Title: Florida Industrial Power Users Group v. Jaber
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-187
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 27, 2002

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
No. SC02-187
____________
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP,
Appellant,
vs.
LILA A. JABER, et al.,
Appellees.
[November 27, 2002]
WELLS, J.
We have on appeal a decision of the Florida Public Service Commission
relating to rates or service of an electric utility.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
3(b)(2), Fla. Const.
This case arises from an administrative hearing held before the Florida Public
Service Commission (PSC) on November 20-21, 2001.  The PSC held this hearing
to comply with its continuing fuel and purchased power recovery clause and
generating performance incentive factor proceedings.  In its order below, the PSC
-2-
approved new fuel and purchased power cost recovery factors for use during the
2002 calendar year for the state’s investor-owned electric utilities.  In re Fuel and
Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause and Generating Performance Incentive
Factor, Order No. PSC-01-2516-FOF-EI (Dec. 26, 2001).  Florida Industrial
Power Users Group (FIPUG) appeals the PSC’s decision with regard to one issue
relating to the reasonableness of Tampa Electric Company’s (TECO) transactions
with its unregulated wholesale affiliate Hardee Power Partners (HPP).  The PSC
concluded that the evidence presented at the hearing revealed that TECO’s
transactions with HPP were reasonable.
The section of the PSC’s order that FIPUG appeals was addressed
thoroughly by both parties in the administrative hearing below.  FIPUG presented
testimony that TECO’s transactions with its wholesale affiliate were substantially
harming TECO’s retail customers.  FIPUG asserted that, as a result of TECO’s
activities, TECO’s retail customers were being forced to pay excessive fees as a
result of these transactions and were effectively subsidizing TECO’s wholesale
contracts.  TECO in turn presented evidence that TECO’s cost-based purchases
with HPP have been beneficial to TECO’s customers and that TECO has utilized
its best efforts to take advantage of opportunities in the wholesale electric power
market.  TECO’s witnesses testified that TECO has acted prudently regarding
-3-
these transactions and that FIPUG’s arguments were unsupported by evidence.
This Court’s review in this case is limited to whether the PSC’s action is
supported by competent, substantial evidence.  Panda-Kathleen L.P./Panda Energy
Corp. v. Clark, 701 So. 2d 322, 325-26 (Fla. 1997).  The record reveals that the
PSC was presented with detailed, competing testimony upon which to base its
decision.  The PSC weighed the evidence presented on this issue.  We find that the
PSC’s determination of reasonableness is supported by competent, substantial
evidence.  We therefore affirm the PSC’s order.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and CANTERO,
JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the Florida Public Service Commission
John W. McWhirter, Jr. Of McWhirter, Reeves, McGlothlin, Davidson, Decker,
Kaufman, Arnold & Steen, Tampa, Florida; Vicki Gordon Kaufman and Timothy J.
Perry of McWhirter, Reeves, McGlothlin, Davidson, Decker, Kaufman, Arnold &
Steen, Tallahassee, Florida; and Robert D. Vandiver, Associate General Counsel,
Office of the Public Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellant
Harold McLean, General Counsel, and Christiana T. Moore, Associate General
-4-
Counsel, Florida Public Service Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; and Lee L.
Willis and James D. Beasley of Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Appellee