FLORIDIANS UNITED FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEES; METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY CONSUMER ADVOCATE, WALTER T. DARTLAND, APPELLANT, V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Public Service Commission's authority to grant prospective utility rate increases, including subsequent year adjustments, to address regulatory lag. The court rejected appellants' constitutional challenge to the statutory provision authorizing such adjustments.
The Public Service Commission has the authority to grant subsequent year adjustments to combat regulatory lag, and this authority predated the statutory provision at issue. Therefore, the court need not address the constitutional challenge to the statute. The PSC's order is affirmed.
[1] A Public Service Commission's authority to grant prospective rate increases to combat regulatory lag and ensure a fair return on investment is a recognized principle pred…
[2] A court need not address the constitutionality of a statute if the challenged action can be sustained on grounds independent of that statute.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“At the heart of this dispute is the authority of PSC to combat "regulatory lag" by granting prospective rate increases which enable the utilities to earn a fair and reasonable return on their investments.”
Identifies the core issue in the case and the rationale for prospective rate increases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Public Service Commission granted Florida Power and Light Company a rate increase for 1984 and a subsequent year adjustment for 1985 in an order d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
SHAW, Justice.
These consolidated cases are before us for review of a Public Service Commission (PSC) order granting utility rate increases. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const. In an order dated July 24,1984, PSC granted Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) a rate increase for 1984 and a subsequent year adjustment for 1985. Upon granting a petition for reconsideration, PSC entered a final order dated December 28, 1984. Appellants do not challenge the rate increase for 1984. Neither do they challenge the need for a subsequent year adjustment, the factors considered in making such an adjustment, nor the correctness and fairness of the adjustment. Instead, they contend that PSC does not have the authority to grant subsequent year adjustments because the authority on which PSC purportedly relied, section 13(4) of chapter 83-222, Laws of Florida (codified as section 366.076, Florida Statutes (1983)), violates the one subject rule of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. Ap-pellees answer in two stages.
First, they aver that PSC had the authority to grant prospective rate increases prior to the enactment of chapter 83-222 and did not cite nor rely on the chapter in granting the challenged increase.
Thus, in appellees’ view, it is not necessary for us to reach the constitutional question of whether chapter 83-222 violates the one subject rule.
Second, section 13(4) merely recognizes existing authority in connection with transmission line siting and does not violate the one subject rule.
We agree that PSC’s authority to grant subsequent year adjustments predated the enactment of chapter 83-222 and it is therefore unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the chapter. Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1975); Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1973); Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cleaning, Dyeing & Pressing Board, 128 Fla. 408, 174 So. 829 (1937); State ex rel. Wolyn v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad, 81 Fla. 383, 87 So. 909 (1921).
At the heart of this dispute is the authority of PSC to combat “regulatory lag” by granting prospective rate increases which enable the utilities to earn a fair and reasonable return on their investments. We long ago recognized that rates are fixed for the future and that it is appropriate for PSC to recognize factors which affect future rates and to grant prospective rate increases based on these factors. Citizens of Florida v. Hawkins, 356 So. 2d 254 (Fla.1978); Gulf Power Co. v. Bevis, 289 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1974); City of Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, 208 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1968).
The order of the Public Service Commission is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 945 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2006)…2d at 1117 (declining to address whether interception of cordless phone conversations violates the constitutional rights of privacy where the case could be decided on statutory grounds); Floridians United for Safe Energy, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 475 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1985) (declining to determine whether a session law violated the single subject requirement where the case could be decided on other grounds); Covington, 392 So. 2d at 1322-23 (declining to find a statute unconstitutionally vague where the…
-
Sullivan v. Landon Cole Sapp, 866 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2004)…e "last resort rule"). . See, e.g., State v. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458, 459-60 (Fla.2003); State v. Mozo, 655 So. 2d 1115, 1117 (Fla.1995); Johnson v. Feder, 485 So. 2d 409, 412 (Fla.1986); Floridians United for Safe Energy, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 475 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1985); State v. Covington, 392 So. 2d 1321, 1322-23 (Fla.1981); Briklod v. State, 365 So. 2d 1023, 1027 (Fla.1978); Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551, 552-53 (Fla.1975); McKibben v. Mallory, 293 So. 2d 48, 51 (Fla.1974); Gonzales v. City…
-
Citizens OF the State of Fla. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 146 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2014)…es are fixed for the future and that it is appropriate for [the Commission] to recognize factors which affect future rates and to grant prospective rate increases based on these factors.” Floridians United for Safe Energy, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 475 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1985). . The arguments raised here on appeal were also raised in this oral motion. . Citizens specifically argued, "If the Commission denies Citizens’ Motion to Dismiss the purported FPL settlement agreement, then Citizens requests] that…
Authorities Cited
- Nadene Singletary v. State, 322 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1975)
- Cataldo v. Rader & Assocs., 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1973)
- The City OF Miami v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 208 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1968)
- Sanchez v. Am. Motor INN OF Fort Lauderdale, 289 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1973)
- Econ. Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc v. Cleaning, 128 Fla. 408 (Fla. 1937)
- The Citizens OF the State of Fla. v. Hawkins, 356 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1978)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 81 Fla. 383 (Fla. 1921)