PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
104 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sarasota County Public Hospital District v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (fladistctapp, 2017-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sarasota County Public Hospital District v. Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
But, it is also true that a reviewing court will not depart from “the contemporaneous construction of a statute by a state agency charged with its enforcement unless the construction is ‘dearly erroneous.’” Id. (quoting PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Viera Hospital, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
But, it is also true that a reviewing court will not depart from “the contemporaneous construction of a statute by a state agency charged with its enforcement unless the construction is ‘clearly erroneous.’” Id. (quoting PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) & SC15-505 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida v. Art Graham, etc. & Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida v. Art Graham, etc.
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gabrielle Goodwin v. Florida Department of Children etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lutheran Services Florida, Inc. v. Department of Children & Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Miami v. Nationstar Mortgage
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988). 9
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sz Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Eagle Point Solar v. Iowa Utilities Board, a Division of the Department of Commerce, State of Iowa (3×)
Iowa · 2014 · confidence medium
Sup. Ct. 1993) (recognizing that providing gas service to select industrial customers affected public interest because of potentially “destructive competition”); PW Ventures, 533 So. 2d at 283 (public interest implicated where revenue that “otherwise would have gone to the regulated utilities” is “diverted to unregulated producers”); In re S. Jersey Gas Co., 544 A.2d 402, 406 (N.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pruitt v. Sands
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
We affirm, concluding that the court did not err in giving deference to the county. “[T]he contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight.” PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (citing Wa rnock v. Fla. Hotel & Rest.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Wilton Manors v. Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
PW Ventures Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Green, 110 So.2d 409, 414 (Fla.1959); Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Fla., 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla.1952); see also Warnock v. Fla. Hotel & Rest.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Florida Elections Commission v. Davis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Browning v. Sarasota Alliance
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Finally, the administrative "construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight." PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988); see also Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So.2d 1324, 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) GTC, INC. v. Edgar
Fla. · 2007 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gaudet v. Board
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988), and Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). [2] A review of the many licensing statutes in the state revealed only one other statute with a rule-making requirement and the optional approval of an accreditation organization written like the one in question.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Jacobs
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wildlife Federation v. Collier County
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Moreover, a court will not depart from the contemporaneous construction of a statute by a state agency charged with its regulation unless the construction is "clearly erroneous." PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) LEE COUNTY ELEC. CO-OP., INC. v. Jacobs
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miles v. FLORIDA a AND M UNIVERSITY
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Further, a court will not depart from the contemporaneous construction of a statute by a state agency charged with its enforcement unless the construction is "clearly erroneous." PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Verizon Florida, Inc. v. Jacobs
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
Further, a court will not depart from the contemporaneous construction of a statute by a state agency charged with its enforcement unless the construction is "clearly erroneous." PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Voyeur Dorm, LC v. City of Tampa, Fla.
M.D. Fla. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv. v. AS., 648 So.2d 128, 132 (Fla.1995); PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Department of Revenue v. Bank of America
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Developers, Inc., 512 So.2d 258, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) GULF COAST ELEC. CO-OP., INC. v. Johnson
Fla. · 1999 · confidence medium
AmeriSteel Corp. v. Clark, 691 So.2d 473, 477 (Fla.1997) (citations omitted) (quoting PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allied Marine Group v. Department of Revenue
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Although the Department of Revenue, as the entity charged with administering Chapter 212, 1 is entitled to have its reading of the use tax statute afforded “great weight,” see PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988), taxing statutes are to be “strictly construed” against the taxing authority, see Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ameristeel Corp. v. Clark
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Talty
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988); Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815, 817 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leon County v. State Dept. of Community Affairs
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Skf Management v. Unemployment Appeals
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Auth. v. Beard, 626 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 1993); PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nassau Power Corp. v. Deason
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
We have previously noted that because the PSC is the sole forum for determination of need under the Siting Act, its construction of section 403.519 is entitled to great weight and will not be overturned unless it is clearly unauthorized or erroneous. 601 So.2d at 1178 n. 9; PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Florida Cable Television Ass'n v. Deason
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co. v. Delaware Public Service Commission
Del. · 1994 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, Fla.Supr., 533 So.2d 281, 283 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co. v. Delaware Public Service Commission
