Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...While reasonable on its face, FPL's deposit policy must also be applied without discrimination. Demeter Land Co. v. Florida Public Service Co., 99 Fla. 954, 128 So. 402 (1930); Florida Power Corporation v. Continental Testing Laboratories, Inc., 243 So.2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). See also § 366.03, Fla....

...or facilities for those reasonably entitled thereto * * *." Fla. Stat. § 366.05 (1967), F.S.A. The regulatory powers of the Commission, as announced in the cited section, are exclusive and, therefore, necessarily broad and comprehensive. Fla. Stat. § 366.03 (1967), F.S.A.; Florida Power & Light Co....

...In the event of excessive rates or inadequate service their appeal under Florida law is to the courts or the municipal council. The obligation of the respondent electric company is to furnish reasonably sufficient service to applicants therefor "* * * upon terms as required by the commission * * *" Fla. Stat. § 366.03 (1967), F.S.A....

...In the course of this work, one of the subcontractor's employees suffered electrical burns and brought suit against FP & L. Notwithstanding the existence of a specific contract to provide electrical power, the court reasoned that FP & L's primary obligation arose, not from the contract with the mall owner, but rather from Section 366.03, Florida Statutes, which imposed a duty on public utilities to serve the general public, and accordingly held that FP & L was not a "contractor" within the meaning of Section 440.10....

...nt of control to which both of these parties are subject under F.S. Ch. 366, F.S.A. No exhaustive analysis of Ch. 366 is necessary to enable one to conclude that it effectively forecloses the subject agreement having the effect forbidden by Ch. 542. Section 366.03 requires each public utility (i.e., in general, any supplier of gas or electricity to the public) to furnish to all persons applying therefor "reasonably sufficient, adequate and efficient service upon terms as required by the commissi...

...heme. I then consider the inconsistency of the district court's interpretation with this scheme. 316 In chapter 366, the state empowers, as "an exercise of the police power of the state," the FPSC to regulate public utilities. Fla.Stat. Sec. 366.01. Section 366.03 addresses the general duties of public utilities: "Each public utility shall furnish to each person applying therefore reasonably sufficient, adequate, and efficient service upon terms as required by the commission." Section 366.04 the...

...with Peoples Gas. 329 2. The Refusal to Deal. 330 I reach the same conclusion with respect to City Gas' refusal to sell wholesale gas to Consolidated. 89 I apply the two prongs of the Midcal test in turn. 331 a. Clearly articulated state policy. 332 Section 366.03 states: "No public utility shall be required to furnish electricity or gas for resale ...." This provision explicitly and affirmatively expresses a state policy not to require utilities to sell at wholesale....

...ely permits them to refrain from selling at wholesale. Under Southern Motor Carriers, though, Midcal's clearly articulated prong does not require the state to compel the anticompetitive conduct; the state need only permit such conduct, as it does in section 366.03....

...The primary obligation of F.P.L., as a public utility, to provide power to its customers in the case before us did not arise out of a contract between the Fashion Square and F.P.L., even assuming such a contract existed. [3] F.P.L.'s primary obligation arises out of a statute rather than a contract. Florida Statutes, § 366.03, F.S.A., provides, inter alia: "Each public utility shall furnish to each person applying therefor reasonable sufficient, adequate and efficient service upon terms as required by the commission ..." Moreover, in State v....

...representative and a letter from F.P.L. commenting on those minutes were not admitted into evidence as proof of the "contract" between the Square and F.P.L. [3] An assumption we do not necessarily make herein. [4] Fla. 1962, 142 So.2d 74. [5] Fla. Stat., § 366.03, F.S.A.

...d other similarly situated electricity users against Florida Power Corporation (FPC). The complaint alleged that the consumers had been forced to pay unreasonably high electrical rates because of excessive fuel adjustment charges [1] in violation of § 366.03, Fla....

...(1977) embraces the statutory regulation of public utilities. In § 366.01 the legislature has mandated that the regulation of public utilities "is declared to be in the public interest and this chapter ... shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose." Section 366.03 requires that all rates charged by regulated utilities be "fair and reasonable," while § 366.04 gives the PSC exclusive jurisdiction "to regulate and supervise each public utility with respect to its rates......

...The alleged cause of the interruption of the electric service was the negligence of FPL. The appellant claims that the duty of FPL arises from one or more of three sources: (1) a statutory duty, (2) a contractual duty, and (3) a duty under the common law of torts. The statutory duty is claimed to be found in section 366.03, Florida Statutes (1981), which requires each public utility to furnish each person applying for service sufficient, adequate and efficient service....

...he same line, in the same direction, within this state ... or charge any greater compensation for a through service than the aggregate of the intermediate rates." Fla. Stat. § 364.11. Gas and electric rates must be "fair and reasonable," Fla. Stat. § 366.03, and, when rate adjustments are necessary because the rates are "unjust, unreasonable, insufficient, or unjustly discriminatory or preferential," Fla....

...First, although the FPSC approves City Gas' rates in the wholesale market for the resale of natural gas, City Gas, like AT & T, proposes the rates in the first instance, reaches an agreement with the buyer company, and then simply submits the agreement to the FPSC for its approval. Moreover, because Fla.Stat. § 366.03 (1985) states that natural gas utilities shall not be required to resell gas, it is unclear whether the FPSC could compel City Gas to sell at any particular rate....

