KGRKJGETMRETU895U-589TY5MIGM5JGB5SDFESFREWTGR54TY
Server : Apache/2.4.62
System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64
User : www ( 80)
PHP Version : 8.3.8
Disable Function : NONE
Directory :  /domains/enrgy/statelin/

Upload File :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : /domains/enrgy/statelin/0005olsn.htm
<html>

<head>
<title>May 2000: Florida Supreme Court Determines Public Service Commission Lacked Authority</title>
</head>

<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a><img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" WIDTH="229" HEIGHT="100"></td>
  </tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>

<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
  <tr>
    <td width="15%" valign="top" align="center">
    <!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="sl_sidebar.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->

<table border="2" cellpadding="8" width="15%" id="table1" bordercolor="#FFFF00" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">
  <tr>
    <td width="100%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0_I1">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
      <area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
      <area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map><img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0_I1" width="110" height="350"><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
    <p align="left"><strong><small><font face="Arial">About The Author:</font></small></strong></p>
    <p align="left"><font face="Arial" style="font-size: 9pt">Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of
    Brown, Olson &amp; Gould, P.C. which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law,
    public utility law and related commercial transactions.</font></p>
    <p><small><font face="Arial"><font style="font-size: 9pt">He can be reached at:</font><br>
    <br>
    <b><font color="#0000FF">Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</font></b><br>
2 Delta Drive<br>
    Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301<br>
&nbsp;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br>
    (603) 225-9716<br>
<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></font></small></p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p><a href="#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="45188" endspan --><p>&nbsp;</td>
    <td width="70%" valign="top"><img src="../images/statelin.gif" alt="STATELINE by Robert Olson" border="0" WIDTH="375" HEIGHT="75"><p align="left"><b><u><br>
      May 2000</u><br>
    <font face="Arial" size="5">Florida Supreme Court Determines&nbsp;Public Service Commission&nbsp;Lacked Authority To Issue A Determination Of Need&nbsp;For Merchant Plant&nbsp;</font></b><strong><br>
    by Robert Olson&nbsp; -- &nbsp; Brown, Olson and Wilson, P.C.<br>
    </strong><font face="Arial" size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
    2000/05</em>)</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">In a decision issued on April 20,
      2000, the Florida Supreme Court by a 6-1 decision held that Florida law
      precluded the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) from issuing a
      determination of need ruling to applicants for a merchant power plant.
      Without a ruling on the determination of need, under Florida law
      construction of the new plant may not be undertaken. On August 19, 1998,
      Duke Energy New Smyrna Beach Power Co., Ltd. (Duke) and the Utilities
      Commission of the City of New Smyrna Beach (New Smyrna) filed a joint
      petition with the FPSC for a determination of public need for a
      514-megawatt, combined cycle merchant plant. Duke and New Smyrna entered
      into an agreement under which Duke would build, own, and operate the
      plant, and New Smyrna would provide a location, tax reductions, and
      certain facilities. The joint petition proposed that thirty megawatts be
      sold to New Smyrna for consumption by its residents, and the remainder
      would be sold at wholesale to utilities for resale to their retail
      customers. Under the proposed plan, wholesale power would be primarily
      used to serve Florida customers, but would not exclusively be used for
      Florida customers. This decision reversed the 3-2 FPSC decision to grant
      the determination of need. Three electric utilities &#8211; Tampa Electric
      Company, Florida Power Corporation, and Florida Power &amp; Light Company
      &#8211; appealed the FPSC ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">According to the court, the FPSC
      exceeded the authority granted it under the Florida Electrical Power Plant
      Siting Act (Siting Act) and the Florida Energy Efficiency &amp;
      Conservation Act (FEECA). The Siting Act requires that any new power
      generation plant whose capacity exceeds seventy-five megawatts must obtain
      certification under the various requirements of the Siting Act. Among
      other things, the Siting Act requires the FPSC to prepare a determination
      of need report pursuant to FEECA to applicants seeking certification of
      their power plants. In granting a determination of need under FEECA, the
      FPSC must consider electric system reliability and integrity, the need for
      reasonable electricity costs, whether the plant is the most cost-effective
      alternative, and conservation measures the applicant might take to