Del. Super. Ct. · 1993 · confidence medium
This revenue would have to be made up by the remaining customers of the regulated utilities since the fixed costs of the regulated systems would not have been reduced.” PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, Fla.Supr., 533 So.2d 281, 283 (1988) (court held that the phrase “to the public” meant to “any member of the public” and, therefore, concluded company which sold electricity to a single customer not wholly-owned by that company is subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission of Florida).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nassau Power Corp. v. Beard
Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Beard
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Thus, once the exceptions set forth in section 364.183(3) are considered in conjunction with the Public Records Act, the Commission's conclusions that section 364.183(3) should be narrowly construed and that no exception should be created for critical self-analyses are reasonable. [4] See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988) ("[C]ontemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. State Department of Transportation
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988); Florida Citrus Comm’n v. Golden Gift, 91 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla.1956) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) BB McCormick & Sons, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) NAT. FED. OF RET. PERSONS v. Dept. of Ins.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988); Natelson v. Dep't of Ins., 454 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
discussed Cited "see" Florida Power & Light Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (explaining the Commission’s construction of statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to great deference and the court will not depart from such construction unless clearly erroneous).
cited Cited "see" MacK v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988); Shell Harbor Group, Inc. v. Department of Bus.
cited Cited "see" Mora v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988) (express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another).
cited Cited "see" Morris v. Division of Retirement
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988); Shell Harbor Group, Inc. v. Department of Bus.
discussed Cited "see" Resolution Trust Corporation v. Town Of Highland Beach
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (contemporary construction of statute by agency charged with its enforcement entitled to great weight). 55 The Town's municipal law endows the Commission with the authority to interpret its ordinances: "The duties of the town commission ... shall include hearing and deciding questions of interpretation and enforcement that may arise...." Highland Beach, Fla., Ordinance No. 338, Sec. 7.3 (emphasis added).
cited Cited "see" Resolution Trust Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (contemporary construction of statute by agency charged with its enforcement entitled to great weight).
cited Cited "see" State, Department of Insurance v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of America
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (“contemporaneous” construction by regulating agency is entitled to deference).
cited Cited "see" Dampier v. Department of Banking & Finance, Division of Finance
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla.1988); Shell Harbor Group, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 487 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
discussed Cited "see" Florida Public Service Com'n v. Bryson
Fla. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1988) (approving the PSC's determination that the sale of electricity to a single customer makes the provider a "public utility" subject to PSC jurisdiction pursuant to section 366.02(1), Florida Statutes (1985)); Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. Florida Pub.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dickens v. Department of Juvenile Justice
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.1988) (“[T]he contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight....
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Praxair, Inc. v. FL Power & Light
11th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Storey v. Mayo, 217 So.2d 304, 307 (Fla.1968) (noting that "the powers of the Commission over these privately-owned utilities is omnipotent within the confines of [Chapter 366] and the limits of organic law), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 909 , 89 S.Ct. 1751 , 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969); City Gas Co. v. Peoples Gas System, Inc., 182 So.2d 429, 435 (Fla.1965) (Chapter 366 of Florida Statutes "add up to what can be considered a very extensive authority over the fortunes and operation of the regulated entities"); Fla.Stat. § 366.04(3) (directing the Commission to exercise its powers to avoid "uneconomic…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Praxair, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. Florida Power Corp.
11th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Storey v. Mayo, 217 So.2d 304, 307 (Fla.1968) (noting that “the powers of the Commission over these privately-owned utilities is omnipotent within the confines of [Chapter 366] and the limits of organic law), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 909 , 89 S.Ct. 1751 , 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969); City Gas Co. v. Peoples Gas System, Inc., 182 So.2d *612 429, 435 (Fla.1965) (Chapter 366 of Florida Statutes “add up to what can be considered a very extensive authority over the fortunes and operation of the regulated entities”); Fla.Stat. § 366.04(3) (directing the Commission to exercise its powers to avoid …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. Beard
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Radio Telephone Communications, Inc. v. Southeastern Telephone Co., 170 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1965) (presumption not applicable to support the PSC's exercise of jurisdiction over radiotelephone service where there was "no doubt whatsoever" that the legislature did not intend to include such service within the statutory definition of a "telephone company" when jurisdiction was conferred upon the PSC in 1913) with PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1988) (applying presumption to affirm PSC's exercise of jurisdiction over an electric utility that had a corporation as its only cus…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Green
Fla. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PW VENTURES, INC., Appellant,
v.
Katie NICHOLS, Chairman of Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Public Service Commission, Appellees.
71462.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 27, 1988.
533 So. 2d 281
Grimes.
Cited by 74 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*282] Richard D. Melson of Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Susan F. Clark, Gen. Counsel, Florida Public Service Com'n, Tallahassee, for appellees.

