Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 403.509 (2025)
Final disposition of application.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
403.509 Final disposition of application.—
(1)(a) If the administrative law judge has granted a request to cancel the certification hearing and has relinquished jurisdiction to the department under the provisions of s. 403.508(6), within 40 days thereafter, the secretary of the department shall act upon the application by written order in accordance with the terms of this act and the stipulation of the parties in requesting cancellation of the certification hearing.
(b) If the administrative law judge has not granted a request to cancel the certification hearing under the provisions of s. 403.508(6), within 60 days after receipt of the designated administrative law judge’s recommended order, the board shall act upon the application by written order, approving or denying certification, in accordance with the terms of this act, and stating the reasons for issuance or denial. If certification is denied, the board shall set forth in writing the action the applicant would have to take to secure the board’s approval of the application.
(2) The issues that may be raised in any hearing before the board shall be limited to those matters raised in the certification proceeding before the administrative law judge or raised in the recommended order. All parties, or their representatives, or persons who appear before the board shall be subject to the provisions of s. 120.66.
(3) In determining whether an application should be approved in whole, approved with modifications or conditions, or denied, the board, or secretary when applicable, shall consider whether, and the extent to which, the location, construction, and operation of the electrical power plant will:
(a) Provide reasonable assurance that operational safeguards are technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection.
(b) Comply with applicable nonprocedural requirements of agencies.
(c) Be consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations.
(d) Meet the electrical energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and timely fashion.
(e) Effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as established pursuant to s. 403.519 and the impacts upon air and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other natural resources of the state resulting from the construction and operation of the facility.
(f) Minimize, through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life.
(g) Serve and protect the broad interests of the public.
(4)(a) Any transmission line corridor certified by the board, or secretary if applicable, shall meet the criteria of this section. When more than one transmission line corridor is proper for certification under s. 403.503(11) and meets the criteria of this section, the board, or secretary if applicable, shall certify the transmission line corridor that has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in subsection (3), including costs.
(b) If the board, or secretary if applicable, finds that an alternate corridor rejected pursuant to s. 403.5271 as incorporated by reference in s. 403.5064(1)(b) meets the criteria of subsection (3) and has the least adverse impact regarding the criteria in subsection (3), the board, or secretary if applicable, shall deny certification or shall allow the applicant to submit an amended application to include the corridor.
(c) If the board, or secretary if applicable, finds that two or more of the corridors that comply with subsection (3) have the least adverse impacts regarding the criteria in subsection (3), including costs, and that the corridors are substantially equal in adverse impacts regarding the criteria in subsection (3), including costs, the board, or secretary if applicable, shall certify the corridor preferred by the applicant if the corridor is one proper for certification under s. 403.503(11).
(5) The department’s action on a federally required new source review or prevention of significant deterioration permit shall differ from the actions taken by the siting board regarding the certification if the federally approved state implementation plan requires such a different action to be taken by the department. Nothing in this part shall be construed to displace the department’s authority as the final permitting entity under the federally approved permit program. Nothing in this part shall be construed to authorize the issuance of a new source review or prevention of significant deterioration permit which does not conform to the requirements of the federally approved state implementation plan.
(6) For certifications issued by the board in regard to the properties and works of any agency which is a party to the certification hearing, the board shall have the authority to decide issues relating to the use, the connection thereto, or the crossing thereof, for the electrical power plant and to direct any such agency to execute, within 30 days after the entry of certification, the necessary license or easement for such use, connection, or crossing, subject only to the conditions set forth in such certification. For certifications issued by the department in regard to the properties and works of any agency that is a party to the proceeding, any stipulation filed pursuant to s. 403.508(6)(a) must include a stipulation regarding any issues relating to the use, the connection thereto, or the crossing thereof, for the electrical power plant. Any agency stipulating to the use of, connection to, or crossing of its property must agree to execute, within 30 days after the entry of certification, the necessary license or easement for such use, connection, or crossing, subject only to the conditions set forth in such certification.
(7) The issuance or denial of the certification by the board or secretary of the department shall be the final administrative action required as to that application.
History.—s. 1, ch. 73-33; s. 7, ch. 76-76; s. 141, ch. 77-104; s. 27, ch. 86-186; s. 12, ch. 90-331; s. 8, ch. 92-132; s. 10, ch. 93-94; s. 4, ch. 94-321; s. 141, ch. 96-410; s. 32, ch. 2006-230; s. 76, ch. 2008-227.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1983–2017 · leading case: Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017).
Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). “at 621-22 (quoting § 403.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006)). Other contexts in which an agency has insufficiently addressed its action include orders ignoring precedent on point, binding letters resulting from informal proceedings, and deviations from recommended penalties.”
Seminole Elec. Co-Op. v. Dep, 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “In this case, all parties appropriately entered stipulations resolving every factual and legal issue contemplated by the Siting Act, and also stipulated to an extensive factual record (consisting of thousands of pages of documentation and analysis) for consideration by the DEP…”
Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “§ 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). DEP issued the proposed PSD permit for Unit 3 on August 24, 2006, and included a copy of it in the Staff Analysis Report.”
Fla. Ch. of Sierra Club v. Orlando Util. Com'n, 436 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “§ 403.509(3). The proceedings under Chapter 403 are reviewable as provided in Chapter 120.”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Hendry Cnty., 114 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “” § 403.509(3)(c). Based on all of the above-quoted statutory language, the County and Florida Power argued below, as they do here, that the PPSA preempted section 163.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 208 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The Recommended Order did not consider local regulations, stating: “[DEP] interprets the [Act], and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no “applicable” local government comprehensive plans or [land development regulations] for the proposed transmission lines .”
Teco Power Servs. Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 590 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). “DER concedes that if its modification of the BACT conditions violates subsection 403.509(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
— 403.509(1)(a) — 2 cases
Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). “at 621-22 (quoting § 403.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006)). Other contexts in which an agency has insufficiently addressed its action include orders ignoring precedent on point, binding letters resulting from informal proceedings, and deviations from recommended penalties.”
Seminole Elec. Co-Op. v. Dep, 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “In this case, all parties appropriately entered stipulations resolving every factual and legal issue contemplated by the Siting Act, and also stipulated to an extensive factual record (consisting of thousands of pages of documentation and analysis) for consideration by the DEP…”
— 403.509(3) — 5 cases
Seminole Elec. Co-Op. v. Dep, 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “In this case, all parties appropriately entered stipulations resolving every factual and legal issue contemplated by the Siting Act, and also stipulated to an extensive factual record (consisting of thousands of pages of documentation and analysis) for consideration by the DEP…”
Fla. Ch. of Sierra Club v. Orlando Util. Com'n, 436 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “§ 403.509(3). The proceedings under Chapter 403 are reviewable as provided in Chapter 120.”
Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “§ 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). DEP issued the proposed PSD permit for Unit 3 on August 24, 2006, and included a copy of it in the Staff Analysis Report.”
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 208 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The Recommended Order did not consider local regulations, stating: “[DEP] interprets the [Act], and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no “applicable” local government comprehensive plans or [land development regulations] for the proposed transmission lines .”
Teco Power Servs. Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 590 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). “DER concedes that if its modification of the BACT conditions violates subsection 403.509(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
— 403.509(3)(b) — 1 case
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 208 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The Recommended Order did not consider local regulations, stating: “[DEP] interprets the [Act], and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no “applicable” local government comprehensive plans or [land development regulations] for the proposed transmission lines .”
— 403.509(3)(c) — 1 case
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Hendry Cnty., 114 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “” § 403.509(3)(c). Based on all of the above-quoted statutory language, the County and Florida Power argued below, as they do here, that the PPSA preempted section 163.”
— 403.509(4)(a) — 1 case
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 208 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The Recommended Order did not consider local regulations, stating: “[DEP] interprets the [Act], and in particular section 403.509, to mean that there are no “applicable” local government comprehensive plans or [land development regulations] for the proposed transmission lines .”
— 403.509(5) — 1 case
Teco Power Servs. Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 590 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). “DER concedes that if its modification of the BACT conditions violates subsection 403.509(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
— 403.509(l)(a) — 2 cases
Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). “at 621-22 (quoting § 403.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006)). Other contexts in which an agency has insufficiently addressed its action include orders ignoring precedent on point, binding letters resulting from informal proceedings, and deviations from recommended penalties.”
Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 985 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “§ 403.509(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). DEP issued the proposed PSD permit for Unit 3 on August 24, 2006, and included a copy of it in the Staff Analysis Report.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.