論公用電力事業「服務義務」與停電賠償責任：以供電契約為中心

The Duty to Serveof Electric Utilities and Liability of Compensation for Power Outages: on the Electricity Supply Contract

10.6199/NTULJ.202309_52(3).0003

陳汝吟(Ju-Yin Chen)

公用事業 ； 服務義務 ； 停電 ； 供電中斷 ； 供電契約 ； 用戶 ； 費率 ； 懲罰性賠償 ； 可靠度標準 ； 電力系統 ； Utility ； Duty to Serve ； Power Outages ； Power Interruption ； Electricity Supply Contract ； Customers ； Tariff ； Punitive Damages ； Reliability Standards ； Electric Power System

臺大法學論叢

52卷3期（2023 / 09 / 01）

829 - 888

繁體中文;英文

公用電力事業「服務義務」之內涵，包括「充分服務」及「可靠服務」，20世紀80年代以來，電力可靠度問題更是首要。如此並非要求絕對不可發生停電情形，但公用電力事業與用戶之間存在供電契約，公用事業仍負有與其經營業務特許權對應的法律義務，除按管制費率計價收費外，對於正常業務過程、履行公共服務，應盡善良管理人注意義務，防止供電中斷對用戶造成損害，且不得以「責任限制條款」排除故意或重大過失責任。在獨占的電力市場上，消費者無法選擇電力事業，故法制上應透過有效的問責制度加以平衡。制度目的並非係對公用事業施加經濟處罰，而是做為更強化的一種預防措施，冀望公用事業能落實謹慎管理，增進表現穩定度。民事損害賠償亦是近年重要的問責方法之一，除扣減退還停電期間無法提供服務的基本電費外，於電力事業有過失的特定要件下應賠償用戶，至少部分反映用戶因中斷而遭受的損害或不便。我國相關法令應明訂可歸責公用事業停電事由之賠償責任及賠償上限，並在公用事業或其履行輔助人有故意或重大過失時，不適用賠償限額規定。

The electric utility's duty to serve is to provide adequate and reliable services. Since the 1980s, electric reliability has become the primary duty. However, this cannot be interpreted as requiring service to customers under all circumstances, and power outages should never occur. There is an electricity supply contract between utilities and customers, and based on the contract, utilities have legal obligations corresponding to their exclusive franchise. In addition to complying with tariffs, utilities should perform reasonable care in the regular course of their business or where a public interest is involved to prevent interruptions causing damage to customers. The liability indemnity clause of the contract cannot apply where the utility is willful or grossly negligent. In the monopolized electricity market, consumers cannot choose electricity enterprise, so legal obligations are deemed necessary in order to maintain the balance of accountability that ordinarily would occur from competition. The purpose of the legislation is not to impose financial penalties on utilities, but as a preventive measure to enable utilities to implement prudent management and improve performance stability. Compensation for damages is one of the important accountability methods in recent years. Utilities shall reimburse the basic charge in proportion to the duration of outage when the service cannot be provided; moreover, utilities should compensate customers reflecting, at least in part, the damage or inconvenience they suffered because of an outage when the utility is held responsible for its faults. Following these lines of thought, this article suggests that related laws and regulations should clearly distinguish the utilities with faults and the limit of compensation, from willful or grossly negligent which cannot apply "the filed rate doctrine." Finally, customers should plan or at least take measures based on their activity and the field under control to mitigate their own damages in the event of blackout. If customers have negligently contributed in causing or aggravating the injury, the court may reduce or release the amount of the compensation according to Article 217 of the Civil Law (the principle of contributory negligence).

