1975-11-17 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i ". the right, privilege and franchise to conduct within the boundaries of the City an electrical lighting and power business and to erect, construct, maintain, operate and repair, in, under, over, across and along any and all public roads, highways, streets, lanes and alleys a system of poles, . . . conduits, cables and other desirable -instrumentalities and apUurtenances Necessary or proper for the purpose of supplying, distributing and selling to the municipality and the inhabitants of skid City .-electricity (Underscoring added.) There can be no question but that the pipeline : is a desirable instrumentality which is necessary in supplying electricity to the public. Unless the pipe- line is built, there is a strong probability that for prolonged periods the public will be without electricity. , We are unable to see any material difference between the conduits which carry the fuel oil.to the generating plants and the conduits which carry the electricity from the plants. Both are inseparable parts of the electric • system authorized by the franchise. Considered next is the absence of municipal authority over non -local operations. It rust be recog- nized "that the Legislature could not, without doing Violence to the Constitution of Texas, delegate to [a city] non -local powers having an extraterritorial effect" It - and it is only when ''the Company is conducting a local system as distinguished from an interurban business, it may be required to procure authority from the City to use its streets." _Coun.v of Harris V. Tennessee Products PiaelineCCot2any, 332 S.W.2d 777, 781, 732 (Tex. Clv.App. 1960, no writ). The Supreme Court in City of Brownwood V. Brown Telegraph & Telephone Company, 106 Tex. 114, 1-57 S.W. 1163, 1165 (1913) held "that the right of the [utility] to pass through the city or town, over and upon its streets, is absolute, and the city had no authority to deny that right." Similarly, in City of Arlington v. Lillard, 116 Tex. 446, 294 S.W. 829, '30 9the court held that the City of Arlington could not "prohibit the use of its streets by commercial vehicles desiring to pass through the city" because •