Municipal corporations — Contracts — Electric utilities — Preemption — Action brought by city against electric utility company alleging that company’s performance in preparation for and in aftermath of hurricane breached franchise agreement requiring company to construct, operate, and maintain its facilities in accordance with company’s “customary practice” is not within exclusive jurisdiction of Public Service Commission — Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for money damages premised on company’s failure to comply with standards set by PSC or in privately negotiated franchise agreement, as PSC does not have authority to enter award of money damages for such failure —

Fact that “customary practice” standard set in franchise agreement may be informed by PSC does not impact court’s ability to hear contractual dispute where question of what “customary practice” standard required and whether company met standard may be answered with input and assistance from PSC — Declaratory actions — City does not have right to proceed with claim seeking declaration that franchise agreement obligates company to trim and manage vegetation in areas adjacent to electrical poles and lines where company acknowledges that it has that obligation — Claims for specific performance and injunctive relief compelling company to maintain vegetation near electrical lines are dismissed where relief requested would require impracticable ongoing judicial supervision, PSC is already addressing and monitoring issue, and city has adequate remedy at law if it suffers economic loss due to company’s failure to maintain vegetation —

City is entitled to pursue breach of contract claim and seek consequential damages