Citizens of the State of Florida v. Andrew Giles Fay
The Office of Public Counsel challenged PSC final orders approving four utilities' first Storm Protection Plans under section 366.96, arguing the Commission had to perform a quantitative cost-benefit 'prudence' review at the plan-approval stage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the SPP Statute creates two distinct phases — a prospective 'public interest' plan review under subsections (4)-(5) and a later annual cost-recovery proceeding where prudence of incurred costs is determined — and that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in striking expert testimony that offered legal interpretations of the statute and rules.
Key facts
- Office of Public Counsel challenged PSC final orders approving four utilities' Storm Protection Plans under section 366.96, arguing the Commission was required to perform a quantitative cost-benefit 'prudence' review at the plan-approval stage.
- The PSC approved the four utilities' Storm Protection Plans based on a prospective 'public interest' review under the SPP Statute, and the Commission struck expert testimony offering legal interpretations of the statute and rules.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is the Supreme Court's first construction of the Storm Protection Plan statute and reaffirms a deferential 'range of discretion' framework for PSC public-interest determinations, useful to anyone litigating… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.