodate access to a new driveway at the adjacent property. Mr. Merchan
alleged that TECO’s relocation of the guy wires was an unreasonable and
discriminatory exercise of utility discretion. Mr. Merchan further alleged that
the relocation inhibited his ingress and egress from his own property, and gave
undue preference to the adjacent property from which the guy wires were
relocated.
After a thorough
review, including a site visit by Commission engineering staff, the Office of
Consumer Assistance (OCA) staff informed Mr. Merchan that the relocated guy
wires were properly in TECO’s public right of way (ROW). Mr. Merchan expressed
disagreement with this conclusion and the matter was referred to the
Commission's Process Review Team (PRT) for review, in accordance with Rule
25-22.032, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). On November 5, 2025,
Commission staff advised Mr. Merchan that his informal complaint had been
reviewed by the PRT, and it appeared that TECO did not violate Commission
statutes, rules, or orders in its handling of this matter. Staff advised Mr.
Merchan that if he disagreed with the complaint conclusion, he could file a
petition for initiation of formal proceedings for relief against TECO.
On January 28,
2026, Mr. Merchan and Mr. Gonzalo Lever (Petitioners) filed a formal complaint
against TECO alleging the same material facts as contained in Mr. Merchan’s
informal complaint. The Petitioners’ formal complaint again alleges that TECO’s
relocation of guy wires from an adjacent property to the front of Petitioners’
property was an unreasonable and discriminatory exercise of utility discretion.
Petitioners maintained that the relocation of the guy wires presents undue
preference to the neighboring property. On March 11, 2026, Petitioners filed an
amended formal complaint (Amended Complaint) restating and clarifying the
issues of material fact and legal basis for their claims.
On April 2,
2026, TECO filed a response to the Petitioners’ formal complaint (Response).
TECO states that the Amended Complaint does not allege any facts that would
support finding that TECO violated its tariff or any applicable statutes,
rules, or orders of the Commission. TECO further denied any such violations of
applicable statutes, rules, or orders of the Commission.
This
recommendation addresses the appropriate disposition of the Petitioners’
complaint against TECO. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate resolution of the
Petitioners’ complaint?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Petitioners’ formal
complaint be denied. It does not appear that TECO violated its
Commission-approved tariff or any statutes, rules, or orders of the Commission
in its relocation of guy wires within its right of way. (Dose)
Staff Analysis:
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Rule 25-22.036(2), F.A.C., a complaint is
appropriate when a person complains of an act or omission by a person subject
to Commission jurisdiction that affects the complainant’s substantial interests
and that is in violation of a statute enforced by the Commission, or of any
Commission rule or order.
Formal Complaint
In their complaint, the Petitioners assert that TECO’s
exercise of discretion in relocating the guy wires was unreasonable and
discriminatory in violation of Section 366.03, F.S.
The Petitioners further allege that TECO violated Tariff Sheet No. 5.090,
Section 2.3, because the relocation of the guy wires presents undue preference
for the adjacent property owner from which the wires were relocated.
The Petitioners state that TECO presented three options for
resolution of this matter:
1.
Maintain the current pole and line relocation;
2.
Replace the existing pole and wires with a self-supporting
pole in
TECO’s ROW at the Petitioners’ expense; or
3.
Replace the existing pole with a self-supporting pole
at TECO’s expense in an easement to be provided by Mr. Lever.
The
Petitioners rejected all three options. The Petitioners ask that the Commission
direct TECO to reconfigure the pole and wires in a non-obstructive position at
TECO’s sole expense without imposing any new easement or costs on the
Petitioners.
Response
In its Response, TECO denies that it violated its tariff
or any statutes, rules, or Commission orders. TECO states that it reconfigured
the pole and relocated the guy wires to provide access to a new residential
driveway adjacent to the Petitioners’ property, and that TECO reviewed its
options and found the installation in front of the Petitioners’ property was
the most efficient and cost-effective solution. TECO asserts that the
relocation was consistent with company- and industry-standard construction and
engineering practices. TECO confirms that it attempted to work with Petitioners
to resolve this matter but that the parties failed to come to an agreement.
TECO denies that it acted with undue prejudice in
violation of Section 366.03, F.S. TECO states that Section 366.03, F.S.,
applies to utility rates, not the location of utility facilities. TECO states
that even if Section 366.03, F.S., were to apply, TECO’s actions did not
constitute undue preference or impose undue prejudice. TECO further denies that
Section 2.3 of Tariff Sheet No. 5.090 is applicable because Section 2.3 applies
to facilities on property not designated as a public ROW while the pole and
wires in this case are in a public ROW.
Analysis
Based on the information provided, it does not appear that
TECO violated a statute, rule, order, or applicable provision of TECO’s
Commission-approved tariff. TECO properly reconfigured its transmission pole
and relocated its guy wires within its ROW. A staff site inspection confirmed
that the reconfigured pole and relocated guy wires do not inhibit ingress or
egress from the Petitioners’ property and appear to meet all applicable safety
standards.
Section 366.03, F.S., states that “[n]o public utility
shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person
or locality, or subject the same to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or
disadvantage in any respect.” Staff does not believe that TECO acted with undue
or unreasonable preference in this case, nor that TECO acted with undue or
unreasonable prejudice towards the Petitioners. TECO relocated guy wires in
order to accommodate construction of a driveway on the adjacent property, which
is not unreasonable. The Petitioners claim that TECO’s proposal of relocating
the guy wires at the Petitioners’ expense, or requiring the Petitioners to
grant an easement for a new pole, was unreasonable. However, staff does not
believe it is unreasonable for TECO to have a policy of requiring customers to
pay for equipment relocation for aesthetic purposes. Furthermore, staff does
not believe that the relocation of the guy wires in front of the Petitioners’
property constitutes undue preference for the adjacent property or undue
prejudice against the Petitioners.
Tariff Sheet No. 5.090, Section 2.3, addresses the
placement of utility equipment on private property outside of a public ROW.
This is inapplicable to the complaint because the relocation of the guy wires
complained of are within TECO’s public ROW. Therefore, staff does not believe
that TECO violated its Commission-approved tariff in its handling of this
matter. Staff does not believe that TECO’s relocation of the guy wires violated
a statute, rule, order, or applicable provision of TECO’s Commission-approved
tariff, and that the complaint should therefore be denied.
Conclusion
Staff recommends
that the Petitioners’ formal complaint be denied. It does not appear that TECO violated
its Commission-approved tariff or any statutes, rules, or orders of the
Commission in its relocation of guy wires within its ROW.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order. (Dose)
Staff Analysis:
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order.