Richard A. Zambo and Paul Sexton of Richard A. Zambo, P.A., Brandon, for amici curiae, C.F. Industries, Inc., IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Monsanto Co. and W.R. Grace & Co.

GRIMES, Justice.

PW Ventures, Inc. (PW Ventures) appeals from an adverse ruling of the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.

PW Ventures[1] signed a letter of intent with Pratt and Whitney (Pratt) to provide electric and thermal power at Pratt's industrial complex in Palm Beach County. PW Ventures proposes to construct, own, and operate a cogeneration[2] project on land leased from Pratt and to sell its output to Pratt under a long-term take or pay contract.[3] Before proceeding with construction of the facility that would provide the power, PW Ventures sought a declaratory statement from the PSC that it would not be a public utility subject to PSC regulation. After a hearing, the PSC ruled that PW Ventures proposed transaction with Pratt fell within its regulatory jurisdiction.

At issue here is whether the sale of electricity to a single customer[4] makes the provider a public utility. The decision hinges on the phrase "to the public," as it is used in section 366.02(1), Florida Statutes (1985). In pertinent part that subsection provides:

"Public utility" means every person, corporation, partnership, association, or other[*283] legal entity and their lessees, trustees, or receivers supplying electricity or gas (natural, manufactured, or similar gaseous substance) to or for the public within this state... .

Distilled to their essence, the parties' views are as follows: PW Ventures says the phrase "to the public" means to the general public and was not meant to apply to a bargained-for transaction between two businesses. The PSC says the phrase means "to any member of the public." While the issue is not without doubt, we are inclined to the position of the PSC.

At the outset, we note the well established principle that the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight. Warnock v. Florida Hotel & Restaurant Comm'n, 178 So.2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), appeal dismissed, 188 So.2d 811 (Fla. 1966). The courts will not depart from such a construction unless it is clearly unauthorized or erroneous. Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 59 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1952).

Also, it is significant that the statute itself would permit the type of transaction proposed by PW Ventures and Pratt to be unregulated if it were for natural gas services. Section 366.02(1) provides the following exemption: "[T]he term `public utility' as used herein does not include ... any natural gas pipeline transmission company making only sales of natural gas at wholesale and to direct industrial consumers... ." The legislature did not provide a similar exemption for electricity. The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1976).

This rationale is further illustrated in the statutory regulation of water and sewer utilities. As explained in the PSC order:

In parallel with Section 366.02(1), Section 367.021, Florida Statutes (1985), defines a water or sewer utility as every person "providing, or who proposes to provide, water or sewer service to the public for compensation." Section 367.022(6), Florida Statutes, expressly exempts from this definition "systems with the capacity or proposed capacity to serve 100 or fewer persons". There is not a parallel numerical exemption to the statutory definition of a public utility supplying electricity. Yet the statutory interpretation advocated by PW Ventures would require a line to be drawn somewhere between sales to some members of the public, as a presumably nonjurisdictional activity, and sales to the public generally and indiscriminately, an admittedly jurisdictional activity.