      mitigate the need for the plant. The Siting Act provides that construction
      of new power plants may not be undertaken without first obtaining
      certification in the manner provided in the Siting Act. One of the steps
      in the certification process requires the FPSC to submit a determination
      of need report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The
      department determines the completeness and sufficiency of the application.
      The siting board, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, decides whether
      or not to issue the certification.</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">A proceeding on a determination of
      public need may be initiated by an applicant or by the FPSC&#8217;s own
      motion. According to the court, the Siting Act defines an
      &quot;applicant&quot; as &quot;any electric utility which applies for
      certification pursuant to the provisions of this act.&quot; Florida
      statute includes public utility districts and regulated electric companies
      engaged in the business of generating, transmitting or distributing
      electricity as &quot;electric utilities&quot; for purposes of the Siting
      Act. New Smyrna is a municipal electric utility directly serving retail
      customers in Florida. Duke is not subject to FPSC jurisdiction as a public
      utility, but is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy
      Regulatory Commission because it offers electrical power for sale at
      wholesale. Duke argued that it is a regulated electric company, because it
      is regulated by FERC, and that the inclusion of New Smyrna as an applicant
      satisfied the electric utility requirement.</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">In reviewing the statutory history
      of the Siting Act and FEECA, the court found that the term
      &quot;utility&quot; was limited to entities providing electricity or
      natural gas at retail to the public. The court further determined the
      Florida Legislature intended that the law provide the regulatory framework
      for Florida regulated utilities to provide service to their Florida retail
      customers. The court noted that the Legislature intended to balance the
      need for increased generation capacity with impacts on human health and
      the environment. The court stated that the &quot;projected need of
      unspecified utilities throughout peninsular Florida&quot; is not among the
      needs the FPSC is authorized by the Legislature to include in its
      determination of need analysis. Based on these findings and in reliance
      upon a 1992 Florida Supreme Court decision pertaining to the status of
      cogeneration facilities under the Siting Act, the court found the
      Legislature did not intend to authorize the FPSC to entertain a
      determination of need application for a plant whose output is not
      &quot;fully committed to use by Florida customers who purchase electrical
      power at retail rates.&quot;</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">The court additionally disagreed
      that the inclusion of New Smyrna as an applicant resulted in compliance
      with Florida law, based on New Smyrna&#8217;s projected use of thirty
      megawatts. Also, New Smyrna argued that interpreting the Florida statutes
      in such a way as to prohibit Duke from seeking a determination of need
      ruling violates the United States Constitution by discriminating against
      out-of-state commerce without authority from the United States Congress.
      New Smyrna also argued that federal law (the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
      mandating a robust wholesale market) preempts any state requirement that
      Duke obtain a contract with a retail electric utility to construct the
      plant. In response to New Smyrna&#8217;s argument, the court opined that the
      Energy Policy Act specifically gave the states the authority to site
      facilities and to engage in environmental protection regulation.</font></p>
      <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY"><font face="Arial">One member of the court dissented.
      Justice Anstead disagreed with the majority&#8217;s &quot;strained and
      artificial construction&quot; of Florida law. Duke, New Smyrna, the FPSC,
      and others have filed a motion with the Florida Supreme Court asking it to
      rehear the case.</font></p>
    <!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="sl_bottom.htm" TAG="BODY" startspan -->

    <hr color="#FFFF00">
    <blockquote>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial">
      <small>Robert A. Olson is a partner in the law firm of Brown, Olson &amp; 
		Gould P.C.
      which maintains a nationwide practice in energy law, public utility law and related
      commercial transactions. He can be reached at:</small></font><p align="center">
      <font face="Arial"><small><font color="#0000FF"><b>Brown, Olson & Gould, PC</b></font><br>
2 Delta Drive, Suite 301<br>
Concord, NH 03301 <br>
      <br>
      <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> | (603) 225-9716<a href="mailto:[email protected]"></a></small></font>
    
<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="27861" endspan --></tr>
</table>
</center></div>

<p align="center"><a href="#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>

Anon7 - 2021