Request By:
Honorable James S. Wilson
City Attorney
City of Paris
P.O. Box 151
Paris, Kentucky 40361
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of January 19 in which you refer to the provisions of KRS 96.120, 96.130 and 96.520, pertaining to the right of a city to acquire electric and power plants and furnish services to another city. Your initial question is whether or not there exists any conflict between these statutes.
Our response would be in the negative. KRS 96.520 is an alternate method [see subsection (4)] of acquiring an electric light, heat and power plant by cities of the second through sixth class for the purpose of supplying the city and its inhabitants of such power, and permits said cities to enter into an interconnection agreement with any public utility regulated by the Public Service Commission for such services.
On the other hand, KRS 96.120 authorizes any city to acquire a franchise to furnish water and light to another city in the same manner as a private corporation. At the same time, KRS 96.130 provides that any city that owns and operates its own light and power plant may contract with any other city to furnish water and light to such cities.
As we said, we see no conflict between the referred to statutes as KRS 96.520 permits the city to contract for services with a private utility for its own inhabitants or, as an alternate where the city owns its own facility, it may furnish such services to another city by contract or by franchise. KRS 96.120 and 96.130.
As to whether the city of Paris can enter into an agreement with another city for the purchase of power even though neither city is subject to the regulations of the PSC and Paris obtains a portion of its power needs from KU, the answer would be in the affirmative under the terms of KRS 96.120 or KRS 96.130.
As to whether or not KRS 96.520 must be interpreted to be an amendment to the interlocal cooperation act under Ch. 65, our response would be in the negative as we see no conflict or direct connection between the two acts. The interlocal act is a general permissive act permitting cities to enter into cooperative agreements to furnish services which both cities are authorized to furnish. KRS 96.520 on the other hand is a specific statute dealing with utility service agreements between a city and a public service corporation, such as KU, to which the interlocal act would not apply since it deals solely with mutual agreements between governmental bodies.