...And second, City Gas has a large excess allocation of natural gas and we have found that City Gas' customers would not be hurt if it sold gas to Consolidated. Accordingly, we find Florida Cities inapposite. City also claims that pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 366.03, it was never required to resell natural gas to Consolidated and hence could not have violated the antitrust laws in refusing to sell. Section 366.03 provides as follows: General duties of public utility....

...e FPSC normally approves it, assuming that the private parties have struck their best bargain. Again we find that City Gas' refusal to sell gas is not immune from the sweep of the Sherman Act. Moreover, and more important, by its own terms Fla.Stat. § 366.03 has no application at all to Defendant's refusal to transport gas....

...ansmission line to a point just within FPL's territory in order to receive electricity from FPL. In November 1984, FPL sought from the PSC a declaratory judgment determining whether it had a statutory duty to serve a customer in FMM's position under section 366.03, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...[1] The thrust of the plaintiff's complaint was to relieve it of the obligation to pay for some of the electricity it admittedly received, thus permitting it to pay less for the same service than other customers to whom FPL had forwarded accurate bills. The established *126 law of the state, however, as expressed in Section 366.03, Florida Statutes (1977) is that "[N]o public utility shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference ......

...experience of the utility; the consumption and load characteristics of the various classes of customers; and public acceptance of rate structures.” Id. § 366.06(1). All rates must be fair and reasonable and must not be unduly discriminatory. Id. § 366.03....

...f rates by the Florida railroad and public utilities commission and the requirement that it “ * * * furnish to each person applying therefor reasonably sufficient, adequate and efficient service upon terms as required by the commission, * * F.S.A. § 366.03....

...in proceedings before the Commission. Sierra Club v. Brown, 243 So. 3d 903, 915 (Fla. 2018); see §§ 350.061, 350.0611, Fla. Stat. (2021). - 10 - undue or unreasonable preference or advantage” to any customer, section 366.03, Florida Statutes (2021). We have repeatedly recognized the “broad legislative grant of authority” afforded to the Commission and the “considerable license” it enjoys in fixing fair, just, and reasonable rates....

...decision whether to allow the parties to present additional evidence. It is so ordered. MUÑIZ, C.J., and LABARGA and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. CANADY, J., dissents with an opinion, in which FRANCIS, J., concurs. FRANCIS, J., dissents with an opinion. of section 366.03....

...In De Gestión the customer asserted that its payment of erroneous monthly bills effected an accord and satisfaction, and estopped the public utility from collecting for accrued undercharges. This contention was rejected in light of the public policy espoused by section 366.03, Florida Statutes, which provides that a public utility shall not give “any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage” to any person....

...The PSC may set rates that are “fair, just, and reasonable.” See § 366.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“[T]he commission shall have the authority to determine and fix fair, just, and reasonable rates that may be requested, demanded, charged, or collected by any public utility for its service.”); see also § 366.03, Fla....

...f a utility, it has expressly stated so by statute, such as section 367.071 , Florida Statutes, relating to the sale or transfer of water and wastewater system facilities. Commission staff has also referred to the impact of PEF's obligation to serve section 366.03 , Florida Statutes....

...Settlement is in the public interest. II A Florida Rising’s first argument on appeal is that the Commission erred in finding that the expansion of the SolarTogether program 2 satisfies section 366.03, Florida Statutes classes; (11) FPL system overbuilt; (12) storm cost recovery mechanism; (13) federal tax adjustments; (14) incentive mechanism for asset optimization; and (15) solar cap cost incentive. 2....

...(2021). -7-  Applying FAIR’s framework here, we review for competent, substantial evidence any factual findings upon which the Commission’s decisions are based. Then, turning to the policy judgment assigned to the Commission in section 366.03, we consider whether the Commission’s action results in any “undue” or “unreasonable” preferences....

...If it did, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the Commission. -8-  B Turning to the merits, Florida Rising argues that the SolarTogether expansion creates an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage in violation of section 366.03 because it establishes a rate structure where select ratepayers receive a bill credit paid for by the general body of ratepayers without a benefit to the general body. Florida Rising’s argument on this point is primarily pre...

...difference from the general body of ratepayers is that they raise their hand to participate, receive billions of dollars of bill credits from the general body of ratepayers without fully funding the cost of the program. Importantly though, section 366.03 does not prohibit all “preferences.” Utility companies may classify customers into subgroups, and it is within their discretion to treat these groups differently when there is a reasonable basis to do so....

...2d 227, 229 (Fla. 1985) that information would have been in the Commission’s discretion to consider even if highly speculative. - 12 - (quoting City of Tallahassee v. Mann, 411 So. 2d 162, 163 (Fla. 1981)). So, section 366.03 prohibits only those preferences that make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to a person or locality....

...e billions more in credits— paid for by the general body of ratepayers—than the participants pay in subscription fees. The question for the Commission was whether this preference is “undue or unreasonable,” contrary to the prohibition in section 366.03, Florida Statutes (2021). - 24 -  The majority rightly identifies that question as involving the application of the Commission’s policy expertise and delegated discretion to the facts that the Commission found....