Moreover, the PSC's interpretation is consistent with the legislative scheme of chapter 366. The regulation of the production and sale of electricity necessarily contemplates the granting of monopolies in the public interest. Storey v. Mayo, 217 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct. 1751, 23 L.Ed.2d 222 (1969). Section 366.04(3), Florida Statutes (1985), directs the PSC to exercise its powers to avoid "uneconomic duplication of generation, transmission, and distribution facilities." If the proposed sale of electricity by PW Ventures is outside of PSC jurisdiction, the duplication of facilities could occur. What PW Ventures proposes is to go into an area served by a utility and take one of its major customers.[5] Under PW Ventures' interpretation, other ventures could enter into similar contracts with other high use industrial complexes on a one-to-one basis and drastically change the regulatory scheme in this state. The effect of this practice would be that revenue that otherwise would have gone to the regulated utilities which serve the affected areas would be diverted to unregulated producers. This revenue would have to be made up by the remaining customers of the regulated utilities since the fixed costs of the regulated systems would not have been reduced.

[*284] We do not believe that Fletcher Properties v. Florida Public Service Commission, 356 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1978), mandates a different result. In that case, we did approve a PSC order which included reasoning to the effect that service to the public meant service to the indefinite public or to all individuals within a given area. However, the case did not arise in the context of a sale to a single customer. We simply affirmed the PSC's determination that the developer and owner of lines and lift stations who proposed to furnish water and sewer service to single family homes at the same rate as it was charged by the area water and sewer utility occupied the status of a public utility.[6]

The fact that the PSC would have no jurisdiction over the proposed generating facility if Pratt exercised its option under the letter of intent to buy the facility and elected to furnish its own power is irrelevant. The expertise and investment needed to build a power plant, coupled with economies of scale, would deter many individuals from producing power for themselves rather than simply purchasing it. The legislature determined that the protection of the public interest required only limiting competition in the sale of electric service, not a prohibition against self-generation.

We approve the decision of the Public Service Commission.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion.

McDONALD, Justice, dissenting.

I dissent. In doing so, I accept the argument of PW Ventures, Inc. as set forth in its brief where it urges:

The cornerstone of "public utility" status and Commission jurisdiction under Chapter 366 is the provision of electric service "to the public". This phrase is not defined in Chapter 366, nor in any of the Commission's other jurisdictional statutes. Under Florida's rules of statutory construction, the phrase "to the public" must therefore be given either its plain and ordinary meaning or, if it is a legal term of art, its legal meaning. City of Tampa v. Thatcher Glass Corporation, 445 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1984); Citizens v. Florida Public Service Commission, 425 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1982); Tatzel v. State, 356 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1978); Ocasio v. Bureau of Crimes Compensation, 408 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Under either test, a sale to a single industrial host in the circumstances of this case is not a sale "to the public."
* * * * * *
The phrase "to the public" commonly connotes the people as a whole, or at least a group of people. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983) gives two relevant definitions for "public":
2: the people as a whole: POPULACE
3: a group of people having common interests or characteristics: specif: the group at which a particular activity or enterprise aims
Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th ed.) similarly defines "public" to mean:
The whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, district, or municipality.... In one sense, everybody; and accordingly the body of the people at large; the community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people. In another sense the word does not mean all the people, nor most of the people, nor very many of the people of a place, but so many as contradistinguishes them from a few.
Thus if Section 366.02(1) is given its plain and ordinary meaning, a person is not supplying electricity "to the public," if it supplies electricity only to a single[*285] industrial customer on whose property the electric generating facility is located.
1 PW Ventures is a Florida corporation which was originally owned by FPL Energy Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of FPL Group, Inc.) and Impell Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Combustion Engineering, Inc.). After the entry of the PSC order, FPL Energy Services, Inc. transferred its 50% interest to Combustion Engineering, Inc.
2 Cogeneration involves the use of steam power to produce electricity, with some of the energy from the steam being recaptured for further use. The PSC seeks only to regulate the sale of electrical power.
3 The power would be used by Pratt and several affiliated corporate entities and by the Federal Aircraft Credit Union which is also located on the property.
4 While the PSC reminds us that the power generated by the project will actually be passed on to several entities, we prefer to address the issue in the context argued by PW Ventures.
5 Initially, Florida Power and Light had an interest in PW Ventures and would, in effect, transfer its own client to a subsidiary. FP & L is not now involved. Yet, if the argument of PW Ventures is accepted, there might be nothing to prevent one utility company from forming a subsidiary and raiding large industrial clients within areas served by another utility.
6 The holding of that case actually supports the PSC's alternative position that PW Ventures will actually serve several customers at the Pratt facility.