1. 王文宇(2000)。公用事業管制與競爭理念之變革：以電信與電業法制為例。臺大法學論叢，29(4)，85-158。
   連結：
2. 王文宇(2002)。論契約法預設規定的功能：以衍生損害的賠償規定為例。臺大法學論叢，31(5)，87-120。
   連結：
3. 陳信安(2016)。論國家於電力供應之擔保責任。臺北大學法學論叢，100，67-177。
   連結：
4. 陳聰富(2002)。美國法上之懲罰性賠償金制度。臺大法學論叢，31(5)，163-219。
   連結：
5. 謝哲勝(2001)。懲罰性賠償。臺大法學論叢，30(1)，113-161。
   連結：
6. (1962).The Duty of a Public Utility to Render Adequate Service: Its Scope and Enforcement.Columbia Law Review,62(2),312-331.
7. Burns, R.(2007).National Regulatory Research Institute ReportNational Regulatory Research Institute Report,National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
8. Costello, K.(2012).National Regulatory Research Institute ReportNational Regulatory Research Institute Report,National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
9. Kaufman, A.,Bodilly, S. J.,Poling, R. D.,Profozich, R. J.(1980).National Regulatory Research Institute ReportNational Regulatory Research Institute Report,National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
10. Petri, C. J.(1997).Don't Be Shocked If Missouri Applies Strict Products Liability to Electricity, But Should It.Missouri Law Review,62(3),611-628.
11. Posner, R. A.(1968).Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation.Stanford Law Review,21,548-643.
12. Rossi, J.(1998).The Common Law “Duty to Serve” and Protection of Consumers in an Age of Competitive Retail Public Utility Restructuring.Vanderbilt Law Review,51(5),1233-1321.
13. Rossi, J.(2008).Why the Filed Rate Doctrine Should Not Imply Blanket Judicial Deference to Regulatory Agencies.Administrative & Regulatory Law News,34(1),11-12+17.
14. Rossi, J.,Panfil, M.(2022).Climate Resilience and Private Law's Duty to Adapt.North Carolina Law Review,100(4),1135-1208.
15. Rudy, J. L.(2004).Limitation of Liability Clauses in Public Utility Tariffs: Is the Rationale for State-Sponsored Indemnity Still Valid?.Buffalo Law Review,52(4),1379-1416.
16. Tomain, J. P.(1998).Electricity Restructuring: A Case Study in Government Regulation.Tulsa Law Journal,33(3),827-846.
17. Webb, R. M.,Panfil, M.,Ladin, S.(2021).Climate Risk in the Electricity Sector: Legal Obligations to Advance Climate Resilience Planning by Electric Utilities.Environmental Law,51(3),577-665.
18. 王服清(2008)。德國行政法上損失補償與損害賠償之劃分與競合問題：兼論我國最高行政法院 92 年判字第 1709 號判決。中央警察大學法學論集，15，85-172。
19. 吳志光(2016).行政法.新學林.
20. 林國彬(2001)。美國聯邦電力事業經濟管制之研究。公平交易季刊，9(1)，55-112。
21. 林誠二(1990)。論民事上防止危險發生義務之違反。萬國法律，51，2-7。
22. 林德瑞(2004)。懲罰性賠償金適用之法律爭議問題。月旦法學雜誌，110，40-54。
23. 胡忠興,胡孝廷(2015)。消費者用電權益之保護研究：以無預警停電為例。消費者保護研究，19，69-116。
24. 孫森焱(2020).民法債編總論上冊.自版.
25. 許志義(2000)。由 729、921 大停電談電力永續發展政策。經濟前瞻，67，114-117。
26. 許政賢(2010)。債務不履行之懲罰性賠償金／高雄高分院九七上八一。台灣法學雜誌，154，212-215。
27. 陳汝吟(2012)。能源產業競爭法之比較研究。公平交易季刊，20(3)，85-128。
28. 陳自強(2018).契約之成立與生效：契約法講義 I.元照.
29. 陳聰富(2007)。過失相抵之法理基礎及其適用範圍。台灣法學雜誌，98，70-101。
30. 廖義男(1994)。國家對公用事業與顧客間法律關係之監督與規範。律師通訊，177，43-50。
31. 廖義男(1986)。公用事業法（一）：國家對公用事業之監督與規範。臺大法學論叢，16(1)，43-95。
32. 劉宗德(2009).制度設計型行政法學.元照.